Loading...
10-10-1996 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 10, 1996 The regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on Thursday, October 10, 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 - SEPTEMBER 12, 1996 Mr. Caldwell moved for approval of the September 12, 1996 minutes as submitted. Mr. Blum seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. ITEM #2 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR CARPORT ENCLOSURE. Anthony Phillips 38 N.W. 109 Street Mr. LuBien explained that the plans submitted were for a recreation room. Mr. Phillips was present on his own behalf. He explained that the existing carport would be enclosed to make a gym / workout area. Mr. Walters asked where the off street parking would be located if the carport were enclosed. Mr. Phillips replied that he currently parks in the rear of the carport on the existing asphalt paving. Mr. Caldwell inquired about the existing patio next to the carport and • the doors leading to the patio area. Mr. Phillips stated that although the plans indicate french doors leading to the patio area, he would like to change the door to a single door exit. He indicated that he would not be completing the enclosure as presented in the current plans. Mr. Hegedus questioned the plans presented. Mr. Phillips explained that, at this time, he is not interested in creating a living area due to the expenses involved. He simply wants a workout area. Planning & Zoning October 10, 1996 Page 2 Mr. Walters explained to the applicant that the Village Council has directed the Board to reduce the possibility of the enclosure of becoming a rental or apartment unit which is a violation of the single family zoning of the area. He went on to state that the exterior doors are a concern as this makes this conversion easier. Mr. Phillips asked if the door should be eliminated. Mr. Walters stated that is the direction the Board has taken on previous applications. Mr. Blum stated that due to the patio adjacent to the enclosure, he is not opposed to the french doors to allow for recreational use of the patio. Mr. Blum stated that he would not be in favor of a single, solid exterior door. Mr. Forney stated that the plans indicate an entrance to a bathroom, an area that could be blocked off thus creating a closet and an exterior door. Mr. Forney stated that he was concerned of the possibility of future owners converting the room into a rental unit. He asked that the exterior door be eliminated. Mr. Blum asked what kind of roof was currently on the structure. Mr. Phillips replied that there was a flat roof on the carport. He noted that the structure (columns, supports and beams) already exists as the area was built for hurricane shelter. Mr. Hegedus asked for confirmation that the bathroom entrance would not be put in. Mr. Phillips stated it would not. Mr. Hegedus stated that the plans submitted were not accurate. Mr. Blum asked the Village Attorney what action the Board could take as the applicant is not completing the enclosure according to the plans submitted. Mr. Ulmer stated that the application is complete and the Board may approve it with modifications. Mr. Forney moved for approval of the request for carport enclosure with the elimination of the exterior entrance. Mr. Caldwell seconded the motion. For the record, Mr. Blum stated that double french doors leading to an outside patio are not conducive to possible enclosure for a rental unit. He would not be opposed to keeping the french doors as outlined in the plans. Due to the layout, Mr. Walters and Mr. Hegedus both agreed that the enclosure would be a perfect apartment if the doors were solid. However, Mr. Hegedus would be in favor of keeping the french doors as indicated in the plans. The vote was called for and the vote was as follows: YES - Mr. Forney, Mr. Walters, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Blum; NO - Mr. Hegedus. ITEM #3 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR ALTERATIONS. Westar Oil Company 8700 Biscayne Blvd. Mr. LuBien explained that there is an existing gas station. Two of the island covers will be changed in configuration from a pitched roof to a flat roof. Mr. Ron Nevilles of Alamo Petroleum Contractors was present on behalf of the applicant Westar Oil Company. He stated that the island covers would be a gabled canopy on the side and front of the fascia with a thirty-six inch flat metal fascia. Mr. LuBien inquired as to the roof structure behind the fascia. Mr. Nevilles stated that it would be re -roofed if necessary with a rubberized modified roofing material. The false fascia is strictly for aesthetics. Planning & Zoning October 10, 1996 Page 3 For the record, Mr. Caldwell stated that he drove by the property. Mr. Forney asked if the property is currently abandoned. Mr. Nevilles stated it was. Mr. Forney asked if the company would place a mini mart on the premises. Mr. Nevilles stated that two of the three bays would be converted to allow for a convenience store with a walk-in cooler and a sales area. The storefront