LimeBike Memorandum of Understanding

Planning Board Minutes - March 26, 2015

MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING BOARD MEETING

Village Hall Council Chambers

10050 NE 2nd Avenue, Miami Shores

MARCH 26, 2015

THURSDAY, 7:00 P.M.

In Attendance:

David Dacquisto, Planning & Zoning Director

Richard Sarafan, Village Attorney

Mariana Gracia, Recording Secretary

 

I) ROLL CALL John Busta, Robert Abramitis, Chairman Richard Fernandez

Steve Zelkowitz (arrived at 7:10 PM) Present – Sid Reese (Absent)

 

II) BOARD MEMBER DISCLOSURES

Individual Board Members disclosed properties they had visited with respect to applicants appearing before the Board.

 

III) ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARING

1) Village Council Request: Planning Board to review the current zoning code provisions for fences and consider amending the code; to permit 6 ft. fences in the side and rear yards; to allow board on board wood fences and other options on corner plots, to allow gate and post ornamentation in excess of the height limit; to allow additional building materials including solid boards of pvc and plastic-composite and metal plate.

Mr. Fernandez read into the record the item before for public hearing. Mr. Sarafan clarified the way that the Board will be voting. The Board asked questions. Mr. Dacquisto spoke about the two Workshops that the Board previously had on February 18th, and March 18th. Mr. Dacquisto said that the Board had considered the issues being considered by the Village Council. Mr. Dacquisto added that Planning and Zoning Board in their deliberation found that vinyl was not a suitable building material for structure from a durability standpoint and also in looking at aluminum picket fences felt that if there were any damaged that it would be hard to fix. The Board also considered fences that are on corners and it felt that it created a closed look. Picket fences which are allowed on corners open the area, also looked at solid wood fences as being a maintenance problem and highly visible on a corner. The other thing the Board spoke of was hedges that could provide privacy behind open fences. The Board has not received the petition on fence height as was stated earlier. Taller fences were surmountable and did not increase protection while providing greater protection from a view for criminal activity. Those were the consideration for the Planning and Zoning Board. Having said that the Board also looked at the issue or ornamentation and the ornamentation being for example ornamental scroll work on top of gates, lights on fence posts, annuals things like that. The Board chose not to make any other changes to the ordinance except to consider a new section:

 

SEC. 518. FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES.

(1) h. Notwithstanding the above provisions:

1. On gate posts and fence corner posts not wider than six (6) inches by six (6) inches, finials, post caps, luminaries, or similar decorative features as determined by the Planning Director, may exceed the maximum allowed height for the yard of any fence and/or wall by not more than twelve (12) inches. Luminaries shall have a maximum output of 1,000 lumens per fixture (the approximate output of one 60 watt incandescent bulb), shall be fully or partially shielded such that the bulb is not visible, and the fixture shall have an opaque top to keep light from shining directly up.

2. Ornamentation on top of gates may exceed the maximum allowed height for the yard of any fence and/or wall by not more than twelve (12) inches.

 

Mr. Fernandez noted that we have received a letter from the Chief of Police in reference to the issue of 6’ height fences in which he had a variety of suggestions. In essence there is a 5’ height, the standard height remain the same. However, we were going to make the change to allow a 6’ height for ornamentation as indicated. Mr. Sarafan clarified that the board did not vote on the changes at the workshops.

Mr. Fernandez addressed Mr. Zelkowitz. Mr. Zelkowitz addressed the Board.

Public hearing now in session. Steve Mambi of 171 NE 102, Miami Shores, FL. He said he did not attend the workshops just attended part of the last one. Comment he had was that he had researched the building code of North Bay Village, Bay Harbor, Coral Gables, Key Biscayne, Aventura, Hollywood, Miami. In every case he found that the height per fence is 6’. He found the Miami code particularly hard to read so he could only find a code that applies to commercial and industrial building. He doesn’t know what the residential would be. He will be open about that. Coral Gables he discovered depending upon the location and the fence affect other properties to 7’ height in certain situations. It seems to me that there is plenty of other comparable municipalities that permit 6’ height. He spoke to two fencing companies and the standard height is 6’ height.

