Loading...
06-08-1995 Regular MeetingMiami Shores Village Planning & Zoning Board Regular Meeting June 8, 1995 The regular meeting of the Miami Shores Planning & Zoning Board was held on Thursday, June • 8, 1995 at the Village Hall, commencing at 6:36 P.M. with the following members present: • Present: Also Present: Absent: Cliff Walters Frank Hegedus Robert Blum Mark Ulmer Frank LuBien Lisa Kroboth Charles Smith William Fann ITEM #1 MINUTES - MAY 25, 1995 Mr. LuBien indicated that his statement on Item #3 was incorrect. He indicated that it should have read "Mr. LuBien explained Historic Preservation Board approval would be required but that the structural integrity must also be obtained. Mr. Walters indicated that he would like to further discuss the issue of precedence. The item was tabled until the end of the meeting. ITEM #2 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS, GARAGE ENCLOSURE, AND FLAT ROOF ADDITION. Omar and Marianella Solis 9322 NE 6 Avenue Mr. LuBien explained the item. Plans for the project were presented to the Board. Mr. Franklin Grau was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Walters inquired if there would be any constraints (today or in the future) by granting a change of address. Mr. LuBien stated that the plans for the project are in compliance with current building codes. Mr. Ulmer asked if there was a code provision to be considered. Mr. LuBien said that the front of the building is usually toward the short side of the lot. Originally the building should have faced 94 street. Mr. Grau noted that when homes were built in Miami Shores, the owners were given a choice as to which side of the street the house would face. He stated that at that time, it was more desirable to face the avenue. However, the homeowners, Mr. & Mrs. Solis would like to add a more residential atmosphere to the property. Mr. Grau indicated that this is not a request for a variance or zoning change. The applicant would like to correct a decision that was made many years ago. Mr. Walters stated that the item was brought to the Board, so that the applicant would aware of any constraints on the property. Mr. Blum moved to approve the item as presented with the stipulation that the garage enclosure be stuccoed from corner to corner so there is no apparent patch job. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. ITEM #3 PRESENTATION OF FUTURE TRANSPORTATION PLANS FOR MIAMI SHORES - Mike Moore Metropolitan Planning Organization Mr. Walters introduced Mr. Moore and stated that the presentation was to enable the Board to revisit the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan and various zoning decisions and the impact of future plans on Miami Shores Village. Mr. Moore explained that the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is formed in an urbanized area whose population is greater than 50,000. This allows the area to receive Federal Transportation funds to build roads, etc.... The MPO's responsibility is to coordinate all the transportation agencies. There are two major products that are produced by the MPO: the five year plan and the twenty year plan. The MPO Board just adopted the five year plan (TIP). Mr. Moore reviewed the twenty year plan : 2015 Transportation Plan. Various demographic information is provided. The conceptual working plan is the major indicator for what is to come. This plan can, however, be amended. Mr. Hegedus noted that Miami Shores Village did not appear to be affected by this plan. Mr. Moore stated that an intelligent vehicle highway system (IVHS) will be installed on I-95 from its starting point in Dade County to West Palm Beach. Mr. Moore indicated that the Northeast corridor was evaluated for mass transit issues. However, the mass transit agency rejected the initial report that was presented, due to concern for short term transit improvement options. Mr. Moore stated that, at the MPO Board meeting of May 4, there was opposition to the North Miami Avenue resurfacing project. "The resolution states the $200,000 for preliminary engineering is hereby advanced from FY 95 to FY 96 to study the transportation improvements in the north Dade area, specifically to North Miami Avenue and to seek alternatives to improve traffic flow in the general area. The project will then return to the Board for a public hearing on the proposed recommendations." Mr. Moore indicated that the North Miami Avenue project is a widening from two lanes to five lanes from 103 Street to 167 Street. Mr. Ulmer inquired if additional improvements were planned for Biscayne Boulevard from 105 Street south. Mr. Moore responded that there are no true capacity improvements planned at this time. Mr. Hegedus questioned an improvement that ran from Biscayne Blvd. to 6 Avenue. Mr. Moore stated he would have to look up that particular item. Concern arose since it appeared that the road ran through the golf course. Mr. Moore indicated another project in Miami Shores running 0.4 miles on 10 Avenue would increase from two lanes to three. The third lane being a turning lane. Mr. Walters asked why a turning lane would be added, since most of the streets in that area are barricaded. Mr. Moore indicated he would contact the Public Works department and investigate. Mr. Moore referred to the TIP, page 130 for more information on the 10th Avenue project. • Mr. Ulmer inquired about the 103 Street project. Mr. Moore indicated that this was just a resurfacing project. Mr. Nelson then noted the swale areas from I-95 east to the Miami Shores Village limits on 103 Street and 95 Street were not landscaped. Since these areas are in unincorporated portions, curbing and resurfacing would improve the appearance. Mr. Moore