Loading...
03-13-1985 Regular Meeting1 MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING March 13, 1985 A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Village Planning & Zoning Board was held on March 13, 1985, at the Miami Shores Village Hall. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Stobs, at 7:30 p.m.. The follow- ing members were present: J. Robert Stobs, II, Chairman Patrick L. Duffy Thomas Laubenthal Robert J. Rossi J. Leslie Wiesen Absent: None Also present: Frank J. LuBien, Director of Building & Zoning 1. MINUTES Mr. Duffy called attention to an error on pg 2, paragraph 1. The 2nd Ave. side will be an outside corr.idor,...not the. Mr. Laubenthal moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Mr. Duffy, and carried unanimously. 2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR ADDITION MARGHERITA BRANCIFORTE 436 N. E. 94th St. Mr. LuBien outlined this request for approval of an addition to a non -conforming existing building (Sec. 524). He noted that the addition encroaches on the required setback (Schedule of Regulations). The present zoning is R-20. The present building covers 1817 sq ft. the addition 1048 sq ft, for a total of 2865 sq ft.. Mr. LuBien further noted the setbacks provided are 25' front, 5'.0 & 7'.43 side, and 43'.5 rear. Code requirements are 25' front, 10' side, 15' rear. Ms. Branciforte presented copies of the new survey and new elevation to the Board. She then made an impassioned plea for approval. She stated the lot is only 50' wide. She bought the house aware of the problems, but felt it is an old house and has great potential, to one who loves its' charm. Ms. Branciforte further noted by taking this run down house she could build a house of harmonious beauty that would be a credit to Miami Shores and also increase revenue. She also felt that to deny her appeal would penalize her for buying a house on a 50' lot, and deny her full use of her property. Members reviewed the plans for the addition. Mr. Stobs inquired if there is any way she could see the addition in the proper setback. Her answer, a definite No, the house was built about 1926, and she is extending the lines of the house, as they al- ready exist. Mr. Stobs advised Ms. Branciforte that, her problem is clearly understood, but to grant this variance would set a precedent, which this Board is hesitant to do. He further advised her that, regardless of the Planning & Zoning Board action, she does have the right to appeal to Council. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -2- 3/13/85 Mr. Rossi observed the Architect did a fine job of extending the existing lines of the house, but felt he must have been unaware of the setback requirements. Mr. LuBien read from the Code on variances, Item A, C, & D. He stated that to crowd the addition would be detrimental, He further stated this addition would upgrade and would be harmonious in his opinion. Following much discussion, Mr. Wiesen moved that, since the setback seems to be the only real objection the plans. for the addition be approved. This motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Laubenthal noted the responsibility of the Board first, is to determine if a solution can be resolved within the guidelines so it the Board is compelled to go through the exercise, second, ifAcannot conform architectually by manipulating the floor plan or adjustment of building lines to a conforming situation it must meet the re- quirements of the variance. Item C seems to continue to be the hang up. Discussion continued. Mr. Laubenthal moved to deny the application as submitted, for non- conforming site, on the basis that the rigid floor plan as presented does not meet the full criteria required for a variance, with atten- tion to Item C, reasonable use. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rossi, and passed by a 4-1 vote, with Mr. Wiesen dissenting. Mr. LuBien advised Ms. Branciforte that she must address a letter to Council, no later than Friday morning, to appeal her case to Council, at their next meeting of Tuesday, 3/19/85. 3. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FIBERGLASS SHINGLE RE -ROOF EDITH CARPENTER 10531 N. E. 2nd Pl. Mr. LuBien noted that, he had checked through Village records, but because of the age of the house could find no plans of the building. The fiberglass shingles are non -conforming, and a variance to Sec 225 is required. Members were presented with a letter from, William R. Bradford, Engineer, stating the building is totally inadequate to support the additional load of a tile roof. Mr. Rossi moved to approve the request for fiberglass shingle roof on the basis of the Engineer report. Mr. Duffy seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -3- 3/13/85 4. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF STORE SIGN CARLOS BRAVO 9802 N. E, 2nd Ave. Members reviewed a sketch of the sign as Mr. LuBien noted the allowable sign area as 78 sq. ft., the sign area proposed is 64 sq. ft.. He brought this item before the Board for approval, to see that it is in compliance, and.to avoid any conflict of any plans by the Downtown Redevelopment Board.on N. E. 2nd Ave. Mr. LuBien advised the Board that.Mr. Carlos.Bravo.is not present, he does not speak English and it was felt he would not fully understand the proceedings. Members observed that the sign was being raised in place this evening, even before approval is granted. There seemed to be no objection to the sign itself. Much discussion followed concerning the problem that work is being done inside, without a permit. The requirements for a Certificate of Occupancy, and Occupational License. Also Members were con- cerned if inspection and approval by the Health. Department and other applicable Agencies is necessary for a food store. Mr. Stobs further requested this item be referred to the Downtown Redevelop- ment Board for evaluation before it is heard by the Planning & Zoning Board. Much discussion continued. Mr. Forney came in to reply to the Board's question that, Yes, the Downtown Redevelopment Board will continue to serve until a new, successor Board is established. Discussion continued regarding, procedure for sending necessary items, first to the Downtown Redevelopment Boardfor review, before coming to the Planning & Zoning Board. Mr. Laubenthal moved to this request, until the Occupancy, Occupational Redevelopment Board for Mr. Wiesen, and carried table, until the next meeting, approval of total issue relating to the Certificate of License. etc., review by the Downtown comments. The motion was seconded by unanimously. 5. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR GARAGE ENCLOSURE ALLEN KUTNER 1284 N. E. 94th St. Mr. LuBien enclosed in Members packet the site plan, floor plan, and elevation, and set of plans for review by Members, should there be any questions. Brief discussion followed concerning placement of doors. Mr. Kutner noted there is no change from the basic floor plan of the house interior. Mr. Rossi commented that the applicant has conformed well with the existing elevation of the garage, eliminating straight approach drive- way, cutting away, resodding, adding a planter, etc., further comment- ing he has no problem with the plans, therefore moved to approve the plans as submitted. Mr. Wiesen seconded the motion, which carried unanimous ly , 1 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -4- 3/13/85 6. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR GREENHOUSE RALPH RENICK 1579 N. E. 104th St. Mr. LuBien noted the area for the proposed addition is 120 sq ft. Variance is required as the structure is non -conforming (sec. 225) and encroaches into the required rear setback. Mr. LuBien further stated there is no provision in the Code for this type of non- conforming, non -masonry building. Mr. James F. Silvers, Architect representing Mr. Renick, stated, the existing house is twenty five years old and Mr. Renick wishes to make his living environment more comfortable, by this addition to the master bedroom and bath. Mr. Stobs advised Mr. Silvers the "setback" is the first item for discussion, there is no hardship involved, and he is not being denied reasonable use of the property. Mr. Rossi agreed the Board is consistant with regard to set back requirements, whereupon Mr. Silvers withdrew the request for the setback variance. Mr. Rossi then noted this changes the addition to a window, or glass enclosure, and not now a non-conforming.structure. He moved to approve the building window, so longas it is within the setback and no variance required. Motion seconded by Mr. Laubenthal, and passed unanimously. 7. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ALLEY -WAY ABANDONMENT JOHN MILITANA 8801 Biscayne Blvd. Mr. LuBien advised Members this is a petition to vacate a public alley at the rear of property. He noted he is not positively sure of the steps for approval, so is starting here. He believes the land must be resurveyed, and legal description changed. Members received a complete packet, relating to the request. Mr. Militana stated that, he had been at the same location nineteen years, and Miami_ Shores has never used the alley. Mr. Stobs advised Mr. Militana that a Public Hearing, with the Village Attorney present, is necessary, then it is referred to the County. Following discussion, the Public Hearing was set for April 11, 1985, providing for proper advertising and notification of those who must attend. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -5- 3/13/85 8. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF DISH ANTENNA NORMAN LIU 10450 Biscayne Blvd. Mr. LuBien advised Members that Nr. Liu owns this particular property on both sides of the street. The request is for place- ment in the front yard of a dish antenna larger than provided for in our code, which allows 12' as.opposed to 16' requested. This requires a variance to size and location and the fact that it isn't screened. Members reviewed a copy of the ordinance on dish antenna, and a sketch of the property and location of the proposed dish antenna. In response to query from Mr. Rossi, is it possible to conform to the code, Mr. Danny Massa, RCA representative, speaking:for Mr. Liu, noted that to shield the antenna would limit the proper satellite use, and 12' antenna is small and contributes to a lose in quality. Mr. Massa further noted, the total height of the antenna is approximately 12 to 13' when mounted. The diameter 15'.1. Mr. LuBien advised Members it is not possible to install the antenna in the rear yard, and comply with the ordinance. Mr. Stobs could see no hardship for the 16' antenna variance. Following discussion, Mr. Laubenthal moved to deny the application as submitted. The site is unique, there is no rear or side yard option, but this is one of the limiting factors of the property as purchased. There does not appear to be an alternative solution, and the antenna is non -conforming in the front yard, and there are no grounds for a variance. Mr. Wiesen seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. Mr. Stobs advised Mr. Liu that he does have the right to appeal his request to Council. 9. DISCUSSION OF REAL ESTATE "FOR SALE" SIGNS. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING. Mr. Forney advised Members that this issue came up as a result of casual remarks made at the Downtown Redevelopment Board, also it was discussed at a Council meeting, where it was determined that this is within the province of the Planning & Zoning Board to make recommendation'. Following discussion, a Public Hearing date was set for the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board, March 28, 1985. The Public Hearing would be held for the purpose of considering changes to provisions for signs advertising the sale of property, including the possibility of prohibiting such signs. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -6- 3/13/85 The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. • •