Loading...
05-08-1997 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING & ZONING MAY 8, 1997 The regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on Thursday, May 8, 1997 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 Ross Prieto Lisa Kroboth ITEM # 1 MINUTES OF APRIL 24, 1997 Mr. Blum asked that on page two, paragraph 2, the last line, the following be added "... if it is to be masonry construction and a minor setback encroachment." Mr. Caldwell moved that the minutes of February 13, 1997 be approved as amended. Mr. Blum seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. ITEM # 2 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR GARAGE CONVERSION Mitchell Polansky 461 NE 101 Street Mr. LuBien stated that the structure is currently non -conforming due to a one foot setback from the rear property line. However, all other setbacks are in compliance with the Code. Although it ® is non -conforming, it can be altered, but not enlarged. Mr. Hegedus noted that it appears that the conversion is into an apartment or efficiency. Mr. Ulmer stated that Section 524-C and possibly 524-A apply to this application. He read from Section 524-C stating that the Board can authorize the plans for the non -conforming structure based only on a factual finding. The Code stipulates that alterations to a non -conforming structure cannot materially prolong the life of the structure. In considering Section 524-A, Mr. Ulmer stated that there is a possible change in use from a garage to a bedroom. Planning & Zoning May 8, 1997 Page 2 Mitchell Polansky, the applicant was present on his own behalf. Mr. Polansky noted that the structure was built before the Village was incorporated. He stated that the structure will have a computer and files for a home study. The garage door will be replaced with french double doors. Mr. Walters stated that there is a concern with single family residences becoming multi -family residences. He asked if the room's use was being extended at the expense of the garage. Mr. Polansky replied that the structure was being updated. He stated that the structure had extensive damage due to Hurricane Andrew . It was reroofed and the walls were rebuilt. He simply wants to improve the property. Mr. Ulmer noted that the testimony presented by the applicant regarding the extent of occupancy of land area and intensity of use has been that the existing structure was modified by changing the aesthetics. To inhibit any changes to the intensity of use, Mr. Ulmer suggested that, should the Board approve the application, a restrictive covenant be recorded to run with the land which would prohibit the use of the structure to be anything but a bedroom. Mr. Polansky agreed to the restriction. Mr. Hegedus moved that there be a finding of fact that the area of the patio deck being added reduces the amount of disharmony on this property. Mr. Blum seconded the motion. Mr. Caldwell expressed his concern with the plan to convert a structure which appears to be a garage into what appears to be a small second home with improved bath facilities thus bringing more disharmony to the area. Discussion regarding the conversion ensued. Mr. LuBien noted that renovations on the structure began without a permit. There is no documentation in the property file that shows the configuration of the garage before the work began. There was testimony that a full bath existed prior to the work taking place. Mr. Hegedus inquired if a dividing wall was in place before the work began. Mr. Polansky stated that no structural changes have been made and the only interior wall was the bathroom divider. Mr. Caldwell asked Mr. Polansky if he would object to the removal of the shower. He replied that he would prefer to have the shower remain. Mr. Caldwell asked if the improvements will prolong the life of the building. Arthur Salow, the architect for the applicant, stated that it would not prolong the life any more than painting the outside of the building would as it is simply maintenance of the building. Mr. Caldwell asked if a kitchen could easily be added to the structure. Mr. Salow replied that it could not due to the layout of the foundation. The property file was obtained for review. However, no plans for the accessory building existed. Mr. Hegedus amended his motion to include as a condition of approval, the owner's agreement to a restrictive covenant on the property for any use other than sleeping quarters for that portion of the property. Mr. Blum seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: YES - Mr. Blum, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Hegedus; NO - Mr. Walters. Planning & Zoning May 8, 1997 Page 3 ITEM # 3 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR GARAGE CONVERSION. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE TO PERMIT ADDITION TO NON -CONFORMING BUILDING. Eduardo and Martha Cavanna 803 NE 91 Terrace Mr. LuBien explained that the applicant is requesting an addition to a non -conforming building. The garage currently sits toward the rear of the property with a double ribbon driveway and encroaches the side setback by approximately 4 1/2 feet. The applicant would like to extend the garage wall to continue straight along the side property line to intersect with the front of the house in essence, squaring off the addition. Mr. Cavanna, the applicant, was present on his own behalf. Mr. Caldwell asked if a hardship would be created if the variance was not granted. Mr. Cavanna replied that he would like to improve the property and make the house more livable. He provided the Board with plans for the proposed improvements. Discussion regarding the addition ensued. Mr. Hegedus noted that according to Section 524C a non -conforming building may not be increased in size and thus questioned whether the Board had the authority to consider the item. Mr. Ulmer stated that the Code precludes the Board from allowing an enlargement to a non -conforming structure or further create a non -conformity. The plans submitted by the applicant with the proposed garage enclosure addition may not be considered by the Board. Discussion regarding the location of the proposed addition ensued. Mr. Ulmer stated that the Board could grant a variance to allow the addition in the back of the structure as long as it does not further enlarge the non -conformity. It was concluded that the Board must consider each issue, the garage enclosure and the proposed addition, separately. Mr. Caldwell moved that it be a finding of fact that a hardship does exist and therefore the variance be approved for the addition, but not for the location in the front of the property as shown on the application. Rather, the addition can only be in the rear of the property as long as plans are submitted that meet the Code requirements. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. Mr. Caldwell moved that the application for the garage enclosure be approved on the condition that a restrictive covenant be executed and filed providing that at no time shall the garage be used as sleeping quarters. Mr. Blum seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: YES- Mr. Blum, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Hegedus; NO - Mr. Walters. Planning & Zoning May 8, 1997 Page 4 ITEM # 4 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF COLORS FOR EVERETT BUILDING Henry Everett 9600-9640 NE 2n`' Avenue Mr. LuBien presented the color scheme to the Board. For the record, Mr. Caldwell stated that he IIIhas defective color vision. Mr. LuBien stated that the staff has reviewed and approved the colors as submitted. Mr. Hegedus moved to approve the colors submitted. Mr. Caldwell seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. • ITEM # 5 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION - UTILITY SHEDS Mr. Caldwell stated that the setback requirements are unduly restrictive and should be reduced. Mr. Walters stated that due to the increased number of garage enclosures, it is an issue that the Board should consider. However, the Board should discuss the issue when everyone is present. He also noted that the Board should seek some direction from the Village Council regarding the issue. Mr. Ulmer stated that since this is a land use change, two public hearings would need to be held. Mr. Caldwell moved to pass a resolution of a proposed amendment intending to change the setback requirements for utility sheds by reducing the setback. Mr. Blum seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. Mr. Ulmer asked for clarification of the minutes of March 27, 1997 regarding the approval of the installation of a utility shed. Mr. Walters inquired as to the status of the proposed criteria for garage enclosures. He stated that he would speak to the Village Manager as to the status. The Board discussed restrictive covenants. ITEM #6 ADJOURNMENT The May 8, 1997 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was adjourned at 9:05 P.M. Elizabeth A. Kroboth, Recording Secretary