Loading...
PZ_Minutes_July_27_20231 Mayor George Burch Vice Mayor Jesse Valinsky Councilmember Jerome Charles Councilmember Sandra Harris Councilmember Daniel Marinberg Esmond Scott, Village Manager Sarah Johnston, Village Attorney Ysabely Rodriguez, Village Clerk PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES 07-27-2023 6:30PM 9900 NE 2ND AVE. 1) CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Mr. Busta called the meeting to order at 6:31PM. 2) ROLL CALL Present: Mr. Finkelstein Mr. Brady Chair Mr. Busta Mr. Bolton Mr. O’Hara Also, Present: Ms. Susan Trevarthen, Village Attorney Ms. Chanae Woods, Village Attorney Ms. Claudia Hasbun, Planning & Zoning Director Ms. Alizgreeth Tezen, Planning & Zoning Technician 3) MINUTES 3.A Approval of the Minutes -June 22, 2023 Approval of the minutes by Mr. O'Hara seconded by Mr. Brady.5-0. 2023-6-22 P&Z Minutes.pdf 4) PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: ORDINANCE 4.A AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE VILLAGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP (FLUM) FOR PROPERTIES LOCAT ED IN MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE; PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 2 Ms. Tezen read into the record the Ordinance title. Ms. Woods proceeded to provide the Board an outline of what the ordinance is based on and provided a background of the changes and processes taken to the proposed Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map (FLUM). “In 2021 the Village identified several errors with obsolete provisions and inconsistencies with goals, visions, objectives and policies with the comprehensive plan FLUE and FLUM. In March 2022, the Village contracted with the consultants Calvin, Giordano and Associates or (CGA), to provide recommendations to resolve for the issues presented. CGA in coordination with Village staff prepared extensive public outreach process for Miami Shores residents. After the response from the public, CGA provided a detail analysis of the feedback from the public to substantiate and validate proposed FLUE and FLUM, which were the initial proposed amendments. Village Council reviewed the transmittal hearing on February 21st, 2023, and approved them as further amended. This is referred to as the Transmittal Ordinance. Ms. Woods further explained that DEO and reviewing agencies provided comments on the Transmittal Ordinance and were addressed. Subsequently, on June 1st 2023, the new elected council held a special meeting in which council member Jerome Charles proposed new amendments which were used as a guide for council’s discussion and no final action was made to the comprehensive plan. Village council directed staff with direction on changes they wanted to see reflected on the proposed FLUE and FLUM. On June 8th, 2023, Village council and planning and zoning board held a joint workshop to receive feedback from one another for reviewing the draft amendment elements and discuss additional changes to language. Upon direction from Village Council and Planning and Zoning Board, Village staff, consultants received direction to compile and included the discussed amendments into the Transmittal Ordinance. Ms. Woods stated that what the planning and zoning board has in front of them to review for this meeting is the Adoption Ordinance. Ms. Woods further stated that as part of the LPA (Local Planning Agency) they must review the amendments to the comprehensive plan and provide a recommendation to the Village Council and are free to discuss and recommend amendments to the Adoption Ordinance. If the board proceeds to recommend amendments to the Adoption Ordinance, those amendments will be compiled in a separate document and attached to the Adoption Ordinance, it will include the reference line number and propose new language. The Village council will review and vote upon each proposed amendment and then take a final vote on the Adoption Ordinance after a public hearing is conducted in accordance to the law.” Ms. Woods stated that currently there is no set date for the hearing however, due to time constraints with the review deadline with DEO of 180 days, the Village has until October 1st to have a second reading on the Adoption Ordinance. Upon completion of the hearing of the Adoption Ordinance, staff will transmit the Adoption Ordinance inclusive of any amendments instructed and voted by the Village Council to the DEO. The cover letter will summarize the changes made between the 1st and 2nd reading. This will also explain how the previous DEO comments we addressed. Ms. Woods explained to the Planning and Zoning Board that they have in front of them is a clean version of the document and one strikethrough document with changes made to be more accurate from the original comprehensive plan document. The same substance is included as it was transmitted before. Ms. Hasbun stated that the version of the document is available on the screens for the public to follow along during the discussion for any questions or concerns as well as poster boards of all the FLU maps from 2018, 2022 and 2023, which is part of this ordinance on the easels provided. Ms. Hasbun asked direction for the Hacienda Motel land use designation. 3 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM COMMENTS: - 2 MINUTE TIME LIMIT Allan Nicols- 113 NW 106th ST – Opposing the unit and density for the Barry Development, reduce it back to what was previously shown on the comprehensive plan. David Smitherman- 570 NW 112th ST – Opposing the unit and density for the Barry Development, stated that the wording was to vague and not clear if it’s going to be for dorms or other rental type townhomes. Erin Halloran- 431 NE 100th ST- Opposing the privately own parking lots being restricted to parking lot only. Thomas Halloran - 431 NE 100th ST- Opposing the changes to the new document in contrast to what was previously improved by CGA. The parking buffer is no in a good direction for the development of Village. Janet Goodman- 114 NE 105th ST- Opposing the 105th Biscayne property to remain multifamily Residential to that of the proposed mixed-use. Maria McGuiness- 1250 NE 101st ST- Opposing the changes and stating they planning and zoning Board needs to consider the changes that will be affected by the live local act. Aubrey Kessler- 1002 NE 105th ST- Opposing the changes of use from residential to commercial use. Denis Leyva- 69 NE 102nd ST- Supporting the changes. Sarah McSherry- 1293 NE 95th ST- Providing document request for planning and zoning board to review for consideration to the Village Council. Andrew Mcintosh- 434 Grand Concourse- Support the changes. Carter McDowell- (Attorney representing Lennar)- Asked for clarification on some of the language that is being presented. He asked to have it included in the institutional category because it allows for FAR of 2.0 or the language of institutional residential to be modified to a 2.0 FAR. Clark Reynolds- 69 NE 102nd ST- Support