Loading...
03-28-1996 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING MARCH 28, 1996 The regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on Thursday, March 28, 1996 in the Chamber of the Village Hall commencing at 7:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order with the following members present: Present: Cliff Walters, Chairman Robert Blum Thomas J. Caldwell Les Forney Frank Hegedus Also Present: Mark Ulmer, Village Attorney Frank LuBien Lisa Kroboth 1'I'EM #1 MINUTES - MARCH 14, 1996 Mr. Blum asked that the third sentence of Item #2, paragraph 2 read "The County is the governing body that grants waivers." Mr. Ulmer stated that the sentence should read "The Village Code has adopted the Dade County Code provisions on plat waivers." Mr. Forney moved that the minutes of March 14, 1996 be approved as amended. Mr. Caldwell seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. ITEM #2 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF CAMPUS MASTER PLAN PERIMETER SECURITY, LIGHTING, IMPROVEMENTS, REDISTRIBUTION OF PARKING, SIDEWALKS, AND REDESIGN OF MIAMI AVENUE CORRIDOR. Barry University 11300 N.E. 2 Avenue As Mr. Walters was not present at the last meeting, Mr. Hegedus gave a brief synopsis of the presentation made by Barry University. Mr. LuBien noted that notice of tonight's meeting was given to area residents. Mr. Walters opened the floor for public comment at this time. Miguel Sanchez Inquired whether the road would be expanded for pedestrian traffic. Asked if the stop sign on 111 Street and N.E. 2 Avenue could be changed from a stop sign to a right turn only. • Planning & Zoning March 28, 1996 Page 2 Mr. Forney asked that the University once again explain the proposed changes for the benefit of those residents present tonight. Mr. Tom Laubenthal, the landscape architect for Barry University first addressed the questions of Mr. Sanchez. He explained the improvements to be made to the perimeter of the University which includes sidewalks which will accommodate pedestrian traffic and which will hinder perimeter parking. Mr. Laubenthal noted that the Dade County Master Plan includes a widening of North Miami Avenue to a five lane road. He stated that Barry University would like to create a corridor on North Miami Avenue with a three lane road allowing for a turning lane. Mr. Laubenthal also addressed the issue of security. He explained the concept of natural surveillance. Upgrading the lighting throughout the university campus will also improve security. Lighting will be directed away from the residential areas. Mr. Walters inquired as to whether the University was seeking approval for the athletic field lighting at this time. This was confirmed by Mr. Atlas, of Atlas Safety & Security Design. As budgets become available, this lighting will be added. Mr. Hegedus reaffirmed that the lighting spillover from the athletic fields would drop to 1/2 foot candle. Mr. Atlas confirmed that this was the industry standard. The floor was again opened to public comment. Theresa Brugger Inquired if the lighting on the 111 Street perimeter would be similar to the athletic field lighting. Mr. Laubenthal responded that the lighting on the fields was specific to athletic use. The perimeter lighting would be typical for a residential scale or approximately twelve feet. Brian Smith Thanked the Board for allowing residents the opportunity for public comment on the issue. Inquired as to the possibility of decreasing the noise spillover from the athletic fields. Asked about the sidewalk design, specifically the texture and the width of the sidewalks. Made two observations: Many rollerbladers on 111 Street and many joggers. Asked of the feasibility of interior 2 ft. of sidewalk being mulched for joggers, so rollerbladers can use the sidewalks. Asked about traffic congestion and the possibility of one-way streets on 111 and 115 Street? Mr. Laubenthal responded that they would use a masonry concrete surface for the sidewalks with a 7 foot wide profile. The University will landscape and irrigate the perimeter areas with a uniform border. Mr. Laubenthal stated that there may be a traffic signal placed at 111 Street and N.E. 2 Avenue. Planning & Zoning March 28, 1996 Page 3 Mr. Blum inquired as to the time frame of the proposal. Mr. Laubenthal stated that the University would like to take a fast track approach in phases. The first project would be the construction of the interior parking and the second would be the perimeter parking. The North Miami Avenue corridor would be a latter phase project. Mr. Atlas stated that Barry would like to have the first two projects completed over the summer for the Fall 1996 term. Mr. Ulmer stated that the Board has to consider the height of the fencing and hedges as some of the areas in the University proposal exceed the limits stated in Section 518 of the Code. Referring to Section 605 of the Code for Site Plan approval, Mr. Ulmer stated that it is the Board's discretion to approve the Site Plan. The Board should considered the issues raised by the University which would require a higher height limitation. Mr. Laubenthal stated that the eight foot height of the ornamental iron fencing on the perimeter adds visibility and security. The perimeter eight foot shrubbery buffers will decrease noise for the area. Mr. Caldwell moved for approval of the Campus Master Plan. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion. Mr. Forney asked if the heights, as discussed, have been accepted or should the motion be amended. Mr. Ulmer stated that with the current motion, the Board has accepted the heights as testified to and as depicted on the plans submitted. As the plans do not have any dimensions, Mr. Ulmer stated that the motion should be more specific. Mr. Caldwell amended his motion to include that the fence height and the hedge height not exceed eight feet. Mr. Hegedus seconded the amendment to the motion. Mr. Walters expressed concern for the athletic field lighting. He noted that there is unlimited use for the lighting of the athletic fields. He asked that the issue of the athletic field lighting be brought back before the Board. Mr. Laubenthal stated that the University would like to approve lighting as a concept. At the time a permit application is submitted for the lighting installation, the plans be fully reviewed to include schedules of use. Mr. Caldwell amended his motion to include approval for only the ground location of the lighting. Mr Hegedus seconded the amendment. The vote was called and was unanimous in favor. A short recess was taken at 8:30 P.M. ITEM #3 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR GARAGE ENCLOSURE. Margarita Diaz 93 N.W. 97 Street Mr. LuBien stated that the garage faces the side street and the applicant will leave the existing garage doors in place. Mr. Franklin Grau was present on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the garage would be converted into a game room due to the expansion of the family and the need for additional space. Mr. Forney inquired as if the door exiting the game room was being added. Mr. Grau stated that it was an existing door. Mr. Blum asked if there would be any septic tank modifications. Mr. Grau stated that the bathroom is existing. Planning & Zoning March 28, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Forney moved the request for approval of plans for garage enclosure be approved provided that the exit door to the backyard is eliminated. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. ITEM #4 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR FLAT ROOF ADDITION. Robert DeYoung 78 N.E. 107 Street Mr. LuBien explained that the addition would allow for additional storage and laundry area in the back of the home. The addition is within the maximum allowed. Mr. DeYoung was present on his own behalf. He stated that the area currently exists, but is in need of fixing. Mr. Blum moved for approval of the flat roof addition. Mr. Forney seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. ITEM #5 REQUEST APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR EXTERIOR RENOVATIONS. Henry Everett 9600-9636 N.E. 2 Avenue Mr. LuBien stated that the plans were for renovation of the exterior of the building. Mr. Grau and Mr. Parry were present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Forney asked if the guidelines for downtown revitalization were considered when the plans were drawn. Mr. Grau stated that the plans are similar to the original drawings of the building. Mr. Grau stated that due to cost constraints, the current design will be updated. Mr. Caldwell asked what changes would be anticipated as the applicant is seeking approval of the plans submitted. Mr. Grau stated that it was requested the applicant update the Board as to where the project stands. They are not seeking approval of the plans submitted. They are currently developing the plans and getting cost factors. Mr. Ulmer updated the Board on the action of the Code Enforcement Board. Discussion ensued regarding the procedure to be taken to expedite the project. Mr. Forney moved that the item be tabled. The motion died due to lack of a second. Mr. Hegedus asked if a time limitation can be included in the motion. Mr. Ulmer stated that if the applicant accepts the condition, the limitation could be included. Mr. Caldwell stated he was unhappy with the present condition of the building. He asked why the applicant did not meet the first deadline. Mr. Parry stated that Mr. Everett was out of state and in the hospital for a period of time. Discussion regarding the time limitations and Code Enforcement action ensued. Mr. Hegedus moved for approval of the plan as presented giving the applicant 120 days to apply for a permit. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Planning & Zoning March 28, 1996 Page 5 Mr. Blum stated that time limitations are not motivation to the applicant. Mr. Grau stated that there was no objection to the time limitation as they would like to complete the project as quickly as possible. Discussion regarding the time expiration of a building permit ensued. By applying a time limitation, Code Enforcement action can be retroactive. Mr. Hegedus noted that the plans were dated March 11, 1996. Mr. Grau stated that the date was • changed after modifications. Mr. Hegedus asked if there were any conditions that could be applied so that the applicant can comply with the Code Enforcement Board without accruing fines, but still bring the project to its eventual completion. Mr. Ulmer stated that it was possible if they agree to the condition. Mr. Caldwell asked what would happen if the condition was not met. Mr. Ulmer stated that the Code Enforcement fine would accrue retroactively. • Mr. Caldwell withdrew his second to the motion. Mr. Hegedus withdrew his motion. Mr. Caldwell moved that the item be tabled. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Discussion regarding the application and the future Code Enforcement action ensued. The vote was as follows: Mr. Forney - Yes, Mr. Hegedus - Yes, Mr. Caldwell - Yes, Mr. Blum - No, Mr. Walters - No. ITEM #6 DISCUSSION REGARDING A REQUEST BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL TO LIST PORTIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD WOULD LIKE TO SEE REVIEWED FOR POSSIBLE AMENDMENT, AS WELL AS MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONS. See attached pages that follow. ITEM #7 BOARD COMMENTS There were no Board comments for the meeting of March 28, 1996. ITEM #8 ADJOURNMENT The March 28, 1996 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. eth A. Kroboth, Recording Secretary Planning & Zoning March 28, 1996 Page 6 ITEM #6 DISCUSSION REGARDING A REQUEST BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL TO LIST PORTIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD WOULD LIKE TO SEE REVIEWED FOR POSSIBLE AMENDMENT, AS WELL AS MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONS. As requested, each member of the Board listed items of the Code for revision or addition. Mr. Blum Mr. Walters - Garage enclosures: Outside presentation, septic tank impact, parking Fencing material Fencing heights: Specifically, in regards to schools. Landscape ordinance Site Plan criteria: "Shopping List" of what to provide in site plan. Parking requirements: Residential - tied to garage enclosures. Roofing materials: New roofing materials available. Fencing Material Roof issue Potential for annexation: Other areas do not have similar Codes. Site Plan criteria: Potential redevelopment opportunities. Variance for non -uses: For example, setbacks. Size of households: Number of people per square foot of living space. Mr. Walters stated that the potential for annexation should be considered in any review of the Code. Mr. Caldwell had no items to present. Mr. Hegedus - Mr. Forney - Clarify jurisdiction of Boards: Historic Preservation Board issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Planning & Zoning Board decisions in regards to the materials used for appropriateness New satellite dishes: The smaller dishes are not visible from the street All new utilities should be put underground: Electric lines, phone lines, etc... Criteria for home-based businesses: The amount of traffic created by certain businesses. The importance of vagueness in the issue of Code review. Sec 101- The Prime Directive of the Code is to maintain a single family community. The Village cannot economically survive on the prime directive in the future. Group homes Planning & Zoning Mr. Forney cont'd - • March 28, 1996 Page 7 Roof painting: Allow roof painting. Flat roof additions: Arbitrary 15% limit. Be more vague here. Sec 225 I Chickee huts: Allow for chickee huts. Characteristic of South Florida. Sec 228 Size of parking spaces: Compact spaces. Sec 403 Height issue : Expansion of Village in an upward direction Sewers Mini antennae: Allow for mini antennas. Variance procedures: Procedure is too rigid. Appeals Noise: Decibel level Mr. Walters stated he would like the Code to be more user-friendly. •