Loading...
08-22-1996 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 1996 • The regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on Thursday, August 22, 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 Frank Hegedus Les Forney Also Present: Mark Ulmer, Village Attorney Frank LuBien Lisa Kroboth ITEM #1 MINUTES - JULY 25, 1996 Mr. Caldwell moved for approval of the July 25, 1996 minutes as submitted. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. ITEM #2 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE TO PERMIT ABOVE GROUND SWIMMING POOL. Jose Hernandez 1201 N.E. 98 Street Mr. LuBien stated that the applicant was unaware of the need for a permit to install the pool which was in place before it was seen by a Code Enforcement officer. Mr. Hernandez was subsequently advised that the pool was not permitted, but could appeal the Building & Zoning official's decision to the Planning & Zoning Board. The homeowner, Mr. Hernandez was present on his own behalf. He stated that upon completion of the pool, Mr. Trumble notified him that the above ground pool was not allowed. Mr. Hernandez stated that the Code does not specifically mention above ground pools. He noted that the pool is not visible from the street. Mr. Walters asked Mr. LuBien for background on above ground pools. Mr. LuBien stated that previous above ground pools were installed without permits. These pools are not specifically allowed for by the Code. Mr. LuBien noted that the pool in question is 27feet across and 4 feet deep. Planning & Zoning August 22, 1996 Page 2 Mr. Caldwell asked if the pool was filtered. Mr. Hernandez replied a portable filter was on the pool. He noted that a great amount of work had been performed prior to being notified by the Code Enforcement officer. The process included excavation of the yard, leveling the ground with layers of sand and construction of the pool itself. Because of the width of the pool, this is a tedious task. Supporting poles must also be leveled. Mr. Caldwell asked if any electrical power is connected to the pool. Mr. Hernandez stated that an extension cord (110 current) is run out to the pump and is turned on approximately two hours a day. Mr. Caldwell inquired as to the total investment in the pool. Mr. Hernandez stated the pool cost was $6,000 with $2,000 - $3,000 in other materials to install it. For the record, Mr. Caldwell stated that he had driven by the area to see the pool. Mr. Hegedus asked what supporting structure the pool had due to its size. Mr. Hernandez replied that every four feet on the parameter of the pool there is a support with a concrete bottom. There is a metal lining on the outside of the pool. Mr. Hegedus stated there was some concern due to the potential of hurricanes in the area. Mr. Walters inquired as to the materials allowed by the Code. Mr. LuBien stated that the South Florida Building Code addresses above ground pools, but the Village Code does not. Mr. Forney noted that the Board has maintained the position of not allowing above ground pools. Therefore, there is no basis for changing previous decisions. Mr. Caldwell asked if the criteria met a hardship variance. Mr. Ulmer stated that the Board must decide whether or not to uphold the Building Official's decision. Then the Board must determine whether a hardship variance should be granted. Mr. Ulmer noted that a building permit is required for any structure, including pools. Mr. Ulmer read Section 5003.4 of the South Florida Building Code which leaves the approval of building materials for pools to the discretion of the Building Official. Mr. Caldwell asked if the homeowner obtained a permit. Mr. Hernandez stated he did not. Mr. Ulmer read Section 204 of the South Florida Building Code which defers to the local Building Official to approve building materials. Mr. Caldwell asked the homeowner to state what hardship is being created by not allowing the pool. Mr. Hernandez stated that the hardship would be approximately $34,000; $9,000 for the above ground pool and $25,000 to install an in -ground pool. Mr. Blum noted that the previous applications have been denied due to aesthetics and harmony. Mr. Hegedus moved that the Building Official's decision be upheld. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. Mr. Ulmer stated the Board should rule on the applicants request for a variance. Mr. Caldwell moved that the request be denied. Mr. Forney seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. Planning & Zoning August 22, 1996 Page 3 ITEM #3 REQUEST APPROVAL TO AMEND CONDITIONAL VARIANCE FOR VARIANCE TO RUN WITH LAND AND NOT TO LAND OWNER. Miami Shores Auto Center 9734 N.E. 2 Avenue Mr. LuBien stated that all previous actions regarding the property had been included in the Board's packet. Mr. Ulmer explained that the previous variance was granted with the condition that it only applied to the owner of the property. In researching the issue, Mr. Ulmer stated that the condition is unenforceable by law. It is the recommendation of the Village Attorney that the Board modify the variance to avoid legal action. A variance can not be granted to a person; it attaches to the land. Mr. Ulmer explained that the operational use of the property, selling gasoline and automobile repair, was grandfathered in by Code. Mr. Caldwell asked that specific activities be outlined for appropriateness. Mr. Ulmer stated that the activities must be similar to those that have been historically conducted on the premises. Mr. Christopher Kelley, attorney for the buyer of the property was present. He asked that the