01-14-1988 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
January 14, 1988
The Miami Shores Village Planning & Zoning Board regular meeting was held
on January 14, 1988, at the Miami Shores Village Hall. The meeting was called
to order by Chairman Rossi, at 7:30 P.M., with the following members present:
Robert J. Rossi, Chairman
Terrell F. Chambers, Jr.
Richard M. Fernandez
Thomas Laubenthal
Larry T. McClure
Also present: Frank LuBien, Director of Building & Zoning
1. MINUTES - November 12, 1987
Two corrections to the minutes were noted. Page 3, paragraph 2 should read:
Much of what was considered traditional in materials or workmanship is no
longer traditional or available today, and for this reason does not always
allow duplication. Mr. Fernandez called for correction on page 3, para-
graph 4, last sentence should read...This would appear to be contrary to
what the Planning & Zoning Board should be. Page 4, paragraph 2, sentence 3,
strike is, strike with the ...add and in place of.
Mr. McClure moved to approve the minutes as corrected., seconded by
Mr. Laubenthal, and passed unanimously.
2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF USE
JAIME VELILLA
9705 N. E. 2nd AVE.
Mr. LuBien requests the Planning & Zoning Board review this item because
the primary use is retail sale, and there is no problem with this, but in
addition is the request for Occasional Art Exhibits. Mr. LuBien feels it
is this use which needs Board approval.
Mr. Velilla was present and noted the Exhibits will be held inside the
premises, they will be Gallery type, one day at a time about once a month,
as he may be able to engage artists. The showings will be by invitation,
and retail sales will be available.
Mr. Eugene Gold representing the Downtown Revitalization Board noted the
DRB supports Mr. Velilla in his efforts. It is hoped this business will
be the center of,vitality on N. E. 2nd Ae.
In response to questions, Mr. Velilla stated, there will not be instruction
in arts & crafts at this address, nor at this time.
Mr. LuBien addressed the Code as it relates to instruction classes. This
would be establishing another use.
because it was not
Mr. Rossi indicated no motion is necessarymieT a change of use, but the
Board being in agreement, grants positive approval for the continued use
as stated.. Mr. Chambers thanked Mr. Velilla for bring4his request to (ing
Planning & Zoning, and for moving his business into Miami Shores Village.
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
-2- 1/14/88
3. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL. OF PLANS FOR ELEVATIONS ALTERATIONS
JOHN MILITANA
8945-95 BISCAYNE BLVD.
Members reviewed proposed elevation plans. Mr. LuBien requests the Board
approve these changes as to harmony.
Mr. Militana was present to answer any questions Members might have.
He noted the buildings have had the same architecture some thirty years,
and he feels it is time for a change. Basically he is attempting to match
the face lift with what is across the street. Mr. Militana responded to
Mr. McClure that, the signs will be across the top of the building as across
the street.. The lack of uniformity which now exists will be standarized.
Sign requests will be presented for approval later.
Following brief discussion, Mr. Laubenthal moved to approve the Plans for
Elevations changes as submitted, seconded by Mr. Chambers, and passed by
unanimous vote.
Mr. Militana was informed that this must go before the Village Council at
their next meeting, Tuesday, January 19th.
4. APPEAL OF BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DEFINITION OF BUSINESS
JAMES N. ROSE - COIN EMPORIUM
8985 BISCAYNE BLVD.
Mr. Rose requested that his appeal be postponed on the agenda, as his
attorney is detained and he prefers to wait for his arrival.
Mr. Rossi indicated this request will be granted.
5. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR GARAGE ENCLOSURE
JEAN GERMAIN
165 N. W. 92nd ST.
All materials presented were reviewed by Members of the Board... Site plan,
floor plan,of enclosure, side elevation.and front elevation.
Mr. Rossi explained that in requests for garage enclosures the Board wishes
to be relatively sure there is no obvious use for an additional living
facility. Change must be in harmony with the existing building, ingress
and egress reviewed, also plumbing & electrical.
