Loading...
2024-07-25 PZB Minutes 1 Mayor George Burch Vice Mayor Jesse Valinsky Councilmember Neil Cantor Councilmember Jerome Charles Councilmember Sandra Harris Esmond Scott, Village Manager Chanae Wood, Village Attorney Ysabely Rodriguez, Village Clerk PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES July 25th, 2024 6:30pm Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER- By Chair Bolton at 6:30pm 2. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Mr. Bolton Mr. Brady Mr. O’Hara Mr. Spirk Mr. Nappier III Also, Present: Chanae Wood- Village Attorney Joseph M. Corradino- Planning and Zoning Interim Director Alizgreeth Tezen- Planning and Zoning Technician 3. ORDER OF BUSINESS - (Additions, Deletions, and Deferrals) Mr. Corradino requested to delete item 7.A. from the agenda as the item will not require the planning and zoning board to hear per the change to the code. Chair Mr. Bolton asked if he can still have Ms. Bonaduce from the historic preservation board still discuss the item? Ms. Wood asked the board to vote on the modification of the agenda. Move to modification to agenda by Mr. Brady, seconded by Mr. O’Hara. 5-0. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS - 2-Minute Time Limit (Non-Item Specific) Ms. Maria McGuiness- stated that there should be good notice of workshop draft for the Village residents to see. Ms. Patricia Bonaduce- stated that she received a public records request of the demolitions that Miami Shores has had in the past years resulting in approximately one house a month. David Stein- stated that he wants to know the process of rezoning. Denis Pena - stated the purpose of the planning and zoning board and to ensure harmony throughout the community. Victor Bruce- stated he is a village resident who offers free time to residents that need guidance a and the concerns stepbacks will cause. 2 5. MINUTES - Approval of the Minutes June 27, 2024 5.A. Approval of the Minutes of June 27, 2024 PZ MINUTES 06-27-2024.pdf Chair Mr. Bolton asked to modify page 3, discussion of FAR. “ Mr. Nappier III stated 4.5 would be better. Mr. Spirk stated he is in agreement to FAR .5 instead of 4.5 FAR” to read “ Mr. Nappier III stated 0.45 would be better. Mr. Spirk stated he is in agreement to FAR .50 instead of 0.45 FAR” Move to approve as corrected by Mr. Brady, seconded by Mr. Nappier III. 5-0. 6. QUASI-JUDICIAL ITEM(S) - Please be advised that the following item(s) on the Board’s agenda are Quasi-Judicial in nature. If you wish to comment upon these items, please indicate the item number you would like to address when the announcement regarding the quasi-judicial item is made. An opportunity for persons to speak on each item will be made available after the applicant and staff have made their presentations on each item. SWEARING IN - All testimony, including public testimony and evidence, will be made under oath or affirmation. In accordance with Section 2-100 of the Village Code, any Lobbyists must register before addressing the Board on any of the following items. Board members must disclose any ex-parte communications concerning any items on the agenda, pursuant to Section 2-86 of the Village Code. (Board Members Disclosures, if applicable). The Board Clerk will swear in any person(s) who wishes to testify on any Quasi-Judicial item. 7. NEW ITEM(S) 7.A. Historic Designation Review: HP-24-03 Owner: Michael Finkelstein Address: 565 Grand Concourse. Planning and Zoning Board Memo-Historic Designation-HP-24-04.pdf Ms. Bonaduce (chair of the historic preservation board) spoke at the podium and provided a presentation about the house being designated and was excited that the style is unique due to it being the first southern colonial style to be considered this year and hope more distinct homes are considered further down. 7.B. RSP-24-44 Owner: Jonathan & Daniella Silberstein Applicant: N/A Agents: Victor Bruce Address: 1280 NE 101st ST. Request: 1.Demolition of flat roof structure (west side of home) 2.Addition 2-story addition within demolition footprint consisting of: a.A two-car garage; and b.A main bedroom on second level Mr. Corradino provided a background of the application and recommends approval by staff. Mr. Bruce spoke at the podium and 3 gave an overview of the intent of the project. The idea is to demo the undesired portion and provide a modern look. Included items of what the space will be for and maintaining the same slopes throughout the design. Public Comment: Maria McGuiness- wants to applaud for the addition and maintaining the character. Move to approve by Mr. Brady with conditions by staff, Seconded by Mr. Spirk. 5-0. RSP-24-44 Staff Report.pdf RSP-24-44-Application.pdf RSP-24-44-Plans.pdf 7.C. RSP-24-48 Owner: Salim Chraibi, Bluenest Homes Inc. Applicant: N/A Agents: Denise Preschel Address: 78 NE 98th ST. Request: 1. New two-story single-family home RSP-24-48 Staff Report.pdf RSP-24-48-Application.pdf RSP-24-48-Plans.pdf Ms. Wood spoke and advised the board that the clerk handed out an updated affidavit form with the new agent representing the owner at the podium. Mr. Cetoute spoke at the podium and presented a presentation on the screen. Public Comment: Tanya Gelloni- Spoke in opposition Nancy Dawson- Spoke in opposition Patricia Bonaduce- Spoke in opposition (Handed out flyers to board members) Maria McGuiness- Spoke in opposition Glenn Amoruso- Spoke in opposition Denis Pena- Spoke in opposition Becky Lennard- Spoke in opposition Dennis Leyva- Spoke in opposition Ms. Tezen read email out loud (any that weren’t read will be included into the minutes) Mr. Cetoute spoke about the interpretation of harmonious of sec. 523 and in relation to context. Mr. Brady spoke about the disconnection with the picture examples given and the vicinity if the where the new home will be located. Mr. O’Hara asked how is the orientation of the windows harmonious with the neighboring houses? Ms. Preschel stated that the driving force was to have an in-door outdoor relationship and provide a narrow view from the street. Ms. Preschel stated that windows were not 4 included in the study since the current code lacks specifics on window orientation or style. Mr. Spirk asked the applicant if they would be willing to make changes to gain approval or if they were firm on making no changes. Mr. Cetoute replied that the applicant would be open to adding conditions or deferring the application. Mr. Spirk inquired if deferral was the same as tabling, to which Ms. Wood confirmed the options are approval, denial, or tabling (deferring). If tabled, the item would be subject to new code amendments. Mr. Spirk asked if the application would be grandfathered under the old code. Ms. Wood stated the changes take effect tomorrow and must comply with the new amendments. Mr. Spirk expressed that Section 523 aims to be fair to the Miami Shores neighborhood, emphasizing the importance of building quality and character. He mentioned a previous example on 99th Street, which required several revisions despite commendation. He noted that if the application were tabled, it would reduce FAR and square footage. Ms. Wood advised him not to reference the new code's numbers and standards, but Mr. Spirk explained he was using it as an example. He also mentioned the insufficient feedback on the 5-foot step back on the second floor and concerns about the roof terrace and noise. He discussed the uninviting site wall and the importance of social interaction to the village's character. Mr. Spirk suggested that denying the application would likely lead to an upheld decision by the village council, resulting in prolonged litigation. He recommended tabling the application to allow for redesign and avoid leaving the applicant in limbo for two years. Chair Mr. Bolton explained the two-step process: the zoning director ensures compliance with the zoning code, and then the board follows Section 605, which includes building design, signs, walls and fences, and landscaping to ensure harmony with the neighborhood. He stated that the harmonious study was unclear and did not address community concerns. Mr. Brady asked if the applicant preferred the application to be tabled or denied, noting that going before the council would require full political engagement. Mr. Nappier III asked the board if the applicants are aware of what they need to see the next time they come back? Ms. Wood stated that they will understand that they are clear on being in tune with the new code. There was a back-and-forth discussion about using a specific date as a safeguard for noticing procedures. Ms. Wood suggested keeping it simple by proceeding with regular tabling. Move to table by Mr. Brady, Seconded by Mr. O’Hara. 5-0. 