Loading...
05-19-1988 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING May 19, 1988 The Miami Shores Village Planning & Zoning Board convened on May 19, 1988, at the. Miami Shores Village Hall at 7:40 P.M.. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Rossi, with the following members present: Robert J. Rossi, Chairman Terrell F. Chambers, Jr. Richard M. Fernandez Thomas Laubenthal Absent: Larry T. McClure Also present: Frank LuBien, Director of Building & Zoning 1. MINUTES - April 28, 1988 Mr. Fernandez called for correction on pg. 2, #4, last sentence - on the instead of issue, there is no current problem. Mr. Fernandez made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected, seconded by Mr. Laubenthal, and passed unanimously. 2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF BASKETBALL HOOP DEBBIE MADSEN 335 N. E. 93rd ST. Mr. LuBien noted this request arises from a citation he issued to Mrs. Madsen for having the free standing basketball backstop and hoop in the front yard. Consequent to his advise to her, concerning her options for appeal, she sent a letter of request for hearing. Mrs. Madsen was present to answer any questions Members may have. Mrs. Madsen noted her son is an 8 year old asthmatic, the basketball provides him and his friends with recreation under her watchful eye, since her kitchen faces the front of the house. She presented a petition signed by neighbors to support her request. She also presented for Members review photographs of a. number of other basketball hoops in front of houses, pictures which she stated, were taken from the front of the street. There was much discussion concerning the front set back requirement, the com- parison of the basketball stand and hoop to a lamppost, and it being defined as a structure, also the comparison to swing set. Technically it is in violation, and Mr. LuBien was correct in sending a notice. Since the larger problem seems to be maintenance as shown in the photos, there are other vehicles to :control the situation. Other options for placement of the hoop on the property were also discussed. Mr. Rossi advised Mrs. Madsen that it is a structure in the front yard, and since the Planning & Zoning Board is trying to maintain a single family residential character, and the Board must interpret the intent of the Ordinance, he. does not feel it was written to exclude basketball hoops. It does not qualify for a variance, but can be looked at as an incidental use. Following continued discussion, Mr. Fernandez moved to approve this particular basketball backstop and hoop with a special note that it is approved on a case by case basis where structures with similar circumstance are involved. Motion PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -2- May 19, 1988 was seconded by Mr. Laubenthal, and passed after continued discussion, that the intent is limited to this request only, and should others come before the Board, the circumstance would have to be similar. 3. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF WOOD DECK SAILESH MEHTA 10480 N. E. 5th AVE. Mr. LuBien stated he brought this particular item before the Board because of the unusual condition, it a situation which would not be permitted on a typical lot. Among other drawings included in Members packet was a blown up drawing which shows the dock on Mirror Lake. The dock is on Mr. Mehta's property, extending into the water, a situation which is similar to at least 7 other properties on the lake. There is a precedent. This situation has never been addressed -where there is waterfront property which belongs to the property owner. Mr. LuBien has no problem with the request, but he indicated that he would be more comfortable if it were approved by the Board. In lot 2 there is a similar situation. If the concept is approved, it must have approved plans signed and sealed by an Engineer. Mr. Mehta indicated that he is an engineering student and will obtain the proper engineer drawing if the concept is approved. He also stated that 90% of the homes on the lake have a similar situation. There was discussion concerning the water depth or water table. Mr. LuBien replied to query, it is not a spring fed lake. The intent of the corner lots being as they are is to grant access to the lake. It was also suggested that Mr. Mehta check with his homeowners association for any prohibitions. Mr. Laubenthal made a motion to approve the request as submitted, seconded by Mr. Chambers, and passed unanimously. Mr. LuBien advised Mr. Mehta to contact him tomorrow, concerning the next step, 4. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF HEDGE ANDREW J. KRAFT 87 N. E. 92nd ST. Mr. LuBien noted that this hedge was brought to his attention some years back, the hedge was trimmed back, so as not to impede the right of way, in response to notice sent. It has always been kept neat and tidy, however there has been specific complaint by a neighbor who has been insistant that the hedge is in violation, and he wants it brought into code. The code defines hedge as a continuous line of vegetation., and the violation does exist, therefore this request.. Included in Members_ packet was a letter from Mr. Kraft, a copy of his Warranty Deed, to establish date of purchase, drawing showing where the violation exists, eight letters from neighbors to support his request and a police report relating the conflict with a neighbor. At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Fernandez requested the police report be excluded from discussion, and the Board deal with the hedge height. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -3- May 19, 1988 Mr. Kraft stated he has been in his home over 25 years, he has a double lot which has always had the well maintained hedge, and beautifully landscaped yard. The letters from neighbors attest to this, they have no complaints. The hedge seems to be a problem to one neighbor only. Mr. Kraft further stated, it would be a major undertaking to cut the hedge after so many years, he further feels the hedge comes under the Grandfather Law. Mr. Rossi explained that since the hedge is not a structure, it cannot be grandfathered in. Also he understands Mr. Kraft's position, but the Board must rule on the hedge height. There was discussion on the irregularity of the hedge height around the property, the requirement of the hedge height and allowances, and explanation of appropriate trimming of trees and/or landscaping, and technical compliance. Mr. Fernandez moved to deny the request for the hedge to remain in excess of height limitation, seconded by Mr. Chambers. Much discussion continued. The vote was called and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. LuBien explained to Mr. Kraft his right to appeal to Council. The $110. Administrative fee is automatic, unless determined otherwise by the Code Enforcement Board, but the $25.00 per day fine will not go into effect on the specified date, since Mr. Kraft, through no fault of his own (considering dates of Board meetings) is seeking Administrative relief. Mr. Rossi highly recommended appeal to Village Council, because it is a legitimate complaint. Mr. Kraft indicated he will bring a letter in requesting appeal to Council. 5. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF NAME JAIME VELILLA 9705 N. E. 2nd AVE. Mr. LuBien explained that Members had already received a copy of the complaint Mr. Velilla filed with the Village against him as Director of Building & Zoning. At the time Mr. Velilla came; in, Mr. LuBien advised him that he may request a name change before the Planning & Zoning Board, to which Mr. Velilla replied, this is what he wanted, since he already had new cards printed. Mr. Velilla was made aware his request is on this agenda, he was not present. When Mr. Velilla came into the office it was explained to him that, after considerable discussion by the Planning & Zoning Board, he consented to the name 'Creativity Art Institute", he was given a copy of the Planning & Zoning Board minutes of that meeting. His application for Occupational License called the operation an Academy. He refused to accept the Secretary's explanation and so Mr. LuBien talked with him. Mr. LuBien advised him of the State Statue regulating school and gave him a copy of the cover letter. To avoid further discussion Mr. Velilla was told the conversation is closed. Mr. LuBien explained he wasworking on an item which required his full concentration, and Mr. Velillarefused to accept any explanation, he was rude and hostile to staff. Mr. Rossi explained the intent of the Board was very clear. Considerable liberties were taken to allow this use. This instruction in art is to be an incidental use and it has been made clear the name is a most important element in this decision. Further, Mr. LuBien and staff were correct in this interpretation of the minutes and the interpretation of the Board, and if Mr. Velilla would like to change the name, he should come before the Board again. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -4- May 19, 1988 In reply to query, Mr. LuBien replied he was not at any time abusive to Mr. Vevilla, It was then noted that it was inappropriate that Members received a copy of the complaint, at best, it is an. Administrative problem. Mr. Rossi indicated the name should be same as approved by the Board, 'Creativity Art Institute', it is appropriate to deny the request for a change of name. The motion is to clarify the position taken by the Building Official and the Building Department. Mr. Laubenthal moved that the application for approval for a change of name • be denied, seconded by Mr. Fernandez, and passed by unanimous vote. 6. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PROMOTIONAL BANNER HOWARD JOHNSON 9450 N. E. 2nd AVE. Mr. LuBien noted that he talked with a representative of the Howard Johnson Restaurant and advised him that he could not approve the banner request, but he would take it to the Planning & Zoning Board. The letter of request from i. the manager was included in Member's packet. Agenda of this meeting was mailed to the two addresses, no representative was present. Mr. Rossi explained the biggest problem with the request is the up -permitted use of banners in the Village. It was noted the Code Enforcement has been vigorous in citing the use of banners and/or baloons at Tropical Chevrolet, Jiffy Lube, The Fish Market, and most recently at Chase Federal Bank. Following much discussion, it was noted that an Ordinance might be established, requiring a bond and listing restrictions: number of days, times per year, size, etc. Also mentioned in discussion was the Chase Federal sign ...is to inform, which is a must, and is not a promotional sign. Following much discussion, Members agreed that this banner cannot be approved without a picture, a drawing, and no specifics as to size or lettering, and placement of the banner, and lack of representation, but Members are sincerely interested in the issue. Mr. Laubenthal moved that the application as submitted, be denied, in that the Board saw no adequate representation -either in person.or by photographs of just waht is requested. Mr. Fernandez seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. Mr. Rossi requested that should Mr. LuBien receive something concrete on the banner, he will call a special meeting of the Board forreview of information. 4111 Mr. LuBien noted that he will mail a copy of the minutes as the Official Record to Howard Johnson Restaurant Manager. He will also attempt to place a phone call requesting more information. 7. DISCUSSION - LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE Mr. Laubenthal discussed in depth 'Districts and District Map' of the Landscape Ordinance which he is working on. He has had much discussion, and driven the streets of the Village with Tom Benton, Director of Public Works. He has had considerable conversation with the Downtown Revitalization Board representatives. • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -5- May 19, 1988 He states that the Planning & Zoning Plan and the Downtown Revitalization Board Plan should be integrated. The D.R.B. suggested,. the Ordinance be all encompassing and go to the fullest extent to address all areas. There was much discussion concerning acceptable barricades/roadblocks and landscaping and irrigation. Members asked many questions regarding parking lots, public & private, Also mentioned was a design criteria for barricades. Members reviewed the sketches drawn up by Mr. Laubenthal and these too were discussed. It was also suggested that consideration of compact parking spaces be avoided. Mention was made of the lack of landscaping at the Biscayne Kennel Club. Mr. Rossi recommended that since Mr. Laubenthal is carrying a hugh loaf in organizing the Ordiance,: each Member might help by making a concerted effort to review and make notes on their copy to help put something in writing and guide Mr. Laubenthal in establishing policy. 8. Mr. Rossi inquired about the letter from Metro Dade concerning their Comprehensive Plan and stated, he would like a copy purchased and made avail- able to the Planning & Zoning Board for their perusal. Mr. LuBien advised that he has a complete set in his office. 9. Mr. Rossi reminded Members that at the June 9th meeting, Mr. Robert Swarthout, Comprehensive Planner, will be here to review and discuss our Comprehensive PI -an. -Also scheduled for this meeting for discussion with Mr. Swarthout, is a concern recommendation adopted by the Code Enforcement Workgroup, 'Recertifica tion of Occupancy'. Another question to be raised to Mr. Swarthout is the scope of his contract. Also to be discussed at that meeting, is consideration of the property on Biscayne Blvd. at 105th Street area. Mr. Fernandez stated he feels, we need to keep in mind that Land Planners can only justify their existence. He has no problem using a Land Planner as adjunct information. This Planning & Zoning Board is appointed by Miami Shores and is a good representative group of Plannersssincerely interested in what they are doing, and some very good determinations have been made. The question then becomes, where do we go, and what are the alternatives? Mr. Laubenthal has suggested an office type use which could not be objectionable to land owners; it increases the value and makes it easier to sale. Beyond that we can discuss with a Planner, the Planner is used as adjunct. A change for the area is in order, if not mandated. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M. Approved C, Chairman