Loading...
8 - additional backupDRAFT Page 1 of 6 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD Regular Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 10, 2015 City Commission Chambers 7:00 P.M. City of South Miami Ordinance No. 08-06-1876 requires all lobbyists before engaging in any lobbying activities to register with the City Clerk and pay an annual fee of $500 per Ordinance No. 44-08-1979. This applies to all persons who are retained (whether paid or not) to represent a business entity or organization to influence “City” action. “City” action is broadly described to include the ranking and selection of professional consultants, and virtually all-legislative, quasi-judicial and administrative action. I. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Action: The meeting was called to order at 7:11PM Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison II. Roll Call Action: Mr. Greiner requested a roll call. Board Members present constituting a quorum: Mr. Greiner (Chairman), Dr. Philips, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Williams, and Ms. Glavey. Board Member absent: Mr. Carreras City staff present: Ms. Shari Kamali (Assistant City Manager) and Mr. Marcus Lightfoot (Zoning Review Coordinator). City staff absent: None City Attorney: Mr. Thomas Pepe. III. Approval of the Minutes: Planning Board Minutes of January 13, 2015 – The Board members reviewed the minutes and were in favor of approval of the minutes with changes. Motion: Mr. Williams motioned to approve the minutes once the discussion on the tree ordinance has been modified. Ms. Fischer seconded the motion. Vote: Yes 5, No 0 Mr. Williams: Yes Ms. Glavey: Yes Mr. Greiner: Yes Mrs. Fischer: Yes Dr. Philips: Yes Z:\PB\PB Minutes\2015 Minutes\2-10-2015\PB Draft Regular Meeting Minutes - 2-10-2015.docx Page 2 of 6 IV. Administrative Matters/Board Comments None at this time V. Public Hearings 1. PB-15-002 Applicant: Censig Holdings, LLC Location: 6031 SW 76th Street A Resolution relating to a request for four variances from Section 20-3.5(F) of the Land Development Code, to allow for lot size 7,358 square feet where a minimum of 10,000 square feet is required, to permit a frontage of 52.03 where 75 feet is required and to permit side setbacks of 5 feet where a minimum of 12.5 feet is required, for a new two-unit residential structure located at 6031 SW 76 Street, South Miami, Florida, within the RM-18 zoning district. Mr. Williams read the item into the record. Ms. Kamali presented the item to the Board. The Chairperson invited the applicant to the podium to speak. Name Address Support/Oppose Michael Marrero, Esq. 200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, 850 Support Mr. Marrero presented the item to the Board. Ms. Fischer asked when the property was purchased. Mr. Marrero responded that the property was purchased approximately six months ago. She then had questions regarding impervious coverage. Ms. Kamali stated that her questions will be addressed during the site plan review for the project. Ms. Kamali then stated that staff will ensure that the project complies with all of the regulations listed in the Land Development Code. Mr. Marrero stated that they did speak to Christopher Brimo, the previous planning director, and showed him samples of pervious pavers for the project. Dr. Philips asked if it is necessary that this lot have a multi-family structure on it. Name Address Support/Oppose Carl Levin 2980 McFarlane Road, #207 Support Mr. Levin, the architect of record for the project responded that the developers chose to have a multi-family structure on the lot. Dr. Philips then asked if it is required that there be a multi-family structure built on the lot. Mr. Marrero stated no, it is not required. The zoning district for the property allows for up to three (3) units be built. Dr. Philips then stated that if it were a single unit then a 12.5 foot setback could be used. Mr. Marrero responded that it would be difficult to obtain that setback due to the fact that the existing single family home that is on the site does not comply with the requirements of the zoning district. Z:\PB\PB Minutes\2015 Minutes\2-10-2015\PB Draft Regular Meeting Minutes - 2-10-2015.docx Page 3 of 6 Mr. Greiner commended the architect on the design of the project. Both Ms. Glavey and Mr. Williams commended the architect on the design of the project. The Chairperson opened the meeting to Public Comments. Name Address Support/Oppose Dr. Herbie Wertheim 6021 SW 76 Street Oppose Dr. Wertheim stated that he is the neighbor directly to the west and is concerned that if the building is built with a side setback of 5.5 feet, it may cast a shadow on his property. He says that the proposed building would be encroaching on his life, and if they are allowed to use that type of setback, then his only recourse is to develop his own property. Mr. Williams asked