LimeBike Memorandum of Understanding

Planning Board Minutes - July 23, 2015

MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES

Village Hall Council Chambers

10050 NE 2nd Avenue, Miami Shores

JULY 23, 2015

THURSDAY, 7:00 P.M.

In Attendance:

David Dacquisto, Planning & Zoning Director

Jesus Suarez, Deputy Attorney

Mariana Gracia, Clerk

  1. ROLL CALL John Busta, Mac Glinn, Sid Reese, Robert Abramitis, Richard Fernandez

  2. BOARD MEMBER DISCLOSURES – Board members disclosed properties visited.

  3. ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARING

  4. 1) Consider recommendation to Village Council:

    a) Add Wine Bar – Subject to Sec. 4.2 Special approval required to list of permitted uses in B1 District.

    b) Amend Sec. 501 [Prohibited uses.] (2) The sale of alcoholic beverages, as the same is defined in Florida Statutes 1955, Chapter 561.01 for consumption on the premises, except on the premises occupied by a country club or in an S-2 district, and except in a district zoned S-1 with reference to the sale of beer and wine as defined by the law of the State of Florida. as permitted under Chapter 4.

    c) Amend Sec. 521. Required off-street parking. (a) Schedule of off-street parking.

    D. Restaurant, Wine bar 1 space/100 sq. ft. gross floor area; No additional parking shall be required where the restaurant or wine bar is located in an existing building.

    d) Delete Sec. 610. Granting of special approval to restaurants for consumption of beer and wine on premises. This Section is renumbered and as amended is added to Chapter 4 Alcoholic Beverages.

    There was no public comment about the item. Mr. Fernandez discusses the way this has been set before the Board before they had a chance to review more information about what is being proposed to be approved or it’s being asked to give the Council a recommendation. Mr. Fernandez mentioned that there are people in the proximity 2nd Avenue where these venues would be in this place that would like to comment about what is being proposed. He mentioned the fact that these people have not been notified therefore they are not present. Mr. Busta suggests a Workshop setting to discuss the matter further. Mr. Abramitis agrees with the Workshop suggestion and asked a question about the proposal. Mr. Dacquisto responds with information about the proposal. The amendment in front of us today is two parts and based on the Village Council’s first reading he is now rewriting the Chapter 4 amendment to take into account their comments. Mr. Abramitis re-iterates that we do not have the language that we are being asked to make a recommendation on to the Village Council. Mr. Dacquisto clarifies that the Board has the text that we are being asked to make a recommendation on as it pertains to Appendix A Zoning all the other changes will be to Chapter 4 alcoholic beverages which this Board does not review, those go straight to Village Council. Mr. Abramitis asked if those changes would impact what the Board would be doing in addressing the issues that are in front of the Board. Mr. Fernandez expresses his concern about what is being asked of the Board. What is being asked of the Board is not consistent with what the Board has been doing. He mentioned instances in which local Municipalities use State laws to control the situation. Mr. Reese expressed his concern about the flow of cars in the area where this is being proposed. Mr. Fernandez discloses conversation he had with former Code Enforcement Official who was very concerned about the parking scenario. He suggested going down the side streets on 2nd Avenue so that you can see the amount of poles reflectors being put out by the homeowners in this area. Because in an effort to fend off the cars from parking in these areas. If this is happening now what is going to happen in the future when the new establishment is put in place. Mr. Fernandez suggests that we need to take this in a logical progression that we normally do these things in and go ahead and take a look at everything. It may not be prudent for the Board to go ahead on this and suggests a workshop before next scheduled hearing. This could be sometime in September. The Board asked questions. Mr. Dacquisto responds that in his draft entertainment is not permitted. He continues by saying that whether or not entertainment is permitted is up to the Council. Mr. Abramitis expresses the fact that there are things that need to be addressed that would impact the community before the Board responds. None of this language is in this draft before the Board. Mr. Glinn points out that all the Board is being asked to consider is the Amendment to the zoning code. The ordinance that is behind it pretty instructive as to what we want to accomplish. There is a definition of wine bar there granted it’s pretty loose and there are annual approvals that are required for all of these wine bar permits. He asked Mr. Dacquisto if this is so. Mr. Dacquisto answered that at the Village Council hearing the indication from the Village Council was in his re-write that it would be administrative approval only not going to Village Council and that there would not be annual renewal. Mr. Glinn points out that it sounds like there would be a lot of changes to this proposal. He asked Mr. Dacquisto if the Village Council can make these changes with or without the Board’s recommendation. Mr. Dacquisto responds that the zoning code says that changes to the zoning code which is Appendix A have to go to the Planning and Zoning Board first for review and recommendation. It does not have the same provision for the other chapters such as Chapter 4 alcohol. Mr. Glinn asked if the Board withholds recommendation the Village Council cannot move forward with this Amendment to the zoning code. Mr. Dacquisto confirms that it is so as stated by Mr. Glinn. Mr. Abramitis spoke about how having more information would impact the way he would vote. He says that it seems that the ordinance can be passed by Council if they want to. Mr. Fernandez says that we can rely upon Council however; Council today is not ready to. Furthermore it seems to him that there is some legal advice needed to proceed. He expresses his appreciation toward Mr. Glinn’s input on this matter. Mr. Glinn says he would like clarity in regards to what the attached ordinance is going to look like. He further says that he 100% supports wine bars and the likes. But, he also has spoken to a lot of residents who live adjacent to 2nd Avenue who are concerned about hours of operation, people parking on the street, and he thinks that a balanced approach for adding those amenities for residents is important. Candidly though he would like some happen rather sooner than later, he would like it to be a comprehensive approach, without seeing the revised document it’s hard to just rubber stamp the approach. Mr. Fernandez requested to Mr. Dacquisto to take Mr. Busta’s suggestion for the workshop.