the changes. E-comments read into record by Ms. Tezen. Comments not read onto record will be reflected on the minutes for July 27, 2023 meeting. Ms. Hasbun read into record a letter that was sent to staff through Miami Shores Center LLC. Ms. Hasbun stated to the planning and zoning board that in front of them is a summary table that delineates the major changes of the amendment proposal. The table defines the downtown area with an FAR 1.0 for restricted commercial and residential uses are permitted on the second floor in conjunction with mixed-use building with the restriction is a 3.0 with strikethrough document under line 376. Ms. Hasbun was bringing up comparisons of the previous version which would have allowed the developments at the time and that would have been granted with bonuses that would provide benefits to community. This version is limited to strictly commercial and limits the FAR to 1.5. Mr. Brady asked Ms. Hasbun if height would be determined in the zoning code? Ms. Hasbun stated yes. Mr. Bolton asked if 2018 is in effect now? What is the 2018 versus the transmittal 4 and adoption ordinance. To which Ms. Hasbun stated that the Transmittal was the one that got sent to DEO and received comments. Ms. Hasbun brought up the adoption changes to the Biscayne corridor in line 405 which was labelled in the 2018 version as general commercial and in the Transmittal Ordinance it was changed to 2.0 General Commercial and in the Adoption version the General Commercial label remains the same with the exception of the FAR being 1.5. Mr. Bolton asked if this in line 412 and what is “C” and “S” mean? Ms. Hasbun stated that the “S” means strikethrough and “C” means clean version. Mr. Brady asked why a different version from what was previously sent out to review is being presented? Ms. Hasbun stated that is the version that needs to be sent to DEO to review, the strikethrough version. Board recessed for 10 minutes. Ms. Hasbun brought up the Barry item as in 2018 this site was considered institutional with a FAR of 2.0. Under line 427-433. The Transmittal Ordinance of 2023 had it listed as “mixed-use neighborhood” base unit density of thirty (30) units per acre and a FAR of 1.5 there was also a maximum density with bonuses of thirty-five (35) dwelling units per acre with FAR of 2.5. under line 337. Under line 242, the proposed designation is Mixed-Use Residential/Institutional and it would allow six (6) detached dwelling units per acre and multifamily dwelling units at a density up to thirteen (13) dwelling units per acre and FAR of 1.0. Ms. Hasbun brought up some comments regarding the title, will DEO have comments regarding the title “Mixed-Use” which per the proposal it is not a “true mixed-use” designation and there are different types of mixed- uses out there for housing. The suggestion is to have a different title or another type of residential. Mr. Brady asked is Mixed-use title is going to be striked out and a new title will be placed? Ms. Hasbun stated that community residential would be a better approach due to the fact that we already have other types of residential designations such as; single-family residential and multi- family residential. We would be combining the two with community residential. Mr. Bolton asked why can’t staff use Mixed-Use Residential/Institutional? Ms. Hasbun reiterated that per previous comments made by DEO, we would not have a true mixed-use development, this will not be able to meet the percentage criteria for each of those mixed-uses. This also will limit confusion with DEO especially if this parcel is not a true mixed-use. Mr. Bolton asked is there a need to keep the “Institutional” word attached and can it be called “Multi-family” instead? or make a different “Multi-Family” to give that differential? Ms. Hasbun stated that if the applicant designs the project with a certain type of residential they can go up to six (6) dwelling units per acre. If they use the other type of residential, the applicant can go up to thirteen (13). The range would be available for the residential design options within that land use designation. Mr. Bolton asked is there a recommendation. Ms. Hasbun stated that the recommendation would be to strikethrough the “Mixed-Use” wording and changing another type of residential that is not limiting one or the other type. If you limit it to multi-family then single-family criteria would not apply. Ms. Trevarthen stated that it would be a relabeling of the title so that the state agencies are not concern and be accurate. Ms. Trevarthen stated that it is not mixed-use instead will be community residential. Ms. Hasbun brought up to the planning and zoning board a drafted language to change the residential FAR and the institutional FAR. The concerning issue was regarding the school that is on sight which would be to modify the land use map and keep it together and make the two areas be maintained institutional only and the remaining portion of that property change it to community residential. Ms. Hasbun showed the Village the area on the map where the two parcels will remain as institutional. 5 Ms. Hasbun reiterated staff would do the map change to reflect the comments made by the Board; the text would be modified to change the title from mixed-use residential/institutional to community residential and remove the language institutions. Which would be the last two sentences on line 248-250. Mr. Bolton asked if designation community residential/institution remaining the same? To which Ms. Hasbun stated it would be only community residential. Mr. O'Hara ask staff about the downtown B-1 zoning district. The 2018 version showed an intensity FAR of 1.0 and the transmittal shows 1.5. Why is the current comprehensive plan’s FAR remaining at 1.5? Ms. Hasbun stated that the version in 2018 was actually up to 3.0 and 1.5 was the range that was given to staff. The same issue was brought up in the corridor of Biscayne Blvd which shows in the transmittal was 2.0 to 1.5 is that the appropriate FAR for Biscayne Corridor versus north east second avenue to have the same FAR? Ms. Hasbun stated that is correct. Mr. O’Hara asked for the Barry site, 2.0 institution to 2.5 seems common, and asked about Mr. McDowell concerns regarding the FAR missing and requesting to add the FAR 1.0. Is this accurate? Ms. Hasbun stated that the current FAR for institutional is 1.0 and making a differentiation between residential FAR and commercial FAR. Ms. Hasbun stated that the information presented could be found in line 249 for 1.0 FAR of the current item. Ms. Hasbun stated if the board takes that amendment, then that would be a moot point and the board would have to remove the word institutional from it. Ms. Trevarthen stated that with the map change that language would not be necessary in line 249. Mr. O’Hara asked again, would it be appropriate to have 1.0 FAR in the site? Ms. Hasbun stated that in the previous version, which included the single-family and