Loading...
08-27-1987 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING August 27, 1987 The Mimai Shores Village Planning & Zoning Board Meeting was held on August 27, 1987, at the Miami Shores Village Community Center. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Stobs, at 7:30 P,M,, with the following members present: J, Robert Stobs, II, Chairman Patrick Duffy Thomas Laubenthal Larry T, McClure Robert J, Rossi Also present: Frank LuBien, Director of Building & Zoning 1. MINUTES - August 13, 1987 The minutes of the meeting of August 13, 1987 were approved, as written, by a motion made by Mr. McClure, seconded by Mr. Laubenthal, and passed unanimously. 2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SIGN RELOCATION PEDLEY CORP 8851 BISCAYNE BLVD, Mr, LuBien noted, Harriett B. Gilbreath of Laura McCarthy Realty is re- questing permission to relocate a sign from the pylon, for the Pedley Corp. Included in Member's packet is a letter outlining the request that the sign be put inside a window for a three (3) month period. Also included in the packet was a copy of the Council minutes, at which time the decision to deny the variance by the Planning & Zoning Board, to install the oversize sign., was overturned. Mrs. Gilbreath was not present, nor any representative of the Pedley Corp. Discussion occured concerning Council overruling the Planning & Zoning Board, the fact that the sign is grossly oversize, and if approved, the three month period be specified, and followed through. Mr. Rossi moved to approve the request to relocate the sign (32 sq. ft.) as requested, for a three month period only. Motion was seconded by Mr, Laubenthal, and passed by a 4/1 vote, with Mr. Duffy dissenting. Mr. Duffy felt a grave inconsistency exists in as much as the Planning & Zoning Board, six months ago, denied the application because it is in conflict with the Ordinance. The Board is not entrusted with granting variances, the Council overruled what the Board felt was prudent direction to go in, and it should go to Council again. Following further discussion, Mr. Stobs requested that it be placed on the calendar, for the three month reminder. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -2- 8/27/87 3. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF EXTERIOR.COLOR PHILIP GRECO 51 N. E. 110th ST. Mr. Greco presented a color sample of the intense gold color he painted his house. He stated that in talking with Mr, Jack Wilson, he was given the impression that it is a suitable color. He also noted the houses on either side of him are white, and this makes his color appear more intense. Also he will to pay for the permit, which he did not know is required, but he does not see the need to repaint, nor can he afford to do so. Mr, LuBien, in response to query, advised Members that this came up as a complaint, because of the intensity of color and no permit was issued. When an item is controversial, as is this color, it should be subject to Board approval. Mx. Laubenthal noted, he has a real problem with the significant intensity of color, it is not harmonious and he feels this Board has a quality and standard to maintain, Mr, Stobs indicated a problemwith the decision to determine color, He felt the Ordinance too restrictive, and not explicit enough. Mr. Duffy agreed the Ordinance is not a good one, the intent might have been good, the language is vague, Mr. McClure advised the Board that when the Ordinance was discussed and written, the intent was for the use of pastel colors, A color in harmony, and this color is not harmonious, it is not pastel and it is too bright. Further, the hardship was first created by Mr. Greco by not obtaining a permit. Mr, McClure moved to deny the request to keep the intense exterior color, seconded by Mr. Laubenthal, who also commented that harmony goes farther than the block we live in, the Board is responsible to the Community of Miami Shores. Following continued discussion, the motion carried by a 3/2 vote, with Mr. Duffy and Mr. Stobs voting No. Mr. LuBien explained the right of appeal to Mr. & Mrs. Greco. 4. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR GARAGE ENCLOSURE M, BOSSTICK • 1165 N. E. 91st TERR, Mr. LuBien called. Members attention to the sketch for garage enclosure they received in their packet. He sees a problem because the plans are incomplete. There is nothing. showing ingress and egress to thenew room, nor is an elevation provided. Members agreed that the plans are incomplete, and should not be on the agenda, Mrs, Bosstick indicated they are only enclosing the garage, and she doesn't understand what is needed, if Members want to ask questions, they can. Mr. Stobs explained to her that the Board needs to see a floor plan and an elevation, PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -3- 8/27/87 Mr, Rossi moved to table the request, seconded by Mr, McClure, and passed unanimously. 5. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VACATION OF PARTIAL ALLEY A. R, TOUSSAINT, J, WIBORG, Et. A1. 1401 N, E, 103rd ST, THRU 1451 Mr. LuBien noted that he had visited the site, and observed power poles and utility line in the rear where there might be an easement problem with Florida Power & Light. Mr. Al Quintan, Jr., Attorney representing Mr. Wiborg and Mr. Toussaint that he did not receive direct notice of this hearing, and requested he be notified of hearings on this case. He presented a petition for the vacation of one-half dedicated alley running contiguous to the northern property line of Lots 11 through 16, Block 6, Tract "Cu, Miami Shores Bay Park Estates, Plat Book 64, Page 97, The petition being based on the following outline: 1. The alley never being utilized in any way by the public, 2. Any use of the described 7,50 dedicated strip is impossible as it terminates 50' from the westerly lot line of Lot 16, 3. The adjoining property owners in the southerly portion have been utilizing the portion of the alley abutting their lots since May 15, 1957 when the plat was recorded, 4, It would be advantageous to the Miami Shores Village to vacate and revert to the owners the 7,50' strip to be maintained and utilized by them. 5. All owners of Lots 11 through 16 in Block 6 have consented to this petition. Mr. Stobs commented. the letter of request produced no comment from Mr, Fanny Village. Attorney. Members agreed all the information is self explanatory. Following discussion, Mr. Laubenthal moved to approve the request, as submitted, seconded by Mr. McClure, and passed unanimously. 6. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF REPAIRS TO ACCESSORY BUILDING BRYAN L. HOLMES 54 N. W. 106th ST. Mr. LuBien stated that Mr. Holmes brought him a current survey. The building in question, in the rear, was installed as a photo laboratory. He indicated it had been rented in recent years, and the applicant wants to install a separate:electric meter for rental use. The property is zoned single family, but non -conforming use, Further, he stated that he so advised the applicant.• Mr. Laubenthal noted there is no evidence that rental was ever allowed, It may have occured, and if it did it was done illegally. 'was \offended Mr, Holmes indicated he had. a letter from a neighbor who knows the elderly person who lived in the house five years, He further stated, the property is taxed as a duplex by Dade County, and is Grandfathered in as such. He understands the theory. of non -conforming property and is will- ing to go along with. demolition as explained to him, however, at this time he has rewired the house, and wants to put in a separate meter so it can be rented. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -4- 8/27/87 Much discussion ensued, All Members agreed that because it was rented' does not make it legal, Mr. Laubenthal noted that the application is a request to clean, paint, repair, upgrade acccessory building, and install electric meter, with- out indication of the intent to rent out the building, He moved to deny the application as submitted, adding the rental clause, seconded by Mr, Rossi for discussion, Mr, Rossi felt the motion must be clear, a single family home to be converted to multi family use is not legal, the reason to deny should be noted. The nature of the request is clear. Mr, Laubenthal restated the motion, to deny the application, as submitted, for permission to apply improvements to the property, with the intention that it will be used as a rental property, This was accepted by Mr. Rossi and passed unanimously, Mr. McClure advised Mr. & Mrs, Holmes, he has no objection to upgrading the property, the building needs to be cleaned up, but they should find another use for the building. Mr. & Mrs, Holmes were very upset about the denial, they were advised of their right of appeal, but indicated they will appeal through their Lawyer. 7. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL. OF PLANS FOR ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS J. M. GARNER 1551 N. E. 103rd ST. Members received in their packet a plot plan, and a plan showing proposed addition. Mr. LuBien noted he has no problem with most of the alterations since they are consistent with past procedure. There is a large problem with the deck, in that it encroaches on the side set back. (Proposed deck set back is 5,75' and the required set back is 10'). The technical factor is the existing wide flanged beam instead of a concrete beam, which had been acceptable in previous situations. Following brief discussion, Mr, Stobs stated that the beam does comply with the intent of the Ordinance, especially when there may be a structural problem. Upon questioning Mr. James Moore, who was representing Mr. Garner, concerning the deck set back, Mr, Stobs advised, there are no grounds for hardship variance. Members agreed, architecturally, it may be very appealing, but they are not inclined toward setting precedent for set back. Mrs. Garner stated that this can be overcome by re -designing. After further discussion, Mr. McClure moved to approve the plans, provided the set back requirements are met, Motion was seconded by Mr. Duffy. The owner agreed to make the required modifications, and the motion passed by unanimous vote, PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -5- 8/27/87 8. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR FLAT ROOF ADDITION F. LLAMOSAS 59 N. E. 97th St. Mr, LuBien advised the Board, this comesto them for approval because of the flat roof addition, All require ments are met, It is at the rear of the building and not visible from the side, Mr. Laubenthal moved to approve the request, as submitted, seconded by Mr. Rossi, and passed unanimously, 10. PROPOSED LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE - DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION BOARD No member of the Downtown Revitalization Board was present, Mr. Laubenthal gave each Member copies of diagrams of the proposed land- scape requirements he formulated. He took this project on because of the real need to condense and clarify language of the proposed Ordinance which was presented by the Downtown Revitalization Board. He outlined some of the good landscape and lighting ideas used in Ft, Lauderdale, He also outlined for Members, landscape of parking lots, landscape in conflict with easement, general acceptance, aesthetics, efficienty, etc. After discussion, Mr, Laubenthal agreed to write an Ordinance using minimum language. He will supply copies to Members for comments and also provide a copy to Mr, Fann, Village Attorney, for verbage approval. Following further discussion, it was agreed that Mr. Tom Benton should also receive a copy for his in -put. 9. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REPORTS (DISCUSSION) There was no discussion concerning the Comprehensive Plan, 11. SEPTEMBER 10th MEETING - POPE'S VISIT IN MIAMI SHORES There was brief discussion reference the Pope's visit to Miami Shores on September 10th, the regular Planning & Zoning Board Meeting date. It was determined, this would not be an appropriate meeting night at the Community Center, and it was decided to hold the meeting on Wednesday, Sept 9 instead. 12. BARRY UNIVERSITY Also mentioned was the height of the berm at Barry University, corner of N. Miami, Ave, and 111th St., Mr. LuBien asked Members to take,a look, to to sure it is in compliance, • 13. PAINT ORDINANCE Following brief discussion concerning the Paint Ordinance, Mr, Stobs requested this item be placed on the agenda of Sept, 9, for further discussion. C#10444/ ecr tart'