Planning Board Staff Report

 


 

PLANNING BOARD HEARING

Miami Shores Village Town Hall  Council Chambers  10050 NE 2nd Avenue  Miami Shores

Hearing Date

June 23, 2011

Meeting Time

7:00 P.M.

File Number

PZ-5-11-2011244

Folio Number

11-3206-014-1350

Owner

Devinella LLC, 6644 Windsor Lane, Miami Beach FL 33141

Applicant

Same

Agent

Mark Campbell, 373 NE 92nd Street, Miami Shores FL 33138

Property Address

9165 Park Drive

 

Legal Description

MIAMI SHORES SEC 2 PB 10-37 SWLY1/2 LOT 24 & ALL LOTS 25 & 26 & NELY1/2 LOT 27 BLK 59 LOT SIZE SITE VALUE OR 00000-0000 0471 00

Property Size-Sq Ft

22,500

Building Adjusted Sq Ft

8,174

Flood Zone

X

 

Zoning

PRO

Future Land Use Designation

Restricted Commercial

Existing Use

General Office and Doctor’s Office

Comprehensive Plan Consistency

Yes

Existing Structure

1-story; N/A bed/N/A bath

Year Built

1970

 

Subject

Article VII. Errors and Variances;  Sec. 702 Hardship variances:  Sec 521. Required off-street parking.

Variance to reduce parking requirement for doctor’s office.

 

Article VI Special Approval,, Sections 600; Sec. 604; Sec. 605:

Article V Supplementary Regulations, Sec. 523, 523.1 Construction.

Article IV Establishment of Regulations, Schedule of Regulations

Site plan review & approval.

Change of use; Doctor’s office.

 

Action Required

Approve, Approve with Conditions, or Deny the application

Other Required Approvals

Village Building Permits

DERM or Department of Health

Staff Report

David A. Dacquisto AICP, Director, Planning and Zoning

Report Date

July 20, 2011

                     

 

The Miami Shores Code of Ordinances has a parking requirement for Offices: Medical.  Doctor’s offices listed in the PRO District would fall under the Offices: Medical classification for the purpose of calculating the parking requirement.

 

 

Applicant is requesting a variance of 7 parking spaces to the parking requirement for a doctor’s office and site plan approval for a change of use from general office to doctor’s office.

 

 

VARIANCE REQUEST

 

Background

 

The applicant is requesting a variance to the parking requirement to permit the expansion of an existing doctor’s office throughout a building currently utilized for doctor’s office and general office.

 

The building is 8,174 sq ft in area.

 

The building has an existing doctor’s office use of 1,100 sq ft. The parking requirement for a doctor’s office is 1 parking space for every 200 sq ft of floor area.

 

The building has an existing office use of 7,074 sq ft. The parking requirement for an office use is 1 parking space for every 250 sq ft of floor area.

 

The existing parking requirement for the combined use:

Doctor’s office: 1,100 sq ft / 200 sq ft = 6 parking spaces.

Office use:     7,074 sq ft / 250 sq ft =  29 parking spaces

 

Total parking spaces required for the existing mixed use is 35 parking spaces.

 

The applicant is proposing to convert the entire building to doctor’s office.

 

The parking requirement for the proposed doctor’s office is 8,174 sq ft / 200 sq ft = 41 parking spaces.

 

The applicant currently has 26 parking spaces on site.  The applicant’s site plan proposes 25 parking spaces.

 

The village does not require owners of developed properties to provide the required parking for existing uses, only to maintain the parking already supplied. When the use of a property is changed, the property owner is required to provide the difference between the required parking for the existing uses if any and the required parking for the new use.

 

 The doctor’s office expansion requires 41 parking spaces.

 

The existing mix of uses  requires 35 parking spaces.

 

The shortfall/difference is 6 parking spaces that the applicant must provide.  The applicant must also replace the 1 parking space that is to be used for a dumpster enclosure as shown on the new site plan for a total requirement for 7 new parking spaces.

 

Analysis

 

The applicant must provide 7 new parking spaces to permit the conversion.  No additional parking spaces are available on site and therefore the applicant is requesting a variance of 7 parking spaces to reduce the parking requirement to the 25 parking spaces already provided on site.

 

The applicant estimates the actual parking demand will be 8 parking spaces for staff, 3 parking spaces for patients, plus an additional 3 estimated by staff to cover the overlap between patients arriving and leaving, for a total of 14 parking spaces.

 

The Board may consider proposed and future uses of the building in making their determination.  Approval of a doctor’s office at this site would permit any qualifying doctor’s office to be located at this site with no knowledge at this time of future employee or patient numbers.

 

Pursuant to Sec 702. Hardship variances, of the Miami Shores Village Code of Ordinances, Appendix A, the applicant must provide sufficient evidence to support a finding by the Planning Board that the variance requested meets all four (4) of the required criteria to grant a variance:

 

Variance Criteria

 

(a)                  The alleged peculiar and unusual conditions affecting the property.

(b)                  The alleged reasons why such conditions make it impossible strictly to apply specified provisions of this ordinance to the property.

(c)                  The variance in such strict application that the applicant believes to be necessary in order to enable him to make a reasonable use of the property.

(d)                  The reasons why the applicant is of the opinion that such variance would be in harmony with the intent and purpose of this ordinance, would not be detrimental to the existing use or prospective development of property in the vicinity, and would not give to the applicant an advantage with respect to the use of his property that is not enjoyed by the owners of similarly situated property.

