LimeBike Memorandum of Understanding

Planning Board Agenda - March 27, 2014

 

MARCH 27, 2014

THURSDAY, 7:00 P.M.

In Attendance:

David Dacquisto; Planning and Zoning Director

Karen Banda; Clerk

Richard Sarafan: Village Attorney

 

 

I)      ROLL CALL

 

John Busta, Sid Reese, Robert Abramits, Richard Fernandez

 

Absent: Steve Zelkowitz

 

II)     BOARD MEMBER DISCLOSURES

 

III)    ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARING

 

1)     None.

 

IV)   MINUTES

 

Robert Abramitis asks clerk to review minutes with possible corrections.

 

1)     January 23, 2014 – Review page 3 under new items, second line that reads pave the boulevard, could be swale.

 

Motion: Approve minutes.

Moved by Robert Abramitis, Second by John Busta.

 

2)     January 30, 2014 – Review page 2 under comments made by Robert Abramitis where it reads line of side approach, should read line of site approach and building a wall of imposing homes. Not just a brick wall.  

 

Motion: Approve minutes.

Moved by Robert Abramitis, Second by Sid Reese.

 

3)     February 27, 2014- Review motion under PZ-1-14-201476 1248 NE 98 Street.

 

Motion: Approve minutes.

Moved by Robert Abramitis, Second by Sid Reese.

 

 

 

V)    SCHEDULED ITEMS

 

1)     SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES BY VILLAGE ATTORNEY:

“Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

 

VI)   TABLED ITEMS

 

Motion: Lift item PZ-1-14-201475 from table.

            Moved by Sid Reese, Seconded by John Busta.

 

1)     PZ-1-14-201475: 1080 NE 105th Street, (Owner) Veronique Sfara, (Applicant) Jose Calvo, South Marine Const., (Agent) None; Pursuant to Articles IV, V and VI of Appendix A Zoning, Sec. 400 Schedule of Regulations, Sec. 534 and Sec. 600. Site plan review and approval required. Waterfront development. Dock. Wood deck on plot and past seawall.

 

 

Mr. Dacquisto provided background information, and stated at the previous meeting there was an application for a deck and dock the deck actually extended from the applicants property across the seawall over the canal. The board tabled item to give the applicant time to re-design the deck and dock. The dock that was proposed originally was a u-shaped dock and the applicant has changed that to be a standard dock running along the seawall 4ft into the canal. The deck will now run 31ft landward on the seawall and about 9ft wide. Staff looked at zoning code and zoning code wants you to leave area as natural for infiltration of water. Board has allowed in the past a reasonable accommodation and therefore staff’s recommendation is rather than the 31ft deck nothing more than a 16ft deck be permitted and that would give a reasonable access to the dock and would minimize construction and structures next to the seawall.

 

Mr. Abramitis asked staff how wide is a normal dock in Miami Shores, if 9ft wider than usual and staff answered the 9ft is the deck that’s on the land. Staff stated that the dock extends 4ft into the canal and then also in the canal is a boat lift. Boat lift is beside the dock. Mr. Abramitis asked where the boat lift stood in relation to the dock, was it four feet and staff answered 12ft out into the canal with a total of 16ft. 16ft from the seawall to the outside edge of the boat lift. Mr. Abramitis asked if this was normal on that canal and staff answered that he could not categorize it as normal or not staff relies on the corps of engineers and the county to regulate how far into canal you can go. Mr. Abramitis asked if any portion of the deck project into the D5 triangle and staff answered no. Mr. Abramitis asked staff if they would still need a drainage plan as stated in the previous application and staff answered yes.  

 

 Chairman asked about code issues pertaining to property and staff stated he could not comment on code issues and attorney read statement on staff report that the village recently learned that this residence was being used for vacation rentals offering rooms for rent as well as the entire house.

 

Jose Calvo, agent for property addresses comments that the board had raised at the previous hearing and notes that an aerial view of the waterway is included in packets submitted. Mr. Calvo also presented board with previous approvals granted to applicant.

 

Chairman asked agent about subject house and the two boats on the property that measure approximately at 25ft. and since there is reasonable use of property what they are attempting to do with additional dockage. Jose Calvo states that there is no additional dock because it does not exist right now. New dock would push access to the boat further into the waterway.

 Chairman states they are taking advantage of their surface right over the water. Applicant is requesting to put in a dock and a boatlift and Chairman states many of the boatlifts from the aerial view and other places are located on the wall and lifts on the property the set pipes not on the waterway.

 

Chairman also states this proposed dock application is site plan and site plan approval is granted by Planning and zoning board.

 

Richard Sarafan makes note that applicant has submitted two development orders that were previously approved by board and asked staff if he has any knowledge of any of those plans being built and staff stated decks were not constructed. Attorney Sarafan also states it’s been more than a year since the last approval and asks if approvals lapse over a period of time and staff stated one year after the signing of the board chair.