    Mr. Busta made a Motion to table to next meeting in September 17th in reference to a. Wine Bar, b. Amend Sec. 501, c. Amend Sec. 521 and d. Delete Sec. 610. The Motion was seconded by Mr. Reese. The Motion was approved unanimously.

    MINUTES

    2) May 28, 2015 - Motion to approve made by Mr. Abramitis, Seconded by Mr. Busta. Approved Unanimously

    3) June 25, 2015 - Motion to approve made by Mr. Busta, Seconded by Mr. Glinn. Approved Unanimously

  5. SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES
  6.  

    1) SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES BY DEPUTY 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.”

  7. TABLED ITEMS TO A TIME CERTAIN
  8.  

    1) PZ-05-15-2015191: 1208 NE 95th Street, (Owner) Pedro Mello, (Applicant) Same, (Agent) Manuel Jara; 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. Façade improvements. Garage conversion.

    Mr. Dacquisto provided information relating to the application which includes Façade improvements and Garage conversion. The application has been heard previously the only outstanding issue was the flying wing at the front shed roof. The issue has been resolved by lowering this wing to blend in with the existing rear roof. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions stated in the Staff Report. Adam Rosevsky, 7700 Congress Avenue, Suite 1117, Boca Raton, FL 33487 was present and wished to present. Mr. Rosevsky proceeded to show the changes as stated by Mr. Dacquisto. He states that all the setbacks are being met. The Board asked questions and made comments. Mr. Busta made a Motion to approve subject to Staff Recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Glinn and the vote were 4 to 1 in favor of the Motion. Mr. Abramitis voted against the Motion.

  9. NEW ITEMS:
  10.  

    1) PZ-06-15-2015203: 270 NE 92nd Street, (Owner) Adam & Sandy Hollander, (Applicant) Same, (Agent) Bruce Hollander; 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.

    Mr. Dacquisto provided information relating to the application which includes a Garage conversion. Staff is recommending that the Planning Board not to require the driveway to be cut back 5’ from the residence upon conversion of the Garage. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions noted in the Staff Report. Mr. Fernandez asked Mr. Dacquisto to read in the conditions regarding Garage conversions. Mr. Dacquisto read in condition 8 as follows: Applicant is to complete a covenant in the form of declaration of use assuring the property use only as single family purpose. The covenant with the Miami-Dade county Recorder and provide the Planning Director with the recorded document prior to the final inspection by the Building Official. The Applicant has no questions for Mr. Dacquisto. The Board asked questions. Mr. Dacquisto explains the reason why he is not requiring the 5’ setback. Adam Hollander of 270 NE 92nd Street was present and wished to present. Mr. Hollander showed the Board what his plans are for the garage conversion. The Board asked questions about the exterior doors locations. Mr. Hollander explains where the doors are located. Mr. Busta made a Motion to approve subject to Staff Recommendations. Mr. Reese seconded the Motion and the vote was unanimous in favor of the Motion.

    2) PZ-06-15-2015204: 77 NW 101st Street, (Owner) Juan Garcia, (Applicant) Same, (Agent) None; Pursuant to Articles IV, V, VI and VII of Appendix A Zoning, Sec. 520, Sec. 536, Sec. 538 Sec. 600 and Sec. 701. Site plan review and appeal on allegation of error. Use of artificial turf.

