Loading...
05-23-1996 Regular Meeting• • MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING MAY 23, 1996 The regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on Thursday, May 23, 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: Also Present: Cliff Walters, Chairman Robert Blum Thomas J. Caldwell Frank Hegedus Les Forney Mark Ulmer, Village Attorney Frank LuBien Michael Sprovero Lisa Kroboth ITEM #1 MINUTES - MAY 9, 1996 Mr. Forney asked the minutes be amended as follows: Page 2, Paragraph 1, Line 1 - Remove the first sentence (Mr. Forney indicated that the plans were fine as submitted.) and the first word of the second sentence (Subsequently). Page 2, Paragraph 5, Line 4 - Replace the verb "meet" with the phrase "look at the property". Page 3, Paragraph 7, Line 2 - Replace the verb "noted" with "stated" and add "that he agreed with the Village Council as they noted at our recent combined meeting that". Mr. Blum asked that the last line of Page 1 "Mr. Blum noted that the plans were not consistent with the revitalization guidelines." be changed to "Mr. Blum questioned whether or not the plans were consistent with the revitalization guidelines". Mr. Forney moved for approval of the minutes as amended. Mr. Caldwell seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. Planning & Zoning May 23, 1996 Page 2 ITEM #2 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF 5' WOOD FENCE LOCATED 3' BACK FROM PROPERTY LINE Gisela Hernandez 215 Grand Concourse Mr. LuBien stated the Board was to view the property to obtain an overview of the applicant's request. Mr. Walters asked if everyone had viewed the property. The Board confirmed they did. Mr. Forney stated that he agreed with the Building Official's decision that the property has three front yards. He stated that the Board should consider the application as a variance with the specification that the hedge around the fence be maintained and be extended the entire length of the fence on all sides of the property. Mr. Blum stated that the property was unique and the Board should address the question of harmony. Mr. Blum stated that he would be in favor of increasing the height of the masonry wall or approving an ornamental iron fence. Mr. Hegedus stated that increasing the masonry wall would not be harmonious as it would create a fortress. However, if the fence is hidden by vegetation, it would give a nicer appearance. Mr. Caldwell stated that in viewing the property, he felt that there was a front and a back yard. He stated that he was in favor of the wood fence being placed adjacent to the masonry wall rather than having the fence 3 feet back from the wall. Mr. Walters asked the Village Attorney if the Board should determine whether to approve or deny the request as submitted. Mr. Ulmer stated that the application is an appeal to the Building Official's decision that the property has three front yards. Mr. Ulmer stated that the Board must uphold or reverse the decision. Should the Board uphold the decision, a secondary application for a variance must be considered. Mr. Forney stated that the application should be considered as a variance to allow the Board to place restrictions on the approval. Mr. Hegedus moved to uphold the Building Official's decision that there are three front yards. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Yes - Mr. Hegedus, Mr. Forney No- Mr. Blum, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Walters. Mr. Ulmer stated the Board must prepare a factual finding to determine where the front, side and rear yards are. Mr. Caldwell moved for a finding of fact that there is a front yard on the south/southwest portion of the property consistent with the diagram presented to the Board. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. Mr. LuBien verified that the front yard was that portion of the property that is forward of the front building line. Planning & Zoning May 23, 1996 Page 3 ITEM #3 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE TO PERMIT FLAT ROOF ADDITION Norman H. Seidler 1150 N.E. 102 Street • Mr. LuBien explained that the existing flat roof exceeds the 15% allowable area for a flat roof addition. The request is to add an additional 123 feet of flat roof. Pictures of the existing area were presented. Mr. Norman Seidler was present on his own behalf. He stated that the proposed addition is adjacent to the existing flat roof. It is not feasible to place a gable roof on that type of area. Mr. Danny Ebersol, the contractor, confirmed that the area surrounding the proposed addition is all flat roof. • Discussion regarding the flat roof restrictions ensued. Mr. Forney stated that there is an existing non -conforming flat roof with a request to extend it. Mr. Blum stated the flat roof is considered non -conforming only if it has been added on since the house was first built. Mr. Sprovero stated that the house was constructed that way. Mr. Caldwell asked if the Board would be setting a precedence by approving the addition. Mr. Ulmer stated that the Village may face equal protection challenges unless the applicant could meet the guidelines for a hardship variance. Mr. Seidler stated that there is no room in the kitchen. No addition other than a flat roof could be added. Mr. Walters