would be upgraded to meet the code and allow for handicap access. Mr. Forney asked if the applicant was familiar with the Village Code restrictions that do not allow alcohol sales at gas stations. Mr. Nevilles stated he was not. Mr. Caldwell questioned the use of the third bay. Mr. Nevilles stated it would be left for future use for service to vehicles, lease space or storage. Mr. Caldwell asked for plans for the signage. Mr. Nevilles stated that he currently did not have plans for signage as he was not aware of the limitations. Mr. Forney and Mr. Walters questioned whether the application would create a zoning problem. Mr. LuBien referred to a similar situation where the debate over a convenience store / gas station arose. It was concluded that the primary function of that property on N.E. 2nd Avenue was a convenience store with the incidental sales of gasoline. Therefore, the sale of alcoholic beverages was allowable. Mr. LuBien noted that in this particular situation, the third bay will be retained and may be used for service to vehicles. Therefore, it is considered a service station. Mr. Nevilles noted that there will be thirty-six hoses for fueling with a mini -convenience store. He stated that it is primarily a service station because of the number of fueling points available. Mr. Caldwell conveyed concern regarding the deterioration of the area and expressed that there was a need for beautification as the property is located at the entrance of the Village. He stated that the landscaping on the plans submitted were in need of improvement. Mr. Walters asked if the Board was to approve only the alterations to the structure as submitted today or would the Board perform a site plan review in the future. Mr. LuBien stated that the applicant is not required to come before the Board again unless other changes are made to the plans. He stated that the Board should consider all aspects of the plans submitted. Mr. Ulmer stated that the establishment of any use on a property requires a site plan approval as well as the exterior elevation approval. As the property currently has no use, it is the opinion of the Village Attorney that the application needs a site plan approval before a certificate of occupancy may be issued. Mr. LuBien stated that the use of the property has already been established. The zoning ordinance has permitted uses, one of which is the use already established on the property. It is the opinion of the Building Official that there is no requirement for a site plan review. Mr. Nevilles noted that the company would have no objection to meeting the Village requirements for landscape and signage. Mr. Walters recognized that minimal adherence to the landscape ordinance is not favorable. Mr. Caldwell asked for clarification on the alcohol issue. Mr. LuBien stated that if the location is a service station, you may not sell alcoholic beverages. It has been stipulated that is what the location will be. Mr. LuBien stated that he would not approve the zoning of the property for the sale of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Nevilles stated the owner would prefer to have a license for alcoholic sales. • Planning & Zoning October 10, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Forney asked if there would be a pollution problem. Mr. Nevilles stated that the EPA State records and DERM records do not currently list the site as contaminated. New tanks with double walled piping would be installed. Mr. Caldwell asked if there was a requirement regarding the submission of signage plans. Mr. LuBien stated it is part of the elevation feature and it must be a consideration. Mr. Walters stated that several issues need to be addressed including the landscape, signage and use of the property. Mr. Hegedus noted that the application left a lot to be desired and suggested that the applicant withdraw the application until all aspects that have been addressed were resolved. Mr. Walters asked if the applicant had been advised as to the requirements needed for the application. Mr. Nevilles stated that they were told to come before the Board first. Mr. Blum noted that the Board should ensure that the property is consistent with surrounding properties. Mr. LuBien noted that previous applications have included a separate site plan with a list of specific species, the grade, the height and other detailed information regarding landscaping. Mr. Walters asked if the Board may approve the alterations to the structure with a provision that final approval be withheld until more detailed landscaping and signage plans are presented. Mr. Ulmer noted that there was a disagreement between himself and the Building Official regarding the requirement of a site plan approval. He stated that he is only a legal advisor to the Board. In so far as a Code interpretation that is ambiguous, he stated that he serves only as an advisor and the ultimate ruling comes from the Building Official. He read the Code for B-2 uses. Mr. Ulmer noted that Mr. LuBien has interpreted the phrase "no use of any kind shall be