|
|
|
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
The regular meeting of the Miami Shores Planning and Zoning
Board was held on
ITEM I: ROLL CALL:
Richard Fernandez, Chairman
Tim Crutchfield
W. Robert Abramitis
Donald Shockey (Arrived at
ABSENT: Cesar Sastre
ALSO PRESENT:
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-January 16, 2003
Due to the amount of cases on the agenda, the approval of the minutes was moved as the last item on the agenda.
ITEM III: SCHEDULE ITEMS
PZ03-0220-01 Robert and Kathleen McCloskey Sec. 604: Site plan approval-
350 NE 92 St. garage enclosure
Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the project provided that the approach is paved. The Board had no questions for Mr. Berg. The applicant Robert McCloskey was there to present the case. The applicant did not want to add any further information. After a brief discussion, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the garage enclosure subject to staff’s recommendations. Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. Mr. Shockey inquired about the parking on the property. Mr. Berg explained that the owner has concrete strip with substantial amount of space for the parking of vehicles.
PZ03-0220-02 Dawn and Norman Holliday Sec 400/401 Schedule of
Mark Campbell (architect) Reg.: Requesting a variance
660 NE 105 St. to allow a deck with 3 ½ rear
setback where 5’ is required,
allowing a pool with a 4 ½
setback where 7 ½ is required
Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended that the request for a variance be denied. Mr. Berg explained that there is nothing unusual about the site and that it is possible to apply the ordinance and still install the pool without the need for a variance. Reasonable use of the property could still be made. Mrs. Halliday, the property owner, and her attorney, Mark Campbell, were there to present their case. Mr. Campbell explained that the unusual condition of the property is that it is abutting the golf course and therefore, the owner would not have any privacy. The Board inquired about the dimensions of the pool, the jog on the side of the pool and how close the rear of property is located to the fairway. Mr. Campbell explained the exact location of the property. Some of the Board members felt that the location of the property gave it its peculiar condition. They inquired about other properties abutting the golf course. Staff confirmed that there are plenty of houses that abut the golf course and can still make reasonable use of the property. Other members felt that the pool could be reduced in size which meant that a variance would not be necessary. Mr. Campbell stated that reducing the size of the pool would disrupt the plans for the terrace and the water-fountain pool. The Board inquired about the pool fence and whether it was incorporated in the site plan. Mr. Campbell explained the location of the pool fence and stated that it was not incorporated in the site plan. He also explained the location and the dimensions of the terrace and the deck and how they pertained to the requested setback for the pool. After further discussion, Crutchfield made a motion to deny the variance request. Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion. The Board felt that there were some peculiar conditions but that there was still reasonable use of the property without a variance. Motion passed 4-0.
PZ03-0220-03 Urkia Hernandez Sec. 604: Site plan approval
Mark Campbell (architect) lot split and new construction
1213 NE 94 St.
Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site
conditions, and recommended approval of the site plan provided that a survey is
submitted showing the lot split. Mr. Berg spoke about the existing
encroachment, the dimensions of the lots, the existing concrete patio, the
proposed pool deck, and the minimum floor elevation requirements. Two letters were submitted to the Board
opposing the splitting of the lots. The
Board expressed their concerns about unity of title and the need for an opinion
of title. Some Board members felt that
they should not proceed with the case without the necessary documentation in
regards to the title. The Board also
expressed their concerns in regards to cubage problems, the encroachment
issues, and the minimum floor elevation requirements. The owner Urkia
Hernandez, and her attorney, Mark Campbell, were there to present their
case. Mr. Campbell explained the owner’s
intentions in regards to the lot split.
He also spoke about the addition, and stated that he would meet the
floor elevation requirements. Mr.
Campbell also agreed to remove the encroachment and that they would return with
a new site plan which would comply with the Village’s code, the Board’s and
Staff’s concerns. Mr. Fernandez opened
the hearing for public comments: Daniel Hughes, a resident at 1245 NE 94
PZ03-0220-04 Marc and Dianne Stead Sec. 701: Appeal of Admin.