Members agreed, Mr. Germain meets all these requirements. The plans are
simple, but show everything necessary, and the Board greatly appreciates
this.
Mr. McClure made a motion to approve the plans for garage enclosure, as
submitted, seconded by Mr. Fernandez, and passed unanimously.
6. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF WOOD FRAME GABLE
MAURICE BOSSTICK
1165 N. E. 91st TERR.
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
-3- 1/15/88
#6 Members discussed at length the fact that the original blueprint called
for masonry gable end, and Mr.. Bisstick built a wood frame gable over an
open porch. He indicated the structural engineer later submitted a
corrected signed and sealed drawing. In reply to Mr... Laubenthal, Mr. Bosstick
said the inside is finished.
Mr. LuBien noted he has no problem with the logic or application as an
open porch. He is thinking in terms of any future problems.
Mr. Rossi explained that, should Mr. Bosstick or a future owner want to
enclose the porch it cannot be done with the wood frame gable end rafter.
Mr. McClure before making his motion noted
enforce the Ordinance clearly and equally,
strickly within the Ordinance.. He further
tion drawing be attached to the one now on
Motion to approve the plans was made by Mr
Mr. Fernandez, and passed unanimously.
the Board always tries to
he agrees with the point being
requested the new front eleva-
file for future reference.
. McClure, seconded by
7. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR DISH ANTENNA
ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI
9920 N. E. 2nd AVE.
Before the discussion to approve the plans, Mr. McClure raised the
question, as to whether radio.-- TV production studios or filming center
is a permitted use in Miami Shores. If it is not allowed, we should not
consider the plans of commercial dish antenna. It was established the
prior discussion dealt with production in private residential areas.
Mr. Grau noted that, Storer Cable occupied the building prior to purchase
by the Archdiocese. Mr. Grau further stated that he requested and was
granted permission for establishment of a TV and radio production center,
for which there was no documentation.. The request for dish antenna is now
being made for receiving purposes. The request for placing it on the
roof is to avoid the tendancy toward vandalism and dumping everything in
the rear. The costs are much more because of required structural changes
to the roof.
Mr. Rossi suggested, the request be addressed. as submitted, plans for dish
antenna on the roof. If approved it would open the door for other dish
antennas on the roof, and it must meet hardship variance requirements. One
reason for writing the Ordinance was because of the unsightlyness, and com-
plaints concerning two or three on roofs in Miami Shores.. Members reviewed
a sketch of the area and a detailed sketch of the antenna dish mount.
Attention was called to (1) Sec 516 - Private, noncommercial dish antenna...
being placed in a commercia]. area. Private would: indicate use in a home.
Attention was focused on the installation of the dish antenna at the Best
Value Inn, and it was agreed the commercial use needs to be addressed.
Mr. McClure noted that recent FCC rulings have made it clear that it is
against their wishes for laws. to be so restrictive as to restrict the use
of satellite antenna, This is another reason our Ordinance was written...
to.permit use, but regulate.
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
-4- 1/14/88.
Discussion continued, concerningthe views of the Downtown Revitalization
Board, the purpose isfor reception only, ground level installation as
opposed to roof installation, a stationary antenna facing southwest.
see
Mr. Fernandez prefaced his motion, he would like to4commercial development
in Miami Shores downtown area, and satellite transmission is the way of the
future, but as he sees the charge of the Board, the section of the Code is
clearly indicated, and Ordinance must be followed, having said this, he
moved to deny the request, seconded by Mr. McClure. Following further
discussion, the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Rossi explained to Mr. Grau thathe does have the right of appeal to
Council. Mr. Rossi also requested Downtown Revitalization Board look at
the issue, and further that it be made an agenda item for discussion at the
next meeting of Planning & Zoning, Thursday, January. 28. The item being,
Provision for. Commercial Use Dish Antenna in B-1, B-2 Zone. The process
for change being; review, ordinance, public hearing, and Council approval.
Discussion continued.
Mr. Rossi requested Mr. Grau to. stay for discussion on .another matter.
