09-19-2002 Regular Meeting•
•
MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 19, 2002
The regular meeting of the Miami Shores Planning and Zoning Board was held on Thursday,
September 19, 2002, at the Village Hall. The meeting was called to order by Bob Stobs 1I,
Chairman at 7:00 P.M. with the following persons present:
ITEM I: ROLL CALL:
Bob Stobs II, Chairman
Richard Fernandez, Vice Chairman
Tim Crutchfield
W. Robert Abramitis
Cesar Sastre
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 11: APPROVAL OF MINUTES -AUGUST 15, 2002
Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the August 15, 2002. Mr. Sastre seconded the
motion. Motion passed 5-0.
Each of the Board members stated that they had visited all of the sites with the exception of Mr.
Abramitis and Mr. Stobs, who did not visit the Kermani's property.
ITEM III:
PZ02-0718-04 Amir Kermani(owner) Sec. 534/604: Site plan approval
1690 NE 104 St. dock extension.
Mr Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended denial of the
applicant's request. Staffs main concern was that the proposal for the dock extends too far into
the bay which could pose a hazard for navigation. The Board requested a letter from DERM
stating the specific reasons why the dock has to be so long. The letter should include an
explanation about the sea grasses and their effects on the length of the dock. The Board
inquired about DERM's concerns in regards to safety. Richard Sarafan, the Village attorney,
explained that DERM would make the compliance for safety, a condition for approval of the
• permit. Jerry Proctor, attorney for the applicant, was there on behalf of Mr. Kerman. He
submitted a document from DERM called a biological assessment which explained the coverage
of the sea grasses on the bay and why the dock has to be extended so far. The Board reviewed
Planning and Zoning -2- September 19, 2002
the memo and made some comments in regards to the issues of harmony for the surrounding
properties and the location of the dock, since it is very closely located in a major water pathway.
Some options were discussed in regards to changing the direction of the end of the dock.. Mr.
Proctor addressed the issue in regards to changing the dock's direction. The Board also
requested a lighting plan for the dock, a speculation on the option of re -orienting the lift, and a
safety analysis based on expert review. After further discussion, the applicant requested to difer.
PZ02-0815-04
D.F Builders Sec.604: Site plan approval
Adelbert Sabchez (owner) new house.
30 NW 106 St.
Mr. Berg submitted an amended staff report to the Board. He explained the basis of the request,
the site conditions, and recommended approval of the application subject to compliance with the
landscaping requirements, as well as FEMA floor elevations. The Board inquired about the
width of the double garage stated in the amended staff's report. Some of the Board members felt
that the garage was too big for the property and did not look harmonious with the surrounding
properties. The applicant, Simon Rodriguez, was there to present the case. The applicant
explained that the FEMA requirements are in the plans. The Board inquired about additional
windows in the east side elevation of the property. They also expressed their concerns in regards
• to harmony issues with the next door neighbor in regards to the lack of windows on the east side
elevation of the property and the size of the garage. The owner stated that adding more windows
would not be a problem. After further discussion from the Board, Mr. Abrimitis made a motion
to approve the plan subject to staff's recommendations and adding another window on the east
side elevation. Mr. Fernandez seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-1. Mr Crutchfield voted
no.
PZ02-0919-01 Maria Almanzar (owner)
Carlos Perez (owner)
359 NE 104 St.
Sec. 604: Site plan approval -
garage enclosure.
Mr Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the
garage enclosure. He also expressed his concerns in regards to the flat roof request in the front of
the house. Mr. Berg suggested that an awning or a canvas awning would be more harmonious.
The Board suggested that in the future, staff would request to the applicant to include the frontal
view of the property when submitting the plans. The applicant was not present. After further
discussion, Mr. Sastre made a motion to approve the site plan subject to the removal of the flat
roof. Mr. Crutchfield seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.
PZ02-0919-02 August and Jacqueline Wolfe Sec. 604: Site plan approval -
(owners) garage enclosure.
Mark Campbell, Architect
80 NE 94 ST.
•
Planning and Zoning -3- September 19, 2002
•
Mr Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval
subject to recording a Declaration of Use, providing an elevation certificate with proper floor
height, re -tiling on both sections of the flat roof to match existing tile, and painting with
approved color. Mr. Campbell, the architect of the property, was there to present the case. Mr.
Campbell explained the design of the house and what changes would be made to the property.
The Board discussed the changes proposed on the property and the issues regarding the roof tiles
on both existing sections of the flat roof. Mr. Campbell requested comments from the Board in
regards to changes on the property that were not presented before them. The Board explained
that substantial changes to the property must be presented to them before they can make any
additional comments. After further discussion from the Board, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to
approve the plan subject to compliance of staff's recommendations. Mr. Sastre seconded the
motion. Motion passed 5-0.
