Loading...
10-24-1996 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24, 1996 The regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on Thursday, October 24, 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 - OCTOBER 10, 1996 Mr. Hegedus asked that on page 2, paragraph 5 the following be added before the sentence "The vote was called..." "However, Mr. Hegedus would be in favor of keeping the french doors as indicated in the plans." Mr. Forney asked that on page 7, paragraph 3, line 1 the word "been" be stricken from the record. Mr. Caldwell asked that on page 3, paragraph 2, line 6 the following words be inserted: "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." Mr. Caldwell noted that on page 3, paragraph 4, line 6 the sentence "He stated that the applicant is not required to come before the Board again unless other changes are made to the plans." might be taken out of context in the future. Mr. Caldwell moved that the line be deleted from the record. Mr. Blum seconded the motion. Board discussion concluded that the sentence was pertinent to the record. However, it was requested that in paragraph 4, line 6 and line 5 be switched, so that it reads: "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." Upon this change, Mr. Blum withdrew his second to the motion and Mr. Caldwell withdrew his motion asking the line to be stricken. Planning & Zoning October 24, 1996 Page 2 Mr. Walters asked that on page 6, paragraph 3, line 7 the word "garage" be replaced with "living area". Mr. Forney moved for approval of the minutes as amended. Mr. Caldwell seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. ITEM #2 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A 6' WOODEN STOCKADE FENCE. Ben Branscom 139 N.E. 96 St Mr. LuBien explained that the residence is located next to a parking lot located behind the commercial property on N.E. 2 Avenue. He read Section 518 of the Code that refers to fences. He noted that in this particular case, the side property line is contiguous with the parking lot which is not zoned as a commercial area. Mr. Caldwell asked why the parking lot was not zoned commercial if it services a commercial property. Mr. LuBien stated that the property was zoned XX. Mr. Walters noted that the zoning of the property was beyond the control of the property owner. This created an unusual circumstance and a hardship to the owner, thus cause for a variance. Mr. Forney stated that Mr. LuBien has correctly interpreted the Code. However, the intent of Section 518 is to separate residential and commercial properties. Mr. Blum noted that although the property meets the criteria set forth in Section 518, due to the zoning technicality of the parking lot, the Board could not allow the erection of a fence without a variance. Mr. Ulmer stated that he agreed with the Building Official's interpretation of the Code. He stated that the property was zoned as XX and is limited solely to parking. The property has a parking land use designation on the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Ulmer stated that the purpose of Section 518 is to have a fence acting as a buffer to an adjacent commercial property. He stated that the buffer in this case is the parking lot. Mr. Ulmer noted that there is currently no appeal of the Building Official's decision, only a request for a variance. The applicant may meet the requirements for a variance due to the rezoning of the property to XX and due to the excessive noise which makes the owner unable to maintain reasonable use of the property. Mr. Forney inquired as to the previous zoning of the parking lot stating he believed it to be residential. Mr. Walters concurred with Mr. Forney on the previous zoning. Ben Branscom was present on his own behalf. Mr. Caldwell asked what hardship would be created if the fence were not erected. Mr. Branscom replied that the volume and nature of the traffic in the parking lot affect the residential living situation. Because of the elevation of the residence with the bedrooms bordering the east side of the property, the additional foot of fencing would make a considerable difference in regards to privacy. He stated excess noise and excess activity that occur at night are the major concern. Vagrancy, the jump starting of cars and the unanticipated degree of users of the parking lot at night are areas of concern. He stated that there has been commercial dumping and storage along the fence adjacent to the property. Planning & Zoning October 24, 1996 Page 3 Mr. Blum confirmed that the dumpster is located at the far end of the parking lot away from the commercial building. Although the parking lot is zoned to be a buffer, the commercial activity spreads across the parking lot. II/ Mr. Caldwell moved that it be a finding of fact that a hardship does exist and that the variance be approved. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion. Mr. Blum asked what a stockade style fence was. Mr. Branscom replied that it was simply placing boards up against one another. Mr. LuBien confirmed that the approval was for a 6' fence on the side property line that borders the parking lot. The vote was called and was unanimous in favor. • ITEM #3 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR GARAGE ENCLOSURE. Angela Jacobs 25 N.W. 108 Street Mr. LuBien explained that the garage is to the rear of the property. A sliding glass door from the conversion out to the rear yard will be installed as well as the installation of a bath. Angela Jacobs was present on her own behalf. She noted that the bath is existing. However, a shower will be added. She stated that the lavatory was draining directly into the yard, but this will be brought up to Code. Ms. Jacobs stated that she would like to eventually convert the enclosure to a bedroom. For now, she intends to use the area for storage. As the parking area is in the rear of the property, she needs direct access to the house from the rear of the property, thus the sliding glass doors. Mr. Walters asked if the applicant intends to park in the rear of the property. She stated she would. Mr. Walters asked what the required setback was for the rear yard. Mr. LuBien stated the Code specifies a minimum of 25 feet for a parking space. Mr. Walters inquired as to the current use of the conversion if it will be converted into a bedroom at a later time. Ms. Jacobs stated that the current garage door is rotten and does not want to incur additional expense to replace it at this time. She stated that the planned changes are to relocate the washer and dryer, add a shower and install sliding glass doors. Mr. Walters asked if the interior would be finished. She stated it would not. Mr. Hegedus asked if consideration had been given to the septic tank size if the enclosure was converted to a bedroom. She stated that she conferred with her engineer and it was not a problem. Mr. LuBien confirmed that an addition of a bedroom requires approval by HRS and DERM. Mr. Hegedus stated that the sizing of the septic tank is crucial. As she may not come before the Board for minor alterations to the interior upon converting the enclosure to a bedroom, it may be pertinent to check the septic tank size now. Planning & Zoning October 24, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Caldwell noted that the enclosure could easily be converted to a separate apartment in the future. Mr. Forney concurred that the applicant would not be occupying the home forever. As it is a separate unit with an outside exit, a successor may convert the enclosure to a rental unit. Mr. Caldwell stated that the Board usually requests that a garage enclosure have no outside exits. Ms. Jacobs stated that for security reasons, she needs direct access to the house. Mr. Caldwell moved that the application be denied due to the precedence set by the Board on other cases involving exterior doors. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Ms. Jacobs stated her objections. Mr. Blum stated that the Board has consistently denied applications for garage enclosures that have exterior access. However, Mr. Blum noted that he has not always agreed with that decision, particularly when the access has opened to an entertainment area. He did agree that the sliding glass doors may lend to a rental unit in the future and stated a side door facing the deck would be more acceptable. Mr. Walters shared the concern of the Board that the layout of the enclosure may lend itself to a rental unit in the future. Discussion regarding the placement of the exterior door ensued. Mr. Blum stated that by modifying the deck, the door could be placed on that side of the garage. Ms. Jacobs asked if the door could be placed on the exterior side of the garage. Mr. Blum stated that it would not suffice for him. Mr. Walters stated that if the ultimate use of the enclosure is a bedroom, the ingress / egress facing the rear of the property would create a security problem. Ms. Jacobs stated that when she decides to enclose the area for bedroom space, she would block the door in. Currently, she would like to have the access to the outside for the room to be functional. Mr. Caldwell suggested she replace the current garage door. Mr. Walters stated that he would support the application due to the parking aspects with the exception that the exterior door face the existing deck. Mr. Blum agreed with Mr. Walters stating that he was uncomfortable voting for the motion because of his opinion regarding exterior doors facing an entertainment area. Mr. Caldwell asked that the motion be amended to the following: the application be denied. Mr. Forney seconded the amended motion. Mr. Hegedus stated that he too would be more comfortable if the exterior door faced the deck. Mr. Forney also agreed with the suggested placement of the exterior door. The Board asked the applicant if she would accept the modification of the exterior door placed on the side of the enclosure facing the deck. Ms. Jacobs stated that this would be more costly, but she would agree to the modification. Mr. Forney withdrew his second to the motion that the application be denied. Mr. Caldwell withdrew his motion. Mr. Caldwell moved that the application be approved with the placement of one exterior door facing towards the existing deck. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Mr. Blum noted that the driveway should be cutback 5 ft from the building and that the garage door enclosure be stuccoed from corner to comer. The vote was called and was unanimous in favor. Planning & Zoning October 24, 1996 Page 5 ITEM #4 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO APPEAL BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION REGARDING 5' WOOD FENCE IN SIDE YARD. R. Hanson 955 N.E. 98 Street Mr. LuBien explained that the property has an unusual situation in that the building itself faces 98 • street and the side yard runs along Biscayne Blvd. He referred to the sketch included in the Board packet. Mr. LuBien read from page 1600.2 of the Code which states that any fence in a front yard shall be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Walters asked about the provision for properties on Biscayne Blvd. Mr. LuBien stated that the property's front or back yard must face the boulevard. Mr. LuBien stated that it was his opinion that the fence cannot be placed where the applicant wishes to extend it. He stated that the applicant had not indicated the exact location of the fence placement. The applicant stated that she had not contemplated how far the fence would extend. Discussion regarding the front yard boundaries ensued. Mr. LuBien explained that the front yard in question does not face Biscayne Blvd.; it faces 98 street. Mr. Ulmer agreed with the Building Official's interpretation of the Code. He added that should the Board uphold Mr. LuBien's decision and hear the applicant's request for a variance, a condition linked to the barricades could be imposed if the variance is granted. Mr. Hegedus moved that the Building Official's decision be upheld. Mr. Caldwell seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. Mr. Caldwell moved that the Board hear the application as a variance. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion. Raegan Hanson was present on her own behalf. Mr. Caldwell asked what hardship would be created if the fence was not erected. Ms. Hanson stated that safety is a major concern. This would create a barrier between the property and the vehicles and pedestrians that travel down Biscayne Blvd. Ms. Hanson stated it would allow her to not have to see the pedestrians and she would not have to live in fear all the time. Some other concerns are the sound level, privacy and aesthetics. Mr. Forney questioned the harmonious relationship with the surrounding properties noting that the fence would have an impact on the adjacent properties. Ms. Hanson had photographs for the Board to review. Mr. Walters asked what portion of the yard would require the Board's approval to be fenced. Mr. LuBien replied that it is the portion that extends beyond the side yard property line. He stated the Code allows ornamental masonry, ornamental metal and wood picket fences in • the front yard and all front yard fences shall be approved by the Planning & Zoning Board. Mr. LuBien noted that to his recollection, most fences on Biscayne Blvd. are masonry. Mr. Forney again expressed concern regarding the harmony of the proposed fence material with the surrounding properties. He stated that it would be beneficial for the Board to do a site inspection. Ms. Hanson stated that the Code allows for the erection of a fence in the side yard. The variance request is for an additional 8-10 feet of fencing in the front yard. She stated the additional fencing would give her additional privacy by covering the family's view of Biscayne Blvd. Planning & Zoning October 24, 1996 Page 6 Mr. Walters noted that the Board is expressing concern over the proposed material for the fence as no one else on Biscayne Blvd. has the right to build a fence out of wood. Ms. Hanson replied that there are homes with wooden fences in the side yard on Biscayne Blvd. Mr. Hegedus stated that there are no homes in the immediate area of this particular property that have a wood fence. There may be a home south of 96 Street with such a fence. Mr. Caldwell suggested that the Board table the item to the next meeting to allow the Board to view the property. Mr. Forney agreed with the proposal. Mr. Caldwell asked if the applicant would oppose a change from the wood to a masonry fence. Ms. Hanson stated that she may be able to build such a fence in the future. However, due to the expense, it is not feasible at this time. Mr. Caldwell moved that the item be tabled to the next regular meeting to allow the Board a site inspection. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Mr. Caldwell asked how long the applicant lived at the property. Ms. Hanson replied not long. Mr. Walters expressed his concern with delaying the application as the applicant could build a 5 foot fence in the side yard without a variance. Mr. Blum noted that in the past, other property owners with side yards facing a neighbors front yard have not been allowed to build such a fence. Mr. LuBien referred to a corner lot property case where a fence was facing a neighboring property's side or back yard and a fence was not allowed in that case. He noted that in this case, the house to the rear of the applicant's property would be affected by the wooden fence should it be erected. Mr. Blum noted that the applicant could erect a wooden fence that is not allowed to be erected by the neighboring property. The vote was called and was as follows: YES - Mr. Blum, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Hegedus, Mr. Forney. NO - Mr. Walters. Ms. Hanson stated she would build the 5 foot fence to the front yard property line. Mr. LuBien stated that the applicant could not proceed with the wood fence and would have to come before the Board again to appeal the Building Official's decision. Discussion regarding the portion of the Code pertaining to Biscayne Blvd. fencing ensued. Mr. Ulmer read Section 518 of the Code. He noted that the applicant could build a 5 foot wall or fence in the side yard fronting on Biscayne Blvd. Then the question of the material to be used for the fence must be approved by the Planning & Zoning Board. Mr. Ulmer stated that this property should not be considered a corner lot as the property does not fall under the definition of a corner lot in Section 518B. He referred to the prevailing orientation of the surrounding homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Forney moved that the Board reconsider the motion to table this item. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. Planning & Zoning October 24, 1996 Page 7 Mr. Ulmer noted that there is some concern with the interpretation of Section 518 of the Code. In this particular case, interpreting the Code to allow a five foot fence in the front yard could create a line of sight problem if it were not for the traffic barrier. If the interpretation were to allow a five foot wall to the street, then the second sentence of the Code would be redundant. It is the interpretation of the Village Attorney, if a property's front yard is Biscayne Blvd., then you can build a 5 foot wall. If the front yard is not on Biscayne Blvd, the side yard may still have a 5 foot wall. Mr. Walters noted that the concern lies with the material being used rather than the position of the yard. Mr. Ulmer stated that in the side and rear yard, the applicant can erect a 5 foot fence as a right. The portion of the front yard that the applicant is requesting would require a variance approved by the Board. Mr. Walters inquired as to the landscaping of the fence. Ms. Hanson stated that she had not yet gotten to that point. Mr. Walters stated that the major concern was the aesthetics of the fence and a commitment to landscape the street side of the fence may give a better level of comfort to the Board. Ms. Hanson agreed to landscape as suggested. Mr. Caldwell asked the Village Attorney if there were any restrictions regarding the harmony of a fence or wall. Mr. Ulmer referred to Section 607 of the Code. Mr. Forney stated that his concern has been the harmony aspect since the beginning. Mr. Ulmer stated that it is up to the Building Official to decide whether a fence is a structure. Mr. Ulmer noted that if a fence is considered a structure, all fences would have to come before the Board for approval. Mr. Walters stated that if materials are listed in the Code as approved materials, then it could be concluded that the material would be harmonious. Mr. Blum stated that a wood picket fence is allowable. However, there is a significant difference in the height of a 3 1/2 foot white picket fence and a 5 foot fence made of pickets. It was deferred to Mr. LuBien for his opinion regarding a fence as a structure. Mr. LuBien stated that his interpretation is that a fence is a structure. As such, the harmony of the fence would need to be considered. Mr. Caldwell asked if an application for a wooden fence would come before the Board. Mr. LuBien replied that it would not necessairly as the Code specifically allows for wooden fences under certain circumstances. Mr. Blum restated his concern regarding the wood fence only being erected on the side yard of the property which would allow pedestrians to walk onto the property and create a security problem unless a fence were erected on the back of the property to met the side fence. If the back fence were to be erected, there would be a 5 foot fence in the front yard of the adjacent property. Ms. Hanson stated she merely wants to block the view of Biscayne Blvd. from her windows. Mr. Walters stated that the applicant is trying to live in one of the most difficult locations on a major thoroughfare as a single family dwelling. Ms. Hanson confirmed that the location was undesirable. Mr. Blum stated that as this is the only section of US 1 that is still single family residential, a wood fence would be an unattractive and unwelcome addition to the Boulevard. Mr. Forney expressed his concern over the impact to the adjacent property and the harmony issue. • • Planning & Zoning October 24, 1996 Page 8 Mr. Caldwell noted that the question of harmony can be raised as it is the opinion of the Building Official that a fence is a structure. Mr. Ulmer stated that if that is the interpretation, then the issue of harmony is before the Board. Mr. Ulmer noted that the reason for a variance is for the property owner to be given relief to make reasonable use of their property. Mr. Blum noted that the Board is charged with maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood. Mr. Ulmer referred to the harmony provision. He stated the goal of the Board is to do what is in the best interest of the Village. Mr. Caldwell noted that an additional three weeks should not create any additional problems and the Board would benefit by seeing the property. Ms. Hanson stated that after waiting this long, three weeks is like a lifetime. Mr. Hegedus moved for approval of the application to allow for a barrier with appropriate outside landscaping, and should the traffic barrier in the street be removed, the fence must be cutback to accommodate the requirements needed for the flow of traffic. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. Mr. Walters noted that the fence must meet the design criteria. Mr. LuBien stated that there is no criteria for the design of a wooden fence. The applicant must furnish drawings with specifications. Currently, the applicant has the minimum requirement needed for a wood fence. Mr. LuBien questioned the exact fence length to be placed on the 70 foot dimension of the drawing contained in the Board packet that would extend along Biscayne Blvd. into the front yard. Ms. Hanson stated she would like it to extend to the sidewalk. Discussion regarding the specifications of the fence ensued. Mr. LuBien also questioned the material to be used over the asphalt driveway. Ms. Hanson stated she would like to have a gate over the driveway. Mr. Ulmer explained the variance would require more than an 8 foot extension. He explained the exact placement of the fence stating that the fence is to link to the traffic barricade like an extension. The fence will run from the front property line to the rear property line. Ms. Hanson was unaware that she needed specs for the whole fence. She was only concerned with the extension of the side yard fence. The vote was called and was as follows: YES - Mr. Walters, Mr. Hegedus, Mr. Forney; NO - Mr. Blum, Mr. Caldwell. Mr. LuBien confirmed that the fence would not run with the edge of the sidewalk, but it would extend onto the property to allow for the landscaping. ITEM #5 BOARD COMMENTS There were no Board comments. Planning & Zoning ITEM #6 ADJOURNMENT October 24, 1996 Page 9 The October 24, 1996 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was adjourned at 9:55 P.M. • • eth A. Kroboth, Recording Secretary