Elizabeth Cowen of 321 NE 91st Street. Lived in Kendall, and Cooper City and was allowed to put up 6’ fences. In the case of Kendall the fence that she put up saved her house from debris flying into the home when Hurricane Andrew came. Play sets are exempt from having permits. She wants to put up a 6’ fence to protect her property. 6’ seems reasonable.

Clark Reynolds of 69 NE 102 Street. 6’ fence in the back of his house is just what would prevent anyone walking by from looking into the yard. Hedge most people have. Gate in the back of the house in order to let utility in or if you need them for some other reasons or just to go in and out for the trash. He doesn’t understand why they could not have it.

Tieres Tavares of 150 NE 12 Avenue. His house sits on a slop. His concern is that if he puts a 5’ fence he is actually just putting 2’ fence. Possibility of putting a hedge that is already tall enough or he will have to wait until the hedge grows to 7’ maybe 8’ tall to achieve 5’. Putting a fence that is already 6’ helps.

Elizabeth Cowen. Pointed out that in Miami Shores there are so many levels of fences. 6’, 8’, 6’ with 2’ of wooden woodwork. There is really no consistency. At the workshop it was mentioned that there should be consistency. We don’t have that right now so that really shouldn’t be a consideration to go to 6’ height. Because we have so many different level.

The Board asked the Building Official to address the different heights, different Engineering.

Mr. Ismael Naranjo said that the Florida Building Code has a provision in their wood fences that they do allow it up to 6’ with the same engineering as under. They give you the complete specifications on how to build it. When it comes to horizontal fences and other types of fences that you get into the loading requirements and design requirements which they will probably have to be calculated by an Engineer. But as far as the height under the Florida building code residential and the commercial code it does allow the 6’. The Board asked questions. Mr. Naranjo said that it can be made more restrictive but not make it less restrictive than the code. The Board asked more questions. Mr. Naranjo said that if we have a horizontal wooden fence the code for horizontal fence is different. In this case he had an Engineer do some calculations and what he was able to determine was in order to do a horizontal frame fence of 5’ they had to reduce the spacing of the wood post to 3’ instead of the 4’ or 5’ that is required right now. Engineering is going to be involved in order to approve these types of systems. Mr. Fernandez asked if Mr. Naranjo would agree that if the area, that’s the concrete fence increases, height increases the load is going to increase. Mr. Naranjo agrees, but Engineering involved.

The Board discusses the issue regarding various heights. Comments about this various sizes of fences.

The Board asked Mr. Dacquisto about fences on Biscayne. Mr. Dacquisto said that the difference about the fencing along Biscayne Blvd. is that the fence in the front is not limited to 3 ½ feet. Special provision that says that on Biscayne Blvd. the height of the fences in the front yard can be 5’.

The Board continues to discuss the height of fences. Non-conforming structures. Mr. Dacquisto said he is not aware as to the different heights in the past it is possible that there was a different limitation, he is not aware of it.

The Board gives examples of various heights on different homes. It is the homeowners choice but may build a fence lower than the maximum allowed. Mr. Sarafan pointed out that some of the fences may have been cited by Code Enforcement.

Mr. Sarafan states that the Code provides for various alternative means of amending the code. The Council has asked us to consider this issue. We are required to hold a public hearing which we have and produce a recommendation and a report and he believes Mr. Dacquisto has put together a proposed report containing recommended changes based on what appear to be a consensus emerging out of the workshops based on what have been heard and you can accept this, amend this, reject this, make recommendations, but what we are looking for is a resolution that makes a recommendation to the Council one way or the other.

The Board concurs with amendment to allow ornamentation in excess of fence height maximum. Mr. Zelkowitz expresses concern about changing the code because of the height inconsistency. No objection to the gate issue. The Board agrees with the proposed amendment language. Mr. Sarafan inputs that if the Board has a consensus that they agree with the recommended language the Board should make a motion.

