Loading...
PZ Planning Workshop 14-03-20 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 WORKSHOP Village Hall Council Chambers 10050 NE 2nd Avenue, Miami Shores MARCH 20, 2014 THURSDAY, 7:00 P.M. I) ROLL CALL Sid Reese, Robert Abramitis, Richard Fernandez. Absent. Steve Zelkowitz, John Busta In Attendance: David Dacquisto; Planning and Zoning Director Karen Banda; Clerk Richard Sarafan Village Attorney Chairman Fernandez gives summary of what is the goal that board is attempting to establish by analyzing FAR (Floor Area Ratio) and states a previous council member Steve Loffredo was concerned with massing and how close buildings are. Green space and open space have also been discussed and how much percentage would be appropriate. There was a re-write of the zoning code and FAR was postponed so that the other items could be reviewed and passed by council prior to re-elections because board had worked on code for about 2 ½ years. Property addresses that were previously submitted to staff to calculate the FAR are reviewed. A .35 is sort of the average FAR that is used in other municipalities. Chairman states property at 9550 Bay Shore property has an FAR of .64 but if you look at the property house seems to be fine. Also comments on other properties that have a low FAR but buildings look quite large. Chairman is concerned about the benefits of changing the existing code and if they are fixing a problem that is not broken. Chairman asks staff to remind board about existing green space requirement. David Dacquisto states in our code that for all new houses you must have 10% green space and with established setbacks that percentage is always met. Chairman states that if board wanted to address the issues with the green movement a simpler move would be to increase the minimum green space requirement to15%. David Dacquisto gives comments about how to present information to council in case board decides that no change is needed. A report that states recommendations by board or if board does not wish to make changes then report that states no changes are required along with information why and the board’s findings. A referral was made to the planning board to review McMansions. Staff broke down the planning issue into 3 components that are generally utilized to regulate and control site development and massing of structures FAR, green space and open space. Miami Shores Village, Planning Board Meeting Agenda: March 27, 2014 2 Attorney Sarafan states that board is addressing question that he presented when board had the first workshop on this topic of FAR and what board is finding out now is that FAR is a very dull instrument to be used. It does have the advantage that it’s very objective, it’s very rigid and you don’t have to give any explanation if you don’t comply, you don’t comply. The downside, as board has also discovered is that a lot of houses that are beautiful homes, that board would like to have in the shores that will fail under this objective test for no good reason other than the enacted objective test, not because there is not enough green space or it looks bad or is a McMansion. Attorney never really thought FAR was an appropriate tool to use in this community for our purposes. Attorney recommends that after extensively covering the four possibilities of FAR, green space, open space or not changing code possibility, that staff generate a report that discusses the four options and explains the plusses and minuses and says that based on findings, board proposes to do etc. Mr. Abramitis comments on houses that he likes in Miami Shores and agrees that FAR is a blunt tool but that FAR should be coupled with certain requirements such as second story setbacks. Some homes are very nice with a big FAR but it’s not really the amount of square footage. One of the problems to address is the massing and to avoid a two story façade that looks like a massive cube. Does think that there is a problem that must be addressed but FAR would not solve that problem and agrees with addressing McMansion, properties that are over built. Sid Reese agrees with Mr. Abramitis. Chairman Fernandez suggests that staff takes into account what was discussed by board and make note that FAR by itself is not where board wants to go and draft a report and the report will come back to Planning and Zoning board for review and editing. The second part will include a recommendation of what board would like to propose and it will be a two part proposal taking into account the 10% open/green space to a 15% increase and take into account a second story setback. Richard Sarafan gives comment that a possible rule of stating whatever the square footage of the first floor is, the square footage of the second floor has to be less. Board agrees about said rule and a 40 and 60% number is proposed. Height limitations Chair discusses homes that have requested an increase in height and possible effect if one home is allowed. One home that requested a variance and requested additional height was not for the livability of the property but to have high interior ceilings. Variance was denied and then they came back with essentially the same design that was approved therefore indicating that no hardship. In keeping what is in place with the height requirement, you can still build reasonable houses but if we go up we could possibly have a canyon effect and how do you say only the homes on the bay can go up higher but the not the ones on NW 1st avenue. Richard Sarafan would prefer that board make decisions based on a case by case basis under design review and or variance. Mr. Abramitis gives comment of homes on the bay and a different view of what needs to be protected. Increasing the setbacks for new residences gives a taller residence the same Miami Shores Village, Planning Board Meeting Agenda: March 27, 2014 3 appearance as a shorter residence closer to the front property line. The closest neighbor out the back is 3 miles. Board would like for staff to draft a change that states something to the effect that the height limit for the homes on block ….. is 35feet provided a 30 ft. setback is provided. Attorney Sarafan states, this is the height limit however if you move the front of the building and extra 5ft away from the street you can get an extra 5ft of height. That would be your site line because it does not look any different. Board discusses mounds because of septic system and states that applicants should be advised that they must provide a mound plan so that board can see how it is going to look. Chairman asks staff to place item for discussion on agenda of next meeting to vote on resolution of what the board will deem necessary by applicant. Board discusses recent tear downs. The board also discussed plot coverage in the rear yard. The board determined that the rear yard could be built out with uncovered decks and patios the same as yards with pools and decks. The required yard setbacks would have to be maintained. Roofed accessory buildings would still be subject to the 20% rear yard limitation.