multi-Family, there was no FAR and has been only part of the zoning code not the comprehensive plan. Mr. O’Hara asked about the dwelling units per acre in the previous version, it use to go up to six (6) dwelling units per acre. In the transmittal it went up to thirty-one (31) units per acre and now it’s going down to twenty (20). Is this appropriate for staff to have twenty (20) units per acre in this designation? And why? Ms. Hasbun stated that the six (6) units per acre is not a true reflection of what is happening in the building environment. The current six (6) units per acre has a majority of multi-family already exceeding the amount of Residential density and are currently non-conforming multi-family uses. With the twenty (20) units per acre for multi-family will encompass the majority of the multi-family and leaves some properties out and remain a non-conforming state as well as have precise language under vested rights if someone’s property were to be destroyed and/or has to be reconstructed. Mr. O’Hara asked that per the Live Local Act (LLA) if someone is to pursue a reconstruction of their property under the twenty (20) unit density or, would they go by the vested rights number that is higher than twenty (20)? Ms. Hasbun stated per direction of the attorney that it would be per what is allowed under the current proposed code, which is twenty (20). Chair Mr. Busta asked Ms. Hasbun to go over the parking lot designation and how would that affect the Village. Ms. Hasbun stated that in the 2018 version the parking areas were all identified in the 2018 version per the maps highlighted to the public. Ms. Hasbun stated that at some point those areas were designated as parking but no text in the comprehsive plan gave distinct language that the parking lots were given designation in the 2018. In the 2023 Transmittal Ordinance was a proposal to turn it into mixed use however, after feedback from council and the public, that proposal was reverted back to the original 2018 version. Chair Mr. Busta asked if Ms. Hasbun remembers rezoning a particular parcel from parking to commercial? Ms. Hasbun stated there is one particular property that came, and was redesignated, and was brought back to council. Chair Mr. Busta asked if changing this designation, would it take away the owners’ rights to build or changes as they please? Ms. Hasbun stated that since the 6 previous 2018 version has them shown as parking lots those are their rights currently. In the past, there was a proposal but it was never adopted. The original rights will remain the same for the owners. Mr. Bolton asked about the property that got the change, was this ever consummated because the transition of this taking place was delayed due to the moratorium. Ms. Hasbun stated that the application was approved prior the moratorium and currently are in the building permitting process. Mr. Brady asked that if the use of parking being defined in the comprehensive plan mean the owner could only use it as parking and nothing else? Ms. Hasbun stated that is correct. Mr. O'Hara stated that he is disappointed and his concerns were not addressed in the manner he hoped the comprehensive plan would move forward with. Mr. O’Hara stated that many of the items of concern are issues he wanted to address in another meeting and being able to understand which direction and vision for the comprehensive plan it will take. Concerning part is that now projects can be approved administratively without the need to go through the planning and zoning board and the residents will have no say in any of the projects coming to the Village. Mr. O’Hara’s concerns is regarding the Live Local Act (LLA) and how does anyone have a say in the commercial and residential aspect for newer projects and have an alternative to the LLA would have been a better approach in tackling what’s yet to come. The Planning and Zoning Board did not get a chance to review the comprehensive plan in a similar fashion to that of the June 8th meeting and wants another chance to review before making a decision. Mr. O’Hara would like to maintain the residential component in the language and proposed to table it by Mr. O'Hara. Mr. Brady asked Mr. O’Hara is that the appropriate understanding of the SB 102 LLA, that any commercial property can be residential? To which Ms. Trevarthen stated yes. What the statute stated that commercial properties can use that preemption and have a residential use move in and because of how small the population is, it would most likely have to be mixed-use development. Mr. Brady asked what restrictions you would be able to place in the residential use? Ms. Trevarthen stated it would be the same rules on those of the multifamily residential zoning regulations. She also stated that all cities and municipalities are trying to figure that out as well and take many fact patterns and how will this law affect the as-of-right law and density permitted. Ms. Trevarthen agreed with Mr. Brady that the density would be preempted and if the comprehensive plan goes forward and is adopted with the maximum units per acre would be twenty (20). Also, the height restrictions would be preempted. Depending on where in the community a proposal came forward, they would have to measure surrounding buildings within a mile if there is a taller building allowed within a mile they would be allowed to be taller as well. Mr. O’Hara added under the LLA, the jurisdiction must consider reducing the parking requirement for the projects that are coming under LLA. Ms. Trevarthen stated that it is not a clean as that, and that there is active discussion on reducing parking but only if the property is accessible to a major transit stop and as defined in the local rules; currently, the language in the comprehensive plan does not provide that and it would not apply. Mr. O’Hara asked again is it true that a new project would not need to come through planning and zoning? To which Ms. Trevarthen stated that is correct, it would be through an administrative approval process. Mr. Brady asked is there a way to have it be a requirement for applicants to still go through planning and zoning and administratively? Ms. Trevarthen stated that it would be outside of the scope of what the statute allows. Ms. Trevarthen stated that the administrative review process would look like a development review committee where it would become very technical and you would be able to see what would work and what needs to be modified. However, the LPA is precluded and is not part of the administrative approval process. 