 

The applicant has responded in the application to the criteria upon which the Planning and Zoning Board will consider the application.

 

Staff reviewed the applicants response to the four (4) criteria and Staff finds that the application has not met all four (4) of the required criteria to grant a variance:

 

(a)                  There are no peculiar or unusual conditions affecting the property.

(b)                  The site is not of sufficient area to accommodate the required parking however the parking requirement would not increase if the mix of general office and doctor’s office were not changed.

(c)                  The applicant has reasonable use of the property in its current general office and doctor’s office configuration.  Repair and renovation of the building would not require additional parking to be provided.

(d)                  A variance of two (2) parking spaces was granted to an urgent care clinic in the B1 District.

 

Recommendation

 

Planning and Zoning staff recommend to the Planning Board DENIAL of the variance with a finding that the applicant has not met all four (4) of the required criteria to grant the requested variance as required in the Code of Ordinances, Article VII. Errors and Variances, Sec. 702 Hardship variances.

 

However, if the Planning Board finds that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to support a finding that the application has met all four (4) of the required criteria to grant a variance under Section 702 of the Code of Ordinances and votes to approve the application, staff recommends the following conditions:

 

1)      The applicant is granted a parking variance of seven (7) parking spaces, no new parking spaces shall be required for the conversion of  7,074 sq ft. of general office space to doctor’s office.

2)      Applicant to obtain all required building permits.

3)      Applicant to comply with all applicable code provisions at the time of permitting.

4)      This variance is valid for a period of one (1) year from the date of approval.  Building permits must be secured and work started within that time or a new variance will be required before work can commence.


 

 

SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUEST, CHANGE OF USE

 

Background

 

The applicant is requesting approval for a change of use to convert an existing office use of 7,074 sq ft to doctor’s office. There is an existing 1,100 sq ft doctor’s office in the building.  The total floor area of the building is 8,174 sq ft.

 

The applicant has submitted a site plan showing 25 parking spaces including 1 loading space.  The site plan provides for a dumpster enclosure that will take the place of 1 existing parking space. The applicant is requesting a variance of 7 parking spaces to permit the expansion of the doctor’s office throughout the building without the necessity to provide the additional parking that is required as a result of the expansion.

 

Dr. Martin Keisch is a board certified and Florida licensed radiation oncologist.  Dr. Keisch’s practice is predominately specialized in breast cancer and prostate cancer treatment.  The practice will include oncology treatment utilizing both linear accelerator and HDR brachytherapy treatments.

 

The practice will have 1 physician and 7 employees.  The practice is expecting to serve 25 patients per day at a rate of 3 patients per hour.  The agent for Dr. Keisch has stated that the facility will only treat the patients of Dr. Keisch although it is unclear what that means.

 

Based on the applicants numbers, the estimated parking demand will be 8 parking spaces for staff, 3 parking spaces for patients, plus an additional 3 estimated by staff to cover the overlap between patients arriving and leaving, for a total of 14 parking spaces.

 

Analysis

 

The PRO District permits the use of office buildings of a residential type of architecture in exterior design, by doctors and dentists.  The code prohibits the use of buildings of a residential type of architecture in exterior design in the PRO District for clinics.

 

The Miami Shores Code of Ordinances does not provide definitions for “Office,” “Doctor’s Office” or “Clinic.”

 

In the absence of definitions, the Planning Board must determine if the proposed use is a “Doctor’s Office” or a “Clinic.”

 

If the Planning Board determines that the proposed use is a “Doctor’s Office,” the Planning Board may consider approving the change of use.

 

If the Planning Board determines that the proposed use is a “Clinic,” the Planning Board shall deny the change of use.

 

The proposal is consistent with the technical provisions of the Zoning Code except as noted.  The parking shortage may be addressed through the provision of additional parking or the granting of a variance.

 

Recommendation

 

The following recommendation is based on the Planning Board denial of

 the variance or change of use.

 

Planning and Zoning staff recommends DENIAL of the site plan to expand a doctor’s office by 7,074 sq ft with a finding that it is not consistent with the technical provisions of the Code.

 

 

 

The following recommendation is contingent upon the Planning Board approving the variance requested and determining that the proposed use is permitted in the PRO District.

 

Planning and Zoning staff recommends APPROVAL of the site plan to expand a doctor’s office by 7,074 sq ft with a finding that it is consistent with the technical provisions of the Code.  However, the Planning Board must make a finding that the proposed improvements are harmonious with the community, as required in Section 523 of the Code and, in that regard, may add further conditions or delete or modify staff recommended conditions, deny the application, or continue the item for future consideration.  Should the board find that the applicant merits approval, staff recommends that the following conditions apply:

 

1)      Approval is for a doctor’s office and not for a clinic.

2)      Approval is to expand a doctor’s office by 7,074 sq ft to 8,175 sq ft.

3)      Applicant to secure necessary DERM or Department of Health approval for the septic system prior to the issuance of a village building permit.

4)      Applicant to obtain all required building permits before beginning work.

5)      Applicant to meet all applicable code provisions at the time of permitting.

6)      This zoning permit will lapse and become invalid unless the work for which it was approved is started within one (1) year of the signing of the development order by the board chair, or if the work authorized by it is suspended or abandoned for a period of at least one (1) year.