Loading...
03-09-1995 Regular MeetingMiami Shores Village Planning & Zoning Board Regular Meeting March 9, 1995 • The regular meeting of the Miami Shores Planning & Zoning Board was held on Thursday, March 9, 1995 at the Village Hall commencing at 6:40 P.M. with the following members present: Present: Also Present: Cliff Walters Charles Smith Robert Blum Mark Ulmer Frank LuBien William Fann Barbara Fugazzi Absent: Louis Imburgia ITEM #1 MINUTES Mr. Blum asked that the February 23, 1995 Planning & Zoning Minutes be amended as follows: Page 2, Paragraph 1 ... i.e. percentage of non -conforming (rather than flat) roof Page 2, Paragraph 1 ... Mr. Blum made a motion to deny the request to enclose the structure. (striking out, based on the roof design). Page 2, Vote Tally Mr. Ulmer - Yes (rather than abstained) Page 2, Paragraph 2 Substitute the following wording: The Board suggested to Mr. Wilkin and Ms. Medina that they redesign the structure to conform with Village Codes. Page 2, Paragraph 3 ... Mr. Blum responded that he does not have a problem with a directory sign but has a problem with a sign advertising a Pawn Shop (adding, which would expand a non -permitted use). Mr. Smith expressed his concerns regarding the Board setting a precedent in allowing this type of directory sign (adding, at the end of a strip building). Mr. Ulmer moved to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Smith seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. March 9, 1995 Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Page Two ITEM #2 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE TO PERMIT APPLICATION OF CEDAR SHAKES TO MANSARD. Edith Donaldson 1569 N.E. 104th Street 1111 Mr. LuBien explained the Agenda item, indicating that the home, as originally built, was designed for cedar shakes, and the home currently is roofed with cedar shakes. Mrs. Donaldson was present as the homeowner, indicating that the material to be used was Cedar + CCA. Ms. Karen Rodman, representing Rodman Roofmg was also present. Mr. Smith stated there are different grades of cedar shakes and inquired if the intent was to use a heavy grade material shake. Ms. Rodman indicated that they were going to use the CCA shake. Mr. Smith asked if the CCA shake had received Dade County Product Approval, stating that all approvals had sunsetted in September of 1994, with recertification of approved products in October, 1994. Mr. LuBien indicated that he had the product approval list. Mr. Smith reiterated that if the product was not approved after October 1, 1994, it would not meet the Dade County Product Approval specifications. Mr. Smith moved to approve the request for variance to re -roof with a heavy grade, cedar shake in accordance with what has been approved by Dade County. Mr. Blum seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. Mr. Blum stated, for record purposes, that the engineering report supplied with the request for variance application does not meet the requirements regarding what the Board is looking for in terms of load capacity, suggested materials, etc. EM #3 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF GARAGE ENCLOSURE Edward T. Lee, Jr. 78 N.W. 99th Street Mr. LuBien explained the item on the Agenda, indicating that the enclosure has been completed for some time, except for the garage door. At this point in time, the garage door is deteriorating and the homeowner would like to replace the door with a window and a concrete, stucco section. Mr. Lee was present at the meeting. Mr. Blum asked Mr. LuBien if the enclosure had originally been permitted at the time it was built. Mr. LuBien stated he had not checked the file. Mr. Lee stated that when he purchased the home, the garage had already been fmished. Mr. Walters asked when Mr. Lee had purchased the home. Mr. Lee stated approximately two years ago and reiterated that the garage door is now deteriorating. Mr. Smith inquired if there was any electrical or plumbing in the room. Mr. Lee responded there was no plumbing and no electrical work involved in replacing the garage door with a wall. Mr. Smith expressed his concern regarding the future possibility of this enclosure becoming "rental space" and asked the status of the covenant discussed at previous meetings. Mr. LuBien and Mr. Fann stated that there had been no further discussion of the covenant. Mr. Walters stated his concern regarding the number of garage enclosures taking place in the Shores. Mr. Blum agreed with Mr. Walters and stated there is no recourse in the Code which would address this problem. Mr. Smith asked for a timetable for drafting the covenant. Mr. Smith moved approval of the enclosure with the March 9, 1995 Planning & Zoning Board Page Three condition that a covenant regarding single family use be included in the official records. Mr. Blum seconded the motion. Mr. Ulmer stated his concerns regarding a covenant being imposed. Mr. Fann stated that a covenant would be redundant, in that the property is zoned for single family use and is currently being used as a single family home. Mr. Smith stated that the purpose of the covenant would be to establish a date when the home was single family. The covenant would help with a paper trail. Further discussion regarding the covenant, it's purpose, filing, etc. ensued. Mr. Walters