    Mr. Dacquisto provided information relating to the application which includes an appeal and an allegation of error in the use of artificial turf. Mr. Dacquisto read into the record the conditions as stated in the Staff Report. The Applicant constructed a concrete driveway with a space between the concrete that is filled with artificial turf. The Board will review the issue relating to the zoning code only. Issues relating to building permits are reviewed by the Building Official. Mr. Dacquisto read further information contained in the Staff Report in which the building permits specifically said that grass would be planted between the driveway pads. The Building Official went to the property and discovered that it was artificial turf where the grass should have been. Staff is recommending that the Board consider amending the zoning code to allow this alternative. The Planning and Zoning Board may table the request pending the review of the zoning code. The Planning Board may uphold the decision to deny the Applicants request to interpret the zoning code to allow this artificial grass or artificial turf or any similar simulated grass product or tree. The Planning and Zoning Board may overturn the decision and allow the Applicant’s to allow artificial grass, artificial turf. Juan Garcia of 77 NW 101st Street was present and did not wish to ask questions. The Board asked questions. Mr. Dacquisto clarifies that the code does not specifically prohibits the use of turf, our zoning code is not written that way, the zoning code is written to say what’s permitted than everything else that’s not permitted. It does however specify certain materials that are specifically not permitted. The Board discussed the issue furthermore. Mr. Garcia states that issue is whether artificial turf is acceptable under the code. He proceeded to present his case in favor of amending the code to allow artificial turf in this very limited area. He points out that the use of artificial turf is allowed under the code per his interpretation of the code. Mr. Garcia continued to testify what his interpretation of the code is as he reads it. Mr. Garcia emphatically disagrees with the way the code is being interpreted. He interprets the code as he understands it. Respectfully requesting the Board amends the code to allow artificial turf. He testified of all of the improvements he has made to his property since becoming the new owner. The Board asked questions. Mr. Jesus Suarez, Deputy Attorney reads code section regarding allegations of error. Public comment by David DiPuglia of 7911 NW 111th Street – The house is amazing. Ms. Susan Hunt of 70 NW 101 Street – The house is an asset to the community. Richard DeJarde of 50 NW 111 Street – The artificial turf blends in perfectly fine. Good job. Virginia Day of 70 NW 111 Street – The driveway is gorgeous. Her sister also thinks is great.

    Martha Arfeld of 55 NW 102nd Street – She loves the driveway, she wishes she could do the same. It looks perfect. Public hearing is now closed. The Board made comments. Mr. Fernandez expresses concerns about products looking great to start with, then that product deteriorates overtime. Mr. Glinn shares his concern and emphasizes his empathy towards Mr. Garcia. Mr. Glinn also reads item 3 on the Staff Report. Motion to table made by Mr. Glinn. Mr. Busta Seconded the Motion. The Motion failed for lack of vote. Mr. Abramitis expresses concern about the presidency the Board will be setting here. He asked how long it would take for the process to amend the code. Mr. Dacquisto responds that it would take having a workshop in September to make the September 17th P&Z Board hearing. You would then send it to Village Council for their October meeting. Mr. Abramitis expresses concern about the gathering of information for this item. Further, he mentioned it’s not a simple process and is a bad precedence to amend the code every time someone wants to. Board discussion took place at this time. The Board suggests for a poll to be taken of the Board to see how many are for amending the code for this particular limited purpose. Mr. Glinn, yes; Mr. Busta, yes; Mr. Reese, No; Mr. Abramitis, yes; Mr. Fernandez, abstains. There was a Motion to uphold Mr. Dacquisto interpretation made by Mr. Abramitis. Mr. Fernandez Seconded the Motion. The Board asked questions. The vote passed 4 to 1 with Mr. Glinn voting No.

    3) PZ-06-15-2015205: 445 NE 94th Street, (Owner) Armando Ortiz & Daren Ockert, (Applicant) Same, (Agent) Wyn Bradley; Pursuant to Articles IV, V and VI of Appendix A Zoning, Sec. 400 Schedule of Regulations, Sec. 523.1(6) and Sec. 600. Site plan review and approval required. One-story addition. Metal roof.

    Mr. Dacquisto provided information relating to the application which includes a One-story addition and Metal roof with extensive remodel in the interior of the house. The addition includes a covered front porch and a master bedroom suite. Mr. Dacquisto read in the extent of the addition with details as provided in the Staff Report. The Applicant is proposing a Mansur roof with skylight. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions as stated in the Staff Report. The Board agrees to dealing with the Metal Roof first then the One-story addition. The Board asked questions. Ms. Wyn Bradley of 25 SE 2nd Avenue, testified that the owners want to make renovations to the existing home which includes updating the 2nd bath. Ms. Bradley provided extensive details as to the plans being proposed as far as the interior work and the addition to the home. She added that the entire property would be re-landscaped. She showed the Board the skylight being proposed. Ms. Bradley points out that the mansard roof would look like and function as a flat roof. The skylight is being done to bring in more light into the kitchen and the depth of the existing residence. The Board asked questions about the exterior doors and the travertine driveway. Mr. Busta asked about the skyline. There is a Motion to approve subject to Staff Recommendations made by Mr. Glinn. Seconded by Mr. Reese and the vote were unanimous in favor of the Motion.

