LimeBike Memorandum of Understanding

MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 16, 2008

The regular meeting of the Miami Shores Planning Board was held on Thursday, October 16, 2008, at the Village Hall.  Richard Fernandez, Chair at 7:00 P.M. with the following persons present, called the meeting to order:

 

The Planning and Zoning Board of the Village of Miami Shores held its regularly scheduled monthly meeting on Thursday, May 13, 2004, at the Village Hall. Chairman Richard Fernandez called the meeting to order at 6:45 PM.

ROLL CALL

Richard Fernandez, Chairman

Robert Abramitis

Norman Powell

ALSO PRESENT: 

David Dacquisto, Zoning Director

Richard Sarafan, Village Attorney

Valerie Bierley, Clerk

Norman Bruhn

ABSENT:

Sid Reese

 

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

SCHEDULE ITEMS:

PZ-12-07-200761
MSVC LLC (Owner) (Applicant)
9450 NE 2ND Ave.


Special Approvals, Sec 600: Sec. 504. Signs. Master sign agreement.

 

Mr. Abramitis moved to table this application. Mr. Powell seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion. 3-0

PZ-9-08-200895
Alex Edelman (Owner)
Caroline Poussardin (Applicant)
Mark Campbell (Agent)
9999 NE 2 Ave.


Special Approvals, Section 600: Sec. 523. Restaurant remodel/expansion

 

Mr. Dacquisto provided background information and summarized the information on the Staff Report. The Planning & Zoning staff recommended approval of the proposed site plan with the finding that it is consistent with the technical provisions of the code subject to compliance with listed conditions. Although the applicant did not question Mr. Dacquisto the Board did question him concerning the location and available parking space.  Mr. Dacquisto stated behind Catholic Charities.

 

The applicant did not address the Board. The Board discussed the conditions set by staff with the applicant and commented on the appearance of the exterior.  Mr. Abramits moved to approve the application with the recommendations set forth by staff and modifying the first recommendation concerning the offsite parking space. Mr. Powell seconded the motion, Mr. Fernandez made a friendly amendment to require a parking sign to which all Board members agreed. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion. 3-0

PZ-9-08-200896
Bank Of America (Owner
Andres Rodriguez (Agent)
9475 NE 2nd Ave.


Special Approvals, Sec. 600: Sec. 523. Bank remodel, ATM Lobby.

 

Mr. Dacquisto provided background information and summarized the information on the Staff Report. The Planning & Zoning staff recommended approval of the proposed site plan with the finding that it is consistent with the technical provisions of the code subject to compliance with listed conditions. The applicant had no questions. The Board questioned Mr. Dacquisto concerning the visibility from the street into the ATM lobby.

 

The applicant did not address the Board. The Board questioned the applicant about the designs of the vestibule and the crime rate since establishing the enclosed area as well as the lighting and video surveillance. After a discussion with concerns to safety issues Mr. Powell moved to table the application. Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion 3-0.

PZ-9-08-200897
Rubin Matz (Owner) (Applicant)
Scott Kimball/Michael Rosenthal Associates (Agent)
9600 & 9636 NE 2nd Ave.


Special Approvals, Sec. 600: Sec. 523. Site Plan approval, exterior and internal building remodel.

 

Mr. Dacquisto provided background information and summarized the information on the Staff Report. The Planning & Zoning staff recommended approval of the proposed site plan with the finding that it is consistent with the technical provisions of the code subject to compliance with listed conditions. Although the applicant did not question Mr. Dacquisto the Board did question him about the provided drawings and available parking space.

 

The applicant did not address the Board. The Board asked the applicant if they planed on changing the buildings and where the main entrance would be located. Another expressed concern was the lighting, shutters and the time of closing for each shop. After further discussion, Mr. Powell moved to table the application. Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion 3-0.

ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARINGS

            a. First reading of amendment to permit Chickees in Miami Shores.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: First reading amendment to permit Chickees in Miami

         Shores, Mr. Dacquisto?

 

-          Mr. Dacquisto: Mr. Chairman, this is the first reading of amendment to sec. 523.1 of

        the Miami Shores Village code to permit Chickees in the Village. At  

        a public hearing on Sept. 2, 2008 the Village Council passed a

        resolution to consider amendment of sec. 523.1 of the Miami Shores

        Village code of Ordinances to permit Chickees in the Village.

        According to the Miami Shores Code of Ordinances, code

        amendments initiated by the Village Council are referred to the

        Planning Board for consideration and recommendation. The Board

        will conduct a first reading of the proposed amendment at a public

        hearing October 16, 2008 and then hold a second reading November

        13, 2008. The state statute exempts Chickees from meeting local  

        Code of Ordinance requirements.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: Excuse me just a second. I don’t think it exempts it from the

                                            building code. Doesn’t it exempt the contractor from having  

                                            a contractor’s license?

