Loading...
04-11-1996 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING APRIL 11, 1996 The regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on Thursday, April 11, 1996 in the Chamber of the Village Hall commencing at 7:35 P.M. The meeting was called to order with the following members present: Present: Absent: Also Present: Robert Blum, Acting Chairman Les Forney Frank Hegedus Thomas J. Caldwell Cliff Walters Mark Ulmer, Village Attorney Frank LuBien Michael Sprovero Lisa Kroboth ITEM #1 MINUTES - MARCH 28, 1996 Mr. Caldwell moved that the minutes of the March 28, 1996 meeting be approved as submitted. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. ITEM #2 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO APPEAL BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION ON HOUSE COLOR Ivor Hegedus 55 N.E. 94 Street To avoid possible confusion, Mr. Frank Hegedus stated for the record that there is no relation between himself and the applicant, Ivor Hegedus, although they share the same last name. Mr. Caldwell stated that due to defective color vision, he may have to abstain from voting on the item. Mr. Ulmer stated that Mr. Caldwell could determine if he should abstain once the evidence is presented. Mr. LuBien explained that the homeowner originally submitted a beige color when he applied for a paint permit. The homeowner decided to change the color. Mr. LuBien deemed that the new color was inappropriate. The homeowner was informed that this decision could be appealed to the Planning & Zoning Board. Mr. Ivor Hegedus, the homeowner was present on his own behalf. He stated that, as there is no official color palette for Miami Shores Village, the opinion of the building official is purely subjective. Planning & Zoning April 11, 1996 Page 2 Ms. Inez Hegedus, an architect, was also present on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Hegedus performed an aesthetic study of the property to determine which color would enhance the architecture of the home. After questioning several neighbors, it was concluded that the previously approved color was too light, and the newly selected color should be used. Mr. Caldwell asked what standard should be applied to this situation. Mr. Ulmer referred to the Code, Section 523 regarding harmony and Section 701 regarding appeals. Mr. Frank Hegedus stated that the issue is not the color. Rather, it is whether the color is harmonious with the surrounding properties. Mr. Blum stated that his interpretation as it pertains to the color of houses is less reliant on the color relation to surrounding houses. The color, to be harmonious, must be consistent with the type of architecture. Mr. Ulmer stated that the Board must make its decision based on the evidence which consists of the testimony and the color swatch. The testimony includes the five neighbors approval of the color. Mr. Hegedus asked if a visit to the street by a Board member could also be a consideration. Mr. Ulmer stated that due to the Jennings Rule, Board members should not visit the site; however, Section 523 of the Code almost requires a site inspection. Therefore, in this type of case, site inspection is appropriate. Mr. Uliner stated that any Board member who has inspected the property must disclose such inspection for the record. The following members did a site inspection: Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Hegedus and Mr. Forney. Mr. Blum stated he did not inspect the property. Mr. Forney stated that he brought a long time resident by the property for her opinion of the color. Mr. Ulmer stated that Board members cannot talk to another party. Mr. Ulmer stated that Mr. Forney must disclose whether the resident's opinion has affected his ability to be impartial. Mr. Forney stated that it has not. Mr. Caldwell asked the Building Official if there had been any complaints regarding the color of the home. Mr. LuBien stated there had been a complaint from a resident in that neighborhood. This resident advised Mr. LuBien that there were three other complaints. Mr. Frank Hegedus moved to uphold the decision of the Building Official by denying the request for appeal as the color is not harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. At this time, Mr. Caldwell asked that he refrain from voting, unless his vote was a deciding factor. The vote was called and was as follows: Mr. Forney - Yes, Mr. Hegedus - Yes, Mr. Blum - No. Mr. Caldwell then voted in favor of the motion. The motion carried. ITEM #3 REQUEST FOR GRANTING OF HARDSHIP VARIANCE Regional Properties, Inc. 10635 N.E. 11 Avenue Mr. LuBien explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to permit paving for four vehicles in the rear yard. For the record, Mr. LuBien read a memorandum from Mr.MVlichael Couzzo, Village Manager