Loading...
02-27-1997 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING & ZONING REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 1997 The regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on Thursday, February 27, 1997 in • the Chamber of the Village Hall commencing at 7:40 P.M. The meeting was called to order with the following members present: Present: Absent: Also Present: Robert Blum, Acting Chairman Thomas J. Caldwell Frank Hegedus Les Forney Cliff Walters Mark Ulmer, Village Attorney Frank LuBien Ross Prieto Lisa Kroboth ITEM # 1 MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13, 1997 Mr. Forney asked that on page 1, paragraph 2, line 2, the following "Mr. Forney questioned the liability limitations on the unit." be changed to read, "...questioned the liability implications of the unit." Mr. Caldwell asked that on page 3, paragraph 1, line 4 the word "congruous" be changed to "incongruous." Mr. Forney moved that the minutes of February 13, 1997 be approved as amended. Mr. Caldwell seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. ITEM #2 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE TO PERMIT A DRIVEWAY IN THE SIDE SETBACK Barbara Labourdette 58 NE 92 Street • Mr. Ulmer explained that section 19-18 of the Village Code requires that an item pass on a majority vote. Due to the tie vote at the last meeting on this item, it was placed on the agenda again for reconsideration. Mr. LuBien explained that the Code requires a 10 foot side yard setback. There currently exists a driveway on the property. Mr. Manuel Martinez, husband of Ms. Labourdette and owner, was present on his own behalf. He stated that the driveway was built for easy access to the rear door. Mr. Martinez noted that he had brought the receipt for the work performed. Mr. Blum asked if the driveway was built without a permit. Mr. Martinez replied it was. Planning & Zoning February 27, 1997 Page 2 Mr. Forney explained that the Board was split on their decision at the last meeting due to two opinions regarding the placement of the driveway. One opinion was that the size and peculiar shape of the lot justified a variance. The other opinion was that there are other places on the lot the driveway could be placed without a need for a variance. Mr. Caldwell asked if the driveway could be placed in rear of the property in line with the master bedroom. Mr. Martinez stated that there was a concrete wall on the property line near the alley which restricts access to that area and the utility lines run to the house in that area. Discussion regarding the placement of the driveway in other areas on the property ensued. Mr. Blum noted that the Code is in place to maintain the integrity of the Village. Mr. Martinez stated that there are numerous properties in the area with similar driveways that do not meet the required side setback. Mr. Blum replied that the request before the Board must be considered as an application for a new driveway without consideration to the surrounding properties nor can consideration be given to the fact that the driveway has already been built. He questioned whether there is a hardship to justify the variance request. Mr. Hegedus moved that the request be denied. This motion was subsequently withdrawn. Mr. Hegedus then moved that there be a finding of fact that the driveway could have been built on the property within the setback provisions of the Code as indicated on the plot plan. Mr. Caldwell seconded the motion. Ms. Labourdette asked for some direction from the Board as to where the driveway could be placed. Mr. Hegedus explained that there was ample room in the rear of the property. Mr. Forney agreed that a driveway could be placed elsewhere on the property. However, he noted that the options available to the applicants will not meet their objective of having unloading access at the rear door. The vote was called and was as follows: YES - Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Blum, Mr. Hegedus. NO - Mr. Forney. Based on the factual finding of the Board, Mr. Caldwell moved that the application for a variance be denied. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: YES - Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Blum, Mr. Hegedus. No - Mr. Forney. Mr. Martinez commented on the vote stating that it was his impression that Mr. Hegedus and the. Board previously denied his request because he did not submit the receipt for the driveway installation. He brought the receipt that was requested at the previous Board meeting with the impression that if the receipt was presented to the Board, the application for the driveway would be approved. Mr. Hegedus stated that he would have been more inclined to consider the application at that time. After further review of the application and the Code, Mr. Hegedus stated that he was bound to the Code and unable to approve the application. • Planning & Zoning February 27, 1997 Page 3 ITEM #3 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF EXTERIOR COLORS AND SIGNAGE Westar Foodmart & Gas Station 8700 Biscayne Blvd. Mr. LuBien explained that the original site plan was approved without final color approval and it was stipulated that the applicant would come back before the Board for such approval. Renderings of the color proposals were presented to the Board.. For the record, Mr. Caldwell stated that he has defective color vision. Ron Nevils, Alamo Petroleum Construction was present on behalf of the applicant. He explained that the fascia canopy is metal with an applied decal. Mr. Caldwell expressed his disapproval of the proposed color scheme based on other Westar stations. Mr. Hegedus stated that the proposed colors were very overpowering and not harmonious with the area. Mr. LuBien suggested that the color bands be decreased and the white be increased. The Board agreed. Mr. Nevils asked what basis the Board used for color approval. Mr. Ulmer replied that if the request is for an amendment of the approved exterior elevation, then the color approval is at the Board's discretion. Discussion regarding options for the size and intensity of the color bands ensued. It was suggested that the blue and red bands be approximately 6 and 12 inches respectively or a similar ratio. Subsequently, the applicant withdrew the request and will resubmit it at a later date with the discussed changes. ITEM #4 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT FIBERGLASS SHINGLES IN LIEU OF TILE ON THE ROOFS Westar Foodmart and Gas Station 8700 Biscayne Blvd. Mr. Nevils explained that the roof needs to be replaced. He is requesting that a tile roof not be required as it is an unnecessary expense and the roof will remain unseen behind the fascia. Mr. Blum asked if the roof was pitched or flat. Mr. Nevils replied it was a pitched roof. However, the required tile roof is much more expensive and more difficult to maintain. Mr. Ulmer cited Section 255, subsection 5 regarding roofing materials in a commercial district. Mr. Caldwell asked if metal shingles or a seamed metal roof would be a consideration by the applicant. Mr. Nevils stated that he would have consult with his client. Due to the codification • pertaining to roofing materials, Mr. Ulmer asked that the item be tabled so that he could further investigate the Code and properly advise the Board. Subsequently, Mr. Nevils withdrew the application for the variance to permit fiberglass shingles. • • Planning & Zoning ITEM #5 BOARD COMMENTS February 27, 1997 Page 4 Mr. Caldwell asked if the Recording Secretary was a notary. Ms. Kroboth replied she was not. It was suggested that she apply for notary status. ITEM #6 ADJOURNMENT The February 27, 1997 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was adjoumed at 8:50 P.M. eth A. Kroboth, Recording Secretary Robert Blum, Acting Chairman