7 Ms. Trevarthen stated that Mr. O’Hara brought up a good point that if the Village creates a language and rules in which the project will go with the community’s goals and not evoke there rights through the Live Local Act. Line 376, in the deleted portion where residential is highlighted, the board can decided to keep it, reject it or change it. Mr. Brady asked Ms. Trevarthen is there a particular language that she would recommend in order to address these concerns? She stated it would be best to ask staff and see which approach would work best. Either changing, reverting some of the language, or moving forward? Ms. Hasbun stated if the board decides to bring back the language the board has to be mindful about the height, density changes, and mixed-use wording and how it would cause issues with other areas that already have been fixed or addressed in the comprehensive plan. Mr. Brady asked what issues would cause tabling this for the October meeting? Ms. Hasbun stated that we are under the DEO review which requires 180 days to adopt the version. Mr. Bolton asked about concerns Mr. O’Hara had about both commercial and residential projects under this Live Local Act statue and how it affects the Village? Mr. O’Hara stated that both are a concern due to lack of control and say that the Village has on new projects. Ms. Hasbun stated that in the existing language, it shows how clear residential is included in the language and in line 380 provides guidelines and states the restrictions on the FAR and does not affect the neighboring areas. Mr. Bolton went through the CGA mixed-use option, did not like the word Mixed-Use, as well as backlash from the community and emphasizes that the Village needs to get a compromise and move forward with approving the document that is presented to the Planning and Zoning Board today. Mr. Brady asked if some of the language that is shown in the strikethrough document to reinforce some restrictions on these affect areas, with the procedure of the standard review process or will this solve the issue or does the law still exempts that? Ms. Trevarthen stated that statutory Live Local Act is still going to take weight and if you provide the applicant with an option that makes sense and is, favorable than going through the statutory approach then that would be feasible. If the rules are too restrictive then that can cause them to use the statute. Ms. Hasbun referenced Line 226 for Multifamily, and shows the information from 2018 as six (6) dwelling units per acre and the language was strikethrough and in the Transmittal Ordinance, it shows 30 units per acre. With the version proposed currently the amount would be a max allowed of twenty (20) units per acre. It also shows the discussion on vested rights for non- conforming properties. Ms. Trevarthen reiterated the following item the board wants to recommend for approval to Village council: Strikethrough line 242, deleting words Mixed-Use and substituting the words to community and deleting the word institutional. In the body of lines 244-248, add a clear statement that the FAR is 1.0 for the Residential Uses. The third component is to delete the last two sentences from lines 248-250. Make a map change to where the current school it to be properly changed to institutional. Motion to approve recommendation by Mr. Bolton (motion did not proceed). . Mr. McDowell was asked by Mr. O’Hara can they provided what you were looking for in terms of the FAR and the Barry parcel as a whole? Mr. McDowell stated that there would be a preference to change the wording to townhouse instead of multifamily because the wording multifamily is general to other items and their intent it to build townhouses units. Mr. McDowell provided Ms. Hasbun a copy of the language. 8 Mr. Bolton asked what is the difference of townhouse and multifamily since townhouses are individually owned? Ms. Trevarthen stated that her understanding is to have the wording townhouse and multifamily and per different codes they address this wording differently and sees no problem in having it labelled in that manner. Mr. Bolton understands that it is to be clear that the project is an attached single-family and not exceed the single-family criteria if it was interpreted in that way. Motion was repeated into the record as: Strikethrough line 242, deleting words Mixed-Use and substituting the words to community and deleting the word institutional. In the body of lines 244-248, add a clear statement that the FAR is 1.0 for the Residential Uses. The third component is to delete the last two sentences from lines 248-250. Make a map change to where the current school is to be changed to institutional. Line 247 will have townhouse and multifamily. Motion to approve recommendation to Village council with changes by Mr. Brady seconded by Mr. Finkelstein. 5-0. Ms. Trevarthen brought back the item on restricted commercial and asked the planning and zoning board how would they like to proceed with this language. Mr. Brady asked Mr. O’Hara what would be a good approach in tackling the issue regarding restricted commercial? Mr. O’Hara stated it is not necessarily an alternative but more so a way to have LPA give an approval to a project that can affect the Village and set criteria so the developers do not go through the Live Local Act. Ms. Trevarthen stated that the idea is to create a path that is attractive to the developer so that they would not have to go through the Live Local Act. Mr. Bolton asked that if a commercial area could apply to be residential under the Live Local Act? Ms. Trevarthen stated yes it is clear in the language. Mr. Bolton asked that the preemption would have to be mixed-use? Ms. Trevarthen stated it would have to be mixed-use because the commercial areas is under 20% because of the character of the community being predominantly residential and you would have minimum 60% minimum mixed-use. Mr. Bolton reiterated that the planning board back in the time of the transmittal was presented with a mixed-use approach by CGA and he would like to move forward with what is presented. Mr. O’Hara stated that back then the Live Local Act was not amongst the State of Florida at the time and now it’s a factor that is being taken into account in order prevent negative effects to the Village by future projects. Mr. Finkelstein asked the Village attorney what are the options? Ms. Trevarthen stated that there are various routes to take, to look at the language presented and be precise; the other is to take a motion and provide a sense from the board to craft something in the language that it would be a reasonable alternative to the statute. This would make it attractive for applicants to stay under the Village rules and have staff refine the criteria’s and bring that to Village Council with more thought and research. These two methods would help the planning and zoning board to make a deceive vote and move forward with the ordinance. Ms. Trevarthen stated the best approach would be to revise the strikethrough language that was presented regarding residential. Also, give the Village attorney and staff direction on where they would like to move forward and language could be drafted to reflect the changes. Ms. Hasbun stated it would be better to move forward with what is presented tonight since previous language received major backlash from the community and caused several delays