 

-          Mr. Bruhn: No, as long as it’s built by the Miccosukee or the Seminoles.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: Ok that’s fine, I understood from prior discussions with prior

                                            Building Officials that the Seminoles and the Miccosukees

                                            did not require having a contractor’s license to build it.

 

-          Mr. Sarafan: That’s true because the contractor’s license is generally required under

                 the building code. The section on the building code actually says,

                 under exemptions, that these guys are exempt.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: The structure itself is actually exempt?

-          Mr. Sarafan: Yes.

-          Mr. Bruhn: Let me read the section just so you could get started. “The following

                          buildings and facilities are exempt from the Florida Building Code as 

                          provided by law. Any further exemptions shall be as determined by the 

                          legislature and provided by law. In that event, Chickees are constructed

                          by the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida or the Seminole Tribe of

                          Florida.” Then it talks about what the definition of a Chickee Hut is

                          which is an open-sided hut.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: Local determination still can preempt?

-          Mr. Sarafan: We did it as a legal research early on. We found some attorney general

    opinions and basically, they’re exempt from the Building Code. Since 

    we had an express provision in our code that says, “Chickees not

    permitted” it wasn’t a Building Code issue. We do have the authority to

    preclude it and we’ve been enforcing that fairly regularly. There’s at

    least one that I know of that I believe was constructed before our

    prohibition was enacted and he is a lawful non-conforming use. There is

    at least one other that’s been constructed since. That’s been cited and

    that has provided the impetus for this epic.

 

-          Mr. Dacquisto: Chickees that are constructed by members of the Miccosukee Tribe

of Indians of Florida or members of the Seminole Tribe of Florida as

        evidenced by a copy of the builder’s Tribal Members Identification

        Card are exempt. What the state statute said is if members of those

        tribes build them, they are exempt from the Building Code and no

        municipality has the right to regulate them as such. However, what

        the state statute specifically said was that these are not exempt from

        municipal code regarding zoning. Under zoning, any municipality has

        the right to zone out Chickees. Municipalities such as Coral Gables

        prohibit location of Chickees within the municipality. Today the

        Village of Miami Shores prohibits Chickees within municipal

        boundaries. The state statue allows municipalities to prohibit them.

        Other municipalities also prohibit them so we are not alone. Part of the issue has to go to what do we always look at around us; this is the harmony clause. There may not be anything wrong with Chickee Huts in certain locations. In the Florida Keys, it’s accepted construction that belongs on the waterfronts. The question is whether or not a Chickee Hut fits into a mediterranean style community does it fit with the ambiance and style of the community. If we are regulating the design of houses to maintain a harmonious blend of buildings within the community and we are emphasizing a Mediterranean- Italianated Spanish style then where does a Chickee fall in with that type of design in our endeavors to maintain the community? The question arises, is this something for the Board to consider? Is a Chickee, and we all know what they look like, harmonious with the intent of the design of the community? Should we choose to allow Chickees, the amendment I recommend would strike out the old language prohibiting Chickees and we would substitute it with the language I have within the report and the change would include:        

        sec. 523.1 Construction ( j ). Chickees are permitted in the residential

        districts subject to the following conditions and again it would only

        be in the residential district. You couldn’t have one of these over a

        commercial district.

  • 1.      A Chickee shall not be permitted as a principal use on a plot and shall only be permitted as an accessory use to residence; if you have a vacant lot, you can’t just build a Chickee.
  • 2.      The Chickee shall be constructed solely by members of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida or members of the Seminole Tribe of Florida as evidenced by a copy of the builders Tribal Members Identification Card and shall otherwise satisfy the criteria of section 553.73(9)(i) of the Florida Statues.
  • 3.      A building permit issued by Miami Shores Village is required for a Chickee and no building permit shall be issued or construction take place until the status of the builders has been verified and the requirements of Code of Ordinances have been complied with. My understanding in discussing this with the previous Building Official is that as a manner of tracking these, we could issue a building permit. It wouldn’t have to meet the Building Code. The issuance of a building permit would allow us to check for setbacks, which they’re not exempt from, and also to make sure the builders are legally allowed to build it as members of the tribe. Some municipalities do that throughout the issuance of zoning certificates. We don’t do zoning certificates here, so without creating a new process of zoning certificates the best thing to do is just use building permits and we do it as a record keeping not for compliance with the code. The village administrator can always set fees and that would be determined. It would be an administrative fee and review fee rather than a building fee.
  • 4.      The Chickee is located in the rear of the residence and shall be situated so that it is located between the prolongations of the sidelines thereof and further provided, that all setbacks for accessory structures are met. Basically this is the same as a lot of the canvas structures in the rear of buildings it has to be behind the house at least so it’s not seen at the sides.
  • 5.      A Chickee shall not exceed 300 square feet in area.
  • 6.      A Chickee shall not exceed 15 feet in height or the height of the residence measured from the ground next to the residence to the roof peak whichever is less. A Chickee is going to be approximately 15 feet. When you look at the slope of the roof in order to build them, you’re going to come up to about 15 feet. I think there’s no way to avoid that if you’re going to allow Chickees, that’s basically the height you’re struck with. One thing we also want to make sure is this thing doesn’t tower over the house. If your house is a flat roof 10 foot house it’s going to be a problem but I think we want to somehow shelter the neighbors as much as possible from the view because that’s not necessarily the view they intended when they moved to the Shores.
  • 7.      A Chickee shall be properly maintained and free of insects, vermin and mold, and shall be rethatched as necessary. Chickees normally last about five to six years before they have to be rebuilt. The most optimistic estimate is ten years but it has to be maintained or it will fall apart.

