Loading...
11-14-1991 Regular MeetingMIAMI SUMS 'PILLAGE. PLANNING & .ZONING 8:043.D REGULAR ;MEETING November 14, 1991 A regular 'meeting of the Miami, Shores 'Village. Planning & Zoning Board was held on November 14, 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 Les Forney Thomas Laubenthal Larry T, McClure Cliff Walters Also present: Frank Lubien, Director of Building & Zoning 1. 1INUTES - OCTOBER 24, 1991 The minutes of the. October 24, 199.1. meeting were approved, by a motion made by Mr. McClure, seconded by Mt, Forney, and carried byte. 'vote of 4-1, Mr, Walters abstained, he was:not present for that meeting. 2, REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR GARAGE ENCLOSURE JAMES PITT, 138 N. E. 107th STREET Mr, LuBien presented the request_ stating, this is. are -submittal of a rejected plan from -the last meeting. There was no complete correct front elevation, window in front, nor Brick showing. All which he noted have been provided, Mr. McClure stated his question had to do with closing off the door and leaving a blank wall, The windar was.drawn into the sketch, Mr. Laubenthal raised many serious questions, The Members are still not provided with a complete drawing which correctly represents the hoose, lMr. McKnight indicated he had redrawn the elevation to include the window in the front and the brick, he was not aware of colors required for painting the wall nor landscaping at this time, Mr, Walters raised.gtiestions concerning neighbors opinion of the enclosure and septic tante load, Concerning notifyixgieighbors, he. was advised, the agenda is posted, and the septic tank load is tak n care of by Staff, Mr. Forney raised the matter of being precise of what.is expected of the Contractor,; Mr, Fernandez read from the mutes of the last meeting, Bt. Stet/ .'.scbmidt one of the home owners- made.a. brief statement regarding the window and the brick. Following further. discussion, Mr, Mcicnight was advised Members want a complete set of drawings done professionally, Mr. Laubenthal made a motion to deny the request as submitted, seconded by Forney and passed unanimously, 3, REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF 'VARIANCE TO ALLQW'DISU ANTENNA IN SIDE YARD HACIENDA 'MOTEL, 2101 BIS'CAYNE BLVD, Mr. LuBien noted this violation was.observed on routine patrol by our Code Enforcement Officer. It was in place when Mr, Lin purchased the property. The antenna was well concealed because of shx hbery, The antenna is in a side yard, He included in Members, packet a copy of Sec 5161(c00212, of the Miami Shores Village Code pertaining to dish antennas, The request is for a ground mount antenna in the side yard. A letter was not prepared by'l&r, Lin Becauseof a language barrier, PLANNING & ZONING BOARD REG MTG -2- 11/14/91 Mr. Fernandez noted this is a. unique situation and not an eyesore,. He read the four criteria for Hardship Variance which Mr, Lin meets, Mr. Lin noted the antenna had been in place many years and he assumed it was ok. It was seen only when he decided to trim trees and.cut foliage back. Mr. Walters -moved to approve the request as submitted, seconded by Mr. McClure. Mr. Laubenthal amended the 'motion to request some planting on the southeast side_.to screen the antenna from Biscayne Blvd, the amendment was accepted. by 'Mr. a1aa.lters and lft, McClure, and passed animously. It was suggested that lir, LuBien might Send a letter to Department of Professional `Regulation, concerning the contractor who did not obtain the proper permits when doing the work, Mr. LuBien advised Mr, Lin that the issue must be approved by Council, 4. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF WAIVER OF PLAT DR, JOSEPH PIERRE, 557 N. E, 92nd STREET Dr, Pierre was not present. He is in Paris, at this time, his surveyor, Omar Armenteros, P,L,S. was present to represent ha., Mr, LuBien highlighted on the sketch copy where the driveway would came, The newly created lot will be. 75 X 127k which exceeds the minim -an frontage and the minimun square footage area, It is planned that the garage on the west side of the house will be removed creating a new 10'" setback for the existing structure., Mr. Armenteros said the the plans fit the specifications of the Village so far as requirements for setbacks, The plan is to place another Douse on the newly created lot. Mr. Laubenthal very strongly objects to the Waiver of. Flat for a number of reasons, Mr. Walters raised the question of poli.cf-of notifying neighbors on the street for their opinion, Re was advised it is not required so long aa the agenda is posted. Mr. Walters feels the person seeking the waiver should he billed for notification, In looking at a location map, Mr. McClure was:advised, in response to query, that all lots in the block are. 50" lotsexcept the 2 end lots-, He has. a major problem in what is left. Is the property in harmony w±th the rest of the. community once the 75" is removed, what is left should be acceptable, Also Mr. Fernandez noted that the building architecture would be.destroyed in re- building, He was very strongly opposed to the waiver, Ms. Stephanie' Morrow stated she,has lived in her house next .door for approximately four years; She objects strongly to the waiver' of plat fora number of reasons, In attempts, she has beenunable to speaL.with the owner con- cerning his intentions. In reply- to query, Mr, LuBien suggested.a preliminary