in the past. Mr. Bolton is fine with what is presented since there was a lot of back and forth and finally there is some type of compromise. Mr. O’Hara stated that his concern is the community having a say and that the motion counts towards something that does not limits the approval and criteria aspects of the LPA. Mr. Brady stated that he would be open to have staff draft a language where it would address the concerns and provide a criteria for applicants. Based on the feedback Ms. Trevarthen suggested the following motion: 9 Staff will revisit the Restricted commercial and general commercial designation to reincorporate residential, generally consistent with what is currently in the comprehensive plan and with staff providing thought on wording that would protect the community and make sure it is attractive enough for the applicant to use. Mr. Brady asked would this be presented to Village Council, Ms. Trevarthen stated yes and be recommended. Mr. Bolton stated that the Board is going in circles and it has already gone through council and were rejected by the mixed-use discussion. Chair Mr. Busta stated that a motion was drafted and would like to hear everyone’s opinion on it. Mr. Finkelstein stated that it would not make a difference since either way the applicant would be able to build what they liked. Mr. O’Hara stated that his intent was to preempt the outrage of the community and what can come down the pipeline especially in Biscayne Blvd. Ms. Hasbun went over the language that CGA provided for general commercial and restricted commercial. Ms. Trevarthen stated another alternative to motion for the planning and zoning board to have staff to investigate this issue further and present from the planning and zoning board a recommendation to Village Council on how these matters can be handle in the adoption hearing to best protect the community and give staff time to look over the language and provide general direction. Mr. O’Hara wants to move forward with that motion (no motion proceeded) Mr. Bolton asked is this a way to provide a defense against the Live Local Act or is it to enhance and provide a vision for the community? Mr. O’Hara stated it is to mainly defend against the Live Local Act and he is open to mixed-use on north east Second Avenue similarly to Coral Gables, however it does not be a consensus of the community and find an alternative. Suggested motion drafted by Ms. Trevarthen is to approve with recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board for staff to review the dialogue and provide information and recommendation for Village Council to revisit on having the restricted commercial and general commercial to introduce residential and commercial mixed-uses for an applicant to use through the proper process and avoid the statutory preemption. By Mr. O’Hara seconded by Mr. Brady. 5-0. Mr. Brady stated that there is a change he wants to have made on policy 5.8 in regards to line 783 in regards to drainage and with 96th street, 94th street, and 95th street being an issue for residents during raining season. Also, in line 783 there should be something added that talks about plants, drought resistance plants and that it should read to add native vegetation to South Florida. Mr. O’Hara has two items he would like to revise. Line 399 and 420, can that be adjusted 420 that does not rely on existing off-street parking or neighborhood streets. The same change will be for lines 399-420. Mr. Bolton asked about the single-family residential allowing a density of nine (9) dwelling units per acre, was there an existing properties that are non-conforming? With the new language and is there a policy that allows them to remain conforming and/or grandfathers them in with these changes? Ms. Hasbun stated that is correct there are a minor number of single-family homes that even under the nine (9) dwelling unit per acre criteria are remaining non-conforming for vested rights under policy 1.14 and 1.15 starting line 534. Ms. Hasbun read into the recorded the policies and explained the scenario if a homeowner loses their home they can build up to its original density. Mr. Bolton asked if there is a piece of parcel that hasn’t been developed will those same vested rights, to which Ms. Trevarthen stated no, they would have to conform to the current proposed density and there is no vested rights for single-family nor multi-family on developed parcel. If it’s a large plated lot you cannot make it smaller, Mr. Brady added. (Mr. Finkelstein stepped out and came back) 10 Ms. Trevarthen recapped the planning and zoning board with additional changes requested Line 400, add “existing off-street parking or” before neighborhood streets. Line 425, add “existing off-street parking or” before neighborhood streets. Line 797, add “native to South Florida” after drought tolerant. Motion to approve recommendation to Village Council of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan as modified changes made in the by Mr. Brady, seconded by Mr. Finkelstein. 5-0. Legal Ad LPA July272023.pdf CGA Summary of Council Changes 063023.pdf MSV Comp Plan Amendment FLUE and FLUM - Adoption strikethough7.27.pdf MSV Comp Plan Amendment FLUE and FLUM - Adoption NO strikethough7.27.pdf Miami Shores FLUM 2022 Village Council Revisions 30Jun2023.pdf 11 ACTION ITEM(S): PUBLIC HEARING(S) 5) TABLED ITEM(S): 5.A RSP-23-12 Owner: AK Concepts LLC (Arpad Krizsan) Applicant: AK Concepts LLC (Arpad Krizan) Agent: N/A Address: 1165 NE 97th ST. Request: Site Plan approval for a second floor addition. Motion to untable by Mr. Bolton seconded by Mr. Finkelstein. 5-0. Mr. Arpad Krizan (Spoke at the podium) Mr. Busta asked why this application was tabled. To which Ms. Hasbun stated that it was changed to a different agent. Mr. O'Hara asked to walk the board members through the project. Mr. Krizan stated that the addition is due to having more space for work-from- home purposes and have more space for the family. Motion to approve by Mr. Bolton, seconded by Mr. Brady. 5-0. RSP-23-12.pdf 1165 NE 97th ST -Application.pdf 1165 NE 97th ST -Plans.pdf 6) NEW ACTION ITEM(S): 6.A RSP-23-51 Owner: Guy Kurlandski SETASI 1379 NE 104th ST. LLC. Applicant: William Thomas Agent: William Thomas Address: 1397 NE 104th ST. Request: Site Plan approval for a new dock and seawall. William Thomas (Agent Spoke at the podium) Mr. Thomas stated the intent of the seawall and new dock that will have piles. Mr. Bolton asked about the existing concrete sheet size if they are in good condition? Mr. Thomas stated yes. Mr. Finkelstein asked why it wasn't apart of the initial application. Mr. Thomas stated that due to changes with DERM and the contractor caused delays. Motion to approve by Mr. Brady seconded by Mr. O'Hara. 5-0. RSP-23-51.pdf 1379 NE 104th ST -Application.pdf 1379 NE 104th ST -Plans.pdf 6.B RSP-23-56 Owner: Alejandro Donis & Jacqueline Lapidus Applicant: Alejandro Donis & Jacqueline Lapidus Agent: Michael Lopez Address: 234 NE 92nd ST. 12 Request: Site Plan approval for two attached additions and a single car garage conversion to a double-car garage. Michael Lopez (agent spoke at the podium) Chair Mr. Busta asked to walk the board through the project. Mr. Lopez stated that this project will have a bedroom, and only change the garage. Mr. O'Hara asked if there is any changes to the elevation to which Mr. Lopez stated no. Motion to approve by Mr. Bolton, seconded to by Mr. Brady. 