Loading...
08-10-1988 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE - PUBLIC HEARING August 10, 1988 A regular meeting and Public Hearing of the Miami Shores Village Planning and Zoning Board was held on..Augus.t 14.,1989, at the Miami_ Shores. Village Hall. The meeting was called to order at 7;35 P,,M, by Chairman Fernandez, with the. following members present; Richard M, Fernandez, Chairman Terrell F. Chambers, Jr. Robert E, Cook Thomas Laubenthal Larry T. McClure Also present; Frank LuBien, Director of Building & Zoning Mr. Fernandez welcolmed Mr. Cook, a qualified general contractor, with consider- able background in the field of contracting. Mr. Cook is a new member of the Board. 1. MINUTES:- JULY;. 27,.1989 The minutes of the meeting of July:27,. 1989 were approved, as distributed, by a motion made by Mr. Laubenthal, seconded. by Mr. Chambers, and passed by unanimous vote. 2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGE .OF,ADDRESS AND FRONT YARD DESIGNATION ANDREW BERMAN 9301 NE 9 PL Mr. LuBien introduced the request, stating he had enclosed several copies of the -designated area. There is no copy of plat, as this was a homestead, but the survey done recently indicates there .is a dedication, There is a road at the south end of. the property, which is the small side, and tradi- tionally the front of the lot. Dr. Berman would, like to have this desig- nated as the front of his property so that he can proceed with landscaping, fencing, and other improvements he has in mind for the property, without being in violation of the code. Mr. Fernandez noted he represents the lending institution dealing with the property, and is familiar with same. He will excuse himaelf unless Dr. Berman has no objection. There was no objection. Dr. Berman stated he purchased the homestead three years ago. He had books documenting history of the property, dating back over. 100 years. He showed photographs.to Members to help with clarification.. The house was built be- fore roads in the area.. The photos Show the front and side of the house, and a picture of the .road .whish does not show on some of the maps. It is ..: not0lear how the.property.became labeled as 9th Place even though it faces 93rd Street. The landscape architect has drawn plans which call for the frontyard to be designated as 93rd St. so,that fencing plans can: proceed. In response to query, Dr. Berman indicated the survey was done by Toussaint. There is an acre of land and the house faces south.;with more than the 25' required front yard, He has spent considerable amount. of money restoring the house and adding anew wing.; The coral rock wall built: about 100 years ago needs to be restored, and this requires the 93rd Street be designated, and clarified as the front yard. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -2- 8/10/89 Mr. Laubenthal wondered if. this is. a recognizable street. or a dedicated right of way, Mr. LuBien replied. that should the Boardapprove the change the front.yard would be.48'X 245': wide, to adequately protect. the property with a 5' fence he would have a problem. because the entire section would be considered the front yard, Discussed at lengthwasthe orientation of the home, legal.issue, public right of way when road is in..existance for 7 years, 93rd Street as a cul- de-sac,. neighbors on lots 7 & 8. Mr.,. LuBien indicated the address, if approved., would be.931 NE 93.St,, Also discussed were driveway limitations and easements. Mr. Laubenthal moved that. the application as submitted be approved, seconded by Mr. Chambers.. Following discussion,Mr, Laubenthal amended the motion .to read, the house front yard orientation face 93rd St., amendment was accepted by Mr, Chambers. The motion was rereadand clarified that the house orientation will face south. The motion passed unanimously. For the purpose of .improvements to the property, discussion occured con-' cerning the front yard set back. The coral rock wall. It was felt this orientation does not interfere with the applicants plans, fence height limitations are clew. 2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF BASKETBALL GOAL E. W. DRODY, JR. 1118 NE 105 ST. Mr. LuBien_introduced the request, stating it is a carry over from the meeting of July 13, 1989. In discussion, the Board indicated it might be considered, if the basketball goal were attached to the house, becuase of the fact this is beyond the 25' setback requirement. A copy