waiver prior to demol±tion of the building, Re gave an example, a lot at 94th St & 3rd Ave, Much discussion continued concerning notification of surrounding property owners and Historic designation:.questions were raised, Mr. Armenteros' asked several questions concerning the wa%er,'Ar, LuBien answered the questions, Mr, Pitkin agrees with Mr, LuBien and the surveyor.in that the interest is not the waiver of plat but the site plan left, Mr. Fernandez rebuttaled his statement, Mr. Armenteros noted, be has no personal, knowledge of the owners intent, Mr. Laubentbal moved to table the regmest to the next regular meeting of December 12, seconded by Mr, McClure and carried-unanfimously. PLANNING & ZONING BORAD REG MTG -3- 11/14/91 4A. RE IDES T FOR APPROVAL OF ROOF PA NOXILLA TIMBAL; 75V N R w', 107th' STREET Mr, Lien introduced the request, The applicant was not present, There was discussion on color inpregnated.tile, new technology, fir, Forney suggested the new -technology of painting roofs be reviewed, Mr, Laubenthal moved to. table the request until the applicant is avail- able, seconded by Mr, Welters, the motion carried -unanimously. nously. A breakwas taken at :8145 P;M, . The meeting reconvened at 8150 5. PRELTMIN; RY REVIEW POST DTS`,ASTEE. 'REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Mr, Fernandez noted prelimtnary review continues of Draft 1/1 of the Post Disaster Redevelopment Plan prepared by Steve Pitkin of S arthout, Inc, Mr, Pitkin was present. He had not received a copy of the questions asked by Members. Mr, Pitkin noted this draft is prepared to meet a 1992 State req�u.tre- meat of the Comprehensive Plan, The most Important thing in tFie maps: and text is the huiricane vulner;bili:ty zone, a 100'' strip runs along the edge of the bay impacting the homes there, This is thearea which concerns the. State and Federal Government. Miami has not had a category four storm since 1926, and we now have the benefit of destruction to Charleston by Hugo. Miami Shores Village is taking advantage of what to do after that kind of storm. On Pg 14, he mentioned the Objective 1,1, Objective 1,2 and Policy 1,2,1. On Pg 14, Policy 1.1.2, Mr. Pitkin responded to query from Mr. Fernandez, there is no problem with having an elected official on the Task Force, On Pg 15, Policy 2,1,1, this throws out for consideration that a special permit be issued to all houses to Rerebuilt if the Rouse is destroyed, The Village would then look to extending the Park strip and prohibit rebuilding of a house fronting on the. bay, Mr, Forney objected to this, stating the Village may not have the money to purchase this land, Mr, Pitkin responded, there are three Federal.Programs, 1. Payment of acquisition of lands, 2. The Village be reimbursed for relocation payments for the family, 3. Provide funds to the City for improvements to the. park, In response to comment, 'I r, 'Fernandez asked Members to bold comments until. Mr, Pitkin completes his presentation, This three part'ederal Program is predicated on what the State and Federal Government is looking for. The advantage to. the Village is that they may want this parkland, On Pg 16, Policy 2,1.3 calls for major code review, Policy 2,1,4 was clarified. Policy 2.2.1 addresses the impact fee which may be levied, Comment was then -made that Miami Shores Village tax base not be destroyed, that on Pg 15, Policy 2.1,2, it should he made clear that Federal money is to be used to purchase land and not Miami Shores Village money, It was commented that Draft #1 could have minor questions dealt with, changes or corrections are routine., Draft #2 could be reviewed with more scrutiny, Mr, McClure commented that Pg 15, Policy 2,1,2 must be carefully looked at, Pg 16, Objective 2,3, Land Use Policy and Policy 2,3.1. These statements are problems to him as Mr, McClure feels thedocument should not dictate how or if the property is. rezoned. Comment was made by Mr, Walters on the impact fees, He does not feel PLANNING & ZONING BOARD REG MTG -4- 11/14/91 it feasible. to remove property from the tax roll, and he gave. Key Biscayne as an example. Mr, Pitkin will look into this comment, Discussion ensued for the demand for waterfront property. In reply to query Concerning Pg 15, Policy 2,1.1, Mr, Pitkin advised that flood proof is obtained by placing lines underground, Mr, Fernandez suggested the concerns of.the 1%mbers be passed on to Mr. Pitkin, Mr, Pitkin advised., there is no time line, but he can have the Draft 12 ready for the next meeting on December 12th, Members may submit comments to Mr, Pitkin, A question from Mr. iJame!Condit concerning a hurricane plan for barricaded streets was answered by Mr, Fernandez, This plan is available to him for review, 6. DISCUSSION - ZONING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE & ZONING Mr, Fernandez noted, this item is in line with review of the Comprehensive Plan. He read from the minutes of the last meeting those areas identified for rezoning by Members, It was suggested to him that in order to move to Public Hearing, suggestions for change are to be brought forward, the Board needs to recommend for consideration specific change. The 5.4 acres immediately north of the Country Club buildings andsouth of 104th Street is zoned residential, This will first be discussed as the maps seem to be in Conflict, Mr.'Pitkin responded, zoning map prior to 1990 is not in compliance with the Land Use Plan in four areas. The zoning nap must conform to the Comprehensive Plan, 1, At the very end of Grand. Concourse by the R.R. is parkland, zoned residential,, should bepublic zoning, The Comprehensive Plan is accurate, the zoning map is not. 2. Parcel behind the Presbyterian Church is zoned residential, shown on the Comprehensive Plan as commercial (Dr's offices). 