Motion to approve subject to recommended language by Mr. Busta. Seconded by Mr. Abramitis. The motion was approved unanimously.

 

2) Board Initiative: Increase minimum frontage requirement and/or increase minimum plot square footage requirement for newly subdivided plots.

Mr. Dacquisto spoke about the Planning and Zoning Board workshops held on the question of raising the minimum plot are for newly created plots in Miami Shores that had originally come before the Planning Commission because the motion by Village Council back in April 4, 2006. At that time council asked Board to look into the question of raising the minimum plot size and plot with. At that time village council decided not to take any action on it. This issue came up again at the Planning Commission; the Planning Commission is authorized by the code to initiate any code amendments. Planning and Zoning Board looked at the issue of raising the minimum plot width and plot area for newly created plots. Newly created plots are something that’s not in original platted form. Mr. Dacquisto spoke about the legal descriptions. The issue really comes when the property is plots 1, 2, 3 and a part of plot 4. He gave an example of 4 plots and the question is whether or not you could split them and then create two legal size plots. Right now the minimum plot size is 75’ with, 7,500 square feet. He added that Miami Shores comprehensive plots says plots for one-family dwellings on septic systems should be 15,000. Comprehensive plan is the prevailing document under State law. The zoning code is required to be consistent with the comprehensive plans it’s not the other way around. In effect this should be the law of Miami Shores unless the comprehensive plan is changed, just for information the minimum plot size for use of septic system under the Miami-Dade county zoning is 15000 square feet. Mr. Dacquisto explains that under Miami-Dade where they have city sewer they are not required to have the 15,000. Don’t know for certain but Miami Shores may have taken that number and included it in the comprehensive plan. One of the issues with septic systems is that they do tend to pollute ground water. The ground water here is also quite high so there is a rational basis for requiring the larger ground area for the septic systems so they can handle the effluent. Staff looked at the issue and there is really a question of whether or not to change the overall minimum plot requirement or do it some other way. Staff discussed with the Village Attorney creating a new section 405. Mr. Dacquisto read into the record a possible section 405 addition to the code:

 

Sec. 405. [New plots created after the adoption of this ordinance.]

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Miami Shores Village Code of Ordinances, for new plots created through subdivision or other means after the adoption date of this ordinance, the minimum plot area shall be not less than 15,000 square feet.

 

So, our previous provision that deals with 50’ plots and existing 75’ plots would be sufficient to maintain the legality of all existing plots in Miami Shores this would simply provide new requirement for any plots created through sub division or any other means after adoption date. The Board made comments regarding plots being split and concerns with density increase.

Open public hearing – No comments from the public

The Board asked questions. Mr. Sarafan said that this issued has been reviewed in the past. The Board made comments.

Mr. Zelkowitz made some clarifications regarding plots and the creation of new plats.

Mr. Dacquisto said that this section only applies to newly created plats. As long as is consistent with existing code then it is legal and it can stay.

Motion to approve subject to recommended language by Mr. Zelkowitz. Seconded by Mr. Busta. The motion was approved unanimously.

3) Village Council Request: Planning Board to review the current zoning for the annexed area and to consider comprehensive plan, zoning code and zoning map amendments for the area.

Mr. Fernandez asked the Board to go on a tour of the annexed area. The annexed area is currently under the County Zoning Code. Need to adapt a plan to bring our code into effect in the area. Last workshop the Board found that this is a big task. Mr. Sarafan gave some information regarding the annexed area. The Board commented on the annexed area.

 

IV) MINUTES

1) February 26, 2014.

Board approved the minutes.

 

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 TO A TIME CERTAIN

 

1) PZ-12-14-2014155: 8965 NE 6th Avenue, (Owner) John Militana, (Applicant) Melys Boisnote, (Agent) None; Pursuant to Articles IV, V and VI of Appendix A Zoning, Sec. 400 Schedule of Regulations, Sec. 504. (f) (1) and Sec. 600. Site plan review and approval required. Signs.

