07-14-1977 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING
July 14, 1977
A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Planning and Zoning Board
was held at 7:30 p. m. , July 14, 1977, at the Village Hall, with the following
members present:
Mr. James O. Denham, Chairman
Mr. Gordon H. Moyer, Jr.
Mr. Kenneth R. Phoenix
Mr. Albert R. Toussaint
Mr. Robert Stobs, II
Absent: None
Mr. William R. Bradford, Building and Zoning Director, was also
present, as well as about 20 residents, including Mayor Farina, and Council
members Ralph Bowen and Elspeth Jensen.
Minutes of the meeting of June 9, 1977, were approved as written by
motion made by Mr. Toussaint, seconded by Mr. Phoenix and passed unanimously.
(1) ZONING HEARING
Chairman Denham announced that the first business on the agenda
was the hearing on a petition filed by Mr. R. L. Blue to change the zoning on
Lots 15, 16, and 17, Block 30, Miami Shores Section #1, for office use and
parking. This property is located on the north side of N. E. 96th Street, east
of the alley behind the Standard Oil Service Station. Mr. Denham stated that in
accordance with our Zoning Ordinance, all property owners within 500 ft. of the
location were notified of the zoning hearing.
Mr. Blue submitted signatures of two owners and one tenant of
adjoining or abutting property, who had no objection to the proposed use.
Following Mr. Blue's comments and a review of the sketch of
the proposed building, Mr. Denham opened the floor for comments by the
residents.
Mrs. Friedman, 240 N. E. 97th Street, stated that it was a
commercial building and she was against any change that would establish a
precedent and lower the value of her property.
Chairman Denham read a letter received from Sidney and
Dorothy Lion, 308 N. E. 96th Street, objecting to this change on the basis that
it would open the door for commercial building on 96th Street. A letter was also
7/14/77
-2-
received from Mrs. Kathryn K. Helmly, 4445 Island Road, Bay Point, owner
of the vacant property in the X -Zone on N. E. 97th Street, stating that she
was in favor of this change.
Mr. Charles Kelly, 261 N. E. 97th St. , stated he was against the
change.
Mrs. Robbie Earle, 294 N. E. 97th St. , stated it would open the alley
to more traffic with the parking lot exiting on the alley, and also thought the
city has ample business property,
Mr. Gene Parry, owner of Lots 17 & 18, Block 31, and representing
the owner of Lots 13, 14, 15 & 16, stated that there are no commercial build-
ings east of the alley and if the Village allowed Mr. Blue to do this it would
set a precedent and lower the value of real estate.
Carol Santos, 136 N. E. 96th St. , was against putting commercial
zoning in the residential area.
Dr. J. Stein, owner of 9699 N. E. 2nd Ave. , stated that he felt it
was very wise to reserve these lots for parking as a buffer zone, but was
neither for or against the change.
Mr. Emrys Harris, 287 N. E. 96th St. , owner of Lot 21, Block 30,
and representing his aunt owning Lots 22 and 23, stated that this is spot zoning;
that Mr. Blue is not suffering from hardship in the use of the property; that
there would have to be some overriding community need for this use before
there could be any justification for approval of re -zoning; that there can't be
any justification to make a change in this particular interest.
Mr. James Hamilton, 250 N. E. 96th Street, owner of Lots 6 & 7,
Block 29, objected to any change of zoning and didn't feel that we need any more
commercial property going into the residential areas of the Shores.
Mr. Dennis Fisher, 284 N. E. 96th Street, thought we have enough
commercial property encroaching on the home owners, that business should be
kept on N. E. Znd Ave.
Mr. Blue stated this is not a commercial building. It is a professional
office and there is a difference. He also added that there is no office space
available of 7000 sq. ft. , which is what he needs.
Mr. Lloyd Gordon, 290 N. E. 95th Street, stated that a building of
7000 sq. ft. would not fit in with the design of single family zoning.
Mr. James Townsend, 485 N. E. 92nd Street, thought this would be
an asset to the area and that it is a beautiful building.
/14/77
-3-
Mr. Emrys Harris pointed out that it does not follow that this type of
use for a wholesale insurance office would continue if the property were sold.
vacant
Mr. Gordon stated that the ,ingle family residential lots on 95th Street
are being used for parking (in connection with business).
Mr. Dennis Fisher repeated that this is an encroachment on the
residential areas which we do not need.
Mrs. Rosemary Fisher, mentioned the residential property the bank
owns which could also be used for commercial zoning.
Chairman Denham read reports made to the Village Manager on this
proposed change, as follows; (a) The Director of Building & Zoning stated that
it would constitute spot zoning and recommended denial; (b) The Chief of
Police had no comment on the rezoning but felt the parking area should be
located on the east side of any new construction; (c) The Superintendent of
Public Services reported no difficulty in servicing the area.
Mr. Toussaint stated that in view of the reports of the Building
Inspector, the Police Chief and the opinions expressed here tonight, he moved
denial of the request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Moyer and passed by
three affirmative votes, with Mr. Phoenix dissenting, and Mr. Stobs abstain-
ing due to a possible conflict of interest.