to the Planning & Zoning Board Members. Planning & Zoning April 11, 1996 Page 3 Mr. Keith Munez was present on behalf of Regional Properties, Inc. Mr. Forney stated that he was concerned that this is only a partial solution. Discussion regarding off-street parking and residential parking ensued. Mr. Blum asked how many cars are parked on the property at any given time. Mr. Munez replied that at the most five to six during a shift change. Mr. Caldwell • stated that if approved, the problem will move from the front of the property to the rear of the property, thus becoming a nuisance to the residents behind the property. • Mr. Blum stated that the peculiar and unusual condition affecting the property is actually the inhabitants and not the property itself. Mr. Caldwell asked for an explanation regarding Group Homes. Mr. Ulmer explained the State Statute regarding this issue. Mr. Caldwell stated that the Board must actually consider whether the parking problem will be in the front yard or the backyard. Mr. Forney stated that a change is being made for the current owner that may not be suitable for the succeeding owner. Mr. Hegedus stated that the traffic must be controlled to maintain the residential quality of the area. The Board allowed for Public Comment at this time. Cindy Ferris - Stated that the parking issue has been an ongoing problem. Approximately three days ago, there were nine cars parked in the front of the property. On occasion, the cars have parked in the front driveway. However, due to size constraints, the cars stick out into the street by one half of a car length. This does not allow vehicles, especially emergency vehicles, the right-of-way. Ms. Ferris stated that she is against the rear parking as she feels it is not a remedy. Rather it would probably create more congestion. Mr. Blum stated that he took the opportunity to drive down the alley and the street of the location in question. He said that he had two concerns: creating seven parking spaces for the property and pushing the problem from the front to the back of the house. Ms. Ferris stated that the neighborhood has a strong Crime Watch Program. The neighborhood has become accustomed to the cars that belong in the area. Creating more parking spaces will only create more traffic. Mr. Caldwell asked if the area was barricaded. Ms. Ferris stated that the only access into the area was on N.E. 10 Place and all the alleys have also been barricaded. Mr. Forney stated that the problem has been created by Regional Properties, Inc, thus it is their responsibility to correct it. Planning & Zoning Howard Albert April 11, 1996 Page 4 Confirmed that there were nine cars in front of the home. He stated that this solution will not solve the problem. He believes it will allow more space to make more noise. He confirmed that the Dorson's bedroom does face the property in question. He stated that the workers do not have any regard for the fact that they are in a residential neighborhood. It is just a job site. For the record, Ms. Kroboth stated that the letter from Gerri and Ben Dorson would be included as part of the minutes of today's meeting. (See letter following minutes.) Mr. Munez stated that whatever the Board decides, Regional Properties, Inc. will try to alleviate the concerns of the neighbors. It was suggested that the employees car pool to the location in vehicles from an off site location both for aesthetics and for the noise. Mr. Forney moved that the request be denied as it does not meet the requirements for a hardship variance. Mr. Caldwell seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. ITEM #4 BOARD COMMENTS Mr. Caldwell requested that the Building Official obtain photographs of those properties that are on the Planning & Zoning Board agenda. Mr. LuBien stated that it has been procedure for Board members to receive the agenda prior to the meeting so that they may go and make a site inspection. Mr. Ulmer stated that in 1992 the Jennings Rule does not allow ex parte contact including site inspections. Mr. Caldwell asked if contact could be made with Village Staff. Mr. Ulmer stated under the Jennings Rule, the Board is not allowed to talk to anyone who is a representative for either party. As the Village is a party in each proceeding, the Board should not talk to Village Stasi Mr. Ulmer commented on the question raised by Mr. Forney regarding the State Statute for notice of hearings. He stated that the Village notice reads differently than the State Statute. The reason that it differs is that our procedures are different than what the Statute is intended to deal with. The Statute only refers to the State and agencies of the State. Mr. Ulmer stated that should anyone appeal the decision of the Planning & Zoning Board, the record would consist of the