Loading...
04-11-1991 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING April 11, 1991 A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Village Planning & Zoning Board was held on April 11, 1991. 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. Les Forney Thomas Laubenthal Larry T. McClure Also present: Frank LuBien, Director of Building & Zoning 1. MINUTES - MARCH 28, 1991 There was an amendment to the minutes of March 28, 1991, Pg. 3, 5. Request for Approval for Variance for Sale of Beer. The Chairman wished the minutes to reflect: In response to query, Mr. Orlandi stated that, the decision not to sell beer on his premises, does not present an economic hardship to him. Members recalled, at the time of Chevron request to remodel, it was again made clear that Members will hold true and fast to the decision that beer or wine not be sold, and this was agreed upon. The minutes of the meeting of March 28, 1991.were then approved by a motion made by Mr. Forney, seconded by Mr. McClure, the motion passed unanimously. 2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR WOOD FENCE NANCY STEVENS 1100 N. E. 91st TERR Mr. LuBien introduced the request stating that, Members had received in their packet a diagram copy of the situation, and photographs of how the fence will look. His problem is the 84' the house sets back on the property line. The houses on each side sit back 25', (normally 25' is the front set- back). Nr. LuBien did not think there would be a problem with a 5' wood fence going up to the front property line. When Nancy Stevens indicated she wanted a wood fence across the front, Mr. LuBien was not sure of the harmony and decided to bring it to the Planning & Zoning Board for approval. It is a unique situation (in that the property goes from street to street), an old building, which is non conforming. Nancy Stevens indicated the issue was well addressed by Mr. LuBien. Her reasons for wanting the wood fence is to secure and enjoy her property in privacy, to keep her 2 dogs in, and concern about the eastern neighbor, who walks around outside with gun in hand. The wood fence in the rear of her property was just installed in place of the wire mesh fence which was there. There was discussion regarding the existing, west side, chain link fence which will remain, the house faces on 91st Terr, the 4' wood fence across the front of the property, which Ms. Stevens prefers. Ms Stevens further, indicated there is no privacy from the 2 houses which appear to be in her front yard. Mr. Forney raised the question of a masonry fence which Ms Stevens noted is an economic objection. In reply to query from Nr McClure, Ns. Stevens indicated the board on board format faces the outside, which is the way the fence will be built and look. Mr. LuBien replied to query that the fence is positioned where the front and side yard normally would be. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -2- 4/11/91 The question of the division of lot -restriction of deed was raised. Mr. Forney read from the code book, Sec 518, dealing with fence in the front yard, which indicates a variance is required in this case, also Sec 242 was mentioned. Ms Stevens noted, her objection to the delay to secure a variance is the fear of potential bodily harm by her neighbor. Mr. Laubenthal made a motion to deny the request as submitted, the motion was seconded by Mr. Forney and carried unanimously, following further discussion. Mr. Fernandez briefly explained the manner in applying for a variance. 3. DISCUSSION - RE: VILLAGE MANAGER'S MEMO - DOWNTOWN MIAMI SHORES Mr. Fernandez noted each Member received a copy of the Memo from Gail Macdonald, Village Manager, the Phase 1 of Downtown Plan Report from Mr. Pitkin, and a copy of the Business Development Committee report. Mr. Fernandez now wants input from the Members so as to proceed however Members wish, in a timely manner. Mr. LuBien noted that Mr. Pitkin does want to explain his report to Board Members. Mr. Fernandez noted he wants Members to digest this report, and be prepared to ask questions at a time when Mr. Pitkin can be present. The question is, what organizational framework does Planning & Zoning wish to proceed? Mr. Laubenthal indicated he wants to digest and hear Mr. Pitkin's presenta- tion before setting direction. Mr. Chambers agreed with this statement. gr -eat -de e ard from downtown property owners, sewers and problem? • con- -Blvd, ail i em were gammen-ted--en, is it an insoluable SEE'ATTACHED SUBSTITUTE PARAGRAPH. In summary, Mr. Fernandez noted, Mr. Forney sees that structurally not much can be done fundamentally. The three choices are - hi rise/hi density, stay the same or switch to residential. Perhaps stringent restrictions may be the best way to maintain the integrity in the downtown area, and the weighing of cost vs benefit.: Mr. McClure complimented Gail Macdonald on her interesting and enlightening report and noted her memo is proably more informational than the report from Mr. Pitkin. He observed in her report the small income from the downtown area and the fact that the Village has not net its' first challenge as set forth in 1984. Mr. McClure did not wish to comment on proper direction until Mr. Pitkin and other groups have been heard from. Mr. Laubenthal commented, in light of the tax base and solutions, he wants to keep a broad overview. Biscayne Blvd and B-2 (not just B-1) area might have significant potential. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES, Pg 2, 3., paragraph 4, Substitute this paragraph. Correction to Minutes - April 11, 1991 Mr. Forney commented that he wants to hear Mr. Pitkin. He said he gleaned a great deal of information from Ms. Macdonald's memo, particularly concerning the small amount of revenue derived from 2nd Avenue. He feels that we are no further ahead than we were in 1982. He recognized the concerns of downtown property owners, the concerns of nearby residents, the problems raised by sewers and the lack of sewers, and the parking constraints in the area. These are all tied to the hirise/high density option area. He feels that the idea of major restaurants clamoring to move into Miami Shores is a little far fetched. He asked "what changes are possible on NE 2nd Avenue"? Would it be possible to go back to residential in that area? That would probably mean low income housing which would be unacceptable to the residents. Perhaps we should not consider expanding the uses in the B1 Zone but instead concentrate our efforts in the B2 Zone. NE 2nd Avenue maybe an insoluble problem that can best be dealt with by "holding the line". PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -3- 4/11/91 In reply to query from Mr. Chambers, it was noted that all businesses on N. E. 2nd Ave are taxed, they all pay an occupational license, this is a very common thing. Mr. Fernandez commented on the public sector vs the private sector approach. Who should undertake the responsibility? It has not been a two way street. The Marketing approach, also which he commented on, is not new and may be necessary. He further agreed with Mr. Laubenthal that as wide a view as possible must be taken, with many options and discussions. The time frame idea should not be to rush into solutions, but to move for- ward in haste. Muchdiscussion continued on hearings to be scheduled with Mr. Pitkin, Gail Macdonald, Downtown Revitalization Board, the Downtown Property Owners, Chamber of Commerce, and residents surrounding the areas. A recommendation was made by Mr. McClure, seconded by Mr. Laubenthal that the regular meetings be as follows, beginning with the first meeting in May: 1. Mr. S. Pitkin, Downtown Revitalization Board, Gov't/Village Manager. 2. Downtown Property Owners, Residents adjoining the downtown businesses, (1 block east and 1 block west). 3. Property Owners Association, Downtown Business Owners, and Chamber of Commerce. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Fernandez offered an ammendment to the motion, which was accepted by Mr. McClure and Mr. Laubenthal, and passed unanimously, that a specific mailing go out to the Downtown Property Owners from N. E. 94th Street to N. E. 103rd Street, and the residents one block east and one block west of N. E. 2nd Avenue. Mr. Fernandez will formulate the letter to be sent out for the 2nd meeting in May. Further it was suggested that these meetings be structured so that discussion is limited to 11/2 hours. There were further statements by Mr. Fernandez that the buildable footprint, as presented, is incomplete, based upon what was requested, in that no easements or right-of-ways are shown. This information should be relayed by Mr. LuBien to the Village Manager, as complete surveys are key and vital to expansion. This issue was discussed at length. A ten minute recess was taken. The meeting reconvened at 8:45 P.M. 4. LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE Mr. Laubenthal gave an overview of his document, stating that, in formulat- ing,the Ordinance from other cities were reviewed, goals and objectives of the Planning & Zoning Board were considered, and the Ordinance could be placed in the Miami Shores code book under the Schedule of Regulations. There was discussion regarding Mr. Fann*s opinion and concerns. Mr. Laubenthal agreed h. Landscape Ordinance can work. Mr. Laubenthal will respond to comments by Mr. Fann. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -4- 4/11/91 Mr. Fernandez asked that this item be placed on the next meeting agenda. Members should be prepared to discuss, 1. parking constraints, 2. triggering mechanism for upgrade, and 3. maintenance standards as they relate to land- scaping.. 5. DISCUSSION -- ROOFING MATERIAL Mr. Fernandez summarized reasoning for this being on the agenda. He thanked Scott Davis for the tape of the last meeting, for each Member. Mr. Forney commented he is convinced, following the last meeting presentation, that alternatives do exist for flat roof material and that we should stay with tile roofs. Mr. McClure noted information he gleaned isIthere is no substitute for the tile roof, single ply is not yet ready for the market, and that we should consider amending the flat roof section to newer materials. Mr. Chambers agrees that tile roofs stay, and that where we require gravel on flat roof, a change which is less expensive and more durable be considered. Mr. Laubenthal agrees tile roof is ok, but that discussion and consideration should be given the non-visible flat roof to a less expensive, more durable material. It was agreed that no one had seen the full scale, finished product and this should be done for consideration. Example should be given. Mr. Laubenthal commented on metal roofs. Much discussion continued on roofing materials and the presentation of the last meeting. Glazed tile was discussed at length, the different types of tile (cracking of tiles), South Florida Building code, and materials, methods of application and inspection process was also mentioned. It was noted that on Pg 34-10 & 11 of the South Florida Building Code there are notations on flashing. Mr. Fernandez requested this Discussion - Roofing Material. be placed on the next agenda, and Members be prepared to discuss same. He requested the next agenda show: Discussion - Roofing Material, Landscape Ordinance, and Discussion with Downtown Revitalization Board. Mr. Fernandez further request- ed that Mr. LuBien call him before the agenda is finalized. Mr. LuBien suggested Members save the Roofing tape because of budget restrictions. Also, Mr. LuBien stated, for anyone attending the Florida Planning & Zoning Assoc. workshop, pay the required $50.00 fee and he will see that they are reimbursed by 4111 the Village. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. chard NI: Fernandez, Chairman