Loading...
07-12-1984 Regular Meeting1 • 1 MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING JULY 12, 1984 A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Planning & Zoning Board was held on June 28, 1984, 7:30 p.m., at the Miami Shores Village Hall, with the following members present: J. Robert Stobs II, Chairman, Thomas Laubenthal Robert J. Rossi J. Leslie Wiesen Patrick L. Duffy (Arrived late) Also present: Frank J. LuBien, Director of Building & Zoning 1. MINUTES Minutes of the meeting of June 28, 1984 were approved as written, by a motion made by Mr. Wiesen, seconded by Mr. Laubenthal, and carried unanimously. 2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS TO ENCLOSE GARAGE (FROM 6/28 MEETING) MARC GARCIA 9337 N. W. 2nd COURT Mr. LuBien stated that he had advised Mr. Garcia that the Board had requested to see an elevation of the front of the house to determine his plans. Mr. Garcia stated that he had discussed this matter with his Architect, who felt the change can easily be accomplished but unnecessary. Members agreed with Mr. Rossi's explanation to Mr. Garcia that, the garage enclosure as completed is inharmonious with the rest of the house, an elevation is needed and further suggested the Architect should have made his design more aesthetically. pleasing. Following further discussion, Mr. Stobs suggested that Mr. Garcia have his Architect contact Mr. LuBien, the Building Official, for clarification of the Boards request. Mr. Garcia then withdrew his request, pending the Architect's return from New York, and further discussion with Mr. LuBien. 3. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR PANELLING 'EXTERIOR C. L. CRUMPTON 375 GRAND CONCOURSE Members expressed appreciation that Mr. Crumpton came so well pre- pared in outlining his request before the Board. Mr. Crumpton indicated the major part of the panelling is inside the screen enclosure and thereby inside the house. The only visible area is about 8' around side light and door. • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -2- 7/12/84 Mr. Stobs in citing previous discussion on the issue, stated that anything but door and window trim must be masonry, and that the intent of the Ordinance is to be determined at this time. Mr. Rossi read from the Code of Ordinances, pg 892, Sec b. Much discussion followed. In reply to query from Mr. Stobs, Mr. LuBien expressed his opinion that anything inside the screen enclosure is semi - enclosed (in that the screen enclosure though not a solid wall, is a barrier), also an 8' privacy wall is proposed., He further noted that none of the wood trim inside the enclosure is visible from the street. Mr. LuBien stated that had this issue not been previously discussed before Council and the Planning & Zoning Board, he would have issued a permit for this alternate plan. This based on the intent of the ordinance addressing masonry structures. He further stated that in addressing masonry structures we refer to what is visual, what is aesthetically pleasing. In a case where the area is concealed, this ceases to be an exterior wall from the stand -point of appearance, it is enclosed. Discussion continued. Mr. Wiesen moved to approve the request according to plans as submitted, seconded by Mr. Rossi. Mr. Laubenthal noted that the plans have been modified to conform with the intent of the Code. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Duffy arrived at this point. 4. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR FLAT ROOF ADDITION EZRA HAYNES 815 N. E. 99th ST. Members reviewed a fact sheet .indicating the area of the present resident building is 2,175 sq. ft. (Pitched roof), a 15% or 326 sq. ft. is allowable flat roof addition, the proposed addition is 494 sq. ft. Mr. Haynes was present and outlined his plans from a sketch of his proposed addition. Discussion followed. Members suggested alternate plans for dimin- ishing the sq. ft. overage. Mr. Haynes agreed to suggestion to diminish the size of the room. PLANNNING & ZONING BOARD -3- 7/12/84 Mr. Laubenthal moved to approve the application, providing the retreat of the walls as needed to be in conformance, with the allowable percentage, based on the code (Sec. 225 (e)), and that the plans submitted and reviewed by the Board reflect proper masonry construction according to the code. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiesen, and carried unanimously. 5. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR SIGNS CIRCLE K FOOD STORES 575 N. E. 87th ST. This request was withdrawn, pending changes to be made on the plans. The request will be resubmitted at a later date. 6. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ALTERATION TO NON -CONFORMING STRUCTURE ANTHONY PAZIENZA 30 N. E. 96th ST. Mr. Pazienza stated that he is requesting the variance on the basis that the existing structure was there, at least, 20 to 25 years prior to his purchasing the house about a year ago. He further noted that, he did not tear down and rebuild the structure but simply made improvements to what was already there. Mr. LuBien noted that in researching the records, there is no indication that a permit had ever been obtained for the structure. variance is required for an unlawful structure within the set back, also the complete structure is in violation. Following much discussion, Mr. Laubenthal moved that, in light of the fact, the Board cannot consciously grant this variance, on the basis that the application, as submitted does not qualify under any of the items defining hardship, which are the necessities to grant such a variance, this request be denied. Mr. Wiesen seconded the motion. Mr. Duffy pointed out to Mr. Pazienza that, should he ever want to sell the house and obtain bank financing, there would be a problem without a plot plan and the proper variance paper work. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. LuBien advised Mr. Pazienza that he has the right of appeal to Council. He only needs to make his request in writing to be placed on the agenda. 7. DISCUSSION RE: ARTICLE VII ERRORS AND VARIANCES. INCLUSION OF HISTORIC LANDMARK STRUCTURES. MARTY STOFIK Mrs. Stofik advised members that the Historic Preservation Board viewed a potential problem lurking in the future, and that parts of the code should be addressed with regard to Historic Structures. • 1 • PLANNING & ZONING -4- 7/12/84 Mrs. Stofik noted that the code should be addressed to allow the Planning & Zoning Board to permit alterations of buildings without altering their historic integrity, while at the same time keeping in place precedence to non -conforming or frame building. In discussion, restoring and remodeling differences were defined. It was noted that Guidelines for Historic Preservation are es- tablished by the Secretary of Interior. It was established that it is the responsibility of the Historic Preservation Board to approve the restoring or remodeling for final approval by the Planning & Zoning Board. It was determined that Sec 702 should be amended to cover a house with Historic Designationas being peculiar and unusual condition. It was also determined that Sec. 225. Masonry Construction, and Sec. 524. Non -..;conforming Uses, also need: to be looked at. It was finally determined that Sec. 702 be amended to provide that Historic Preservation be covered as a hardship for the purpose of renovation, variance, etc. Mrs. Stofik was advised to discuss this issue with Mr. Fenn, the Village Attorney, being sure that the change does not weaken the existing ordinance, and with Mr. Fann providing the proper legal language to implement the change. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. APProvelikti _