5-0. RSP-23-56.pdf 234 NE 92 ST -Application .pdf 234 NE 92 ST -Plans.pdf 6.C RSP-23-57 Owner: Alan Caren Applicant: Alan Caren Agent: Cody Thamann Address: 250 NE 104th ST. Request: Site Plan approval for two attached additions and a facade modification, and a cabana bathroom for a detached accessory structure. Alan Caren (Owner spoke at the podium) Mr. Caren stated that the intent of the project is to add 700 square feet of addition and proceeded to show to the board a presentation of the home. Provided a modern kitchen, and opening up the existing condition. There will be French doors in the rear to have direct access to the pool and everything in connecting to the homes around the area. Maintaining the look of the structure and adding limestone features around the entry and provide lighting in the northern elevation. The L-shaped addition will provide a great accent to the rear. Mr. Busta asked about the windows if it will be impact windows, to which Mr. Caren stated yes. Mr. Finkelstein asked if they have a demolition plan and is it historically designated. Ms. Hasbun stated that no it is not historically designated and it was reviewed with the applicant. Motion by Mr. Finkelstein seconded by Mr. O'Hara. 5-0. RSP-23-57.pdf 250 NE 104th ST -Application.pdf 250 NE 104th ST -Plans.pdf 6.D RSP-23-58 Owner: Kelly Diaz & Jacob Michael Dubs Applicant: Kelly Diaz & Jacob Michael Dubs Agent: Luis La Rosa & Frank Miller Address: 161 NW 107th ST. Request: Site Plan approval for a garage conversion and an addition. Mr. Frank Miller (Agent spoke at the podium) Mr. Miller stated that it is a simple home and the intention is to convert the garage. Ms. Hasbun went through the conditions that the applicant must comply with. Motion to approve by Mr. Bolton, Seconded by Mr. Brady. 5-0. RSP-23-58.pdf 13 161 NW 107th ST -Application.pdf 161 NW 107th ST -Plans.pdf 6.E RSP-23-59 Owner: Mathew & Allison Strongin Applicant: Mathew & Allison Strongin Agent: Thomas F. Weber Address: 1259 NE 97th ST. Request: Site Plan approval for a new single family home construction. Mr. Thomas Weber (Agent spoke at podium) Mr. Weber stated that the owners intent was to preserve and ensure to respect the neighboring homes. There is an open front yard and complying with all the zoning requirements. Mr. Brady asked about the houses shown as precedent. Mr. Bolton asked about the sheet A-5.1 and the roof height and is there a reason for the parapet to have it there? Is it an architectural feature and to hide mechanical equipment? Mr. Bolton stated to compare that to rear elevation A-4.1 what is the stand point or benefit for the wall to be like that. To which Mr. Weber stated that it is for mechanical equipment. Mr. Bolton stated that in sheet A-5.1 is not shown being coronated. Mr. Bolton asked is there a viewing space on the second floor and Mr. Bolton stated that is it only on the proposed balcony? To which Mr. Weber stated yes. Mr. Bolton asked is that the lowest NGVD that the agent was able to go? To which the agent stated yes. Have the front one-story and the back two-story. Also, is there a buffer in the rear or sides. Mr. Brady asked was this shown to the neighbors and stated some of the neighbors we're aware. Mr. Bolton asked to explain sheet A-6.2. show the two section in both directions and it's to explain what is going on in the design. Mr. Weber stated that this is the relationship of the neighboring properties and height comparisons. Mr. Weber stated that this is shown to not effect the thinner portion. Mr. Brady asked if they would be able to see the bay from the second floor. To which Mr. Weber stated no due to a tree obstructing the view. Mr. Brady asked how long is this going to take to build this and Mr. Weber stated it should take 14 months. Motion to approve by Mr. Brady seconded by Mr. Finkelstein. 5-0. RSP-23-59.pdf 1259 NE 97 ST -Application.pdf 1259 NE 97 ST -Plans.pdf 6.F RSP-23-60 Owner: Jorge Bravo Applicant: Jorge Bravo Agent: David Martinez Address: 9139 NE 10th Ave. Request: Site Plan approval for a new single family home construction. David Martinez (Agent spoke on the podium) Mr. Bolton asked staff if he is changing the frontage from the current ave to the next street. Ms. Hasbun stated yes. Mr. O'Hara asked is it typical to present a new home with very limited renderings. Ms. Hasbun stated that staff does recommends to applicant to send over a full package to answer any questions if the planning and zoning board may have, also they meet the minimum requirements to appear to the board. Mr. Martinez stated that the idea is to keep the same footprint of the home but provide a modern twist to the design elements. There is an open floorplan, sustainable eco-friendly and also 14 maintain the look of the neighborhood. Mr. Martinez stated that the property is in the middle where most traffic flow passes through and there is constraints with the owner accessing the home. Mr. Martinez provided evidence of how traffic build up caused the intent to rotate the entrance to 92nd. Mr. Brady asked if 92nd is closed and Mr. Martinez stated yes. Mr. Bolton asked about the materiality being used on the roof. Mr. Martinez stated no metal roof is being added. Motion to approve by Mr. O'Hara seconded by Mr. Brady. 5-0. RSP-23-60.pdf 9139 NE 10th AVE -Application.pdf 9139 NE 10th AVE -Plans.pdf 6.G RSP-23-61 Owner: David Baquerizo Applicant: N/A Agent: John Udbardy Address: 414 NW 101st ST. Request: Site Plan approval for a garage conversion. Mr. David Baquerizo (Owner spoke at the podium). Mr. Baquerizo stated that he just purchased the home and the intent is to increase the size for accommodating a bedroom and office space. Motion to approve by Mr. Brady, seconded by Mr. O'Hara. 5-0. RSP-23-61.pdf 141 NW 101st ST -Application.pdf 141 NW 101st ST -Plans.pdf 6.H RSP-23-62 Owner: Julio Gonzalez Applicant: Julio Gonzalez Agent: N/A Address: 1273 NW 92nd ST. Request: Site Plan approval for a small facade modification. Rita Gonzalez and Son spoke (Owner spoke at the podium) Mr. Gonzalez stated that there is a small modification to the front and the objective is to make a new staircase and have a pergola to provide shade and to enhance the aesthetic of the home while complying with the regulation of the city. Mr. Bolton asked is this going to be a pergola or a concrete slab? Mr. Gonzalez stated that it is going to be polycarbonate roof structure. Motion to approve by Mr. Bolton, Seconded by Mr. O'Hara. 5-0. RSP-23-62.pdf 1273 NE 92nd ST -Application.pdf 1273 NE 92nd