 

Mr. Busta asked agent how wide the canal was and agent stated 73.21 ft. Mr. Busta asked if this was correct as per his understanding the dock is 4ft 2 inches from the seawall out into the canal and then the boatlift is 12ft. out further into the canal for a total of 16ft 3 inches. Agent answered yes.

 

 Mr. Abramitis asked staff if the boat lift was in the D5 triangle and staff answered no. Mr. Abramitis also asked staff if he was reading report correctly it states that application is not consistent with the technical provisions of the code. Staff answered code restricts what you can put within the 15 ft. and 5 ft. property setbacks on a waterfront property depending on what you are proposing. This board has allowed what you would term a reasonable accommodation to allow people to get to the docks by allowing a 15ft wide area of patios or some hard surface to get to the deck and that is what staff was taking as their direction. 

 

Mr. Abramitis confirms with staff that even though past boards have approved certain applications, this application does not meet the technical provisions of the code. Staff stated we do not have anything that specifically addresses docks and decks in this way. Mr. Abramitis asks if staff is also recommending denial of the plan and staff stated he turned it around and is recommending approval of a 16ft wide to provide access but not the 31ft.

 

Discussion by board and concerns over the boat lift out into the canal since it is something different. Not obstructing the view of the canal. Measurements are analyzed and questions arise of the cluttering on dock.

 

Agent Jose Calvo clarifies the intent of the owner of keeping boat inside the dock.

 

Motion:  Move to accept 16ft 3 inch dimension and it includes the deck on the outside of the wall and the lift on the outside of the wall not to exceed 16ft 3 inch.

 

Moved by Sid Reese.

No second.

 

Recess of 10 minutes.

 

Motion: Move to table item to end of meeting.

Moved by Robert Abramitis, seconded by John Busta.    

Motion approved unanimously.

 

 

 

 

VII)  NEW ITEMS

 

1)     PZ-2-14-201480: 685 Grand Concourse, (Owner) James Hurley, (Applicant) Same, (Agent) Mark Campbell; Pursuant to Articles IV, V and VI of Appendix A Zoning, Sec. 400 Schedule of Regulations and Sec. 600. Site plan review and approval required. Garage conversion attached garage.

 

Mr. Dacquisto provided background information, summarized the information on the staff report and read the staff recommendation and conditions of approval into the record. Mark Campbell gave presentation and gave comments to existing side door and applicant would like to keep side door because it grants access to side where garbage is located and the door expansion is due to the fact that the room will be partly used as an exercise/laundry room and it will be easier to move equipment in and out. Mr. Abramitis asked about side door location where gate is and if driveway is in front of property or in the back. Mark Campbell states the driveway is in the front and there is a wall that surrounds property. Owner states door is located in front of gate. Attorney Richard Sarafan states that boards concern is that area makes for a nice separate apartment. Mr. Abramitis asked architect if the door could be moved behind the gate and then close the gate. Mr. Campbell said that would be an option to move door where laundry area is.

 

Motion: Approve subject to staff recommendations with the exception of staff recommendation number 2 relating to the door and substitute what is currently on the record as agreed, and that is the current door in front of the wall gate be moved behind the wall with the gate and that the gate be blocked up so that the wall is continuous thus blocking access from the driveway to the side door.

 

     Moved by Robert Abramitis, Seconded by Sid Reese.

     Motion Approved unanimously. 

 

 

2)     PZ-2-14-201481: 162 NW 109th Street, (Owner) Canor Pato, (Applicant) Same, (Agent) None; Pursuant to Articles IV, V and VI of Appendix A Zoning, Sec. 400 Schedule of Regulations and Sec. 600. Site plan review and approval required. Addition.

 

Mr. Dacquisto provided background information, summarized the information on the staff report and read the staff recommendation and conditions of approval into the record. Mr. Pato was present and did not have any questions. Board members did not have any questions after reviewing plans and hearing staff recommendations.

 

Motion: Approve subject to staff recommendations.  

 

     Moved by John Busta, Seconded by Sid Reese.

     Motion Approved unanimously. 

 

 

3)     PZ-3-14-201482: 730 NE 94th Street, (Owner) Arturo Dovalina,, (Applicant) Same, (Agent) None; Pursuant to Articles IV, V and VI of Appendix A Zoning, Sec. 400 Schedule of Regulations and Sec. 600. Site plan review and approval required. Addition.

 

Mr. Dacquisto provided background information, summarized the information on the staff report and read the staff recommendation and conditions of approval into the record. Mr. Dovalina was present and did not have any questions. Board members did not have any questions after reviewing plans and hearing staff recommendations.  

 

Motion: Approve subject to staff recommendations. 

 

     Moved by Sid Reese, Seconded by John Busta

     Motion Approved unanimously. 

