Loading...
08-25-1988 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING August 25, 1988 The Miami Shores Village Planning & Zoning Board convened on August 25, 1988, at the Miami Shores Village Hall at 7:30 P.1,. 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, Esq, Thomas Laubenthal Larry T, McClure Also present: Frank LuBien, Director of Building & Zoning 1. MINUTES - August 11, 1988 Mr. Fernandez moved to approve, as written, the minutes of the meeting of August 11, 1988, seconded by Mr. McClure, and passed unanimously, Mr. Fernandez requested addition of an agenda item "Discussion of Variances", seconded by Mr. Laubenthal, and passed unanimously. This will be #5. Another item which came in todayabout 4:00 P.M,, and Mr, LuBien requested the Board's approval on, was also added to the agenda. "Approval of material to re -roof Best Value Inn". Motion was made by lair. McClure, seconded by Mr. Fernandez, and passed unanimously. This item will be #4. 2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL. OF PLANS FOR PARKING SPACES & DECK PATRICK DENTICO 10055 BISCAYNE BLVD. Mr. LuBien included in Members packet a.letter of request for variance, sketch of survey indicating configuration of lot, He stated the proposed construc- tion encroaches into required setback. Rear spaces are less than 20', The situation as it exists, is not appropriate for parking more than two cars, accomodations are needed for six or seven, Mr. Dentico is built up to the set- backs on both sides and rear and front. Further he noted, Mr. Dentico has applied for and received a permit for a 5' CBS wall:from the northern boundary of the asphalt drive, across front, down the side first 25' to rear wood fence. This may be altered, In response to query from Mr. Laubenthal, he stated the property to the north -As vacant, and the south is an existing residence. Mr. Frank Woland, Counsel representing Mr. & Mrs, James:Dentico, presented several parking area proposals, and proposals for a concrete deck, Mr. Woland stated this request is being made because of the irregular shape of the lot, leaves no back yard, He further stated the existing circular drive in the front will nottaccomodate sufficient cars and the desire is to put cars behind the landscaped wall (which he proposes to modify) to avoid a theft problem. Mr. Woland pursued his request in depth, Mrr. Rossi askedif he intended to present the one plan he preferred? Mr. Fernandez inquired exactly which plan he intends to use, and what are the variances requested? PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -2- 8/25/88 Mr, LuBien advised either of the two parking areas being shown for the front are acceptable, according to criteria. The area to the north of the house which is similar to the patio shown is where the variance is required, because it encroached on the 10' setback, Considerable discussion ensued, Mr, Rossi clarified the parking areas may be approved, however the second part of the request is the deck, which is a structure sitting in the setback, (with planters in the deck) herein lies the problem, In response to query from Mr. Fernandez, Mr. Dentico indicated this was his anticipated use at the time the property was purchased. Mr. Dentico also replied to Mr. Laubenthal that he is an engineer, and can supply -drainage for the deck, also this is the only area he can enjoy as a patio. Mr. McClure commented the Code requirements are strict for a variance, it is the homeowners responsibility to set forth the reasons forthe hardship for a variance to be issued. Mr, Woland continued wits request, Mr, Fernandez noted that since the Ordinance was in place at the time the sub -division was approved, the developer and the purchaser were aware of the restrictions and configuration. Considerable discussion continued, concern- ing the problem of paving the whole side yard, and the problem of setback for parking,being entertained with the deck, It was again suggested the parking plan be separated from the deck plan. Mr. Laubenthal offered alternate plans, stating the variance creates a non -conforming house, Mr. Woland presisted for a variance. Mr, Fernandez explained, he has consistent history of opposing variances unless criteria is met for same, The several sketchee shown cannot be considered, Mr. Dentico and the builders were aware of the situation at the time of purchase. Beneficial use of the house is not impenged upon. He is in favor of strict interpretation of the Code. Mr, McClure agreed with Mr. Fernandez, noting, no circumstance in favor of a variance have been presented., Mr, Laubenthal countered, he agrees with these issues, but he is in favor of a 5' service walk. Mr, Dentico and Mr. Woland agreed to this. Mr. Chambers moved to approve a 5' service walk access to the rear, within the setback, seconded by Mr. Laubenthal, and passed unanimously. Discussion continued on the rear parking and circular driveway in the rear. Mr. Laubenthal moved to approve this plan as