Loading...
01-22-2004 Regular Meeting• MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 22, 2004 The regular meeting of the Miami Shores Planning and Zoning Board was held on Thursday, January 22, 2004 at the Village Hall. The meeting was called to order by Cesar Sastre, Vice Chairman at 7:00 P.M. with the following persons present: ITEM I: ROLL CALL: Cesar Sastre, Vice Chairman W. Robert Abramitis Donald Shockey (Arrived at 7:10PM) Tim Crutchfield (Arrived at 7:11 PM) ALSO PRESENT: Al Berg, Planning & Zoning Director Irene M. Fajardo, Recording Secretary Richard Sarafan, Village Attorney ABSENT: Richard Fernandez, Chairman Vice Chairman Sastre explained the procedures in regards to the Planning and Zoning Board and the appeals made by the residents. • Mr. Sarafan swore in all those participating in the meeting. ITEM II: APPROVAL OF MINUTES -December 18, 2003 Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the December 18, 2003 minutes with the amended corrections. Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. ITEM III: SITE VISITING DISCLOSURE Mr. Crutchfield, Mr. Abramitis, and Mr. Sastre visited all the sites. Mr. Shockey visited the properties at 530 NE 96 St. and 1287 NE 96 St. ITEM IV: SCHEDULE ITEMS Case #: PZ04-0115-01 Owner: Colleen Fix -Huff Address: 1290 NE 103 St. Sec. 518(b): Fence approval in front yard -3 %2' white steel picket. Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the request. The applicant proposes to erect a 3 '/2' white galvanized steel fence in the front along the west side of the property. The proposal complies with code II/ and it will be a nice addition to the property. After a brief discussion, Mr. Crutchfield Planning & Zoning 1 01/22/2004 ID made a motion to approve staffs recommendations. Mr. Shockey seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. Case #: PZ03-1218-02 Owner: Michael Meyer Address: 530 NE 96 St. Sec. 604: Site plan approval -new house Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended that the site plan be tabled. The applicant submitted an insufficient tree survey as requested by the Board at the previous hearing, there are no canopy trees in the energy conservation zone, and the driveway in the front is in the setback area and should be re -studied. Mr. Berg explained the other changes made by the owner since the last meeting and stated that they were very well done on the alternate plan. The property owner, Michael Meyer, was there to present his case. The architect for the property, Manny Mora, was also present. Mr. Meyer explained that he would like to save as many trees as possible. He also stated that he will comply with the front setback requirements for the driveway. The Board inquired about the location of the trees that are presenting a problem for the architect. They also inquired about the location of the septic tank and how it would affect the surrounding trees. Mr. Mora explained the location of the existing oak trees and his intentions. He stated that the oak trees on the west side of the property would present a definite problem but that those trees would be replaced with smaller specimens. The Board expressed their concerns about the parking garage in the front. The applicant explained that the alley is only accessible in one end and that it would be too dangerous to exit and enter the driveway if parking was done in the rear of the property. The Board stated that a circular driveway that meets the setback requirements would be a good solution for the applicant. The Board reviewed all the changes that were made to the original plan and stated that the revision plan was better. Their main concerns were the trees and the driveway. Mr. Meyer stated that will do whatever is necessary to comply with the requirements of the code. After further discussion, Mr. Crutchfiled made a motion to approve site plan "B" conditioned to the driveway being adjusted within setback with no removal of trees and Mr. Berg's approval, and for the replacement trees on the west side of the property to also be approved by Mr. Berg. Mr. Shockey seconded the motion for discussion. Mr. Shockey inquired about the required street trees. Mr. Berg explained that any trees that are located seven feet from the sidewalk are considered street trees. There is no more room for additional trees on the swale for the proposed property. After a brief discussion, the motion passed 4-0. Case #: PZ04-0115-02 Owner: Henry Everette/Parry Real Estate/ Traffic Ticket Office(tenant) Address: 9628 NE 2 Ave. Sec. 604: Site plan approval -new house Sec. 504(0(1): Wall signs Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended denial • of the request for the proposed signs. The applicant is requesting approval for two signs Planning & Zoning 2 01/22/2004 on the building. One will be located in the front at street level and the other will be in the • rear on the second floor. Staff recommends that the front sign be lettered in the door directing the public to the second floor. In the rear, staff recommends a directory of tenants at the base of the stairs. The proposed sign in the rear on the second floor is too large and it is not harmonious. The tenant, Jonathan Bennet, and the architect, Anthony Mallot, were there to represent the Traffic Ticket Office. The Board discussed the other existing signs on the building and the concerns in regards to the proposed signs by the applicant. Mr. Bennet explained his intentions for the sign in the front and the sign in the rear of the building. Mr. Bennet also explained that he is not the owner of the building and does not feel that he is responsible for erecting a directory of all the tenants in the second floor. The Board stated that the sign in the front of the building on the street level should be located on the rectangular window area next to the door under the location they had originally requested. The Board also discussed the colors (white) of the letters on both of the proposed signs. On the rectangular window, the sign would be on the same plane as the other signs on the building. Mr. Mallot and Mr. Bennet agreed to reduce the size of the letters on the signs, and place the front sign on the rectangular window. After a brief discussion, Mr. Abramitis