Loading...
11-09-1989 Regular MeetingA regular meeting was held on November 9 was called to order at. members present: MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE November 9, 1989 of the Miami Shores Village Planning & Zoning Board 1989 at the Miami Shores Village Hall. The meeting 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Fernandez, with the following 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 26, 1989 On page 3, last paragraph., the word act was changed to meeting. Following this correction, the minutes of the meeting of October 26, 1989 were approved, as mailed, by a motion made by Mr. Laubenthal, seconded by Mr. Chambers, and passed unanimously. Mr. Fernandez requested, Jr. LuBien submit a formal request that Ms. Macdonald inquire of Mr. Fann concern the status of the Landscape Ordinance. Following discussion, and information that Pat Dahne is unable to attend this meeting, Members were polled concerning preparedness to discuss and respond to questions and/or guidelines of the Downtown Revitalization Board. Mr. Laubenthal moved to table discussion (item 3.) to the meeting of December 14, 1989, the motion was seconded by Mr. Chambers. Following information that Mr. LuBien is prepared to discuss signage as it deals with the downtown items, also that Barbara Witte had indicated she will attend this meeting, the motion & second was withdrawn. It was agreed this discussion will be limited tothe signage issue. - Mr. McClure indicated the discussion on basketball goals will be a short one. Mr. Chambers moved to add Discussion - Sewers as item 6. on the agenda, seconded by Mr. Laubenthal, and passed unanimously. 2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR WATERFRONT PATIO SLABS MICHAEL P. CUDLIPP 1099 NE 401th ST. Mr. LuBien introduced the request stating that each Member had received a copy of the site plan showing the areas in question. There is a 3' side setback only, on each of these patios, and therein lies the problem. There is also one minor area toward the front of the house which Mr. Cudlipp has prepared to fill in with concrete. No variance is being requested. Mr. LuBien further advised Mr. Cudlipp that traditionally a 10' side setback is the requirement. Mr. Cudlipp noted that the dock or dug out area shown on the left side rear is an existing natural rock seawall. The davit is in place with benefitof a permit. He is looking to make the steps safer, a nicer patio area, limit maintenance, and make for more sanitary condition. There was much discussion concerning the davit, drainage, dock construction, and setting a precedent by allowing less that a 10' side setback. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -2- 11/9/89 Mr. Laubenthal preceeded his motion with a point of clarification, that side yard setbacks are uniformly 10', and on this basis the application as submitted for site plan approval for request of construction into the setbacks, be denied, seconded by Mr. Chambers. In discussion Mr. Cook is in favor of the improvement but must stay with the 10' setback requirement, and in response to Mr. .McClure, Mr. Cudlipp stated it would be impracticle to modify his proposal. Mr. Fernandez ex- plained to Mr. Cudlipp his four options; 1. Members could continue with the vote, 2. Mr. Cudlipp could accept an amended plan, 3. He could re- quest a variance, 4. Appeal to Council. Mr. Chambers suggested Mr. Cudlipp may wish to modify his plan, in which case, if it conforms it could be approved by Nr. LuBien without benefit of the Board's decision. The vote to deny, was called, and passed unanimously. Mr. Cudlipp was advised to persue amending his plan to conform with the side setbacks. The rear setback is ok. 2 A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR FLAT ROOF ADDITION ROBERT TROWELL 1182 NE 92nd STREET Mr. LuBien introduced the case, advising Members that all details had been sent in their packet. Mr. Trowell had modified a larger addition, and now meets all criteria. Mr. & Mrs. Trowell were present. Mr. Trowell indicated he wants the addi- tional space and proposed the addition with 300 sq ft flat roof maximum. Following brief discussion concerning the roof tie in, Mr. Cook moved to approve the request as submitted, seconded by Mr. Laubenthal, and passed by unanimous vote. 2 B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR CONCRETE APPROACHES WILDA WOMER 9999 NE 12th AVENUE The request was introduced by Mr. LuBien who included in Members packet a copy of the site plan, and indicating that traditionally the approaches are the same as the street which is asphalt. In unusual situations concrete has been permitted. In this particular location all up & down 12th Avenue there is asphalt. The other concern is utility cuts which if made in con- crete is a more significant problem. These concerns were explained to Ms. Womer, and she was invited to this meeting to express any other thoughts she may have on the subject. In reply to query, is 5. Discussion - Driveway Approach Construction perti- nent to this case, Mr. LuBien indicated he has had several such cases which leads him to feel that there should be some positive language in the Ordi- nance. Members were further advised, they must deal with application as the rules are now. Ms. Womer noted her purpose in wanting the concrete driveway is because, the existing driveway is falling apart, and concrete is more durable and much better looking. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -3- 11/9/89 There was much discussion, concerning the durability of concrete versus asphalt, control of the area beyond the property line pipes, the butting of concrete to asphalt, setbacks for exit and egress. It was determined the concrete approach is better if poured with cold joints, or in sections. A concrete approach is much better looking and better for the Village in the long run. Mr. Cook agreed 100% with Mr. LuBien's last statement, and made a motion to approve the request, that the concrete be solid within the property at 12th Ave, and that cold joints be used every 30" in the right of way. The motion was seconded by Mr. McClure, and passed unanimously. 3. DISCUSSION - DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION BOARD - SIGNAGE Barbara Witte was present. Mr. Fernandez explained that because of time constraints, the discussion is limited to Signage. Mr. LuBien had made a copy of the zoning ordinance regulating signs for each Member. Sec 504 is considered the main body of the sign ordinance. On page 1592 (f), Mr. LuBien explained this wording is much different than that proposed by Downtown Revitalization Board in their guidelines. The guidelines go into much more detail as to what the DRB would like to see in place. The guidelines mention signage on buildings, awnings, and windows, this doesn't create a problem however; he suggests for the guidelines, these items are acceptable provided they do not exceed the maximum allowed in the code, which is 11/2 sq ft per foot of frontage of store building. On a corner store this applies to both streets. The ordinance makes no restrictions as to where the total sq footage can be placed, it can be in a window or facade. Prior to last year, he advised people that there could be no lettering on awnings, but there was such a proliferation that the issue just died. This guideline makes reference to it. Mr. LuBien also noted it is essentially important to make reference to the total sign area per store front, which the guidelines is not altogether clear on. In response to Mr. LuBien, Ms. Witte indicated,; the DRB is sensitive to the facade sign, these signs have been encouraged, as an alternative. They have specified that when an awning sign is used, additional signage be in the window or perpendicular so that a facade sign and awning sign are not used. Signs in particular instances may be allowed under a walkway, and Mr. LuBien gave examples, but perpendicular signs have never been allowed on NE 2nd Ave under the code. Under Signage in the guidelines 2. addresses perpendicular signs. This subject was discussed at length. In Sec 504 (3) of the code book, the under canopy sign is addressed in the B-2 district. Another area of this Sec discussed was the building canopy which shall cover the front of more than one (1) business. Ms. Witte addressed this, stating the design committee was more in favor of the awning being limited to the window or door area of the building. The use of perpendicular signs is encouraged by the DRB. Many proposals by the DRB are pedestrian oriented. Mr. LuBien noted that to allow for independent perpendicular signs, the code would have to be rewritten. Rewriting Sec 504 (31 then was discussed. Mr. Fernandez summarized that Members are in agreement with the recommendations of the DRB in allowing perpendicular signs and signs under canopies, the question PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -4- 11/9/89 now becomes one of language. The square footage requirement seems to be the issue remaining. Ms Witte gave particular examples of this issue. Logo and lettering is used in the calculations of percentage. Limitations and size of logo and lettering .must be identified. An example was given in case of a smaller name may want larger lettering. Scale was mentioned. And further discussed were signs for corner stores. It was noted that these minutes and these discussions with recommendations be taken to the DRB for review, further noting that the guidelines are in conflict with the code which does take precedence. Mr. Fernandez then requested that discussion continue to the next meeting and. the Members of this Board be prepared to discuss facade and awnings, as was signage at this meeting. Mr. Laubenthal also suggested taking a look at masonry construction and modern materials. Mr. Cook felt it a good