Loading...
01-16-2003 Regular Meeting• • MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 16, 2003 The regular meeting of the Miami Shores Planning and Zoning Board was held on Thursday, January 16, 2003, at the Village Hall. The meeting was called to order by Richard Fernandez, Chairman at 7:00 P.M. with the following persons present: ITEM I: ROLL CALL: Richard Fernandez, Chairman Cesar Sastre, Vice Chairman (Arrived at 7:50 p.m.) Tim Crutchfield (Arrived at 7:06 p.m.) W. Robert Abramitis Donald Shockey ALSO PRESENT: Al Berg, Planning & Zoning Director Richard Sarafan, Village Attorney Irene M. Fajardo, Recording Secretary Mr. Sarafan swore in all those participating in the meeting. The Board members disclosed that they had visited the sites. ITEM II: APPROVAL OF MINUTES -December 19, 2002 Mr. Abramitis made a motion to approve the December 19, 2002 minutes. Mr. Shockey seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. ITEM III: SCHEDULE ITEMS PZ03-0116-01 Carlyle Cochran Tr. Quan Yin Medical Clinic 217 NE 97 St. Sec. 504(f)(1): Wall and window sign Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the wall and window sign. The applicant Dr. Robert Gaston was there to present the case. The applicant did not want to add any further information. After a brief discussion, Mr. Shockey made a motion to approve the wall and the window sign. Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. PZ03-0116-02 Go Cellular(tenant) Boris Moroz 9017 Biscayne Blvd. Sec. 504: Cabinet sign • • Planning and Zoning - 2 - January 16, 2003 Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the cabinet sign. David Milgrem, the contractor for the sign company, was there to present the case. Mr. Milgrem did not have any additional information for the case. Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the cabinet sign. Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion. The Board opened for discussion. Mr. Shockey inquired about guidelines in the code in regards to the appearance of signs. Mr. Berg explained the issue of harmony in regards to signs. Mr. Abramitis expressed his concerns in regards to the need for guidelines and uniformity for signs. After a brief discussion, the motion passed 4-0. PZ02-1017-02 Daniel and Claudia Aulton Sec. 604: Site plan approval 842 NE 99 St. pond and fence/wall enclosure Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the site plan provided that the applicant relocates the fence so that its setback is 25', even with the front of the house, and that the fence would be 4' high and in compliance with the pool fence requirements. The Board's main concerns were the approval of the fence in the front yard, and the height of the fence. The applicant, Mr. Aulton, was there to present the case. He stated the changes he made from his previous applications. The Board discussed the fence height and what the county allows. They expressed their concerns in regards to safety and neighboring children having access to the pond. The Board also discussed the proposed veneer rock for the pond and how it was not harmonious with the neighborhood. Some of the Board members felt that the pond would be an attractive nuisance and that a 4' high would be necessary in order to satisfy the safety concerns. The applicant felt that a 4' fence would remove the purpose of having a pond as a decorative element to the property. After further discussion, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the request. Motion failed due to a lack of a second vote. Mr. Abramitis made a motion to approve the request subject to a 4' high fence pursuant to staff's recommendations. Mr. Crutchfield seconded the motion. Motion failed to carry since the vote was 2-2. (Mr. Fernandez and Mr. Shockey voted no). The applicant suggested that he would remove the pond and keep the courtyard. The Board stated that they would need to see the completed plans first before approving the courtyard. PZ03-0116-03 Richard and Sylvia Halter Sec. 604: Site plan approval 1155 NE 104 St. new house Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the application subject to the following: 1. Stucco banding and keystone window sills on the side elevations. 2. Finish floor elevation at 10' with a site grading plan that prohibits rainwater from flowing onto the adjacent properties. • Planning and Zoning - 3 - January 16, 2003 3. A landscape plan that meets the minimum requirements. The Board expressed their concerns in regards to the crown of the road and the property being raised to high above the surrounding properties. They were concerned about drainage problems and the applicant not having a submitted drainage plan. They also expressed their concerns in regards to the landscape proposal and the lack of architectural details on the property. Some of the Board members mentioned that a two car garage in the front of the property would not be harmonious with the neighborhood. The Board inquired about the impervious area and any future developments such as a pool or a dock. The applicant, Richard Halter, was there to present the case. Mr. Halter tried to address the Board's concerns. He stated that he would comply with staffs recommendations and the Board's concerns. After further discussion, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to table the case until the applicant complies with staffs recommendations and the Board's concerns. Mr. Shockey seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. PZ03-0116-04 Marta Arfeld 55 NW 102 St. Sec. 701: Appeal of Admin Official -paint. Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended denial of the paint color request. The applicant, Ms. Arfeld, was there to present the case. Ms. Arfeld submitted pictures of her property and other house with similar paint color. She • explained her efforts in trying to beautify her property. Some of the Board members felt that the paint color matched the design of the house. After further discussion, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to overturn staffs recommendation. Motion failed due to lack of a second vote. Mr. Shockey inquired about setting precedence by approving colors. Mr. Sarafan explained that approving colors for houses does not set precedence since each request is handled on a case by case basis. Mr. Abramitis made a motion to uphold the Building Official's recommendation. Mr. Sastre seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-1. (Mr. Crutchfield voted no). A five minute break was taken. The Chairman, Richard Fernandez, did not return due to illness. Vice Chairman, Mr. Sastre, took over the rest of the meeting. W. Discussion/ Recommendation on Marbella Report (previously distributed). Discussion on 2°d monthly meeting for New Land Development Regulations. The Board reviewed the report that was previously distributed by staff. After making several changes to the report, the Board members agreed that Mr. Crutchfield would draft a report that the Board could review, approve, and then present to Council. (See attached narrative) ITEM V.: NEXT MEETING- February 20, 2003 • • Planning and Zoning - 4 - January 16, 2003 ITEM VI: ADJOURNMENT- Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Shockey seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. Meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Recording Secretary Chairman • • • MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD'S REPORT TO THE MIAMI SHORES COUNSEL REGARDING POTENTIAL INPUTS OF THE PROPOSED MARBELLA PROJECT ON THE VILLAGE OF MIAMI SHORES Pursuant to the Miami Shores Village Council's request to the Planning and Zoning Board, the Planning and Zoning Board considered the possible and likely impact of the Marbella project on the Village services and the quality of life for Village residents. Aspects of the Village life which were considered included traffic, schools, density, zoning, current and future code enforcement, crime, fire and safety, economic impact, public utilities, and Village recreational activities. Input was secured from Miami -Dade County, Village staff members, including Tom Benton, Al Berg, Richard Sarafan, Richard Masten, Barbara Estep, Jerry Estep, Dave Traill, Elizabeth Esper, and members of the public. Although the Village staff members made repeated requests to the Dade County School Board and the Miami -Dade Fire Department, no information was directly secured. The findings of the Miami Shores Planning and Zoning Board are presented below. A. Traffic The impact on area auto traffic would be a negative one due to substantial increases in number of autos based at subject development, visitors, and service personnel. The roads that would be impacted with increased traffic are NE 90th St., NE 88th Terrace, NE 8th Avenue and NE 10th Avenue which is currently restricted due to new traffic calming devices. Additional east and west access to that road will be difficult and in some case hazardous. Future anticipated development of Biscayne Blvd., will further restrict direct access to the boulevard redirecting traffic to residential side streets within the village and across shopping centers. Current restrictions from Biscayne Blvd. will only permit access onto 90In Street while traveling north bound. Access from 90th Street onto Biscayne will only permit a turn northbound. Pedestrian traffic will be increased crossing Biscayne Boulevard. There also will be increased traffic on roads leading to Phillis Miller Elementary School some three blocks south. Although the developer did not provide Miami Shores with a copy of the traffic impact study prepared on its behalf, the Board obtained a copy of that report from other sources. That report concludes that the proposed project will generate 115 trips during the afternoon peak hour, (an increase of approximately 68 trips over the 48 trips that the report estimates are made from the existing mobile home park), and 95 trips during the morning peak hour (an increase of 65 trips over the 34 trips that the report estimates are made during the morning peak hour from the existing mobile home park). Without any independent traffic impact studies to use in comparison to the developer's report, the Board was unable to determine the accuracy of the projected increase in traffic. Based upon the Board's knowledge and experience relating to the neighborhood and the normal traffic patterns in and around Miami Shores, however, the Board has concerns that the developer's traffic impact report does not accurately reflect the potential . impact of the traffic flow. During the morning rush hour, it is reasonable to anticipate that a substantial portion of the traffic will need to flow southward from the neighborhood towards Downtown, Miami. The only places that the residents of the development would be able to exit the neighborhood and make southbound turns onto Biscayne Boulevard would be NE 91st St. and ID NE 87th St. The residents of the project using the NE 87th St. exit from the neighborhood would have to go through the traffic dropping off children at Phillis Miller Elementary School. This could result in significant additional traffic congestion at the intersection of NE 87th St. and NE 8th Ave. It is reasonable