Loading...
07-13-1989 Regular Meeting• • • iami crhore.9jllage FL O R 1 D A July 13, 1989 The regular meeting.. of the Miami Shores.: Village Planning & Zoning Board was held on July 13, 1989, at the Miami Shores Village Hal). The meeting was called toorder at 7;40,.P.M, by Chairman, Fernandez, with the.followin.g members present: Richard M. Fernandez, Chairman Terrell F. Chambers, Jr, Thomas-Laubenthal Absent: Larry T. McClure Also present: William F. Fame, Jr., Village Attorney Frank LuBien, Director. of Building & Zoning 1. MINUTES_ - JUNE 22, 1989 The minutes of the .meeting of June 22, 1989, were approved, as -distributed, by a motion made by Mr. Laubenthal,.seeonded:by.Mr. Chambers, and passed by unanimous. vote. Mr. Fann,._VillageAttorney was invited to attend.the meeting._at the request of Mr. Fernandez, so -that he might render an opinion on -item #5 on the agenda. Mr. Salzberg' consented to have.his request(.Item #5) moved .to #2, so that Mr. Fann might he excused after his opinion. Mr, Laubenthal made a motion to move item:#5 to second place., the motion was seconded by Mr. Chambers, and passed. unanimously. 5. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF WOOD FENCE (FROM;MTG OF 6/8/89) NORMAN SALZBERG 471 NE 103 ST Mr. LuBien noted, included in Members packet was- a copy, of the minutes fromthe meeting of: June 8, 1989, a'copy of a letter from.Mr., Alvin Sherman, Attorney for. Mr. Saizberg, and a copy of .Plat for: Mirror Lake, and the surrounding: property owners. Mr. Salzbergindicated theplat, copy ,was made from-the:original plat from downtown Miami, He further'reiterated his request.as.made at the meeting of. June 8, 1989..,He ;;also suggested Miami. Shores. Village explore the possi- bility of a fence around the. lake. He reviewed his attorney's -letter which indicatesan explanation of:the plat, and, Mr. Salzberg's.ownership of land. Mr. Fernandez: noted that at the,last meeting, Members were having difficulty because of the lack of .concrete . evidence. as. to, the ownership of the lake strip of land. Mr. Salzberg.is'requesting to:add:to his wall height and 1311' beyond the property line. Ownership: of the strip is 'a legal question and Mr. Fann hays been asked to render a legal opinion. Mr. Salzberg in reply to indication from Mr... Fann that, no deed has been presented,. and- this'. is critical information;, stated the deed specifies no more than the lot number Be is reques,ting,a variance,to the height to support vines, aad:.protect his son from the lake. • • • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -2- 7/13/89 Mr. Fann read from the.plat which.31early states,, no boat house or other structure may be built on this strip,. Planning`& Zoning cannot -proceed beyond -this point, Variances are based on hardship -,.which are not indicated in this instance. If a -deed is produced.at ater.time, it might be re- considered,,. but no action can be taken on the request this evening, with the information the. Board has before it. Discussion continued.concerning,ownership of the strip in question, the letters of assent.,from-neighbors.., wall built by the developer, A.1984 survey which indicates the fence to be 13'' beyond the property line, Mr. Laubenthal moved to table the application to allow Mr. Salzberg time to gather information previously requested by the Board, seconded by Mr. Chambers, and passed unanimously. Mr. Fann was excused. 3. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AWNING COLOR MIAMI SHORES PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 602 NE 96 ST Mr. LuBien explained that Mr. Don Whiteley -had brought in a sample of the blue color to replace the church awning. Upon being adv sed,,,that the blue is intense, and not in harmony, Mr. Whiteley subsequently brought in a rust color which Mr. LuBien thought was more harmonious, never.the .less, he felt this item should have Planning & Zoning Board approval. Mr. Whiteley indicated the existing awning has been up about seven years, and it is time for a 'replacement. The blue is preferred. In discussion, Members agreed the blue is too intense, and has a tendency to fade, the rust is a favored color. The church is in a residential zone, and the brown eolor.is more in harmony with the.building. Mr. Whiteley agreed to go with Members suggestion, and use the rust color, Mr. Laubenthal moved to approve the rust color for the awning, seconded by Mr. Chambers, and passed -unanimously. 4. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL-OF.PLANS FOR YOGURT PARLOR RICHARD CLIFFORD 9009 BIS CAYNE BLVD.. Mr. Clifford was present, and indicated. he is not..the property. owner, Mr. LuBien explained .that. when the plans. for shores Square Plaza were origin- ally presented, there was sufficient parking provide.d.for the retail.sales, 'which is one parking space.for each 400 sq ft; This requested installation is in effect, a restaurant which requires one parking space.to.every 100 sq ft, making a requirement.for,,nine more spaces, This raises the issue that.there is an abundance of adjoining parking for the building for:Which.it,was in- tended, The Board needs to.dis_cuss „ and approve it so that it is not consid- ered an isolated spot, The building is 12,000 sq -ft and requires 30 spans. • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -3, 7/13/89 Mr. Clifford felt the"proposed frozen yogurt -.parlor is incorrectly identified as. a restaurant. The surrounding property is owned by the sameowner, with:the exception of the Burger.King.and Tony Roma. His hours of operation. would be 11A,M.- 1040013,M, on Sunday thru.Thursday, and.10 AM 11 P.M. Saturday and Friday. Duch discussion; continued concerning,.:a Unity of Title being required. Limited, parking,. and, the possibi.li,ty: of exploring alternatives. Following further discussion concerning access. to the entrance to. the center, Mr. Clifford indicated he did.wish.to proceed. with his request. Mr. Laubenthal moved to.deny the application as Submitted, based on inade- quate parking criteria fora restaurant. Mr. Chambers seconded the motion which passed unanimously, Mr. Fernandez explained:to Mr. Clifford his right of appeal to Council. Also he mentioned the possibility that the property owner dedicate additional parking to him. 5. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF EXPOSED A/C DUCT ON ROOF JANICE GRECO 51 NE 110 ST Mr. LuBien explained .that .Isidoro Profeta of State General Services, Inc. was in for a permit for air conditioning, which was issued, but there was no indication that the duct work would be placed on the roof. Mr. Profeta showed Members' the photographs he had taken. of the work, which show it cannot be seen. There was no other way humanly possible to do the work. He further stated he is both the air conditioning contractor and the electrical contractor. Mrs. Greco noted .the only way.to.cool the whole house was to:install in the manner the job was done. `Mrs.. Greco, further stated the complaint came in even before the j:ob was complete. Mr.'Fernandez explained, this:isa harmony question,: the exposed duct work is not specificallyopposed or mentioned in the. code. Further he -commended Mr. Profeta for obtaining the proper permit, attempting to.:screen and paint the equipment on the roof, and urepresenting his'client at this meeting. Mr. Laubenthal indicated such:installation cannot: be condone.d..nor'encouraged. Harmony: clause' is the issue. This duct work cannot be seen from the:front, but only: from the alley. It is not objectionable. Mr. Laubenthal moved:toapprove the request .. as submitted., seconded by Mr. Chambers,,,who also. indicated. it could, not. be seen from the street. The motion passed unanimously, Mr. Profeta made a statement defending the quality of his work, and his faithfulness to his customers. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -4- 7/13/89 6, REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FENCE RELOCATION STEVEN J. JOHNSON 145 NE 95 ST Mr. LuBien indicated that the request for a 5' fence beyond the front had been made b.efore,.,,since 1+1r, Johnson was denied at that time, there have been several: new developments and MY,' Johnson Is resubmitting his request to relocate the 5' wrought iron fence. Mr, Johnson.expla.ined the bus stopwas not removed, but the shelter and the bus bench were, and:this has created numerous_ problems for he and his wife. Members, reviewed photographs Mr, Johnson had taken, as he continued his explanation. It seems the shelter and bench were on property belong- ing to;Dr, Edmiston, who had the bus company remove. them. Some problems Mr., Johnson has encountered are plucking of fruit from fruit. trees, public sitting on a retaining:�wal;l, much trash being thrown on his property, the