Board establish criteria for the operation of the property. Mr. Walters noted that the station does incidental car repair. However, there was some concern that the area itself would become unsightly, like a junk yard. Mr. Ulmer stated that there is a Code provision that pertains to the intensity of use for a non -conforming use. Mr. Forney stated that the Board must set limitations for the use of the property should it be sold. Mr. Kelley asked that the Board also identify the current use that has been grandfathered into the Code. Mr. Blum noted that the minutes of November 1988 reflect the scope of work permitted at the location. Mr. Ulmer noted that in conjunction with the minutes of 1988, the owner of the property should state what work is performed to identify the use of the property. Mr. Sheldon Smith, owner of the property, spoke of work not performed at the service station which includes but is not limited to major transmission repair (overhauling of transmission), rebuilding of engines and painting or bodywork. Mr. Forney requested that the Village Attorney phrase a motion for the Board, Mr. Ulmer stated that the Board should make a motion to modify the variance to delete the condition that its personal and to acknowledge that the variance runs with the land and the uses that have been testified to by Mr. Smith tonight and previously in 1988 are grandfathered there. Mr. Forney so moved and Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. Planning & Zoning August 22, 1996 Page 4 ITEM #4 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO CHANGE FRONT ELEVATION FROM FIXED PANELS TO STOREFRONT GLASS. Angelo P. Thrower 180 N.E. 99 Street Mr. LuBien explained that the owner has proposed a deviation from the original plans. Dr. Thrower is requesting that glass panels be installed over the end bays instead of the solid opaque panels. Mr. LuBien noted that Dr. Thrower has submitted an application for signage on the building. It is the opinion of the Building Official that this does not need to be approved by the Board as the Code states signage approval by the Planning & Zoning Board is only necessary when a site plan for new construction is submitted. As this is not new construction and it meets the requirements, the applicant does not need the Board's approval. Mr. Walters asked what the purpose of the change was. Dr. Thrower stated that the workers are claustrophobic without windows in the work area. The glass panels would allow more light into the work area. He stated that the outside appearance of the building would be more aesthetic with windows on both ends of the building. Mr. Hegedus moved for approval of the request to change the front elevation from fixed panels to storefront glass. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. ITEM #5 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE TO PERMIT FLAT ROOF ADDITION Sal Ganem 10618 N.E. 11 Court Mr. LuBien explained that the addition exceeds the 15% limitation for flat roof thus no additional flat roof can be added without the Board's approval. Mr. Sal Ganem, present on his own behalf, noted that the proposed structure is adjacent to an existing flat roof which must be replaced. Mr. Hal Lenox, the architect for the owner, was also present. He presented photographs to the Board and explained that the house is a "U" shape with the extensions being flat roof He stated it would be very expensive to reframe the entire rear of the house and it would not be as aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Walters noted that there is an existing room where the proposed addition is to be added. Mr. Lenox stated that there is currently a screened -in porch with a light gauge aluminum roof frame. The addition is an upgrade of the current structure. Mr. Blum stated he had some concern with the Board allowing a non -conforming addition due to aesthetics. Discussion ensued regarding the intent of the Code insofar as pitched versus flat roof and the limitations thereof. Mr. Caldwell inquired whether the 15% limitation was for aesthetic purposes only. Mr. LuBien replied it was. Mr. Walters asked what the excess of flat roof would be for the addition. Mr. LuBien replied that the limit would be 267 square feet. Mr. Lenox replied that the total proposed flat roof would be 429 square feet. Planning & Zoning August 22, 1996 Page 5 Mr. Forney moved for approval of the request for a variance to permit flat roof addition due to the peculiar structure of the home forming a "U" leaving no reasonable method to cover the area with anything other than a flat roof. Mr. Caldwell seconded the motion because the flat roof didn't detract from the asthetics of the property. Further discussion regarding the request continued. Mr. Blum noted that consideration should be given to the reasonable use of the property. The addition could be built without exceeding the flat roof limitation by placing a pitched roof over the existing flat roof thereby the addition itself would not exceed the maximum allowable. Mr. Walters called for the vote and it was as follows: Yes - Mr. Forney, Mr. Hegedus, Mr. Caldwell. No - Mr. Blum, Mr. Walters. A five minute recess was taken at this time. ITEM #6 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING SWALE MAINTENANCE AND PAVING REQUIREMENTS. Mr. William Nelson, Community Affairs Specialist, introduced two members from Dade County, Eli Mehu from DERM and Mike Lugo from Dade County Public Works. Mr. Nelson gave the Board a copy of the Coral Gables Code regarding gravel requirements (copy attached as part of permanent