Loading...
05-09-1991 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING May 9, 1991 A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Village Planning & Zoning Board was held on May 9, 1991. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fernandez, with the following members present: Richard M. Fernandez, Chairman Terrell F. Chambers, Jr. (Arrived at 8:05P.M.) Les Forney Thomas Laubenthal Larry T. McClure Absent: Frank LuBien, Director of Building & Zoning 1. MINUTES - MAY 9, 1991 The minutes of the meeting of April 25, 1991 were approved, as mailed, by a motion made by Mr. Laubenthal, seconded by Mr. McClure, and carried unanimously. Mr. Fernandez announced that Les Forney attended the 1991 Workshop hosted by South Florida Planning & Zoning Association. He said he and Mr. Chambers had attended the workshop in the past, and feels it a very worthwhile workshop. Mr. Forney reported in response to request from Mr. Fernandez. Mr. Forney stated that, it was interesting to share experiences with people from all over the State of Florida. Presentations were enlightening. What one can and can't do, legalities, responsibilities, etc. The second presentation he found most interestipg, was by a Coral Gables firm which specilizes in City Planning. Basically they were saying, don't throw away the baby with the bath water. They did some very good presentations of master plans, and showed how downtown could be a livable, useful space for the people in the area. Their multiple use approach seemed successful. One of the things which made Mr. Forney think was the presentation on the enamored need to go up, and the diagram presented to rebuff this concept. Master plans were presented for downtown development, basically using the multiple use approach. 2. COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW - DOWNTOWN MIAMI SHORES STEVE PITKIN, LAND PLANNER, ROBERT K. SWARTHOUT, INC. DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION BOARD GAIL MACDONALD, VILLAGE MANAGER Mr. Fernandez opened discussion reading from the Notice sent to approximately 300 Miami Shores Village property owners. The area for consideration is roughly bounded by 103rd Street on the North, 94th Streetvon the South, N. E. 1st Avenue on the West, and N. E. 3rd Avenue on the East. He reviewed the schedule of meetings to discuss the issue and outlined rules for this meeting. .Nr. Pitkin, gave his report first. Mr. Pitkin said there are two things he wished to discuss. 1. A summary of Phase 1 of Downtown Plan which was prepared with assistance from Carl Skiles of Fortin, Leavy, & Skiles, Inc., and 2. His views of the suggested outline for downtown plan (a copy of which he presented to each Member). Mr. Pitkin noted he had not previously read a copy of the Business Development Committee final:report, but was pleased to find that many items in the recommendation section were in his report, By way of background, Mr. Pitkin explained that he had been deeply involved in the downtown revitalization program about 30 years, including PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -2- 5/9/91 being director of planning & development in two cities larger than Miami Shores, where turn around was: accomplished in less than five years, It can Be done with the help from many people, Mr, Ptt .in reviewed for those present his 'Nemo of March. 1992, The constraints which cote into play when sewers vs sceptic tanks are allowed, parking constraints, and a look at the urban design standpoint, Mr. Pitkin further reported, there are only two blocks on N, E, 2nd Avenue where there isopotential for appreciable expan- sion without septic tanks, He did not go into calculations, because of double standards by State & County. If sewers are installed, what does that get you? 1. Pitkin talked about the vertical and horizontal expansion, and the benefits of the shared parking concept which was elaborated on, and the retention of on street parking, both a must, Mr. Pitkin said the installa- tion of sewers can have 3 advantages. 1. Attract restaurants, 2. Quality housing on upper floors:,.and 3. Ability to attract other tenants. These advantages were clarified and enlarged upon. A predominate green spacewill not solve the downtown problems, Mr. Pitkin then went into the rewards for the property owners in return.for the expense of installing sewers. The potential to go higher (With three stories being the optimum height and four stories allowedi and the second level parking deck in back of buildings. Outdoor dining was also ttettioned, A prototype of 1 block was done to show what can be achei'ved, Mr, Pitkin passed around copies of the Suggested Outline in proceeding to the next step. Listed are 1. Background Studies, 2. Goals for Downtown, 3, Land Use and Public Facilities Plan, 4. Urban Design Plan, 5, Implementation Plan, 6, Capital Improvement Program. These listings wereall elaborated upon. Mr. Chambers arrived at 8:05 P.M. In reply to query from Mr. McClure, regarding expansion using sewer vs septic tanks and the thought of any alternative, Mr.. Pitkin replied he'd prefer Nr. Sidles answer this question, This is an uphill fight and variances are required, Mr. Fernandez mentioned the subject of package plants as an alternative technology, In this question and answer period with 1r, Pitkin, 1Kr, McClure asked if other businesses might be used as a downtown anchor rather than restuarants. Mr, Pitkin mentioned the theatre, hut the restaurant is the best acheivable goal. Mr. Laubenthal mentioned the height, power,water, expense, the greenspace, drainage, and the parking, all criteria"to be met, Mr. Forney asked Mr. Pitkin if an Economical Analysis had been made for sewers to which the answer was, "No, this was not one of my assignments, but if is a very valid point." Mentioned is discus- sion again and again were the Nizner Park Plan, South Niami,Boca Raton, and Del Ray Beach,. the inability to use these plans because of per capita income, lack of property owner involvement. Nr. Fernandez noted his dis- pleasure with the report prepared by the Swarthout firm. That the analysis and recommendations were stale re -treads of old solutions. That the downtown re -development models of Miracle Nile (Coral Gables), North.Niami and South. Miami, -upon which Miami Shores had based their re-development.efforts, were currently.'