ST -Plans.pdf 7) PUBLIC COMMENTS 8) DISCUSSION ITEM 8.A Discussion Item Planning & Zoning Board Applications and Affidavits 15 Ms. Wood stated that after previous meeting, the planning and zoning board instructed staff to draft a memo on how to address an agent as an applicant or to authorize through the code of ordinances. Ms. Woods explained that other municipalities had use this method to allow applicants to authorize; architects, engineers, contractors to act as an applicant on the owners behave. Ms. Woods stated that staff provided a few options that can help make application simpler for the applicant to fill out the proper information. Ms. Woods provided a sample from homestead and from Okaloosa County. Ms. Woods asked how would the planning and zoning board would like to specify the type of agent they would like it to read on the application. Ms. Woods stated that when we get to the zoning code amendments then this can be modified at a later date but in the meantime provide a small edit on the application to provide to the applicant. Mr. O'Hara stated that he appreciated that staff provided the okaloosa county language is more favorable than the alachua one. Mr. Bolton asked why Mr. O'Hara wants to limit to architects, engineers, contractors?. Mr. O'Hara stated that it is because some of the presenters that have come up to the podium to be qualified and be able to answer the proper questions. Motion to approve city of homestead as a sample definition and agent of the okaloosa county.5-0. 9) BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Mr. Finkelstein stated that he would like to have a different method to accept applications without having so much paper being wasted. Ms. Hasbun stated that staff is working with the approved budget to provide the board with a tablet where the planning and zoning board can use to zoom in and look at plans while providing feedback to applicants and providing motions. Mr. Bolton stated can it be a hybrid approach and have the tablet available. Mr. O'Hara asked would the software provide a way to allow to interact with the plans and make annotations. Mr. Brady wanted to thank staff for all their hard work. 10) NEXT REGULAR BOARD HEARING -September 28, 2023 11) ADJOURNMENT- motion to adjourn 10:01pm Planning Board Meeting Time: 07-27-23 18:30 eComments Report Meetings Meeting Time Agenda Items Comments Support Oppose Neutral Planning Board 07-27-23 18:30 25 16 11 2 2 Sentiments for All Meetings The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown. Overall Sentiment Planning Board 07-27-23 18:30 Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral 4.A) AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE VILLAGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP (FLUM) FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED IN MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE; PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 16 11 2 2 Sentiments for All Agenda Items The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown. Overall Sentiment Agenda Item: eComments for 4.A) AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE VILLAGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP (FLUM) FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED IN MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE; PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Overall Sentiment Kathy Shorr Location: Submitted At: 3:01pm 07-27-23 Thank you to the new Council members for their efforts in bringing forth a comprehensive plan that is vastly improved. However, I do want to caution the Planning and Zoning Commission about Lennar Corporation and urge them to please do their own research on this company. Here are a few articles that they will be able to read in detail: *Dept. of Consumer Affairs reviews- 96% of respondents gave the company one star, *Better Business Bureau - 94 online pages of negative reviews, *FaceBook page for Complaints and Issues for property owners and renters- 20.5 Thousand members, *The Violation Tracker website which shows $24,048,249 in penalties for this company since 2000, *Hundreds of Class Action suits, ETC. Although the new plan shows fewer homes than the original, residents on NW 112th Terrace, NW 111th Terrace, NW 111th St, NW 2nd Avenue and the other streets between NW 103rd and NW 112th Terrace will be the ones who have to see their neighborhood changed and not for the better. Traffic, flooding, waste management, noise and construction issues will all affect this MS community and we will be dealing with a corporation that does not care about their own property owners -so why will they care about their neighbors. Everyone who lives in the NW bought their home because it was a one family home community- what is going to be done to protect the NW community from Lennar and their questionable construction practices? Guest User Location: Submitted At: 2:28pm 07-27-23 I strong support these latest amendments including the compromise with Barry. I want to express my gratitude to the new mayor, vice mayor and commissioner for acting to implement the desires of voters. I greatly appreciate the hard work. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 10:27am 07-27-23 Good afternoon to the members of the Planning & Zoning Board, I am contacting you on behalf of Miami Shores Center, LLC who is the owner of the following properties located on NE 2nd Ave, and 99th street (the lot where the Theater is, and the parking behind it). We acquire theses properties in 2002, and later in 2009 we purchased the residential lot, and built a parking lot to benefit our tenants and guests of the theater. As we are all aware of, the village of Miami Shores was not connected to the sewer system up until a few years ago, which limited the type of businesses that could open on the street. Upon connection to the sewer system, that has changed, and today NE 2nd Ave. became alive, with cafes and restaurants serving mainly the community and residents of Miami Shores. We oppose the proposed Amendment to the Land Use for numerous reasons - 1. As property owners we feel that any excessive restriction on the use of the property devalues the property. 