LimeBike Memorandum of Understanding

Planning Board Minutes - April 24, 2014

 

 

APRIL 24, 2014

THURSDAY, 7:00 P.M.

In Attendance:

David Dacquisto; Planning and Zoning Director

Karen Banda; Clerk

 

 

I)      ROLL CALL: Richard Fernandez, Steve Zelkowitz, Sid Reese, Robert Abramitis.

 

Absent: John Busta

 

 

II)     BOARD MEMBER DISCLOSURES

 

III)    ACTION ITEMS:

 

Motion: Move public hearing to end of meeting.

Moved by Sid Reese, seconded by Robert Abramitis.

 

1)     Miami Shores Village Code of Ordinances, Appendix A Zoning, Amendments.

a)     Recommendation to Village Council on FAR, Open Space and Green Space code amendments.

b)    Recommendation to Village Council on height of dwellings in the R Districts code amendments.

 

IV)   MINUTES

Motion: Approve minutes.

Moved by Robert Abramitis, seconded by Sid Reese

 

1)     February 27, 2014.

 

Motion: Approve minutes.

Moved by Robert Abramitis, seconded by Sid Reese

 

2)     March 20, 2014.

 

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

 

1)     None

 

VII)  NEW ITEMS

 

1)     PZ-3-14-201485: 8955 Biscayne Boulevard, (Owner) John Militana, (Applicant) Franco Ruiz, All Wireless, (Agent) None; Pursuant to Articles IV, V and VI of Appendix A Zoning, Sec. 400, Sec. 504 Signs and Sec. 600. Site plan review and approval required. Wall sign.

 

Mr. Dacquisto provided background information, summarized the information on the staff report and read the staff recommendation and conditions of approval into the record. Staff makes note that board has previously not approved repetition of signage as shown in picture. Owner was present and stated second sign on door has been removed. Chairman asked staff about poster signage versus permanent signage since there has been discussion in the past over regulating the windows and regulating uniformly. Staff stated he had brought issue up to code enforcement and they have allowed certain number of poster signs in the window because they tend to rotate with new product and things and this is not something that the board has officially approved but it is something that a lot of business do. Code enforcement has allowed a certain percentage of the window to be covered as long as they are rotated. Code enforcement has used discretion in enforcing sign regulations for posters in windows.

 

Chairman states this will be something to look into.

 

Motion: Approve subject to staff recommendations.

Moved by Steve Zelkowitz, seconded by Sid Reese.

 

Discussion by Robert Abramitis about look and intention of how Miami Shores should look. Chairman Fernandez also states he is troubled by the permanent signage versus poster signage. Board has tried long and hard to make sure that we don’t end up with cluttered business fronts

 

Motion approved unanimously.

 

2)     PZ-3-14-201486: 95 NW 95th Street, (Owner) Rolando Hernandez, (Applicant) Bibiana Patino, (Agent) Alejandro Perez Esperon; 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, covered terrace.

 

Mr. Dacquisto provided background information, summarized the information on the staff report and read the staff recommendation and conditions of approval into the record. Board did not have any questions.

 

Motion: Approve subject to staff recommendations.

Moved by Sid reese, seconded by Robert Abramitis.

 

3)     PZ-3-14-201487: 766 NE 96th Street, (Owner) Lisa Guinovart & Andrea Colon, (Applicant) Same, (Agent) Juliana Saba; 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. Addition, 1-story, master bedroom and bathroom, and covered terrace.

 

Mr. Dacquisto provided background information, summarized the information on the staff report and read the staff recommendation and conditions of approval into the record. Agent Juliana Saba was present and asked staff about clarifications under background where it states that “no fence has been proposed as part of this application”., since fence was addressed in the letter of intent and shown on the plans. Staff stated that type of fence is not permitted because of height limitations in the front yard and material of fence is not approved.   Ms. Saba also addressed information that notes that terrace has a flat roof whereas terrace is not flat and is located under the main roof contained within the roof of the addition. Staff stated that it was ok and recommendations do not change.  Mr. Abramitis asked if there was a wood deck that was part of application and staff stated that there is a wood deck but it is approved administratively through a building permit therefore did not add it to analysis. Mr. Zelkowitz asked applicant if the brick wall existed and applicant stated yes and they wanted to add fence to match height. Staff stated that 4ft fences are not allowed in the front yard and that an aluminum louvered fence is not an approved material. Mr. Zelkowitz asked staff if everything would have to be removed and staff states the proposed fence could not be part of the approval the existing fence would be permitted at 4 ft. in the side and rear yard. Chairman comments on fence height that is approved by board which is 3 1/2ft and if there is an existing fence that is higher than what is approved board cannot expand a non-conforming structure.

 

 

 

Motion: Approve subject to staff recommendations.

Moved by Steve Zelkowtiz, seconded by Sid Reese.

Approved unanimously.

