01-17-2002 Regular Meeting•
•
MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 17, 2002
The regular meeting of the Miami Shores Planning and Zoning Board was held on Thursday,
January 17, 2002, at the Village Hall. The meeting was called to order by Bob Stobs II, Chairman
at 7:00 P.M. with the following persons present:
ITEM I: ROLL CALL:
Bob Stobs II, Chairman
Richard Fernandez, Vice Chairman
Cesar Sastre
W. Robert Abramitis
Tim Crutchfield
ALSO PRESENT: Al Berg, Planning & Zoning Director
Richard Sarafan, Village Attorney
Irene M. Fajardo, Recording Secretary
Mr. Sarafan swore in all those participating in the meeting.
ITEM II: APPROVAL OF MINUTES -NOVEMBER 15, 2001
Mr. Fernandez made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 15, 2001 meeting. Mr.
Sastre seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.
Each of the Board members stated that they had visited all of the sites.
ITEM III:
PZ02-0117-01 Walter Michot(owner) Sec. 523: Paint color appeal
61NE96St.
Mr Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended denial of the
application for paint color approval. A letter from Mr. Berg to Mr. Michot was read into the
record as evidence that Mr. Michot was informed of the expired permit and that a new permit was
required to complete the unfinished painting. Mr. Crutchfield stated that on April 25, 2000, the
applicant obtained a permit to paint the house the same color that was submitted in the present
permit application. The original permit expired before the applicant finished painting the house
and Staff denied the new permit application on the grounds that the color was inappropriate and
not harmonious with the neighborhood. Mr. Crutchfield stated that the Board should be
consistent with the prior approval of the color. The original swatch was submitted to the Board.
Mr. Fernandez stated that neither the original swatch nor the present swatch submitted, matched
the color of the house as it is painted now. He stated that the color on the house is not
• Planning & Zoning meeting -2- January 17, 2002
harmonious to the neighborhood and that it screams from blocks away. He also stated that the
owner was clearly informed of the expired permit and the requirement of a new permit and that
the owner made his own decision of not obtaining one. The applicant Mr. Michot was there to
present his case. He stated that the Historical Board approved his original paint application and
the present application and was now waiting for the approval of the planning and Zoning Board.
He stated that the color on the present swatch and on the original swatch was the same color
painted on the house now and the color for which he seeks approval. He also stated that the
present swatch was lighter than the original because it consisted of one coat instead of two. Mr.
Michot assured the Board that the color on the house was the same color used in the 1920s for
Mediterranean homes and that the color would fade if deepness of color was there concern. The
Board asked the applicant why he finished painting the house without a permit after receiving
specific notice that he required a new one? Mr. Michot stated that he felt a new permit was not
needed to finish work. After further discussion, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the
paint color consistent with the Boards's prior approval. Motion died due to lack of second. Mr.
Fernandez made a motion to deny the application for paint color approval on the grounds that the
color painted on the house did not match any of the swatches submitted to the Board and that the
color did not look harmonious with the neighborhood. Mr. Sastre seconded the motion. Mr.
Crutchfield expressed his concerns with the motion, since passing it, would not consistent with
the prior motion for the original application. He stated that a passing motion would be
inappropriate and the most unfair action he had ever seen the Board take. He stated that the
applicant could have a very good lawsuit against the Village since the applicant relied on the
Planning and Zoning Board's previous approval of the color. Motion passed 4-1. (Mr.
Crutchfield voted no).
PZ02-0117-02
Theodore Konover(owner)
Monfred Joseph(tenant)
9816 NE 2" Ave.
Sec. 504(t): Awning and
window signs.
Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the
application. Pictures were submitted to the Board showing the awning and the window signs
After further discussion from the Board, Mr. Fernandez made a motion to approve staff's
recommendations. Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.
PZ02-0117-03
Alix Faustin
201 NW 103 St.
Sec. 521(b)(2)(a): Variance to allow
3 %z `setback where code requires 10'
The applicant stated that he amended the application for a variance to 4'. Mr. Berg explained the
basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended denial of the application since there is
nothing unusual or peculiar about the site that would permit consideration for a variance.
The applicant, Mr. Faustin, was there to present his case. He stated that the self open gate needs
• space to open and close and that is why a 4' set back is required. Mr. Berg stated that the
applicant installed the gate and the driveway without first obtaining a permit. Mr. Berg also
stated that a current code enforcement fine currently exists on the property for these violations.
Planning & Zoning meeting
-3- January 17, 2002
After further discussion from the Board, Mr. Fernandez made a motion to deny the variance
request. Mr. Crutchfield seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.