5 7.D. RSP-24-49 Owner: David and Angelica Halabu Applicant: N/A Agents: Sam Soriero Address: 9632 NE 5th Ave Rd Request: 1. A 600 sq. ft. addition to 2nd-story. RSP-24-49 Staff Report.pdf RSP-24-49-Application.pdf RSP-24-49-Plans.pdf Mr. Corradino provide the background analysis created in the staff report and recommendation from staff to approve. Mr. Brady asked about the existing non-conforming? Mr. Corradino stated that there are no changes being made and they are acceptable. Mr. Brady asked is the first condition a requirement on all? Mr. Corradino stated yes and will be part of the building permit phase. Chair Mr. Bolton are these required by DERM? Mr. Corradino stated yes and will need to be as more astringent to the county if the villages decides to have a different one. The homeowner relative spoke at the podium and provided information on the intent of the design. Move to approve with staff conditions by, Mr. Brady, seconded by Mr. Nappier III. 5-0. 7.E. RSP-24-51 Owner: Theodore Rood & Alyson Schulman Applicant: N/A Agents: N/A Address: 126 NW 108 ST Request: 1. Garage conversion (355 sq. ft.) 2. Addition of exterior steps and door to west elevation RSP-24-51 Staff Report.pdf RSP-24-51-Application.pdf RSP-24-51-Plans.pdf Mr. Corradino explained the intent of the garage conversion and provided insight on the changes being made to interior space. Mr. Brady asked about the steps projecting on the west side? Mr. Corradino stated you can project 4 feet. Ms. Roselyn stated the project is very simple. Move to approve with staff conditions by Mr. Spirk, seconded by, Mr. O’Hara 5-0. 7.F. STPL-24-53 Owner: 6200 Oasis LLC c/o Joseph Del Vecchio Applicant: N/A Agents: New Beach Construction Partners Co Address: 9345 park drive Request: 6 The applicant is requesting site plan approval to modify the façade of the commercial building through design improvements that will modernize the existing structure. The façade work includes new window openings to bring light that is more natural into the building, as well as new indented, covered balconies on the north and south sides of the third and fourth floor levels. Additionally, the updated façade will feature new metal awnings over the proposed windows and new building signage to replace the existing signage. The interior scope of work includes the renovation of the building’s main lobby and mezzanine, and the reconfiguration of the interior space to provide two ready-to-lease office spaces and new common area bathrooms. STPL-24-53 Staff Report.pdf STPL-24-53-Application.pdf STPL-24-53-Plans.pdf Mr. Corradino provide the changes being done to the interior and included the signage, drainage, and other exterior modifications. Mr. Brady asked about the handicap location. Ms. Natalia stated they are on the basement floor plan and first floor. Ms. Jane spoke about the project and she is from the Vagabond group representing the agent. The idea is to create century modern and reuse most of the existing materials. Mr. Brady asked will the space be built out as the building gets tenants? Ms. Jane stated yes. Mr. Spirk was pleased with the work they have done with adaptive reuse. Mr. Spirk stated that the opening will most likey cause a concern and if caught by the building department then they will have to come back to close in that balcony. Chair Mr. Bolton asked what is the material on the columns? Ms. Natalia stated the portico will be re-stucco with black paint. Chair Mr. Bolton asked were the issues with the septic system being taken care of? Ms. Jane stated it’s in the works. Move to approve by Mr. Brady, seconded by Mr. Nappier III. 5-0. 