Loading...
07-28-1983 Regular MeetingWANT, 51-1pRF5 yILLAPE, PLANNING ASVD ZONING ROAA,D MEETING JUIY 28, 1983 A regular meeting of the Niami Shores Planning and Zoning Board was held on July 28,0 1983, 7;30 p.m., at the Miami Shores Village Hall, with the following Board members present; J, Robert Stows, Chairman Roberta Johnson Robert J, Rossi Thomas J. Laubenthal Absent: J,S, Palmer Also Present: Frank LuBien, Building Director 1) MINUTES; Minutes of the meeting of July 14, 1983 were approved as written by motion made by Mr. Rossi, seconded by Mr, Laubenthal, and carried unanimously. The Building Director reported to the Board on two items from the last agenda. Mr. G. Samininos, of 1214 N.E, 92 Street, who completed construction of trellis without plans or permit, has submitted to the building department a set of plans with registered architects seal, and permit was. issued, as trellis complies with required specifications, Sec. 225(g), The second item is the request of W. R, Terry Cuson, 1183 N.E. 91st Terrace with reference to request to enclose carport, This went before the Council and was referred back to the Planning & Zoning Board. Mr. LuBien advised he spoke with Mr, Cuson, who is preparing some documents and requested that he be placed on the agenda at a future date. This will be coming back before the Board on the basis of being reviewed as a hardship. The Building Director stated it was sent back to the Planning Board because it was unclear that his original application was for a variance to the off-street parking requirement and he also needed a variance to the non -conforming structure. Mr. LuBien felt if a variance was granted to the 10' required side setback it would remove this from being a non -conforming structure. - 2 - July 28, 1983 Mr. LuBien stated, looking down the road, they want to enclose a carport now, they might want to add a pool or patio or put up a utility shed, these things are normal in a family -grow situation, Whereas, the way he is right now, being a non- conforming structure, he can do none' of the above. Discussion was held relative to the non -conforming structures on that particular street and Mr. LuBien's statement if it is non -conforming, you can't touch it. 2) REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FLAT ROOF ADDITION PATRICIA MULL, 1343 N.E. 104 STREET This request is for approval of proposed flat roof addition, which exceeds the allowable area by 194 sq. ft. A variance to section 225 (e)(2) is required. Set of plans were reviewed by the Board and calculations submitted reveal the flat roof addition is approximately 71/2% over the allowable amount of square footage that is approved. She has proposed 589 sq. ft., allowable is 395 sq. ft. based on the fact that the area of the existing building is 2,631 sq. ft, based at the ground level of the building. Mrs. Mull advised that the problem is that the house is in the shape of a U and she wanted to increase the living space by enclosing the U but she discovered that one wall of the U was longer than the other one. Mrs. Mull feels the only way to pull it together esthetically is to angle it back in but then the problem is it goes over the 15%. Mrs. Mull feels the addition would not look good with a pitched roof. Following discussion with reference to reasonable use of the property and agreeing that the use is functional as a single family residence, the Board recommended reducing the family room to 24* x 17'. Mrs. Mull would like the addition as proposed to the Board; she feels it is an unusual condition; she needs to tie the two walls together. Mr, Rossi stated the Code is very specific; it allows a maximum of 15% of the ground area, or a maximum of 300 sq. ft. Mr. Rossi felt it would not be a problem to limit it to 15% of the total sq,footage of the pitched roof section. It will reduce the size of the room to 24 x 17 approximately, a fairly large size family room. July 28, 1983 Following further discussion, Mr. Laubenthal moved that the request as it has been submitted to the Board be denied on the basis that it does not conform to our Code, however, as it will go to Council, Mr. Laubenthal would like to add that the architectural solution by design is esthetically acceptable and it is a logical layout relative to the apparent desire for an expanded living space. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Johnson. Upon vote the motion to deny was carried unanimously. Mrs. Mull was advised of her right to appeal to Council. 3) REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR GARAGE ENCLOSURE BILL SANDERS, 250 N.E. 105 STREET This is a request for enclosure for garage where the building is on a 50'lot. There is some space in the back yard but due to the 50' lot, Mr. Sanders house is elongated and it is difficult to provide the alternate parking space,(off-street parking), in the rear yard without encroaching in some respects on our re- quirements, i.e., parking space shall be 10' from side property line, 5' from rear property line and 15' from the main building. The Chairman advised Mr. Sanders that the Board would address the question of Off -Street Parking Regulations later on at this meeting. Following review of the plans submitted, Mr. Rossi recommended Mr. Sanders table his request for a later date after the Board fully discusses the problem of Off -Street Parking Regulations and set a date for a Public Hearing. Mr. Sanders did not wish to delay his request any longer and requested the Board make a decision as he desperately.needed the space. Following discussion, Mr. Rossi moved for denial of request for garage enclosure because request does not furnish alternate off- street parking space according to Code requirements. Motion was seconded by Mr. Laubenthal and carried unanimously. Mr, Sanders will appeal decision to Council. 4) CODE AMENDMENT Mr. LuBien advised that Mr. Faun was not satisfied with his suggestion relative to revision to incorporate Chickee Huts and similar structures to existing Ordinance. (4) July 28, 1983 The Chairman reported he spoke with Mr. Fann, and what the Village Attorney prefers to do is provide coverage of this under our Masonry Ordinance - where we get down to 'the following exceptions' - add an item stipulating it is specifically prohibited to have this structure. Mr. Fann feels it is the structure we are talking about,. not use - the use is for shade, whatever. The Board will set up a Public Hearing based on the Village Attorney's recommendations. Following conclusion of the regular Agenda, Mr. Cutchens requested permission to discuss the Planning & Zoning Board's meeting of July 14, 1983 re decision for request for approval of change of use. The Chairman allowed him five minutes to make a statement. Mr. Ken Cutchens read from a prepared statement, from the Property Owners of Miami Shores Village. He stated the Board was "wronger for its approval of item 3, July 14, 1983, for change of use. He read. -in the future we suggest that this Board, no Council member, should approve land use change ora zoning. change without a referendum, or some system set up, rather than the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Cutchens stated he spent two weeks on this and he has gotten it put off the Agenda of the Council, He stated he has confirmation it would be off the Agenda. He further stated the decision of the Planning Board on July 14, 1983 would not hold up because it was not Code. Mr. Cutchins advised a telegram would be sent on 7/29/83. Off -Street Parking: The Chairman inquired if the Board had given thought to the Off -Street Parking situation. Mr. Rossi replied that with growing families and the need for extra living space, something has to be done to allow garages and open spaces to be used for living area as long as they conform to building requirements. The Board discussed such problems as streets that have no alleys, the circular drive problem in set -back, the prevalance of parking in front of residences in the Village, asphalt or concrete ribbons. Mr, Rossi noted he spoke to Mr. Forney about off-street parking and Mr. Forney advised that the Board be very careful about this - we don't want to open up a door that allows people to park on the grass, or in the front yard, etc. We do not want back-up parking in the Village. • • 5 July 28, 1983 The Chairman advised his concern is that we address the set -backs because that is something that needs to be maintained as strictly as possible. He noted this is a real plus for Miami Shores and he didn't know of any exceptions he could think of on set -backs, Following discussion, the Board concurred a date should be set for a Public Hearing on Off -Street Parking. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m, Secretary