Because, of. the lenghty discussion anticipated on Item #8... #10 was
heard next.
10. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL_ OF FABRIC AWNINGS
SHIELDS
152 N. E. 93rd ST.
Mr. LuBien informed Members, this is being presented for approval, because
of the questions in his mind. #1 There are only three of these awnings
going on the building, not a uniform situation. #2 The color being
questionable, because the house is peach color, and the proposed awnings
a deep forrest green. #3 Two of the awnings are going up on One side of
the building which already has another, type awning toward the back. He
has been advised that none of this is unusual for houses of that era.
Mr. Shieldspresented a color coordination art chart indicating the true
green:being a complimentary color to the peach. Regarding the awnings, he
orginally planned on only two awnings, but decided on the three because he
did not want the appearance of a mis-match. His efforts are all directed
toward keeping the house inpristine condition.
Margo Newton, Chairman of the. Miami. Shores. Historic Preservation Board,
indicated the house is elegible as a Historic Landmark, and is on the
Historic Preservation Board:Agenda, Monday evening., to. be considered for
designation approval. It is a 1926 Mediterranean house, and she doesn't
anticipate any problems in it qualifying. She showed Members a book,
"Resourceful Rehab: A Guide for Historical: Building in Dade County". She
further noted: the:house, is Mediterranean Revival Architecture, and a
picture from the book indicating that canvas awnings of the type requested
were prevalent in that era, and green stripe was a predominant color. The
style and shape are good, and canvasthe most appropriate fabric.
Following brief discussion., concerning maintenance problems, Mr. Chambers
moved to approvethe request., as submitted, seconded by Mr. Fernandez, and
passed unanimously.
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
-5- 1/14/88
4. Mr. Rose:was again afforded the option of having the Board hear his request
without his attorney, or wait. He chose for further postponement.
8. DISCUSSION - MODIFIED RESIDENTIAL USE DISTRICT
Mr. Rossi opened the discussion by charting the course this item took
before arriving to this point. Presently the Planning & Zoning Board must
address the item as presented by the Village. Council, to look at the Proposed
Modified Residential Use District. The options for the Planning & Zoning
Board are: Review, modify, reject, etc. If the Board wishes to proceed, it
must ask the Village Attorney to draft an Ordinance for Public Hearing. It
could go back to Village Council with motion to deny or disapproval. Mr. Rossi
further indicated that, because this issue is an extension of N. E. 2nd Ave,
and impacting the area concerning Downtown Revitalization Board, he requested
Mr. Grau stay..
Mr Laubenthal expressed his opinion, and the problems he sees in set back
changes. These would be distinct advantages not appreciated any place in
Miami Shores. Codes are so constructed so that they may be distributed
equally.
Mr. McClure suggested, it should be determined if we want the Code before
discussing each item.
Mr. Rossi adding to his previous remarks, noted, this change is an unprece-
dented move in the 56 year history of Miami Shores Incorporation. There
have been variances to zoning, but changes have been fought all the way to
the Florida State Supreme Court, and Planning & Zoning position was upheld.
Is there a need for expansion of .the commercialoffice space on N. E. 2 Ave.?
Additional vacant office space would be created, and spot zoning would be
created. The problems are numerous in setting a precedent. He also asked
that comments be confined to need before discussing each section.
Mr. Laubenthal opinioned that he has a realproblem with the change occuring
as a link or section out of synch. We are also dealing with two vacant lots,
which if developed we cannot insiston a.particular architecture. People who
bought those homes, bought feeling they would always be residential area.
Mr. Chambers feels the change would greatly upset the harmony of the area.
He strongly feels the residential character should remain.
Mr. Fernandez reaffirmed his three point statement of the last meeting.
The question of need has been articulated., the need is not there. Aesthetics,
as previously pointed out, how can the looks be controlled? It would be
difficult to maintain.a residential character. Lastly and most important,
our neighbors who live in the area bought as a residential neighborhood,
and this change would be dramatic.
