Loading...
07-27-1989 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE July 27, 1989 A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Village Planning & Zoning Board was held on,July 27, 1989, at. the Miami Shores Village Hall, The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P,I+ , . by Chairman. Fernandez, with the following members present: Richard M, Fernandez, Chairman Terrell F, Chambers, Jr, Thomas Laubenthal Larry T. McClure Also present: Frank LuBien, Director of Building & Zoning 1. MINUTES - JULY 13, 1989 The minutes of the meeting of July 13, 1989 were approved, as edited, (with the correction of a misspelled -word, pg 2, paragraph 2, assent). Motion made by Mr. Laubenthal, seconded by Mr. Chambers, and passed by unanimous vote, 4. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR YOGURT PARLOR, 9009 Biscayne Blvd. 5. MEETING WITH DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION BOARD Both items were cancelled from the agenda. They will be rescheduled at another time. 2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AWNING .& AWNING COLOR NIXED MEDIA 170 NE 96 ST Question was raised as to the correct address which Rhondda Edmiston stated is 168-166 NE 96 St. Mr. LuBien outlined information from the Downtown Revitalization Board regarding the installation of the awning, and the color preference. He read from the memo received from Barbara Witte of the Downtown Revitali- zation Board regarding the work. There was Member discussion concerning. installation, removing the back flap for greater visibility, and the color tourqouise as the principal color, with panama purple the color. of the 6" valance. Mt. Laubenthal movedto approve the colors as recommended by the Downtown Revitalization Board, and further accept the Downtown Board's recommenda- tion that the back flap remain at this time, but beremoved when the awning is extended.. The motion was seconded by Mr. Chambers and passed unanimously. 3. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE FOR. THEATRE RUTH FOREMAN THEATER 11300 NE 2 AVE Mr, LuBien advised.Members.he br-i.ngs this to the Board as theaters are not permitted in Miami Shores Gunder the Schedule of regulations., B-1, B-2 zone), and he is not sure that an Occupational License is required in this case. (Barry University is classed as S-1 zoning), PLANNING & ZONING BOARD --2, 7/27/89 Mr, Tim Czerniec noted this is a joint venture with the Ruth. Foreman Theater in existing Barry .University facilities, It is hoped this program will revitalize and rejuvenate the,. theater_ at. Barry. University. Included in the program will be student workahop,.internship, Academie program, professionalism, Adequate parking is provided on. the main campus. In response to query, Mr. Barry Jacobs replied, there will be six shows, opening October 4, 19$9 and playing thru May 6,.1990., He also outlined the days and hours of the shows.,, It is a not for:profit organization. Discussion took place concerning the appropriateness of an Occupational License. Members concurred, no license is necessary, nor is action. In response to Mr. LuBien's request for a motion, N,11eClure moved that it is the opinion of the Members that no Occupational License is needed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Chambers,. and carried unanimously. Mr. McClure moved to move item 8. on the agenda.to #4 and item 9. to #5, the motion was seconded by Mr, Chambers, and passed unanimously, 4. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FENCE RELOCATION STEVEN J. JOHNSON 145 NE 95 ST Mr. LuBien advised'.Members he put before them a copy of the latest letter from Mr. Johnson.,outlining his request to have a 5' wrought iron fence cut down to 4' and moved to the front. Mr, LuBien indicated a pool is being installed and a 4' high fence is required to secure the pool according to Dade County. Mr. Johnson noted the issue is neither privacy or security. He outlined the four requirements for hardship variance and how each issue applies to his case. His landscapinghas become ratty looking .as.his lawn is used as a Metro Dade Bus Shelter. Discussion ensued concerning the peculiar and unusual conditions affecting the property, public use of private property, need for 4' fence around the pool to comply with Dade County Ordinance, denial use of 10% of the yard as that portion exposed to litter and abuses of 'the numerous bus passengers. Members mentioned their usual closed mindedness in granting variances, but Mr. Johnson has met all four requirements for a variance. Mr. Laubenthal moved to approve the .request for the 4' high fence to be placed.at the southeast corner of the building., then south to a point 2' north of the south property line (front), and eastward to the existing CBS wall. Motion was seconded by Mr. Chambers., and carried unanimously. 5. REQUEST FOR.APPROVAL OF,WOOD_FENCE (FROM MTG OF 6/8/89 & 7/13/89) NORMAN.SALZBERG 471 NE 103. ST Mr. LuBien stated, this requesthas been before the Board numerous times, two documents which Mr. Salzberg feels the Board wants were included in Nember's packet, (A copy of Warranty deed & a petition from neighbors). PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -3- 7/27/89 Mr. Salzberg insisted upon reading the letter of June 26, 1989 from his attorney, Mr, Allan.Sherman, This was included in Members packet of the last meeting. Mr, Salzberg further noted that, Mr, Fann had requested a copy of the Warranty Deed which he has supplied, and he read a petition to allow the fence as signed by some of his neighbors. There was extensive. discussion concerning the fact, the petition is flawed, in that there is no proof that the parties who signed, are.the owners of the property, husband & wife joint signature, and printed names. The petition does not meet the proper requirements, Mr. LuBien noted that no number of signatures can authorize the Board to violate the code. Also at the previous meeting there was no mention of a petition but a Home- owner Association. Mr. Fernandez read from the deed description of Lot 18, which does not list Mr,' Salzberg as.the owner of any pie shaped wedge to the center of the lake. A current survey was also discussed. The question remains, -:who is the owner of that piece of property 13' beyond the lot line. Ownership of the property must be established before the Board can consider a variance request. No action was taken. A ten minute break was taken.... 