3. South side of 92nd Street just east of the. RR is a shopping center which is zoned residential, Mr. Pitkin noted, the zoning map should be changed to agree with the Comprehensive Plan, Mr, Pitkin will amend the map, In the 1979 Comprehensive Plan the 5,4 acres north of the Country Club was zoned parks & recreation, Mt, Forney said, "this property was zoned by -Council as. residential. Townhouses were not built and it was changed back to recreational as a result of citizen action, A change in zoning did not follow, but the Comprehensive Plan was changed to make the area recreational, Mr. Pitkin noted: residential zoning on the map is inconsistent, in that it. does not agree with the Comprehensive Plan, It was Mr, Forney°s suggestion that the zoning map be changed to conform with the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Fernandez suggested that as a means to expedite the issue, that an amended zoning map may be, recommended and sent to Council for adoption. Mr, Pitkin suggested, to _a conformance to the Compretiensiv Plan creation of a new zoning category, Community Facilities or institutions, this would include churches, Village Hall, and Library, Separate zoning would continue for College and Public Parks. Mr. Fernandez expressed a concern that the Village retain the ability to make decisions and determination on property use in the future. Mr. Fernandez asked how should zoning change take place to acheive this? He gave Barry University -and the Greyhound Track as examples,. Mr, Pitkin noted this soxunds likea policy question. He feels the Village has complete control of Barry University,, but there is the possibility at the dog track which is zoned. S20 restxieted:;commercial. It was clarified that the Land Use flap could be. revised, PLANNING & ZONING BOARD G 1 C -5- 11/14/91 Mr, Fernandez laid the ground rules fox pxib:iic discussion, .. About five people who spoke, stated the 5,4 acres north of the Country Club be zoned re.creati;on 1 and 'used as a Vtta Course, One resident noted, however zoned the 1tiliage hand not be weakened, The thought behind prior rezoning was to somehow turn the land into an asset, Mr, Pitkin reassured the property owners that a change .cannot be approwed without changing the Comprehensive Plan., .As stated by 2ft, 'Forney, stronger protection exis-ts to retaining as parkland. today, Development agreement was noted for giveand taste between Mr, Fernandez and Mr, Pitkin, Concern was raised aylit, Fernandez that Council can take a sh._ort cut approach, It was noted that the copy of the contract with. PCK is public record, and may be reviewed in 'Village Hell, Mr, Fernandez introduced 1 r, Robert Koppen, Mr, Lubten -made. copies of a letter w?ii'e . lit, Fernandez received from '2 r, Keppen., requesting change of zoning on Biscayne Blvd from 96th to 104th Street, for his client, Tonight Mr, Koppen presents the proposed ordinance as a new zoning category that he. believed appropriate at this time, There is, at this time:, no classification that :fits trite owners problem, He: proposes a stri'et RC Cressidential/eomgel) use of Biscayne Blvd, and has prepared an ordinance draft to than effect, Mr. Laubenthal having experience in this type of situation .listed some pros and cons, Spot zoning was discussed and clariffi:ed, Mr, Fernandez mentioned a Florida Supreme Court case which deals specifically with. 'Miami Shores, US1 frontage, thts being the only frontage from Key West to Mafine zoned residential and tai's --may be maintained, Further he noted that consideration of a specific item not appropriate with the PRO district, He suggestedthat Koppen take a look, at this district, The PRO, 11r, Koppen feels iso not as broad as his: RC proposal, Mr, Koppen requested 1ambers be allowed, at least consider .his proposal, ,Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan was mentioned as relating to rezoning, a very long process; 10, Forney :feels that thoughi it inay be a great idea., chances of passage s sliviLtonone, ,11r, Laubenttial commented, he wants to study a copy of the proposal,- there: are important questions to Bye considered, Mr, Koppen;:.ln. response to query noted, the client. has no business in mind, the proposal.is_..not for a particular business or ,.,.... particular property, Mr, Pitkin in clarifying the items he needs to provide -listed: Revised Future Land Use Map, Revised Zoning Nap, revised:Policy Policy and Plans, and Rough, Draft of Community Facilities , Zoning Distri::et, s -Q that these four .items are ready for the review process, It was further clarified the, community facilities will include churches, and they may be removed from residential, Mr, Fernandez expressed gret t. de to Mr, Pitkin, Mr, Fernandez suggested the agenda items Ile cut,: considering the lateness of the hour, Be further ode mention of the. handout by ''Mr. , Walters of the Titles- available under the 1990 Census, He asked Members -be pared to dis- cuss atthe next -meet ng, The meeting adjourned at 1005 Pal, Approved