Loading...
06-28-1990 Regular MeetingMIME sUQ,RES' 3TILL4GE June 28, 1990 A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Village Planning & Zoning Board was held on June 28, 1990 at the Miami Shores Village Hall. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Chairman, Mr. 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 - JUNE 14, 1990 The minixtes of the meeting of June 14, 1990 were approved, as distributed, by a motion made by Mr. Laubenthal, seconded by Mr. McClure, and carried unanimously. 1A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE TO. ALLOW EXPANSION OF NON CONFORMING USE PROFJSSIONAL CAREER CENTER, 210 N. E. 98th STREET Mr. McClure made a motion to remove this request from the table, seconded by Mr. Laubenthal, and passed unanimously, Mr. Fernandez indicated since there was a legal question the request was tabled at the last meeting, following discussion. Mr. Curtis J. Herbert, Esquire, representing Professional Career Center was present and stated he had talked with Mr. Fenn, Village Attorney about 4:30 today. (Court reporter for ICoppen, Watkins also was present). Mr. Fernandez stated that in his lengthy conversation with the Village Attorney, Nr. Fann indicated this is a non conforming use and does not fit in Sec 237 and Sec 238 of the Village code. Much discussion at the last meeting on what is allowed in the B 1 District further indicates this is not a permitted use. Mr. McClure commented it does not fit the definition of a private achool as the code defines private school. There is an exception such as business school. He'feels this school clearly is not the kind of business intended in B 1 zone. If so it would have mentioned it as approved uses there. Further, he fully understands why it was not intended so. Mr. Laubenthal noted the request before the Board is the expansion of a non conforming use. amd it is this item that discussion should be limited to and discussed. Mr. Herbert stated he can understand the Boards decision based on Mr. Fann's opinion of the non conforming use and expansion thereof. Under the definition of private and public school in the code they are about the same. Mr. Herbert expounded on the definition of private school as he sees it. In addition, he stated, this is a service oriented establishment not a retail outlet and should qualify as such in B 1 area. In considering the request for variance the expansion is in the (sq footage) physical plant, with no increase in the density or number of students. The purpose is to create a more harmonious atmosphere, better and more convenient surroundings for the students. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -2- 6/28/90 Mr. Splitstone explained the school is a good neighbor and wants to remain so. This is a service oriented outlet, not an expansion of retail space. The need for expansion of the physical plant is to expand the quality to better serve the student. There will be no increase from the present 75 students. He is committed not to request further expansion beyond this and no other variance chill be requested. Mr. Fernandez asked Mr. Herbert to address Sec 702 - Hardship variance. There are four elements which must be met to qualify (a, b, c, & d). Mr. Herbert indicated it is difficult to prove all four factors are met. He added the school is not detrimental to the use, it is a store front office type activity, service oriented establishment, it is harmonious, and would not give advantage with respect to use over owners of similarly situated property. A claim cannot be substantiated for all four. A special exception should be considered. The school has been there a decade and moved and allowed to expand. Mr. Herbert then called attention to Sec 608 of the Village code, stating that client hardship plus the commitment not to seek expansion should be considered. Mr. Laubenthal commented, it is not within the power of the Planning & Zoning Board to grant special approval, but Council can take issue, Planning & Zoning must review the matter as written, Mr. Cook noted the applicant cannot, in his opinion meet the criteria for the hardship variance, this is not a seLvlce permitted in the B I zone, Mr. Chambers agreed the hardship variance is not qualified. Mr. Laubenthal made a motion that the application for expansion of a non conforming use be denied. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cook, and passed. unanimously, Mr.Fernandez explained Members action and the right of appeal to Council, it takes four votes to overide Planning & Zoning. Mr. Fernandez recognized Brenda 'Marshall, as the newest member of the Downtown Revitalization Board, and mentioned that she oi.c-d his law firm. is an associate in 1B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN PINNACLE ENTERPRISES, LOTS B-3 & B-4 ANCO SUB Mr. LuBien introduced the request for site plan approval. This is a proposed 15,358 sq ft building (11 2 bedroom units). Required parking is 19.25 spaces, 24 are provided. All setback requirements comply. The only problem he can see are the side balconies which project 4' and the allowed is 3' according to Sec 509. If this is considered a walkway there is no problem, but as a balcony it projects into a side setback. The client has indicated they can shrink the building in order to comply. Mr. LuBien then explained the exact location of the site. Debra Carman, Vice President of Pinnacle Enterprises, Inc, General Contractor and Alberto Puig, Architect were both present. Mr. Puig indicated the outside space may be used as a walkway or a balcony as the Board sees fit, modification can be made. The reduction to comply would be in inches only. Members con- curred they would be more comfortable with the minor modifications, in this PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -3- 6/28/90 manner no setback requirements have to be compromised. Ms. Carman noted regulations and restrictions will be made clear to the townhouse owners. Mr. LuBien wanted it clarified that fence height (from ground level) around the courtyard is restricted to 5' high. There being no further questions or comments, Mr. Laubenthal moved the applica- tion, in combination with the agreement to shrink the width of the units to allow the overall building size to retreat within the setback criteria, be approved, seconded by Mr. McClure, and carried unanimously. 