Mr. Dacquisto provided information relating to the application which includes two signs on a window. Staff recommends approval. Applicant Ms. Jermaima Boisnote of 8965 NE 100 Street was present on behalf of her husband Mr. Boisnote. Due to the fact that he had an emergency. Mr. Sarafan asked questions. The Board asked questions regarding the businesses. Mr. Dacquisto said that the Village had in the past issued school license in this particular site. Motion to approve subject to Staff recommendation made by Mr. Zelkowitz. Seconded by Mr. Busta. The vote passed 3-1 (Mr. Abramitis-No)

 

2) PZ-12-14-2014158: 285 NE 95TH Street, (Owner) Santiago Martinez, (Applicant) Same, (Agent) Louis Kallinosis; 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. First story addition.

Mr. Dacquisto provided information relating to the application, which had come before the board in previous meeting. The Applicant has provided new plans which include the windows in the blank wall previously submitted. Staff is recommending approval subject to the outlined recommendations. Applicant Mr. Lou Kallinosis of 17494 SW 83 Ct., Palmetto Bay, FL asked the board that the windows would be 12” taller. Mr. Dacquisto said Staff would approve this change. The Board asked questions. Mr. Abramitis moved to approve subject to Staff recommendations with the added provision should the Applicant wish to increase the window size on that East wall to 12” and it meets with Mr. Dacquisto’ s approval he be allowed to do so. Mr. Zelkowitz seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously.

 

VII) NEW ITEMS

 

1) PZ-02-15-2015171: 286 NE 99th Street, (Owner) Jorge Arenas, (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. First story addition.

Mr. Dacquisto provided information relating to the application which included two new additions to the residence. This includes a cabana bath. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions as outlined. Applicant present Jorge Arenas of 286 NE 99th Street did not wish to make a presentation. The Board asked questions. Motion to approve made by Mr. Busta, subject to Staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Zelkowitz. Motion was approved unanimously.

 

2) PZ-02-15-2015173: 9740 N Miami Avenue, (Owner) Lissette Montalvo & Juan Lopez, (Applicant) Gonzalo Silvera, (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. First story addition. Garage conversion.

Mr. Dacquisto provided information relating to the application which includes First story addition with garage conversion. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions as outlined. Applicant Lissette Montalvo of 9740 N. Miami Avenue said she had no intention to go through with the pool plans at this time. No questions from the Board. Mr. Zelkowitz made a motion to approve subject to Staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Busta. The motion was approved unanimously.

 

3) PZ-02-15-2015174: 5 NW 106th Street, (Owner) Esteban Stavile, (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. First story addition.

Mr. Dacquisto provided information relating to the application which includes a First story addition. Flat roof is visible at an angle not directly visible from the front. Mr. Sarafan stated diagonally from Miami Avenue it is visible. Board felt the section of the code dealing with flat roofs on corner plots should be interpreted to mean if the addition is behind the line of the house so not directly visible from the side street it should be allowed. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Applicant Esteban Stavile was present. The Board asked questions. No public comment. Mr. Abramitis made a motion to approve subject to Staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Zelkowitz. The motion was approved unanimously.

 

4) PZ-03-15-2015175: 9515, 9517, 9519 & 9521 NE 2nd Avenue, (Owner) DVS LLC / Teresa Caccamise, (Applicant/Tenant) Sebastian Gomez, (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; offices / retail / pharmacy to child activity center.

