Loading...
10-17-2002 Regular Meeting• MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 17, 2002 The regular meeting of the Miami Shores Planning and Zoning Board was held on Thursday, October 17, 2002, at the Village Hall. The meeting was called to order by Richard Fernandez, Vice Chairman at 7:00 P.M. with the following persons present: ITEM I: ROLL CALL: Richard Fernandez, Vice Chairman Tim Crutchfield W. Robert Abramitis Cesar Sastre Donald Shockey 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 -SEPTEMBER 19, 2002 AND SEPTEMBER 26, 2002. • Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the September 19, 2002 and the September 26, 2002 minutes with the amended corrections. Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. ITEM III: New Board members Mr. Fernandez made an announcement that Bob Stobs will no longer be the Chairman for the Planning and Zoning Board since he chose not to be reappointed. He expressed his gratitude to Mr. Stobs on behalf of all the Board members, for the resource of knowledge in construction that he brought, his leadership, and the dedication he made to the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Femandez also announced and welcomed a new member to the Planning and Zoning Board, Donald Shockey. He also explained that the meeting will be carried by the Vice Chairman and that elections for Chairman would be held at the next meeting. Following the announcement of the new member, Mr. Sarafan, the Village attorney, briefly explained the roles and duties of the members to Mr. Shockey, and stated the functions for the Planning and Zoning Board. He then swore in all the witnesses testifying in the hearing. Each of the Board members stated that they had visited all of the sites. ITEM IV: SCHEDULED ITEMS • • Planning and Zoning Board -2- October 17, 2002 PZ02-0718-04 Amir Karmani(owner) Sec. 534/604: Site plan approval -dock 1690 NE 104 St. extension Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended denial of the applicant's request. Staff's main concern was that the proposal for the dock extends too far into the bay which could pose a hazard for navigation. Lights and reflectors would not provide an adequate measure to insure safety. The Board had previously requested a letter from DERM stating the specific reasons why the dock had to be so long. The letter needed to include an explanation about the sea grasses and their effects on the length of the dock. The Board also requested testimony from an expert in regards to safety. A letter from DERM dated October 7, 2002, was submitted to the Board as new evidence. The attorney, Howard Nelson, was present to offer testimony on the case. Mr. Nelson introduced two experts: Dr. Jeffrey Markus from Consulting Engineering and Science and Michael Bent, the Vice president from Shoreline Foundation Inc. Both experts could address the biological issues as well as the lightning and dock structure issues. Mr. Nelson made a presentation showing the water depth of the area and the location of the sea grasses. He also made a presentation in regards to the safety and navigation issues. A lighting plan was presented to the Board. The Board's concerns were that the lighting plan did not show sufficient light on the dock in order to address the safety and navigation issues. The Board discussed the standards for having reflectors or light on the docks. Mr. Bent, the Vice President for Shoreline Foundation Inc., explained that there was no coastal standard for lighting, but that he agreed to put reflectors on the dock in order to satisfy the Board's concerns for safety. The Board then discussed the issue of harmony. Mr. Nelson explained that other docks around the area needed to be further extended in order to preserve the sea grasses as required by DERM. He also showed other extended docks around the area. After further discussion from the Board, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to deny the site plan based on the issue of harmony. Motion died due to lack of a second. Mr. Abramitis made a motion to approve the site plan with the modifications of additional reflectors as agreed by Mr. Nelson. Mr. Crutchfield seconded the motion for discussion. Mr. Crutchfield expressed his concerns on whether the approval or disapproval for the site plan would set a precedent on other properties. Mr. Sarafan, the Village attorney, explained that all cases are approved or disapproved on a case by case basis and that the final decision of the Board would not be set as president. A roll vote was taken for the motion. Motion passed 3-1. Mr. Crutchfield voted no. Mr. Shockey did not vote since he was not present to hear the entire case during the previous meetings. PZ02-1017-01 H & R Block (tenant) Sec 504 (f): Wall sign Shores Square Boris Moroz 9013-9015 Biscayne Blvd. Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the request with the exception of the green logo which is not harmonious with the paint scheme of the shopping center. Jerry Moore, a representative from Ferrin Signs, was there to present the case. Mr. Moore explained that H & R Block is changing their logo nationwide to a lime green • Planning and Zoning Meeting -3- October 17, 2002 block. The Board expressed their concerns in regards to harmony and the size of the green block. The Board discussed the option of reducing the green block to two feet instead of the original size proposed. Mr. Moore agreed to reduce the size of the green block, no larger than two feet. After further discussion, Mr. Abramitis made a motion to deny the wall sign proposal. Motion died due to lack of a second Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the wall sign subject to reducing the size of the square to two feet. Mr. Shockey seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-1. Mr. Abramitis voting no. PZ02-1017-02 Daniel and Claudia Aulton Sec. 604: Site plan approval 842 NE 99 St. Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the garage enclosure provided that a planter is placed in front of the window in the garage. There is not enough information for staff to make a recommendation on the proposed outside fountain. The three columns proposed for the front entry are within the code requirements, but they still require Planning and Zoning approval. He also recommended denial for the proposed double wide paver driveway and the paved right of way. The Board discussed the recommended planter in front of the garage in order for the enclosure to be less noticeable. The Board members discussed the proposed landscaping plan which would satisfy staff's concerns in regards to adding a planter in front of the garage. The Board also discussed the construction material used for the garage enclosure and whether FEMA requirements would be met. The Board proceeded to discuss the proposed fountain. They discussed the issues of drainage, the proposed dimensions of the pond, the setback requirements, and possible mosquito nuisance. Some members did not feel that the water feature was harmonious with the property. The applicant, Daniel Aulton, was there to present his case. Mr. Aulton addressed the issues presented to him from the Board. He explained that the paving was not part of his request. He stated that he did not have any plans that would address the issue of drainage The Board felt that they did not have enough information about the proposed water structure. The Board decided that they would make two separate motions with regards to the case. After a brief discussion Mr. Fernandez made a motion to approve the garage enclosure with the condition that all FEMA requirements are met. Mr. Shockey seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Mr. Crutchfield made a second motion to table the rest of the proposed items until more detailed information is presented. Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. PZ02-1017-03 Mr./Mrs. Gary Levinson Sec. 604: Site plan approval 660 Grand Concourse garage enclosure Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the garage enclosure provided that a 2' wide planter is constructed in front of the window that will be installed in place of the garage door. The applicant, Mr. Levinson, was there to present his case. Mr. Levinson stated that amendments were made to the plans in regards to additional landscaping which could replace the proposed planter mentioned by staff. The Board felt that a 11 6' cut back on the driveway from the building would be sufficient room for the additional e Planning and Zoning Meeting -4- October 17, 2002 landscaping and for the discretion of the garage enclosure. The applicant agreed to comply with the Board's request. After a brief discussion, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the garage enclosure with a 6' cut back on the driveway from the building in order to add the additional landscaping as amended by the applicant. Mr. Shockey seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. PZ02-1017-04 Odalys Acosta/Stephen Harper Sec. 604: Site plan approval 660 Grand Concourse garage enclosure Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the garage enclosure provided that a 2' wide planter is constructed in front of the window that will be installed in place of the garage door. The Board felt that a 6' cut back on the driveway from the building would give room for the additional landscaping and for the discretion of the garage enclosure. The applicant, Stephen Harper, was there to present his case. Mr. Harper stated that he did not want to add another planter, instead, he proposed to add more landscape in the front of the garage enclosure. After further discussion from the Board, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the garage enclosure subject to a 6' cut back on the driveway from the building for additional landscaping. Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. PZ02-1017-05 Power Project (tenant) Sec. 604 (f) (1): Wall signs • 9037 Biscayne Blvd. • Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the sign request. Staff explained to the Board that the sign is within code and that it would be more harmonious than the existing sign. Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the wall sign. Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. PZ02-1017-06 Denis Joseph 469 NE 91 St. Sec 604.: Site plan approval - new house Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the application provided that: 1. The house complies with FEMA requirements 2. A street tree is added and one tree on the property is also added. 3. A driveway is added in the front of the property. The Board discussed the type of landscaping proposed on the property. They also discussed the frontal design of the house and whether it would be hannonious with the neighborhood. The applicant, Denis Joseph, was there to present his case. Mr. Joseph addressed the issues mentioned by staff and by the Board. He explained the design of the house and agreed to the additional landscaping requested by staff. Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to deny the current application and encourage the owner to address the frontal design and landscape issue. Mr. • • Planning and Zoning Meeting -5- October 17, 2002 Shockey seconded the motion. Mr. Fernandez opened for discussion. Mr. Fernandez requested that the motion should be changed to table in order to give the applicant a chance to make the necessary modifications without having to be charged a new application fee. After further discussion, Mr. Crutchfield changed his motion to table in order for the applicant to make the necessary modifications. Mr. Shockey seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. PZ02-1017-07 Marcel Bequez Sec. 604: Site plan approval - 390 NE 94 St. garage enclosure Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the garage enclosure. The applicant, Marcelo Bequez and co-owner Ray Serlon, were there to present their case. The applicant revised the original site plan. The Board discussed the gravel located in front of the proposed garage enclosure and requested additional landscape on the street in front of the property. The applicant agreed to remove gravel, re -sod and maintain the area, and add two canopy trees on the street in the front. Mr. Fernandez explained to the applicants that they were not obligated to comply with those requests. The applicants stated that they wanted to comply with the Board's requests. After further discussion from the Board, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the application with the condition to remove the gravel, re -sod the area, and the addition of two canopy trees on the street in front of the property. Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. PZ02-1017-07 August and Jacqueline Wolfe Sec. 604: Site plan approval - 80 NE 94 St. Amending original plan Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the application. The applicant requested an amendment to the site plan to enclose an existing garage that was passed last month. He also proposed to remove the existing arches and add windows in the front to allow for more interior space. The architect, Mark Campbell, was there to present the case. The owners of the property, August and Jacqueline Wolfe, were also present. Mr. Campbell explained the owners new design proposal. The Board inquired about options for keeping the current entry arch design and lowering the windows for enclosure so that they are 18 inches from the floor. The applicants agreed to amend their application and comply with the Board's requests. Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the site plan subject to keeping the current entry arch design and lowering the windows for enclosure to 18 inches from the floor. Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. PZ02-1017-08 Catholic Charities (tenant) Sec. 400/401: Change of use - Provincial realty (owner) adult services Mr. Fernandez disclosed that he had a previous phone conversation with staff in regards to the case. Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and did not make a recommendation based on the fact that there was not enough data available on either request to make a recommendation. Staff requested guidance from the Board. The applicant, Miranda • Planning and Zoning Meeting -6- October 17, 2002 Sgouros, a representative for Catholic Charities, was there to present the case. The applicant explained the services proposed. The Board discussed the differences between the new services proposed and the existing services. The Board does not feel like a change of use is necessary since the differences discussed with the applicants were minimal. No further action was taken. PZ02-1017-09 William and Shelley Witiak Sec. 400/401: Requesting 665 NE 97 St. variance- 5' for side setback where 10' are required; 10' for side setback where 12.5' are required. Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended denial of the variance request. Staff explained that there is nothing unique or unusual about the property and that it would be possible for the owner to comply with the code's provisions without a variance. Staff requested other options that would not require a variance. The pool could be reduced in width or the spa could be eliminated. The pool is over sized now. The applicant, William Witiak, was there to present his case. The Board discussed the criteria needed for a variance. The applicant explained that the unusual condition of the property would be the location of the drain field. The applicant submitted an affidavit from the neighbor stating their approval for the request. The Board felt that the owner would have reasonable use of the property even if the variance is not approved. After further discussion from the Board, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to deny the variance. Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. PZ02-1017-10 Antonio Roberts 530 NE 96 St. Sec. 604: Site plan approval - new house Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended for the plan to be redrawn in keeping with the harmony of the neighborhood. Staff felt that more attention was needed to be focused on parking and landscaping on the property. The architect, Harlan Woodard, was there to present the case. The owner, Antonio Roberts, was also present. Mr. Woodard explained the nature of the proposed design and felt that it was in keeping with the harmony of the neighborhood. He confirmed that additional landscaping would not be a problem. The Board discussed their concerns in regards to the proposed terrace, a three-story variance, an entire flat roof on the property, and the setback requirements. Mr. Fernandez opened the meeting for public comments. Dr. Daniel Granbart, a resident at 540 NE 96 St, was there to offer testimony on the case. He expressed his concerns in regards to the design not being harmonious with the neighborhood. Mr. Fernandez closed the meeting for public comments. The Board reviewed the design presented but felt that it was not harmonious with the neighborhood. After further discussion from the Board, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to table the case. Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. N. NEXT MEETING- November 20, 2002 • V. ADJOURNMENT- Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. Meeting was adjourned at 10:15pm.