Recommendation

Planning and Zoning staff recommends DENIAL of the proposed amendment to the Miami Shores Code of Ordinances and further that the Planning Board make a motion recommending to the Village Council DENIAL of the amendment toArticle V, SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS; DIVISION 7. QUALITY OF BUILDINGS; Sec. 523.1 Construction, Providing for a Chickee as an Accessory Use in the Residential Districts, Providing for Conflicts, Providing for Severability; and, Providing for an Effective Date.  However, if the Board finds that the proposed amendment is harmonious with the community and consistent with the intent of the Code of Ordinances the Planning Board may make a motion recommending to the Village Council APPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the Miami Shores Code of Ordinances.  If the Board votes to recommend  APPROVAL of the amendment, staff recommends that the amendment include the language as I read.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: Mr. Dacquisto, does that complete your presentation?

 

-          Mr. Dacquisto: Yes it does.

 

-          Mr. Sarafan: A Couple of words about procedure here, as you may know there’s

     several ways of proposing amendments of the code. We could propose         them from this body, the council can propose them, there’s a petition    initiative. When the council proposes it, it goes to this body to have public hearings, collect evidence make a report and recommendation. That report and recommendation together with the evidence that you collect and look at, then goes to the council for their action. I just want to make it clear what everybody is doing here. You’re looking at it, your collecting evidence, your hearing public testimony, public comments if any, your making a report which together with all the evidence will go to council and then the council will do whatever in their wisdom they do. That’s what’s here before us.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: Thank you.

 

-          Mr. Abramitis: Does the Board vote on it?

 

-          Mr. Sarafan: Yes, your going to have to make a recommendation together with

                                    your report.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: Are there two public hearings?

 

-          Mr. Sarafan: It’s been scheduled for two. It’s not required that there be two, but

                                   there’s two now.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: We could deal with it in one?

 

-          Mr. Sarafan: You could. He’s scheduled and advertised it I guess. Even if it’s

                                    posted up front that there will be two I’d be a little uncomfortable

                                    in short cutting that at this point. To answer your question, at the

                                    end of the day, the way I see it there’s at least two possible ways

                                    you can go. One possible way is “no we don’t think it’s

                                    appropriate and therefore we voted and passed a resolution that

                                    says we recommend against it and here’s the evidence on which

                                    we based it” and you can explain why or not. The other one is to

                                    say “yeah we like it and here’s the type of ordinance that we

                                    recommend that you, council adopt and here’s the evidence we

                                    based it on” and here’s why. Either one of those will take a vote.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: Thank you sir. Mr. Dacquisto, last time I think the Board

had requested to see if you could get some experts to

                                            come and testify. One was dealing with the issue of fire;

                                            one was dealing with the issue of vermin. Were you able

                                            to locate anybody to that effect?

 

-          Mr. Dacquisto: I contacted Guaranteed Floridian and they seemed cooperative

with in terms of attending the meeting. However, they didn’t

                                follow thru. In terms of fire, I’ll let the building official talk about

                                that. He was perusing the Fire Official for information on that and

                                can talk about it.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: I had talked to Mr. Sarafan earlier. Norm, what was your

last name again?

 

-          Mr. Bruhn: Bruhn.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: Do you have any experience in dealing with these Chickee

   Huts?

 

-          Mr. Bruhn: Yes.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: What is the extent of that experience?

 

-          Mr. Bruhn: Basically, the same as the way Mr. Dacquisto put it. We basically

        monitor and track the process through Zoning.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: Let me go in a direction here. Do you have any opinion in

reference to the fire resistance of these kind of structures?

 

-          Mr. Bruhn: It’s a palm frond dried out, put fire on it, it’s going to burn.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: Would it be more or less flammable than typical concrete construction?

 

-          Mr. Bruhn: I would say that it would be more flammable.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: OK. Do you have any opinion as in reference to vermin,

  and by vermin I mean rats nesting in it, insects including

  termites. Would you have any opinion in reference to

  that?

-          Mr. Bruhn: Yes, my first opinion would be the palmetto fronds that are used to

thatch the roof have a big or a vermin named after them in the state of

        Florida. Either the tree was named after the bug or the bug was

        named after the tree.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: We’re speaking of palmetto bugs, roaches right?

