Loading...
08-08-1991 Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING August 8, 1991 A regular meeting of the Miami Shores 'Tillage. Planning & Zoning Board was held on August 8, 1991, The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman, Mr. Fernandez with the following members present: Richard 21, Fernandez, Chairman Les Forney Thomas Laubenthal Larry T. McClure Absent Terrell F. Chambers, Jr. Frank LuBien, Director of Building & Zoning (On vacation) 1. NIENUTES - JULY 25, 1991 There were 3 amendments called for in the minutes of the meeting of July 24, 1991, 1Ir, Forney's and Mr. McClure's statements on page 2, concern- ing the Comprehensive Review- - Downtown Miami Shores are made a permanent part of these minutes, At the end of page 1, it was requested the statement be clarified by adding, to review the efforts of the Miami Shores Downtown Revitalization Board". The minutes of the meeting of July 25, 1991 were approved..as amended, by a motion made by Mr. Forney, seconded by Mr. McClure, and passed 3/1, Mr. Laubenthal abstained from voting, as he was not present for the last meeting. Mr. Fernandez requested an agenda item be added after 6. Discussion - Administrative Regulations, The motion to add this item to the Agenda was made by Mr..AMcClure, seconded by Mr. Forney, and carried unanimously. 2. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR PRESS BOX & CONCESSION BARRY UNIVERSITY, 1130a N. E, 2nd AVE. The secretary reported that she had received a call from Mike Covone to cancel the request, 3. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR FLAT ROOF ADDITION GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ, 750 N. E. 96th ST. Members reviewed plans for the request. Mr. Fernandez explained the change in the roofing ordinance as recommended to Council. Members concurred, there seemed to be no irregularities. The calculation for 288 sq ft addition is well within the requirement of 15% or 300 sq ft. The motion to approve the request as submitted was made by Mr. Laubenthal, seconded by Mr. Forney, and carried unanimously. • 4. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR GARAGE ENCLOSURE MR. YUTH, 1260 N. E. 97th St. It was noted that no site plan was included. in response to query, Mr. Yuth noted he is enclosing the garage to make it a family room. The laundry room is existing, and there is no plumbing going in, There were several items needed. There were no elevationdrawings, no detailed information on the doors and windows. Mr. Fernandez suggested Mr, Yuth may wish to withdraw his request, at this time, and maybe present it again when Mr. LuBien teturns. The request was withdrawn by Mr, Yuth. Mr. Laubenthal held the drawings in case he received a call on the enclosure, PLANNING & ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING -2- 8/8/94 In reply to query from Mr. McClure, Mr. Rodriguez replied that he has begun the work and he has no outside contractor, but..is doing the work him- self. The procedure of using Jim Reeder in the absence of Mr. LuBien was explained to Mr, Rodriguez. 5. DISCUSSION - METAL STRUCTURES V, J. KNEZEVICH Mr. Fernandezopened discussion by noting the ongoing review of con- struction materials used in Miami Shores Village. Further, Mr. Fernandez has seen some of the wonders created by Mr. Knezevieh and feels we have a real expert before us. He clarified for Mr. Knezevich what is expected. Mr. Knezevich handed out to Members the brochure of materials he brought with him. He also brought samples and explained drawings, product control, and permitting. Mr. Knezevich began by explaining the types of structuresthat could be used in Miami Shores. The aluminum extrusions and rolled form aluminum are both described in the product approval drawings, which stipulates the alloys used. The building inspector must have the proper tools to inspect properly. The Webster Gauge and the Micrometer areboth necessary. The inspector should have. about $1,000,00 worth of tools. The Engineer should not be used to make inspections. Mr. Knezevich explained the alloys necessary to give the aluminum theright temper which is very important, and this cannot be detected just by looking at it., proper inspection is necessary. The difference in the strength of the metal depends on the alloy used. The pan sample he brought interlocks to form the metal roof. The metallurgy should be at least H38 temper, if lower, there is a tremendous PSI difference, The contractor claim is sometime not justified. Mr. Knezevich explained his testing for Members, and span differences.. This can be done in a matter of seconds with the Webster Gauge. Dade County product approval is important when listening to contractor claims, but an inspector withthe righttools is also very important. Polystyrene or honey cone panels and sheet metal which form a sandwich construction and add circulation, The thicker the foamthe fartherthe span. Fire protection is also explained in the code. The two basic roof systems arethe foam support or the metal pan, The screws used also must be right. A roof with cad,ium or steel screws can have serious problems, the fastners corrode first, but with proper maintenance the roof could have a life of 25 to 30 years. Aluminum fastners or high series stainless steel can be used, Fastner.inspection should be made each year or two. Mr. Knezevieh answered many questions by the Members of Planning & Zoning. Mr. Knezevich could not recommend any sample codes for Members to review. Even those in the middle ofthe state have terrible.. mistakes. Dade County Product Approval is the best source. Proper fastners with the proper alloy and theproper size beams might be ,written intehthe code. Also a minimum wall thickness may be included. The 044 extrusion is a good way to go. The minimum pan thickness allowed should be 032 for a span .of 9' to 10'. Because Mr. Knezevich lives in Miami Shores Village, quality is important to him. He stated he has learned a great deal in his testing lab. .The Board must stay with the South. Florida Building Code and Dade County Building