PZ02-0117-04
Boris Moroz(Owner)
Burger King(tenant)
9099 Biscayne Blvd.
Sec. 504(f): Wall and detached signs
The applicant was not present. Mr. Fernandez made a motion to table the case until the next
meeting. Mr. Crutchfield seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.
PZ02-0117-05
Elizabeth Cimadevilla(owner) Sec. 604: Site plan
xxx NE 103 St. approval
Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the
application subject to compliance with the landscape standards, limiting the height of the house to
30', and adding stucco banding and keystone sills to the elevations. The applicant, Ms.
Cimadevilla, was there to present her case. Ms. Cimadevilla stated that she will add the stucco
• banding, comply with the landscape standards, and she will limit the height of the house by
working with the architect. The Board discussed the Opinion of Tittle on the property and that
issues regarding easements or reservations had not been submitted to the Board for review. After
further discussion from the Board, Mr. Sastre made a motion to approve the site plan, subject to
compliance of easements or encroachments, and subject to staff's recommendations with
modifications made by Mr. Berg in the memo presented to the Board. Mr. Crutchfield seconded
the motion. Motion passed 4-1. (Mr. Fernandez voted no.)
PZ02-0117-06
Sean and Rosalie(owner) Sec. 701: Appeal of Admin.
1053 NE 95 St. Official -roof tile.
Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended denial of the
application based on previous roof tiles, which were dark tile mixed with a light one. The
applicants, Sean and Rosalie Shea, and the roofer, James Obenour, were there to present the case.
Mr. Obenour explained how the tiles would be placed. The colors would not be placed with a
checkered pattern, but spread randomly throughout the roof. The terracota would be the
dominant color. Armando Rafael, the applicant's neighbor, stated that he liked the idea of the
random pattern roof using the colors presented to the Board. The Board discussed the random
placement of the tiles on the roof. After further discussion, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to
overrule the decision of the building official. Mr. Sastre seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-
. O.
•
Planning & Zoning meeting
-4- January 17, 2002
PZ02-0117-07 Ines HegeduslEnrique Garcia(Owner) Sec. 701: Appeal of Admin.
1201 NE 98 St. Official -non -masonry
structure; flat roof visible
from street
Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended denial of the
application based on the fact that two-story structures with roofs should be governed under
masonry requirements of the code and should be considered as an accessory building. The
applicants, Ines Hegedus and Enrique Garcia, were there to present their case. The applicants
stated that the bottom of the structure would not be enclosed. The applicants also stated that they
did not want a permanent structure ,but that concrete pillars were placed for safety. The
applicants submitted a brochure to the Board showing other playhouses witch looked similar to
the structure that they were trying to create. The Board discussed the definition of an accessory
building and discussed the various ideas of what playhouses should look like. They discussed the
flat roof on the structure and the fact that the structure is big enough to be defined as an
accessory building and therefore should fall under the masonry requirements stated in the code.
After further discussion, Mr. Abramitis made a motion to approve staffs recommendations. Mr.
Sastre seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.
• PZ02-0117-08 Alberto and Josephine Soto(owner) Sec. 523: Paint appeal.
609 NE 105 St.
Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended denial of the
application for paint color approval. The applicant, Alberto Soto was there to present the case.
Mr. Soto stated that the color selected is in keeping with the Art Deco look of the property and
that it is not too bright. After further discussion from the Board, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion
to reverse the building's official decision and approve the color. Mr. Fernandez seconded the
motion. Motion passed 4-1. (Mr. Sastre voted no.)
PZ02-0117-09 E.A. Antonacci(owner) Sec. 400/401: Schedule of
1075 NE 99 St. Regulation -Pool location.
Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the
site plan. Staff also recommended an aluminum picket of 4' running across the front and sides of
the property. The Board discussed the parking on the property. Staff confirmed that the parking
would not be affected by the location of the pool. After further discussion from the Board, Mr.
Sastre made a motion to approve staffs recommendations. Mr. Crutchfield seconded the motion.
Motion passed 5-0.
• NEW BUSINESS: Discussion of paint colors.
Mr. Berg presented pictures to the Board showing before and after pictures of properties that
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning meeting
-5- January 17, 2002
changed the color of the walls or the trim to more suitable colors. The Board discussed the issue
of a color wheel. The Board also discussed how other municipalities were handling color
approval for properties. Staff assured the Board that something pre -determined might lock the
Board into making a decision that is not appropriate because the color chosen might not be
harmonious for a particular property. After further discussion from the Board, a poll was taken.
Three Board members were in favor of not having a color wheel and two were in favor. Mr.
Crutchfield and Mr. Stobs voted in favor of the color wheel. The existing system of color
approval was favored to stay the same
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion for adjournment was made at 10:15 P.M. Next meeting will be on February 21, 2002.
Bob Stobs II, Chairman