Loading...
01-22-1976 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING January 22, 1976 A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Village Planning and Zoning Board was held at 7:30 p.m. , January 22, 1976, at the Village Hall, with the following members present: Mr. James O. Denham, Chairman Mr. Gordon H. Moyer, Jr. Mr. Kenneth R. Phoenix Mr. Bob Stobs, II Absent: Mr. Albert R. Toussaint Mr. William R. Bradford, Building and Zoning Director, was also present. Minutes of the last meeting were approved as written by motion made by Mr. Moyer, seconded by Mr. Phoenix and passed. (1) Mr. James M. Jackson, 1240 N. E. 91st Terr. , requested permission to add a room to the rear of his residence, maintaining the present 7-1/2 Ft. side yard setback. The house was originally built under Dade County jurisdiction with a proper setback of 7-1/2 Ft. This addition would continue the building line of the house. The Village setback requirement in a side yard is 10 ft. After a review of the plan Mr. Moyer moved that the request be approved as most of the houses in that area have a 7-1/2 ft. setback. The motion was seconded by Mr. Stobs and passed unanimously. (2) Mr. Jack Arias requested setback requirements on Lot 1, Block 1, Dora Heights. This is the triangular piece of property at Grand Concourse and 93rd St. The lot in question has three street frontages. The proposed setbacks were 25 ft. as a front setback from Grand Concourse, 10 ft. on the side property line and 10 ft. on the 93rd St. side. These setbacks were approved by motion made by Mr. Phoenix, seconded by Mr. Moyer and passed. (3) Special Planning Board reports: (a) Comprehensive Planning Act - Mr. Denham made a report on his study of the Planning Act which he stated we will have to follow but there is no immediate action required. He advised the Board to wait and see how the planning requirements are developed within the County. Mr. Denham suggested a joint meeting with Metro planning personnel at some future time. (b) Hedge and wall heights - In reviewing Mr. Toussaint's report, copy attached hereto, the Board agreed to take under consideration recommendation (1) and (2) but not (3), rear yard grade. • 1/22/76 -2- (c) Miami Shores maintenance facilities - After reviewing this report with the Board (copy attached) Mr. Stobs moved that the Board recommend to the Council that they hire an architect or engineering firm to do a master plan of the maintenance facilities at 103rd Street; that some of the buildings should be replaced immediately because of their badly deteriorated condition and replanning done of the entire property with the idea of selling off that portion that is not needed for the maintenance facilities. Mr. Phoenix seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. (d) City Hall floor plan study - Mr. Phoenix reported that he had picked up a floor plan of the Village Hall but that the drawing had to be up- dated with recent changes before recommendations could be made. (e) Drainage problems - Mr. Moyer's report listed the streets that are County maintained and was told by the County Public Works Department that the only drainage work planned for Miami Shores would be on Miarni Avenue when it is resurfaced from 79th Street to 167th Street. Mr. Moyer listed the drainage problems with the following priorities: 1. Biscayne Boulevard (Publix) 2. N. E. 10th Avenue at N. E. 96th Street 3. N. E. 8th Avenue at N. E. 91st Street 4. N. E. 92nd Street west of the Boulevard 5. N. E. 105th Street at. 4th Avenue (St. Rose of Lima Church) 6. N. E. 103rd Street near the Bay Mr. Moyer moved that these drainage problems be taken care of as funds are available. The motion was seconded by Mr. Stobs and passed unaminously. Mr. Moyer will assist Mr. Bradford in trying to get assistance from the State Road Department on the Boulevard drainage. (f) Recommendation from the Board concerning compensation. Mr. Stobs moved that a recommendation be made that the Board maintain its non -paid status. The motion was seconded by Mr. Phoenix and passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. 