of the plans was included in Members packet, showing a galvanized pipe attached from the pole to the house. Mr. Drody noted he applied for a permit, was denied, and upon his last visit to the Planning & Zoning. Board had the impression that a backbrace would constitute connection to the house. A drawing has been resubmitted, showing what he considered a substantial attachment.. It is not too unattractive, it is safe, and behind the 25' required setback. Mr. Fernandez advised thatsome of the discussion revolved around, it might be considered, also that this is a structure under definition of the code. Mr. Laubenthal.notea he had initiated discussion at the .iast meeting. The drawing shows the post is .2 to 3 feet off the base of the house, he questioned if the eave extended over the garage. The actual distance, as shown on the photograph is at least 4' to the front. Mr. LuBien commented, he personally hasno objection to the basketball equip- ment in the front yard, along side the driveway, etc. What the Board must consider, is not just a question of it being behind the 25' setback line, the Board mustconsider setting a precedent, it is in the front yard, and is such an .installation in harmony with the surrounding properties, PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -3- 8/10/89 Mr. McClure commented, his main concern is the structural soundness of the basketball court. This one.doesn':t seem to be going any place, but they aren'`t all constructed thus, Mr, Cook queried, concerning basketball goals.in the front yard, and mounting, The precedent setting issue was discussed at length, no Member:seemed to be in favor of this, Mr. Chambers motion to approve the request, so long as it is behind the setback, failed for lack of a second. Mr,. Laubenthal moved to deny the application, as submitted, Mr. McClure seconded the motion. for discussion, Mr. Laub.enthal indicated his incentive is to maintain the precedent of the Board, and not tend toward weakening the code. A number of items in the Village whichdo not occur by code is not an acceptable precedent. Mr. Chambers indicated, his intention is notto weaken, the code, it is within the setback. Mr. McClure agreed with Mr. Laubenthal however, he feels when a substantial number of people go against, the ordinance, it is time to take a look at the ordinanceagain, and determine why. We may take another look at basketball goal, and discuss playground equipment. Again, he has no problem with the basketball goal in the front yard, his concern is structural safety, and how can we determine this soundness. can Mr. Fernandez commented, heAsee,many .positives here, but a dangerous precedent could be set, were it approved. He agrees :it is appropriate to address the issue at another meeting. Without specificdefinition an undue hardship is placed on the Code Enforcement officers, and cause great consternation at this time. In reply to query, Mr. LuBien indicated, there is uniform application of the code. Others Were cited, at: this time. The vote to deny was called, and passed unanimously, Mr. Fernandez explained the right of appeal to Council to Mr. Drody. Mr. LuBien gave him a print out of the requirements.. Further, Mr. LuBien stated this does not affect the Code EnforcementBoard decision. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - REQUIRING PERMIT. FOR DISPLAY OF SIGN ADVERTISING RENTAL, LEASING OR SALE OF LAND; ESTABLISHING FEE FOR PERMIT. Mr. Fernandez read the. Ordinance by.title, He then opened the meeting for Public comments,. all real estate people doingbusiness in Miami Shores. Mx., Fred Astor, 1280 NE 102 Street, Nr. Astor first asked for clarification, the Ordinance is not referring to the sale of vacant land only, He then commented that if a.permit is required in. Miami Shores, and it will enhance enforcement of the ordinance, he is in favor; however, if it is.just another means oftax levied -against the public, he is opposed, PLANNING & ZONING BOARD —4— 8/10/89 rp,// 81 y o alp Elizabeth Lasch, 345 NE 100 St, Mrs. Lasch noted. that herconcern, are the many !illegal real estate signs in Miami Shores from outside brokers who purposely,;intend.not to display the proper. sign until they are caught. If a permit ui1l enhance enforce- ment, by all means, it should be done, Patrick Duffy, 1352 NE.104.St, Mr. Duffy stated,, the purpose for adoption of an amended.ordinanceo.may be to enhance enforcement, but those who are here, live