 

-          Mr. Bruhn:  That’s right. My personal experience is yes, there are tons of bugs,

         vermin, snakes and everything else that live within these structures.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: Do you agree with the statement that these structures are

designed to fall apart in big storms?

 

-          Mr. Bruhn: That is correct. The wind blows through the fronds, the fronds fly

away and there is just the structure portion left without the thatching

        or with minimum thatching. As Mr. Dacquisto point out the thatching

        is only estimated to last five to six years. Again they say with some

       of the treatments that you can get ten years out of it but the older the

       thatch gets the more brittle it gets and the faster it falls apart during a

       storm.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: So, would you agree with the statement that it is less

sound that the typical concrete structure.

 

-          Mr. Bruhn: Definitely as a domicile. I would not expect during a storm we have

here the main structure of a tiki to fall apart. You would see the

        thatch go away, but you would see the main structure remain.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: Mr. Dacquisto I’ve got a couple short questions for you

sir. You’ve had the opportunity to have worked in the                  

  village and view the various structures, I think you earlier          

              expressed your opinion as to the general theme being a    

              Mediterranean style home is that correct?

 

-          Mr. Dacquisto: Yes.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: Do you have an opinion as to the appropriateness of a

  Chickee hut in a Mediterranean style community?

 

-          Mr. Dacquisto: My opinion is it is not suited to a Mediterranean style. If you’re

looking at a Mediterranean style, there’s not a lot of Chickees in   

  the Mediterranean. I also would go to the example of Coral Gables. Which is a community that this community patterns itself after. Coral Gables finds that Chickees do not fit in with the style of architecture they’re trying to promote. They very strongly promote that mediterranean style in Coral Gables, they have an architectural design board that is much stricter than this board’s view.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: So, your opinion is that does not fit in?

 

-          Mr. Dacquisto: It does not fit in.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: Is there any public comment? I do not hear any, public

  comment section is closed. Members of the board?

  Questions? Comments? I’m going to share with you an

  experience with Chickee Huts. When I was going to the

  University of Miami, we had a Coral Gables resident who

  had a home close to the university, that a lot of us used to

  hang out at because he was just a nice guy and football

  supporters and all that kind of stuff. The guys from the

  various clubs and things would go on over there and the

  guy would have basically a tailgate party in his backyard

  at every football game. In his backyard along the

  waterfront in the Coral Gables waterway was a Chickee

  Hut. This was a fairly large Chickee Hut. I would say this

  Chickee Hut was probably 10 across by maybe 15 wide.

  150 sq ft. or so, 10 ft. up right on the waterline. It served

  purpose so he could bring his yacht up along the back

  there and he could unload his stuff in the shade, clean his

  fish, and do all the various things. The city of Coral

  Gables eventually found out about this thing and he had to

  take the Chickee hut down. He asked a few of us to help.

  We thought this was a fine idea. A bunch of us go over

  there to take the Chickee Hut down, I have never seen so

  many rats come out of a structure in my entire life.There

  were dozens living in the Chickee Hut. I share that,

  because there’s waterways here. We’ve got rats along the

  waterways, the point being is I don’t know how we’d

  avoid it. I go to the issue concerning hurricane stuff.

  Which we’re always very careful about the engineering of

  things and making sure with the building official. I look at   

  a neighbor of ours who had an aluminum structure put in

  behind her front yard pool and a hurricane came through.

  She didn’t get it permitted and what did we have? We had

  aluminum structures all over the neighborhood, in the

  trees, in the houses, everywhere. I could not imagine with

  a 300 sq. ft. and 15 ft. tall. It’s going to be everywhere.

  Now to mention my last thing, what do people tend to do

  under Chickee Huts.? Bar-B-Q!  We had a testimony

  concerning potential fire rating a palmetto thatched roof.

  In my opinion I don’t think this is appropriate for Miami

  Shores.

 

-          Mr. Sarafan: Mr. Chair, if this Board wants it’s recommendation to be followed

by the council, my suggestion is the board identify the evidence supporting that position, to submit together with the report. To that extent I think we should probably follow up with all of the previous suggestions including the fire dept., down the street, including pictures of what Chickee Huts look like after five or six years. Anything that can convince the council that whatever recommendation you’re making is based on solid evidence, will make it harder for them to depart from your recommendation. That’s just my suggestion whichever way you go.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: I concur with that. That was the attempt this Board made

earlier to get somebody to come and testify. We have

  testimony from two officials here of the Village but I do

  believe it would be a good idea to have some backup. I

  also think it would be beneficial on the political side of

  this to do the same thing. Mr. Dacquisto can you do that?

 

-          Mr. Dacquisto: We will try to round up more evidence.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: OK and then we could deal with it at the second hearing.

   Is that what we do?