idea to break down the overall guidelines and overall areas at each meeting until all areas are covered. Considerable discussion took place concerning the restriction of awnings and lettering and the new technology governing color, fabric, and lettering on awnings. Mr. Fernandez will invite Luke King, of Thomas Awnings to enlighten the DRB and the Planning & Zoning Board concerning awnings, to the next meeting, scheduled for December 14, 1989. In response to Mr. McClure, Mr. Laubenthal noted Ms Witte will receive a copy of these minutes for DRB review. Also another look will be taken of the code as requested by Mr. Fernandez. Mr. McClure inquired of Mr. LuBien regarding #18 of the guidelines, Blinking lights are prohibited, this there- fore is not in conflict. #17 Signs mounted or projecting above the build- ing are prohibited, this also is not in conflict with the code. Mr. Cook stated as discussed at the last meeting most of the problem arising in the guidelines is the terminology, words like must, can and cannot are inappropriate, and a more positive approach was suggested, using words like suggestion or recommend. Again Mr. Fernandez requested this discussion continue at the next meeting. Mr. Laubenthal moved to amend the agenda to postpone 5. Discussion - Driveway Approach. Construction to a later date, seconded by Mr. Cook,, and passed by a unanimous vote. A five minute break was taken at 9:00 P.M.. 4. DISCUSSION - BASKETBALL GOAL Mr. McClure opened discussion., when he sat down to try and work something out regarding this issue, he realized he had insufficient information to work with. He gave each Member a list of some of the questions he faced, diagrams of front and rear yards, indicating where a basketball goal might be placed, and a copy of the regulation for .n official basketball backboard as a guide. Some of the questions to be ariswered and recommendations to come from Members are: Rear yard location? Front yard location? Goal height (rear yard) (front yard).? Backboard size? Attached to dwelling (rear yard) front yard)? Ground mounted (rear yard, front yardl? Mr. McClure suggested PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -5- 11/9/89 Members might consider each of these questions, adding any they might have, so that guidelines for verbage of the ordinance might be adopted. Mr. Fernandez suggested this item not be delayed, since extensive dis- cussion has taken place. He requested it be placed on the agenda for the next meeting scheduled for December 14, 1989. It was clarified that Members had voted to allow basketball goals in the front of the house, and rear yard, subsequent discussion is for the purpose of preparing guidelines for Mr. Fann to write an ordinance. 6. DISCUSSION - SEWERS Mr. Fernandez introduced the downtown sewer discussion stating, there is a meeting on November 14, 1989 termed a Public Hearing/Workshop, and since as Chairman of Planning & Zoning he will be attending, he requested input from Members of this body so as to avoid the conflict of his per- sonal opinion. Mr. Fernandez further noted the two basic items he pre- pared for consideration. One item to be looked at is the environmental pollution aspect, another is the timing issue (visavis Village financing). The larger might be the Economic impact in assessing both the short term and the long term act, the impact it will have on property owners, both commercial in downtown, as well as the surrounding area residences. The Marketing concerns also is listed. Other items to be discussed may be determined by this Board. Mr. Laubenthal mentioned in discussion the tax base, and sewer impact on property values, formula used in accessing taxes. He wondered if the method used by the County might be obtained in advance. Mr. Fernandez reading from the Comprehensive Plan for Miami Shores as prepared by Robert Swarthout, noted that in the needs accessment under Waste Water Facility it states that, the use of septic tanks to provide waste water is providing satisfactory level of service to health and safety requirements. The only future change may be the need to serve NE 2nd Ave or South Biscayne Blvd businesses with a line from the County system,..... The provision of a municipal sanitary system will place a severe financial burden on the Village single family neighborhoods and is not warranted by the existing conditions. Mr. Laubenthal clarified Members discussion in adopting the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. McClure re- quested, Mr. LuBien might ask Robert Swarthout to word search the Compre- hensive Plan and report where sewer is mentioned. Also in the future when something of this nature is done the preparer might be requested to advise what word processor it is done on so that we can do the search ourselves. Other issues to look at, are short term versus long term, and what is the need? Do we want to look merely at NE 2nd Ave or the