asked for a vote on the motion before the Board. The vote was as follows: Cliff Walters No Charles Smith - Yes Robert Blum Yes Mark Ulmer No Louis Imburgia Absent Mr. Ulmer moved approval of the enclosure as requested. Mr. Blum seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Cliff Walters No Charles Smith Yes Robert Blum Yes Mark Ulmer Yes Louis Imburgia Absent Mr. Walters explained the reason for his voting no on this item. He indicated that he would like the Village Council to address the garage/carport enclosures, possibly enacting legislature which would address the issue. ITEM #4 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FENCES AND GATES AT THREE ENTRANCES. Barry University 11300 N.E. 2nd Avenue Mr. LuBien explained the Agenda item indicating that Barry University, for safety purposes, would like to erect fences to control traffic in and out of the complex. Mr. Smith questioned the word easement on the plans, and asked who owned the applicable property. Mr. George Webb, Director of Facilities, representing Barry University, and Mr. David Gray, representing the fencing company were present. Mr. Webb stated that he was unaware that the issue of ownership would pose a problem and therefore had not researched the specific issue. Mr. LuBien stated that it might just be misuse of the word "easement". Mr. Gray attempted to clarify, stating that the word easement refers to Barry University property. Mr. Ulmer stated that Barry cannot grant themselves an easement. A full-size survey was reviewed, however, determination as to whether the right of way was public or private could not be determined. Mr Ulmer expressed his concerns regarding both March 7, 1995 Planning & Zoning Board Page Four ownership and access for emergency vehicles. The Board questioned why this item was before them, with Mr. Blum stating he was unsure if they were being asked to approve the location of the fences, the type of fencing material, the motorized portion of the fence, or the height of the fence, etc. Mr. LuBien indicated that as a policy, he brings any items from Barry University before the Board. After lengthy discussion regarding the above issues, Mr. Smith moved to table the Agenda item until property ownership is clarified. Mr. Blum seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. ITEM #5 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF UTILITY ROOM ADDITION. Barry University 11300 N.E. 2nd Avenue Mr. LuBien explained the Agenda item and indicated that his concern was with the section of the Code regarding the harmony of the addition with the existing building. Mr. Walters asked if the proposed structure would be obscured from the road. Mr. Webb stated that the building would be obscured from N.E. 2nd Avenue from one direction but not the other. Mr. Walters asked for clarification regarding the proposed construction, drawing indicates a flat roof. Mr. Webb stated that the building would be CBS construction and a built-up, flat roof. Mr. Smith queried the decision regarding a flat roof. Mr. Webb indicated that height constraint is an issue regarding equipment to be stored. Mr. Smith asked Mr. LuBien why a variance is not requested in this instance. Mr. LuBien stated that due to the zoning, a variance is not necessary. Mr. Walters asked regarding the tile roof section of the Code and if that is applicable. Mr. Smith raised the issue of the placement of the building in the front yard of the the property which does not adhere to the Code, section 225-E3. Mr. LuBien stated that one of the reasons the item is before the Board is because of the appropriateness of the building. Discussion regarding Section 225 of the Code of Ordinances and whether it applies to all structures in the Village or just residential structures ensued. It was the consensus of the Board that if the structure were not built to Code (with a pitched, tile roof), the hardship criteria would apply for the issuance of a variance. Mr. Webb stated that they would re- design the addition within the Village Codes. The consensus of the Board was that the newly designed addition come before the Board prior to construction to address the appropriateness of the addition. Mr. Smith moved to table this Agenda item to a future meeting. Mr. Blum seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. ITEM #6 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF DOCK. Mark M. Krajnik 10600 N.E. 10th Court Mr. LuBien explained the Agenda item. Attorney Louis Supraski was present representing the homeowner. Mr. Fann stated that the Board has no jurisdiction in this case, as the property is platted as golf course land. As such, the property is leased to Professional Course Management from the Village. Mr. Smith asked about repair rights. Mr. Fann reiterated the property is not Mr. Krajnik's. Mr. Walters clarified that an individual can own the bottom of a body of water, March 9, 1995 Planning & Zoning Board Page Five but not the water column. Mr. Walters asked for the DERM opinion. Mr. LuBien gave details of the dock's construction. Mr. LuBien further stated that he was unaware of DERM being involved in this issue. Mr. Walters stated that DERM does need to be involved. Mr. Walters and Mr. Smith stated they agreed with Mr. Fann regarding not being able to act on this application