Loading...
08-24-1989 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE August 24, 1989 A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Village Planning & Zoning Board was held on August 24, 1989, at the Miami Shores Village Hall. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M., by Chairman Fernandez, with the following members present: Richard M. Fernandez, Chairman Terrell F. Chambers, Jr. Thomas Laubenthal Larry T. McClure Absent: Robert E. Cook Also present: Frank LuBien, Director of Building & Zoning William F. Fann, Jr. Village Attorney Mr. Fernandez requested the agenda be amended to include Item #3 and #4. Mr. Laubenthal moved to add item 3. Discussion - Garage Enclosure, seconded by_Mr. McClure, and carried' unanimously, Following brief discussion, Mr. McClure ,moved `to add item 4. Discussion Presentation of Planning & Zoning Board Minutes to Council, the motion was seconded by Mr. Laubenthal, and passed unanimously. Mr. Chambers arrived at this time. (Approximately 7:40 P.M.) 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. McClure, and passed by unanimous vote. 2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL: PETITION TO VACATE CERTAIN 60' STRIP WHICH IS ABUTTED ON EACH SIDE BY PROPERTY THAT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY VACATED THAT CONSTITUTED A PORTION OF NORTHEAST 89 STREET IN MIAMI SHORES. Mr. LuBien included with Members packet from the previous meeting, an aerial photograph of the area, with a red circle indicating where the particular property is located. There appears to be a building to the north, a garbage container just south of it, a space in between, and then another existing building. The piece under discussion is the space in between, completing the line from building to building. The area is paved, and has been used by Tropical Chevrolet about twenty years. Mr. A. E. Quinton, Jr with Quinton, Lummus, Dunwody & Adams, P.A. at 80 SW 8 ST, has filed the Petition on behalf of Tropical Chevrolet, who has petitioned to vacate a particular 60' strip which is & what used to be NE 89 St easterly of NE 5 Ct. Mr. Quinton proceeded, Members reviewed a 1985 survey of the property made by A.R. Toussaint & Assoc. (Also included in Members packet to clarify the petition, were a letter to Robert Rossi requesting hearing, letter to Roger Barretto, Asst VP of FEC Railway, the proposed Petition, survey copy, Miami Shores Resolution #430 & #488, & a copy of the minutes of the 10/1/63 Council meeting at which time vacation was originally discussed.) It appears that the 60' strip was inadvertently excepted from the Miami Shores Resolution #430 adopted in 1963. In 1968, Resolution #488, another portion of NE 89 St was vacated by Miami Shores, thus together Resolution No 430 and No 488 close all of NE 89 St & NE of 5 Ct., except that 60' believed to be left out erroneously. The 60' strip is totally isolated and a cloud on the title. There is no obvious thruway. The petition is straight forward. Mr. Quinton noted, he was wisely advised, the correct procedure is to come first to the Planning Board, and then to Village Council. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD 2 8/24/89 Mr. Fanes concerns of the right of the FEC Railway, Mr, Quinton noted he had written to Mr, Barretto of FEC concerning the Petition and had no response, they have been notified, Nr, Quinton further noted, the 60' strip could be a liability to Viand Shores, and he would like to clear it up as a title defect, Mr, Fann commented the integrity of the Planning & Zoning Board should be maintained by this proceeding, there is no one around who knows any- thing of the prior Resolution, and any petition to vacate alley or roads should commence with this Board, Mr, Fann can visualize no opposition to a perfunctory procedure, unless someone know something he is not aware of, The railroad is the only one who could possibly have an interest other than Miami Shores, In response to query from Mr Fernandez, Mr Fann further stated the property in question will be placed on the tax roll, also, he has studied the Petition, and has no problem with the description, There being no comments from Members, Mr, McClure moved to recommend to Council that they grant a Resolution to vacate the 60' strip in question, Motion was seconded by Mr, Laubenthal, and carried unanimously, Mr, Quinton was advised that, he will be notified at which Council meeting his request will be heard, 4, DISCUSSION - PRESENTATION OF PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES TO COUNCIL Mr, Fann indicated, he too is troubled by all the questions of Planning & Zoning concerning handling of the minutes, handling of appeals, having a representative of the Planning Board at Council meetings to speak for the Board, which no one person can do. It has grown out of hand, and he doesn,t feel it should continue, He is not so iron bound to lead a movement to discontinue, but he advised, you speak by resolution, juat like the Council. Further, your representative at Village Council meetings is what the Council is looking for, Staff presents matters to the Planning Board for action, by resolution the message is sent to Council. As perfect or conscientious as the