Loading...
09-14-1989 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE September 14, 1989 A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Village Planning & Zoning Board was held on September 14, 1989, at the Miami Shores Village Hall. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M., by Chairman Fernandez, with the following members present: Richard M. Fernandez, Chairman Terrell F. Chambers, Jr. Robert E. Cook Thomas Laubenthal Larry T. McClure Absent: Frank LuBien, Director of Building & Zoning 1. MINUTES - August 24, 1989 The minutes of the meeting of August 24, 1989 were approved, as distributed. The motion was made by Mr. Chambers, seconded by Mr. McClure, and passed by the following vote: Fernandez, Chambers, and McClure for, Cook abstained, as he was not present at the last meeting. 2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PARKING OVERSIZE MOTOR HOME ON PREMISES STANLEY ZESKIND 215 GRAND CONCOURSE Mr. Fernandez introduced the request, stating this is an unusual piece of property, size wise, and may have unique characteristics which may be con- sidered. In Members packet was a copy of Sec 501, pg 1587 of the Miami Shores Village Code of Ordinances, a copy of letter from Mr. Zeskind re- questing the approval, and a map showing the area where the proposed motor home would be parked. Mr. Zeskind showed Members pictures he had taken, indicating the property is surrounded on all sides by streets. His pictures showed how foilage could hide the vehicle from different angles. He noted the motor home he ordered is 28' custom built camper, and he would prefer to keep it on the property, both for maintenance and economic reasons, and convenience. He is willing to do whatever the Board feels necessary to disguise it. Mr. Fernandez read Sec 501, pg 1587 (1) which indicates a limit of 20' in length of vehicle parked on public or private property within the Village. Mr. Zeskind read the four criteria for Hardship Variance, and responded to each: (a) The lot is large, unusually shaped and the house is large. (b) There is no other place nearby to store the camper. (c) The variance criteria is too restrictive, in that he has had a very difficult time with the property because of location (traffic from every angle), and size of the house on the lot. (d) There is no similarly situated piece of land around him, he is on an island and has no immediate neighbors. The proper- ty as located should be commercial. Further, Mr. Zeskind noted he travels five or six months of the year. The motor home would be harmful to no one, nor an eyesore. In reviewing (a), (b), (c) & (d) he feels he does qualify for the Hardship variance. In response to Mr. McClure, he stated he was not aware that a hardship variance is required before this evening meeting. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -2- 9/14/89 The procedure for approval by Planning & Zoning Board, and/or Council, and the permitting process was explained. In response to Mr. Cook, Mr. Zeskind stated he was told of the 20' length advised limit prior to purchase of the motor home. He wasAthat the variance, should it be granted goes with the land. The property has been for sale for about four years. Mr. Zeskind further mentioned his request for change -of zoning and the potential for the property being in the middle of a raceway. Mr. Fernandez read the criteria for Hardship variance, and answered each. (a) There are peculiar and unusual conditions affecting the property, but these do not prevent the normal and reasonable use of same. (b) It is not impossible to park a 20' motor home on the property. It is not necessary to address (c) & (d). The foilage that Mr. Zeskind talked about could be gone tomorrow. No temporary variance can be granted to a person. Mr. Chambers commented, the code calls for a Hardship Variance being granted, and in this case the four criteria are not met. Mr. McClure prefaced his motion, stating, the size of motor home and boats is over restrictive, the question is, has Mr. Zeskind met the four criteria for a Hardship Variance the Members are charged with. In his opinion (b) has not been met, and on this basis, he moved to deny the request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Chambers, and carried unanimously. Mr. Zeskind explained the 20' limitation is restrictive and unfair. Mr. Fernandez explained the right of appeal to Mr. Zeskind. Mr. Laubenthal arrived at this time (8:15 P.M.). 3. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FREE STANDING SIGN BOB SILVERMAN 8817 BISCAYNE BLVD. Mr. Fernandez noted that Members received in their packet a copy of Sec 504, pg 1592 of the ordinance regulating signs in B-1 or C districts, a location sketch, and a copy of the proposed sign. Mr. LuBien sees no objection unless the Board feels it is not in harmony. The height and size, and location are within regulation. Mr. Silverman stated, he came before the Board previously, but was unsuccess- ful in complying with the Boards suggestion to have the owner remove the motel portion of the sign on the peripet. The new free standing sign, he is requesting, is harmonious, it is at the entrance to Miami Shores Village, and other buildings in the area do have free standing signs. There are no other occupants in his building in a position for a sign. The sign is within regu- lations, and he has changed his color scheme from the blue background and pink lettering, to blue background with white lettering. In response to Mr. McClure, Mr Silverman noted, he is not the owner of the property, but is the leasee. He is not aware of a sign restriction by the owner, a standard lease was signed. Mr. Laubenthal suggested, Members look at the issue, and proceed with approval based on signage and subject to property owner approval. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -3- 9/14/89 Mr. Chambers moved to approve the request of free standing sign, subject to notarized permission from the owner of the property, in writing. Mr. Laubenthal seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Fernandez explained this request must also be approved by Council after these minutes are approved by the Planning & Zoning Board. He suggested the letter from the owner be secured by that time. Permitting after approval is a routine and quick process. • 4. DISCUSSION - MINUTES OF THE MEETING • Mr. Fernandez indicated the Memo Members received from Gail Macdonald, is a response to discussion by the Planning & Zoning Board at the last meeting concerning, Council receiving a copy of the minutes of Planning & Zoning Board before approval. He read the memo, emphasizing the last sentence. Each Member agreed, this referred to the petitioners delay in appeal to Council. Minutes would first be approved by the Planning & Zoning Board before going to Council. Mr. Fernandez further suggested, the specific section being addressed be read into the minutes, so that they are better referenced for Council deliberations. A 10 minute break was taken at this time. 5. DISCUSSION - BASKETBALL GOALS Mr. Fernandez advised Members, this item appears on the agenda at the request of Council. A request was made to Planning & Zoning Board for a basketball goal in the front of the house, upon being denied, the applicant appealed to Council, who referred basketball goals back to Planning & Zoning for consideration of basketball goals in the front yard in Miami Shores Village. Mr. McClure suggested each.Member make an opening statement to determine how each feels about the subject. The length of discussion might be deter- mined by this action. Mr. Cook opened the discussion stating, he had given the issue of basketball goals much thought and made some notes. The basketball goal itself is not the issue, it is the support structure. If not mounted to the house therein lies the problem or issue. We should not be addressing the mounting device, the backboard, hoop or net, these items are what make up the basketball goal and are covered by the South Florida Building Control, and Dade County Product approval. The issue is the structure that the basketball goal may be mounted to. In Sec 201 a building is a structure. Sec 205 a building also is identified as structure. Sec 505 & 506 identifies height restric- tions. His suggestion is that the mounting device be restricted. He is not aware of a restriction of the location, but we do have codes which regulate the mounting. If in the front yard and mounted to the house or the back yard, he has no problem. If the person needs a mounting device this should be restricted to the back yard, as he sees nothing harmonious about a pole in the front yard in Miami Shores Village. Mr. Chambers noted, he has no problem with the pole or the mounting so long as the person complies with the 25' front set back requirement. All areas are addressed in the code. If a nuisance is created, that's another depart went. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -4- 9/14/89 Mr. McClure stated, of the numerous basketball goals in the front yard, he has never heard of a complaint about a basketball goal being out of harmony with the community. The only complaint he has heard is noise, which is not being discussed. He is in favor of allowing basketball goals in Miami Shores Village, "with regulation" in the front yards. Mr. Laubenthal identified the 25' setback as applying to a main building or a main structure, and noted the code clearly addresses this. Configura- tion of each house is different. We must look at the front yard image, the neighborhood. Strong standards must be adherred to, do we wish to weaken the code, which is intentionally vague. He is not in favor of compromising the strong standards, in part or atall, he feels they are good,well con- ceived standards which should be upheld. Mr. Fernandez addressed the harmony aspect. Mr. Laubenthal's presentation, dealing with front yards becomes a key issue. In his opinion a pole sitting in the front yard is unacceptable. If basketball goals are allowed in the front yard, do we allow other playground equipment in the front yard? He feels nuisance is not one of the things we should be looking at, but the implication of the decision as to nuisance. A 71/2-' or 10' side set back with a basketball goal placed in the right position could theoretically be 15' from a neighbors bedroom. Appearance or Condition can be a serious eys- sore, nuisance. Three communities he is aware of address the location of basketball courts, goals and hoops as a type of construction, none of which allow them in the front yard. They are allowed in side setbacks, and in the rear yard, but not in the front yard. Mr. Fernandez does not believe it is in the best, long term interest of the community from a visual stand- point. There have been complaints in the area of basketball games being played with large numbers of people, this is an untenable position. Also mentioned was the fine recreation facilities available to all residents of Miami Shores. He is not in favor of basketball goals in the front yard. Rear yard placement is strongly