7.G. RSP-24-54 Owner: Patrimoine Sub A LLC c/o David Feldgajer Applicant: Johnny Marin Agents: N/A Address: 167 NW 100 TER Request: 1. Garage conversion 2. Modification of exterior steps and new door RSP-24-54 Staff Report.pdf RSP-24-54-Application.pdf RSP-24-54-Plans.pdf Mr. Corradino explained the intent of the project and to include a condition of the projection of steps to 4 feet. Staff recommends approval. Mr.Spirk asked about the driveway changes and large pool and deck? Mr. Corradino stated it is not something that is not part of the planning and zoning board purview. Mr. Spirk asked why wouldn’t the 7 pool and driveway not be part of the planning and zoning board? Ms. Tezen explained that its administrative approval and the board has no jurisdiction and as a courtesy it is being brought to provide context for driveways that are being recessed and provide a broad scope. Mr. Spirk asked is the applicant living in the house? Mr. Marin stated not at the moment since the house is being renovated and it’s not safe to go in there. Mr. Spirk stated that the letter of intent is disingenuous to the true intention of the home. Mr. Spirk asked to add a window to not create a blank wall to maintain harmony. Mr. O’Hara had a question of Sheet A-3 and will the decorative mimo trim being kept the same? Mr. Marin stated correct. Public Comment: Ms. Patricia Bonaduce- spoke that the letter of intent is misleading and to set an example by tabling. Ms. Mcguiness- stated that the application has three mature oak trees and to protect them. Move to approve with window proffer by the applicant, and conditions by the by Mr. Nappier III, seconded by Mr. Brady. 5-0. 8. PUBLIC COMMENTS - 2-Minute Time Limit (Non-Item Specific) 9. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Mr. Spirk asked Ms. Wood the status of the approval for referral of demolition proposal to village council. Ms. Wood stated that per the new procedure provided to the board chair that the document would have to be filled out and proposed with the memo and then forward to the village council via the village clerk’s office. There will be a portion for agenda and procedures during village council meeting. Mr. O’Hara is not in favor as it is an additional layer of just recommending something the planning and zoning board has already voted on. Ms. Gunn spoke at the podium and provided that the board was elected by Village Council and have those communications with Council and directly to the charter officer. Mr. Brady has a concern about the number of houses that are being deconstructed. Mr. Spirk asked about the CR district and wants to know if the planning and zoning board knows about the information that is being put in for the public workshop and will it be appropriate for staff to be in control of that. Mr. Corradino stated the code is being reviewed by staff and will be delivered to the planning and zoning board and then provided to the public to see. Mr. Corradino stated that September 12th, 2024 will be the public workshop and have at least a couple days to get feedback from the planning and zoning board and the public. Mr. Spirk stated the process of staff having to fish out what comments will stick and what will stay is not what he had in mind and not to create something that the the community doesn’t want. Mr. Corradino stated that the edits will be taken and there would be points of consensus and you will be able to make a final decision. Ms. Gunn explained that the meeting dates for a proposed workshop to view the presentation would need to be coordinated. Mr. Spirk stated that decision is not a staff decision but of the planning and zoning board body. Ms. Wood stated that public meetings will require staffing, resources, and coordinate availability. Move to approve dates for the Public Workshop on September 12, 2024, and Regular Planning and Zoning Board Hearing on September 19th, 2024. By Mr. Brady, Seconded by Mr. Spirk 5-0. 10. NEXT REGULAR BOARD HEARING -September 26, 2024 to September 19, 2024. 11. ADJOURNMENT 8 The Planning and Zoning Board may consider and act upon such other business as may come before it. In the event this agenda m ust be revised, such revised copies will be available to the public at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Pursuant to Chapter 286.0105, Florida Statutes, if a 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 w hich the appeal is based. Miami Shores Village complies with the provisions of the Americans with Disability Act. If you are a disabled person requirin g 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. In accordance with Village code and section 2-11.1(s) of the Miami-Dade County Code, any person engaging in lobbying activities, as defined therein, must register at the Village Clerk’s Office before addressing the Council on the above matters or engaging in lobbying activities.