submitted, seconded by Mr. Chambers, and passed by a 4/1 vote. Mr. Fernandez voted No, Final approval then, is for the combination of two (2) plans, Drawings of the combination of the two sketches will be submitted when the permit is applied for. 3, REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ORNAMENTAL IRON INCE SThVE & LINDA JOHNSON4 145 N, E, 95th ST, Members received in their packet a letter from Steven & Linda Johnson outlin- ing their request for a variance to install the fence, a copy of the plot plan PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -3- 8/25/88 showing where the fence is proposed, also shown to the Board were photo- graphs of the violations from people waiting for the bus. Mr. LuBien advised, this is a peculiar situation. There is a bus stop at the adjoining property, 95th Street is a thoroughfare and in order to have more privacy, and protection the 5' ornamental iron fence is proposed. Mr. Johnson responded to Members questions. Much discussion ensued, concerning the house, at this time, not being a.designated Historic Landmark. Also hardship variance criteria is not met, and the bus stop was in place when the house was purchased. He has had the opportunity to read the proposed Historic Landmark Ordinance for variance. Mr. Johnson explained his plans for fruit trees, a dog, and children, The wrought iron fence will be attractive and harmonious, and will provide the protection needed from trespassers. Also they will be able to utilize the full yard. Also Mr. Johnson stated he is in the process of having the house designated.a Historic Landmark, Following further discussion, Mr. Laubenthal moved to deny the application, seconded by Mr. Fernandez, and carried unanimously. Mr, Johnson was apprised of his right of appeal to Council. He indicated he will do so. A five minute break was taken. 4, REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ROOFING MATERIAL BEST VALUE INN 10500 BISCAYNE BLVD. Mr. LuBien noted this permit request for re -roof with a pearlite material came in late today. Mr. Edward Brady, President of Advanced Concepts of South Florida, Inc. is not aware that it is being placed on this agenda. Mr, LuBien further stated, Advanced wants to repair a sag in a leaky roof, Much discussion occured, concerning a built up roof with no gravel, according to the contractor. This proposed material is a lightweightcencrete which is approved by the South Florida Building Code, and. supposedly more durable than gravel, also it is not visible from the road. Mr, McClure moved to approve the request based on the fact this can be con- sidered masonry construction, and the existing roof does not have gravel. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fernandez, and passed 4/1 with Mr, Rossi voting No, 5, DISCUSSION -:VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS Mr, Fernandez briefly introduced his request to discuss this issue, requesting that each member think about it and be prepared to discuss it further at the next meeting. Mr. Fernandez mentioned that he was somewhat stunned that the Village Council overruled the Planning & Zoning Board decision to deny a house addition in the set back, This leads him to wonder if Council is suggesting that the Board reassess how a variance is granted, and if Council is leaning toward a more lenient approach toward house improvements. It was again de- PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -4- 8/25/88 Glared, the charge of the Planning & Zoning Board is to interpret what is written, Council's decision to grant the variance was a clear violation of the Code. For the record, he further stated, and Mr. Laubenthal agreed, this creates a different set of standards. Mr. Laubenthal commented Planning & Zoning Board Members number one responsi- bility is to call it like we see it. Also, this is a strong Board with an excellent variety of professions represented, and a great deal of deliberation goes into each decision. Mr. Rossi feels the four points for a variance should be clarified. The language should be more clear by changing or adding and/or, Mr. Fenn advised Council the grounds for a variance are not met, as did.Mr, LuBien, when a variance is granted the grounds for grating same should be stated, Mr, Fernandez then noted, his intent:is not to weaken the Ordinance for variance, but to clarify, `(i,e „ safety, is the reason for separation). The contractor in this case knew he was wrong, and had an alternate plan, if his request was not approved by Council. Mr. Rossi requested the "Discussion - Variance Criteria" be placed on the next agenda. Mr. LuBien advised the materials for the next meeting of September 8th may not be delivered early, because of his vacation, holiday, and other commit- ments, Mr. Rossi inquired and was advised that the Landscape Ordinance and the Dish Antenna Ordinance are being worked on by Mr, Fann, Village Attorney, There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 P.M. • Approved