Loading...
05-24-1984 Regular Meeting1 1 1 MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING MAY 24, 1984 A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Planning & Zoning Board was held on May 24, 1984, 7:30 p.m., at the Miami Shores Village Hall, with the following members present: J. Robert Stobs, Chairman Patrick Duffy J. Leslie Wiesen Robert J. Rossi Thomas Laubenthal Also present: Frank J. LuBien, Director of Building & Zoning 1. MINUTES: Minutes of the meeting of May 10, 1984 were approved as written, by a motion made by Mr. Duffy, seconded by Mr. Wiesen, and carried unanimously. 2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR MOORING PILINGS NATHAN S. LEE 9259 N. Bayshore Drive Mr. LuBien stated that this item is before the Planning & Zoning Board, because structures involved beyond the property line can have an aesthetic effect on the surrounding property. He noted that our Zoning Code has no provisions or criteria for structures in the water. Mr. LuBien also stated that Mr. Lee cannot proceed with any further applications with government and with Dade County until the Miami Shores Village approves the request for these pilings. Mr. Stobs noted that this is an issue previously discussed, and at that time it was the consensus of members to refer such requests to the Corp of Engineers or whoever might have jurisdiction, but it now appears they are refusing to consider it without this Board's approval. Members reviewed a site plan, showing the position of the pilings in relationship to the land. Primarily there will be 3 clusters of three pilingsAwhich will be located 66' into the Bay. each Mr. Gus Larson, attorney representing Mr. Lee, presented a state- ment signed by all neighbors, (except one, who could not be reached), indicating their approval. Mr. Larson stated that the present dock is 40' into the Bay. Mr. Lee purchased a craft which can be moored in this space for normal cleaning, etc., but considering any incle- ment weather conditions this new area is considered much more desir- able from a safety standpoint. In reply to questioning, Mr. Lee stated that this is not a heavy traffic area so that others using the waterway are not impeded. Mr. Lee further stated that he had applied to the Corp of Engineers and to DERM"and they referred him to Miami Shores Village for approval. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -2- NAY 24, 1984 In reply to query from Mr. Rossi, Mr. Larson noted that the Corp of Engineers or DERM have no specific restrictions, their decision will be based on Environmental, and the safety of other craft in the area. Following further discussion Mr. Wiesen moved that the Miami Shores Village Planning and Zoning Board approve Mr. Lee's re- quest for mooring pilings, per plans, based on harmony, and subject to approval of the appropriate governing agencies, motion seconded by Mr. Laubenthal, and carried unanimously. 3. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS TO ENCLOSE PORTION OF GARAGE VITOR QUINAZ 87 N. E. 93 Street Mr. LuBien outlined the request, as members reviewed plot plan, site plan, and a sketch of enclosure. Mr. Quinaz has a two car garage, one half of which has been converted to a play room. Though in this case Mr. Quinaz proceeded in reverse order'it comes before the Board for approval as a garage en- closure requires. Mr. Quinaz was present to outline his plans. Mr. Wiesen moved to approve the partial enclosure of the garage as indicated on the plans, seconded by Mr. Duffy, and carried unanimously. 4. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS AND ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS C. L. CRUMPTON 375 GRAND CONCOURSE Mr. LuBien in outlining this request cited the complexity of the situation because of the peculiar and unusual physical condition affecting the property. The front of the existing house is at 374 N. . 96 St. (legal address as shown on tax roll); whereas the mailing address is at 375 Grand Concourse. Mr. LuBien stated the copy of the site plan, and excellent drawings of plans were graciously submitted by Mr. Crumpton. He further noted the problems to reckon/with are a determination of what is the side yard and front yard. Other items to consider are: pool, pool deck, screen enclosure, trellis, flat roof, privacy wall -7', foyer, flat roof covering, and the extensive use of wood trim. Mr. Stobs advised members that prior to deliberation of the other items it must be determined what is the front, side and rear of the property. Mr. Stobs read from the Ordinance, Sec. 513, which stated that the Board may authorize such other facings as appropriate or advisable. It was then determined that the front of the house is on Grand Concourse, 96th ST. being one side, the alley way, the rear, and the residence, of the adjoining neighbor the other side. Mr. Crumpton presented his request through detailed and complete drawings, showing the existing house and additions