Dr. Wertheim if he has any issues with any of the other variances. Dr. Wertheim stated that he does not have an issue with the design. However, he feels that the project is unreasonably tall and would cast unnecessary shade onto his property. Last, Dr. Wertheim stated that he would prefer for another single family home to be built on the property. Ms. Glavey asked Dr. Wertheim what his side setback was, of which he responded that it is approximately 12.5 feet. Ms. Glavey then stated that there would be a total of 17.5 feet between the two structures. Name Address Support/Oppose Rafael Rodriguez 7541 SW 61 Avenue #6 Support Mr. Rafael stated that he lives in the building directly to the east of the subject property. He then stated that additional fill may need to be added in order to raise the elevation for the property. He then stated that the tree that Mr. Marrero spoke on resides on his property. He stated that there should be consideration of how it is pruned, but there should also be consideration for its roots as well since they are within the confines of the subject property. The Chairperson closed the meeting to Public Comments. Mr. Williams asked what the hardship was for this variance. Mr. Marrero stated that the characteristics of the lot are creating the hardship. He then stated that the zoning criteria for the district were designed for larger lots. Ms. Fischer stated that the Board reviewed a previous variance request, where the city attorney ruled that the hardship was self-created due to the fact that the property owner purchased the lot knowing that it was irregularly shaped and did not comply with the zoning regulations for the district. Because of this, Ms. Fischer stated that the hardship for the subject property was self-created as well. Mr. Pepe responded that the particular Z:\PB\PB Minutes\2015 Minutes\2-10-2015\PB Draft Regular Meeting Minutes - 2-10-2015.docx Page 4 of 6 owner purchased the property knowing what the zoning was, thereby causing a self- created hardship. He then stated that this property may be zoned in such a way that would allow for greater density if the property were larger, they do not have to use the property for the maximum extent of which it is zoned, especially since there is a neighbor that will be directly affected by one of the variances that are being requested. Ms. Fischer stated that if two units was such a tight fit, how three units could be built on the property. Mr. Greiner stated that three units are what are allowed by the district. Mr. Marrero added that because density is function of the size of the lot, for the density of 18 units per acre, three units would be allowed on a lot of this size. Mr. Marrero then stated that the developer did purchase the lot knowing the zoning for it. He then stated that at some point, the property would need to be redeveloped. Last Mr. Marrero pointed out that the house currently on the property would need variances as well if it were reviewed against todays zoning regulations. Mr. Marrero stated that the gentleman to the east, Dr. Wertheim, does not live in the residence that he owns. Mr. Marrero then stated that his clients were originally in talks with Dr. Wertheim to purchase his property as well but talks broke down. If they were to purchase Dr. Wertheim’s property, then the variances that are being requested at this time would not be needed. Ms. Fischer asked if the developer had wanted to put three units on the property, would the setbacks be the same, of which Mr. Marrero stated yes. They chose not to put three units so that the property isn’t filled to its maximum capacity. Mr. Greiner asked what the zoning was to either side of the subject property. Ms. Kamali responded that the surrounding zoning is RM-24 to the north, RM-18 on the east and west, and RS-3 to the south. Name Address Support/Oppose Bob Liu 5901 SW 74 Street #306 Support Mr. Liu, the developer for the project, reiterated that the current home would need the same variances in order to be built to the current standards for the zoning district. He then stated that they this design so as to not be obtrusive to the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Greiner asked what the footprint for the structure would be. Mr. Marrero responded that the coverage is 4,300 square feet. Mr. Greiner then asked what the gross living area, not including the roof, would be. Mr. Liu responded that it would be approximately 3,600 square feet which includes the first and second floor. Mr. Greiner then stated that it is a very large single family home, but it is in the confines of the zoning regulations. Dr. Philips stated that a single family home with a side setback of 12.5 feet could be placed on the lot. Mr. Marrero stated that the 5.5 foot setback is necessary in order to place an architectural feature in that area in order to break of the massing of that side of the