Mr. Dacquisto provided information relating to the application which includes a change of use. The Great Play franchise proposed by Applicant. The Maximum amount of children is 18 per class. Zoning code does not provide for this kind of business. Mr. Dacquisto provided extensive information as related to the usage. The parking requirement for Studio Art is different. Based on the B1 Zoning it would be 18 parking spaces. Mr. Dacquisto asked the Board for some guidance in regards to the parking issue. Mr. Sarafan clarifies the Tenant’s position. The Board addressed the issue of parking based on some of the different zoning requirements. The Board asked questions. Applicant explained that he bought the rights for a Child Activities Franchise. The Board asked questions. Victor Bruce is the Architect for this project. Mr. Dacquisto explains the parking requirement changes according to the usage of the building. The Board asked questions regarding the Fire Department approval for the amount of children in the building. The Board asked questions. Mr. Dacquisto said that Studio Art is the closest requirement of 13 parking spaces. The Board asked questions. Mr. Zelkowitz motion to approve subject to Staff recommendation without limiting the class size. Mr. Fernandez seconded the motion. Mr. Dacquisto clarifies the usage and the parking issue. Motion withdrawn. The Board discusses the motion. Mr. Zelkowitz reinstates his motion. Mr. Busta Seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-1 (Mr. Abramitis-No). The Board discussed the parking spaces. Mr. Sarafan clarifies that the owner may have already decided the parking issue. The Board continues to discuss the parking issue. Mr. Dacquisto clarifies that should this Board agree that this is a Studio Art then 18 parking spaces would be required 5 more than the space is credited with. The building does have 7 parking spaces available. Mr. Dacquisto expresses that he is looking for guidance. The Board discusses the issue of parking. The Board asked questions. The Applicant responds that the limit for the studio is 18 children per the Franchise requirements . Motion to approve amending condition #2 to require 18 parking spaces. Mr. Abramitis moves to approve the parking based on treating it as a studio art with 18 spaces and the additional staff recommendations stated in the report. Seconded by Mr. Busta. The Motion was approved unanimously.

 

5) PZ-03-15-2015176: 1155 NE 102nd Street, (Owner) Esther Budebo (Applicant) Same, (Agent) None; Variance, Sec. 702, Hardship variances. Sec. 523.1. Construction. (6) Roofing materials. Variance to permit the applicant to paint/dye a residential roof.

Mr. Dacquisto provided information related to the application of a hardship variance for a roof painting. Staff recommends denial of the variance as the 4 criteria for granting a variance have not been met. Applicant Ms. Esther Budebo of 1155 NE 102 Street was present. She asked why Mr. Dacquisto felt that she did not meet the requirements. Mr. Dacquisto answered. Ms. Budebo said she did not know that she needed a permit. Mr. Fernandez asked questions. He asked if Code Enforcement found the violation. Mr. Dacquisto said that was the case. Ms. Budebo explains that she was under the impression that she did not need a permit. She is the one that lives there and the house looks better by just looking at the pictures. The Board looked at the actual tiles painted and unpainted. Ms. Budebo asked for a chance to prove that with time the tile will not peel. Mr. Dacquisto asked questions. Ms. Budebo said that she was told to come and get a permit, which would then be denied. Then she could apply for a variance through this Board. The Board asked questions. Mr. Budebo answered. The Board continues to ask questions and made comments. Mr. Dacquisto made comments as to what he was told by Code Enforcement. Surface color is different than the tile color. Had a white roof be painted white it would have not been cited. Mr. Sarafan says that in some instances before the Applicant had to re-paint the roof to the same color as the underlying tile. The Board asked more questions. Ms. Budebo answered. Mr. Fernandez explains the way to resolve the issue. Mr. Sarafan clarifies that at this point there has not been issued a fine in this Code Enforcement case. The Board asked questions. Mr. Dacquisto explains that Ms. Budebo had not been before the Code Enforcement Board. The Board asked more questions. Code Enforcement is working with Ms. Budebo. Mr. Ismael Naranjo said he had no problem with Code issuing a permit to paint the roof to its original color. Mr. Zelkowitz made some comments. Mr. Sarafan made a recommendation to re-paint the roof to its original color. Ms. Budebo asked who determines the color. Mr. Sarafan says the Code Enforcement Officer would determine the color which is the color of the original tile. Mr. Zelkowitz motion to deny the variance with a recommendation to Village Staff an Application to repaint the roof an appropriate permitted color not result in a double permit fee. Seconded by Mr. Busta. The motion was approved unanimously.

 

VIII) NEXT WORKSHOP – April 28, 2015 at 7:00 PM

 

IX) NEXT REGULAR HEARING – Third Thursday of the Month, April 16, 2015.

 

X) 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.