Loading...
09-18-1997 Regular Meeting• MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING & ZONING SEPTEMBER 18, 1997 The regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on Thursday, September 18, 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 Ross Prieto Lisa Kroboth ITEM # 1 MINUTES OF AUGUST 14, 1997 Mr. Forney moved that the minutes of August 14, 1997 be approved as submitted. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. ITEM # 2 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO APPEAL THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DETERMINATION OF REFERENCE FINISH GRADE Dick and Betsy Blum 1430 NE 101 Street As Mr. Robert Blum is the contractor for the applicant, he stepped down from the dais to present this case to the Board. Mr. Prieto explained that the perimeter wall is currently being constructed and the Building Official has determined that the five foot height of the wall should be measured from the lowest adjacent point of grade. Mr. Robert Blum presented his appeal of the Building Official's determination of reference by stating that there is a maximum fence height of 5 feet in the side yard. However, a minimum height of 4 feet is required if a swimming pool is located on the property. By taking the measurement from the lowest adjacent grade, the height differential can vary for the length of the wall. Invariably, the IIImeasurement should be taken from a consistent point of reference, the Blum property, where as adjacent grades have inconsistencies. Mr. Blum noted that the house is currently the only one in Miami Shores Village to be built for post Hurricane Andrew FEMA regulations. Mr. Blum presented the Board with photographs of the properties in question and the wall construction. Mr. Walters inquired as to the reference used by the Building Department in determining the reference of measurement. Mr. Prieto stated that this has been historically determined on a job -by -job basis, but generally, the measurement was taken from the lowest adjacent point of grade. Mr. Ulmer arrived at this time. • Planning & Zoning September 18, 1997 Page 2 Mr. Ulmer stated that there is a question of interpretation insofar as logically, the measurement should be taken from the side of the property owner requesting the fence. Mr. Ulmer noted that the relevant provisions regarding this item are Section 517 and 518. Mr. Forney expressed his concerns of the fence height (including the artificial change to the grade due to the FEMA regulations) and asked that consideration be given to both the Blum's and the neighbors side of the fence. Mr. George Burch, a neighbor to the property in question, was present to express his concerns regarding the proposed fence height as well as the storm water regulations. He stated that the property had been built up, artificially elevated to meet FEMA requirements for the first floor of the house. The grade of the land for the adjacent properties is level with the sea wall, but the height of the wall measured from the Burch property is 7 feet. Mr. Burch stated that the storm waters drain into the septic tank area on his property. Mr. Caldwell asked Dr. Burch two times what problem(s) the wall, if built as the applicant requested, would cause him but on each occasion he responded that he simply wanted to see how the issue would be resolved, i.e. he did not identify any problems. Mr. Forney maintained that the regulations are in place to help neighbors and ensure harmony in the community. He stated that the wall height should be measured from the outside where it will be viewed most often. The 4 foot fence height requirement for pools is to keep people from coming onto the property. Mr. Forney observed that the Board must uphold the intent of the Code rather than an individual's perception of what is intended. Mr. Dick Blum spoke on his own behalf He stated that the grade alteration was due to FEMA regulations. The Code allows for a 5 foot fence and as such Mr. Dick Blum stated that he simply wants that to which he is entitled to allow for some privacy. Mr. Walters noted that the fill criteria should be evaluated as there will be more such cases in the future. Discussion regarding the Building Department's measurement of the wall ensued. Mr. Prieto stated that the basis for measurement as precedented was from the lowest point of grade as not cause undo hardship on either property. Mr. Forney remarked that FEMA regulations may dictate the measurement to be taken in a different manner. Mr. Caldwell noted that the minimum requirements must be met for safety. Mr. Forney moved that the Board grant the appeal of the Building Official's ruling and direct that the measurement be made from the legally required grade measured from the interior of the property with the fence height not to exceed 5 feet. Mr. Caldwell seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. ITEM #3 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR SWIMMING POOL AND DECK Scott Durban 269 NE 100 Street Mr. Ulmer clarified that the swimming pool complies with the minimum ten foot setback for pools as determined at the last Board meeting. It can therefore be built as shown in the submitted drawings. The only issue with this application is the proposed deck to be constructed within the setback. Historically, the Building Department has determined that any construction within the setback is prohibited. Paved areas built within the side setback may become enclosed, thus making the main building within the setback area. Planning & Zoning September 18, 1997 Page 3 Scott Durban was present on his own behalf He explained that the deck would encompass a seven foot paver area from the pool's edge. George Russo from Essig Pools was present on the applicant's behalf Mr. Ulmer clarified that the issue before the Board was a variance for the deck. Mr. Walters inquired as to the difficulty in not having the deck continue around the perimeter of the pool on the side of the set back. Mr. Durban replied that the deck is narrow on the house side and there is not a distinct walkway around the pool area. Questions arose regarding the process used to lay the pavers and whether the paver deck would be considered a permanent structure. Mr. Ulmer noted that the applicant drawings establish that the deck can be constructed in various ways without hardship. Mr. Prieto countered that according to the South Florida Building Code, a structure is anything that is not naturally occurring thus it would be determined that the pavers are a structure. Mr. Forney noted that it is not a hardship not to have a swimming pool. Mr. Blum agreed. Mr. Caldwell asked what hardship would be created if the patio deck was not approved. Mr. Durban replied that the purpose of the deck was for a safe walking area for children which could be accomplished with a minimum of 2 1/2 feet of deck. Mr. Caldwell moved to uphold the Building Official's determination that a brick paver deck is a structure. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: YES - Mr. Blum, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Hegedus, Mr. Forney; NO - Mr. Walters. Mr. Caldwell moved that it be a finding of fact that a hardship does not exist and the application for a variance be denied. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. ITEM #4 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE TO FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHT Daniel and Gloria Linden 1165 NE 104 Street Mr. Prieto explained that the property partially abuts Biscayne Boulevard. The applicant is seeking approval for an increase in the height to the front yard fence. Daniel and Gloria Linden were present on their own behalf. Due to the property location, security issues have arisen with an increase in the amount of foot traffic in the area. Allowing the fence height to remain at a continuum would also be more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Linden recounted incidents regarding the safety and security of the property. He pointed out that with recent road improvements, the grade differential between the sidewalk curbing and the property is considerable thus, a fence less than 5 feet would serve little purpose. Mr. Ulmer read Section 518, which was recently recodified in regards to fence height on Biscayne Blvd. The fence will be constructed of an approved material. He clarified the issue before the Board stating that the owners have a right to place the fence along the front yard of the property facing Biscayne Blvd., but the location must be approved by the Board. The Board must also consider whether to approve a variance to allow the continuance of the fence for five feet along the front yard and along the side yard. Planning & Zoning September 18, 1997 Page 4 Questions arose regarding the neighboring properties and the effects the fence construction may have. The lot to the west is vacant. The property to the north is the Miami Shores Motel. This property is a commercial use that previously had a crime problem which was partially deterred with the erection of a fence and security gate, thus this criminal mischief may have been deterred to other areas. Mr. Caldwell moved that it be a finding of fact that a hardship exists and that the application for a variance be granted as required by Section 518A with the condition that the fence be of same type as that in front of the Miami Shores Country Club and that the fence be located as indicated by Mr. Linden on the site plan submitted. Mr. Blum seconded the motion. Mr. Blum expressed his concern regarding the height of the fence in the side yard to the west as there is potential for the property to be developed thus having a five foot fence in their front yard. Mr. Walters noted that this in a unique and unusual situation in that Biscayne Blvd is a zoned as a single family residence. This should be a consideration when dealing with properties located on Biscayne Blvd. The vote was called and was unanimous in favor. ITEM #5 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE TO ALLOW 5' WALKWAY IN SIDE YARD SETBACK Jose and Delia Barroso 1625 NE 104 Street Mr. Prieto explained that a concrete slab was poured in the side set back from the front to the back of the property as indicated on the drawing submitted. Ms. Delia Barroso was present on her own behalf She stated that she would like a variance to construct a walkway to the back of the property to better utilize the dock area. She also stated that a walkway would be easier to clean as she owns two large dogs. She would like to obtain a permit to cut back two feet of the concrete slab. Mr. Ron Von Wedel, the neighbor to the east, stated that the two Rottweiler dogs defecate on the concrete slab which is both unpleasant to look at and creates an unpleasant odor. When the slab is cleaned, the runoff drains onto the Mr. Von Wedel's property as well as into the canal. For the record, Mr. Hegedus stated that he had driven by the property. Mr Forney asked should the variance be denied, that the applicant would then be required to remove the existing concrete slab. It was confirmed she would. Mr. Hegedus moved that it be a finding of fact and a conclusion of law that a hardship does not exist thus, denying the request for a variance and that the Building Official's decision be upheld. Mr. Forney seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor. • • Planning & Zoning September 18, 1997 Page 5 ITEM #6 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO PERMIT ADDITION TO COMMERCIAL BUILDING Pizza Hut 8900 Biscayne Blvd. Mr. Prieto explained that the location currently has a prefabricated cooler. The applicant proposes to construct a CBS wall on two sides of the cooler which are currently exposed. The application is before the Board on site plan approval. Mr. Prieto noted that there is no indication in the file regarding approval as to the original placement of the cooler. Mr. Mauricio Montego was present on behalf of the contractor. He stated that the prefabricated cooler has been in place for quite some time. Mr. Hegedus noted that because of the electrical connections, a permit should have been issued for the installation. Mr. Montego stated that there is a leakage problem to prevent water from seeping into the cooler. The proposed construction would include two walls with a roof cover. Because the property is part of the entrance to Miami Shores Village, Mr. Walters felt that there was little information provided for the site plan approval. The necessary details as to the materials and aesthetics for the site are not included. Mr. Forney moved that the item be deferred until such time that more detailed information is provided. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. ITEM #7 ADJOURNMENT The September 18, 1997 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Elizaeth A. Kroboth, Recording Secretary • MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT PI CTIA it rim} isy bettliffigftarbbn by: 8 (3 o5 Picture Explanation: Date: Picture Explanation: Picture Explanation: Picture Explanation: