Loading...
01-15-1998 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD JANUARY 15, 1998 The regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was held on Thursday, January 15, 1998 in the • Chamber of the Village Hall commencing at 7:35 P.M. The meeting was called to order with the following members present: • Present: Cliff Walters, Chairman Robert Blum Thomas J. Caldwell Frank Hegedus Ivor Hegedus Also Present: David Wolpin, Interim Village Attorney Frank LuBien Lisa Kroboth ITEM #1 MINUTES DECEMBER 18, 1997 Mr. Caldwell moved for approval of the December 18, 1997 minutes as submitted. Mr. F. Hegedus seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor, ITEM #2 APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR ALTERATION TO CHURCH STEEPLE Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses 9100 NE 2nd Avenue Mr. LuBien explained how the applicant proposes to remove the upper portion of the existing steeple and elevate the parapet at the base of the existing steeple. It is before the Board due to the exterior alteration of the building. Mr. A.C. Lowery, the attorney for the applicant was present. He noted a demolition company would undertake the task of removing the steeple. Mr. Caldwell inquired as to the future prospect of a replacement steeple. Mr. Lowery replied that once the steeple is removed, the space will be covered consistent with the building itself. Mr. Blum asked if the removal was for exploratory purposes. Mr. LuBien responded it was not. Mr. Caldwell moved to approve the plans for alterations to church steeple as submitted. Mr. I. Hegedus seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. • Planning & Zoning January 15, 1998 Page 2 ITEM #3 APPEAL OF BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION REGARDING INSTALLATION OF 5' WOODEN FENCE. Susan Lawson 319 Grand Concourse Mr. LuBien spoke of the property location. He read Section 518 (b)(1)(2) of the Code of Ordinances noting that the applicant's side yard lines up with the front yards of those properties on 95th Street. However, this particular situation is not defined in the Code. Mr. LuBien stated that it was his opinion that the applicant's side yard is essentially a front yard in spite of the alley behind the property and the material for the proposed fence is out of character with the surrounding area. He noted the Board should consider the aesthetic impact on the surrounding area. Mr. Caldwell disapproved of the application on the basis that a 5 foot wooden stockade fence not be aesthetically pleasing at the 95th Street property location. Mr. I. Hegedus remarked that the applicant's letter of appeal gives the impression of a need for animal control rather than the issue of privacy. Ms. Susie Lawson was present on her own behalf. She clarified her objective as a dual problem of privacy and the dogs jumping the fence. Mr. Wolpin read Section 2-49 of the Code regarding a definition of front yard. Mr. Caldwell asked whether there was a need for a variance. Based on further discussion, Mr. LuBien retracted his opinion regarding the proposed portion of the property in question being a front yard, thus a variance would not be needed. The peculiarity of the property was further discussed. Mr. Caldwell reiterated his opinion regarding the aesthetics of the proposed fence. Mr. Caldwell made a motion to deny the applicant's appeal and uphold the Building Official's decision. The motion was seconded by Mr. I. Hegedus. Mrs. Elaine DelGrosso suggested an ornamental fence, perhaps of PVC material, from Home Depot be an alternative. Mr. Walters recommended that the applicant reconsider the choice of fencing material. Ms. Lawson stated that she needs guidance as to what would be appropriate. Mr. Walters indicated that the Board is looking at the harmony of the neighborhood in terms of the fencing material proposed. Mr. Blum condensed the view of the Board to the following: a harmony issue rather than a front yard/back yard issue. The application has been considered from an aesthetic point of view in relation to the houses facing 95th Street and adjoining properties. The material, wood stockade, at a height of 5 feet is not appropriate. Rather an ornamental masonry, ornamental metal or a picket fence would be a better alternative. Ms. Lawson questioned the harmony issue. Mr. LuBien referred to Section 523. The vote was called and was unanimous in favor. • • Planning & Zoning January 15, 1998 Page 3 ITEM #4 APPROVAL OF PICKET FENCE, FRONT YARD Ronald E. Rodgers 225 N.E. 105 Street Mr. LuBien referred to the information as contained in the agenda packet regarding the location of the fence which is acceptable as proposed. The Board must obtain the spacing of the proposed pickets as well as approve the type of picket. Ronald Rodgers was present on his own behalf Discussion regarding the spacing of the pickets ensued. Mr. Caldwell moved that the application be approved, the slat be white picket, "dog eared" on top with a height of 3 '/2 feet and a width of 4 inches, with a spacing of 3". Mr. Blum seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. BOARD COMMENTS Mr. F. Hegedus inquired as to the status of the Code Revisions that the Board had presented to the Village Stag some time ago. Mr. Caldwell asked about the utility shed ordinance that was prepared by the previous Village Attorney. Mr. F. Hegedus also informed the Board of state funding available to FP&L to accommodate for the installation of underground utilities. The January 15, 1998 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board was adjourned at 8:50 P.M. Elizabeth A. Kroboth, Recording Secretary Cliff Walters, Chairman MEMORANDUM TO: MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE BUILDING & ZONING COMMITTEE RE: WOODEN FENCE AT 225 NE 105 STREET WE THE UNDERSIGNED HOMEOWNERS SUPPORT MR. RODGERS' EFFORT FOR A WHITE, WOODEN, PICKET FENCE ON HIS PROPERTY AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS. MR. RODGERS HAS TURNED WHAT WAS AN EYESORE INTO A BEAUTIFUL ADDITION TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. HIS HOME IS ONE OF THE FIRST SIGHTS WE AND VISITORS SEE WHEN TURNING ONTO NE 105 ST AND IT PROVIDES A WARM AND INVITING WELCOME. THE ADDITION OF A WHITE PICKET FENCE NOT ONLY ENHANCES HIS PROPERTY, BUT THIS FIRST IMPRESSION OF THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS THIS TYPE OF HARD WORK AND PRIDE OF OWNERSHIP WHICH IS MIAMI SHORES' FUTURE AND SHOULD BE WHOLLY ENCOURAGED. AFTER ALL, WE ARE THE VILLAGE BEAUTIFUL! THANK YOU.