Loading...
10-26-1989 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE October 26, 1989 A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Village Planning & Zoning Board was held on October26, 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. Robert E. Cook Thomas Laubenthal Larry T. McClure Also present: Frank LuBien, Director of Building & Zoning 1. MINUTES - October 12, 1989 The minutes of the meeting of October 12, 1989 were approved as dis- tributed, by a motion made by Mr. Chambers, seconded by Mr. Laubenthal, and carried unanimously. 2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR DORMITORY BARRY UNIVERSITY 11300 NE 2nd AVE Mr. Fernandez explained his relationship with Barry University. There being no objection, he continued to hear the request. Mr. LuBien indicated,Members received in their packet a rough draft of components to be approved. Representatives from Barry University pre- sented more detailed information. Tim Czerniec, Director of Business Affairs for Barry University noted this request is for building of another resident hall on the campus. In 1986 the University received approval for a master plan for two new resident halls and ,this. Phase 2 of the project, will be a slight modi- fication from that master plan. The following described units will be built at NE 111th St. East of Miami Ave. Phase II will consist of approx- imately 24 units, housing 96 beds and two 8 unit buildings housing two graduate students each, for a total of 102 additional beds. These will be cottage style apartments. They will move the University toward the goal of 735 beds on campus. The same architecture and color scheme will be used, and the berm type of landscaping will be followed up on. Rafael Gomez, Architect with Urbanistica explained Phase II will consist of three divided graduate and undergraduate two story buildings. The two smaller buildings will face the larger one to create a courtyard effect between, instead of the large L shaped building previously planned. The architecture, setbacks, colo4cheme, and parking are all in keeping with what is existing at the University, and all in compliance. There will be a landscaped berm to face the street as done with the pre- vious dormitory building on the Miami Avenue corner. In reply to query he noted the berm will be approximately 4' high, this varies. Also Mr. LuBien showed Members a copy of the South elevation Site Plan study which was presented and approved earlier. This is a slight change. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -2- 10/26/89 Following further discussion, concerning roof line, etc. and answers to Members questions, Mr. Laubenthal moved to approve the request as submitted, seconded by Mr. Chambers, and passed unanimously.. Mr. LuBien explained this request will be on the agenda for Village Council review on Tuesday, November 21, 1989. 3. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR AWNING MIAMI SHORES RECREATION DEPARTMENT 9825 NE 7th AVE Mr. LuBien explained, Members had before them a sketch of the awnings and the specifications. A copy of the Site Plan indicating where the awning will be. This is an area at the rear of the field house where food may be dispensed from. He brings it for approval of the Planning .& Zoning Board as he finds it is not allowed in a residential zone. There are similar situations at the present facility, at the tennis courts, and at the Country Club. Mr. Paul Furey from the Recreation Department, indicated the color will be a brown and beige, Mr. LuBien showed Members a sample of the color and the fabric. Following brief discussion, and indication of recent approval of an awning for the Miami Shores Presbyterian Church in R 1 zone, Mr. Chambers moved to approve the request as submitted, seconded by Mr. Laubenthal, and the motion passed by unanimous vote. 3 A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR FLAT ROOF ADDITION FRANCES BYRON 9362 NE 9th PLACE Mr. LuBien explained, this is a request for a flat roof addition which is just under 300 Sq ft. maximum. The request is for 294 sq ft addition. One of the factors of the additionwhich must be approved is the screened area which will house orchids, and which is over 60 sq ft. Site plan was included in Members packet, and a copy of the south and west elevation. Mrs. Byron noted she lovesher home in Mismi Shores, but it has no trees and no porch, and she is an outdoor person. The orchids must be in a screened in area with a roof. Mr. Arthur Bishop her contractor, submitted a plan and a bid she could afford. The proposed addition will be approxi- mately 6' X 20', it will be screen and will have a flat roof of Wu gravel in the rear, and cannot be seen from the street. It will be a beautiful area and will house many plants. Mr. Bishop replied to query that the slated wood area willhave no screen- ing. There will be screening on three sides only. There will be 2 X 4 construction with the attached slats which will be properly anchored. Mr. LuBien replied that this construction does comply with the code. Mr. Cook moved to approve the request as submitted to include the orchid house, motion seconded by Mr. Laubenthal, and carried unanimously. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -3- 10/26/89 4. DISCUSSION - DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION BOARD Present to represent the Downtown Revitalization Board were: Pat Dahne, Chairman, Catherine Salow, Barbara Witte, Project Manager, Donald Salzburg, and John Davies, Design Committee. Barbara Witte gave each Member of the Planning & Zoning Board a copy of draft for the Proposed Design Guidelines for downtown Miami Shores, and a copy of Main Street Report of 1987. Pat Dahne opened. discussion. She is interested in sharing the vision of the Downtown Revitalization Board, and make people aware of their approach in the plan for downtown. On pg 4 of the Main Street Report it indicates the downtown should be a specialty retail area, then identifies what this includes, it goes on to explain the four point approach, some of which have already been implemented. The district is identified, a logo is developed, entrance signs, banners, promotional events, economic restruc- turing (a survey - just completed), and business retention by educating local retailers in strengthening their businesses were all mentioned. Design is only one area of