2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CAR WASH MIAMI SHORES COUNTRY CLUB, 10000 BISCAYNE BLVD. The request was introduced by Mr. LuBien who had included in Members '•' packet a copy of the letter from Mr. Hart requesting approval. Mr. LuBien noted he has been informed this is a common practice at private country clubs. There is no special criteria in the code. Mr. Chuck. Hart, manager stated he withdraws the request and apologized for taking time and space on the agenda. 3. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF NON -PERMITTED STRUCTURE DON G. GERLOFF, 1350 N. E. 101st STREET Mr. LuBien stated that Members received in their packet a sketch copy of the site plan indicating the location of the particular structure. This is not a structure listed anywhere in the code as a permitted structure. It is a very large, movable structure and in his opinion is not permitted and should not be approved. Mr. Gerloff noted his request is an appeal for a code violation which he received. He had a huge chart board and small wood frame model of the structure and indicated how he would move the structure to different areas in the rear yard for cover protection. Mr. Gerloff indicated he had worked on it for about 2 years, and is 90% finished with the structure, for which he plans to have a removable canvas awning type cover, it is a temporary mobile type structure, not attached to the ground, and not visible from the street. He has had no complaints from neighbors. Mr. LuBien said he observed the structure when he inspected a pool next door. Pictures were reviewed. Mr. Gerloff further noted, he used bridge construction, it weighs 1,100 lbs and moves on telescoping jack and electric tug. It can be anchored to the ground by stainless steel cable or whatever manner Members wish. Mr. Gerloff presented Members with copy of a flyer from a company which makes awning covers, also a copy of Pg 1570, Sec 225 of the code which neither re- stricts height limits of carports or identifies this as accessory building. Sec 904 of the code was addressed, and it was agreed no vote can be taken without appropriate plans sealed by a. registered architect or registered engineer. Further, Mr. LuBien noted the applicant was granted sixty days continuance in order to pursue the appeal process. Discussion continued concerning method of securement, anchoring, setback requirement, danger in strong winds or hurricane, uniqueness of structure, plans, seals, Pg 1570, Sec 225. Time for Board Members to review documents, and take a long hard. look at the request. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -4- 6/28/90 Mr. Fernandez suggested the request be tabled to allow Mr. Gerloff to return with the appropriate drawings and other information as discussed, this is not to be taken as the Boards approval, options are open. Mr. Laubenthal moved to table the request, seconded by Mr. McClure, and passed unanimously. This item will be placed on the July 12th agenda. 4. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR ALTERATION WITH WOOD FRAME GABLES JAMES R. GEORGE, 1215 N. E. 95th STREET The request was introduced by Mr. LuBien, who stated the problem with: the plan is that as submitted there is a very large gable at each end of the building with a wood frame, Sec 225 of the Miami Shores Village code dictates all exterior elements must be masonry construction. An exception was granted to the existing two smaller ends. Site plan and sketched of the detail were included in Members packet. On the large gable end being added is stucco on self furring paper back metal lath " plywood on studded end truss, this is all in lieu of a concrete block or tie beam in place. In response to query, he further stated this is a whole new structure going over the existing structure (roof). The elevation sketcheswere not'com- pletely clear and discussion followed. Members reviewed plans and Mr. LuBien noted this is an attempt to repair an existing sagging roof, and in the effort to try to comply with the code the structural integrity would not be destroyed. This concept was used to help keep up the existing structure. Mr. LuBien answered many technical questions concerning the structure of this roof, and explained the installation and work. Mr. John Knezevich stated he is neither an architect nor an engineer, but a general contractor and next door neighbor to Mr. James George. It is his opinion that the house is in poor shape and in the attempt to clean up the roof, and avoid future structural problems, the entire structure must be re - roofed and by doing so he eliminates 34Z of the flat roof area. Using this plan the inside of the house is not being destroyed in any way by opening up to the elements, and serious hardship factors, this time of the year, are being avoided. There exists here a severe and dangerous structural problem and this is the method in which to resolve. This is not a structural element to support