established" as nonexistent in the Code because if the use is permitted then there is no need to establish the use. Therefore, there is no need for a site plan approval. Mr. Ulmer stated that under this interpretation there would never be an instance where there would be a site plan required unless there is new construction. Mr. Ulmer referred to Article 6 regarding exterior alteration which still requires a site plan. Mr. Ulmer advised the Board it requires a site plan approval. However, as there is no one from Village staff present to appeal the Building Official's decision, the application does not require a site plan approval as Mr. LuBien stated earlier. Mr. Forney asked if the application could be approved with the condition that plans for landscaping and signage be submitted. Mr. Ulmer stated that landscaping only relates to site plan approval. If there is no site plan approval required, then landscaping is not required. Mr. Forney III noted that the applicant has agreed to submit landscaping plans. Mr. Ulmer stated that the applicant could agree to a condition as part of his application to approve the elevations and exterior alteration and be bound by that condition. However, it cannot be imposed. Mr. Nevilles stated that there was no problem upgrading from the proposed landscaping. Further information regarding signage is needed before plans can be drawn. Planning & Zoning October 10, 1996 Page 5 Mr. Nevilles stated that the buyer of the property was not aware of the Code restrictions regarding alcoholic beverage sales. Mr. Ulmer read from the alcoholic beverage provisions of the Code and stated that Mr. LuBien must determine whether the property will be considered a gasoline filling station or convenience store. Mr. Ulmer stated that the proposed site clearly meets the definition of a gasoline filling station under the Village Code. Mr. Nevilles noted that cigarette and beer sales are a considerable portion of the profits. If the sale of alcoholic beverages is not allowed, then the potential buyer will back out. Mr. Nevilles asked if the third bay was also converted to part of the mini -mart and not left for storage or lease space, would the property then be considered a convenience store. Mr. LuBien stated that his interpretation of the Code regarding gasoline service stations was the fact that minor mechanical service to vehicles was performed. If only gas is sold, it is an incidental use to the convenience store. Mr. Caldwell confirmed that should the last bay be enclosed as part of the store with the gas islands, alcohol may be sold. Mr. LuBien confirmed this. In a similar instance with another gasoline service station, Mr. Forney noted that there was such a strong public objection to the sale of alcohol at a gasoline station that the potential buyer backed off. Mr. Forney noted that the intent of the ordinance was to have no beer sold where gas is sold. Mr. Hegedus stated that gas is the primary source of revenue and the convenience store is an incidental source with alcohol increasing revenue. Mr. Nevilles stated that store sales average approximately sixty percent of revenue at other locations. Mr. Walters asked if the Board must rule based on the interpretation of the Building Official as some Board members have disagreed with the interpretation. Mr. Ulmer stated that the only issue before the Board is the alteration to the building which could include signage. As the applicant has agreed that it include landscaping, the application is incomplete and must be resubmitted. The applicant must obtain a ruling from Mr. LuBien as to the use of the property. Mr. LuBien must use Section 218 of the Code in relation to the facts presented as well as the plans submitted. Mr. Caldwell requested that the landscaping be upgraded from the current plans. Mr. Blum stated that color renderings of the proposed building are usually provided. Mr. Nevilles asked if there was a restriction on colors. Mr. LuBien stated that color scheme should be considered by the Board as to its harmony with the surrounding area. Mr. Forney moved that the item be tabled until the next meeting. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. ITEM #4 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING GUIDELINES FOR GARAGE AND CARPORT ENCLOSURES. Mr. Walters and Mr. Forney provided the Board with their ideas for garage conversions (see attached documents). Mr. Walters was adamant regarding the off street parking situation. Reviewing the size of septic tanks was also an issue on both members agendas. Planning & Zoning October 10, 1996 Page 6 Mr. Blum agreed with both members criteria for conversion with the following changes: On item #6 of Mr. Fomey's submission, Mr. Blum asked that stuccoing from corner to corner, top to bottom be added after the appearance of a "patch". On item #7 of Mr. Forney's submission he noted that typically the septic tank requirements for a drain field are determined by the number of bedrooms, not bathrooms. Mr. Blum also asked that the floor elevations be a consideration as the elevation of a garage is typically lower than the rest of the structure. He noted that there is a minimum elevation above the crown of the road for living space and should the elevation need to be increased, then consideration to the minimum ceiling height must also be given. Mr. Forney noted that there is a growing social trend of extended families living in the same dwelling. Mr. Hegedus confirmed that there are approximately 10,000 people a day that will turn fifty with the ability to live longer, thus creating a need for a support structure within families. This in turn creates a need for additional space within the home making garage enclosures more attractive. Mr. Blum asked if there is a distinguishing feature that would differentiate a garage enclosure from an addition to the home. Mr. Ulmer noted that there are three major points to be considered when creating an ordinance for garage enclosures that have been consistently mentioned by all Board members which include aesthetics, avoiding the potential for conversion to multi -family and maximizing off street parking requirements. Mr. Walters stated that his intent regarding off street parking was to minimize the appearance of cars being parked in the front yard facing a living area i.e. installing a circular driveway. Mr. Walters asked the Village Attorney to include a fourth issue: septic tanks. The Board discussed the environmental impact of the enclosures without an increase in septic tank size. Mr. Walters suggested that all garage enclosures be presumed a bedroom to make conversion more difficult. He stated the burden of proof should be on the applicant that the enclosure is not a bedroom as all bedrooms require HRS approval. Mr. LuBien stated that most properties in Miami Shores have substandard septic tanks and drain fields. The County requirements have recently increased and most homes have not been upgraded. Mr. Ulmer noted that the Village Code can restrict the use of a property. He stated that the Village can make enclosures an environmental issue by assuming the conversion a bedroom with a review of septic tank requirements. Mr. Ulmer noted that the assumption of the conversion to a bedroom would require the applicant to meet HRS standards by upgrading the septic system. However, the room could still be converted into family recreational living space, not necessarily a bedroom. Mr. Blum stressed his concern regarding legitimate conversions for recreational space. However, he stated if the conversion was to be presumed a bedroom, it could still be converted to recreational space which would still require HRS review. Mr. Walters stated that requiring HRS review, many preexisting, substandard septic tanks would be upgraded. It was the consensus of the Board to have the Village Attorney draft an ordinance regarding garage and carport enclosures. • Planning & Zoning ITEM #5 BOARD COMMENTS October 10, 1996 Page 7 Mr. Caldwell asked the Village Attorney if the landscape ordinance was subjective or if the minimum requirements are met, the plans must be approved. Mr. Ulmer replied that the landscape ordinance only applies to a site plan review. He stated that it is in the discretion of the Board if the application is before the Board for site plan approval because the Board must determine if it is in harmony with the surrounding area. If the application is before the Board for alterations of a structure, landscaping is not an issue. However, signage should be a consideration as it is part of the structure. If the signage is not part of the structure, then it does not need consideration. Mr. Ulmer recommended site plan approval for any application establishing a use. Discussion regarding an appeal of the Building Official's decision in regards to an application ensued. Mr. Ulmer stated that an applicant can appeal a decision to the Planning & Zoning Board. However, there is no mechanism for a Board member to appeal the Official's decision. Only a member of the Village staff or a citizen can object to his interpretation of the Code. Mr. Ulmer stated that the Building Official could defer the interpretation of the site plan review issue of the Code to the Board as well as defer the decision regarding the primary function of the establishment. Mr. Forney stated that the Village staff should have better informed the applicant regarding the possible conflict of the sale of alcohol. Mr. Walters stated that he was informed that the Village Planners would be conducting a site plan review. Discussion regarding the Building Official's determination of applications and due process for an applicant resulted. Mr. Ulmer stated that an applicant must be given guidelines concerning the process. Mr. LuBien stated that part of interpreting the Village Code is also the consideration of the intent of the Code. He noted that recent applications for new construction contained more information and more detail in the plans that were submitted. In light of the conflict between Village Staff and the Village Attorney, Mr. Walters asked that the Village Manager