and alterations proposed. He also presented a proposed landscape plan. Mr. Crumpton noted that when complete, the changes will enhance not only the property in question, but also the properties in the vicinity, also that these changes will be in harmony with the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Crumpton further stated that he has PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -3- MAY 24, 1984 reviewed this plan with his neighbor the Nutters, who have no objection, except to request suitable landscaping, which he noted will be a part of the changes, pending review and approval of Tom Benton, Public Works Director, for those areas in the right of way. Following some dialogue,. Mr. Stobs requested that due to the peculiar and unusual nature of the lot, the Board consider each item of the request individually. Considering that Grand Concourse is the front of the house. The final judgement on each item follows: 1. The swimming pool requires No variance. 2. Patio, pool deck, No variance required. 3. Screen enclosure, Nb variance required. 4. Wood garden trellis 8' x 14' x 8' high (2 ft off the property line). Mr. Crumpton volunteered to move the trellis within 10' side set back, so as to conform and Not require a variance. It was determined , that the flat roof on the trellis, is in the rear and not visible from the front of the street, does Not require a variance. Discussion followed concerning the roof material Mr. Crumpton proposed to use. Mr. Crumpton agreed to work out a solution to this issue with Mr. LuBien. 5. Entry foyer of masonry construction, requires No variance. 6. The extensive use of wood trim (cedar boards over existing masonry walls, requires a variance. Following discussion, Mr. Wiesen moved to approve the request for use of wood trim, based on harmony with the surrounding area. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Rossi moved to approve the request for variance, for ex- tensive use of wood trim, so long as the wood decorative trim is cedar, as specified. Motion based on Sec. 702 (e), specifically it would not be detrimental to the use or respected development of the property itself, seconded by Mr. Wiesen. Following discussion the motion passed 4/1 with Mr. Stobs dissenting. Mr. Stobs stated, he feels further discussion at a later date, should take place, concerning the issue of use of wood trim. Mr. Crumpton was then informed that this item now needs Council approval. 7. Serpentine Privacy wall, 7' in height, around the pool -patio is another area where variance is required. Mr. Stobs advised members that the Board is primarily concerned with the height. The South Florida Building Code is not for the members to determine in this matter. Mr. Stobs in recall of previous re- quests, noted there has never been a variance granted for a fence any where near a..7' height. Alternate means of privacy were discussed. Mr. Crumpton agreed to drop height to 5'. Though not on the agenda Nr. LuBien requested an opinion from the Planning and Zoning Board regarding the matter of reed screens. This item was referred by the Code Enforcement Board for discussion. Mr. LuBien in reply to Mr. Stobs question, stated that since it is not a life safety issue it is not of concern to product control. The members of the Planning and Zoning agreed that the reed screen is not harmonious. There was further discussion about reed screening, canvas, and other similar materials not being fencing material. It was the unanimous opinion of the Board that reed screening is non- conforming, inharmonious, and not allowed. i 1 i PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -4- MAY 24, 1984 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A letter was submitted from Mr. William F. Fann, Jr., the Village Attorney, concerning recommendation of a footnote to the Comprehensive Plan. He further noted in the letter that after stury of the requirements by the State of Florida and Dade County, the precise language of the permitted use can be included in the Miami Shores Zoning Code as required. Mr. LuBien stated that he will present a rough draft of the Comprehensive Plan at the next meeting. Mr. Stobs recommended an advertised Public Heating to approve the revised Plan. Date for this hearing is set for June 28, 1984. 6. PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE: DISH ANTENNA This item will alsobe considered at the same Public Hearing, dated June 28, 1984. COMMENTS: Mr. Stobs requested that the Agenda of all Planning & Zoning Board meetings be mailed to all members of the Downtown Revitalization Board. Other announcements by Mr. Stobs for members to be thinking about, the declining tax base of the Village, which is partially due to the Catholic Archdiocese property removal from the tax roll. Also, the need for discussion at some time regarding Church Zoned Property, and permitted uses. The Meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.