will research these streets with Public Works and/or D.O.T. by consulting the pavement condition survey and the ranking of the project. Mr. Moore then moved to Biscayne Boulevard projects. He indicated that there are no major capacity improvements for Biscayne Blvd. planned in the Miami Shores area. The Dade County Public Works department compiled an aesthetics report for Biscayne Blvd. from 20 Street to 125 Street which would affect Miami Shores. Mr. Moore referred to the Biscayne Boulevard Transportation Enhancement Study. Mr. Moore stated that this study should be reviewed by Miami Shores Village. Any additions or improvements that Miami Shores feels are needed should be forwarded to Mr. Moore or the D.O.T. Mr. Walters indicated that there is concern as to increased traffic flow due to the widening of Biscayne Blvd. to the north. This may create a funneling effect in Miami Shores. Concern was also expressed as to the perceived need to widen Biscayne Blvd. in Miami Shores Village so traffic flows more consistently. Mr. Moore indicated that Miami Shores would be notified of any changes. In order for such a project to be considered, it must first be placed in the twenty year plan and then in the five year plan. Mr. Moore concluded his presentation. He stated he would direct a response to Mr. Walters concerning the questions raised by the Board. ITEM #4 DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING SIGNS. Mr. Walters expressed that due to the problems with the sign issue at the last Board meeting, there was a need to review and update the entire zoning code. After discussion with the Village Manager, Mr. Couzzo, it has been requested that a committee be formed to review the codes. Mr. Walters asked that the Board members forward prospective individuals names to Mr. Couzzo, so that an adhock committee may be formed. Mr. Walters indicated that this should not be a Planning & Zoning Board committee. Defining a single family home is a priority. ITEM #1 MINUTES - MAY 25, 1995 1111 Mr. Smith submitted, in writing, proposed changes to the minutes. Mr. Walters asked if these proposed changes were acceptable to the Board as submitted. At that time, Mr. Blum moved that there be discussion and possible action regarding Mr. Smith's application for a variance that had been presented last meeting. Mr. Blum would like to expedite the item since it had been brought before the Board earlier and had been denied by Council. Mr. Walters indicated that the Council requested that Mr. Smith submit an engineer's certificate. Mr. Blum indicated that he did not feel the engineer's report was necessary. Mr. Hegedus seconded Mr. Blum's motion. Mr. Ulmer • • stated that the Village Council denied the variance, so a motion for discussion should not be made. Mr. Blum stated his understanding was that the Council sent the item back to Planning & Zoning to reconsider the item with an engineer's report. Subsequently, the second was withdrawn by Mr. Hegedus. Mr. Hegedus moved for discussion as to the relationship between the Historic Preservation Board and the Planning & Zoning Board. The motion died due to lack of a second. Mr. Walters stated that the issue of precedence was a concern. Mr. Blum stated that in looking at the hardship application, if the structural integrity of the property was in question, then expert opinion in that area should be considered. Since the application is related to historic designation, the Board should look to the Historic Preservation Board for guidance. Since a certificate of appropriateness was issued, there is product approval and the property will remain structurally sound. Mr. Hegedus felt that the Historic Preservation Board should be concerned with the aesthetics of the property and that their opinion on aesthetics should be upheld. Mr. Ulmer read Code 702 to explain the Board's position in considering the variance for a historically designated property. Mr. Ulmer stated that the Board does consistently try to grant the applications if it meets the procedure. He stated that first the Board must determine whether there are peculiar or unusual conditions applying to the property. Second, it must determine whether or not those conditions are such that it is impossible to comply to Code. The Board must also determine whether this is a self-imposed hardship. Thirdly, it must determine the minimum variance that can be granted in order to allow the applicant to do what is necessary because of the peculiar circumstances without being detrimental to the existing use of the property and without giving special privilege. Fourth, granting the variance subject to whatever conditions are necessary to protect the Village. Consideration should be given to an engineer's report. The Village Council also added that historic landmark designation should be considered as peculiar and unusual conditions. Mr. Blum indicated that there should be an agreement in the covenant of the historic designation as to self imposed hardships. Mr. Walters questioned whether an applicant could obtain a regular permit if the variance was denied due to a self-imposed hardship. Mr. Ulmer indicated that there was a difference between a covenant and a zoning regulation. Mr. Walters asked Mr. LuBien to reword his amendment to the minutes. Mr. Blum suggested the following : "Mr. LuBien explained that the Historic Preservation Board determination would take precedence, as long as structural integrity is not compromised." Mr. Blum moved to approve the minutes as amended by both Mr. LuBien and Mr. Smith. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. ITEM #5 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 P.M.. eth A. Kroboth, Recording Secretary