    4) PZ-06-15-2015206: 126 NW 101st Street, (Owner) Frederico Hauri, (Applicant) David DiPuglia, (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. Garage conversion.

    Mr. Dacquisto provided information relating to the application which includes a Garage conversion. He read into the record the details pertaining to the plans as stated in the Staff Report. The Applicant requests that the required driveway setback of 5’ from the garage be waived to maintain access to the storage area in the converted garage. Staff is recommending approval with 11 conditions. The Board asked questions. Mr. David DiPuglia of 911 NW 79 Street was present and testified that he bought the house and then turned around and sold it. The family that owns it now needs to add a second bathroom. He approached the bench and showed the plans to the Board. The Board asked questions. Mr. Dacquisto responds that the issue about the parking can be addressed administratively. There is a Motion to approve subject to Staff Recommendations made by Mr. Abramitis. Seconded by Mr. Reese and the vote were unanimous in favor of the Motion.

    5) PZ-06-15-2015207: 830 NE 92nd Street, (Owner) Capital International Financial Fund LLC, (Applicant) Same, (Agent) Eduardo Vazquez; 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. New residence.

    Mr. Dacquisto provided information relating to the application which includes a brand new residence. He read into the record the Applicant’s proposal as it is stated in the Staff Report. The Applicant is proposing a clay barrel tile for the roof. The pool in the rear will be reviewed administratively. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions stated in the Staff Report. The Board asked questions about the Oak trees that would come down. Mr. Dacquisto answers yes there are 8 to 9 trees being removed, Public Works is working with the Applicant. The Board discusses the issue of the Oak trees being removed. Mr. Reese states that the County takes precedence over the Village. Eduardo Vazquez of 310 NW 10th Street testified that the owner of the property Mr. Pascal Nicolai was not able to be here. Mr. Vazquez continued by saying that they had done a design compatible with the neighborhood with barrel tile roof. He proceeds to present his plans in detail. He states that there are approximately 26 trees in the lot, not all of them are oaks. He points out to the tree that they would be willing to move the design back so that they could save the tree. Unfortunately, there are other 5 trees that will need to be removed. Of these trees some are oak but some are not oak trees, with only 1 that is 18”. Mr. Vazquez testified that the owner is willing to commit to re-planting trees in replacement for the ones they are taking down. He showed the Board the floor plan and elevation of the design and shows each one of the interior designs as the plan is. The Board asked questions about the owner of the property. Mr. Vazquez responds that the owner purchased the property under the name of his company “Capital Financial, LLC” but he is the sole owner. Mr. Abramitis asked questions about the driveway and covered carport. Mr. Vazquez explains that the trees that are going to be removed from the proposed carport area are oak trees. One of the oak trees is 18” the others are 12”. He spoke about the replacement of these trees. The Board further discusses the issue of the trees being removed. Mr. Vazquez commits to no oak trees being removed in the back. Mr. Fernandez clarifies the willingness of the Applicant to replace the trees to minimize the impact of the removals. He asked the amount of square footage on the roof of this house. Mr. Vazquez says that the A/C square footage is 3,173 square foot and if you include the carport then its 4,047 square foot. Mr. Fernandez asked to take a look at the interior design. He asked about the door that comes in from the carport into the bedroom. Mr. Abramitis points out that there is no need to have a direct access from the carport into the house. Covenant attached suggested by Mr. Fernandez as a solution to revise the plans. Mr. Vazquez says that he is willing to move the laundry room down further. He shows the Board his plans. The Board is pleased with this accommodation. The Motion to approve subject to Staff Recommendations with three additional requirements, 1st is that the house be moved back 5 ft. as the Applicant has described to save the oak tree in the front side of the house, that the Applicant enter into a Covenant that no oaks should be removed in the back of the house and that the laundry room be moved forward so the door to the side of the carport is between the laundry room and kitchen moving it further back into the house, and that should be done to the Building Official satisfaction. Mr. Reese seconded the Motion and the vote was unanimous in favor of the Motion.