here and do business in Miami Shores are not the perpetrators, It is the outside broker, who does not willfully commit the violation, but does so, becuase he does not know the .code. Mr, Duffy further, suggested other means of enhancing enforce- ment for both the outside broker, and those having a Miani Shores Village Occupational License.. The information concerning the code could be disemi- nated through the Miami.Board of Realtors Newsletter. The people who are here and know the code, are at a competive disadvantageto the outside broker. He gave example of:illegal open signs in his neighborhood four weekends in a row. Also he noted the present ordinance as written,.is difficult to enforce, he suggested .enforcement of the. spirit of the code rather than the letter. Mr. Laubenthal commented the intent is clear, the comments made are a step forward,.and suggestions a good concept. Pat Dahne, 278 NE 97 Street Ms. Dahne agrees the existing ordinance needs to be enforced, but she thinks the idea of obtaining a permit will create a nightmare. There are aspects.; which have not been addressed. Examples; sticker on each sign, expiration date or time, if it is the proper sticker,for.that property, or has it been placed from another property. Further, real estate agents are clever about getting around regulations. The disposition must come from the broker at the offices. Maybe we should look at Offices being permitted to install signs in the community on a.yearly basis, rather than on an individual sign basis. In reply to Mr. Fernandez statement, sincethere is a Board of Realtors, with. a Code of Ethics, in house arbritation committees-, perhaps the Village might bring attention to the Board of Realtors of repeated and intentional violations. Ms Dahne noted that not all real estate companies are obliged to belong to the Board of Realtors. Brief discussion ensued, concerning the size of sign and number confiscated by the Code Enforcement Office;. Councilman Spero.,Canton, 1025 NE 98 Street Mr, Canton noted, theamendment as drawn by Council.is.not intended as a permit for.eaeh. sign, but. rather an office permit was. the spirit. Also he stated. the Miami Board. of Realtors had. been.approach.dd,.,with.formal charge, previously, regarding_misleading advertising ice, Miami Shores, and the Miami Board of Realtors..refused.to take a stand,. this.indicates.they do not look to the best interest of .o€ Miami Shores, PLANNING & ZONING BOARD. -5- 8/10/89 ///7'/f'9 y".Yo Mr. Fernandez made mention of the_Miami Board of Realtors set of ethics, Code Enforcement. items need to be pursued heavily,. where our resources should be at work in these areas, Mr. Canton further noted, 1, intentional violations should be considered, 2. This amendment is because.the ordinances have been miisused, as evidenced by the collection of signs, Taking action has not Changed the brokers behavior or the pattern, so they must be told in.a direct way., Discussed further were the homeowner responsibility, Thr, Astor commented, in spite of comments to the contrary, enforcement has been active, and this action may add Administrative nightmare to Administrative Problems. He suggested a period of rest with a followup report from Mr, LuBien concerning enforcement, Much discussion continued, Mr. Laubenthal noted that in discussion from Council the intent is for licensing or permitting an Agency,, and in that case the ordinance should include the words, "to an agency", for clarification reasons. Mr. Fernandez requested the issue be approaehed from the angle of need.. or.perceived need of, the ordinance. He then asked Mr, LuBien for his opinion concerning the present status of the current ordinances and current enforcement, n Mr, LuBien prefaced his remarks, he is not oplienated, the facts as they exist are: 1. We cannot go on private property to confiscate. 2. From an enforcement standpoint anything not on private property can and is picked up. 3. A full time Code Enforcement Officer:has been added, and the two officers have been alternating working on Sundays. 