the Main Street four point approach. Imrpove- ment must be seen to keep the spark of enthusiasm going. Image is impor- tant because it is most visible, and we must take control of what happens in the design area downtown. There is purposely not an implementation page, because we want to discuss with this Board the most effective way to imple- ment the ideas and guidelines. Caty Salow noted the group had looked at other cities in the different areas of Florida and decided what works and what doesn't. She mentioned giving people a spectrum of colors which might be used. A color pallet was chosen as a start in identifying portions of the building with color. Guidelines for the facade were reviewed, porpotion, window height and overall compo- sition of the facade and encouraging those doing renovations to keep this in mind. Displays was mentioned. The use of awnings downtown to bring color and individuality to each merchant, is working in many cities. Signage and logo is another opportunity to express individuality, there are many options. Security is an important factor which the Downtown Revitali- zation Board wants to discuss with the Police Department. Finally she asked, what is the impression of the Planning & Zoning Board to these Guidelines, and what is the general reaction? Members of the Planning & Zoning Board chose to withhold comment for later. Barbara Witte, Project Manager for the Downtown Revitalization Board spoke next. She noted the Design guidelines are just that, they are not trying to write ordinances, but rather looking for help and direction from the Planning & Zoning Board Members to pave the way for what in the future may become ordinances which could be enforced by putting them in the code book. In research with other cities it was discovered that implementation can be acheived through the MainStreet Grant. Miami Shores Village Council has approved the Main Street Grant Program beyond the $10,000. Grant. The Downtown Revitalization Board is looking at a three year program to offer assistance to the merchants and property owners. She further cited the Hollywood method which is radical,,but effective, she told the Members. Mr. Fernandez indicated, this discussion should be as informal as possible, meeting the -a-tonight being an interchange of ideas. The Board tonight may not be prepared to endorse this Program. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -4- 10/26/89 Mr. Laubenthal noted that most large cities do have a Design Review Committee, and one of their functions is to control aesthetics. The Planning & Zoning Board will never dictate taste, the closest we come to this is the issue of Harmony. The Downtown Revitalization Board has taken a progressive move in trying to assemble guidelines. Some of the graphics chosen are period architecture and Miami Shores is not a period community. You are attempting the bold by maintaining relative limits on color (which he has no problem with), windows , facade are important, awnings are no problem. The larger issue should be a line of communica- tion between the Downtown Revitalization Board and the P & Z Board. Approval of the request is necessary and must be signed by one in authority. The P & Z Board is often called on to make decisions as to use, which re- quire extensive contemplation. Mr. Chambers feels all areas are well covered. His concern was hiding businesses with landscaping (trees). Discussion continued concerning DRB working with what isin place. Re- search done concerning gutting old buildings. What about new buildings? A picture of buildings being uniformly 40' high. Mr. Fernandez mentioned functions of the Planning & Zoning Board. A look at sewers and the impact it has on the city as a whole. There should be a coordination of effort and plan with the various groups. We must look twenty years ahead. Awnings concept and image are two areas which need to be addressed in downtown. The Landscape Ordinance is a complex issue which can have significant effect. Further, Mr. Fernandez noted he can- not give blanket approval to these Guidelines. He commended efforts of the Downtown Board, but stated he feels other Planning issues are most impor- tant at this time. In further discussion on signage it was determined there is nothing in the guidelines, size wise which conflicts with the code. There was also much dicsussion on the illuminated awnings. Trees which cover signage. Also mentioned was a cooperative policy arrangement between a landlord and leasehold tenant, and the lack of help from property owners. Suggestions were offered to Members of Downtown Revitalization Board. In response to Don Saltzburg's inquiry as to the position of the P & Z Board, and how it should look 25 years down the road. Mr. Fernandez feels he does not want to overturn something which might be upheld in a court of law. If the guideline plan could fit within the Miami Shores Village Codes there is no problem, otherwise planning is heartily endorsed. This Board is not one of implementation.. Mr. Saltzburg explained the impetus for these guidelines is to enhance downtown, to have businesses compete, the desire to have people shop, dine, etc in downtown and respond to the residents wishes as indicated in the Survey results. There was continued discussion on the achievements and continued efforts of the Design Committee. Prohibition of certain aspects of design cannot be issued, a positive aspect approach must be looked at. The Survey statictics was discussed at length. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -5- 10/26/89 Mr. McClure applauds the efforts of the DRB Design Committee; guidelines. He is not in favor of putting these guidelines in ordinance form, but using it. The harmony factor, often used by the Planning & Zoning Board is important and is used effectively. In response there was extended discussion concerning prohibition and harmony. As old tenants leave and new ones move in, a new image can be discussed and offered. Mr. Cook stated he strongly favors a plan as a forethought for the future of the Community. Las Olas Blvd in Ft. Lauderdale offers many positives. The thing which he thinks about most with regard to planning is that these discussions are not the type things we need to be dealing with. The sewer system has been discussed at great length, the plans for downtown revitaliza- tion require much thought. The Community has just suffered a sizeable un- planned expense. The tax base and $ sign continues to come to mind, and we need to take a long look at the monies being spent and where is it all com- ing from. Mr. Cook further feels the sewer issue and continued discussion with DRB come before the P & Z Board. In response to the chairman's query, Pat Dahne noted the DRB would deal with the specific items outlined, to begin to implement them, their use, and standardize the procedure between the Design Review Planning & Zoning. We cannot underestimate or ignore the resource Main Street Committee, but must proceed with planning. Reintroduced for discussion was the work of the Main Street Committee, another look at the code and Downtown Revitalizations requests, landscaping, facade, signage and approval of illuminated awnings on NE 2nd Ave. Mr. McClure noted he is not in favor of voting for approval for the document, as is. If recommended as a guideline some verbage should be changed. He suggested a more positive approach. Mr. McClure also recommended this guideline be discussed at another meeting, after the P & Z Members have had an opportunity to study it throughly and be prepared to comment. like to encourage Comm. and of the Continued interchange was agreed upon, and it was determined this discussion will continue at the Planning & Zoning Board meeting of November 9, and will be limited to one hour. It is hoped this will help move the DRB toward their goals. The purpose of discussion being to make recommendations to the Downtown Revitalization Board in an attempt in helping adopt a set of guidelines for downtown Miami Shores. A ten minute break was taken. 5. DISCUSSION - BASKETBALL GOALS Mr. Fernandez introduced this discussion, citing the course of events leading to this discussion. He noted the item had been previously discussed, the issue to resolve is basketball goals, hoops, structures in the front yards in Miami Shores. Mr. McClure noted at the previous meeting there was discussion concerning the size of the backboards and what constituted an official backboard. He passed out to each Member a copy of architect standards of the makeup and figures of an official basketball backboard. The figures give the details for high school and college equipment and gives guidelines for the Planning & Zoning Board. The backboard requirements are much smaller than previously thought. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -6- 10/26/89 Mr. Laubenthal commented, no pole is shown in the sketch because of public safety. In a residential area the homeowner accepts responsibility. Mr. Laubenthal feels it should be as subdued as.possible, located in the rear, with consideration of wall mounting. Placement and liability is an issue in graphic standards. He is not in favor of placement of basketball goals being in the front yard. Mr. Laubenthal further stated, he might consider a flush mount, but is not in favor of basketball goals in front. Mr. Cook stated he has not changed his position from the last discussion, he has no objection to the location being in the front or the rear yard. We are not responsible for liability regarding the mounting device, basket- ball goal, hoop and net. He has stated before and continues to feel that in terms of harmony it should be mounted to the house if in the front. The pole defined as a structure, is the issue, in his opinion. He further feels there are real and important issues Members should be discussing in terms of Planning &.Zoning, the question should be decided and behind us. His position is clear. Each situation is different. Mr. McClure concurred with Mr. Cook. We should this evening, draw up recommendations for Mr. Fann for an Ordinance on basketball goals. We have no problem with liability. The issue*le sees, are will they be allowed in the front yard and conform to the setbacks, or must adjustments be made? Mr. Fernandez noted he strongly feels all structures must comply with the 15' separation. Harmony within the community is important. He outlined his experience in other communities, setback capabilities, architecture, nuisance factor, etc. In further comments, Mr. Fernandez noted, basketball hoops, goals, poles should not be in the front yard and regulated in the back yard. He is not in favor of the basketball goal being in the front, to maintain integrity and strongly recommends same. Mr. LuBien got a copy of the satellite dish ordinance as requested by Mr. McClure. Regulation of this ordinance was discussed. Much discussion continued. Mr. Drody was present and allowed to speak. He again noted his arguments haven't changed. We can't run the Village on unwritten law and there is nothing in the code to make the basketball goal illegal in the front or rear yard. It would be a grevious error to force removal of goals which have been up a number of years. He addressed aesthetics, liability, re- moval, and unsopken code. Following continued discussion, Mr. McClure noted he would like to make a motion to allow for basketball goal in the front and rear yard, but based on the feeling there does not ssem to be support for this, he hesitates. Discussion continued as to where the new ordinance might go. Mr. McClure motioned to write an Ordinance to allow for basketball goal, in the back and front yard and give Mr. Fenn direction as to what Members want in this Ordinance. Mr. Chambers seconded the motion. In discussion Mr. Fernandez continued to maintain disagreement, very strongly, Mr. Laubenthal maintained he could consider a flush mount in the front. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -7- 10/26/89 Mr. McClure amended his motion to state in the front of the house and back yard. Mr. Chambers accepted the amendment. The vote for this amendment passed unanimously. The vote for the motion as amended was 4-1, with Mr. Fernandez. voting NO. To clarify, Mr. McClure noted we are looking to draw up comments for Mr. Fann to be included in the Ordinance which he will write up. These comments will be presented by Mr. McClure at the next meeting. Mr. Fernandez announced that on November 14, 1989 there will be a workshop with the property owners on NE 2nd Avenue and Council with relation to the sewer issue. Mr. Fernandez also commented on his discussion with Mr. Czerniec concerning this sewer issue. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 P.M. •