1111 Village C erk i Approved: .4a/44..e/pe airman Preliminary Report to the Planni g and Zoning Board relative to proposed ordinances concerning hed es, fences and walls in Miami Shores Village. Synopsis of Existing Ordinances (1) Village Ordinance #270 Sec 517= Covers 4' miminun height around Sec 518= Fences, walls, hedges • (a) Max height front yard 3i feet Side or rear yard 5 feet Certain exceptions to 8 ft where "R" "0" contiguous to or across an alley Business or Commercial District. (2) No such feature higher than 3i feet shall be established or maintained, whether previously existing or not on any corner plot within a distance of 20 feet, measured along plot lines, from point of intersection of the street lines bounding the plot. Walls and Fences in front yard shall be constructed either of ornamental masonry or ornamental metal, but not including any wire fence. swimming pools (1) fl A- �� , or from a (b) (c) Provides space for waste materials in fences, hedges along rear property line at alleys. Secy_ 519 Provides for a 5' height wall, fence, or hedge on Non -Residential Buildings that adjoin any "R", "A" or "0" District. Ordinance No. 344 Provides for S foot height for walls and fences in A-1 zones The'prresent village Ordinance #270 Sec:.517, 518, 519!and Ordinance No 344 seem clear and explicit as to the heights of hedges walls and fences in the various areas of the Village. In .regards to the Mayor's/question as to a grade reference for the height to be measured from, the following are the writers interpretation for consideration. (1) Front yard height should be controlled (number one) by grade at the back of the existing sidewalk or (number two) in the case of yards without sidewalk the grade reference should be the crown of the street as this is normally very close to the same grade as the sidewalk. (Number 3) Where sidewalks do not exist and there is a continous grade above or below crown grade this should control grade: (2) Grade along side yard lines should be along the finished yard grade or ground elevation. • (3) Rear yard grade shoul& be defined as the centerline grade of the alley pav/ment as constructed or in the case of lots where alljeys do not exist grade should be along the finished yard grade or ground elevation. The above are the general situations which will be encountered. There are exceptions in the Village where by some streets and sidewalks are below natural ground and the natural rock has been cut and gradedeoonsiderably below the front yard level. The other case is where lots are altered by adding fill and thus producing a grade difference along side and rear lot lines with adjacent properties. In these cases either the neighbors should agree to the heights of walls, hedges, or fences, the Building Inspectors judgement should be considered and as a last resort Varitinces would have to be considered and policy *established for individual cases by the Planning Board. In regard to hedges extending into alleys in the majority of the cases the hedges have been planted on private property and thru normal growth and trimming have been allowed to exceed the height limitations of our existing Ordinance and also allowed to expand laterally and encroach into the alley in the upper extremities of the plant. This is presenting a problem with the Village Garbage Trucks. and Police cars patroling in the alley. If the hedges were kept at the required five foot height there would be little chance for lateral encroachment in the alley and inter- ference with Village vehicles. On. the other hand the property m owner.:will contend that since there have been no objections the hedges have been left to grow upward and outward to shield the home bwner from the sight of Garbag6 Trucks and Service trucks that use the alleys and.in some cases a neighbors back yard. In a good many instances adjoining owners have agreed with one another to let hedges grow to heights above our Ordinances to further insure side and rear yard privacy and the Village officials overlook these violations and do not go out of their way to enforce the regulations. In cases where a neighbor complains, to the Village concerning an adjoining neighbors hedge that is in violation of Village Ordinances, Mr. Bradford tries to resolve the dispute with the owners if possible. In most .instances Mr. Bradford will