 

4)     PZ-3-14-201483: 166 NE 96th Street, (Owner) Leocava LLC, (Applicant) Bianca Sassine (Agent) None; Pursuant to Articles IV, V and VI of Appendix A Zoning, Sec. 400 Schedule of Regulations and Sec. 600, Site plan review and approval required. Change of use, office to creative & therapeutic art workshops.

 

Mr. Dacquisto provided background information, summarized the information on the staff report and read the staff recommendation and conditions of approval into the record. Bianca Sassine was present and did not have any questions. Chairman asked staff what was at site before and staff stated an office. Staff also stated this is a type of office but not easily categorized under our zoning code.

 

Chairman asked the applicant if the use was an office, the applicant confirmed that it was.

 Mr. Abramits asked staff as office use how many people were permitted at any one time in the past and staff stated all spaces have a certain amount of occupancy per the building code standpoint but not sure what the number would be. Applicants give summary of office space usage.

 

Motion: Approve subject to staff recommendations. 

 

     Moved by Sid Reese, Seconded by John Busta

     Motion Approved unanimously. 

 

5)     PZ-3-14-201484: 32 NE 91st Street, (Owner) Nooria Rahmanie, (Applicant) Same, (Agent) Alexander Pino; Pursuant to Articles IV, V and VI of Appendix A Zoning, Sec. 400 Schedule of Regulations, Sec. 523.1(6)e and Sec. 600. Site plan review and approval required. Metal roof.

 

Mr. Dacquisto provided background information, summarized the information on the staff report and read the staff recommendation and conditions of approval into the record. Sample of sandstone was presented to board.

 

Motion: Approve subject to staff recommendations.

 

Moved by Sid Reese, seconded by Robert Abramitis.

Motion passed unanimously.

 

 

Motion: Lift item PZ-1-14-201475 from table.

Moved by John Busta, seconded by Robert Abramitis.

 

Chairman makes note of certain points pertaining to application. One point is that this item is a site plan approval; there has been broad discussion of what we can approve and not approve. There is also a fact that this would be a substantial change to what we have been doing and that has significance in the respect that other people looking at what is proposed and they will want that in their backyard too and suddenly the character and view of that canal will change. Chairman also makes reference to what has happened in Ft. Lauderdale and the little houses on big lots, people came in bought the houses and put their 150 ft. yachts and then you had a small area to pass and it looks like a marina in a residential area. We have the ability to look at this and understand that our code does not directly address this issue.

 

Robert Abramitis comments that the board always looks down the road and it seems that what we will do if we deny this is set a standard for that canal and probably the other little canal in Miami Shores where people will be expected to put their boatlifts on their seawalls and keep them landward. Has seen some of the canals in other areas and they do begin to look more like marinas. Sees the Chairman’s logic and would hope the board look at this as what we will do in the future as well as this one particular case and if canal was wider or wider in a different place it might have a different reaction. Not looking at this one house but the impact as the whole village and canal down the road.

 

Chairman makes comment about possibly addressing this issue and maybe codifying something in reference to these properties so that we can come more formal and see what we would like to do with it and it will also open the door for community participation. 

 

People can always be present for workshops.

 

 

Motion: Motion to deny.

Moved by John Busta, seconded by Robert Abramitis.

 

Vote: YES: John Busta, Robert Abramitis and Richard Fernandez

NO: Sid Reese.

 

Motion to deny carries.   

 

Chairman advises applicant if they wish to re-submit to work with Mr. Dacquisto on plans.

 

Motion: Recommend relief on a re-application as to the fees.

Moved by Robert Abramitis, seconded by Sid Reese.

 

 

 

VIII) DISCUSSION ITEMS

 

1)     None

 

IX)   NEXT WORKSHOP – TBD.

 

Mr. Abramitis makes note of thought that arose after the last workshop in regards to discussion of line of site for building height. Whether we would want to say you can have the additional height if you move the building back or you can have the additional height if you move the high part back.

 

Richard Sarafan states the conceptual frame work that was under discussion is that if what your proposing has the equivalent site line as compliance would and as noted there are several ways to achieve equivalency than we will accept it. One way to achieve equivalency is to move the whole building back another is moving the higher part back.  

 

Board will discuss at next board meeting.

 

1)     Hold public hearings on, FAR, Green Space, Open Space and on Village Height Limit.

 

X)    NEXT REGULAR HEARING – April 24, 2014.

 

1)     Regular agenda.

 

XI)   ADJOURNMENT

 

Pursuant to Chapter 286.0105, Florida Statutes, if person decides to appeal any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based.

 

Miami Shores Village complies with the provisions of the American with Disability Act.  If you are a disabled person requiring any accommodations or assistance, including materials in accessible format, a sign language interpreter (5 days notice required), or information, please notify the Village Clerk’s office of such need at least 72 hours (3 days) in advance.