representative might be it is very difficult for him to speak for every Member, That person does the best he can to answer all the questions. There are technicalities which we get into, In cases of appeal the Planning Board has not read their minutes nor approved them yet, the Council relies to a great extent not only on the resolution, but also what the Members are thinking. Mr. Fann, continued, his concern is that you must have minutes for a meeting, and the minutes should be signed by someone who was present so as not to run afoul of the Sunshine Law, Mr, Fann further noted, he has no critisim of the Board, This Board is the backbone of the Community, Mr, Fernandez noted, the three issues are 1, The issue of the minutes and the way they are presented to Council, 2, The issue of appeals based on the minutes, and 3, the representation at Council meetings by a Member of the Planning & Zoning Board. In addressing #3 first, Mr, LuBien represents the Fernandezy/Village and should hexbe-alled upon, he would answer any questions, which is his version of the Boards thinking, Mr, Fann advised, it is not always well received, but it is the deliberations of the Board, and Council decides to agree or disagree, even on the basis that the record is not verbatim, PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -3- 8/24/89 Mr. Fann further suggested, Members give the issues consideration of what they perceive as being proper, he feels it is wrong, but doesn't know if anyone else feels it should be corrected. The practice of Council making decisions based on unofficial minutes could be the basis for reversing some action or the determination that an ordinance is invalid.. Mr. Fernandez observed at Council meetings, Mr. LuBien does the job he is supposed to do. Council Members havethe minutes, & it is hoped Council has read and understood them, yet he has observed they seem more interested in what took place rather than the item before them. The circumstance being, the reasoning as well as the process used by the Planning . Zoning Board is not before them. Many times the petitioner who has the opportunity for appeal is at a clear advantage. Mr. LuBien is somewhat constrained in what he does. Mr. Laubenthal asked Mr. Fann, should a member or. members of the Planning Board attend a Council meeting, would he have an opportunity to speak? The answer was no. Mr. Fann requested Members think out these issues. He replied to query from Mr. McClure, the unapproved minutes are not an official document. Its' a trial de novo. The case is presented as best it can be presented. Mr. Laubenthal observed, it is unreasonable to defeat decisions of this Body by mechanism of minutes that have not been reveiwed and approved, if there are any corrections or adjustments to be made, they need to be made clear so that Council fully understands the position of the Board, and the process used as much as it can be related thru the minutes. Particularly in the case of appeal, the minutes should be delayed until they are reviewed. It is understood, this is not in the best interest of the Village, even though two weeks is not long in the scheme of things. Mr. Fernandez stated, his concern is the argumentative nature that the dis- cussion takes, his view is to present the facts as seen, and basically make a report, not get into an exchange of veiws which go beyond the making of a report. In continued discussion, examples were given on the issues, the representa- tive is not an advocate, but a quasi judicial body, the preamble to the resolution is a good practice. A decision by the Planning Board is less apt to be reversed if a representative from the Panel is present. Mr. Fann's advice is something to consider. In response to query from Mr. McClure, Mr. Fann stated, the practice of the Chairman being present at Council meetings has been going on a long time, there is no legal basis for it. It isn't fatal, but could be made a legal issue. At:present it isn't right because the Chairman speaks for all 5 when all 5 agree or disagree for different reasons. The Planning Board interprets the ordinance, when overruled the construction of the Ordinance is being changed to conform with the determination of Council and the work of the Planning Board is disregarded. Mr. Laubenthal expressed concern that Planning Board minutes are going to Council prematurely, particularly in cases of appeal. He wanted to send a directive that Planning & Zoning Board minutes not be sent to PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -4- 8/24/89 Council before they have been reviewed and approved, Particularly so if this Board needs to take careful construction of the resolution, to be able to refer some of the details that are pertinent in the decision process. If all information should be correctly stated and correctly conveyed, they must be reviewed. lir. McClure agrees minutes should be approved before action by Council, His concern is the concept that the Chairman appears at Council meetings and makes statements without benefit of a court recorder. Council re.. quest that the Chairman appear cant be denied, Mr. Fann agreed with this view. Much discussion continued concerning, the minutes going to Council before