be advised by the person who the complaint has been lodged against that they will be glad to bring their hedges within regulations providing that Mr. Bradford will have all the adjoYning neighbors conform their hedges accordingly which would again be a difficult task and cause added disencion in a neighborhood. The case of hedges growing into the alleys and interfering with the vehicles falls into the.same category as the neighbors hedge growing laterally and encroaching upon the adjacent neighbors property. In this case the Village is the adjoining neighbor and has the authority to cut and remove what ever material is encroa9hing upon the alley. I am sure if the Village elects to clear the alleys of en- croaching' shrubbery it will create....a strain upon the Public Works Departments budget and whether charges could be assessed against the property owners would have to be resolved by the Village Attorney. At this writing I have not been able to obtain Police Chief Fletcher's views nor Mr.Bolieks concerning the alley problems. Mr. Bradford and I have gone over some of the height problems that have come up thru the years past. Our problem will be to decide if we want to continue our present policies toward these Ordinances or to try and enforce them more strictly, which I feel would be a monumental task and could possibly create more ill will toward the Village than the benefits that would be gained. Respectfully Submitted &zi,„/,‘e January 22, 1976 AAEMORANDUM TO: Chairman James 0. Denham Miami Shores Planning Board FROM: Member Gordon H. Moyer, Jr. SUBJECT: Drainage Problems on Village Streets After many phone calls and a personal visit, I was able to contact Mr. Hearndon, Assistant County Public Works Director. He informed me that there were no funds for city streets but the County maintains: 95th Street from N.W. 2nd Ave. to N.E. 2nd Ave. 103rd Street from N.W. 2nd Ave. to N.E. 6th Ave. N.E. 2nd Ave. from 91st Street to 115th Street N.E. 6th Ave. from 87th Street to 107th Street He also stated that plans call for work on Miami Ave. from 79th Street to 167th Street for drainage and resurfacing where needed and the plant- ing of trees. Biscayne Boulevard is a State maintained highway and the Department of Transportation must be contacted. Mr. Jim Chandler is the District Maintenance Engineer and Claude White is the Planning Engineer. This project was discussed with the Village Mayor Donald McIntosh who with William Bradford, the Building Director, had discussed the Boule- vard project with officials of the Department of Transportation. It seems that the State agreed to dig a swale if the Village would replant the grass. There was some question if this procedure would correct the problem. Nothing has been done to date. -Page 1- • • As to Priorities, (see map): 1. Biscayne Boulevard (Publix) 2. N.E. 10th Avenue at N.E. 96th Street 3. N.E. 8th Avenue at N.E. 91st Street 4. N.E. 92nd Street West of Boulevard 5. N.E. 105th Street & N.E. 4th Avenue (St. Rose of Lima Church) 6. N.E. 103rd Street near the Bay Subject to the approval of the Village Attorney, Mr. Richard Lund, it may be well to set up procedures for Drainage Tax Districts. Thus the properties affected would pay for the cost of installing the proper drains. Gordon H. Moyer, Jr. Page 2— 1 1 / / ,J YV 4 eroaQrnvov. '.i70 ova� �u" Il 4r 1 SI *1 �,/C Lv.... 34p111A 5ill0MS- •IW IPI .L _ 1 c II®!!!�I!��!EL"`'L,!B !! ? I ��! 110' . �®®�®� • s ®®a c . c.il[y i Al icm • . `14 . ,rp , _ 1 a ® .. C I I2ijNi +,� � , aaLv....IIEj�� i 'FE km plitippo34. ,,, pokr , . t il : 0 :' `� "A; c. oOO 'isoloommaggg 1121/k���I ,'.2 2y 1 ®®®®®®®� ,'..• Alf /� wl 1 1S .aS6 • 0 RN n } A, lilt temsni ggnI0th; PINCININO �q00� 6114 y 3NAilillataMp\y F opy 8 2 matiowiNt# 6 4 Lr of '1% JI I9r llr ➢ r] 1S a1 L6N S vi .. W14'37,9q jp a z 11 94 14 ILQ6 '3N It sr N N t 19 . .9 .L« is .1466 •3N n aoP s aft .sr 9419 S 9 •x9001 9 - sem'.' - a y p,y a �' OQO �Aen 11°D ol.Tt E�©�J r ' =fi �► �ddac���o ao w z k4� iii O[ :' /1 L. .. J ©Or alai) Y/9/ 99 4,01144 99 e7 R tt K 411 .9 V 9 VI 7 * C 2 1 Op -H -1 A 0 N ,i 91196 it • 9.1 1 R 9 • 94,, 2'- s IS 1S i12_113E2., I s/ si 1.996 9/ 9, 0 •Ip'=nl weir L 0 a of :Ls Ls/ stv 0 a 0 or 9/ n 3N-.,s_NOP lfR ®� Vg0 Ur f L 9 R1. 