Loading...
08-14-1997 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING & ZONING AUGUST 14, 1997 The regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on Thursday, August 14, 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 Lisa Kroboth ITEM # 1 MINUTES OF JULY 24, 1997 Mr. Caldwell asked that on page three, paragraph 3, line 7, the following portion of the sentence be stricken "It was concluded..." and that it be replaced with "It was the opinion of some of the Board members...". Mr. Blum asked that on page two, paragraph 2, line 1, the following be added "Mr. Blum stated that the on -street parking is not essential...". To be consistent, Mr. Walters asked that the following line containing the word "off-street" be changed to "on -street". Mr. Blum moved that the minutes of July 24, 1997 be approved as amended. Mr. Caldwell seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. Mr. Ulmer arrived at this time. • ITEM # 2 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE TO POOL AND DECK SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. Efrain Acosta and Philip Spacek 109 NW 95 Street Mr. LuBien explained that the site plan indicated the proposed location of the pool. The Board discussed whether Section 513 applied to this application. Mr. Ulmer stated that it did not. Mr. Efrain Acosta was present on his own behalf. He stated that the property does not have a backyard, per se. He submitted photos of the property for the Board's review. • Planning & Zoning August 14, 1997 Page 2 Mr. Walters questioned if the pool would be within the required setbacks if the address of the property were to change to the avenue. Mr. Acosta noted that he had no access to the house from the avenue, thus changing the address would not be plausible. Mr. LuBien noted that the pool would still not meet the required setbacks. Mr. Caldwell questioned what hardship would be created if the pool were not approved. Mr. Acosta stated that this the last phase of improvements to the property. If the application were denied, he stated that he would not be able to use approximately forty feet of the property. Mr. Acosta presented a revised drawing with different dimensions for the Board's consideration. Mr. Caldwell moved that it be a finding of fact that a hardship does exist due to the unique characteristics of the property and that the 7' 6" distance from the side yard be allowed as long as the 5' setback from the rear yard deck is maintained. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion. Mr. Forney commented that there is no hardship in not having a pool and passing such a variance would create a very bad precedence. Mr. Caldwell reiterated his position that the property has unique characteristics that create an unusual situation. Mr. Blum agreed with Mr. Forney's position that not being able to fit a pool on a property does not create a hardship. Mr. Walters observed that setbacks were created to prevent neighbors from obtrusive uses. He noted that precedence can be set as long as it is built on a strong foundation. Mr. Ulmer stated that he did not agree with the application's classification as a hardship. If the applicant shortened the pool by three inches, he would comply with the rear yard setback. Mr. Ulmer noted that the Code has two provisions for side yard setbacks for swimming pools. The Board must interpret which setback to use. Mr. Ulmer questioned whether a legal hardship exists. In consideration of all the facts discussed, Mr. Hegedus withdrew his second to the original motion and Mr. Caldwell withdrew his motion. Mr. Ulmer noted that because the applicant was able to submit two different drawings for the proposed pool, it is proof that a hardship does not exist. However, he noted that the Code provision is ambiguous in its definition of a side yard setback for swimming pools as it has two setback dimensions, 12 '/z and 10 feet, which are contradictory to each other. Mr. Hegedus moved that it be a determination of the Board that an ambiguity exists to the side yard setback requirement for swimming pools and the Board therefore recognizes the ten foot minimum setback to apply. Mr. Caldwell seconded the motion. Mr. Forney confirmed that with the motion that was on the table, the applicant would meet the required setbacks based on the first drawing submitted to the Board. It was agreed that the application would meet the side yard requirement of ten feet. Mr. Acosta withdrew his application for a variance at this time. The vote was called and was unanimous in favor. • • Planning & Zoning ITEM #3 ADJOURNMENT August 14, 1997 Page 3 At the Village Manager's request, Mr. LuBien asked the Board to consider having one monthly meeting on the third Thursday of the month. It was the consensus of the Board to change their meeting time to the third Thursday of each month. The August 14, 1997 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was adjourned at 8:40 P.M. A. Kroboth, Recording Secretary