record) as Mr. Forney had requested information from other municipalities regarding the issue. At this time, Mr. Nelson began the viewing of a video taken by the Code Enforcement department showing various swale and parking areas as well as driveways. Mr. Caldwell noted that there were areas of ponding. Mr. Nelson stated that the amount of ponding depends on the layers of mecatum placed beneath the area. Mr. Lugo also noted that many swale areas are higher than the road. The middle area of the swale should be six inches lower than the road otherwise overrun becomes problematic thus causing ponding. Mr. Mehu stated that in such a case the swale acts as a buffer and prevents the water from coming into the pervious area. Mr. Caldwell asked if the ponding could be a safety hazard. Mr. Mehu stated it could be a safety hazard both for traffic, depending on the depth of the ponding and for the environment by becoming a breeding environment for mosquitos. Also, the sediment may turn into sludge which may build up on sidewalks or streets increasing liability. Mr. Mehu stated that if the pervious area is reduced, additional drainage must be provided. The video displayed both deteriorating swale areas as well as those homeowners who have improved the swale areas. Mr. Hegedus asked if homeowners who were resodding the greenspace in the swale area were made aware that the swale should be lower than the road. Mr. Nelson noted that there are currently over five hundred homeowners who have been cited for the deterioration of the swale area. Examples of homeowners who currently have gravel driveways were also exhibited. Mr. Lugo noted that Dade County does not permit loose material to placed from the property line to the roadway due to liability. The swale area should be a depression. Planning & Zoning August 22, 1996 Page 6 Mr. Caldwell asked for an explanation of a french drain. Mr. Mehu responded to the query explaining that a perforated pipe is placed in a trench filled with lime rock. The runoff is discharged into the rock which acts as a filter medium. The stormwater is then exfiltrated into the trench. The rate of filtration is dependent on the characteristics of the geology formation of the area. A grate is placed on top of the drain. Mr. Lugo stated that Dade County does not allow circular driveways in the public parkway as the paving takes away from the pervious area. The circular portion must be inside the property with only the access connectors allowed on the swale area at a right angle to the roadway. Mr. Forney stated that the Board should set a standard for gravel driveways. Mr. Walters stated that the Board should revisit as to whether a gravel driveway should be allowed as a permitted use. Mr. Mehu stated that another aspect to be considered is the concern of the interface between the freshwater and saltwater aquifer. A drawdown of freshwater would invite encroachment of saltwater, especially since residents of the area use well water. Mr. Walters stated he would like to reevaluate the Code pertaining to gravel driveways and asked the Village Attorney whether the Board would have to pass a motion to instruct Mr. Nelson to temporarily stop enforcement of deteriorating swale areas until such time the issue is resolved. Mr. Ulmer stated as Mr. Nelson is not under the direction of the Board, they did not. If the Board should decide to take action to change the ordinance regarding gravel driveways, then the Board should pass a resolution to the Council. Mr. Walters stated that he was not prepared to make such a decision at this time without further information being provided to the Board regarding driveway materials. Discussion regarding enforcement of gravel driveways continued. Mr. Caldwell proposed a resolution to Council that the ordinance regarding swale maintenance and paving requirements remain the same with continue enforcement. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Yes - Mr. Blum, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Hegedus, Mr. Forney. No - Mr. Walters. IThM #7 BOARD COMMENTS Mr. Hegedus stated that during the Code review process, he would like consideration to be given to the issuance of a certificate of use at such time that a property is sold. Before a certificate of use is issued, an inspection by the building official would take place to ensure that the property is up to Code. He noted that Miami Beach is currently using this process for commercial properties. Mr. Ulmer stated he would call the Miami Beach attorney to confirm the legal questions associated with the process as it violates the constitutional right to privacy. Mr. Walters said it would be worth reviewing. Mr. Forney stated it would complicate property sales in the Village. Mr. Blum explained his vote on the last item regarding gravel driveways. He stated that he is not opposed to gravel. However, in order to meet specifications, it would be more costly to the homeowner, than other alternatives. • • Planning & Zoning August 22, 1996 Page 7 Mr. Walters allowed for Public Comment at this time. Mr. Brian Smith spoke of gravel driveways. He noted that there are simple, practical solutions to installing gravel driveways without intrusion of the roadway, allowing for maximum percolation of the area. ITEM #8 ADJOURNMENT Mr. Caldwell moved for adjournment. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion. As there was no dissent, the August 22, 1996 meeting of the Planning and Zoning was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Elizabeth A. Kroboth, Recording Secretary Cliff Walters, Chairman