03-09-1989 Regular Meeting•
MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE
Marek 9, 1989
The regular meeting of Miami Shores Village Planning & Zoning Board was
held on Mareh 9, 1989, at Mimi 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, Esq.
Thomas Laubenthal
Absent: Larry T'. McClure
Also present: Frank LuBien, Director of Building & Zoning
MINUTES - February 23, 1989
An amendment was.made to, the minutes on page 1, #2, paragraph 3.
Sentence added: Members determined any decision change must come from
Mr. Freeman, owner, not from Mr. Strump his representative. -
The minutes of the meeting of February 23, 1989 were approved as amended,
by a motion.made by Mr. Fernandez, seconded by Mr. Laubenthal, and passed
unanimously.
2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR GARAGE ENCLOSURE
MARIE THEVENIN
105 N. E. 95th ST.
Mr. LuBien explained this request is for enclosure of a garage which is
separate from the house, it connects to the main house by way of a porch.
Marie Thevenin was present at the meeting, but unable to communicate with
Members.. Her interpreter,, Irma, Charlotte was provided by Mrs. Thevenin.
Through Ms. Charlotte.,, Members were informed that Mrs. Thevenin has seven
children, four are married with their own families, and since she doesn't
use the garage for a car,.she wants to enclose it to be used as guest
quarters for when her children come to visit.
In discussion Members agreed the Board's concern -is that no attempted
garage enclosure or modification be used now or in the future as rental.
Also looked at very closely is off street parking, separate entry way,
harmony and integrity.: The intent to have married adults use the enclosure
is a contrary use. Discussion continued.
Mr. Fernandez moved to deny the request for a :garage enclosure, seconded by
Mr. Laubenthal, and passed unanimously.
• Mr. Rossi explained the right of appeal process to Ms. Charlotte. Mr. LuBien
gave her a print out sheet of requirement for appeal.
3. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR: GARAGE ENCLOSURE
DANIEL COLON
102 N. W. 107th ST.
Mr. LuBien explained the garage is in the rear and.faces the alley, the
outside elevation is not critical. Mr. Colon is enclosing for additional
space. The garage door will remain, the rear will be a utility room; and
a partition will separate it .from the rest of the enclosure.
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
-2- 3/9/89
Mr. Colon indicated he does need the additional space and the one outside
door will be closed off,if necessary.
Following brief discussion, Mr. Fernandez moved to approve the request for
garage enclosure provided the outside door is blocked up, seconded by
Mr. Laubenthal, and passed unanimously.
4. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR FLAT ROOF ADDITION
E. A. ANDERSON
9130 N. E. 10th AVE.
Mr. LuBien explained this is an unusual situation in that the original
structure was built with a 2/3 pitched roof and 1/3 flat built up gravel.
In examining the space, he finds it difficult to make an addition without
it being flat.
Mr. Rossi explained.to:Mr.. & Mrs. Anderson that the ordinance allows for
15% flat roof in relation to the.pitched roof area. However, this request
requires a variance and the four criteria required for a, variance cannot
be met. In response to query from Mrs. Anderson he read_ the four criteria
from the book of ordinances.
In further discussion it was explained the problem is the original building
has a 2/1 ratio of roofing and if the request is approved it would perpet-
uate a non -conforming situation. Also it was explained that the addition
can be done with a tile roof even though it is more costly. Financial reason
is not criteria for variance.
After continued discussion, Mr. Laubenthal moved to deny the request, as sub-
mitted, seconded by Mr. Chambers, and passed unanimously.
Mr. Rossi explained the process of appeal to Council, and Mr. LuBien gave
him a print out sheetofthe requirements.
5. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR NEW RESIDENCE (WITHDRAWN 2/23/89)
T. MA & T. LIU
N. E. 2nd Ave. & 103rd St. (N. E. CORNER)
(Lot 14 & Pt of 13, BLK 119, M. S. Sec 5)
This request was withdrawn at the last meeting.
Mr. LuBien included in Members' packet a revised sketch of the site plan,
and the elevation for the N. E. 2nd Ave. side, and another for N. E. 103rd
Street side. The site plans and floor plans are correct, the elevation
plan is not.
Discussion ensued. Mr. Gonzalez explained that the electric meter is on
the alley side. He also indicated the elevation plan can be changed. The
revisions with the wing walls, the entrance on N. E. 2nd Ave, and conforming
setbacks are what the Board was looking for. It will have additional wing
walls on N. E. 2nd Ave. address side and an additional window on garage side.
Mr. LuBien in response to query stated, he had expressed himself, and would
have no further opinion, except to say the entrance is still not on N. E.
2nd Avenue.
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
-3- 3/20/89
Following continued discussion, Mr. Laubenthal moved to approve the plans
for the new residence in that satisfactory adjustments to the plans have
been made, and a resident address and elevation.face N. E. 2nd Avenue.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Fernandez, and passed unanimously.
6. REQUEST FOR .APPROVAL OF SCREEN PORCH &.CARPORT WITH ALUMINUM ROOF
CONTR. ALLIED HOME IMPROVEMENT
(JOE FEINBERG 9487444)
A. J. PARKER
143 N. W. 110th STREET
The screen porch and carport with the aluminum roof were installed without
a permit, as reported by Mr. LuBien, For Members' perusal he inclosed in
their packet a copy of Sec 225 of the Miami Shores Village Code which
addresses masonry construction,..He..nlso underscored the three sections
which specifically apply..
Joe Feinberg apologized for not taking out„a permit. He read,the ordinance
and perceived it in a different way. He said there are numerous such
aluminum carports in Miami Shores, and he showed photos of same. He thinks
his is sturdier than others in the area, it is more appealing compared to
others, and adds value and beauty to the home.
Discussion followed oncode interpretation, and the fact that a permit would
have been. denied. The code is clear, this structure does not meet the
masonry ordinance nor does it meet any of the criteria for a variance.
Mr.. Laubenthal moved to deny the request as submitted, seconded by
Mr. Fernandez.
Mr. Parker explained. the footing and the tile porch had been in place
35-40 years, and Mr. LuBien explained it must have a built-up gravel roof
according to code.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. LuBien explained the right of appeal to Council, and gave Mr. Feinberg
a print out sheet explaining the requirements.
7. DISCUSSION - PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING VARIANCE
Mr. Fernandez introduced discussion by noting that an. applicant should pre -
prepare before submitting a request. He has observed the Board lead them
through the steps, and argue both sides of a case. The burden to prove the
reason for a request should be the obligation of the applicant and turned
back to him. The code clearly states.our obligation,: and the applicant's
obligation.
Mr. LuBien explained. a variance fee-is:charged, and a copy .of,the variance
form with an explanation of requirements is given to each.applicant. Upon
seeing copy, Members agreed this is seen as a statue,: but not really a form
or guide. It was further mentioned that we try to help people too much.
Discussion continued.
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -4-
3/20/89
Mr. Fernandez agreed that he will draft a form in layman terms for the
applicant to fill in, so:that is aware of the procedure when requests
a variance. the applicant the applicant
8. DISCUSSION - POLICE HALL OF FAME
Mr. LuBien explained the Police Hall
administrative complex to occupy the
site. A site plan and sketch of the
approved just yet, but neither is it
of Fame is a possible Museum and
old Miami Shores Preparatory School
proposal was reviewed.. It cannot be
objectionable.
There was discussion concerning zoning, feeling of the surrounding single
family residents, limited hours of operation and passive use. Members also
had questions concerning parking, no gun range, size, financing. Zoning
seemed to be the biggest concern.at this time, the Members comments seemed
favorable if this project can be worked out..
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
�rjd
cre
•
ry
£4'