and Mr. Blum agreed that because the house was designed and built with the existing flat roof, the addition should be allowed without a variance. Mr. Hegedus asked if the addition could be allowed since the house is in its original state. Mr. Ulmer read Section 225 of the Code. Mr. Caldwell suggested that the item be tabled to allow the applicant time to address the guidelines in the Code for a hardship variance. Sara Seidler spoke on her own behalf. She stated that this is an old home built to standards which are inadequate for today's market. Mr. Dave Averill, a neighbor, was present on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the addition would be an enhancement to the home as the Seidler's have already made major improvements to the property. Mr. LuBien stated that the home was built to the constraints of the original platted lot. He asked the Village Attorney whether a hardship could be considered since the applicant is now being denied reasonable use of the property after acquiring the additional land. Mr. Ulmer stated that could be a consideration. Mr. Caldwell asked that the item be tabled until the next meeting so that the applicant could present more evidence, such as pictures of the kitchen, to the Board to prove the hardship. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. Planning & Zoning May 23, 1996 Page 4 ITEM #4 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR GARAGE ENCLOSURE Marion Morrison 1060 N.E. 95 Street Mr. Blum asked to abstain from voting on this item as he intends to bid on the project. Mr. Ulmer stated that he may abstain due to conflict of interest. Mr. LuBien stated that there is an existing garage. The owner has complied with the criteria for garage enclosures. Mr. LuBien stated that there is a proposed utility room for approval. As the roof of the existing garage is flat and the addition would be flat roof, Mr. LuBien asked that the item be tabled until the next meeting. This would allow sufficient time to calculate the allowable square footage for the flat roof area. Mr. Forney moved that the item be tabled and subsequently withdrew the motion so that the Board could hear from the architect, Mr. Art Salow. Mr. Salow was present on behalf of the owner. He asked that the Board approve the additional flat roof at this time. Mr. Ulmer stated that the application before the Board was only for a garage enclosure. The Board may only proceed with the garage enclosure, but not with the roof addition. Should the homeowner decide to proceed with the addition, he must come before the Board at such time the application is made. To proceed with the current application, it was noted that the Board should consider the sketch as presented, not including the utility room addition. Mr. Salow stated that the septic tank would be upgraded for the whole house since the garage would become an additional bedroom. Mr. Walters stated his concern regarding the amount of garage enclosures in the Village. Mr. Caldwell asked what the criteria was for garage enclosure. Mr. LuBien stated that the criteria were as follows: the room not be easily converted, the secondary means of egress be blocked off, the driveway be cutback and the entire front of the garage be stuccoed. The plans must be submitted by a registered architect. Mr. Forney noted that the applicant has met all the criteria set forth by the Building Official. Mr. Caldwell moved for approval of plans for garage enclosure be approved only for the garage enclosure not to include the additional utility room. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Yes - Mr. Forney, Mr. Hegedus, Mr. Caldwell No - Mr. Walters Abstained - Mr. Blum. Mr. Frank Morrison, the applicant stated that the garage enclosure was to allow for additional space needed for Mrs. Morrison's caretaker. ITEM #5 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR EXTERIOR RENOVATIONS Henry Everett 9600-9640 N.E. 2nd Avenue Mr. LuBien stated that the applicant has since revised the plans previously submitted to the Board. A list of materials and specifications was also provided to the Board at this time. Planning & Zoning May 23, 1996 Page 5 A ten minute recess was taken at this time to allow the Board to review the list of materials. Mr. LuBien noted that the specifications called for wood framing for the towers which does not comply with the masonry regulations. Mr. Franklin Grau, the architect, was present on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the Code refers to habitable space, whereas the towers are cosmetic treatments. Mr. Caldwell asked how the plans were harmonious with area structures. Mr. Grau stated that the structure is harmonious with the original intent of the architecture for the Village. The original drawings were used in compiling the plans submitted. Questions were raised regarding the towers on the proposed plans. Mr. Grau stated that because there are actually three buildings at three different heights a vertical element helps to tie the buildings together. The towers allow this assimilation. Mr. Blum stated that he had looked at the original drawings and the plans submitted are consistent with the original intent. Mr. Blum noted that other tops of buildings have projections which are similar to the tower