4. The officers carry a copy of the ordinance, and when a sign is picked up a copy is given to the Broker or in case of an open house, the person in charge is properly informed. The ultimate responsibile person is the owner, against whom active action must be taken, in persistent cases.. A classy, aggressive real estate company which was discussed earlier, deliberately violates the code, and this is not typical of the local real estate people. Coldwell Banker, and Century 21 were mentioned as prime violators, but they have numerous offices. He also mentioned the setback, material and location of sign is enforced in the spirit of the ordinance, Size and. number was also mentioned. Ms. Dahne's comments referring to the effect on the code enforce- ment program are well taken, this adds another layer to the process. Police enforcement was. mentioned, as was repeat offenders.. Mt. Fernandez again asked, is there a.:need? Violations exist, are the current enforcement procedures effective?. Will the situation correct itself in time? What is ;the cost affect? Further, Mr, Fernandez mentioned our capabilities. in place, another layer of bureaueray we don't need, we have an,obligation to the community, and he doesntt see that the need exists. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -6- 8/10/89 Mr. McClure commented, it is foolish to make the homeowner responsible Chen he sells a house, as he looks to the real estate agent for guidance and advice. The.Council.in its' attempt to license the broker, and aid code enforcement, wants to call attention to the violations, .The dollar amount will in no way pay the administrative cost. Mr, McClure noted he would like to see something to penalize the real estate agent office when they are in violation, Some sort of. license is needed. Discussion continued., concerning occupational license. Sign must be regulated, but cannot be denied, only action to be taken is through the owner. Mr. Laubenthal moved, the item be held in abeyance for a period of 90 days, to allow staff the opportunity to provide a report or an analysis of the effectiveness of the additional assistance,. to determine if this ordinance is warranted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cook, and carried by unanimous vote. This item will be set for the November agenda. Mk • Fernandezrahnounceduactenminute break, and requested the people present, remain for item #5 Discussion - Garage Enclosure Amendment, for their input. The meeting reconvened at 9:25 P.M. 5. DISCUSSION - GARAGE ENCLOSURE AMENDMENT Mr. Fernandez advised Members, -;:this item has been throughly discussed both by Planning Board initiative and by direction from Council. Apparently Council perceives a problem with reduced value, harmony, parking, and the idea that conversion would lead to to rental. Enclosures cannot be denied, since we cannot prohibit permitted use of property. We can regulate. Nevertheless, Council is working on a 6 month moratorium resolution to prevent garage enclosures. It is the opinion of this.panel.It will not take 6 months to come to a conclusion. Mr. Chambers brought to the last meeting a detail of tax assessment, indicating property value increase when a garage is enclosed, but this raises the question, what effect does this have on the surrounding properties, The means used by the Planning & Zoning Board in allowing garage enclosures in the past has worked well. Mr. Laubenthal commented that, he closed discussion on this issue at the last meeting, requesting, insisting, and pleading .for a comment or statement from Council as to, What is the problem, as they saw it? Ms. Dahne finds that generally people are looking for a house with the garage. You can always tell when a garage has been enclosed, because it doesntt flow. The tax may increase, but it never enhances. the property. Mrs. Lasch.noted value is a matter of opinion. Enclosure does increase the value. A garage isuseless storage„for:.aT car. Many enclosures are appropri- ate for the. property, The four or five cars a family has today will not fit in a 2 car garage. The majority of homes built before 1951 with a garage do not use the space for a car, but rather for storage of. anything else. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -7- 8/10/89 sy, if/e9 4'N' Mr. Astor agreed with Ms, Dahne, most people today. are looking for a house with a garage, One can always tell if a garage has been enclosed. If it is legal to..prevent conversion, he is definitely in favor. Mr, Fernandez asked, do we wish to formalize some of the customa.and re= quirements we have been looking at or do we wish to maintain the flexibi- lity currently in use, Some advisory items the Board has looked at are elevation, cut back of driveway ribbons, outside doors, :landscaping, use, and -harmony. Some problems,. have been unique. Mr;' McC9.ure c lled':atteifft n:"to,°Page ,x1615, Sec 904(a) of the Miami Shores Village Code of Ordinances. He feels it a good compromise to require an architect seal.for all garage enclosures.. This could solve. many problems. 