review and approval and the practice of having the Chairman present, In expressing his views on the latter, Mr, Fernandez noted he has gladly taken a responsibility of what appears to be custom, his concern is the argumentative nature of the proceeding. A report as objectively as can be made is of value. He does have some concerns with the detail with which out minutes have been read, As Mr, McClure earlier stated, Council is the ultimate governing body of the Village, so what are the wishes and desires of Council concerning reports coming from the Planning & Zoning Board, We need comment from them, Further, he feels Mr, Fann, in keeping with his duties as City Attorney, should relate his concerns to Council as to propriety of such a report, Council should make the decisions in the 'matter, Continued observation and discussion indicated that, at times detail of a statement or remark may be omitted from the written minutes, inclusion which would help a great deal with information which goes to Council, In response to Mr. Fernandez, how do we change procedure? Mr, Fann suggested Members think about it and talk about it, if no change is requested, he'll take no action. Concerning the minutes, he will express the view they are tmproper. Mr, Laubenthal's recommendation that no appeal be considered by Council until the minutes have been approved and signed to accompany the request for appeal, was not necessary, but proper, It was further observed that some appeals may be eliminated, as a result of such action, Appeal time period was discussed as was directive from Village Manager concerning timely submission of the minutes, Mr, Fann again suggested the issues discussed be deferred, at this time, he will explain the issue of the minutes to the City Manager so that every- one will understand Members concerns, and the impropriety of considering these minutes. He will talk about the issues and report back to the Board. -Mr, Fernandez, with no objection, accepted the suggestion, and requested the discussion concerning the minutes be placed on the agenda for the next Planning & Zoning Board meeting of September 14. Each, 'Member expressed appreciation of Mr, Fann, for his help, Mr. Fann was excused, PLANNING ZONING BOARD 3, DISCUSSION - GARAGE ENCLOSURES ..5r 8/24/89 Mr. Fernandez noted there have been comments made concerning the analysis and process by which garage enclosures are considered by the Planning & Zoning Board, In view of some comments made by Council, he again wondered if the right vehicle is being used to comminicate the information to Council. The issue is raised, based upon information he requested Staff to assemble. The original will be made a permanent part of the minutes. Each Member received a copy. Mr. LuBien assembled specific data on garage and carport enclosures dating back to January 1987. Reading from the report, he noted that in 1987 there were six requests, one was denied, the other five were approved, all requests were east of Miami Ave. In 1988 of five requests, two east of N Miami Ave, three west of Miami Ave, four were approved, 1 denied. In 1989 there were ten requests, 3 east of N Miami Ave, seven west of N Miami Ave, nine were approved, one denied. There have been no enclosures since August 21, 1989. There appears to be a definite increase of enclosures in 1989. The percep- tion as to the number of enclosures increasing is very much inmind, also that most enclosures in 1989 are on the west side of town, In terms of analysis, Mr. LuBien alsoincluded in the report a copy of the minutes of the Planning & Zoning Board of April 13, 1989, at which time, the Board by its own initiative discussed the issue of garage enclosure. Mr. McClure brought it totheir attention and there was substantial discussion on the matter. On July 27, 1989 at the behest of Council`, there was discussion, based on a thirty minute time frame, dealing with various issuesof enclo- sure. Again on August 10, 1989 discussion concerning garage enclosures was an agenda item, this followed a Public Hearing on another item. There was lengthy discussion and in -put from others. Mr. Laubenthal specifically requestedontwo different occasions the problem and comments from Council. Mr, Laubenthal stated that, without the benefit of minutes from Council which are unavailable to Members, he is not entirely clear as to Council comments. He read the editorialized version, with the usual amount of pre- judice in the Miami Herald, from that reading he did not feel the Board had been justly respected for its efforts which are clear to him. He is con- cerned that Council, if correctly quoted in their motives to solve a multiply residence within a single family residence, this is a social issue, or addressed in other areas of the code, and in fact unrelated to garage enclosures. If that correlation was made it is both interesting and out in left field. He further noted, he made efforts to obtain a copy of the minutes in order to obtain an accurate account of Council comments, he was not pleased that they were not available to him. Mr. Fernandez noted that in his two years tenure on the Board every garage or carport enclosure has had lengthy discussion concerning the issues. No item coming before the Board in the last two years has had so much attention applied to it. Each request is reviewed in detail. As to the economic issues of garage enclosures, experts who were in attendance, and individual reports have been recorded. The efforts of the Panel have been within the framework of responsibility, and have always taken into account the welfare of Miami Shores Village and its residents. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -6- 8/24/89 In going back to discussion relating to minutes, Mr. Laubenthal expressed concern that, since significant and lengthy discussion has taken place in each case, Council does not seem to be informed of them, whether this is because they have not paid attention to the minutes until such time as it became an issue to them, or did not take the time to research Planning & Zoning minutes in detail, and research is also part of ,their responsibility, or perhaps the minutes occur abreviated in trying to capture the points without the benefit of lengthy discussion being recorded, Mr, Laubenthal further indicated he has done much thinking, and stuck exclusively to what the Board uses as guidelines itself. He gave each Member a copy of this summary check list for their perusal. Included also, was information as a guideline for future discussion, if warranted. -It includes information on the requirement of a Site Plan or Legal Survey, information obtained from the applicant in discussion is outlined, The summary check; list has been constantly repeated in each case. These are all basics to construction, or requests for construction., the list is most definitely thorough. If a moratorium by Council is for the purpose of allowing Planning & Zoning to review its process, its' process is complete. It appears Council's lack of understanding of what the process is, is giving them difficulty. It is hoped this will clarify matters for them, and, again he fe:is there is no reason for a moratorium unless it is motivated to adjust some social issue. In the first few pages of his summary he attempted to capture articles of purpose, definitions, construction, room count, structural alterations, use, front, rear, and side yard, districts, off street parking, Schedule of Regulations, etc. He suggested Members review the book to add anything to satisfy the amusement of Council. Mr. Fernandez advised Members that Council has already made itsrecommence- dation.of the need for a six month moritorium for this Board to consider this matter. Mr. Laubenthal has summarized thoLroughly the position of the Board. September 5 is the Public Hearingdate set by Council, and he urged each Member to be present as residents and members of the public should they choose to do so. Members expressed appreciation that Mr. Laubenthal had put all the informa- tion on paper in a form which can surely beused by Members. Mr. Chambers had it clarified that at the last Planning Board meeting, Mr. LuBien wasdirectedto require architectural seal for enclosure of all garage, carport and open porches. A motionwas also made to direct Mr. Fann to consider revision to Sec 904, to include garage and carport enclosures, and open porches. In raising the harmony question, Mr. Chambers was advised,the architect must be aware of this. 5. Mr. Fernandez commented that, he had been out of town and returned today to find a letter from Marty Stofik, regarding formation of a Business Develop- ment Committee. The Village Council authorized creation of the committee for a specific duration, to meet twice a month. The purpose is twofold, as noted in the copy each Member received. Due to other commitments he is un- • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -7- 8/24/89 able to make it, so opened it to the Board for volunteer recommendations. Nr. Chambers, being in the real estate is a conflict of interest if he serves. Mr. McClure recommended Mr. Laubenthal Board on the committee, seconded by Nr business in Miami Shores felt it represent the Planning & Zoning . Chambers, and passed unanimously. There being no further business,'.the meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M.. • • • \--- ,-3 I ... '', ''' , 1 Til Sii 't- \r� ''' . \ ; AUG 2 21989 4 -,a -n ► `' 10050 N. E. SECOND AVENUE MIAMI SHORES, FLORIDA 33138 (305) 758-8000 GARAGE & CARPORT ENCLOSURES BEGINNING- aTANUA Y ''1 87 1987 2/12' 9801 NE 1 AVE 4/9 1200 NE 91 TERR 7/9 29 NE 107 ST 9/9 229 NE 101 ST 10/8 1165 NE 91 TERR 11/12 1200 NE 96 ST 1988 1/14 165 NW 92 ST 1/28 93 NW 93 ST 2/11 575 NE 95 ST 7/14 270 NE 104 ST 10/27 10504 NW 2 AVE (DETACHED) 1989 1/26 39 NW 102 ST 2/9 39 NW 101 ST 3/9 105 NE 95 ST 3/9' 102 NW 107 ST 3/23 100 NE 104 ST 4/13 9314 NW 2 PLACE 4/27 10516 NW 2 AVE 4/27 174 NW 109 ST 5/25 810 NE 100 ST 6/8 174 NW 98 ST NO AENCLOSURES AS OF AUGUST 21, 1989 Frank LuBfi.en, Director Building & Zoning Department DENIED APPROVED 11 8 APPROVED ►t DENIED APPROVED DENIED APPROVED !.T 1f n1 11 11 !G 3 • /(1)),,,-,, AL w • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -3- /89 Mr. LuBien agreed that all roof mount dish antennae in the future be approved by the Planning & Zoning Board. Also, he will call Mr. Grau tomorrow A:M. and request he attend the next meeting of Planning & Zoning