MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE

PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD

REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 18, 2003

 

The regular meeting of the Miami Shores Planning and Zoning Board was held on Thursday, December 18, 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

                                                W. Robert Abramitis

                                                Cesar Sastre    

            Donald Shockey (Arrived at 7:10PM) 

                                                Tim Crutchfield (Arrived at 7:11PM)

 

 

ALSO PRESENT:                   Al Berg, Planning & Zoning Director

                                                Irene M. Fajardo, Recording Secretary

                                                Richard Sarafan, Village Attorney        

 

Chairman Fernandez explained the procedures in regards to the Planning and Zoning Board and the appeals made by the residents.

 

Mr. Sarafan swore in all those participating in the meeting.

                         

ITEM II: APPROVAL OF MINUTES-November 20, 2003

 

Mr. Sastre made a motion to approve the November 20, 2003 minutes with the amended corrections.  Corrections were noted from Mr. Crutchfield.  Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion.  Motion passed 3-0.

 

ITEM III: SITE VISITING DISCLOSURE

 

Mr. Sastre, Mr. Abramitis, and Mr Shockey visited all the sites.  Mr. Fernandez disclosed that he received a phone call from George Bennet in reference to the property at 9450 NE. 2nd Ave.   Mr. Fernandez visited the property.  Mr. Crutchfield was not present to give disclosures.

 

ITEM IV: SCHEDULE ITEMS

 

Case #: PZ03-1218-01

Owner: Henry Everette/Parry Real Estate

Address: 9628 NE 2nd Ave.

Sec. 504(f)(1): Wall sign

Sec. 604: Site plan approval

 

 

Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended denial of the request.  The applicant is requesting approval for two yellow and red signs on the building.  Mr. Berg recommended that the front sign be lettered in the door directing the public to the second floor.  In the rear, Mr. Berg recommended a directory of tenants on the second floor to be erected at the base of the stairs.  The tenant, Jonathan Bennet and the attorney at the office, Mr. Anthony Malott, were there to represent the Traffic Ticket Office and present the case.  They clarified that the name of the office is the Traffic Ticket Office and not Traffic Clinic.  The Board inquired about the number of tenants in the building, whether the building had other yellow signs, and if the proposed signs were originally permitted by the Village.  Mr. Berg stated that there are approximately ten tenants in the building.  He stated that none of the businesses in the building have outdoor yellow signage and that the proposed signs by the tenants were not originally permitted.  Mr. Bennet explained that the signs were affixed to the building three years ago in the front and in the back.  Mr. Bennet also explained that the colors of the signs are the registered logo for the business.  He stated that they needed a sign to direct the people to the location of the office since it is on the second floor. The Board inquired whether other tenants have signage to the direct the public to the location of their businesses.  Mr. Berg responded no.  Mr. Bennet explained that they did not know that a permit needed to be pulled for the size of the sign.  He thought that only the colors were the issue.  The Board opened for discussion.  The Board members agreed that the signs are not harmonious with the building or with the neighborhood.  After a brief discussion, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to deny the application.  Mr. Sastre seconded the motion.  Motion passed 5-0.

 

Case #: PZ03-1218-02

Owner: Michael Meyer

Address: 530 NE 96 St.

Sec. 604: Site plan approval-new house

 

Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended that the site plan be tabled.  Mr. Berg stated that the landscape plan is insufficient, and that there is no plan which shows the demolition of the existing trees.  He also stated that there are no canopy trees in the energy conservation zone and that the proposed ficus hedge is located in an area of the triangle of visibility creating sight obstruction when exiting the proposed driveway.  Mr. Berg stated that there is no pool fence on the site and no location for the trash cans.  He also expressed his concerns about having too much paving in the front of a 50’ lot and suggested that the front elevation needed to be re-studied.  The applicants are above the maximum pavement allowed for 50’ lots.  The property owner, Michael Meyer, was there to present the case.  Mr. Meyer stated that he will change the landscaping plan as recommended by Mr. Berg, he will reduce the paving in the front of the property, and he will review the design for the elevation in the front to try to come up with a more harmonious alternative.  The Board expressed their concerns about how the new construction would impact the existing trees on the property.  The Board also expressed their concerns about the proposed driveway (pavement) in the front of the property.  They discussed the front elevation and lowering of the entry feature.  After further discussion, Mr. Sastre made a motion to table the case until the Board’s and staff’s concerns have been addressed and complied with.  Mr. Crutchfield seconded the motion.  Motion passed 5-0. 

 

Case #: PZ03-1218-03

Owner: Michael Maxwell

Address: 1070 NE 96 St.

