Loading...
03-25-1982 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING MARCH 25, 1982 A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Planning and Zoning Board was held at 7:30 P.M., March 25, 1982, at the Village Hall, with the following members present: J. Robert Stobs, Chairman J.S. Palmer Kevin P. O'Connor Kenneth Cutchens Absent,Roberta Johnson Also present, Mr. Frank LuBien, Building Director. 1) MINUTES: Minutes of the meeting of March 11, 1982 were approved as written by motion made by Mr. Palmer, seconded by Mr. O'Connor and carried unanimously. 2) REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF REROOFING WITH ASPHALT SHINGLES DUDLEY CAWTHON, 351 N.E. 105 STREET Mr. LuBien advised the Board that the existing wood frame structure has existing roof of asphalt shingles, and was previously reroofed with composite shingles and sealamatic shingles. A portion of the north side is to be reroofed with shingles matching existing structure. After discussion with the Code Enforcement Director and Mr. Dudley Cawthon, the Board determined the entire structure, being asphalt shingles, would be threatened structurally by having to utilize cement tile, as far as load is concerned. Mr. Palmer moved for approval of reroofing with asphalt shingles on the basis of variance due to pecularities and unusual condition of the structure. The motion was seconded by Mr. O'Connor and passed unanimously. Mr. Cawthon was advised by the Chairman that this is to go before Council on Tuesday, April 6th. -2 - 3/25/82 3) REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SIGNS AND ALTERATIONS BROADWAY RESTAURANT, 9099 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD Two ice cream signs are to be attached to the building, one facing Biscayne Boulevard and one facing N.E. 91st Street. These two signs were found to be in compliance and required no action by the Board. A third proposed sign, to hang over a canopy, is larger than Ordinance permits. Mr. LuBien quoted from Ordinance 354, relative to signs in a B2 District. After discussion by the Board and the Code Enforcement Director, Mr. Sikandar Karim withdrew the application for the canopy sign as submitted and will redraft the proposal to mount the sign in question on the face of the wall of the building. This redraft will be submitted to the Building and Zoning Department by Mr. Karim. Following a discussion with Mr. LuBien and the Board, Mr. O'Connor made a motion that the alteration to create an extra exit, as reflected in drawings submitted to the Board, be approved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Palmer and passed unanimously. The Board recommended the alterations for approval by Council. 4) REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SIGNS SHORES VILLAS CONDOMINIUM, 8701 THRU 9043 PARK DRIVE Mr. Richard Bender, President of the Board of Directors of 88 Townhouses, introduced to the Board Mrs. Betty Pappas, Resident Manager and member of the Board of Shores Villas Condominium. Mr. Bender explained to the Board the need for tow -away signs at three entrances of the Condominium. Drawings and diagrams of the signs, noting size and positioning, were submitted for consideration. The proposed signs are detached, 30" high and 24" wide, white reflective background with red letters. Following examination and discussion, the Board determined these detached signs be considered in the context of harmonious part of the architectural design of the buildings, referring to Page 11, Section C, Paragraph 2, namely, the limitation shall not apply to any sign that is approved by the Planning Board as a harmonious part of the architectural design of the building. - 3 - 3/25/82 It was the opinion of the Board that the proposed signs be set on wood posts and wood framed and Mr. Bender agreed to utilize wood for harmony. Two signs are to be free-standing on wood posts and the third one is to be affixed to the building. Mr. Cutchens moved for approval of the location, structure and size of the signs only, not the wording of the signs. The motion was seconded by Mr. Palmer and carried unanimously. 5) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO INSTALL 6' C.B.S. WALL HORACIO AGUIRRE, 9820 & 9824 N.E. 5TH AVE. ROAD Mr. Alejandro appeared before the Board with Dr. Aguirre with a request for a 6' C.B.S. wall. The Board advised that a 6' wall requires a variance and could only be approved with evidence of hardship. Since no proof of hardship was disclosed, Mr. Alejandro was advised by the Chairman that variance could not be granted. Mr. O'Connor informed Mr. Alejandro that Ordinances on walls and setbacks were inviolate. Mr. Cutchens made a motion to deny approval of the request for 6' wall, seconded by Mr. O'Connor and passed unanimously. Mr. Alejandro inquired of Mr. LuBien if he could cut down the existing 6' wall to 5'. Mr. LuBien's reply was affirmative. 