Loading...
04-24-2003 Regular Meeting• • MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING APRIL 24, 2003 The regular meeting of the Miami Shores Planning and Zoning Board was held on Thursday, April 24, 2003, at the Village Hall. The meeting was called to order by Richard Fernandez, Chairman at 7:00 P.M. with the following persons present: ITEM I: ROLL CALL: Richard Fernandez, Chairman Tim Crutchfield (Arrived at 7:07P.M.) W. Robert Abramitis Donald Shockey (Arrived at 7:04P.M.) 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. The Board members disclosed that they had visited the sites. ITEM II: APPROVAL OF MINUTES -March 20, 2003 Mr. Sastre made a motion to approve the March 20, 2003 minutes with the amended corrections. Mr. Shockey seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. ITEM III: SCHEDULE ITEMS PZ03-0320-01 Village of Miami Shores Aquatic Center 10020 Biscayne Blvd. Sec. 604: Modified site plan Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the amended application. The amended site plan meets code requirements as there are 28 trees per acre in the revised plan. There are also plenty of low shrubs and flowers around the perimeter and pool. The applicant has addressed the issues of buffering neighboring houses as well as along Biscayne Blvd. The Board members asked several questions in regards to the amended plan. They expressed their concerns in regards to noise barriers, the location of the retention pond, and having landscaping placed on the ridge adjacent to the residential area. The Recreation Director of Miami Shores, Jerry Estep, and the landscaping architect, Thomas Laubenthal, were there to present the case. Mr. Laubenthal explained some of the changes that were made to the site plan and addressed the issues mentioned by the Board. Mr. Fernandez opened the hearing for public comments. Miichelle Rodriguez, a resident at 1080 NE 104 St. expressed her concerns in regards to the site plan. Mr. Fernandez closed the hearing for Planning & Zoning 1 5/7/2003 • public comments. After further discussion, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the amended site plan subject to adding some planting around the ridge adjacent to the residential area and the finally being approved by staff. Mr. Shockey seconded the motion for discussion. After discussion, a roll vote was taken and the motion failed 2-3. Mr. Sastre made a new motion to approve the amended site plan as is. Mr. Shockey seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-1. PZ03-0220-08 Jorge and Nancy Fernandez Sec. 604: Modified site plan 10641 NE 11 Ct. Sec. 523.1: Requesting a variance - to use wood for a retaining wall where the code requires structural elements to be masonry. Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended denial of both the variance to use wood and the amended site plan. Masonry requirements for building materials provide longevity for structures. The proposed wide circular driveway violates the code and worsens the drainage problem. Staff recommends that a CBS wall be installed, that a double wide (18') driveway be installed with no circular design, and that the original drainage plan, with the swale area, also be installed. Mr. Fernandez disclosed that he had contact with Pat Soloperto, a neighbor of the applicants. The Board members asked questions in regards to the maintenance of the septic tank, the retaining masonry wall proposed by staff, the proposed driveway and the effect it would have on drainage, the catch basin for the property, and the possibility of grading. The Board • members also inquired the reasons why the applicants did not follow the original approved site plan. The owner, Jorge Fernandez, his attorney, Robert Ballinger, and an environmental consultant, Robert Mengi, were there to present the case. Mr. Ballinger submitted sealed documents to the Board for evidence. The owner, Mr. Fernandez tried to address the concerns mentioned by the Board members. He agreed to put a CBS wall along the perimeter, and he explained why they did not follow the originally approved site plan. The Board members inquired about the state code that required the owners to build the structure using wood instead of masonry. Mr. Fernandez opened the hearing for public comments. Surrounding neighbors of the applicants expressed their concerns in regards to the modified site plan and the variance request. The residents stated that the applicant's septic tank was put in without a permit and that the property's survey was inaccurate. They discussed the flooding problems on the street and stated that the retaining wall would not alleviate the problem. Mr. Fernandez closed the hearing for public comments. A poll was taken by the Board members to decide whether a variance would be necessary. Most of the members agreed on the special condition of the property which satisfied one of the requisites for a variance. However, most of the Board members also agreed that the applicants did not submit further evidence to prove that they had no additional alternatives which was another requisite for a variance. After further discussion, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to deny the variance request. Mr. Shockey seconded the motion for discussion. Mr. Shockey stated that the applicants should bring further evidence including the state code that states that the built structure has to be made out of wood. Motion passed 5-0. The Board members then made a • second motion for site plan approval. They stated that the plan needed to be reworked Planning & Zoning 2 5/7/2003 and that a drainage ditch should be added on the sides of the property to try to alleviate the flooding problem. Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to deny the modified site plan. Mr. Shockey seconded the motion for discussion. The Board discussed the issue of water retaining on the property, grading, the negative effect of the proposed driveway, and having a 6' fence when the code only allows 5.' The motion passed 5-0. PZ03-0320-06 Captain Dan's Fish Market Mohammad/Mark Ibrahim Mark Campbell 8833 Biscayne Blvd Sec. 604: Site plan approval - sit -down restaurant/outdoor cafe, signs Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the application subject to adding 5 additional canopy trees and parking. Mr. Berg explained the modifications made to the plans in regards to signage and parking. The architect, Mark Campbell, was there to present the case. Mr. Campbell stated that the owners did not have a problem about adding more canopy trees. After a brief discussion from the Board, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the modified site plan. Mr. Sastre seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. PZ03-0424-01 Eamon McErlean Sec. 604: Site plan approval 77 NE 106 St. garage enclosure Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended 1111 approval of the application provided a window is added and provided that the awning in the front is removed. The Board members discussed staff's recommendations. They inquired about a 3' cutback on the driveway and planters under the window. The owner, Eamon McErlean, was there to present the case. Mr. McErlean agreed to add a window, a 3' cutback on the driveway, and planters under the window. After a brief discussion, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the site plan subject to adding a window and planters under the window, and a 3' cutback on the driveway. Mr. Shockey seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. • PZ03-0424-02 Beauty Supply Boris Moroz 9009 Biscayne Blvd. No one was there to present the case. PZ03-0424-03 Sec. 504/504.1: Neon signs Rey Gomez Sec. 701: Appeal of Administrative official - 1173 NE 104 St. paint. No one was there to present the case. PZ03-0424-04 Planning & Zoning Regina Vlasek/Jolly Mutt Sec. 400/401: Site plan Shapar Realty Co. (owner) new use approval 217 NE 98 St. 3 5/712003 • Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended denial for the change of use. Staff questioned whether the proposed use is on the right location. Mr. Berg inquired about the scale of the business, the maintenance, the walking of the dogs, the cleaning of the dogs, and the number of animals. The Board members discussed the different uses allowed on the different zones and the fact that B-2 allows animal clinics without overnight boarding. The applicant, Regina Vlasek, was there to present the case. Ms. Vlasek addressed the issues mentioned by staff and stated her credentials. The Board discussed the various interpretations of the code that might allow the boarding of animals. Mr. Fernandez opened the hearing for public comments. Two residents from Miami Shores were there to support the new use. They stated that the new use would be an asset to the Village. Mr. Fernandez closed the hearing for public comments. The Board continued to discuss the different interpretations of the code that might allow the use proposed. After further discussion, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the site plan with the new use. Mr. Sastre seconded the motion for discussion. Most of the Board members agreed that if the use is not specified by the code then it should not be allowed. After a brief discussion, the motion failed to pass 1-4. PZ03-0424-05 Kurt Gustinger Sec. 604: Site plan approval 1216 NE 93 St. garage enclosure Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the partial garage enclosure. The owner, Kurt Gustinger, was there to present the case. Mr. Gustinger explained that the partial garage enclosure would be used for . storage. After a brief discussion, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the partial garage enclosure. Mr. Sastre seconded the motion. Motion passed. 5-0. • PZ03-0424-06 Miami Shores Country Club Sec. 604: Site plan approval Tennis Facility tennis lights 800 NE 100 St. Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the site plan for the tennis lights. The owner, Alberto Pozzi, was there to present the case. Howard Orlen, a representative from Visionaire Lighting and Bronho Selik, the electrical engineer and product manager, were also there on behalf of the country club. The Board members explained that the study shown did not show specifics in regards to the lighting. The Board inquired about the type of lighting proposed, the new hours of operation for the tennis courts, a photo meter for the existing lighting in the area, the light spillage, a possible landscaping plan to buffer the noise and the proposed lights, and finally, having the modified plans sealed. Mr. Fernandez opened the hearing for public comments. Several residents that live in the properties near the tennis courts expressed several concerns in regards to the lighting plan. Some of the concerns were: 1. Hours of operation: How late will the tennis courts be open? Can they close at 9:00P.M.? Instead of the proposed time of 10:00P.M? 2. New tennis court hours would bring more traffic to the neighborhood. 3. Trash increase. Planning & Zoning 4 5/7/2003 • 4. Noise increase at hours when some of the residents are sleeping. 5. The need for more landscaping. New trees should be installed to replace the old ones and therefore maintaining the aesthetics around the area and buffering the lights and noise coming from the tennis courts. A resident also stated that a veto was made in prior years to not approve any lighting on the tennis courts. Mr. Fernandez asked the clerk to obtain any records that would show prior actions in regards to the lighting on the tennis courts. Some of the members from the Country Club's Advisory Board were also present to state their opinions in regards to the lighting plan. The members stated that the new hours of operation for the tennis courts would be a beneficial factor for the community that would increase property value. Mr. Fernandez closed the hearing for public comments. After the Board members discussed several of the concerns made by the residents, Mr. Sastre made a motion to table the case until sealed revised plans are submitted showing the prdcised light spillage on the area, results of a photo meter for the existing lighting in the area, and a landscaping plan that might buffer the noise and the proposed lights. Mr. Crutchfield seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0. W. NEXT MEETING. The next meeting will be on May 15, 2003 • V. ADJOURNMENT The April 24, 2003 Planning and Zoning meeting was adjourned at 11:30P.M. • Planning & Zoning 5 5/7/2003