Loading...
08-25-1983 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING AUGUST 25, 1983 A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Planning and Zoning Board was held on August 25, 1983, 730 p.m., at the Miami Shores Village Hall, with the following Board members present: Absent: Also Present: J. Robert Stobs, Chairman Robert J. Rossi Thomas J. Laubenthal J.S. Palmer Roberta Johnson Frank LuBien, Building Director 1) MINUTES: Minutes of the meeting of August 11, 1983 were approved as written by motion made by Mr. Laubenthal, seconded by Mr. Rossi and carried. 2) REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS TO CONVERT CARPORT TO GARAGE PAUL BATES, 117 N.E. 91 STREET Mr. LuBien informed the Board that the existing carport is all frame construction. It was originally built on the side of a two-story structure. Subsequently, there was added a utility room with .a flat roof section over to that utility room. Presently, Mr. Bates proposes to enclose the carport which is all frame, with frame construction, This requires a variance to section 225 which requires masonry construction. Mr. Paul Bates and Mr. James Smith, his architect attended the meeting. Mr. Smith stated the grounds for the frame construction is to save Mr. Bates the expense of having to rip off the existing roof and completely redo the carport and roof. The proposed plan calls for stucco over the wood frame, seal windows which open into the carport and place an attractive wood door in the front. Following review of the site plan and lengthy discussion the Board felt that no preferential granting of variance should be applied that cannot be applicable to anyone else. Our Ordinance is very clear; this is not a masonry structure; it has a functional use right now; it was grandfathered -in as a carport and as soon as application is made for a change, compliance with the Ordinance is required. - 2 - August 25, 1983 Mr. Laubenthal moved for denial of request as submitted to convert carport to garage, based on inability to conform to our Ordinance as written. Motion was seconded by Mr. Rossi and carried unanimously. Mr. Bates was informed of his right to appeal this decision to Council. 3) REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS JOHN MILITANA, 8900 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD Mr. LuBien advised that the existing structure has a small partial encroachment into required 25' setback and another corner that extends out about four feet. The new construction proposed complies with the setback line requirements and also provides the necessary parking for the square footage being added, plus the existing square footage, Nr. John Nilitana advised he required larger office quarters. Staying within the setback area, Mr. Militana proposes to add a little over 500 sq. ft, to the front and approximately 1700 sq, ft. to the rear, This will allow him to maintain use of the drive-in tellers and thus obtain the highest and best use of the property. Mr. Militana noted this is a unique piece of property as it does not meet the dimensions of any other parcel in Miami Shores. It is triangular shaped. He stated the additions and alterations do not harm or infringe on any of the surrounding neighbors rights and the change in the exterior appearance is in harmony. In reply to a query by Mr, Stobs, Mr. Militana informed the Board he is retaining ground water with an .8' soakage pit and existing catch basin, noted on the site plan submitted, so there is sufficient drainage system. Mr. Sandu Z. Rapp, Architect, confirmed Mr. Militana's statement that no fence was included in the plans. The Board discussed provisions for peculiar and unusual conditions surrounding properties, which this parcel certainly has, In 1974 the addition was placed which fell into the setback and this was not addressed then.Nevertheless, it would require the Board to allow for this addition to be placed and look at the site plan for harmony with the neighborhood. Following discussion, Mr, Rossi moved for approval of site plan for additions and alterations, as all is consistent with our standards. Deletion of the fence from plans is required part of this motion. Motion was seconded by Mr. Laubenthal, and carried unanimously. Council action is required. - 3 - August 25, 1983 4) REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR CLASSROOM BUILDING BARRY UNIVERSITY, 11300 N.E. 2 AVENUE This item was before the Board on August llth and detailed information relative to parking was requested. The three concerns of the Board were 1) the amount of parking area as existing, 2) effect of new proposed classroom building on that parking and 3) whether Barry was going to expand the western portion for unity of title. Mr. Peter C. Beggs, Architect, representing Barry University advised they have gone through a survey of existing campus based on requirement the College should have one space per classroom, and one space for every ten students - if audi- toriums are involved, one-half of required space is outlined in portions of the code. Mr. Beggs gave the following breakdown - existing classrooms - 53; new classrooms in proposed building - 12; campus enrollment is 1,952; auditorium seats 994. The general auditorium requirement is one parking space for 3 fixed seats, requirement is therefore 1/2 that number, namely 166 seats, giving requirement for existing campus and new classroom building 260 spaces. Mr. Beggs noted that dealing with just the east portion of the campus, forgetting the western portion where the athletic fields are, there are 395 paved parking spaces existing in the area where future classroom building will go; Barry created a space of 204 on existing campus; total in eastern portion alone of 599 spaces are in excess of 339 spaces. The Architect advised that up to date plans of future development of Barry is basically to keep perimeter parking around the campus and eliminate parking from the interior. To accomplish this, Barry will be creating, in the future, two parking lots which will add somewhere around 520/530 spaces. The Board advised Mr. Beggs he did the Village as well as Barry a service compiling the details relative to parking. Mr. Stobs requested that Mr. LuBien check the computations and sq.footage figures on the plans submitted. Mr. LuBien advised that the formulas used by Barry were supplied by him. Following discussion, Mr. Rossi moved we approve site plan for classroom building as presented to the Board provided Mr, LuBien agrees with computations