 

-          Mr. Sarafan: I think that a great idea.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: I was the only one talking. I hope there’s other support so

  that people get on the record with us.

 

Mr. Abramitis: I don’t think we need Chickees in the village. To me it’s straightforward, I’ve seen Chickee Huts at different times,

  I’ve seen the rodents in them; Frankly, I wouldn’t want those next

  to me as a breeding ground. That’s my thoughts. There unsightly,

  they breed vermin, their not gonna look good, how are we gonna

  maintain them if there’s hundreds of them in the Village over

  time at different stages of repair or disrepair. I just don’t see how

  it’s really gonna workout.

 

-          Mr. Sarafan:  You might want to reach out to the agriculture extension office.

They may have some information on that.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: The politic of that would indicate to me that the state

exempting the Chickee Huts would not necessarily see the

  agriculture people getting up in their face.

 

-          Mr. Sarafan: The agriculture people are not subject to the same set of pressures

that the legislature is. It may or may not be helpful I don’t know.

It’s a thought.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: OK Mr. Powell do you wish to be on record?

 

-          Mr. Powell: I just don’t think it belongs here. I’ve seen a couple of them in the

                                 same experiences you guys are talking about.

 

-          Chairman Fernandez: Alright, at this point in time the appropriate item is to

table to the second hearing, is there a motion?

 

 Mr. Powell moved to table this item. Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion 3-0.

NEXT MEETING

The next regular meeting will be on November 13, 2008

ADJOURNMENT

The October 16, 2008 Planning & Zoning meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M.

 

PLANNING BOARD HEARING

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

Hearing Date

October 16, 2008

File Number

PZ-9-08-200895

Folio Number

11-3206-013-4490

Owner

Alex Edelman

Applicant

Caroline Poussardin

Agent

Mark Campbell

Property Address

9999 NE 2nd Avenue

Legal Description

1 53 41 & 6 53 42 MIAMI SHORES SEC 1 AMD PB 10-70 LOTS 10 THRU 14 INC BLK 33 LOT SIZE 245.000 X 130 OR 15864-4092 0393 2 (2) COC 23360-4133 05 2005 4

Property Size-Sq Ft

31,850

Building Adjusted Sq Ft

47,771

Flood Zone

X

 

Zoning

B-1

Future Land Use Designation

Restricted Commercial

Existing Use

Restaurant within Mixed Use Office Building

Comprehensive Plan Consistency

Yes

Existing Structure

3-story; NA bed/NA bath

Year Built

1965

 

Subject

Special Approvals, Section 600: Sec. 523. Restaurant remodel/expansion.

Action Required

Approve, Approve with Conditions, or Deny the application

Other Required Approvals

Village Building Permits

DERM & Department of Health

Staff Report

David A. Dacquisto AICP, Director, Planning and Zoning

Report Date

September 25, 2008

 

Background

 

The Côte Gourmet restaurant was approved in the 9999 building at a public hearing held on March 22, 2007.  Côte Gourmet replaced an existing restaurant.

 

The applicant is proposing to expand the existing restaurant by adding 200 square feet to the existing dining area.

 

The expansion requires one (1) new parking space.  The applicant requires two (2) parking spaces for the additional 200 square foot dining area.  The applicant is given credit for one (1) parking space for the existing use.  The applicant must therefore provide one (1) new parking space and is proposing to enter into a lease agreement with 9900 NE 2nd Avenue for one (1) off-site parking space.  The lease agreement will require approval by the village council.

 

Analysis


The expansion will require DERM and Department of Health approval.

 

Any approval is contingent upon the applicant providing one (1) new parking space.

 

The proposed off-site parking facility is located within 100 yards of the main parcel for which permission for off-site parking is being sought in conformance with village code requirements.

 

The proposal is consistent with the technical provisions of the Village Code except as noted.

 

Recommendation

 

Planning and Zoning staff recommends APPROVAL of the site plan 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)      Applicant to secure a lease for one (1) off-site parking space and to secure village council approval for the lease prior to the issuance of village building permits.
  • 2)      Applicant to secure any additional development approvals required by DERM and Department of Health, prior to the issuance of village building permits.
  • 3)      Applicant to obtain all required building permits before beginning work.
  • 4)      Applicant to meet all applicable code provisions at the time of permitting.
  • 5)      Applicant to utilize only roofing material that is approved by the building official.
  • 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.

 

PLANNING BOARD HEARING

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

Hearing Date

October 16, 2008

File Number

PZ-9-08-200896

Folio Number

11-3206-013-3760

Owner

Bank of America

Applicant

None

Agent

Andres Rodriguez

Property Address

9475 NE 2nd Avenue

Legal Description

MIAMI SHORES SEC 1 AMD PB 10-70 LOTS 13 THRU 17 INC BLK 28 LOT SIZE 35425 SQUARE FEET OR 22766-0601 10 2004 6(3) COC 25801-4510 07 2007 6 (3)

Property Size-Sq Ft

35,425

Building Adjusted Sq Ft

20,067

Flood Zone

X

 

Zoning

B-1

Future Land Use Designation

Restricted Commercial

Existing Use

Financial /Bank

Comprehensive Plan Consistency

Yes

Existing Structure

2-story; NA bed/NA bath

Year Built

1962

 

Subject

Special Approvals, Section 600: Sec. 523. Bank remodel, ATM Lobby.