6) ZONING ORDINANCE - AMENDMENTS Mr. LuBien presented to the Board for their perusal a copy of Parking Ordinance ##149 of El Portal, dated April 10, 1973. The Chairman requested that the Building Director obtain information for the Board with reference to Coral Gables Ordinance. A letter from Mr'. Forney, Village Manager, to Mr. Fann, Village Attorney, was introduced by the Chairman. The Code Enforcement Director advised that no reply was received. 7) REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION HISTORICAL PRESERVATION ORDINANCE' The Historical Preservation Ordinance was referred to the Planning Board b -Council for review—arid xecommendatior Mr. LuBien advised the Board that if each local community • • - 4 - 3/25/82 does not pass its own Ordinance by July 1st, the Metro Ordinance takes effect. Marty Stofik, of 35 N.E. 91st Street, read to the Board a prepared statement relative to the ordinance before the Board for review. She further distributed to the Board copies of 1981 Dade County Historical Survey, listing eighty-three properties in Miami Shores having architectural, historical and/or contextual significance. (Copies attached) The Chairman stated that the Board would address this Ordinance on April 8th, after each member reviews same. It was also suggested by the Board that Council- woman Jensen, Mr. Forney, Attorney Fenn and Marty Stofik be invited to attend our April 8th meeting, at which time evaluation and recommendations will be presented by the Board. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M. I am very disappointed in this ordinance, and, quite frankly, surprised. It seems to have been written, not with malice, but perhaps sly n t-C\carNce withl/a lack of awareness of theikisfaof what we have in dna how egg CL n be destroy ed • Miami Shores It completely undermined the purpose of historic preservation, and is weak to the point of being useless. I'd like to briefly outline some of the reasons for a strong preservation ordinance, and propose a._ few gpecific.changes which would make this proposal worth your consideration. When I came here Tuesday to pick up a copy of this ordinance, someone asked me if there was anything in Miami Shores which would qualify for historic preservation. To answer that, I call your attention to the 1981 Dade County Historical Survey, which, and I quote, points out areas of urgent need and singles out sites of mai or significance. In that survey, 83 properties in the Shores are designated as having architectural, historical, and/or contextual significance. Others certainly qualify, particularly ones built after the survey cut-off date of 1940. As to the need to preserve these structures, I again quote from the survey. "The history of any community must be viewed within its own context." A home built here in the 1920's is as historically significant to the Shores as a house built in the_1200's is to Williamsburg. Only by preserving those structures can we maintain the integrity and heritage of our community, those things which set us apart from any other streets or blocks in Dade County. This ordinance doesn't do that. Now.for specifics. First, this ordinance should be part of our zoning code, creating a historic preservation classification to establish the legal basis and intent for regulating historic properties. Rezoning procedures should be started to apply that classification to sites chosen by the Board of Review, without approval of the property owner. As in all zoning cases,, the owner would have the opportunity to state his position before you and the Council, and to appeal through standard procedures if he disagrees with the final decision. To do otherwise, to allow any individual property owner to decide if the history of the Shores should be preserved, is to relinquish your responsibility. I know • of no other ordinance in this city governing use or upkeep of property which allows for the consent of the owner. Next, a provision should be made to designate historic blocks or districts. In cases where a structure cannot be saved, this would require it to be replaced with one that is in keeping with the neighborhood. Third, no provision is made to protect sites of archeological significance should any be located. Fourth, the section dealing with application for demolition of a historic .structure should be stren2hened to allow alternate means of preservation, and providing more stringent requirements for proof of need to destroy such a property. Finally, the board of review should include at least one