    6) PZ-05-15-2015208: 85 NW 102nd Street, (Owner) Richard Boullon, (Applicant) Same, (Agent) None; Pursuant to Articles IV, V and VI of Appendix A Zoning, Sec. 400 Schedule of Regulations and Sec. 600, Sec. Sec. 702 Hardship variance. Sec. 400. Schedule of Regulations. Yard setbacks. Wood deck in side yard.

    Mr. Dacquisto provided information relating to the application which includes a variance. This is for a deck that was constructed on the side yard. Mr. Dacquisto read into the record the setbacks requirements. The Applicant has constructed a wood deck and is requesting a variance of 7.5 feet and that the Board grant a hardship variance. Staff has reviewed this and has concluded that the Applicant does not meet the criteria for granting a variance. This is all outlined in the Staff Report. Staff is recommending denial of the variance, should the Board choose to allow the variance then Staff has set forth four conditions that would go with that recommendation. The Board asked questions regarding the permit. Mr. Dacquisto responds that there was no permit issued for this wood deck. The wood deck is intruding 7.5 feet into the setback if the deck is considered an accessory structure, 12.5 ft. if the deck is considered part of the main residence. The code does not allow accessory structures in the side or front yards. He adds that the property has been cited by Code Enforcement. Mr. Fernandez asked more questions regarding the citation. Richard Boullon of 85 NW 102 Street was present and wanted to testify. He said that he had decided to build the deck due to the way the house is set on the lot. Basically the house is a rectangle on a corner lot so he has pretty much all the front yard and side yard available. Hence he decided to build this wood deck without thinking he would have to any issues. Then he was notified that he was in violation, that’s when he applied for a permit. Also applied for HRS for the septic tank and they went ahead and approved it. He tried to provide Mr. Flores (Code Enforcement Officer) with what he thought he needed to comply. He also spoke to Mr. Dacquisto and that is when he decided to come in front of this Board for a variance. Mr. Abramitis asked the Applicant if he had built the deck himself. Mr. Boullon answers no; he went to a friend’s house and saw a deck built by retired gentlemen that does this on the side. The Applicant says that he helped this person build the deck on the side of the house. Mr. Fernandez asked if he had title insurance. The reason he asked is because there might be a provision there. Furthermore, he explains to the Applicant the reason for the setbacks. He asked the Applicant what is the unusual or peculiar circumstance that affects this property and not others that would permit him to get a variance. The Applicant responds that the way the house is laid out it has 7,000 square feet of land. The Applicant explains the way the house was built does not have a lot of living space. Mr. Fernandez asked the Applicant to show him the plans he had submitted.

    Public comment: Susan Hunt of 70 NW 101 Street – Testified that the way this house is built there is no much living space, the deck she sees no reason to keep it. Tony Hernandez of 77 NW 101 Street testified that he drives by the house every day and he can see that the house has an extremely weird layout with absolutely no back yard. The Deck looks very nice. Martha Arfeld of 55 NW 102nd Street – Testified that the house was owned by a priest before. This young couple has made improvements to this house. The house is weird. We should be grateful. They don’t have space in the back. Richard DeJarde of 50 NW 111 Street – He has lived there for 20 years now and he is surprised that the house is 1100 feet. It does not look like it is that big. The house is really small. The deck gives them more room. He has improved the house. The Board should let them keep the deck.

    Virginia Day of 70 NW 111 Street – That is a tiny house. You cannot see the deck form outside the fence. She does not see why it should not stay. It’s a modest house.

    Mr. Glinn asked Mr. Dacquisto if accessory structures are allowed in the side yard and asked him for some clarification on the issue of side yard structures. Mr. Dacquisto explains about accessory structures on side yards according to code. He says that the setback is 15’ if the decks is considered part of the residence. The Applicant is allowed a 10’ deck before it goes into the setback if the residence is considered an accessory structure although the code does not permit accessory structures in the side yard. Mr. Glinn talks about the setbacks in the rear yard according to the survey he is seeing. He asked the Applicant if the survey was incorrect. The Applicant shows Mr. Glinn on the survey. Mr. Glinn expresses his sympathy towards the Applicant’s issue. The Motion is made to deny the variance by Mr. Abramitis. Seconded by Mr. Busta and the vote were unanimous in favor of the Motion. Mr. Fernandez explains to the Applicant all the reasons why this variance was denied. He directed the Applicant to see Code Enforcement.

  11. DISCUSSION
  12.  

    Mr. Fernandez requested of Mr. Dacquisto to go about setting up our next Workshop. The Board discussed the different materials that can be used and the concerns concerning the public hearing. Let Mr. Sarafan know.

  13. NEXT WORKSHOP – TBA
  14.  

  15. NEXT REGULAR HEARING – September 17, 2015.
  16.  

  17. ADJOURNMENT
  18.  

      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.