structure. Z:\PB\PB Minutes\2015 Minutes\2-10-2015\PB Draft Regular Meeting Minutes - 2-10-2015.docx Page 5 of 6 Mr. Williams asked if the proposed structure is using the same footprint as the existing single family residence, of which Mr. Marrero stated no. Mr. Williams asked if he could hear from the other residents in the area. Mr. Marrero stated that they sent out a notice about the variance to residences in the neighborhood as required by the Land Development Code. He stated that a lot of the residents have contacted him, of which he has met with them and discussed their concerns. That’s how he found out about the tree on the property to the west. Ms. Fischer stated that only one house could be placed on the lot and would be more appropriate, especially since the zoning district directly to the south was RS-3. She then stated that a five foot setback is the equivalent of a sidewalk. It gives the impression that there is a zero lot line for the property. Ms. Fischer stated that she is concerned that if the 5 foot setback were approved, the plans could change; utilizing the new setback for the whole side, by the time it comes before the ERPB. She then stated that because a 5 foot setback is not in character with the neighborhood, she could not support this project. Mr. Marrero stated that he understands her concerns, and that it is not the intention of the developer to use that 5 foot setback for the whole building. If necessary, a condition could be made, tying the submitted plans for the project to the approval for the variance. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Fischer how she felt about the response that was given. Ms. Fischer responded that she would be more comfortable if the project were a single family residence with larger side setbacks. Mr. Greiner stated that while a single family house could be built on the property, due to the regulations for the district, the size of the single family house could rival the size of the multi-family project that is currently being reviewed. The fact that it is a two-unit structure is irrelevant. Ms. Glavey asked staff if a variance for the size of the lot (7,358 SF) would be necessary regardless of what was built on the property, of which Ms. Kamali stated yes. She then asked if the variance for the frontage (52 ft.) would be needed also, of which Ms. Kamali stated yes. Last, Ms. Glavey asked if the 12.5 setback is based on a typical lot that complies with the current zoning district, of which Ms. Kamali stated yes. Mr. Williams reopened the meeting to public comments Ms. Fischer reminded the public that the Planning Board is strictly an advisory board. The city commission makes the final decision. The City Attorney stated if the current house were removed, there definitely would be a hardship because the owner would have to build something very similar to the footprint currently there. Name Address Support/Oppose Gretel Norweb 7541 SW 61 Avenue #1 Support Ms. Norweb stated that she had not seen the project and requested to take a look at it. Z:\PB\PB Minutes\2015 Minutes\2-10-2015\PB Draft Regular Meeting Minutes - 2-10-2015.docx Page 6 of 6 Name Address Support/Oppose Fernando Rendina 7541 SW 61 Avenue #4 Support Mr. Rendina stated that he had not seen the project and requested to take a look at it. Mr. Liu stated that the community was concerned with the 5 foot setback for the project. Name Address Support/Oppose Dr. Herbie Wertheim 6021 SW 76 Street Oppose Dr. Wertheim restated the comments that he made earlier in the discussion. Mr. Marrero reiterated that Dr. Wertheim does not live at the house to west. He then stated that the variances requested at this time would be necessary to build the current single family residence. The Chairperson closed the meeting to Public Comments. Ms. Fischer asked the City Attorney if this item would set a legal precedence, of which Mr. Pepe stated no. Motion: Dr. Philips motioned to accept the application as presented. This motion was seconded by Mr. Williams. Vote: Yes 4, No 1 Ms. Glavey: Yes Mr. Williams: Yes Mr. Greiner: Yes Mrs. Fischer: No Dr. Philips: Yes VI. Public Comments/New Business Ms. Fischer asked about Resolution #202-14-14296 regarding the request from City Commission to have the Planning Board make recommendations for the land use and zoning for seven lots that are west of Mount Olive Missionary Baptist Church of South Miami. Ms. Kamali stated that she will get copy of the resolution and have it placed on the next scheduled Planning Board meeting. Mr. Greiner asked if the Board would be interested in taking a look at the possible changes to the Hometown Overlay, of which the Board stated yes. Ms. Kamali stated that the document should be sent to her so that she can distribute it to the board members. VII. Future Meeting Dates: March 10, 2015 VIX. Adjournment: Mr. Greiner adjourned the Planning Board meeting at 8:19 PM.