_in financial trouble. This despite unified re -development plans and large amounts of money. These areas are suffering from the economic times and are in decline;_ Competition from new buildings., such as those on Biscayne Blvd, north of 108 Street, further compounds the problem and com- petition for tenants:,' Mr, Pitkin kept referring to South"Miami as a re- development success, Mr. Fernandez disagreed. Pitkin under questioning adwttted that his ftrm had been recently hired to assist South Miami in PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -3- 5/9/91 another redevelopment project. Mr. Fernandez stated it was obvious that their- first re -development effort of specialty stores anchored by restau- rants had not been a complete success, otherwbse,, the Swarthout firm would not have been needed, Mr, Fernandez also distinguished Miami Shores from the cited Ni,zner Park, Boca Raton and South 'Miami examples, that is, 1) that theseprojects enjoyed either a singledeveloper, or, owners who bought into a unified project; 2) high density populations surrounded the area for development; and, 31 populations that surrounded there-development areas had much higher disposableincomes than _did Miami Shores, Mr, Fernandez stated that in his opinion, in order for there to be a successful downtown redevelopment effort in Miami Shores a mutuality of purpose among property owners, government and the community must first be acheived. A ten minute recess was taken at 8:45. The meeting reconvened at 8:55 P.M. Mrs. Barbara Witte, Project Manager for the Downtown Reviatlization Board presented slides of the Mizner Park Plan, Miami Lakes, and Miami Shores. Mrs. Witte pointed out the advantages of Mizner Park and Miami Lakes, and how Miami Shores could look. Discussion concerning landscaping, height, parking decks, creation'of parks. Mrs. Witte noted Downtown Revitalization Board has not looked at the merit of taking additional property. Mrs. Witte agreed with Mr.. Laubenthal that much can be done. Mrs. Brenda 'Marshall, Chairman of the Downtown Revitalization Board commented that the objectives of Downtown Revitalization Board are compatible with the changes in place. D.R,B. is trying in a minor way to make differences. The property owner must cooperate, Downtown area needs to be promoted. Pro- fessionals and services must be attracted. Some additional needs are light- ing, and landscaping, and cross walk pavers for pedestrian safety and for the purpose of slowing traffic, On Saturday the downtown area is alive with Gymboree and Jazzersize. Speciality Retail wants focus. These are some views and goals of Downtown Revitalization Board. Finally,, Ms. Marshall reported that DRB had worked with the Planning & Zoning Board to develope DRB Guidelines, a copy of which was given to each Member, Mrs. Witte noted Design Guidelines are in place. 22 businesses have been improved accordingly, there are 100 to go, Gail Macdonald, Village Manager commented she had no prepared statement, but jotted notes as she listened to others statements and comments. Everyonecan't be satisfied as a group of visions are narrowed to our vision, Comments may be defeatist or pragmatic depending on your opinion. Ms. Macdonald made mention of Mr. Laubenthal's comments on greenways, and parking in the rear, to this point she urged the Members to review xeroscape, regarding parking, the Board was reminded of economic constraints under which we function, The DRB is in place, but the real interest is not there, the best the Board can do is to lay the framework to allow this type of thing to occur. Ms. Macdonald very much agrees with Mr. Fernandez and his comments on the economics in the area. Successess and failures we have observed in othe4cities should set an example for us. Gail further com- mented that a great deal of money has been spent on the downtown so far, and residents have not seen a return on this investment. This is a frust- rating situation. Mr. Pitkin noted correctly that physical improvements alone will not turn the area around, Ms. Macdonald proposes to limit the amount of the contribution to the taxes derived from these people. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -4- 5/9/91 Discussion has been underway to consider reconstruction of DRB who would oversee thephysical improvements of downtown and the Chamber of Commerce which would handle.Maxketin,g and Pub.li.c Relat±ons, We are hearing the words renovation, revitali.zation;;rehabilitatlon, reformation in any form re- quires a serious effort, on the part of the patient, You cant help someone who doesnit$aant to help.bJrnself, The Property Owner is a very necessary ingredient for success in this endeavor. Finally Ms Macdonald urged Members to lay the framework for future economic development, while making sure that present zoning is strong enough now.to prevent deterioration downtown, In response to Mx. McClure's question, that many groups are working, but not together, Who should provide the leadership to get it off the ground' the P.ub tic sector or the Private sector? Ns Macdonald replied the Public sector will start with support from the Chamber of Commerce, Mr, Forney noted he called the City Manager of Winter Park to inquire, what made the turn around happen there? He was told that the City with the cooperation of the private sector, Several homeowners spoke on issues, but were advised there are no specifics in place, that their comments and questions must be presented at the May 23 meeting when input from residents adjoining the downtown businesses will be able to give ,their input,, Mr. Harrigan alluded to the Law Enforcement Program and felt a foot patrolm .m.downtown might be better and different. His statement was re- buffed, with the statement that there is a Meter Specialist who does walk the area everyday, Mr. Pitkin has security listed in his outline under his Implementation Plan, and stated if security is perceived to be a problem, it should be addressed, 3. LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE Regarding the Landscape Ordinance, Mr. Laubenthal noted that he had amended the ordinance and he will have a workshop with Mr. Forney, if acceptable, to formulate and complete it. Mr, Forney accepted, and stated the public can be invited to the workshop in the Village Manager's office. 4. DISCUSSION - ROOF MAT Mr. McClure typed, and gave each Member a copy of Sec 525, Masonry Con- struction, that section dealing with permitted roofing materials. Mr. Fernandez requested that both these items be placed on the next agenda. • The meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.Y4 04:41:4-e/ re xy