Action Required

Approve, Approve with Conditions, or Deny the application

Other Required Approvals

Village Building Permits

     

Staff Report

David A. Dacquisto AICP, Director, Planning and Zoning

Report Date

September 25, 2008

Background

 

The applicant proposes to enclose an existing open entryway at the south end of the building and to place an ATM within the new lobby.  The new lobby will be accessible by using an ATM card, outside normal business hours.  The lobby will open to the south parking lot.  The lobby entrance and lobby will be visible from NE 94th Street with partial visibility from NE 2nd Avenue.

 

The lobby will have two ATMs.

 

Each ATM faces a wall and will have a camera recording the activity in front.  There is a third camera in the ceiling that will cover the activity in the lobby and towards the door.  There is no outdoor camera to record the activity in front and around the door.

 

Analysis

 

The Miami Shores Police Department was provided a copy of the site plan for review  and did not comment.

 

An additional camera to record activity around the door and parking lot may help to deter criminal activity outside the lobby.

 

The proposal is consistent with the technical provisions of the Village Code.

 

Recommendation

 

Planning and Zoning staff recommends APPROVAL of the site plan 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)      Applicant to obtain all required building permits before beginning work.
  • 2)      Applicant to comply with all applicable code provisions at the time of permitting.
  • 3)      Applicant to install a surveillance camera or cameras to record activity outside the lobby.
  • 4)      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.

 

PLANNING BOARD HEARING

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

Hearing Date

October 16, 2008

File Number

PZ-9-08-200897

Folio Number

11-3206-013-2510

11-3206-013-2500

Owner

Rubin Matz

Applicant

Same

Agent

Scott Kimbal

Property Address

9600 & 9636 NE 2nd Avenue

Legal Description

MIAMI SHORES SEC 1 AMD PB 10-70 LOT 3-4-5 BLK 19 LOT SIZE 19000 SQUARE FEET COC 23732-4546 08 2005 4 (CD); and

 

1 53 41 6 53 42 MIAMI SHORES SEC 1 AMD PB 10-70 LOTS 1-2 & 6-7 BLK 19 LOT SIZE IRREGULAR COC 23732-4546 08 2005 4 (CD)

Property Size-Sq Ft

43,350

Building Adjusted Sq Ft

34173

Flood Zone

X

 

Zoning

B-1

Future Land Use Designation

Restricted Commercial

Existing Use

Mixed Use Commercial Building

Comprehensive Plan Consistency

Yes

Existing Structure

2 and 1-story; NA bed/NA bath

Year Built

1952 and 1936

 

Subject

Special Approvals, Sec. 600: Sec. 523. Site plan approval, exterior and internal building remodel.

Action Required

Approve, Approve with Conditions, or Deny the application

Other Required Approvals

Village Building Permits

DERM and Department of Health

Staff Report

David A. Dacquisto AICP, Director, Planning and Zoning

Report Date

September 25, 2008

Background

The site appears to consist of  5 separate buildings with common walls developed now with a common front façade that unifies the buildings.  The development includes all buildings on the block between NE 97th Street and NE 96th Street, on the west side of NE 2nd Avenue.

 

The property has two Folio numbers with the northerly 2 buildings in the 2500 folio and the southerly 3 buildings in the 2510 folio.

 

The applicant proposes to remodel the development.

 

The most notable features of the proposed development are the new passageway between buildings and the return to individuality of all storefronts.

 

The applicant proposes to create a covered walkway through the building to create a pedestrian link between NE 2nd Avenue and the alley and parking to the rear.  The passageway would also provide access to some of the businesses within the building.

 

The overall façade will be altered to bring back individual differentiated store fronts breaking up the current uniformity of the block.

 

The large interior spaces will be divided to create smaller rental units which may include individual bathrooms.

 

Analysis

The proposed design improves the look of the development and will enhance the appearance of the downtown.

 

The development is subject to DERM and Department of Health review and a determination will be made by them as to the adequacy of the current septic system and the necessity if any to upgrade or replace the system.

 

The proposal is consistent with the technical provisions of the Village Code.

 

Recommendation

 

Planning and Zoning staff recommends APPROVAL of the site plan 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)      Applicant to secure any additional development approvals required by DERM and Department of Health, prior to the issuance of village building permits.
  • 2)      Applicant to obtain all required building permits before beginning work.
  • 3)      Applicant to meet all applicable code provisions at the time of permitting.
  • 4)      Applicant to utilize only roofing material that is approved by the building official.
  • 5)      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.