 

    

 

4)     PZ-3-14-201488: 575 NE 105th Street, (Owner) Omar Villanueva, (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 and 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. Campbell was present as agent Chairman asked if there was a percentage calculation due on this flat roof and staff stated that you don’t need it because they are far past the 1000 ft. Chairman asked staff if they were an excess of the 15% and staff stated yes approximately 30%. Chairman asked if proposal would expand the flat roof and staff answered not from the total of all flat roofs currently existing. Chairman asked about concern of the flat roof and staff stated that there is a differentiation with flat roofs on detached structures and flat roofs attached to residences. Board has determined in the past that a breezeway does not make an attachment. Mr. Abramitis asked Mr. Campbell about leaving breezeway open and Survey is analyzed. Staff states that bedrooms are not allowed in detached structures therefore breezeway cannot be left open, the code prohibits it. Mr. Abramitis asked staff about policy of connected roofs and not connected roofs and staff stated it’s determined by the way code is written and the interpretation of the board. Mr. Reese stated that there isn’t anything written that you cannot build a flat roof from scratch but agreed that there is a limit of what you could build if it is attached to the house. Staff stated board is not only a Planning and Zoning board but an architectural review board and one of the few architectural review elements that is in code places limits on mixing flat and slope roofs

Mr. Zelkowitz comments about flat roofs and how they do not last very long. He cannot support allowing someone do something incrementally that they would not otherwise be allowed to do under the code as a right. Does not know what it entails to put in a peaked roof in this addition but once you attach the detached garage to the house and make it a master bedroom it becomes part of the house and under the code it has to comply with the code with respect to the roof. Recommendation is to send application back and see if applicant could work out some sort of pitched roof.

 

Motion: Table item and allow applicant to reconsider.

Steve Zelkowtiz. . no second.

 

Discussion by board members. Mr. Abramitis agrees with Mr. Zelkowitz and is troubled about creating a huge non-conforming structure.

 

Sid Reese comments that there is nothing that states that you cannot build a flat roof in Miami Shores. Does not see that there is a major problem with our code.

 

Chairman Fernandez states he will support any motion made to deny application or table’s the item.

 

Motion: Table item.

Moved by Steve Zelkowitz, seconded by Robert Abramitis.

Motion approved unanimously.

 

 

 

 

Miami Shores Village Code of Ordinances, Appendix A Zoning, Amendments.

 

Chairman requests that board discuss item number 1B first.

 

PUBLIC HEARING OPEN

 

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

 

a)     Recommendation to Village Council on FAR, Open Space and Green Space code amendments.

b)    Recommendation to Village Council on height of dwellings in the R Districts code amendments.

 

Staff summarizes request initiated by village council. FEMA required new houses or houses with substantial improvement to be raised to BFE. Now that the FEMA rules are in the Building Code the same homes have to be built even higher to BFE+1.  Board has reviewed construction and agreed that a two story residence can be built under current regulations by limiting the ceiling height within the structure and with a flat roof. It is a little more problematic with a pitched roof because that adds height to the house but it can be done but there are building constraints. One of the things the board did look at is height relative to distance from the street, so if you set the building back farther how that may affect the perception from the street. The site angle was analyzed on a 30 ft. structure and looked at what point would a 35ft building disappear behind that so that you end up with the same site line so a 35ft building looks like a 30ft building and that requires a 10 ft. increase in setback to 35ft from the front property line instead of the required 25 feet.

 

Chairman comments that he originally was opposed to giving the waterfront properties any advantage in height that other properties would not receive however after suggestion made by Mr. Abramitis at workshop of allowing to go higher up with keeping same site line and he does see that we are not really giving more to those properties because they are losing some frontage.

 

Chairman asks board if there is a consensus of agreement to direct staff and village attorney to draft an ordinance on this issue. Minutes to be reported back to village council.

 

Mr. Abramitis likes option where one can have 35 ft. of height as long as the line of site is preserved. This option is only to be for those in the high velocity area along the bay. You can start your house in the normal setback up to a certain height and have to step back second story and the whole key is to preserve the line of site from the road.

 

Chairman Fernandez, Mr. Zelkowitz and Mr. Reese also agree with proposal.

 

Staff will prepare language for village council to review.

 

Board will continue discussion until next meeting when village Attorney present.

 

 

a)     Recommendation to Village Council on FAR, Open Space and Green Space code amendments.

 

PUBLIC HEARING OPEN

 

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

 

Staff gave summary of boards review and general outlook of FAR, green space and open space and agreed that the code was sufficient the way it is that it to accommodate open space and green space. When the board looked at FAR of houses in Miami Shores the conclusion was that FAR was not really a big issue in this city.  A lot of the homes that appeared to be rather large actually had low FAR relative to the 1.0 FAR that is permitted by the code. Board reviews information presented by staff and definitions that need to be defined.

 

Board will continue discussion until next meeting when village Attorney present.

 

b)    DISCUSSION ITEMS

 

  1. Village Council request for Planning Board to review the current zoning for the annexed area and to consider comprehensive plan, zoning code and map amendments for the area.

Chairman Fernandez suggests that members physically go with staff to boundary of Annexed area point out issues with existing structures.  Mr. Abramitis makes note that staff stated that there is a liberal business district on Barry University property and wondered if that property is currently on the tax rolls as a result of not being used for university or school purposes and staff stated he did not know. Mr. Abramitis would want to know answer before change. Chairman makes note that it may be part of a pilot program. 

 

c)     NEXT WORKSHOP – TBD.

 

  1. None

 

d)    NEXT REGULAR HEARING – May 22, 2014.

 

  1. Regular agenda.

 

e)     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 adv