Loading...
Board Minutes PZ 12-01-26_unbound MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 10050 NE 2nd Avenue Miami Shores, FL 33037-2304 www.miamishoresvillage.com Main Number: 305-795-2207 Fax Number: 305-756-8972 David A. Dacquisto AICP, CFM, Director MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING BOARD MEETING Village Hall Council Chambers 10050 NE 2nd Avenue, Miami Shores January 26, 2012 Thursday, 7:00 P.M. I. ROLL CALL Roll Call.Present: Richard Fernandez, Chair, Sid Reese, Paul Madsen, Robert Abramitis, David Dacquisto, Director of Planning and Zoning (Not voting), Richard Sarafan, Village Attorney (Not voting).Absent/Excused: John Busta, Norm Bruhn, Building Official. II. BOARD MEMBER DISCLOSURES III. ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARINGS a. None scheduled. IV. MINUTES Motion: Motion to approve minutes. Action: Accept, Moved by Sid Reese, Seconded by Paul Madsen. Motion passed unanimously. a. December 8, 2011 V. SCHEDULED ITEMS SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES BY VILLAGE ATTORNEY: “Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” TABLED ITEMS None NEW ITEMS 1. PZ-12-11-2011271: 1009 NE 94th Street, (Owner) April Malmsteen (Applicant) Same (Agent) Robert Stok, Esq.; Pursuant to Articles VII of Appendix A Zoning, Errors and Variances; Sec. 702 Hardship variances: Sec 518. Fences walls and hedges. (a) Maximum height: Variance to allow gate exceeding 5 ft. height limitation and solid metal fence. Mr. Dacquisto provided background information, summarized the information on the staff report and read the staff recommendation and conditions of approval into the record. Applicant’s attorney Mr. Robert Stok questioned Mr. Dacquisto as to his statement that the height of the fence is 6.3 feet. Mr. Stok stated that the height of the fence at the highest point is 6.3ft but the bulk of the fence is only 6ft. Staff agrees that part of the fence is not 6.3. Mr. Stok asked staff about complaints by neighbors complaining about height fence. Staff answered that he personally Miami Shores Village, Planning Board Meeting Agenda: January 26, 2012 2 did not receive complaints. Mr. Stok asked about traffic near area. Staff did have any knowledge or opinion on matter. Mr. Stok had no further questions. Board members questioned Mr. Dacquisto about problems with fence height and materials used. Mr. Dacquisto informed them that those questions go to the Code Enforcement dept. Mr. Abramitis questioned what were the problems with the gate, height or materials or any other matter. Mr. Dacquisto informed them that the solid metal plate behind the ornamental metal is not normally allowed and board. Mr. Abramitis also questioned what the appropriate height of fence allowed in Miami Shores. Mr. Dacquisto stated that a side fence or gate cannot exceed 5ft. Mr. Madsen asked if the building inspection failed the gate. Mr. Dacquisto confirm ed that the inspector failed the gate. Mr. Madsen states that the owner’s said in their documents submitted that the building official had approved the gate but that the applicants information was incorrect. Mr. Chairman, wanted to know about the contractor, Mr. Dacquisto did not have information at hand. Hedge was also question about height measurements. Mr. Chairman also questioned if they met any of the 4 criteria items for a variance and Mr. Dacquisto stated that they did not meet any of the 4 criteria. Mr. Chairman re-called other past fence issues with same problem and Mr. Dacquisto informed them that in one case the owners removed fence and complied with city requirement. Mr. Stok makes his presentation and says that the requested variance is because of their celebrity status and fans seek to intrude on their property since they also have a young son. The family has had several intrusions. They have privacy concerns because of harassment. A restraining order was placed for a fan as well. Paparazzi have also been at the residence. Mr. Stok presented why it is important to have Mr. Malmsteen as a resident in this community. Discussion about fence and gate height when 6ft foot gate is in question and fence is 4ft. Mr. Stok reiterates Mr. Malmsteen’s status. Board discussion, question from Mr. Abramitis, about height of gate before property was bought. There was no knowledge of prior gate height. Mr. Chair made calculations and analyzed criteria about variance. Mr. Sarafan clarified that Mr. Stok said granting approval or denial in this case was the board’s discretion and Mr. Stok confirmed that statement. Public Hearing opened Public Hearing closed. Comments from the board. Mr. Reese acknowledged what a nice house the Malmsteen’s have but cannot see the granting the 6 ft. fence variance since in the past record shows that others have been rejected on the same issue. Motion: Motion is to Deny variance request, Action: Deny, Moved by Paul Madsen, Seconded by Sid Reese. Motion passed unanimously. 2. PZ-12-11-2011272: 9730 NE 2nd Avenue, (Owner) Rubin Matz, (Applicant) Care Vantage Medical Centers of Miami at Miami Shores, (Agent) Hector Suarez; Pursuant to Articles V and VI of Appendix A Zoning, Special site plan review and approval for wall signage. Mr. Dacquisto provided background information, summarized the information on the staff report and read the staff recommendation and conditions of approval into the record. Miami Shores Village, Planning Board Meeting Agenda: January 26, 2012 3 Staff states that sign meets code approval with staff conditions. Public Hearing opened Public Hearing closed. Motion: Motion to approve with staff conditions., Action: Accept, Moved by Sid Reese, Seconded by Paul Madsen. Motion passed unanimously. 3. PZ-12-11-2011273; 1263 NE 101st Street, (Owner) Claudio Rodriguez, (Applicant) Same, (Agent) James G Smith II; Pursuant to Articles IV, V and VI of Appendix A Zoning, Special Site plan review and approval. New residence. Withdrawn Discussion about Meeting Calendar. Mr. Dacquisto asked about September dates. September meeting set for the third Thursday. All board members agreed. 10 minute intermission. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS 7:50pm Mr. Chairman brings up discussion about Downtown parking since there have been many discussions on matter. In previous occasion property owners in advance were informed to appear at meeting to discuss all of the ideas that had been brought up yet no one appeared. Mr. Chairman thinks it is important to bring up topic every once in a while to see if any new ideas come forward and see if board would like to make any recommendations or not. Mr. Dacquisto discusses items below: The board can take a look at it again and see if you would like to entertain code changes or advise town manager. a. Downtown parking, downtown parking requirements and regulatory options. i. Retain parking requirement. = Do not have to do anything. By changing parking requirements one thing leads to another and there are ramifications to any decision. Mr. Dacquisto discussed Miami Beach and Coconut Grove parking requirements. Conversation would be whether this board feels that we should keep a parking requirement for Downtown. Mr. Dacquisto explained the upside and downside as well. Eliminate parking requirement. 1. No new parking for existing or new use in existing building. 2. No new parking for specific new uses in existing building. 3. No parking requirement in downtown. ii. Modify parking requirement. 1. Allow leased parking to meet parking requirement. a. Assigned parking. b. Parking anywhere. c. Parking within block. d. What to charge, nominal fee, actual value. 2. Approve moratorium on parking requirement and assess the effect. Miami Shores Village, Planning Board Meeting Agenda: January 26, 2012 4 iii. Manage parking. 1. Enforce meters. 2. Time limit at parking meters, village parking lots and on street. iv. Resident only parking. 1. Charge vs. free. Mr. Sarafan suggest to look at 2 things, one to define the problem you are seeking to solve and two you look at the purpose of the rule requiring parking spaces. Is the purpose to protect the residential areas from overflow or is the purpose to promote business activities or for the shoppers so that they can have a place to park. Those two general headings should lead to a result. Suggestions to think of for process. Mr. Chairman discusses information given and examples given by Mr. Dacquisto. Mr. Abramitis asked Mr. Dacquisto if it was possible to obtain information of what was turned down in the last five-10 years because of parking, how much was turned down and what was it. In the past restaurants have been an issue but usually there’s a second problem that includes DERM. Analyzing what has been turned down in the past because of parking. Mr. Reese asked about someone that bought parking and was approved to build and Mr. Dacquisto said that the owners were not pursuing use at the moment. Mr. Dacquisto stated that restaurants are problematic because of the septic system and DERM approval is difficult to get. Mr. Abramitis would like to know what has been turned down. Mr. Dacquisto said medical offices were problematic and clarified that some Medical offices were approved because we asked the village manager to lease spaces but board only approved them with Tom providing parking. Can we continue to do this? Or do we want to continue to lease parking. We need guidelines. Mr. Chairman said that one of the items we have, that could be considered would be to establish lease guidelines. Second would be signage limiting parking/ parking meters. Long term solution a municipal parking lot centrally located. Question at hand is what is the true demand? W ho really is being stopped from opening a business? Mr. Chairman would like to discuss in the next meeting to take a look at our current requirements for medical and see if valid to the current circumstance for B1 district. One the things for next meeting, developing a set of lease guidelines, potentially posting signs up in the parking lots and parking meters, potentially saying no parking requirements, review and potentially easing of parking requirements utilizing some sort of sunset provision. Mr. Dacquisto will draft up a range of information for purposes of discussion. Board and Mr. Dacquisto discussed traffic problem around 9999 building. The dilemma is if a business were successful would we create the problem with overflow parking. Mr. Abramitis stated if we were changed the code by throwing the gate open would we create a situation where the people who were grandfathered in could stay forever and no new business could open because they could never meet the parking requirements and then be stuck with vacant space. Mr. Dacquisto said the vacant space will go back with the other rules. Mr. Sarafan asked how much additional demand are you creating. How do you evaluate a vacant space? Mr. Dacquisto analyzes what was there before. Mr. Abramitis stated that no one is being prohibited ever from bringing in retail establishment in here because everybody meets the retail requirement. Retail to retail, office to retail, retail to office. Restaurants are off the table because of DERM issues. The only thing left to consider are doctor’s offices and Mr. Sarafan said there’s whole list to look at. Retail to retail not a parking change, office to retail not a parking change. Next agenda should include additional discussion if ready to bring more information to the table. v. Other. Biscayne Bay, Bay front parking. Miami Shores Village, Planning Board Meeting Agenda: January 26, 2012 5 Board discussed issues at or around 5 to 6am in the bay front parking. After discussion, Mr. Sarafan recommended to bring up information to village Manager, Mr. Tom Benton and the Chief of Police. Mr. Chairman accepted suggestion and will speak to them personally. VII. NEXT WORKSHOP a. None scheduled. VIII. NEXT REGULAR HEARING – February 23, 2012 a. Regular agenda. IX. ADJOURNMENT Pursuant to Chapter 286.0105, Florida Statutes, if person decides to appeal any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Miami Shores Village complies with the provisions of the American with Disability Act. If you are a disabled person requiring any accommodations or assistance, including materials in accessible format, a sign language interpreter (5 days notice required), or information, please notify the Village Clerk’s office of such need at least 72 hours (3 days) in advance.