PLANNING BOARD HEARING

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

Hearing Date

October 16, 2008

 

Subject

Amendment to Section 523.1 of the Miami Shores Village Code of Ordinances to Permit Chickees in the Village

Action Required

Recommend that the Village Council Approve the Amendment, Recommend that the Village Council Approve the Amendment as Modified, Recommend Denial,  Forward to the Village Council Without Recommendation

Staff Report

David A. Dacquisto AICP, Director, Planning and Zoning

Report Date

October 27, 2008

Background

At a public hearing on September 2, 2008, the village council passed a resolution to consider amendment of Section 523.1 of the Miami Shores Village Code of Ordinances to Permit Chickees in the Village:

 

The Miami Shores Village Council hereby proposes to amend Section 523.1 of the Zoning Code in order to permit the erection of no more than one Chickee per each plot in the residentially zoned portions of Miami Shores Village, provided that the size of each shall not exceed ___________ square feet, that the location thereof be limited to rear yards only and must comply with all set-back requirements in the Zoning Code, that each such Chickee shall require site plan approval by the Village Planning Board in accordance with the standards set forth in Article 6 of the Zoning Code, and subject to the further restriction that such Chickees shall be constructed solely by members of the Miccosukee tribe of Indians of Florida or members of the Seminole Tribe of Florida and shall otherwise satisfy the criteria of Section 553.73(9)(i) of the  Florida Statutes.

 

According to the Miami Shores Code of Ordinances, code amendments initiated by the Village Council are referred to the Planning Board for consideration and recommendation.  The Board will conduct a first reading of the proposed amendment at a public hearing October 16, 2008.  The Board will then hold a second reading of the proposed amendment at a public hearing tentatively scheduled for November 13, 2008 where the public will have an opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment, a staff report will be presented including alternative language, and after consideration of the information provided, the Planning Board will make a recommendation on the amendment to be forwarded to the Village Council.

 

Analysis

 

State Statute exempts a chickee constructed by members of the Miccosukee tribe of Indians of Florida or members of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, as evidenced by a copy of the builders Tribal Members Identification Card and otherwise satisfying the criteria of Section 553.73(8)(i) of the Florida Statutes, from the building code.  State Statute does not exempt the chickee from meeting local code of ordinance requirements.

 

553.73  Florida Building Code.

 

(8)(i)  Chickees constructed by the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida or the Seminole Tribe of Florida. As used in this paragraph, the term "chickee" means an open-sided wooden hut that has a thatched roof of palm or palmetto or other traditional materials, and that does not incorporate any electrical, plumbing, or other nonwood features.

 

State law does not prevent chickees from being constructed by others however those chickees must meet building code requirements.

 

The state recognized that municipalities have different visions of development for their communities and these visions are implemented through the code of ordinances.  Coral Gables has strict development and architectural controls and does not permit chickees.  They are not reflective of the community architecture that is being promoted by Coral Gables

 

Miami Shores like Coral Gables has chosen a mediterranean architectural theme for the community and this goes back to the original development of the communities.  Both communities have been active in promoting this type of architecture for new construction, additions and remodeling to reinforce the mediterranean vision for the community.  Chickees do not support the original or current vision for Miami Shores. The questions for the Planning Board to consider are whether or not chickees are reflective of the Miami Shores Village community, its architecture and esthetic, and whether or not a chickee would be in harmony with the community.

 

Chickees present issues for communities in terms of design and materials.  By their nature they are high having steeply pitched roofs resulting in construction that can be taller than the main residence.  The roof overhang often extends far beyond the supporting posts resulting in a larger than usual eave.

 

Setbacks are measured from the building wall, in this case the supporting posts, to the property line or other building wall.  The zoning code states that eaves shall not extend “more than 36 inches into any side or rear yard”  and the extension of the thatch roof from the supporting posts will be treated as an eave for the purpose of calculating this distance.

 

Thatch roofs and the wooden chickee construction have fire and insect infestation issues including the powder puff beetle that bores into the wood framing and hollows out the logs making them structurally unsound.

 

Chickees should be treated with a water-based fire retardant that also fights bugs and mildew. Since the fronds are harvested and installed while they’re still green and flexible, the chemical won’t adhere to the waxy surface. Building owners must wait until the roof turns brown, usually in a week or two, before applying the treatment, a task that should be performed annually.

 

A chickee roof may last 5 or 6 years but could last 10 years or longer, depending on the slope of the roof and density of thatch.  They will require rethatching at some time and possibly as soon as 5 years after the initial construction.

 

In order to regulate chickees, Miami Shores should require the following information as part of a building permit submittal:

  • 1)      A Scalable Survey/Site Plan (Acceptable to the Planning Department) showing setbacks from other structures and property lines.
  • 2)      Floor Plan and Elevations showing all construction materials for proposed construction.