architect or historic preservationist who could provide expertise on technical merit, and all members should be familiar with the field. Several other essential changes are needed to make this an effective ordinance. Expert assistance is available from the county historic preservation division and independent organizations such as Dade Heritage Trust to help you prepare an ordinance that meets the specific needs of the Shores. - --- Historic preservation is an asset which can increase the value and prestige of our community. For a change, Metro -Dade has provided us an opportunity to do something to maintain our uniqueness. I have taken my time to be here tonight because, after living in South Florida for 18 years, and sampling all it has to offer, I bought my home in the Shores. If I want to still live here 25 or 30 years from now, it. will be because the village has maintained those qualities and that atmosphere that lured me here. Please take the time to rework this into a comprehensive, positive ordinance. Let's take the opportunity of our_50th anniversary to preserve our heritage so we still will have these treasures to enjoy in our centennial year. MItP Ty S r o Fl.K moi= 9! — �T_ tIAMI SHORES SI1rE LIST ,ADDRESS 421, 427 Grand Concourse 533, 548, 565, 10108 N.E. 1st • 601, 674 Grand Concourse Avenue 9545 N.E. 2nd Avenue 9600, 9608 N.E 2nd Avenue 9806 N.E. 2nd Avenue 9823 N.E. 4th Avenue 10351 N.E. 5th Avenue 9405, 9353, 9347, 9305 N.E. 9th Avenue 29.N.E. 91st Street 257 N.E..:91st Street 280, 300, 353, 469 N.E. 91st Street SITE NAME/REMARKS Grand Concourse Apartments Shores Theatre Miami Shores Community Church/ Old Pump House Miami Shores Elementary School 1037, 1069, 1084, 1099 N.E. 91st Street DATE(S) 1927 +1920 +1920 +1920 +1930 +1920 ca. 1925 +1926 +1920 +1920 +1920 +1920- fir+ PAGE NO.29 RATING A H 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 KEY:: `::+:Built after date Built before date ADDRESS 87, 137, 152, 13, 341, 357, 440, 477 N.E. 92nd Street SITE NAME/REMARKS DATE (s) +1920 1 " • . 'PAGE NO.3v RATING A H C 2 333 N.E. 92nd treet +1920 1 2 1 349 N.E. 93rd Street if • +1920 2 2 2 544 N.E. 93rd Street 379, 384, 436 N.E. 94th Street +1920 1 2 2 +1920 2 1 431 N.E. 94th treet 1924 1 1 501 N.E. 94th Street 1 3 1 145, 457 N.E. 95th Street +1920 1 2 2 912 N.E. 95th Street 94o N.E. 95th treet 989 N.E. 95th treet 1000 N.E. 95th Street 1938 +1920 -; +192 +1920 1 1 1 KEY: + Bui 1 t after date Bui 1 t before date tv 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 ADDRESS SITE NAME/REMARKS DATE(S) • PAGE NO.31 RATING A H C Si, 107 N.E. 96th St., 76 N.E. 97th St. +1920 1 2 1 262 N.E. 96th Street 577, 51+0, 339, 287, 284 N.E. 96th St. 300 N.E. 96th Street 1928 1 1 1925 - 1928 1 2 1 +1925 1 3 1 393 N.E. 96th Street 1235, 1245, 1291 N.E. 96th Street +1925 1 3 1 +1920 1 3 1 1098 N.E. 96th Street 1 3 360, 361, 369 N .E. 97th Street +1920 2 2 1 273, 276, 336, 352 N.E. 98th Street +1920 2 2 1 253, 260, 269,1310, 389 N.E. 99th Street +1920 .1 1 2 1 121 N.E. 100th itreet 268 N.E. 102nd treet +1920 1926 2 2 2 2 KEY: :4. Built after date - Built before date, • , A 4 )DRESS • SITE NAME/REMARKS DATE(S) • -1) te, PAGE N0.32• RATING A H C 560, 568, 584. N.E. 102nd Street 1925 2 2 575 N.E. 107th Street N.E. 107th St.)N.E. 6th Ave./Biscayne Blvd./N.E. 10th Avenue +1930 2 3 Miami Shores Golf Course 1937 2 KEY: + Built after date -,Built before date 0+4 - EVALUATION SYSTEM Sites' architectural, historical and contextual significance have been rated on a "1" to "3" scale, from the most significant ones to those with minor significance in that order. "1" rating implies major significance in that particular area and indicates that all efforts should be made topreserve the site. "2" ratin im Lies that the site has secondary significance and its preserva- tion should still be considered after that of the first priority sites. "3" rating indicates minor significance and a low priority in terms of pre- servation efforts. ,A construction cut-off date of 1940 has been determined for structures to be studied. This date may be flexible to include sep cific sites whose_ significance may over -ride their more recent age. Present use or condition of a site will not be used as criterion in determining whether said site is or is not to be included in the survey. Alterations to the original exterior fabric of a structure will not be used in most casesas criterion in determining a structure's inclusion in the survey. Where major alterations have so severely affected a structure as to render it un- recognizable from its original appearance, these changes, along with other signifi ance-determning criteria, will be used to decide the site's eligibility for survey consideration.