Loading...
04-25-1991 Regular Meeting• MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING April 25, 1991 A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Village Planning & Zoning Board was held on April 25, 1991. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fernandez, with the following members present: Richard M. Fernandez, Chairman Terrell F. Chambers, Jr. Les Forney Thomas Laubenthal Larry T. McClure Also present: Frank LuBien, Director of Building & Zoning 1. MINUTES - APRIL 11, 1991 There was an amendment to the minutes of April 11, 1991. Mr. Forney made a request to substitute a paragraph on Pg 2, paragraph 6. A copy of the substitute paragraph was given to each Member. Mr. Laubenthal made a motion to accept the minutes with the substitute paragraph, the motion was seconded by Mr. Chambers, and carried unanimously. A comment was made by Mr. Fernandez that no one anticipates low income housing for N. E. 2nd Avenue. 1A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR ADDITION R. MANNAPERUMA 210 N. E. 107th ST Mr. LuBien introduced the request, stating that this item was on a prior agenda. Mr. Mannaperuma was given a list of nine items which needed attention on the plans. Mr. LuBien has some reservations concerning this set of plans, and does not know if these are satisfactory to the Board. He has questions concerning the site plan discrepancy, roof specs, and is puzzled by the first floor plan. Mr. Mannaperuma stated he will present the parking plans later. He is not happy with this set, but this is what the architect gave him. Mr. Laubenthal asked questions of Mr. Mannaperuma concerning the site plan, roof and certain interior wall, and made some notations on the set of plans. Mr. Laubenthal also labeled each room. He commented the plans are incom- plete, and while better than the previous set, corrections and/or additions need to be made. Mr. Fernandez explained the problems and the procedure to Mr. Mannaperuma, and asked if he wished to withdraw his request, at this time, and return with a completed set of drawriings. • Mr. Mannaperuma indicated he will withdraw his request, at this time. 2. LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE Mr. Fernandez indicated the Landscape Ordinance .was begun about two years ago. He stated much has transpired in two years and wondered if this ordinance is appropriate at this point in time. The significant impact is on•the business district. The question to Members,is it appropriate, at this point?" Mr. McClure clarified that by appropriate, Mr. Fernandez is referring to appropriate in light of what may be going on in the •Business District) root the elements of the ordinance . PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -2- 4/25/91 Mr. Forney answered, "yes, it is very appropriate". The parking issue as previously discussed needs to be addressed. Mr. Forney wished it made clear to Council that while these are extremely desirable standards, and should be applied to new construction, we recognize that should they cause existing parking lots structure a problem when being redone, this ordinance would render them non-compliance or legitimize the reason for a hardship variance for that piece of property. Mr. Forney also agreed that the definitation section is too long. He further stated, we are essentially a residential community, and are lacking, at present, in proper standards for residential landscaping. Mr. Forney presented each Member with proposed Section 2 (which he drew up), which he would add to the Landscape Ordinance. He noted he would like to see more detail in referring to maintenance. Mr. Fernandez addressed the residential factor, and establishing more stringent requirements for the property owner to maintain his property. Is what we have sufficient to provide enforcement or not? In looking at the business section he is troubled concerning the reduction of parking that may result as the code is written, the increase in cost to the property owner, who may wish to resurface his parking lot, and the creation of two classes for hardship. Mr. Laubenthal noted the percentage mechanism may be used to bring a property in line with the Landscape Ordinance. The percentage theory was related to equipment on the job, and business parking lots. Mr. Laubenthal stated in regard to maintenance, there are time frames to be used. In further discussion, Members talked about Xeroscape, size of parking spaces, green area, landscape area, standards and creativity. Pre-existing conditions, and parking lot drainage was also discussed. In reply to query from Mr. McClure, Mr. Laubenthal said,4the County is activ:ly developing an ordinance in terms of green space percentages! Mr. Laubenthal has not made comparison as to its being more or less strict than ours. Mr. Laubenthal explained about pervious and non pervious area. Mr. McClure stated he is leaning toward agreement with Mr. Fernandez in that, he dislikes moving forward on something which may not be acceptable at all. First considering the County Ordinance and second, it may be in direct con- flict with what is proposed downtown. Mr. Forney noted again he does not share the concern to wait. Mr. Forney, feels we are behind, the ordinance is needed, we are in the Earth Day Era. As structured it would have virtually no impact on structures, parking lots or businesses, at this time. Mr. Laubenthal and Mr. Forney feel the Ordinance is essential. Mr. Fernandez feels, if the design triggers an upgrade, he is opposed. Mr. Fernandez does not want to see regular maintenance items triggered adding to owner cost. Mr. Fernandez is persuaded to move forward. At the next meeting he wants to focus and wrap it. The areas to focus on are: definitions not in agreement on, maintenance, parking percentages, County regulations vs Miami Shores regulations, South Florida Water Management District. He further requested, Members be prepared to deal with Mr. Forney,s residential landscape and maintenance ordinance. • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD -3- 4/25/1 A ten minute recess was taken. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 P.M. 3. DISCUSSION- ROOF MATERIAL Mr. Fernandez outlined the discussion on roof material to date. Mr. Forney suggested amendment of Section 225, and submitted a typed change, which he explained in full, and gave a copy to each Member. Mr. Fernandez talked about the harmony clause which we have banked on. He said, "it should be utilized as a last ditch effort when nothing else fits the bill, to attempt to codify harmony further would be ill advised". Mor. Fernandez suggested the harmony clause be left out:. This was discussed briefly. There was among Members extensive discussion on the flat roof area used as a deck, and the use of glazed tile. Mr. McClure mentioned discussion to liberize the roofing code, and the predicament of making less things available. Glazed tile can be ok if applied properly. Color should be impregnated throughout the tile. Mr. LuBien clarified, that any 22" pitch requires tile. Mr. Fernandez noted the flat roof situation is under discussion, there is a 15% limitation to be addressed, and roof deck areas. Mr. McClure does not agree that the metal roof should not be allowed. He stated, he is not sure why we do not allow metal. It could be addressed for use in business for commercial application. The subject of awnings was raised and this was discussed at length. It was thought that the aluminum patio covers would be addressed as a separate item, but the reason for discussion here is so as not to further restrict ourselves. Mr. Fernandez stated, we are working on the Landscape Ordinance and on Roof -Material, he wants to move along and get these two items to Council. In summary, Mr. Fernandez wants discussion at the next meeting to focus on amendment to Section 225 (4).(f), flat roofs, and metal roofs for commercial application. The awning issue will be discussed later. The next agenda will have wrap up discussion on the Landscape Ordinance and Roof Material. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. • - -/f/ r tart' Approved Feruande�', Chairman