to answer Member's questions concerning his design of ,the one on NE 2 Ave, subject of this discussion. This item will be placed on the Agenda for the next meeting. DISCUSSION - GARAGE ENCLOSURE Introduced by Mr. McClure, there was substantial discussion concerning this issue. Members agreed they do not like the looks of some enclosures, they do go by the Code of Ordinances, feel more control is needed. Some of the areas discussed;. going up or building back, increase in tax base, if removal of driveway ribbons is required off street parking would be eliminated. Members were not sure what the alternative might be, but mentioned; architecturally sealed plans for the garage enclosure, Architectural Review Board, more thorough look at landscaping, and increase of Building standards. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M. • • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -3- 7/27/89m 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 someof 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.. L6 DIS CUS S I ON - GARAGE ENCLOSURE AMENDMENT r 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. Controlthe numberof 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 wasdiscussedat 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 Shoves 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, concerning aesthetics, legal authority of setting rules, sealed plans required, past, uniformity in handlirtg.,cases. Elimina.& tion«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 felxibility 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 Swarthout 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 ENFORCEMENT 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 Manager, Mr. LuBien, Director of Building & Zoning, Jack Wilson and Robert Rodriguez, the two Code Enforcement Insp., Council persons Stofik and Canton, and Richard Fernandez., Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Board. (Only two Members of the originally assigned group were present). The substance ofthe meeting was a general dis- cussion and not much concluded. It is anticipated the committee termed as the Code Enforcement work group will be coming up to Council for discussion, and it is believed at thattime we will have a better insight as to what direction thiswill 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 of the 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. Fann had ruled it is a non meeting, because of a lack of..q,uorum. In response to query ss the group being a viable group, Mr. Fernandez reported, he inquired as to the authority,. and purpose of thei-GGoup, as it was represented to.him as a Task Force which is set for a limited purpose for a limited time, What was. on the agenda and what was taking place were Village Officials being called.in'.to.>.account for recommendations made by the group, which appears to:be a managerial function, • • • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -6- (8/10/89 Mr. McClure commented, it is foolish to make the homeowner responsible When he sells a house, as he looks to the real estate agent for guidance and advice. The Councilin 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 perior 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. Mr.Yernandez,:announceck°.a,c,tenzininute 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 3 01,..dai 44 4 r74°) 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 doesn't flow. The tax may increase, but it never enhancesthe property, Mrs. Lasch noted value is a matter of opinion. Enclosure does increase the value. A garage is useless storage.for..a.: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 ofanything else. 1 • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -7- 8/10/89 Mr. Astor agreed with Ms. Dahne, most people todayare 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 customs and re, quirements we have been looking at or do we wish to maintain the flexibi, lity currently in use. Some adirisory 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 McClure "called"a'ttention-to Page ,-1615, 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 fully'supports 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...McClure called this section to their attention, and agreed requiring an architect seal.is a most logical step to take. Much 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. Fana'for 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 stated,':he=.&s satisfied with the ordinance strength, at this time, and,additional wording will make it more specific, also there have been'no significant. shortcomings.., in the process. Members have been using. It was further noted,tthis Board can accomplish -the task in a far shorter time frame. Mr. Fernandez stated the suggestion by Mr. McClure to amend Sec 904 has great simpilicity and great effect, and will accomplish what the Board has attempted for some time. He will put the proposal before the Village Attorney for form refinement, and clarification, Mr.'Cook.made a motion to. direct Mr. Fann.to consider the revision to 'Sec 904, to include garage and carport enclosures, and open porches. Mr. Laubenthal seconded. the' motion, which carried unanimously.