825 NE 97 St. Official – right of way paving
Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended that changes be made to the parking plans proposed by the property owner. Staff explained that there was no room in the garage for parking vehicles. A paved driveway does not exist leading to the garage which is required by the code. Pictures were submitted to the Board as evidence. Staff also explained that the submitted drawing is out of scale and that there is no provision for street tress. Mr. Berg expressed his concerns in regards to drainage and the need for more pervious are on public property. The Board inquired about the two required parking spaces on the property, the current use of the garage, and the two required on site trees. The property owner, Marc Stead, and his attorney, Kevin O’Connor, were there to present their case. Mr. O’Connor first explained that everything proposed by the owners meets the criteria of the code. Second, he confirmed that there are two trees on the property even if they are not showing on the submitted plans. Finally, he addressed the issues of drainage and how the proposed paved area met the required criteria. The Board stated that the drawings did not show any of the concerns stated by staff and by the Board and therefore, it would be difficult to make a decision.
The property owner, Marc Stead, stated that Mr. Berg never informed him of the two required spaces needed on the property. After further discussion, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to table the case until the issues mentioned could be showed on the plans for the Board to review. Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
PZ03-0116-03 Richard and Sylvia Halter Sec. 604: Site plan approval-
1155 NE 104 St. new house.
Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the application for a new house. Mr. Berg explained that the plan meets all the requirements of the code and that it shows good attention to detail. The Board silently reviewed the plans one last time. Some of the Board members expressed their concerns in regards to the energy conservation requirements. After a brief discussion, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the site plan. Mr. Shockey seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
PZ03-0220-05 Laura Maal(owner) Sec. 604: Site plan approval-
550 NE 96 St. new house
Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended that the site plan be tabled pending resolution of the front driveway and the removal/replacement of the oak trees. Mr. Berg expressed his concerns in regards to the oak trees, the questionable walkway shown in the plans in the front of the house, and the proposed carport. The Board stated that they are only approving the location of the parking and not the carport, since it is not shown on the elevation plans. The Board also
mentioned the possible solutions
for parking in order to maintain the oak trees in the front of the
property. They expressed their concerns
in regards to the slab which would be used for parking and the need for
landscaping to separate the slab from the house. The structural engineer, Juan Ordoñez, was there to represent the owner and present the
case. First, he explained the owners’
intentions in regards to the proposed parking.
Second, he explained the proposed landscape plan. He stated that the plan before them was a
revised landscape plan. He stated that
the removed oak trees would be replaced by palm trees since some of the oak
trees are not in good condition. The
Board was concerned with the shade coverage requirement stated in the
PZ03-0220-06 Robin and Michael Carney Sec. 518: Fence in front yard
235 Grand Concourse
Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval provided that the fence is wood or aluminum picket. The Board had no questions or comments. Mr. Shockey mad a motion to approve staff’s recommendation. Mr. Crutchfield seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
PZ03-0220-07 Patrick Frasier(owner) Sec. 604: Site plan approval
Southern Marine Const. new dock.
1500 NE 103 St.
Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the dock. Staff confirmed that the new dock complies with the setback requirements. The owner, Patrick Frasier, and the contractor, Robert Rozzi, were there to present the case. Mr. Rozzi confirmed that the dock had preliminary DERM approval. The Board asked that the applicant add reflectors to the dock for safety. Mr. Rozzi and Mr. Frasier agreed. After a brief discussion, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the new dock subject to adding the reflectors. Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
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. Staff explained that
masonry requirements for building materials provides longevity for structures
and that wood, especially where it comes in contact with the soil, deteriorates
fast. He explained that the wide
circular driveway violates the code makes the existing drainage problem
worse. Mr. Berg stated that the owners
had not been consistent with the original site plan in regards to site
development, drainage, or structures. He
recommended that a CBS wall be installed in lieu of the wood support structure,
and that a double wide driveway be installed, with no circular design. Finally, he stated that the original drainage
plan, with a swale area, also be installed.
The Board inquired about the water run-off. The owners, Nancy and Gorge Fernandez, and an
environmental consultant, Robert Mengi, were there to
present the case. Mr. Mengi explained that the elevated wood structure was placed
instead of a masonry structure in order for the owners to maintain the septic
tank as required by HRS. Mr. Mengi submitted a permit and the requirements from HRS to
the Board as evidence. The Board also
inquired about the flooding problems around the neighborhood and how a masonry
wall would solve the drainage problem.