to anticipate that residents of the project would attempt to avoid this congestion, and that, as a result most of the southbound would use the NE 91st St. exit to Biscayne Boulevard. This would create a substantial increase in the amount of traffic concentrated at that one intersection. B. Schools The impact on school boundaries and attendance will be a negative one. Overcrowding due to the additional students living in the area may prompt changes in boundaries affecting Miami Shores Elementary School. Due to high tuition, private schools will have the least impact. Overcrowding in public schools will have a negative effect on an already overcrowded school system and exacerbate the problem for Miami Shores residents. The current student capacity in the affected public schools are already at an over capacity as indicated by the following information obtained from the Florida School Indicator Report. A. Phillis Miller - 20% over capacity B. Horace -Mann - 6% over capacity C. Edison - Near capacity D. D.M. S. - Near capacity • The possible addition of Pre -K to Phyllis Miller and the potential imposition of new lower class size school restrictions will further worsen this overcrowding. Overflow students from Phyllis Miller will likely be shifted to Miami Shores Elementary creating overcrowded conditions there. Lastly, the Miami Dade School Board has not responded to requests for further information which might shed additional light on this problem. • C. Density/Zoning The number of units in the development will fall under the maximum number of units allowed. Fifty units per acre are allowed under the county code. While the density of the proposed development is consistent with the adjoining multi -unit development on NE 90th Street, it is inconsistent with the single family homes adjoining the property on its southern border, and it will have a negative impact on the value on those homes. (lthough these homes are not in Miami Shores, they are just outside our boundaries and a decrease of their values would have a negative impact on property values in Miami Shore D. Future/Current Code Enforcement There will be no significant impact on current and future code enforcement within the Village. On-site enforcement of county and association regulations will depend on vigilance and performance of on-site property management. • • SZ t E. Crime Information available is insufficient to draw a conclusion as to the impacts on crime within the Village of Miami Shores. MSV Police response within the Village may be negatively impacted due to inter -local agreements to provide back-up upon service calls of subject property's jurisdiction and adjacent municipalities. As stated in the memo provided for the Board by Chief of Police Masten: At this point in time, I cannot foresee the actual impact that the construction of such affordable housing would have with respect to criminal activity. In the final analysis that will be determined in largest part by the vigilance and performance of the management company with regard to potential resident screening, having responsible on-site property management, upkeep and maintenance that will encourage a desirable quality of life within the project. Evictions must occur promptly when individuals within the complex are found to be involved in criminal activity, particularly drug offenses. Cooperation with local police and the development of crime prevention/community policing initiatives within the complex will enhance the public safety factor. One example, one that has been successful in other affordable housing developments, is the dedication of a small office as "mini -station" space. F. Fire/Safety While the new development will meet the fire codes, fire rescue will be negatively impacted due to the possible diversion of the limited emergency services available to Miami Shores as the result of inter -local agreements. This will result from the increased density caused by the project that will create additional calls for emergency services. The Board and staff repeatedly requested information from the Miami -Dade Fire Department but did not received any reports. G. Economic Impact The economic impact on the Village will vary between residential and commercial properties. There will likely be a short term positive impact on commercial developments, due to the increase of pedestrian traffic. There will likely be a long term negative impact on the quality of commercial businesses and commercial developments. The project will not improve the incentives for quality development. The impact on residential properties will be a negative one due to the increase in vehicle traffic, due to the devaluation of adjoining single family homes that will negatively offset the value of houses through the neighborhood, and due to the long- term negative impact on the quality of commercial developments serving the residents of Miami Shores. 3 i • • • H. Public Utilities There will likely be no immediate impact on current public utility demands affecting MSV. However, vacating the public right of way could negatively impact future access of public utility services that would access the adjacent areas via the right of way. This includes MSV commercial areas that border Biscayne Blvd. and adjacent shopping strip malls and their future developments. I. Village Facilities There would likely be a negative impact on MSV library services. Access cannot be denied to non-residents, however, checkout services can be limited. MSV parks and the Aquatic Center would likely have little impact due to current restrictive resident policies. 4