supported. Mr. Laubenthal, in discussion noted that when one purchases property, it is with the limitations, in order for changes to be made, one must meet variance requirements. Mr. McClure clarified his previous statement, it was not his.. intent to say there had never been a complaint about basketball goals, the intent was, he had never heard of a complaint that a basketball goal was not in harmony. Mr. Eugene Drody, 1118 NE 105 St was present for discussion, and was given the opportunity to speak. The big issue is the basketball goal and the interpretation that because it is not provided for in the code it is unlaw- ful. This is utter nonsence, in his view. Birdbaths and flag poles also could be unlawful. Mr. Laubenthal's statement that a property pur- chased, is done so with the limitations of same, also is incorrect. He had 2 priorities when he purchased, one to be on the water, the other, to live in Miami Shores. Reason must come into play, the codes we have must be enforced. Basketball goal in the front yard is in harmony. They are allowed in Key Biscayne, Biscayne Park, and you are not welcomed to the recreation center if you can't play. Mr. Drody stated, he doesn't want to do anythingunlawful, and his basketball goal is not unlawful, in his view. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -5- 9/14/89 The law doesn't need to be changed, nor does it need to be intentionally vague. We cannot make the laws as we go along, but we must enforce the laws we now have. He also mentioned a time table for removal of the 25 or so other basketball goals in the front . Mr. Fernandez suggested the Panel consider whether or not we wish to make a recommendation, by motion or resolution to Council, or if discussion has been sufficient and minutes suffice deliberation. Mr. McClure wished to continue discussion. He stated again, he has no objection of basketball goal in the front yard, but does feel that at present, in the code, they are included and part of accessory building which is the way most are installed. If free standing they are regulated as such, and must meet the harmony clause. Three Members indicated they are ok, two said they are ok in the back yard. Something definitely needs to be done, providing for basketball goals., they should be regulated in some manner or other. Complaints will continue. In continued discussion complaints of big basketball games, go cart riding, football games in the front yard were all mentioned. Mr. McClure would certainly not want to see lighting in the front yard for this purpose. He is in favor of continuing conversion and develope some sort of Ordinance tonight or at a later date. Additional discussion continued concerning, the nuisance factor, encourag- ing younger families to move into Miami Shores, noise problem, structure of basketball goal, potential deterioration, front view priority of the Code Enforcement Dept.. In response to Mr. Fernandez, Mr. Laubenthal indicated he is opposed to allow basketball goals in the front yard. Mr. Fernandez declared, he would limit conversation to an additional 30 min.. Mr. Chambers noted that backyard pools and bar b que seem to him a greater potential nuisance than basketball on the front yard. It boils down to a matter of consideration for ones neighbor. Mr. McClure suggested that Members might jot down a list of items that should be included in an ordinance, should action be taken. Mr. Cook noted he expressed his feeling and stands by these views. There have been many pros and cons expressed, the issue is, will basketball goals be allowed in the front yard? If so, what are the criteria? What are the limitations, and what are the restrictions? He has no objection to basket- ball goal mounted in the front yard if harmonious. However, he has two concerns: 1. The mounting of the structure itself, and if mounting is allowed to anything other than the dwelling, it should be confined to the back yard. 2. That the basketball goal be maintained in a respectable condition, so that it is not an eyesore, and fit harmoniously in the neighborhood. Mr. Fernandez stated, he has observed different types of mounting of many different types of materials. What is the standard, what is acceptable? PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -6- 9/14/89 Mr. Laubenthal commented the consensus is that basketball is appropriate in Miami Shores Village. The question is where? Members might proceed to look at the code book as constructed, look for and search out the best section in which standards would belong, if there is an existing paragraph that might be added to, whether or not it should be created as a new section or whether or not it should be in a section that is generalizied. We seem to have enough basketball goals in the community to warrant a look at restriction and regulations. At this time, Mr. Fernandez took a poll of Members concerning basketball, the statement that, the Board takes the position that basketball is an appropriate recreational activity for single family residence in Miami Shores Village, as a general statement. In the roll call vote, each Member agreed. The question then arises, where and under what circumstances. The approach now may be to look at the ordinances as they now stand or may be amended. Mr. Fernandez commended Mr. Drody for his additional comments, his personal feeling, his logic and his refreshing attitude, something this Board rarely experiences. The discussion was then closed, and there being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 P.M. •