whole Village? It was mentioned by Mr. Laubenthal that the amount in dollars is the same to dig down NE 2nd Ave to lay a 6" pipe as a 10" pipe. The impact and re- gulations by the County and DERM people mandat•was noted. How do we compete against the glut in areas surrounding Miami Shores? is another question raised, PLANNING & ZONING BOARD �6- 11/9/89 As previously noted by Mr. Fernandez, the Economic impact is a large issue. The tax base will rise and be passed on to residents, the sq ft rental will rise, what happens to water bills? . Timing, and Village financing are also important factors, and this was discussed. It seems the issue of sewers has not been completely thought through. We are asking many questions to which answers have not been considered. An issue of this magnitude must not be adopted. by Administration too/quiekly, it must have much thought. Mr. Laubenthal asked, is this a cure all? What is County involvement,, what is the formula for funding, structure, management, financial implementation, expansion, etc?? Mr. Cook stated the big question in his mind is that he doesn't see a plan put together. Sewers may be mandated in the future, at which time a Federal Grant may help. To this point there is no plan, and no schedule, the three key elements of which are the quality, time and budget. We cannot get into hard discussion without a basic plan put together, which we the community does not have. Mr. Chambers advised that Council had voted to request the Village Manager contact the proper authorities downtown in an effort to seek a cost and what might be involved in sewer installation. In the meantime the date set for November 14, 1989 is to gain insight as to feelings of the property owners. Mr. Laubenthal noted the Village is a substantial land owner of the area and as such the Council gives its support to the sewer issue. It was further noted by Mr. Fernandez and Mr. Chambers that, Council did vote to become a partof a special taxing district in favor of sewers. There was considerable discussion concerning cost and financing, residence respon- sibility, and Planning & Zoning. Members as assuming the role of Planners as well as respond to Zoning issues. Two issues mentioned by Mr. McClure were that, in special taxing districts the home owner is not directly taxed, but is so if one taps into the system. The other item he mentioned is that the Comprehensive Plan addresses a public sewer system which this is not, it is one for a special taxing district. The question then becomes, will the. Comprehensive Plan, need to be amended?? Mr. Cook called attention to the reading of a section of the Comprehensive Plan where the key word is change. As a point of clarification, he noted he is in favor of improvement., enhance, and supports positive, good growth in the community. Mr. McClure noted, he feels the Comprehensive Plan must be amended, and if so he suggested the Village Manager be invited to give a report of what has and has not .been planned, so that an amendment to the Plan can be addressed by this:Board. In a poll of Members, Mr. Laubenthal stated, he does support controlled growth. He firmly believes in sewers in the future., but not in the realistic future of Miami Shores and looking ,at points of todays market, as discussed, his vote .is no. There was some discussion:concerning drainfield in the area of the 9999 building and the now Shores Square. Plaza. Nlr. LuBien answered questions on the subject. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -7- 11/9/89 Mr. Chambers responded to the poll, installation of sewers would increase his rent and taxes, but he thinks of what it could do for Miami Shores. In DRB recommendations sewers are required and -requested. It will be ex- pensive, yes, but worth it. In response to the poll, Mr. McClure stated, it has been stated many times and the DRB guidelines note that Miami Shores cannot survive without a first class restaurant in the downtown area, and there can be no major first class restaurant in Miami Shores without a sewersystem on NE 2nd Ave. Without the sewer system we cannot revitalization Miami Shores. Mr. Cook responded to the poll, sewers will. happen sooner or later, and he feels it will be later. A Plan must be adopted before any decisions can be made, The Plan must include the budget. That is budgeted income, as well as budgeted expenses and finally, can we afford it?? It was generally agreed sewers for Miami Shores are on the horizon, the issue must be treated fairly., Planning & Zoning must take the initiative and ask many questions as to what is best for the Village, a Plan must be formulated, and analysis done. Mr. Fernandez urged Members to attend the meeting of November 14, 1989 on this issue. Mr. Laubenthal made a request that the Village provide new ring binders for Members record keeping. No action was taken. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M. cre ry