Loading...
07-18-2002 Regular Meeting• MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING JULY 18, 2002 The regular meeting of the Miami Shores Planning and Zoning Board was held on Thursday, July 18, 2002, at the Village Hall. The meeting was called to order by Rick Fernandez, Vice Chairman at 7:00 P.M. with the following persons present: ITEM I: ROLL CALL: 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 ABSENT: Bob Stobs II, Chairman Mr. Sarafan swore in all those participating in the meeting. ITEM 11: APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 19, 2002 MINUTES Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the June 19, 2002 minutes with the amended changes. Mr. Sastre seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. Each of the Board members stated that they had visited all of the sites. Mr. Fernandez did not visit the site at 1690 NE 94 St. ITEM III: PZ02-0718-01 Dr. Robert Sherman(owner) Sec. 400/401: Variance to allow a 6' 1008 NE 94 St. fence where 5' is max. height; to allow side yard setback of 4' where 10' is required. Mr Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended denial of the variance request. Mr. Berg explained that there was nothing unusual or peculiar about the site that would merit consideration under the provisions of the code. He stated that a reasonable use of the land can be made without a variance. Mr. Crutchfield stated that he visited the site and had contact with the property owner who allowed him to come into the property and view the conditions imposed. ID Planning & Zoning meeting -2- July 18, 2002 The Board inquired about any unusual or peculiar conditions of the property and whether a permit existed for the construction of the dog pen. The Board reviewed and discussed what the code allows in regards to accessory structures and the height of fences. The applicant, Dr. Sherman, was there to present his case. He stated that he has been a resident of the Village for a long time. He stated that his lot is unusual due to its shape. He explained that Mr. Lubien, the Building Department Director at the time, had told him he could build a fence in the back of the property under the existing tree. Dr. Sherman stated that with the required affidavit, he gave his neighbor, Mr. Morocco, three feet of his property in order to have the necessary space to store his boat. The applicant stated he considers that due to the lack of three feet of space, the property could be seen as having an unusual condition. The Board inquired about any active code violations on the property. Staff stated it is the subject of the Code Enforcement Board. The Board discussed the height of the fence, the dog pen, and the chainlink on the property. Staff explained the section of the code in regards to orchid houses or pergolas and how they should be built. They also discussed the requirements in regards to fences. It was Staff's opinion that fence height is limited throughout the property. A resident could not have a 6' or 14' chainlink fence even if it meets the setback requirements. Ron Morocco from 1044 NE 94 St, a neighbor and a friend, was there to testify on behalf of the applicant in regards to the case. He explained the issue of the setback and Mr. Lubien's solution for both himself and Dr. Sherman. Mr. Morocco stated that he would return the additional setback space to Dr. Sherman if it would help him comply with the Board and staffs requirements. After further discussion, Mr. Crutchfield • made a motion to deny the request for a variance. Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion. The Board assured the applicant that they understood his concerns but that they needed to follow the rules and procedures in regards to approving variances. Mr. Fernandez stated that the encroachment was due to the location of the slab and not the fence. He stated that the slab was a clear foundational issue and that the foundation should comply with the setback requirements. Motion passed 4-0. • PZ02-0718-02 J'D'S Shop(tenant) John Militana(owner) 8965 Biscayne Blvd. Sec. 504: Wall sign Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the proposal for the J.D.'s Shop sign. Mr. Berg. stated that the proposal for the "brand name clothing, unique gifts, kitchen wares, etc," is not recommended, as this sign does more than just advertise the location of the business. The Board inquired about the signs presented and the colors. Denis Ordonez was there to represent the owner and present the case. He stated that he wanted the sign that included the most advertising. The Board suggested to Mr. Ordonez to choose the other sign since it would be more harmonious and would comply with the code. Mr. Ordonez amended his application and stated that he would like the sign with the least advertisement. After further discussion from the Board, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the amended wall sign request. Mr. Sastre seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. • Planning & Zoning meeting PZ02-0718-03 T -3- July 18, 2002 Thomas Chaille(owner) Sec. 604: Site plan approval -new house 9105 N. Bayshore Dr. Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended that the plan be rejected and re -studied. Mr. Berg expressed his concerns about the height of the residence as it was not noted on the plans. He also stated that part of the property is located in a VE flood zone which will impact all construction within the area. The Board discussed the issue of the height of the property in regards to the flood zone. They stated that due to the elevated location, the property would stand out, and therefore affect the value of the neighboring properties. Mr. Berg stated that the property is located in a split zone and so the plans must comply with the existing conditions. The applicant, Thomas Camille, was there to present the case. Mr. Camille assured the Board that the property would not stand out. Mr. Camille stated that the surveyor certified the property's location as an AE zone but that he would make the necessary changes in order to comply with the split zone requirements. The Board stated that the plans presented contained insufficient information and therefore the case should be tabled in order for the applicant to comply with necessary requirements. After further discussion, Mr. Sastre made a motion to table the case. Mr. Crutchfield seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. • PZ02-0718-04 Amir Kermani 1690 NE 104 St. Sec. 534/604: Site plan approval dock extension Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended denial of the applicant's request for site plan approval. Mr. Berg stated that the dock proposed extends too far into the bay and it is located next to the Biscayne Canal exit which could pose a hazard for navigation. Mr Berg also explained that the applicant needed state approval since the waterway submerged lands are owned by the state. The Board inquired on whether the application was for a variance or for site plan approval. Mr. Sarafan, the Village attorney, explained the submerge land rights of the state. The Board requested that the applicant should show proof that the state allowed to build over this land. The Board also discussed the issues regarding safety due to the length of the dock, the water depth, and the usage of the dock. They were concerned that the dock could be used for commercial boats. The Board also inquired about the number of boats allowed in each residence . Staff stated that there is no provision in the code which deals with the number of boats allowed but that there is a code that prohibits commercial vessels. Mr. Fernandez disclosed that he had not visited the site but that he was aware of the location. The applicant Yoli Galled, the permit coordinator for Shoreline Foundation Inc., was there to represent the owner and present the case. Ms. Galleti confirmed that she would present the case for site plan approval and not for a variance. She stated that DERM had recommended the length of the dock because of the water depth. She addressed the issues of water depth, ownership of the submerge land, and the usage of the dock. A letter from the owner was read into the record which explains the issue of water depth and how it was mandated by Miami -Dade County . DERM. The Board mentioned an alternative solution such as dredging. The applicant explained that dredging would not be possible due to the sea grasses. The Board also expressed their concerns about the fairness to the property owner in regards to the issue presented. After further • • • Planning & Zoning meeting -4- July 18, 2002 discussion, the Board stated that the case should be tabled in order for the applicant to return and address the issues of ownership of the submerged lands, safety for traveling boat vessels around the area, and harmony for the neighboring properties. Mr. Sarafan stated he would contact DERM to try to settle some of the issues mentioned by the Board. Mr. Sastre made a motion to table the case in order for the applicant to obtain more information and be ready to address the issues and concerns mentioned by Staff and by the Board. Mr. Crutchfield seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. IV. Discussion regarding Accessory Structures (new ordinance) Mr. Berg began the discussion by stating the concerns mentioned by the Board at the previous meetings. Some of the Board members discussed not permitting accessory structures, but most concluded that it would not be practical for the property owners who heed it. Another suggestion from the Board was to limit the permit for sheds to five years in order to keep them maintained. The Board stated that they would like some sort of uniformity for sheds. They discussed the height and size of the sheds, and discussed on limiting to one shed of 10' x 10' per property. They discussed aesthetics and the scale of the sheds using the square footage of the property or the lot. After further discussion, the Board members agreed to have additional workshops which would be one hour and a half long in order to discuss the revisions of the codes. The first workshop would take place some time after September. ADJOURNMENT: Motion for adjournment was made at 9:00 P.M. Next meeting will be on August 15, 2002. Irene M. Fajardo, Recording Secretary Rick Fernandez, Vice Chairman