made a motion to approve the sign on the rear of the property with the condition that the size of the letters will be reduced to six inches. In regards to the front sign, Mr. Abramitis also moved to approve the sign subject to placing the sign on the rectangular window with the font, color, and size of the letters being the same as that of Florida Trust. Mr. Crutchfield seconded the motion. Mr. Abramitis briefly discussed the necessities for amending the code for signs. Shockey amended the motion to "Law Office" lettering being smaller than the "Traffic Ticket Office" lettering • and for the color to be approved by Mr. Berg once those changes have been submitted. Mr. Crutchfield seconded the motion. The amended motion was approved 4-0. • Case #: PZ04-0115-03 Owner: Maria Belton and Pamela Bausher/ Jack Soto(agent) Address: 18 NE 107 St. Sec. 604: Site plan approval -garage enclosure Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended tabling the request pending submission of the elevation certificate, updated survey, and resolution of the parking problem. The applicant is requesting site plan approval to enclose an existing garage. The garage enclosure will be used for a den. The parking for the site would be limited to two concrete ribbons which would only accommodate one vehicle. The code requires two parking spaces on the property so changes will have to be made for an additional vehicle. An elevation certificate also needs to be submitted by the applicant. Mr. Crutchfield disclosed that he had represented the applicant on a different issue several years ago. The Village attorney, Richard Sarafan, stated that Mr. Crutchfiled would not have a problem in voting for this case. The Board inquired about the changes the property owner would have to make in order to accommodate two vehicles on the property. The property owner, Maria Belton and Pamela Bausher, were there to present their case. The contractor, Jack Soto, was also present. Mr. Soto explained that there will not be a problem in parking two vehicles on the concrete ribbons. He also explained that a planter will be added in the five feet cut off between Planning & Zoning 3 01/22/2004 • the ribbons and the wall of the proposed garage enclosure. The Board discussed the elevation certificate, the updated survey showing the crown of the road's height, and possible solutions for the parking problem. After further discussion, Mr. Abramitis made a motion to table the case pending the submittal of the elevation certificate, the updated survey, and resolution of the parking problem. Mr. Shockey seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. PZ04-0115-05 Owner: Juan Guerra Address: 518 NE 94 St.. Sec. 604: Site plan approval -2°d story addition Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the application. The applicant is requesting site plan approval to demolish an existing 16'x 20' garage and laundry room and erect a new two car garage and 2 story addition. The second floor will be a master suite. The property owner, Juan Guerra, was there to present his case. The Board inquired about the proposed covered entry, the overall height of the addition, and how far would the garage project from the rest of the house. Mr. Guerra addressed all of the Board's concerns. The Board stated that the building elevations have been matched well with the existing elevations of the property. After a brief discussion, Mr. Crutchfiled made a motion to approve the site plan. Mr. Shockey seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. • PZ04-0115-06 Owner: Curtis Brodsky Address: 1287 NE 96 St. Sec. 518(a): Fence height -requesting a variance of 8' fence/ wall height where 5' is allowed. • Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended that the item be tabled. The applicant is seeking a variance to erect an 8' fence where Section 518 of the zoning code only allows a fence height of 5.' The Board inquired about the elevation of the deck, the installation of the fence, and the canopy as mentioned in staff's report. Mr. Berg explained that the house file showed a permit for a 3' wall but not for the elevation of the deck, the new/existing pool, or the installation of the fence. The property owner, Curtis Brodsky, was there to present his case. The architect, William Medellina, was also there to present the case. Mr. Medellina explained the owner's intentions for the 8' wall. He stated that since the pool is raised 3', a literal application of the code will really be allowing for only 2' high fence. This height of two feet would deprive the owner the privacy enjoyed by other residents. Mr. Brodsky explained all of the work that was previously done on the property and submitted documents showing when the pool was built. He stated that since the existing concrete pool deck of 3' is above adjacent grade elevation, the Board should allow for a 5' wall since it is a unique situation. He also explained the proposed changes to the garden. The Board further discussed the issues in regards to the perforated wall as a decorative element, the elevation of the deck, and the water drainage. They also expressed concerns in regards to Planning & Zoning 4 01/22/2004 • • • safety. A guard rail would be appropriate to satisfy issues of safety. The Board then inquired about the criteria for a variance. The Board stated that Mr. Brodsky's property does have some unique conditions and circumstances but that he would be able to accomplish his proposed changes without the need for a variance. After further discussion from the Board, Mr. Crutchfiled made a motion to deny the application for a variance and waive the fee for a new application with new submitted plans. Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion. Motion passed 3-0. Mr. Shockey left early and did not have a vote on Mr. Brodsky's case. The Board announced that in order for the motion to pass, the three votes must be unanimous. The last case on the agenda PZ04-0115-8 deferred. V. NEXT MEETING. The next meeting will be on February 26, 2004 VI. ADJOURNMENT The January 22, 2004 Planning and Zoning meeting, was adjourned at 9:50PM. Irene M. Fajardo, Recording Secretary Planning & Zoning Cesar Sastre, Vice -Chairman 5 01/22/2004