(2) A request was made by Mrs. Leo Diamond, 1690 N. E. 104th
Street, to be allowed to keep a canvas car awning in the front setback, which
had been erected without permit. Mr. and Mrs. Diamond were present and
petitioned the Board to consider their request based on the fact that it had been
erected nine years ago, presumably within the law, and that no one can see it
as they are at a deadend street,
After some discussion, Mr. Moyer stated, that in view of the fact
that this has been in existence for nine years, and that it is almost impossible
to see it from the street, he moved a recommendation that it be allowed to stay, but that
this should not set a precedent for future awnings of this type. The motion
failed for lack of a second. However, after further consideration the motion
was reinstated and seconded by Mr. Phoenix, who added that if it is blown away
that it cannot be replaced again. Upon vote the motion passed 4/1 with Mr.
Toussaint dissenting.
(3) A request was made by Melweb Sign, Inc. for approval of signs
for the cantilever in front of the new Biscayne Federal Savings office, 9033
Biscayne Blvd. (Kwik Chek plaza), to be installed on a fascia to be part of the
cantilever. After review of the sketch Mr. Phoenix moved that it be approved.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Moyer and carried unanimously.
•
•
7/14/77
-4-
Mr. Moyer discussed the many non -conforming real estate signs
that are evident throughout the Village and the Board recommended concerning
real estate and for sale signs that the ordinance be strictly enforced as to size, number,
and location and that the violators be notified in writing.
Mr. Toussaint asked the Board to look at the asphalt shingle roof
that the Council approved for the home at 801 N. E. 91st Terrace, which
is an excellent example of why roofing materials should be spelled out in an
ordinance. Mr. Phoenix agreed to draft regulations for this purpose.
Chairman Denham reported that he had spoken with Mr. Reginald
Walters, County Planning Director, regarding the Comprehensive Plan and
learned that the County will advise us as to what the County will provide as to
Countywide elements to the Plan and will be having a meeting with the
municipalities in September. The Comprehensive Plan must be completed by
July of 1979.
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Village C erk
FORM 4
MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT
DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED:
July 14,
,19 77
PART A
Stobs, II James Robert 305 759-8027
Name• Telephone•
(LAST) (FIRST) (MIDDLE) (A/C) (NUMBER)
Address: 55 N.E. 97th St. Miami Shores 33138 Dade
(STREET) (CITY) (ZIP CODE) (COUNTY)
PART B
Agency is a unit of [check one] : ( ) State of Florida; (X) County, City or other Political Subdivision
Name of Agency: Miami Shores Planning & Zoning Board
Position held in Agency:
Member
PART C
MEMORANDUM OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN A VOTING SITUATION [Required by Florida Statutes § 1123143 (19751]
If you have voted in your official capacity upon any measure in which you had a personal, private, or professional interest which inures to
your special private gain or the special private gain of any principal by whom you are retained, please disclose the nature of your interest
below.
A5S-rek,IJE& I=ecnvan k
Request by Mr. R. L. Blue for change in
1. Description of the matter upon which youveteed-in your official capacity •
zoning of three lots presently zoned for parking and residential to allow construction of
Insurance Office Building.
cktasrliel ,=tzoVOTI NGTt o -ro t QS s Le cal P-Licr o
2. Description of the personal, private, or professional interest you have in the above matter which inures to your special private gain or
the special private gain of any principal by whom you are retained. Mr. R. L. Blue contacted by telephone
Mr. Donald W. Stobs, President of Stobs Bros. Construction Co. regarding Stobs Bros. interest
in building a proposed new Insurance Office. Mr. Blue was informed that Stobs Bros. would
be interested in constructing this building. Mr. Blue then requested recommendations for an
Architect and Mr. D. W. Stobs gave Mr. Blue the name of Wahl Snyder & Assoc. for his
consideration. Stobs Bros. Construction Co. has no signed contract for construction of this
office building and no contract terms have ever been discussed.
I am Secretary -Treasurer of Stobs Bros. Construction Co. and own a minority interest in
said company.
3. Person or principal to whom the special gain described above will inure:
a. ( ) Yourself b. (X) Principal by whom you are retained• Stobs Bros. Construction Co.
(NAME)
PART D
FILING INSTRUCTIONS
This memorandum must be filed within fifteen (15) days following the meeting during which the voting conflict occurred with the person
responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who shall incorporate the memorandum in the meeting minutes. This form need not be
filed merely to indicate the absence of a voting conflict. Florida law permits but does not require you to abstain from voting when a conflict
of interest arises; if you vote, however, the conflict must be disclosed pursuant to the requirements described above.
PART E
1k
uI..� '_.._ �' 7
GNA O� ERSON DI4.1 OSING DATE SIGNED
NO 1111 UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1975),A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES
GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE
OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000.
CE FORM 4- EFF. 1/1/77