Should the Planning Board consider amendment of the code of ordinances, the following language is provided as an alternative to the language contained within the Village Council Resolution:

 

The following language contained in Sec 523.1 of the village code is deleted:

 

Sec. 523.1 Construction.

            This section shall not be construed to permit the erection of chickee huts, which are prohibited.

 

The following language is added to Section 523.1 of the village code.

 

Section 523.1 Construction.

    (j)                 Chickees are permitted in the residential districts subject to the following conditions:

  • (1)               A chickee shall not be permitted as a principal use on a plot and shall only be permitted as an accessory use to a residence; and
  • (2)               The chickee shall be constructed solely by members of the Miccosukee tribe of Indians of Florida or members of the Seminole Tribe of Florida as evidenced by a copy of the builders Tribal Members Identification Card and shall otherwise satisfy the criteria of Section 553.73(9)(i) of the Florida Statutes; and
  • (3)               A building permit issued by Miami Shores Village is required for a chickee and no building permit shall be issued or construction take place until the status of the builders has been verified and the requirements of the Code of Ordinances have been complied with; and
  • (4)               The following information shall be provided as part of a building permit submittal: a.                   A Scalable Survey/Site Plan (Acceptable to the Planning Department) showing setbacks from other structures and property lines; and b.                  Floor Plan and Elevations showing all construction materials for proposed construction.
  • (5)               The chickee is located in the rear of the residence and shall be situated so that it is located between the prolongation of the sidelines thereof and further provided that all setbacks for accessory structures are met, except that the rear setback for a chickee shall be 10 feet; and
  • (6)               A chickee shall not exceed 300 square feet in area; and
  • (7)               A chickee shall not exceed 15 feet in height or the height of the residence measured from the ground next to the residence to the roof peak, whichever is less; and
  • (8)               A chickee shall be properly maintained free of insects, vermin and mold, and shall be rethatched as necessary; and
  • (9)               A chickee shall be treated with a water-based fire retardant that also fights bugs and mildew. Building owners must wait until the roof turns brown before applying the treatment.  Treatment is to be reapplied yearly; and
  • (10)           The village building official may order that the chickee be rethatched if visual inspection confirms that the roof has deteriorated structurally or aesthetically so as to become structurally unsound or unsightly.

Recommendation

 

Planning and Zoning staff recommends DENIAL of the proposed amendment to the Miami Shores Code of Ordinances and further that the Planning Board make a motion recommending to the Village Council DENIAL of the amendment to Article V, SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS; DIVISION 7. QUALITY OF BUILDINGS; Sec. 523.1 Construction, Providing for a Chickee as an Accessory Use in the Residential Districts, Providing for Conflicts, Providing for Severability; and, Providing for an Effective Date.  However, if the Board finds that the proposed amendment is harmonious with the community and consistent with the intent of the Code of Ordinances the Planning Board may make a motion recommending to the Village CouncilAPPROVAL of the proposed amendment to the Miami Shores Code of Ordinances.  If the Board votes to recommend  APPROVAL of the amendment, staff recommends that the amendment include the following language:

 

Section 523.1 Construction.

 

(k)               Chickees are permitted in the residential districts subject to the following conditions:

  • (1)               A chickee shall not be permitted as a principal use on a plot and shall only be permitted as an accessory use to a residence; and
  • (2)               The chickee shall be constructed solely by members of the Miccosukee tribe of Indians of Florida or members of the Seminole Tribe of Florida as evidenced by a copy of the builders Tribal Members Identification Card and shall otherwise satisfy the criteria of Section 553.73(9)(i) of the Florida Statutes; and
  • (3)               A building permit issued by Miami Shores Village is required for a chickee and no building permit shall be issued or construction take place until the status of the builders has been verified and the requirements of the Code of Ordinances have been complied with; and
  • (4)               The following information as part of a building permit submittal: a.                   A Scalable Survey/Site Plan (Acceptable to the Planning Department) showing setbacks from other structures and property lines; and b.                  Floor Plan and Elevations showing all construction materials for proposed construction.
  • (5)               The chickee is located in the rear of the residence and shall be situated so that it is between the prolongation of the sidelines thereof and further provided that all setbacks for accessory structures are met; and
  • (6)               A chickee shall not exceed 300 square feet in area; and
  • (7)               A chickee shall not exceed 15 feet in height or the height of the residence measured from the ground next to the residence to the roof peak, whichever is less; and
  • (8)               A chickee shall be properly maintained free of insects, vermin and mold, and shall be rethatched as necessary; and
  • (9)               A chickee shall be treated with a water-based fire retardant that also fights bugs and mildew. Building owners must wait until the roof turns brown before applying the treatment.  Treatment is to be reapplied yearly; and
  • (10)           The village building official may order that the chickee be rethatched if visual inspection confirms that the roof has deteriorated structurally or aesthetically so as to become unsightly.