Loading...
01-10-1985 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING -PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 10, 1985 A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Planning .& Zoning Board was held on January 10, 1985, at the Miami Shores Village Hall. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by the Chairman, J. Robert Stobs, II with the following members present: J. Robert Stobs, II, Chairman Patrick L. Duffy Thomas Laubenthal Robert J. Rossi Absent: J. Leslie Wiesen Also present: Frank J. LuBien, Director of Building & Zoning L. R. Forney, Jr., Village Manager 1. MINUTES Mr. Rossi moved to approve the minutes as written, seconded by Mr. Duffy, and carried unanimously. Mr. Stobs advised that, because one member of the Board had not yet arrived, cases 3 & 4 on the agenda would be heard first. 3. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF DETACHED SIGNS Miami Shores Lodge 10450 & 10500 Biscayne Blvd. Mr. LuBien stated that, this is a request for approval of two detached signs, as provided in Sec. 504 (d) (2) and Article VI. There is an existing sign on the building itself. In reply to query by Mr. Stobs, Mr. LuBien noted the height limit for the signs on Biscayne Blvd. is 25'. Mr. Liu, attending on his own behalf, noted that he has made many improvements in the four or five months since purchasing the Motel. He stated that all old signs will be removed and there will be no signs attached to the structure. Also that the proposed sign will be 4' x 6' and he will abide by the Miami Shores Village Code as to the height limit restriction. Following brief discussion, Mr. Rossi moved to approve the request for two detached signs, subject to the height limitation of 25', seconded by Mr. Duffy, and carried unanimously. Mr. Liu was advised that this request will be heard by Council at its next meeting, Tuesday, January 15, 1985. 4. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR GARAGE ENCLOSURE. C. Rice 812 N. E. 92nd St. Mr. LuBien in presenting this request for addition and garage en- closure, noted that there are no problems so far as the Code of Miami Shores Village is concerned. A planter will be placed in the front, and drawings showing the front elevation and the new floor plan were reviewed by Members. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -2- January 10, 1985 Mr. Franklin Grau, representing Mr. C. Rice noted the existing parking ribbons would serve as off street parking. Brief discussion followed. Mr. Duffy moved to approve the plans for the garage enclosure as submitted, seconded by Mr. Rossi, and carried uanaimously. 5. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR FRONT YARD DRIVE & PARKING AREA Mel Strahosky 9929 N. E. 4th Ave. Rd. This request was tabled, due to the absence. of Mr. Strahosky. 2. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING SEC. 518 (a) IN REGARD TO HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS ON FENCES Mr. Stobs briefly outlined the notice of Public Hearing as it appeared in the Newspaper. He explained that procedure would be to hear preliminary discussion from members of the Board, discussion would then be open to the Public, with each person standing and giving his name and address. Mr. Rossi, stated the present height restriction is 5' rear and side yard. Is there a need to change the ordinance? Mr. Rossi stated, it has always been his understanding that the 5' height restriction was for the benefit of the Police Department, so that. in driving down the alley they could see in the back yards. He requested an opinion from Miami Shores Police Chief Fletcher if the 6' height would hinder their observations. Chief Fletcher related that in research done primarily by the National Crime Prevention Education at the Southern Police Institute in Louisville, Ky., it was recommended that a security fence be 7' high. Also that a police officer driving by in a car cannot see over the 5' fence anyway. He further noted that Dade County has no. restrictions. There are other factors involved in the security of a home, namely, neighbors.,. doors, windows, and alarms. Chief Fletcher has no recommendation concerning 5' or 6' fence. No objection, no approval. Thomas Laubenthal, noted the Police issue was effectively discussed. He stated the aesthetic side is a consideration and he does not wish to encourage a walled in look or walled community. Another factor is that materials are standarized.today, however, it is the respon- sibility of the owner to modify the standard to comply with code. Mr. Laubenthal feels we can live with the 6' side and rear fence so long as we hold to 3' in the front. Mr. Laubenthal does not feel 6' height is detrimental to the community. Patrick Duffy, stated he feels it is healthy that the ordinance is being reviewed, but that it should be reviewed. in its entirety. The front should also be addressed so that we don't have to come back later to amend that. Mr. Stobs, informed the group that, yes there have been requests for the 6' height variance, but they have not been uniform, the requests have been for various personal reasons. 