and the Village Attorney resolve the matter before the application is presented to the Board again. Mr. LuBien noted that any alterations in a commercial district is subject to a site plan review. • Mr. Walters commended the Village Attorney on the Code Enforcement report. Mr. Ulmer stated that his intent was to strengthen the Code Enforcement process. Mr. Ulmer informed the Board of the Village Council decision to potentially increase the size of the Planning & Zoning Board to seven members. He stated that due to the number of qualified candidates for the Historic Preservation Board, the number is proposed to be increased from five to seven. It was suggested that since the Planning & Zoning Board is moving in the direction of a planning phase, it may be helpful to have diverse input from preferred professions. • • Planning & Zoning October 10, 1996 Page 8 Mr. Ulmer asked for the input from the Board. Mr. Hegedus suggested that Planning & Zoning be two separate entities. Mr. Caldwell was not in favor of the increase, stating if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Mr. Walters stated that he was not in favor of codifying professions. He is in favor of the Board being cognicent of various backgrounds. Mr. Blum stated that the Village Council can screen the pool of applicants and best diversify the professions accordingly. In terms of the number of Board members, Mr. Blum stated that increasing the number would bog down discussions. Mr. Caldwell moved that the Planning & Zoning Board stay at five members with no specified criteria for professions, leaving the configuration as stipulated in the current Code. Mr. Forney seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. Mr. Caldwell asked that consideration be given to changing the political sign ordinance in the near future. Mr. Walters noted a sign that had been erected on 103 Street for an upcoming election similar in size to the one discussed at a previous meeting. Mr. LuBien informed the Board of a Florida Planning & Zoning Association workshop on October 19, 1996. ITEM #6 ADJOURNMENT The October 10, 1996 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Elizaeth A. Kroboth, Recording Secretary SEP -23-96 MON 15:17 FAX NO. 4457728 P. 02 WHEREAS the Village Council of Miami Shores recognizes the need to expand the living area in some of our older dwellings, and WIIEREAS the Council is concerned about maintaining the single family dweIIing identity of the Shores, and WHEREAS the Council is also concerned about the need to provide adequate off-street parking at all dwellings; Now therefore be it resolved that the following guidelines shall be considered by the Planning and Zoning Board in approving any requested garage or car port enclosure: 1. PIans for all garage or car port enclosures shall to prepared by a registered architect. 2. No outside exit which would allow the newly enclosed area to be used as an apartment separate from the main dwelling shall be permitted. However, egress windows may be installed if necessary. 3. No kitchen facilities ;hall be permitted in the ncw':y enclosed area unless the original dwelling kitchen facilities are simultaneously rcmo,;ed. 4. Each parking space eliminated by a garage or car port enclosure shall be replaced by an off-street parking space constructed in conformance with the Schedule of Regulations. 5. Driveways or parking strips leading to an enclosed garage or car port shall be removed fora distance of at least six feet from the dwelling and replaced with appropriate landscaping unless the original garage door is left in tact after the enclosure. 6. When a garage door is removed or a car port enclosed the new surface shall be finished in such a manner as to be harmonious with the rest of the dwelling and shall not give the appearance of a "patch" or obvious addition. 7. For any enclosure that includes the addition of new bathroom facilities appropriate changes shall he made to the septic tank system unless the Building Oficial determines that no changes are required. MEMORANDUM TO: Members, Miami Shores Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Clif Pla airman Zoning Board DATE: October 10, 1996 SUBJECT: Potential Criteria for Garage Conversions The following list delineates, in descending order a suggested preference pertaining to criteria for garage conversions: 1) Garage conversion allowed if new garage is constructed in accordance with existing code criteria; If a replacement garage is not to be constructed in concert with the garage conversion, the required off-street parking space must abide by existing setback requirements; 3) If sufficient space is not available to allow for construction of garage or properly set back off-street parking space, a semi -circular driveway must be constructed; 4) If sufficient space is not available for a replacement garage, off-street parking space, or semi -circular driveway the garage door must remain in place. In addition, for the purpose of septic tank loading calculations all garage conversions should be treated as bedrooms.