12-18-1997 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE
PLANNING & ZONING
DECEMBER 18, 1997
The regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on Thursday, December 18, 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: Cliff Walters, Chairman
Robert Blum
Thomas J. Caldwell
Frank Hegedus
•
Absent: Ivor Hegedus
Also Present: David Wolpin, Interim Village Attorney
Frank LuBien
Ross Prieto
Lisa Kroboth
ITEM #1 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 20, 1997
Mr. Blum asked that the following changes be made:
Page 1, Item #2, Paragraph 2, Line 1 - Replace "...demonstrating the difference between the tile and
shingle roof." with "to support Mr. Sandler's request."
Mr. Walters arrived at this time.
Page 2, Paragraph 4, Line 4 - Add "Mr. Caldwell alluded that the applicant should obtain a
professional opinion, such as an architect or engineer report, in regards to some of the earlier
statements.
Page 3, Bullet 5, Add "...the former Dog Track owned property."
Mr. Caldwell moved for approval of the November 20, 1997 minutes as amended. Mr. Hegedus
seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor.
ITEM #2 APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR CARPORT ENCLOSURE
Ricardo and Mary Mucenic 1036 NE 96 Street
Planning & Zoning
December 18, 1997 Page 2
Mr. LuBien explained that there is a carport between the house and the existing garage. The
applicant would like to enclose the carport. Mr. Mucenic was present on his own behalf. Mr. Blum
questioned the cut for footing as indicated on the plans. Mr. LuBien replied that the footing is for
the block wall framework. Mr. Caldwell asked what the purpose of the construction was. Mr.
Mucenic responded that they would be enlarging the kitchen and transforming the carport into a
family room. Mr. Walters questioned if flood elevation criteria were to be considered. Mr. Lubien
indicated that flood compliance was processed by the Building & Zoning department. Mr. Hegedus
moved for approval of the application as submitted. Mr. Caldwell seconded the motion and the vote
was unanimous in favor.
ITEM #3 APPROVAL OF VARIANCE TO INSTALL A 5 FT. CHAIN LINK FENCE
John Manspile, Jr. and Craig Willard 905 NE 92 Street
Mr. LuBien explained that the subject property is a unique and unusual property in that it is
surrounded on three sides by a street. He indicated the owner would like to place the proposed fence
in the rear and side yard which in most instances is permitted. However, the property in essence has
three front yards. Mr. LuBien stated it was his opinion that a variance was needed to Section 523 -
there must be harmony with the surrounding property. He also noted that as the house sits on the
corner, a fence section not higher than 3 '/z feet can be erected for proper traffic visibility as per
Section 518 (a)(2).
Discussion regarding the height limitations and the fencing material ensued. Mr. LuBien noted the
question of harmony and the impact of the proposed fence installation to the surrounding property
was at issue. Mr. Blum maintained that harmony was not an issue. Mr. Walters concurred. Mr.
Caldwell noted the comer section of fence must comply with Section 518(a)(2). Mr. Hegedus
agreed.
Mr. John Manspile and Mr. Craig Willard were present on their own behalf. Height limitations were
further discussed using the submitted plan. The applicants agreed to comply with 20 foot setback on
the comer. Given the applicants' compliance to Section 518(a)(2), Mr. LuBien stated that it was his
opinion the application needed a variance for Section 523 from an aesthetic standpoint only, this
property, in effect, has three front yards thus the 3 1/2 foot height limitation and material restrictions.
Mr. Wolpin read Section 523 noting that Building Official has determined that the proposed fence
would not be harmonious in character with existing buildings or appropriate to the surroundings.
Mr. Blum moved that, given the location of the property, harmony is not a problem and that the
application be approved provided the applicant complies with Section 518(a)(2) requiring a comer
setback. The motion died due to lack of a second. Mr Hegedus inquired as to the materials that
would be required. It was concluded that the material as proposed would be allowed.
Mr. Blum amended his original motion to include the planting and maintaining of a hedge along the
outside of the fence. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion. Mr. LuBien asked where the hedge would
be planted. It was concluded that the hedge and fence combination must comply with the 20 foot
triangle corner setback. The vote was called and was unanimous in favor.
•
•
Planning & Zoning
December 18, 1997 Page 3
ITEM #4 APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR RENOVATIONS.
Mohamed Ibrahim/ANJ Future Investments, Inc. 8851 Biscayne Blvd.
After explaining the structure's current layout, Mr. LuBien described the proposed expansion and
renovations to the property with changes to the elevations as shown. Mr. LuBien noted that the
Community Development Director had not yet reviewed the proposed plans. It was the opinion of
Ms. Ramos Majoros that the applicant submit a detailed landscape plan with proper specifications as
well as color and lettering detailing for signage.
Mr. Mohamed Ibrahim and the architect, Mr. Raymond Camayd, were present. Mr. Ibrahim provided
some background on the property and it's location. Mr. Caldwell asked if more landscaping would
be added than what was provided in the application. Mr. Ibrahim stated there would be more green
areas. Discussion regarding the elevations of the building ensued.
Mr. Caldwell moved for approval of the application subject to staff review / approval and to meeting
the specifications of landscape and signage as provided in the Code of Ordinances. Mr. Hegedus
seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor.
ITEM #5 APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR RENOVATIONS
AND CHANGE OF USE (SITE PLAN REVIEW).
Mohamed Ibrahim/ANJ Future Investments, Inc. 650 NE 88 Terrace
Mr. LuBien defined the area of consideration and the issue before the Board. One consideration is
the site plan approval. The other is the proposed use of the property. The building is damaged and
is subject to an order issued by the Unsafe Structures Board. The building will be reconstructed,
requiring a site plan review. The building, upon completion, will be used as a daycare center.
Permitted uses as outlined in the Code does not address this specific use. Mr. Wolpin noted that the
use is provided for in B1 zone under personal care operations.
Mr. Hegedus moved to approve the application subject to staff review / approval and to meeting the
required landscape and signage specifications as provided for in the Code of Ordinances. Mr.
Caldwell seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor.
ITEM #6 ADJOURNMENT
The December 18, 1997 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was adjourned at 8:50 P.M.
Elizabeth A. Kroboth, Recording Secretary