minutes of that meeting unless an applicant wants the record to be a verbatim transcript. Mr. Forney stated that his concern was for the applicant. If the application is denied, Mr. Forney is concerned that the applicant cannot appeal to the Council since there is no verbatim record. Mr. Ulmer stated that the minutes will then be the written record to be used by the Council for their review during the appeal. Mr. Ulmer stated he would write a Village Attorney opinion letter on this issue so that it may become a procedure. Planning & Zoning ITEM #5 ADJOURNMENT April 11, 1996 Page 5 The April 11, 1996 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was adjourned at 8:53 P.M. • Eliza . eth A. Kroboth, Recording Secretary • Robert Blum, Acting Chairman - 1 1-36 THU 16 : 29 LFISEP. I MAGE STUDIOS April 11, 1996 Attention: Mr. Frank Lubien, Director of Building and Zoning , Miami Shores Village Dear Mr. Lubien, P.1 Please accept this letter as our intention to speak before you and/or the oard in absentia on the issue of the request for a variance to park in the back of the property at 10635 N.E. 11th Av nue, Miami Shores. We were notified by Mr. Cuozzo's assistant, Barbara, that there would be a meeting held tonight but we were unable to alter our prior commitment which precludes our being here tonight to speak in person. We wished very much to be here. We did however deliver letters to the neighbors on N.E. llth Avenue Informing them of this meeting tonight. We wish to strongly urge that the Village Planning and Zoning Board accept the request the variance for additional parking allowances at the back of the property of 10635 N.E.11th Avenue, because the parking situation at the front of this home has created an enormous flow of traffic and noise, not only during daylight hours but in the early a.m. hours and very late evening hours. The H.R.S. sanctioned home has totally disrupted our pattern of sleep and comfort and we are awakened at all hours, have not been able to go back to sleep after beln9 awakened, and have been unable to maintain a full or good night sleep since the arrival of the occupants at this horse. We are not objecting to the occu- pants in the home as much as the quality of life that has been altered due to changes outside this home. Apparently the home requires workers to look after the occupants and these workers come in lifts 3 times a day - between 6:00 a.m., 3-3:30 p.m., and 10:30 p.m. at night which often stretches up to 1:00 in the mo�ning. We would also like the Board to be aware of the fact that sometimes there up upwards of nine cars/trucks/vans'parked on the front of the 10635 N.E. 11th Avenue property, sometimes parking on the front lawn to accomodate ail tl'ie parked vehicles. The parking situa- tion in the front is still such that 3 point turns are required each time to move the vehicles out of the front of the yard, creating noise and is enhanced by vehicles that are not in proper working cohdltion. For example there was a car operated by one of the shift workers which would not start immediately but woyld stall each time. One night, at 11:45 R,m,. my husband and I counted 22 times that ft started and stalled. Imagini trying to return to sleep after being. awakened by noise that lasted up to 15 minutes. We feel that if part of the traffic pattern could be eliminated by reducing the number of cars coming and going from the front of the house it would be an enormous relief for our lives at least partially getting back to some semblance of normality. We appreciate any consideration that you could give us regarding allowing the variance as we know that none of the other neighbors are as directly affected as we are. Our front bedroom faces the front of the 10635 N.E. lith Avenue property and so we bear the brunt of all the noise and traffic. We have had to call the Miami Shores Police on numerous occasions concerning this residence's violations of the noise ordinance. We know that there are other houses surrounding this property that are not so immediately affected as their bedrooms are on the sides and do not face the back or the front of the 10635 house and have not been as disturbed ab we have. It would seem only fair that if lives have been changed by the mandate of the H.R.S. that the burden of receiving alt this noise should not fall entirely on us. If this variance is allowed by the Board, we would request that it be stipulated, if possible, that the cars that are atloted spaces at the back of the house be part of the shift change employees who come and go from 6:00 a.m. up to 12:30 and sometimes even 1:30 a.m. late in the evening/morning hours. Thank you so much for allowing us to voice our views in the form of this letter. Sincerely, .0.91 5671. Gerrl and Ben Dorson (h) 893-3920 (w) 827-3500