|
|
|
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 (Arrived
at
W. Robert Abramitis
Donald
Shockey (Arrived at
Cesar Sastre
ALSO PRESENT:
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
ITEM III: SCHEDULE ITEMS
PZ03-0320-01 Village
of
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
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 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 Sec. 604: Site plan approval-
Mohammad/Mark Ibrahim sit-down restaurant/outdoor
Mark Campbell café, 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 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 Sec. 504/504.1: Neon signs
Boris Moroz
No one was there to present the case.
PZ03-0424-03 Rey Gomez Sec. 701: Appeal of Administrative official-
1173
NE 104
No one was there to present the case.
PZ03-0424-04 Regina Vlasek/Jolly Mutt Sec. 400/401: Site plan
Shapar Realty Co. (owner) new use approval
217 NE 98 St.
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
PZ03-0424-05 Kurt Gustinger Sec. 604: Site plan approval
1216
NE 93
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
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:
- Hours of operation: How late will the tennis courts
be open? Can they close at
- New tennis court hours would bring more traffic to the neighborhood.
- Trash increase.
- Noise increase at hours when some of the residents are sleeping.
- 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 précised 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.
IV. NEXT MEETING.
The next meeting will be on
V. ADJOURNMENT
The April 24, 2003 Planning and Zoning meeting was adjourned
at