Mr. McClure agreed, it IA extremely important that the residential character
of the area remain the same. Whether or not our harmony Ordinance is
sufficient to keep the residential character is unknown, but does feel it is
very important. However, he further stated, the elected Officials did
request Planning and Zoning to draw up an Ordinance which will do a certain
thing, and though he is not sure he would support same, feels we are under
obligation to do so.
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
-6- 1/14/88
Ni. Rossi advised, the Board was not asked to write an Ordinance, but to
review a Proposal. Much discussion continued, concerning the charge from
Council.
Mr. Grau commented that Council has requested review and the Planning and
Zoning. Board has a real responsibility to review the items as Planners for
the Village. Considered from the planning point of view, is the economic
impact, social impact, visual and physical impact. The vacant lots are
less than .disirab le forhomes with the present zoning, and a declining
value on existing homes. Downtown Revitalization Board has taken no position
and he speaks for himself. Architectural design can be controlled to main-
tain the character even in zoning changes. It must be reviewed always from
a long term perspective.
Mr. Fernandez commented that, from a planning view, over all, long term
perspective, take a look at Biscayne Blvd., K Mart north. A glut is
created by excessive business, office space, and he cannot see this type
expansion as a benefit to Miami Shores Village.- Planning & Zoning must
take the position, what is the impact?
Much discussion continued concerning...public outcry, potential park space,
the new houses on Biscayne Blvd. (US 1). Is this change necessary? Is the
demand there? Potential for a restaurant, lack of sewers - an important
item. Maintaining a low keycommercial profile. Also mentioned was the
impact on neighborhoods, utilities, garbage, etc. Much research must occur
before constructing an Ordinance.
Mr. Fernandez suggested the Board has no clear cut mandate from Council,
and there are several different interpretations. Do they want a specific
proposal? The foundation is not there. Council should be asked, what do
you want?
Much discussion continued relating to the Council's wishes. Everyone con-
curred. this is unclear.
Mr. LuBien outlined the procedure for Public Hearing for Rezoning matters,
Sec 1002. Document must first be drafted. What is the specific need of
Council?
Mr. Fernandez: made a motion to reject the proposal as submitted by Council,
seconded by Mr. Laubenthal. Mr. McClure clarified that.it is being rejected
on the basis that it is a poorly written document. The motion passed by
uanimous vote.
Mr. Fernandez then made a motion stating that., the'Planning & Zoning Board
does not see the need for this change, nor reasons for the proposal, if
Council sees a. need, whether economic ordevelopmental, please give us
direction. Motion seconded by Mr. Laubenthal.
In discussion, Mr. McClure stated, we shouldnot be concerned with motives,
Council is asking. for an.Ordinance to rezone that property. He is not in
favor of the motion. Planning and Zoning is considering the rezoning for
the third time in two years, and twice already have determined they cannot
see the need. Council now asks for action. A need must be anticipated.
Following further discussion the motion and second was withdrawn.
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
-7- 1/14/88
Mr. Chambers suggested the Village Attorney be requested to place this
in Ordinance form for a Public Hearing.
Much discussion continued.
Mr. LuBien in calling attention to Sec 1001, an amendment may initiated by
any of the following ways: (a), (b), (c). The question is, were any,of
these ways followed? There is no clear cut formal procedure as to what
took place at that Council meeting. This is not an easy, everyday occurance
and procedure must be followed with great care.
• Discussion followed regarding a workshop.
•
Results of a pole taken to determine those in favor of the concept follows:
Mr. Laubenthal - In favor of the concept
Mr. Chanbers - In favor of the concept
Mr. McClure - No opinion
Mr. Fernandez - Does not see need, is opposed to the concept.
Mr. Rossi _ Does not see need, is opposed to the concept.
Mr. Laubenthal made a motion to advise Council that Planning & Zoning
is unable to come to a clear cut decision as to whether or not there is,
in fact, a need. Members request direction to persue it, if Council can
substantiate the need. Also Members are willing to attend a workshop, and
construct an Ordinance if Councilso directs. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Chambers. Mr. Fernandez offered an amendment to change the word sub-
stantiate to clarify, seconded by Mr. McClure. The amendment first, and
then the motion as amended both passed unanimously.