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -3- January 10, 1985 Discussion followed, concerning the 30% or 40% of violations brought before the Code Enforcement Board being fence or hedge higher than the 5' limitation. Lane Middleton, III, 1020 N. E. 93rd that he is a comparative newcomer to where he formerly lived the limit is in favor of the 6' height limitation reason being a noise barrier. St.. Mr. Middleton stated Miami.Shores, in Coral Gables 8' height. He is certainly as opposed to 5'; his main Jeff Goins, of 874 N. E. 99th St. stated, that he currently has a 4' chain link fence but is in favor of the 6' height limitation because he is considering installation of a 52' shadow box type fence for more privacy. Mr. & Mrs. Frank Schafer, 1399 N. E. 104th St., is in favor of the 6' height for privacy reasons. Mr. Schafer stated that he lives on the canal and is one of the violators caught for building a 6' fence for privacy. Jim Mcoy, 873 N. E. 96th St.. Mr. McCoy bought this house, but still has not moved in. He is in favor of the 6'. height mainly for the protection arid security for his dogs and family. Mr. Stobs noted that in unusual conditions, variances can be granted, but this Board works on specifics. Changes can be made without the ordinance change. Luis and Janet Perez, 145 N. E. 103rd St.. Mr. & Mrs. Perez are in favor of the 6' fence as they would like to enclose the back yard with available standarized materials, the 6' fence would provide a neighbor noise barrier, privacy and protect dog in yard. John & Karen Kirby, 11 N. W. 97th St.. Mr. & Mrs. Kirby are in favor of the 6' change. They stated, they came to the meeting with an open mind and hoping to hear a compelling reason for the 5' restriction, they have not heard this not even from the Police Dept. Discussion followed. Mr. Stobs explained the situation which precipitated this Public Hearing as the request from Officer Stan Taylor for a 6' fence to protect a Village owned police dog, which is his constant companion and used in his work with the Police Department. The Planning & Zoning Board rejected his request and scheduled the Hearing. The request was then appealed to Council and granted. The Public Hearing was already scheduled and so held. Mr. Rossi, stated that we must look at an over all.picture of how the change will_affect the Village as a whole. All the appeals we have heard have been personal in nature. Further discussion ensued. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -4- January 10, 1985 Rick Fernandez, 162 N. E. 108th St.. Mr. Fernandez is in favor of the 6' height because of the many hedge and fence violations up and down the street. It is much easier to grab and go over a 5' fence, he has a pool, and children walking down the alley jump in and out for a quick swim. The character of the Community is changing with new people coming.,:all wanting the 6' fence and dogs -for security and privacy. Dr. Thomas James, 9125 N. E. 2nd Ave.. Dr. James is in favor of the 6' height limitation for all the reasons already mentioned. Mr. Laubenthal further stated that the harmony point has not been challenged with justification. Does the 1Z or 2% represent the community as a whole? When you install a.fence your neighbor has one also, whether he likes it or not. Mr. Rossi, is concerned that since the Planning & Zoning Board denied Ofc. Taylor's request and then overturned by Council and granted the variance, we have set a precedent and should there be court action, how will this hold up in court. Mr. Forney, advised him that Council did act with rationale, he noted that Officer Taylor's dog is unlike other privately owned animals, the Council was not prejudicial but had specific reasons. Mr. Stobs, noted that he still has not heard compelling reasons for the change so far as rational impacts on the Miami Shores Village as a whole. All requests have been personal. Much more discussion continued. In summarizing, Mr. Duffy noted that many changes have taken place in the Village in the last thirty years. High traffic areas, creat- ing more traffic noise, more people with dogs andthe need for more security. He does not feel the change will have a significant impact since most changes will occur in the rear alley. Mr. Duffy moved to amend Sec. 518 (a) of the Miami Shores Village code to allow for 6' maximumheight limitation in the side and rear yards, seconded by Mr. Laubenthal, and passed by a 3-1 vote with Mr. Stobs dissenting. Those present were advised to attend the Council sessions of Feb. 5 and February 19th when the amendment will have its first and second readings. 6. REQUEST FROM MR. GRAU FOR LETTER TO MAYOR KEVIN O'CONNOR Mr. Stobs read a request from Mr. Franklin Grau, that the Planning & Zoning Board sent a letter to the Mayor endorsing action to proceed with the application to seek Mainstreet designation. Mr. Forney stated that, should the application be approved the $10,000.00 seed money will enable the Village to hire outside professional help for advise on how to best improve N. E. 2nd Ave. Mr. Stobs noted that he is equally concerned with what is happening on Biscayne Blvd. as N. E. 2nd Ave. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -5- January 10, 1985 Mr. Rossi moved that the Chairman send a letter from the Planning & Zoning Board endorsing participation of the Miami Shores Village in the Florida Main Street Program, and that the Village welcomes the opportunity for outside professional help, seconded by Mr. Duffy, and carried unanimously. 7. Mr. LuBien, Building Director advised the Chairmanthat he 4111 has several issues to come before the next meeting .of the Planning and Zoning Board, a Public. Hearing. Mr. Stobs then advised Mr. LuBien to schedule these items on the agenda before the Public Hearing for Barry University. 1 • 1 The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.