Planning Board Staff Report

 

MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING BOARD HEARING

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

Hearing Date

September 22, 2011

Meeting Time

7:00 P.M.

File Number

PZ-8-11-2011261

Folio Number

11-3206-013-6120

Owner

Denis Arden, 375 NE 94th Street, Miami Shores FL 33138

Applicant

Same

Agent

None

Property Address

375 NE 94th Street

Legal Description

MIAMI SHORES SEC 1 AMD PB 10-70 E30FT OF LOT 13 & ALL OF LOT 14 BLK 45 LOT SIZE 80.000 X 128 OR 16733-0230 0395 1 OR 16733-0230 0395 00

Property Size-Sq Ft

10,240

Building Adjusted Sq Ft

N/A

Flood Zone

X

 

Zoning

R20

Future Land Use Designation

Single Family Residential

Existing Use

One-family dwelling

Comprehensive Plan Consistency

Yes

Existing Structure

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

Year Built

1955

 

Subject

Pursuant to Articles V, VI and VII of Appendix A Zoning, Errors and Variances, Appeal on allegation of error, parking in swale.

Action Required

Approve, Approve with Conditions, or Deny the application

Other Required Approvals

Village Building Permits

     

Staff Report

David A. Dacquisto, Director of Planning and Zoning

Report Date

August 23, 2011

                     

 

Background

 

The applicant’s proposal is to construct 2 parking pads that are each 16 feet wide along the right of way and 22 feet onto the swale.  The proposed parking pads touch the sidewalk and a 2 foot strip links the 2 pads running along the south side of the sidewalk.

 

Analysis

 

Parking in the swale is permitted but regulated.

 

The code provision in question is Section 521 (b) (2) b.

 

The applicant interprets the code to allow perpendicular paved areas of up to 20 feet in width that runs through the swale from the paved street right of way to the sidewalk.

 

The code Section 521 (b) (2) b. says:

Each perpendicular paved area may be up to 20 feet wide on the right-of-way and only 8 feet on the property if a 2 foot landscape strip is provided between the driveway and sidewalk for 10 feet on the right of way.  The other portion shall be equal in width to the driveway on the property.

 

This provision does not appear to relate to a parking pad on the swale.  Instead, it appears to relate to the relationship between driveways on private property and their connection through the swale to the paved road.

 

The driveway through the swale may be 8 to 20 feet in width and must match the width of the driveway on the residential property with which it connects, with the following exception.:

 

1.      The driveway through the swale may be up to 20 feet in width provided,

2.      that part of the driveway on the swale that is greater in width than the width of the driveway on the residential property, is separated from the sidewalk by a landscape strip of not less than 2 feet in width.

 

A diagram based on the planning directors interpretation is included as Exhibit A.

 

The applicant provided a parking plan based on his interpretation.

 

A second part of Section 521 (b) (2) b. says:

 

Swale/parkway areas may be paved if the design is approved by the planning and zoning director and the are to be paved does not exceed 50 percent of the parkway area on the particular front elevation (or side, if on corner).

 

This part of the section appears to allow the planning director to approve a design.  The current planning director has limited approvals to parking areas that run parallel to the road and that allow parallel parking.  Parallel parking reduces the incidence of vehicles backing into the street.  The planning director also requires a landscape space between the parking pad and the sidewalk to allow for drainage away from the public sidewalk and to reduce the possibility of ponding there.  Current examples of parking on the swal that extends to the sidewalk have resulted in ponding on the public sidewalk.  Public sidewalks must be left free of obstacles and introducing a landscape strip between the sidewalk and parking area helps to define the parking area and reduces the incidence of parked cars intruding into the public sidewalk.

 

The applicants proposal is for angle parking that connects to the sidewalk with no interviewing landscape strip.

 

Historically before the current planning director angle parking has been permitted and no landscape strip has been required between the parking area and the sidewalk.

 

The planning board may direct the planning director to approve angle parking with or without conditions, may approve only parallel parking along streets or may direct the planning director to approve some alternative parking arrangement.

 

Recommendation

 

The planning board must determine whether or not the interpretation of the planning director was in error and may confirm, reverse or modify the decision of the planning director.

 

If the planning board disagrees with the interpretation of the planning director or agrees on an alternative parking design, the planning board may provide an interpretation of Sec. 521 (b) (2) b. and provide direction to the planning director.

 

Planning and Zoning staff recommend DENIAL of the appeal with a finding that the applicant has not provided sufficient reasons to support a decision of error on the part of the Director of Planning and Zoning under Article VII of Appendix A Zoning of the Code of Ordinances.  However, if the Board finds that the applicant has proven the action of the Director of Planning and Zoning was in error, the Board may confirm, reverse or modify the same accordingly, stating its reasons therefor, but may not vary the application of any provision of this ordinance.   If the Board votes to approve the application, staff recommends the following conditions:

 

1)      Applicant to obtain a building permit before commencing work and to provide setbacks and locate the generator as required by the Building Official.

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

 

 

Exhibit A