00 1.11 i $ 9 [ b 6 y a .9 'IV v De , ,[l ry ,p0 fq f i 9 • sA aa.iv ,510 AV - Aro. , co r au 60 91N Oi 9• L 9 9 i C 9 1 XIX/,fira . it [/ n .0 M a IJ" 9 9 9 • .9 b 9 a / JL es 9 1 0 9 1 .,•,.at. 4. rs n 9/ e a er [r ON 2/ ri V. d a L y s► 1 7 "/ sry' 9 s 9.0 a 6N d7 4,,,,S111/4Il 39VllIA C2b004S 1WVIW .rr.g'f.'ri/Y r' 19 9'9go, N/to, 2Y0 H 9a 6A 92 1Q OIRI BIM, P9 il'►1 CW 0 1'---- ao/sre.oa o/ a/` *o3.9 oc ^' Rd e0 r n wr z ace N • s •3 'N AIM ,ri .1r. L6 Z : /: .1 R a . •N 3'N .a 1/w 94 an rwe ca 3'N tinglont MOCCOOM 9 CIS e 16 b6 ( c • 3N 7:�O�ii����aC',: co 2, 4. I a r a 9 t -A 0 .9 9 9. �ta AC . 2 :"„11 �Isl� iDDB12 ��AAQBAA9 7 mmmm ea ra am000mm PIS romaitt 'IV 1 � 0 Z -lovas d -J 0 PP • 9-00•s' 9 u®®©`aemkik��£.Z£ I£ i9 o FY AF®EICHIC MMIV1 '#/4. s/ POP r 6 i 1 , Y' v/ fr.% rFt 9r • T. b• 7 7iell 4 1.9. Sol 32 kit 4CI Es El so 1111 11111 alJEI VC IP MI RE au Ell In ®2 COI is El azi wis 0412 --_I f 3 'N IITA EL MI Es NZ Km El az� ,nmeEl FEMX AVI Pis L 9 4.: a 9 9 4. r / 9, an irLn b s T ,o 9 V 3 I9I yra�: '10 .9099' 3N a 419 \�I 1.14t 110. WIMP It]; '1 kilipplIlli rEr���� 01111111111 menicsu lempesii umiar ,4 D tNENTIMIt �aaao�aoaoam • 89 • 3a000Waaa; mem CINCH Acianu 6/ a �®®• off 401 L ?Ang itttit 6/09 av 9ib.do.d 6017 A23Lnno7 9 .x100 Ca0gR wenn • • • c PSOf dr os • 11`6.141 '1 via B6 •1 S 9 rem • • moof 09 Mirk 29 ZS 9J twirl 11 et a • • OZ 69 • Mar Mg • rz zz 09 • at 09 St OS 2.0 .91 511 04 Olt 4.594 112 iSOVIS IV; 1173 SZ SS o wow s 9 aaa 09(e7 0.00 JEra • naaaa TO: MIAMI SHORES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD FROM: J. Robert Stobs II RE: REPORT ON MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE MAINTENANCE FACILITIES January 22,1976 The Miami Shores Village owns approximately 10 acres of land at 1701 N.W. -103rd Street. This land is currently being used for a general dumping area for plant clippings, a vehicle inspection station, a vehicle maintenance garage, and for maintenance vehicle parking. On a general inspection of this site, it was found that the existing maintenance facility structures were in 100% deteriorated condition. After meeting with Henry Boliek and Bill Bradford at the above described facility I would make the following recommendations: 1. Hire an Architect to develop a master plan for efficient use of existing property with regard to a vehicle maintenance center. 2. The existing vehicle inspection station should be used on at least an interium basis upon Metro's withdrawal. I would recommend the removal of the personnel from the existing facilities as soon as Metro abandons the vehicle inspection station. 3. All existing surplus trucks and equipment not being used or con- templated for use should be disposed of in the most efficient manner to provide ground space for storage of trucks and equipment. 4. Consideration should be given to consolidating the maintenance responsibilities of the golf course maintenance trucks, police department vehicles and the parks, streets and water department trucks. The Village should institute a building program based on the above Master Plan with priority given to: 1. Toilet, shower and locker facilities for personnel. 2. Maintenance facilities for equipment - it is my opinion that the existing inspection station can be converted into this maintenance facility. 3. Covered storage facilities for equipment. 4. Asphalt paving of entire maintenance area. It should be noted that our Parks, Streets, Waste and Lot Cleaning Departments have an annual budget of some $850,000.00 per year. In this budget, for this fiscal year, a capital improvement reserve was established in the amount of $40,000.00 It should also be noted that in our Comprehensive Plan Report pre- pared by Harland Bartholomew & Associates includes the following comment re- garding the Village Maintenance Facility, "expansion and improvement of this area will be necessary to meet present and future needs." 1 \ : s.\ \ k ! k \ k 15x = 135o —E tsTLN �r . �,-! 6 $- ® ' k 1 1 4.6 m as .. - .r e. '58 X rag �a 2Srtz.a ._-.S4a b— 45'x 20 - ..1 9c 14005E 34x4,0Iti - 1$00 2SX tao . ZCao4 ,, .... _ l 1 1I I 1 35s. lob 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t ... ... - r,.. 1 ........, 510, sc.. A L L \ IC50