6. DISCUSSION - GARAGE ENCLOSURE AMENDMENT. Mr. Fernandez informed Members this item was placed on the agenda as a result of Council concerns. He requested discussion be limited to 30 minutes, at this time. Mr, Fernandez further raised the question, do we wish to codify. Certain requirements have been made; driveway ribbon ;cut back, landscaping, elevation.- Can we request sealed architect plans? Means of regulating was discussed at length. Some comments from.Members dealt with the functional displacement of parking space. Control. the number. of enclosures by making parking a limiting factor. This factor was ruled out as garages are more and more used for storage rather than.parking a car. The Schedule of Regulations dealing with parking space per plot was read. Mr. Chambers gave Members a copy of Adjusted Square.Footage of values. The economics or increase:in tax value was. discussed.at length. This met some conflicting opinions, It was noted that any improvement to the property increases its' value. The Harmony clause on. pg 16 of the Miami Shores Code Book was mentioned. Under this clause aesthetics was discussed. Again the question -was: raised, should present method be continued in considering enclosures? Discussion continued,.cono.erning aestheticst legal authority of setting rules, sealed plans requixed, .past. un ;f irmity,.in handli„ng,., cases. Elimina4.- fion(of doors to the outside.has been requested, and applicant has been questioned as to use of enclosure. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -4- 7/27/89 Two Members. of the Board noted, they are satisfied with the manner enclosures have been handled, because of the felxLbility it allows. Another Member was opposed, and wanted to be more specific, a fourth had no opinion, The item was tabled, to be discussed .further, when a new Member is appointed to the Board, Mr. Fernandez requested this item be placed on the next meeting agenda. Later in the meeting it was suggested that Mr. LuBien pose a question to Village Manager, Gail Macdondld, if an opinion could be obtained from Mr. Robert Swarthoug concerning his view of garage enclosures, without a fee. Mr, Fernandez also requested it be noted that it is important that the Planning & Zoning Board have a full body. There are important issues to be discussed, and he hopes they will consider carefully the parties who are applying, and in their wisdom determine who they will select. 7. DISCUSSION - CODE,ENFORCKMENT JOINT TASK FORCE It was reported, regarding the Code. Enforcement Joint Task Force meeting held July 11, 1989, that there are seven Members'.of this group and in order to have a meeting there should be a quorum of four Members present. Present at the meeting were then Village Manager, Mr. Johnson, Gail Macdonald, Assistant Village Manages, Mr. LuBien, Director of Building & Zoning, Jack Wilson and Robert Rodriguez, the two Code Enforcement Insp., Council persons Stof3k and Canton, and Richard Fernandez, Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Board. (Only two Members of the originally assigned group were present). The substance of. the meeting was a general dis- cussion and not much concluded. It anticipated the committee termed as the Code Enforcement work group will becoming up to Council for discussion, and it is believed at:that time we will have a better insight as to what direction this.will go. Mr. McClure, being out of town .at the time of the meeting asked what transpired at the meeting, and if there was discussion on agenda items? It was then reported that one ofthe agenda items. was garage enclosures, questions concerning reports by:Mr, LuBien as well as Code Enforcement people. Also there was a requested. report on the. Code Enforcement com- puter system. There was no report made to, Council as Mr. Fenn had ruled it is a non meeting, because of a lack of. -quorum. In response to query as .the group being a viable group, Mr. Fernandez reported, he inquired as to the authority,. and purpose of therGtoup, as it was representedto him as a Task Force which is set: for a limited purpose for a 1 -1mi ted time,. What was. on the agenda and what was taking place were Village Officials being called. intoaceount for:recommendations made by the group, which appears to be a managerial function, PLANNING & ZONING:BOARD -5- 7/27/89 He further wished it .noted .that. he ,applauds the intent to find solutions, he feels there are current governmental. entities in. place, specifically. Planning & Zoning Board, Code Enforcement. Board, and the Village Council, These entities are charged with the responsibilities of oversight policy.. Further he feels:it is the position.of the Village Manager to call; employees to report and action c fir, policies set or recommendations, .Again the question. is raised as to the ',impose of the Work Group , There being no further business: to be discussed, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 P.M. •