2. Folio# 11-3206-013-2250 was zoned as residential; we oppose any restriction to that use should we ever choose to sale it. 3. Lately, FL Governor signed SB-102 under which it is allowed to build as high as the highest building within 1- mile radius from the property so long as 40% of the units are dedicated as affordable housing for the professional work force. You also need to take into consideration that the existing buildings were built a long time ago, and as such they will require extensive renovations and/or replacement at some point in time, which means that there would need to be an added value to the property owner to incentivize them to do so. The planning and zoning board should come up with comprehensive guidelines that will maintain the village charm, yet will allow for development. Maintaining the character and charm of the Village of Miami Shores does not mean doing nothing. We are hopeful that you will consider the above. Respectfully, Orit Mimoun for Miami Shores Center, LLC Beth Dunlop Location: Submitted At: 5:21pm 07-26-23 I support the revised changes to the comprehensive plan as the lay the groundwork for a sensible and environmentally sensitive plan for the future. Of course there is still work to be done, but we can now move forward with civil discourse and common sense as well as with the best town planning tools (and the best town planners) available to us. My compliments to the council, and I look forward to the opportunity to help create a beautiful, amenable, livable, walkable, and resilient (and historic and green) village for generations to come. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 4:28pm 07-26-23 Hello, my name is Anne-Camille Hersh and I live at 102 NE 109th Street. I am in full support of the work that has been done on this new version of the comprehensive plan especially for the following items: - returning the 2nd Ave corridor to "restricted commercial" designation and removal of mixed use (and related future housing density) - returning 10500 Biscayne Blvd to Multifamily designation and removal of mixed use - applying a designation allowing 13 units/acre at the former Biscayne Kennel Club property owned by Barry to accommodate a proposed townhome development by Lennar - returning 2nd Avenue parking lots to designation of "Parking" - reducing the allowed developable land area within parks and recreation land from 50% to 15% Thank you for the collective work that has been done on this version and the time and efforts from all involved. Beverley Markowitz Location: Submitted At: 12:40pm 07-26-23 These proposed changes are a definite improvement and I support approving them. Tracy Devaney Location: Submitted At: 12:02pm 07-26-23 I approve of the revision of the Comp plan which will be presented on 7/27/23.Please consider this my vote as I will not be able to attend the meeting. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 11:14am 07-26-23 Yes, I support keeping the character of Miami Shores as is, without large increases in density. Thank you. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 9:57am 07-26-23 Overall, the current plan is an improvement from the previous one and we really appreciate the vote - listening to residents is key for any future Zoning changes. We have only one concern: 1) we should restrict the dwelling units/acre further SFR 9 du/acre (and Lennar's project at 13) is too high. Thank you, Fabiano Aguilar and Mariana Livore 9935 NE 13 Ave Nora Olaso Location: Submitted At: 9:48am 07-26-23 Please consider my support the proposed changes to the como plan which involve returning the 2nd Ave corridor to a "restricted commercial" designation and removing mixed use, doing the same for the Biscayne Blvd corridor to a "general commercial" designation. Additionally, returning 10500 Biscayne Blvd to Multifamily designation, applying a 13 units/acre designation to the former Biscayne Kennel Club property for a townhome development, reverting 2nd Avenue parking lots to "Parking," lastly reducing the allowed developable land area within parks and recreation land from 50% to 15%. Thank you Guest User Location: Submitted At: 11:35am 07-25-23 Toni McCormick 353 Grand Concourse Miami Shores Many thanks to the efforts which have summarized the needed alterations for our Village Comprehensive Plan. This will save Miami Shores from much of the insanity which seems motivated by developers. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 9:27am 07-25-23 It would be more advantageous to make a green space a nice beautiful park at this end of Miami Shores to enjoy. Sometimes we feel left out. Toni McCormick Location: Submitted At: 8:06pm 07-24-23 Congratulations on a great job of removing “mixed-use” from our Village’s Comprehensive plan. This gives our villagers hope of maintaining the character of Miami Shores. We were never intended to be a high density area. Thank you for all your efforts to read and approve this version of the Comprehensive Plan which has a good chance of saving our Village from the insanity of living with so many people close together. Thank you for your thoughtful concern. Arnold Markowitz Location: Submitted At: 9:40pm 07-23-23 I could have supported a limited amount of mixed use on NE 2 Ave and Biscayne Blvd., to an extent that it not create significant added traffic, parking and other infrastructure problems without sufficient revenue to deal with all that. It's a shame that the previous plan was for extravagant growth beyond the village's ability to cope. The substitute we have here does nothing to help solve the county's affordable housing crisis. It could have done at least a little without stretching our resources too thinly. If the rejected plan had been closer to acceptability, we might have found a better compromise., . Guest User Location: Submitted At: 9:18pm 07-23-23 I oppose using the parking lot property previously owned by Biscayne Dog Track for the building of dwellings by Lennar or any other contractor. It would lower the value of our properties and cause major congestion to the charter school and surrounding homes. John Ise Location: Submitted At: 2:32pm 07-22-23 It’s my hope that the Board will chart an independent, progressive path on the Comp Plan based on their expertise and historical knowledge rather than succumbing to NIMBY political pressures. Those pressures are clearly on display in recent discussions with the Council that emphasize the prevention of any possibility of housing options affordable to most (advocating for lower housing density at Barry’s sites that will result in radically more expensive housing and the Council’s insistence to circumvent the State’s “Live Lovel Act”) to be developed in Village. Succumbing to those pressures will result in a Comp Plan that is explicitly exclusionary, contrary to the goal of countering urban sprawl, contrary to smart growth principles, and potentially non-compliant with Miami-Dade’s workforce housing/growth management goals. The Board needs to make is what will be their legacy with today’s decision a will align with the civic…even moral values they adhere to. We need to emphasize inclusion over exclusion. We need to promote socio-economic integration, with mixed- income housing options (relative as it may be) for the local workforce. We need to be part of the solution to urban sprawl, not perpetuate it. We need to support Barry University and a vibrant, mixed-use development surrounding it that is affordable to Barry and Village staff. We need a mixed-use downtown corridor that engenders vibrancy, rather than perpetuates stagnation. We need to move towards becoming a more pedestrian/bicycle-friendly community, over auto dependency. As Spike Lee put it, "Do the Right Thing".