'If the section'does not include garage enclosures, his proposal is to amend this section with a•comma.after addition, (in line 3)and add the wording, including'garage'and carport enclosures, and open porches having a value 'Mr. Cook' fui1ysupports-Mr:-McClure,'s point, in reading the section, he interperts garage enclosure as being there, but the correct -wording insert would reinforce it. All Members were pleased;::Mr iMcClure called this section to -their attention, and agreed requiring an architect seal.isa most logical step to take, ' Muth 'discussion'followed. Mr. McClure noted that a section 904(c) specifically mentioning architect seal might be what is needed. If the ordinance is made specific there would be no need for a 6 month moratorium. The request could be passed on to Mr. Fann'f©r rewording, and refinement of verbage. Following further discussion,- Mr. McClure moved to direct Mr, LuBien to require the architect seal for garage and carport enclosures, and open 'porches: Mr. Laubenthal seconded' the motion which passed unanimously. In an informal pole all Members agreed there is no need for a-6 month moratorium. To this end, Mr. Laubenthal statedhe__i:s satisfied with the ordinance strength, at this time, and.additiona.l wording will make it more specific, also there have been'no significant..shorttomings in the process Members' have been using. It was further noted,this Board can accomplish the to k in a far shorter 'time frame. Mr. Fernandez stated the suggestion by Mr.` McC]ure to amend Sec 904 has great simpilicity and great effect, and will accomplish what the Board has attempted for some time,.. Be will put the proposal before the Village :Attorney for form refinement,. and clarification, Mr, Cook.made a motion to,direct Mr, Faun to consider the revision to Sec 904, to include garage and carport enclosures, and, open, porches, Mr. Laubenthal,seconded.the'motion, which carried unanimously, PLANNING & ZONING BOARD —8— 8/10/89 etler 6:; REQUEST. FOR. APPROVAL OF OCCUPATIONAL,:"LICENSE FOR PHOTOGRAPHY . STUDIO CHARLOTTE RICHARDE, PHOTOGRAPHER 170 NE 96 Street Mr, 'LuBien noted Ms. Richarde, iS .out of town, Hellas. no objection tech- nically, it comes to the Board for an opinion, as h.e.is nervous about approving anything on NE.2nd AVE, Mr, McClure made a motion to approve the request, seconded'_by Mr, chambers, the motion. passed unanimously. REQUEST FOR'APPRDVAL OF PET SHOP SHORES SQUARE PLAZA',. -BISCAYNE BLVD AT NE 90th STREET. Mr. LuBien noted, the applicant insisted on an opinion from the Planning & Zoning Board. He read the letter of request from the applicant. The Schedule of Regulations B-1 under Permitted Uses,. 2. prohibits the handl- ing of live poultry or other animals. A motion was made by Mr. Laubenthai to deny the request. based on the Schedule of Regulations, B-1, Permitted Uses' 2., Mr. McClure seconded the motion which passed by unanimous vote. 8. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL: Petition to Vacate certain 60 foot strip which is abutted on each side "by property that had been previously vacated that constituted a portion of'Northeast 89th Street in Miami Shores. Members just received this addendum #2 yesterday, and it does require considerable study. Also It was noted the applicant could be given an opportunity to appear. "Mr. Laubenthal moved to table this item to the next"meeting, seconded by Mr. McClure, and passed unanimously. 9. Mr. Fernandez noted he spoke with Barbara Witte, regarding a separate workshop with Downtown Revitalization Board concerning some of their proposals. It was the concensus of this Panel .thatthis be a part of our regularly scheduled meeting, so as toinclude the public,: as well as the recorder be present.. Ms. Witte indicated they couldcome up with a better presentation, and be better prepared, sometime in mid September or mid October, to meet with them.. This would be at the end of whatever agenda we might have and a more informal atmosphere. Mr. Cook thanked.everyone:for their help and their patience, and exgressed pleasure with his first evening ofserving the on the Board, There being no further business,:the meeting adjourned at l� s.M. %.d S ret_, diotfraz/ APPROVED