PZ02-0919-03 Alex Espinosa (owner) Sec. 701: Appeal of Admin. Official
10659 NE 10 Place. Sec. 523.1: Color through tile.
Mr Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended denial of the
request for both the drapes and the painting of the roof tiles. The Board stated that there would
be two separate motions for the case before them One would be for the drapes and the other for
the roof. The Board discussed the issue of the drapes and whether they would be considered a
structural element or a decorative element. The applicant, Oriel T., was there to present the case.
41) The applicant submitted a power of attorney to the Board as evidence that he could speak on
behalf of the property owner. The applicant submitted a piece of the material he proposes to use
for the drapes. He also submitted pictures of other properties that have drapes. Mr. Berg
explained that Code Enforcement had already sited other properties for having drapes. The Board
discussed the sections of the code that explained the issues of overhanging objects and also the
issues of harmony. The Board inquired how the applicant would comply with these codes and
how he would comply with Sec. 130, loose objects. The applicant explained that the drapes
would be secured and that they would look harmonious with the neighborhood. The applicant
did not present any evidence to support his statements. The Board expressed their concerns in
regards to overhanging objects and how they could affect the neighboring properties. After
further discussion, Mr. Fernandez made a motion to deny the appeal for the drapes. Mr.
Abrimitis seconded the motion based on the sections of the code that explained the issue of
overhanging objects and the issue of harmony. Motion passed 4-1.
The Board asked the applicant to explained the issue of the roof tiles. The applicant explained
what he wanted to do with the roof and how he would comply with the conditions stated by staff.
The Board discussed the issue of color-thru tiles and the effects of painting a grey roof red After
further discussion Mr. Fernandez made a motion to deny the appeal for the painting of the roof
tiles. Mr. Sastre seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.
•
PZ02-0919-04 Eduardo Antonacci Sec. 701: Appeal of Admin. Oficial;
1075 NE 99 St. Sec.518: Fence height (4' where 31/x is
allowed)
•
Planning & Zoning meeting -4-
September 19, 2002
Mr Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended denial of all
requests and the installation of the originally approved 4' aluminum picket fence. In addition, the
applicant should locate on site parking in the front of the property. The Board discussed the
proposed changes to the originally approved plans. They explained the requirements for a
variance and discussed how the applicant would meet those requirements. The applicant,
Eduardo Antonacci and his wife, were there to present the case. The applicants explained the
proposed changes and the reason why the variance request should be approved. The Board
discussed several modification that would help the applicant make better use of the property.
After further discussion, Mr. Fernandez made a motion to deny the variance request. Mr. Sastre
seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0.
PZ02-0919-05 Ian Wildstein (owner)
Tropical Chevrolet
8880 Biscayne Blvd.
Sec. 604: Site plan approval
Mr Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended that no action
should be taken until a complete application is submitted. The Board discussed how they would
handle the case since it is not a site plan approval. Mr. Sarafan stated that the title of site plan
approval for the case should be amended on the agenda. He also stated that the final decision on
whether to vacate or not would be made by the council. Tom Benton, the Village Manager,
requested for the Planning and Zoning to review the proposal and offer their opinions on the
• matter. After further discussion, the Board stated a few concerns:
-Traffic
-Sewers
-Utility Rights
-Affects on corporate neighbors
-Gaining of taxable properties
-Obtaining a survey with a tittle opinion attached which would include the rights of the land use.
No motion was made by the Board since it was a conceptual review of the proposed. request.
PZ02-0919-06
Barry College
Max Sturman, Architect
11210 NW 2 Ave.
Sec. 604: Site plan approval
Charter School
Mr Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended conceptual
review and approval with a formal review to be completed when more detailed plans are
submitted. Max Sturman, the architect, was there to present the case. The Board reviewed and
discussed the parking ordinance. They discussed the issues of parking for the proposed Charter
School. The Board also discussed the issues of signage, drainage, landscaping, and lighting. The
Board explained and discussed the agreement made by Barry College for additional parking on
the campus if any new buildings are being constructed. Mr. Fernandez did not participate in the
• discussion as he was not present. Mr. Sturman agreed to comply with staff and the Board's
concerns and submit the necessary plans. No motion was made since it was a conceptual review
of the submitted site plan.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning meeting
-5- September 19, 2002
PZ02-0919-07 Kelley Roark, P.A. Sec. 504(f)(1): Window sign
Gregory Ullman Esq.
9608 NE 2 Ave.
Mr Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the
application. The applicant was not there to present the case. After further discussion from the
Board, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the application. Mr. Sastre seconded the
motion. Motion passed 4-0. Mr. Fernandez was not present to hear the testimony.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Fernandez requested that the Board should have additional meetings or workshops to discuss
the revisions of the code and any items submitted by staff that should be reviewed by the Board.
A request to study and review the Marbella }lousing Project was submitted to staff for the
Planning and Zoning Board members. The Board must report its findings to the Council.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion for adjournment was made at 10:30 P.M. Next meeting will be on September 26, 2002.
Irene M, Fajardo, Recording Secretary
Bob Stobs 1T, Chairman