bus driver accomodating..passengers by driving :to them in front of his property, and then fights..break±i.g. out. Mr. Fernandez stated thathe has an office down the street, has been watch- ing the corner carefully, and observed that the number of people waiting for the bus is decreasing. Mr, Laubenthal has made. previous. suggestions con- cerning landscaping and layering, etc. A 3%' fence;in front could be a successful deterrent and would not require a variance. Mr. Johnson noted. these suggestions are.not particularly appealing, because of his intent to add a pool, and is not favorable to the prospect of break - the yard into sections, since he doesplan to add a pool. Mr.. Fernandez then explained that addition of a pool. does require at least a 4' high fence. In this case he could be swayed toward.a.6" variance. The fence relocation is the request before us this evening. He explained to Mr. Johnson that he could: withdraw. his request this evening, and re- submit it when he has the plans and permit for the pool. Mr. Johnson chose to withdraw his request. 7. REQUEST. FOR APPROVAL. OF PLANS FOR SCREEN PORCH FRANK HEGEDUS 940 NE 95 ST Mr. LuBien explained this .comes to the Board as all:flat roof additions must be approved.by--the Planning &.Zoning Board, also:the Historic Preserva- tion Board must: grantapproval as this is a designated landmark house. Mr.. Hegedus's,request does comply with the 15% flat roof limit, of the pitched roof area. The present building.,is 2868 sq ft, the proposed addition is 667 sq ft. In response.to,;query,, Mr. LuBien indicated that Vivian Rodriguez, Chairman of the Historic Preservation Board tdi'.d. sign the ;Certificate of Appropriateness, and, he did show this to the Members. for their review. Mr,. Laubenthal moved to approve the request, as:submitted, seconded by Mr, Chambers, and passed unanimously, PLANNING & ZONING BOARD A.five minute break was taken. -5- 7/13/89 8. REQUEST, FOR, APPROV AL' OF BASKETBALL GOAL IN FRONT YARD E W `DRODY, JR 1118 NE 105 $T Nr. Drody explained the basketball goal is in the front. of the house, very close. to the overhang, and has been in place about.teia months, he received notice from.: the Code'Enfo.rcement Board, and. was,, surprised to see it classed a structure, also -that it°.isnot allowed in Miami Shores:,' He came in for a permit, was denied,, and so .is appealing to.Planning &Zoning on .the basis, he feels it harmonious:, strong and safe and an American tradition, Members discussed in depth the setback, Mr. Drodyts children are in college, appearance and precedent. Mr. LuBien read.from page. 1576 of.the code book, he further stated he doesn't disagree in principle, itis difficult to spot, but itis in the front yard and wheredo.you draw; the line, if allowed to remmin a`precedent is then set. Mr... Laubenthal.moved to approve the request as submitted, seconded by Mr... Chambers. Lengthy discussion continued on variance requirements, set ..c_.: backs, and alternate solutions. Nr. Laubenthal withdrewhis motion, Mr. Chambers also withdrew the second. Mr. Laubenthal moved to deny the request as submitted., seconded by Mr. Chambers, the motion. passed unanimously. Nr. Fernandezexplained:the right of appeal to Council to Mr. Drody. 9. DISCUSSION PERMIT ORDINANCE-,SET.DATE.FOR.PUBLIC HEARING Mr. LuBien expiained.that.this Ordinance was passed to Planning & Zoning by Village. Council, with. a request that it be studied and a -date set for Public Hearing. Mr. Fernandez read the Ordinance by title, requiring pernit for real estate sign., advertising rental, lease or sale of.land, and -establishing fee. Members agreed the.Ordinance needs study and action. Mr, Laubenthal moved to.set August 10, 1989 for the Public Hearing date, motion was seconded by:.Mr. Chambers, and passed unanimously. 10. REQUEST'FOR.-APPROV:AL OF BOAT LIFT DAVID.BUTLER (DAVIT SERVICES CONTRACTOR) 1461 NE 102 ST Name of the person ,listed: was: Robin Rack.owe1..-:. Mr, :Fernandez . requested the record; reflect, DavidButler as. the owner and applicant requesting approval for ,the boat lift. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD. -6- 7/13/89 Mr. LuBien noted the only. -.question he hasconcerning this request is that of harmony, and.he.passed around photographs of the.reguest at the initial application.of the unit. There are others similar, .Also. on. the location sketch, he requests position of:the first support show,: The policy has been to require a 10' setback,. ,Also included in Members, packet for review was a survey copy.,, as built survey sketch, an installation detail and photo, Mr. Butler indicated his boat is 30' and his preference for propes support is to have the piling in place.where it is, which is about:8', In .response to query, Mr, Butler indicated. the. lift is not in place and.this request is preliminary to applying for permit, Members reviewed plans further, questioned encroachment, and discussed set- back. Also discussed was approval from .Army Corp of Engineers once the Village has granted approval, Seawall and pilings locat±on:were also dis- cussed.. Mr. Laubenthal moved to approve the request, as submitted, provided that the 10' side yard setback criteria is adhered to. Mr. Chambers seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 11. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF RELOCATION OF BOAT DAVITS LOU & BARBARA FEAD 1030 NE 105 ST. Mr. LuBien explained that this is a similar situation, except that Mr. Fead has a•dock midway:into his lot, and in order to avoid moving the dock a 5' setback encroachment would exist., instead of. the 10' required. Mr. Fernandez indicated though he is professionally acquainted with Fead., there is no conflict of interest, Mr.. Fead explained the.:photos shown to the Members, Some davits are exist- ing, others are new, he is requesting to place posts wider -apart. He also indicated his boat is 24' long and sits within the davits. The lift in place when beAloughh-ithe property was not sufficient to handle his size boat, and to provide for the ability for preventive maintenance.. Also Mr. Fead presented letters from-neighbors..indicating the installation as proposed is not objectionable. Members further discussed alternate technology, reasonable use of the property..is not being denied, the dock as e permanent structure, and the precedent which could be set. Included it Members packet was a typed statement requesting a variance to the side set back, a sketch. of the boat, and specifications and options, photographs, survey, and technical printout from,American Davits Corp, on the support system. Also discussed at length were the criteria for hardship variance, Mr. Fernandez asked permission for Mr, Cook, a structural.engineer for Bertram yachts, who was: at. the meeting, to. render an opinion of the situation. With no objection, Mr, Cook advised he could do so,..b.ut information must be limited. He reviewed all the pictures, indicating it. is a standard set up for lifting this type boat, but he could not go with a single davit on this boat, because of other complications, PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -7- 7/13/89 Mr, Fernandez explained to Mr. Fead his option to withdraw the request, and have it heard by the entire Board. Mr,.Laubenthal explained that the item was thourghly discussed, the re- quirements,and Teprecussions discussed., and the owner put thought into his request, and chose this means, Mr. LuBien gave hima. printout sheet explaining requirements for variance request, Mr, Fead withdrew the.varianee.request, at this time, pending requirement for hardship variance,. and pending further advise from the contractor. 12. GARAGE ENCLOSURE Mr. Fernandez requested this item be placed on the next meeting agenda for discussion and possibly. codify. 13. DISCUSSION - CODE ENFORCEMENT JOINT TASK FORCE Mr. Fernandez indicated there will proably be discussion concerning this item at the next Council meeting. He requested it be placed on the next agenda for. Planning & Zoning, so that he can report, 14. DOWNTOWN. REVITALIZATION BOARD Mr. Laubenthal introduced for briefdiscussion the interest the Downtown Revitalization Board has shown in meeting with the Planning & Zoning Board. The Landscape Ordinance could be discussed, and other items they may be concerned about or are interested in. Discussion ensued concerning discussion at a regular meeting, because of the Sunshine Law, and lengthof time allowed.for discussion. Mr. Fernandez. suggested that ajoint meeting be held at the next Planning & Zoning Board.meeting, and discussion limited to one:hour. If additional time is needed, it can -be rescheduled. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10 :15 ,P.M, , aodi Approv>. Chairman