due to the ownership issue. Mr. Supraski questioned the Code Enforcement violation and his interpretation that the violation would be nullified because the Planning & Zoning Board stated there is no jurisdiction. Mr. Fann stated the Planning & Zoning Board does not have the right to grant a variance, and has no jurisdiction over Code Enforcement. Mr. Supraski asked for clarification. Mr. Walters stated the issues as he sees them: One issue with Miami Shores Village regarding a building permit and a variance and another issue regarding the environment and DERM. Mr. Supraski asked Mr. Fann if he thought the Notice of Violation was properly issued. Mr. Fann stated that he could not answer that question but suggested that Mr. Nelson be contacted. Mr. Smith moved to deny the request. Mr. Blum seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. ITEM #6A REQUEST APPROVAL OF POLE LIGHTS FOR PARKING LOT EAST OF DOG TRACK. Biscayne Kennel Club 320 N.W. 115th Street Mr. LuBien gave details of the Agenda item. Mr. Smith asked if there had been any notification to the adjacent property owners. Mr. Karl Spitzer and Mr. Norman Campbell were present representing the Kennel Club. Mr. Walters asked if there were any Code requirements regarding light spill-over, and stated that the County has a measurement system, setting standards. Mr. Blum stated that the Board has set precedent, citing the driving range, St. Rose, and the Village's Community Center, where extensive lighting studies were conducted and presented to the Board and then the Council. These studies included illumination studies, line of sight studies, landscaping studies, etc. Mr. Blum believes that this would be appropriate in this instance, in that precedent has been set. Mr. Spitzer gave details as to the proposed locations and orientation of the lights and the proximity (375') to the nearest home. Mr. Walters asked for clarification as to when the lights would be illuminated. Mr. Spitzer indicated that the lights would only be used when the Kennel Club was in session. Mr. Walters stated that he would be concerned about the light spill- over and additional events. Mr. Spitzer indicated that no additional events are allowed by the Village. Mr. Smith asked if similar lights were being erected and effecting the County property. . Mr. Spitzer stated the lights were already erected in other areas of the parking lot. Mr. Smith expressed his concern regarding lack of input from the neighbors and the recent developments of lighting issues elsewhere in the Village. He further stated he was not prepared to act on this item without input from the neighbors. Mr. Blum reiterated the precedent which has been set. Mr. Campbell stated that the Kennel Club has been open and lit since 1926, before the homes were built. Mr. Ulmer stated his view that the Kennel Club should be able to do what is required to ensure safety to the clientele. Mr. Ulmer made a motion to approve lights as requested. This motion died for lack of a second. A discussion regarding the types of lights, candle power, wattage, etc. ensued. Mr. Walters again stated the need for an illumination study and • • March 9, 1995 Planning & Zoning Board Page Six other pertinent studies to be supplied to the Board. Mr. Smith made a motion to request an illumination study be presented to the Board for their approval, and the illumination study be a condition of the issuance of a building permit for the erection of the light structures. Mr. Blum seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Cliff Walters Yes Charles Smith Yes Robert Blum Yes Mark Ulmer - No Mr. Walters indicated that he has invited a member of the Florida Department of Transportation to attend the April 13,1995 meeting to discuss future plans for the roads of Miami Shores Village. Mr. Smith and Mr. Blum expressed their frustrations regarding the authority of the Board. They related a number of instances where the Board's decisions have been ignored by the applicants. A discussion regarding the use of an affidavit versus a covenant followed. Mr. Ulmer stated that he did not agree with a covenant being filed with the County. He indicated that a covenant would inhibit the homeowner, placing unrealistic restrictions upon the property. Mr. Smith reiterated the need for a paper trail and a means to hold a resident accountable regarding maintaining the home as a single family dwelling. In an attempt to begin a paper trail, the Village Clerk will provide a copy of applicable Planning & Zoning Board Meeting minutes to the property files. Due to the discussion regarding the proposed Kennel Club lights, the St. Rose of Lima lights and the sequence of the erection of the lights followed. Mr. Walters discussed the letter from Mr. Michael Dorn to Mr. Couzzo, a copy of which was provided to each Board member. The Board was advised that Mr. Couzzo was attempting to resolve the issue administratively. However, members of the Board stated that Mr. Dom's letter indicates his desire to be heard before the Board. Mr. Smith made a motion for Mr. Dom be placed on the next Planning & Zoning Board Agenda as per his letter. Mr. Ulmer seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. II EM #7 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 P.M. Adran Barbara Fu azzi� Village Clerk g