submitted. Motion was seconded by Mr. Laubenthal and carried unanimously. Mr. Laubenthal expressed appreciation of the Board for the extensive work prepared by Mr. Beggs to qualify points that were troubling us and stated in the long run, the survey will benefit Barry, No Council action is required, - 4 - August 25, 1983 5) REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR FLAT ROOF ADDITION HARRY METZ, 1200 N.E. 95 STREET Mr. LuBien advised the problem existing in this case is Mr. Metz started construction of a flat roof addition to his residence, and as evidenced on the site plan, this is a non -conforming structure. The garage is only about 22 feet off the rear property line and that pretty well eliminates any additional work being done to this structure. Aside from that, Mr. Metz has an existing flat roof which is 357 sq.ft., the section under construction is 230 sq.ft., totalling 587 sq.ft. Allowable footage is 371 sq. ft., leaving overage of 216 sq. ft. The Building Director advised there are two problems existing here - the non -conforming structure and it is 2/3 more than allowable. Mr. Harry Metz advised what he had hoped to accomplish was to build a garden room or green house to open up the view. Following discussion, Mr. Laubenthal moved that the proposal for flat roof addition be denied as the plan does not conform with allowable square footage for flat roofs, seconded by Mr. Rossi, and carried unanimously. Mr. Metz did not wish to appeal the Board's decision. 6) REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR ADDITIONS & ALTERATIONS JOSE MORALES, 1080 N.E. 107 STREET Mr. LuBien advised the only problem he saw with the proposed additions and alterations is that the upper section of the structure that goes beyond the existing tie beam is of wood frame. Following discussion of the plan as submitted, and recommendations by the Planning Board re masonry requirements, Mr. Morales with- drew his request. He will contact Mr. LuBien for assistance in solving his problem. No action was required by the Board. 7) OFF-STREET PARKING & ACCESSORY BUILDINGS Lengthy discussion was held with reference to offstreet alternate parking being in the same category as accessory buildings. - 5 - August 25, 1983 Mr. Rossi felt that more people have a need to enclose their carports and garages, which results in carte blanche to park cars in front of residences. He considers parking in front of residences as unsightly. Mr. Stobs stated he was not looking at encouraging enclosing garages. It is strictly the business that you are required to have a completely enclosed garage, attached to dwelling, complying with all regulations applying, but whether it be enclosed, partially enclosed or unenclosed - it must be located in conformity with regulations applying to accessory buildings - which means if you don't have them in front, if you don't have them anywhere else - it applies to accessory buildings, which is, rear yard only, not less than 15' from main building, not less than 10' from a plot line, etc.,etc, Mr. Stobs questioned if we were to look at just a regular setback, without accessory building, what would that do? In other words, if we '.took that requirement away from accessory buildings, what would we than allow to take place? He noted the accessory also has to do with how much space is between that and the house itself. Does that really apply to a vehicle being parked? Mr. Rossi noted that many houses have no alleys or no portion beyond the front building line. Mr. Laubenthal stated that by design in many cases having a garage integral with a residential structure is a convenience of being able to move to and from the residence without going through the rain and that goal is defeated when you are making an accessory and you have that exposed gap to close, particularly when the accessory building is to be off a distance. Mr. LuBien felt there was a contradiction in that if someone wants to put up a fabric covered carport, the stipulation is that it shall be between the prolongations of side property line, etc. If it is attached to the building, then it has to be 15' away from the rear property line. There is nothing in there that says it cannot be fastened. A. carport can be attached or detached, If they detach that awning structure, then it has to be 15' away from the main building, The fact that alternate parking area is characterized with accessory buildings, they have to have this 15' separation. Mr. LuBien noted if you just require off-street parking, eliminating that 15' separation because you do not require it for a carport that is attached, I see no reason to require it for a parking space, The Board felt that taking it out of accessory building may solve part of the problem and you could then refer to another category, perhaps assign to 25 - 10 & 5 for rear yard. The problem is the 15' requirement, • • - 6 - August 25, 1983 Mr. Stobs felt this suggestion takes care of the rear yard problem however, he reiterated Mr. Rossi's statement that many homes do not have rear yard or side yard space. There was also the question, if a car can be parked anywhere you want in the rear, what is it going to be parked on. Mr. LuBien stated there is no reference in the parking ordinance to this. It defines a space as being 9 x 20, but they don't define what the material is. It doesn't say anything about having to have asphalt, gravel or anything. The question of circular drives was discussed. Requests have been made for circular drives in new homes as well as existing homes. The people who have circular drives, park their cars on the circular drives, they do not use their carports or garages. Most circular drives are in the 25' setback. Mr. LuBien noted, in any case, we are addressing ourselves tonight to off-street parking, and circular drives do not count as off-street parking. The only place you are allowed off-street parking is in,the rear yard. Mr. LuBien also noted we have existing driveways in the setback; there are many houses here on 50 ft. lots that a garage on the back line - as a matter of fact, there many on 91st Street. We are not concerned with what is Mr. LuBien stated we are concerned with what people are today. Following discussion, Mr. Stobs requested that a Public be set up for Thursday, October 13, 1983. side - have are existing. doing Hearing Mr. Stobs wished it to be noted of record he inquired of the Building Director where the Chickee Hut Amendment was. The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Secretary