Sec. 604: Site plan approval-garage enclosure

 

Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the site plan pending submission of the elevation certificate.  The applicant is requesting site plan approval to enclose an existing 12’ x 24’ garage and do some interior remodeling.  The garage enclosure will be used for a pool room and storage.  The applicant, Michael Maxwell, was there to present his case.  The Board inquired about the location of the pool in the survey and the seal.  Mr. Maxwell explained that the pool was constructed after the survey was done. The Board stated that they needed to see the location of the pool in the survey with a seal.  The Board members also expressed their concerns about the lack of windows on the side wall of the enclosure.  Mr. Maxwell explained that he was purposely not installing additional windows because he was using the wall space for art work. He also did not want windows in a room that would be used for pool equipment storage.  Mr. Maxwell explained that there are hedges around the property that obstruct the visibility of the enclosure.   The Board’s concerns were that there was an unsealed survey that did not show the current location of the pool and that there was no elevation certificate submitted.  Mr. Maxwell could submit the sealed survey with the current location of the pool to Mr. Berg without returning in front of the Board unless there are further inquiries.  After a brief discussion, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the application subject to Mr. Maxwell submitting the sealed survey with the current location of the pool, and a certificate of elevation to Mr. Berg for approval.  Mr. Sastre seconded the motion.  Mr. Crutchfield stated that the applicant’s idea for the garage enclosure to be used for storage space is a good idea as long as there is enough room for the opening and closing of the garage door.  Motion passed 5-0.

 

Case #: PZ03-1218-04

Owner: Patrick Lee and Lesley Castellanos

Address: 560 NE 95 St.

 

Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the request pending submission of the elevation certificate.  The applicant is requesting site plan approval to enclose the garage.  Garage enclosure will be used for a master bedroom and bath.  The property owners, Patrick Lee and Lesley Castellanos, were there to present their case.  The Board inquired about the location of the entrance to the bedroom.  They also inquired about the asphalt parking in the rear.  Mr. Lee explained that the existing asphalt parking will be removed.  Permit and drawings for the removal of the asphalt will be submitted for approval.  The property owners do not currently have a parking plan.  The Board stated that they needed to see a parking plan before approving a garage enclosure.  After further discussion, Mr. Sastre made a motion to table the case until a parking plan is submitted to Mr. Berg.  Mr. Shockey seconded the motion.  Motion passed 4-1.  (Mr. Crutchfield voted no).

 

Case #: PZ03-1218-05

Owner: Ari Sklar (architect) and Shofar Inc. (owner)

Address: 9450 NE 2nd Ave

Sec. 604: Site plan approval-new retail/commercial bldg.

 

Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended tabling the request.  Mr. Berg stated several concerns in regards to the site plan.  The concerns were:

 

  • A bike rack is required for the building.
  • The wall that separates the parking from the residential area will have to be reduced to 30” in height as it approaches both streets in order to comply with the triangle of visibility.
  • The elevation should change for the landscaped area so there is a “rolling berm” effect.
  • There are several specimen trees on the rear of the property.  There trees are not reflected in the plan.  A tree survey should be submitted detailing which trees will remain and which will be removed. 
  • Seventeen shade trees are required for the site and only nine are shown on the site plan.
  • The paved areas in the front near the fountain should be rounded and not squared.
  • A trash container or dumpster does not show in the site plan.
  • A drainage plan has not been submitted.
  • A parking lot lighting plan has not been done.
  • Will the building arcade be covered? Are the front awnings going to be harmonious with the architecture?

 

The architect, Ari L. Sklar, was there to represent the owner and present the case.  The Board expressed several concerns in regards to the new development.  They inquired about wider islands in the parking lot and how they would affect the parking spaces.  They inquired about the setback line.  They inquired about a lighting plan designed by a light engineer.  The plan should show the type of lighting that will be used and the light spillage that might affect neighboring residents.  They inquired about the location of a lading zone for garbage pick up and the location of a dumpster.  They inquired about signage throughout the property and stated that minor signage should be placed in the rear of the property since it will be facing residential properties.  They inquired about the type of businesses that would exist.  They stated that they did not want “fast-food” business since that may affect traffic around the area.  The Board members discussed the possible covered pedestrian walkway and stated their concerns.  They spoke about the landscaping plan, the type of trees that would be used, the trees that would be removed, the ones that would be kept, and the location of sod throughout the property.  The Board also discussed the widening of NE 2nd Ave. and how that would affect the design of the property.  They stated that the architect should study the NE 2nd Ave. plans to see what type of design changes might be made in the future.   Mr. Sklar addressed the Board’s concerns.  He discussed the design of the building, the parking lot, the light fixtures, signage on the property, and the type of businesses that would exist.  He also agreed to study the plans for NE 2nd Ave.  Mr. Sklar explained that a tree survey would be submitted, an updated plan showing the light fixtures, and an updated landscaping plan that would be in compliance.  Chairman Fernandez opened the hearing for public comments.  Barry Perl, a resident at 9405 N. Miami Ave., was there to present his comments.  Mr. Perl stated that he liked the idea of a commercial building in the area but felt that the parking was inadequate.  He did not want vehicles to be parking on the swales of the surrounding properties.  He also stated that the proposed dumpster needed to be covered.  Fred Numan, a resident at 145 NE 94 St., was also there to present his comments.  Mr. Numan’s concerns were in regards to the lighting on the property and proper parking for customers.  He stated that he was pleased with the questions and concerns made by the Board members. Chairman Fernandez closed the hearing for public comments.  After further discussion, Mr. Crutchfiled made a motion to table the case until all of staff’s and the Board’s concerns have been addressed and complied with.  Mr. Sastre seconded the motion.  Motion passed 5-0.

 

V. NEXT MEETING.

 

The next meeting will be on January 22, 2003. 

 

VI. ADJOURNMENT

 

The December 18, 2003 Planning and Zoning meeting, was adjourned at 10:00pm.