Code. An aesthetic question asked by Mx, Fernandez, "If the present flatroof area allowed is 300 sq ft or 15% of pitched roof area, how much aluminum roof is too much?" PLANNING & ZONING HOARD REGULAR MEETING -3- 8/8/91 In reply Mr. Knezevich answered roughly 240 sq ft, but requests the Board to stay with the flat roof. A 15' clear span makes fora big. jump in price be- cause of extrusion necessary. Mr. McClure inquired, what kind of engineer drawings are acceptable? Mr. Knezevich noted hewouid advise the building official to.accept only .engineer drawings using product approval or Engineer who has expertise in this type work. In reply to another query from Mr. McClure, it was indicated one should refer to site specific drawings when seeking approval for a custri .job. Regarding aluminum siding question asked by Mr. Laubenthal, Mr. Knezevich replied that siding systems can be watertight, look good until one comes to the eaves, fascia, and round columns then they have a prefab look. Regarding screen enclosures, there are many different ways to do it. Anchoring or fastening to foundation is important. Many different colors in metallurgy are available. Aesthetics can be controlled. Alloy is very important, Product approval is a must. The only resource material which Mr. Knezevich might recommend is the AAF Manual, published by the Aluminum Association of Florida. Regarding 2nd story additions, Mr. Knezevich noted the wood frame above masinry can last .a lifetime, all sheet metal is beautiful. Any wood frame addition should allow for expansion leaving about 14F/ between panels. The cost differential is one figure for a new house and another for remodeling. Changes to the first floor can be drastic. Mr. Fernandez thanked Mr. Knezevich for coming and stated he may entertain a few phone calls, as some think it may be a manageable item. ,Mr. Fernandez suggested this item be placed on the agenda for the meeting of September 12. A.break was taken at 9:05 P.M.. The meeting reconvened at 9:15 P.M.. 6. COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW.- DOWNTOWN MIAMI SHORES Mr. Fernandez noted, at the last meeting he asked Members to submit a document of comments concerning recommendations or conclusions for downtown Miami Shores to be reviewed and sent to Council. Two documents were available to work with. It was decided to use the format of the second proposal. It was basically determined, -no zoning changes are recommended at this time. The rationale theory seems to work best when Council see reason for the Hoards thinking and actions, Mr, Fernandez read the statement paragraph by paragraph and each point was clarified as Members proceeded to follow along., Some changes in the proposal were made, and a11,Members. participated. That statement will become a permanent part of .these minutes, Mr. Forney made a motion to adopt the statement as read and amended, the motion was seconded by Mr. Laubenthal. Mr. McClure asked clarification of the last paragraph. The motion passed by 4.votes. Mr. Chambers, at the last meeting expressed the statement, he has no recommendation for zoning changes to N. E. 2nd Ave, at this time, 7. DISCUSSION - ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION 1. There,was extensive discussion concerning new up to date code books for Members.. Mr, McClure made a motion to make a formal request to the Village Manager for an up to date copy of the code book. Mr.. Forney seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Forney will call Gail Macdonald to make the request. • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING -4- 8/8/91 2. Mr. Fernandez requested the Secretary to locate and acquire aerial maps of the &tams Shores Country Cluband the Biscayne Kennel Club for Members to review. 3. The second storyissue to be discussed. 4. Planning for N. E. 2nd Avenue as opposed to rezoning was brought up by Mr. McClure. Also discussed were the goals and direction of Planning & Zoning. Annexation also was mentioned. Also the secretary will find out how often the Comprehensive must be reviewed. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 P.M.. retia c ry August 8, 1991 Miami Shores Planning and Zoning Board Report to Village Council Pursuant to the direction of the Miami Shores Village Council, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a review of the land use and zoning of the N.E. 2nd Avenue business district between 103rd Street and 94th Street. METHOD OF ANALYSIS The Board conducted a series of information gathering meetings which included nearby residential owners; B-1 district property owners on N.E. 2nd Avenue; B-1 district business proprietors along N.E. 2nd Avenue; the Miami Shores Chamber of Commerce; the Miami Shores Property Owner's Association; a hired consultant; Village staff; and, other interested residents. Consideration was given to the efforts of the Downtown Revitalization Board; the "Main Streets Program"; the recent land survey of the downtown area; recommendations made in previous downtown studies; the recommendations of the Business Development Committee; the proposed downtown sewer project; and, prior deliberations of the Board and Council. The Board members engaged in considerable discussion and debate as to the issues and potentials of the subject district. CONCLUSIONS The Planning and Zoning Board has reached the following conclusions: 1) that the zoning in the B-1 district along N.E. 2nd Avenue should remain the same at this time; 2) that as part of the periodic review called for by state statutes of the Comprehensive Plan, zoning changes for the subject district will be routinely reconsidered. RATIONALES 1) There is no consensus of purpose and mutuality of direction among the effected parties. 2) Current economic forces do not make zoning changes that increase space potentials viable at this time or the foreseeable future; and, may constrain other potential avenues of change. 3) The board will remain open-minded as to potential changes presented under a single plan, or, by a developer. The board will re -assess potentials over time.