tops thus making the buildings harmonious. Mr. Forney moved for approval of the plans for exterior renovation. Mr. Blum seconded the motion. Mr. Ulmer referenced Section 608 of the Code stating the Board may approve or deny any application or it may approve the request subject to such specified conditions it may deem necessary. Mr. Caldwell stated he would like to see the project completed as soon as possible. Mr. Walters suggested that the motion be amended to reflect a time limit. The original motion was not amended. The vote was called and was unanimous in favor. ITEM #6 BOARD COMMENTS Mr. Walters gave the members of the Board an article pertaining to a fictional city similar to Miami Shores Village. He requested that copies be made available to the Code Enforcement Board. Mr. Walters asked the Village Attorney about the conflict of interest issue. Mr. Ulmer requested that the Board members who may have a conflict of interest on any agenda item call him before the meeting so he may advise the member on the proper procedure. Mr. Ulmer noted that there were some agenda items where the Code does not allow the Board to make a reasonable decision. He stated that the Code does allow the Board to suggest changes in the law to the Village Council. Mr. Walters stated that he would rather wait until various alternatives are given to the Board by the City Planner. • • Planning & Zoning May 23, 1996 Page 6 Discussion regarding garage enclosures ensued. Mr. Caldwell asked if these requests could be denied. Mr. Ulmer stated that it can not be an arbitrary denial or there may be a precedence set. Mr. Caldwell asked if a time limitation could be put on an approval. Mr. Ulmer stated that was what was referred to by Section 608 of the Code and it is allowable. Mr. Hegedus asked for clarification regarding the Planning firm. Mr. Walters stated that the firm was interviewed by himself and the Village Manager. He said that the firm has urban planning experience. Mr. Blum stated the Board should be cautious when helping applicants solve their specific problems from the dias. Mr. Hegedus noted that the Board was trying to make the Code more user friendly. Mr. Ulmer stated that the Board may advocate for a particular position on an issue. ITEM #7 ADJOURNMENT The May 23, 1996 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was adjourned at 9:25 P.M. E ' eth A. Kroboth, Recording Secretary Cliff Walters, Chairman FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS AST NAME—FIRST NAME—MIDDLE NAME 'JAILING ADDRESS e 2 2Y ,ii/g ?2 w`i 4505tcL wi'Y J.Vi WHICH VOTE OCCURRED • COUNTY /7 NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE /774.0.1,: f ?arra,1•700 » s d`" Z .."1-4-4b4/THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORI t OR COMMITTEE OI WHICH I SERVE ISA UNIT OF: �.CTIY 0 COUNTY 0 OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: 5`1•erj 4 /7, e MY POSITION IS: O ELECI'IvE * APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B ass form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other Local level of government on an appointed or elected board, uncil, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non -advisory bodies who are presented uth a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. I our responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly ';pending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on ',air; form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPUANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES moon holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure W:+ inures to his or her special private gain. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including ihe parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain of a relative; og to the special private gain of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting in k.4n1t capacity. For purposes of this law, a 'relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother- in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A 'business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corpo- ration are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). keLECTED OFFICERS: in addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and 0NTTHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording he minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. kPPOINTED OFFICERS: Othough you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, if®u must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. LF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. rog.er DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST hereby disclose that on /724,0 o? ,T (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) . inured to my special private gain; inured to the special gain of my business associate, inured to the special gain of my relative, inured to the special gain of , by whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain of which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: .19� • • GA. C Da Filed 2 vire- s ignature • NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1991), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFIdE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. CE FORM 8B - REV. 1/94 PAGE 2