Mr. Berg explained that it would not solve the problem but that it would
keep the water from draining into the neighbors’ properties. The owner, George Fernandez, explained their
intentions for the wooden structure. The
Board stated that they wanted more expertise evidence that would show that the
wooden structure would be their only solution for maintaining the septic tank. Mr. Mengi stated
that the wooden structure gives easier access to the drain field for
maintenance. The Board also inquired
about the driveway and the two required shading trees on the swale. Mr. Berg addressed the issues in regards to
the modification of the original site plan.
The owner, Mr. Fernandez, explained that he did not see another
solution, besides the wooden structure, that would allow them to maintain the
septic tank. The Board once again
requested more expertise evidence from the applicant. The Chairman, Richard Fernandez, opened the
hearing for public comments. Residents
from 10639 NE 11
PZ03-0220-09 Michael Byrd Sec. 701: Appeal of Administrative Official-
567 NE 96 St. paint
Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended denial of the appeal. The owners, Michael and Ana Byrd, were there to present the case. Mrs. Byrd stated that she wanted to amend the color and submitted the color swatch to the Board for review. The Board explained that the new color was not considered by the Building Official and therefore an appeal cannot exist. Mrs. Byrd explained why she brought the color at the last minute. The Board suggested that she withdraw her application and submit the color to Mr. Berg for review. After further discussion, Mrs. Byrd withdrew her application.
PZ02-1017-02 Daniel and Claudia Alton Sec. 518(b): Fence in front yard
842 NE 99 St.
Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site
conditions, and recommended approval of the request. Mr. Berg explained that the fence would be a
very attractive addition to
PZ03-0220-10 Ellen Sweet Moss Sec. 701: Appeal of Administrative
9305 NE 9 Ave. Official-paint
Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended denial of the appeal. The Board reviewed the pictures of the property and a color swatch given to them in their package. The Board commented on the differences between wooden houses and masonry houses and how the colors appear on each. Some Board members felt that the color proposed was appropriate for a wooden house. The property owner, Mr. and Mrs. Moss, was there to present the case. Mrs. Moss explained that the railings will be painted white. After further discussion, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to over-rule staff’s decision and approve the paint color. Mr. Fernandez seconded the motion for discussion. Mr. Abramitis explained that the property is enclosed by vegetation, therefore, making the color seem softer. Landscaping around the property directly affects the approval of the color. After further discussion, the vote passed 4-0.
PZ03-0220-11 Shelton Hill Sec. 604: Site plan approval-
123 NW 102 St. garage enclosure
Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the application. He also explained that the applicant would submit a Declaration of Use for the property’s records. The Board raised a few issues. Mr. Crutchfield inquired about a possible cut back from the driveway. The Board felt that changing the driveway to a semi-circular driveway might help in disguising the garage enclosure. The owner agreed to change the driveway. The property owner, Shelton Hill, was there to present the case. The Board inquired about possibly closing the door in the garage. The owner explained that the door was left for safety reasons. After further discussion, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the site plan with the conditions that the owner submits a Declaration of Use, cuts the driveway to a semi-circular driveway, and closes the door in the garage. Mr. Shockey seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
PZ03-0220-12 Ameri Trust Title Co. (tenant) Sec. 504(f)(1): Window signs
Real property Inc. (owner)
216 NE 98 St.
Mr. Berg explained the basis of the request, the site conditions, and recommended approval of the window signs. Staff does not recommend the erection of the proposed sign on the building by the alley. None of the other tenants have signs on this area and staff feels that it would not be harmonious. Some of the Board members felt that the application was not professionally done. The property owner, Michael Colbert, was there to present the case. Mr. Colbert explained that he had designed the signs himself and that is why the application was done that way and the intention of the design. Mr. Colbert also explained that the second business’ name on the door was his wife’s business. The Board members explained the issue of harmony in regards to the proposed sign on the building. After further discussion, Mr. Crutchfield made a motion to approve the application without the proposed alley sign. Mr. Shockey seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0.
IV. Discussion/
Recommendation on
Discussion on 2nd
monthly meeting for
The Board reviewed the report that was previously distributed by staff. After making several changes to the report, the Board members agreed that Mr. Crutchfield would draft a report that the Board could review, approve, and then present to Council.
(See attached
narrative)
ITEM
V.: NEXT MEETING-
ITEM VI: ADJOURNMENT- Mr. Crutchfield made a motion
to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Shockey seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. Meeting was adjourned at
__________________________ ________________________
Recording Secretary Chairman