4. APPEAL OF BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DEFINITION OF BUSINESS
JAMES N. ROSE - COIN EMPORIUM
8985 BISCAYNE BLVD.
Mr. LuBien advised Members, this item was placed on the Agenda in response
to a request by mail from Paul B. Steinberg, Attorney for Mr. Rose. The
violation comes from Code Enforcement as engaging in the business of Pawn-
broker with no Occupational License, and without zoning approval. As the
basis for violation notice, he referred to State Statue, Chapter 715,
Sec 715.04: Pawnbrokers. Also enclosed in the packet was a copy of the
instrument used by Coin Emporium, this was read by Mr. LuBien. All this
clearly tracks State Statue definition of a Pawn. Under the Code, Mr. Rose
can be licensed as a Pawnbroker when zoning approval is granted and fee for
Occupational. License is paid.
Mr. Steinberg expressed appreciation for delaying the matter 'til his arrival.
He noted that the Bill Mr. LuBien read was amended in 1984. He also stated
Mr. Rose has been in the buy - sell business, with the existing license,
at the same location since 1980. The Village after the 1984 amendment, added
Pawnbrokers to its' Ordinance and established a fee of $375., which is the
same business in which he has been paying $75.00. for. The question is must
he apply for additional zoning approval. It is his opinion, the answer is no.
He has advised. Mr. Rose that since this is an appeal, a compromise should be
made to pay the additional fee schedule, and obtain the license as a Pawnbroker.
However, he does not feel it necessary to go; through the zoning process.
'Mr. LuBien further stated that he is willing to settle for Pawnbroker fee
for two years. $375.00 for 1987 (the year documented), and $375.00 for 1988.
This per instruction from Mr. Fenn, Village Attorney.
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
-8- 1/14/88
Much discussion took place, regarding the fee schedule for Pawnbrokers, and
how long it had been in effect. Also concerning police department documen-
tation in 1987, and Mr. Rose being County licensed as a Pawnbroker in 1985.
It has been established, he is a Pawnbroker, and the fee for additional
use should be retroactive. His present license lists, Buy -Sell Coins and
Collectibles as the occupation.
be
Mr. LuBien advised Members that the additional use mustAapproved by the
Planning & Zoning Board before a license can be issued.
Mr. Steinberg argued that Mr. Rose was operating legally under the particu-
lar license he was issued, though he held a County license as Pawnbroker
since 1985.
Members discussed approval of change of use at this time, since the
application is not written clearly as a change of use request, and if a
verbal request would be accepted.
Mr. Steinberg requested that the Board allow the use at that location
for a Pawnbroker.
Mr. Laubenthal made a motion that, the application as submitted be approved
to allow additional use at that location. for Pawnbroker, seconded by
Mr. Chambers. Mr. Laubenthal withdrew the motion,;when it was objected
that the motion does not relate to the request.
Mr. McClure moved to deny the appeal as stated on the agenda, seconded
by Mr. Chambers, and passed unanimously.
Mr. McClure moved to accept the verbal request of Mr. Steinberg, to approve
additional use at that location for Pawnbroker. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Laubenthal. The motion passed by 4-1 vote, with Mr. Fernandez dissent-
ing, as he did not come prepared to discuss use.
10. DISCUSSION AND SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING
ORDINANCE DEFINING FAMILY
Mr. McClure moved to set Thursday, February 11, 1987 as the Public Hearing
date to discuss this item.
Brief discussion followed regarding a definite need, but some problems seen
are the number of people, constitutionality, sponsorships. Legal guardian-
ship limits are important. Members will focus on these areas at the Public
Hearing.
11. Concerning Mr. Rossi's question and Council inquiry about:Mr. J, now the
Chamber of Commerce, Shoemaker, and Gymboree, when will the work be completed?
Mr. LuBien noted work is slow, but.patience is needed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:15 P.M.
ec`etary
App