the roof, Mr. Knezevich replied to query. Mr. Laubenthal noted that there have been numerous requests for other than masonry construction and the request in each case was a matter of costs. Again the question is, what is the reason for not complying with the code? Mr. Knezevich replied, the roof of the house would have to be torn off, parties move out, and expose all the inside, he also stated he is a licensed general contractor, and because of the dangerous conditions he would not touch the job. In response to Mr. Cook he stated he looked at the original plans this evening and could not testify which gable end is wood or concrete. To Mr. Cook he also answered, Mr. George is a neighbor and he doesn't want to destroy the house, also he would not tear the roof off at this time of year. He has been up in the rafter system,has•had his supervisor look at it and the same conclusion was reached. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -5- 6/28/90 Mr. George stated this adds nothing to living space, but was a problem he had to take care of. More money could be saved by not covering the flat area. Mr. McClure summarized, Mr. LuBien had not looked at the original drawing, Mr. Laubenthal has and has reported, what we are look at is the rebuilding of a non conforming structure, which will continue to be non conforming. Mr. Laubenthal stated this case is unique in that significant repairs are requested for a significant roofing problem, besides the cost there are numerous other hardship problems to overcome. He does not feel a precedent would be set to continue with construction which is a necessary improvement. Following his remarks, Mr. Laubenthal moved that the application as sub- mitted, be approved, seconded by Mr. McClure. In discussion Mr. Laubenthal wished the record to show that he does not see the application setting any precedence for any other application for wood gable ends, and approval of this motion would include approval of his comments. The vote was called, and the motion carried 4/1 with Mr. Fernandez voting no on principle. A recess was taken at 9:00 P.M.. The meeting reconvened at 9:09 P.M.. Mr. Cook commented for the record and for Council to note, that his project on the West Coast has been completed. He and his wife gave a great deal of thought to where they want to live, and have decided to make Niami home. He wants to continue to serve on the Planning & Zoning Board if Council sees fit. Mr. Fernandez agreed Members are pleased to hear the statement. 5. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE FOR VESTIBULE ADDITION PUBLIX SUPER MARKET, 9030 BISCAYNE BLVD. Mr. LuBien noted in their packet Members received a copy of a letter written by Publix Super Markets addressing the four points involved in obtaining a hardship variance. Mr. Maurice Beeman, architect for Publix, stated the letter addresses the 4 questions for a variance and is self explanatory. They can, if necessary, go to restriping for compact cars to create additional parking. Mr. Fernandez took the position that their question A doesn't answer (a) the first criteria for a variance, and there is no need to go to the other questions. The addition of 1,200 sq ft is the item being discussed as adding the square footage would take it further out of code, further he noted, the unusual circumstance was created by the applicant. There was much continued discussion on the additional square footage, and the • number of parking spaces required. Mr. McClure disagreed, stating, A does answer the question as required and that there is no more property to add parking spaces. Each point (A,B,C &D) answers the question fully for the granting of a variance. The points are very clear, the extra space is not to be used for retail sale. It is not an expansion of retail space, but a tremendous improvement of the property, There are unusual circumstance. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -6- 6/28/90 Mr. Laubenthal noted, the matter of semantics, the addition is not dedicated to expand retail space, but in moving incidental uses into the area, 1,200 square feet of retail space within the building is being recovered. Mr. Cook agreed with Mr. McClure that a, b, c, and d for hardship variance are answered. That this space cannot be used as retail space should be a part of the motion. Publix is making an attempt to improve the property with this face lift. Mr. Beeman stated that all Publix Markets throughout Florida are being re- modeled. Addition of volumn dollar is not the prime motive but to treat the customer better. They want to avoid competition. Mr. LuBien cautioned the Board that when square footage of a building is calculated, however justified the total square footage of 1,200 sq ft is added. Members may be in sympathy, but Council must approve the application. Another item to be concerned with is precedent. Dicsussion continued concerning, bringing the vestibule inward, the addition of the 1,200 sq ft is not the issue, because if Publix had the parking space needed, this would not be a variance request before the Board, the 1,200 sq ft being usable floor space. The affect the Landscape Ord. might have. Members obligation must be considered, the problem created by the applicant, and the problem with question A. The approval to open in 1966. Mr. Laubenthal moved that the application as submitted for a variance, to permit addition be denied. Unable to obtain a second, Nr. Fernandez, Chrm. passed the gavel to Mr. McClure, and seconded the motion. Comments were made concerning expansion of a non conforming situation, economic reasons for the addition, and increase of people and cars. The code must be adhered to by Planning & Zoning, Council can overule. Mr. Laubenthal commented on the South Florida new car impact law and its affect. There being no objection, Mr. McClure called for a roll call vote, and the motion to deny passed by the following roll call vote:Mr. Cook No Mr, Fernandez Yes Mr. Chambers Yes Mr. Laubenthal Yes Mr. McClure No Mr. McClure passed the gavel back to Mr. Fernandez. Mr. Fernandez explained the right of appeal to Council. 6. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE TO ALLOW FLAT ROOF ADDITION WES CARTER, 575 N. E. 95th STREET Mr. LuBien introduced the request, noting this is a request for an additional 640 sq ft of flat roof, when 660 flat roof area already exists. A letter of explanation and site plan sketch was included in Members packet. Mr. Carter explained he wishes to add a garage/carport to the rear of his property adjacent to an existing flat roof. He feels by building the garage in the rear the alley could be usedfor vehicular traffic and parking, he would maintain a common look and the flat roof cannot be seen from any street. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -7- 6/28/90 Other plans were discussed, economic costs and neighbors approval. Mr. McClure following comment that this extension of a flat roof structure is far more than allowed, moved to deny the request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Laubenthal, and carried unanimously. Mr. Fernandez explained the process of appeal to Council to Mr. Carter. • 7. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE TO ALLOW BASKETBALL GOAL IN SIDE YARD FRANK L. ZOCCHI, JR., 1030 N. E. 107th STREET The request was introduced by Mr. LuBien who explained the position of the basketball goal and the unique situation created by barricades. The only place he can see for this Basketball goal is to attach it to the garage facing 107th Street. Photographs of the basketball goal as installed were reviewed. Mr. Zocchi spoke, stating he did not mean to violate the law, a citation was issued. His main concern is the safety of his 12 year old son. The goal cannot be placed in the back yard because of the screened pool. There have been no complaints from neighbors. Further discussion centered on the new Basketball Goal Ordinance which is not yet law. Compliance with the code. Safety. Mr. McClure stated he was a basketball goal fan when he had no support, but could not in good conscience ever put a basketball goal next to the street. Mr. McClure moved to deny the application as submitted, seconded by Mr. Laubenthal. Mr. Fernandez welcomed Mr. Zocchi to Miami Shores and commented strict code enforcement and strict zoning is a real source of pride in Miami Shores. Members are sympathic. The motion to deny passed unanimously. Mr. Fernandez explained to Mr. Zocchi his right of appeal to Council. 8. DISCUSSION - ADDITIONS AND 'REVISIONS TO PERMITTED USES IN THE B-1 & B-2 DISTRICTS Mr. Fernandez requested discussion dealing with schools, since it Was on the agenda and fresh in Members minds.. Do we want to allow schools in the B-1 District and does the definition need to be re written? Do we wish to differentiate the definition of schools? The list as already briefly addressed under permitted uses was mentioned. Mr. McClure felt the discussion should be kept to, do we want to allow schools, not to rewrite definition, at this time. Mr. Laubenthal stated it is not appropriate to allow schools on any level in the B-1 District. The impact created is not positive. There is a great deal of spillover. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -8- 6/28/90 Mr. McClure noted these statements are basically true if retail sales were alive and well in downtown Miami Shores. Schools would have no impact on other office buildings, he has no problem. with recreational type schools, but feels the Board must be very careful in defining the term school. There was much further discussion concerning the computer school as it now operates, the profile of how a school wishes to operate, schools in the B-1 District, association with the work school as opposed to a studio, in- struction, gymnasium, etc.. Schools as standing alone, adjacent to C-1, but not in a retail area or professional service area. Mr. Fernandez does not see a school as a compatible use in the B 1 District. Vocational training was discussed, State licensed as a school, definition of type of school, broad terms, assembly for seminar/review-incidental to professional business. What is the intended uses of the B 1 district? Mr. Fernandez concluded the functioning of a school is not seen as a per- mitted use in the B-1 District, and should be continued; however, other definitional considerations as to what might be educational, but not con- sidered for school educational uses as to things which are primarily educational. Mr. Fernandez then requested consideration for discussion the continued expansion of the Gymboree, jazzercise type item. He requested comments on gyms or athletic clubs in the B 1 district, as he sees this question being raised in the very near future. Mr. Laubenthal commented that in considering uses and looking at patterns it is not impossible for an area to become recognized or overpowered by a particular use. He mentioned the Miami Design District as example, gyms all in a district. Mr. Fernandez asked if these are all compatible with uses in the B 1 District? He gave examples, and feels his examples are. What is the viability is a question to raise. Permitted uses was further mentioned. Paint store was mentioned, and non - f lamab le goods. The meeting adjourned at 10:.35 P.M.. 40feedc