06-12-1986 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
JUNE 12, 1986
A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Village Planning & Zoning
Board, was held on June 12, 1986, at the Miami Shores Village Hall. The
meeting was called to order by Chairman Stobs, at 7:30 P.M., with the
following Members present:
J. Robert Stobs, II, Chairman
Robert J. Rossi
Larry T. McClure
Patrick Duffy
Thomas Laubenthal
Also present: Frank J. LuBien, Director of Building & Zoning
L. R. Forney, Jr., Village Manager
1. MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of May 22, 1986 were approved, as written,
by a motion made by Mr. Laubenthal, seconded by Mr. McClure, and
passed unanimously.
2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR GARAGE ENCLOSURE
BOB GROSS
157 N. W. 104th ST.
Members reviewed a site plan, partial floor plan, and the South
elevation for the enclosure. Mr. LuBien indicated the driveway
ribbons would be removed and appropriate landscape put in.
Mr. Clyde Judson, Architect, representing Bob Gross, answered
questions during the brief discussion. Question arose regarding
the 4' X 6', glass french doors, Mr. Judson indicated this could be
changed, if the Board wishes.
Mr. Laubenthal moved to approve the plans, as submitted, provided
that the 4' X 6' glass french doors be changed to windows. Motion
was seconded by Mr. Rossi, and carried unanimously.
3. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR GARAGE ENCLOSURE
PAULE BAZILE
9337 N. W. 2nd PLACE
The site plan, proposed floor plan, and elevation was reviewed by
Members.
Following a brief discussion with Ms. Bazile, Mr. Rossi moved to
approve the plans as submitted, stipulating that the driveway approach
be cut away, and that it be properly landscapped. Motion was seconded
by Mr. Laubenthal, and passed unanimously.
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
-2- 6/12/86
4. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR DETACHED SIGN
UNION OIL
8700 BISCAYNE BLVD.
Mr. Richard Wheeler, General Manager representing Union Oil,
answered questions from the Board, concerning the sign. He indicated
the sign is in the same position as the existing sign. Display, as
to price of gas is required by law, and this will be included on the
sign.
Following further discussion, Mr. Laubenthal moved to approve the
request, provided the sign is modified, deleting the rotor, and provide
for fixed mount, as well as the contingency that they coordinate with
the Building Official, regarding pricing display on the sign. The
motion was seconded by Mr. McClure, and passed unanimously.
Mr. LuBien explained to. Mr. Wheeler, that this request will be reviewed
at the next regular Council meeting on Tuesday next.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
PERMITTED USES - B-1 & B-2
BEER & WINE INCLUSION
Members received in their packets a. copy of the notice for three
Public Hearings,.as advertised in the Neighbors, on Sunday, 6/8/86.
Mr. Stobs asked if anyone in the audiance wish to address any of the
proposed changes in B-1 & B-2 districts. There being no response at
this time, the Board then reviewed points for change.
There was considerable discussion concerning #7, under B-1 District,
relating to Restaurants seating capacity and service of beer
and wine for consumption on the premises only. Requests for clarifi-
cation and comments were received from several people in attendance.
Mr. T. F. Chambers of the Do Right Realty on N. E. 2nd Ave., Leonard
S. Wolfson, 246 N. E. 101st St, and a new member of the Downtown Re-
vitalization Board, and Mr. Moros, manager of property at 90th St. &
Biscayne Blvd. and Mr. Forney , Village Manager, all contributed to
discussion. Some points of discussion were the favorable comments
for the small, quaint, theme type restaurant; parking facilities;
fire and health regulations; counters; minimum seating for service of
beer and wine; square footage of space as a deciding factor for seating
capacity. Members agreed that more should be known, concerning this
regulation for seating capacity before making a final decision. There
was also discussion regarding, present seating at the Howard Johnson,
which is approximately 115.
In discussing #10 under the B-1 district: Dry Cleaning establishments
Mr. Stobs noted the intent is there...No laudromat, that is, no
self service process. Mr. Forney assured Mr. Stobs that, Mr. Fann
will review this paragraph for proper verbage.
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
-3- 6/12/86
In reply to query, Mr. Chambers was advised that Adult Book store
is listed in Retail -prohibited uses in another section of the Code
of Ordinances, regardless of zone.
Mr. Laubenthal moved to table the decision to approve seating
capacity (under #7), pending knowledge of more information, con-
cerning square foot regulations seconded by Mr. Duffy, and the
motion passed unanimously.
It was agreed, approval of the Permitted Uses in B-1 & B-2, beer
and wine inclusion, will be discussed further at the next regular
Planning & Zoning Board meeting. There will then be another
Public Hearing before final approval.
6. PUBLIC HEARING
NON-RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SIGNS
Mr. Stobs welcomed discussion from Members of the Board regarding
Commercial Real Estate signs.
Mr. Duffy commented, he would prefer a different size in the B-1
from the B-2 zone. The 2' X 3' sign in the B-2 zone is too small
because of the set back, and because of the heavier traffic in B-2
signage requirements should be more liberal.
Mr. Rossi noted he has no problem with B-1, but agrees with Mr. Duffy,
that the 3 sq ft. sign in B-2 can be larger. Three square feet is
too restrictive, 4' X 8' sounds more reasonable.
Mr. Laubenthal suggested 3 sq ft sign in the B-1 and 6 sq ft sign in
B-2 district.
Mr. McClure felt that the 3 sq ft for a Commercial Real Estate sign
too small, noting a name and telephone number could not be effective
without stopping in the heavier traveled B-2 zone. He felt the six
square foot sign much more realistic.
Mr. Moros felt the present sign restrictions are not reasonable. A
sign 2' X 3' is much too small in a store window, and cannot be seen
in driving in a B-2 zone.
Considerable discussion continued, concerning information signs,
4' X 8' construction signs, temporary signs, and signs in office
buildings. Signs should be permited per ownership rather than
address, and the same size whether for lease or for sale.
Following further considerable discussion on sign size, Mr. Rossi
moved that Commercial Real Estate signs, for sale or for lease, in
B-1 zone, not exceed 3 sq ft, that Commercial Real Estate sign in
B-2 district be 3 sq ft. per legal address, and in addition an
aggregate sign of 32 sq ft per ownership. Motion was seconded by
Mr. Laubenthal. Language to further be refined by Mr. Fann, the
Village Attorney.
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
-4- 6/12/86
Mr. McClure's amendment for the 3 sq ft sign to read 6 sq ft in
B-1 & B-2 zone ways-rejactcd by Mr -..-4W1.6464-4 died for lack of a second.
Mr. Laubenthal commented, he has no strong feeling against the
6 sq ft sign in B-2 zone, but not in the B-1 zone.
The vote was called, and the motion passed 4-1 in favor, with
Mr. McClure dissenting.
• Following refinement of language the Ordinance will then go to the
Village Council for final approval.
•
7. PUBLIC HEARING
FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHT ON BISCAYNE BLVD.
Mr. Steve Silver, Atty. representing Mr. & Mrs. Stu -Gray,
9820 Biscayne Blvd., noted that circumstance on Biscayne Blvd.have
changed considerably. Residents on Biscayne Blvd. feel less safe
than when the 3% ft. ordinance was enacted. He pointed out the -
use of a security guard at the Country Club, Mrs. Gray's fear of
going into the front yard even in the daytime, and other houses on
Biscayne Blvd. with 5' fencesAcreate a disadvantage if you happen -2'
to be in the Middle; and the heavy traffic on the Boulevard. The
purpose of the Ordinance should be uniformity, which is not the case.
Mr. Chambers commented, he is in favor of the 5' fence height on
Biscayne Boulevard, because of the heavy traffic flow.
Mr. Stobs, understands the traffic problem on Biscayne Blvd., but
is in favor of changing from 31/2' to the 5' fence height in front,
for traffic reasons only. A 5' wall would.provide privacy Bather
than security.
Mr. Rossi felt that 11' higher does -not greatly increase security.
He has not heard statistics concerning increased crime on Biscayne
Boulevard, and feels the increased height is for privacy not security.
He further fears a selective change in allowable fence height would
weaken the Ordinance.
Mr. Duffy commented that the 11' increase in fence height is signi-
ficant, and he favors the 5' height on Biscayne Boulevard.
Mr. Laubenthal concurrs with the previous comments; however he noted
the nature of Miami Shores is a residential community, and the front
yard is open to exposure. Wall in the front will change the character
of Biscayne Blvd., and he is not in favor of the 5' front yard fence
height even on Biscayne Blvd. Further, he feels there are other more
suitable alternatives, such as plantings. We must be concerned with
maintaining the single family profile in Miami Shores.
Mr. McClure Agreed cjith the comments of other Members, that people
on Biscayne Boulevard have a unique problem, with regards the amount
of traffic. He is not opposed to the change to 5', but as before,
indicated that he is interested in some traffic count statistics.
•
•
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
-5- 6/12/86
Mr. LuBien responded that he was provided with the figures for
N. E. 2nd Ave. only, and nothing for Biscayne Boulevard. Further,
in response to Mr. Rossi, Mr. LuBien noted that notices of this
meeting were sent to all residents on Biscayne Blvd. and all
businesses on N. E. 2nd Ave.
After further discussion, Mr. Duffy moved to amend the front yard
fence height on Biscayne Boulevard to 5', seconded by Mr. McClure.
Discussion continued concerning, deciding on a case by case basis,
and issuing variances. To which, Mr. Duffy responded, a variance
weakens the Ordinance, whereas amending the Ordinance will main-
tain its strength. Much discussion continued.
The question was called and the motion carried bya 3-2 vote in
favor of the amendment. Mr. Laubenthal & Mr. Rossi cast No votes,
This item will go to Mr. Fann to be written in proper legal form.
8. Ms. Linda VanNatta, Project Manager for the Downtown Revitalization
Board was introduced to the Planning & Zoning Board Members.
Mr. Stobs requested, the proposed Landscape Plan for N. E. 2nd Ave.,
drawn up by the Downtown Revitalization Board be placed on the
agenda for the next Planning & Zoning Board meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M..
S et y
Approved__