Loading...
10-27-1994 Public Hearing and Regular MeetingItem 1: 0 Item 3 Paragraph 2: Item 4 Paragraph 1: Paragraph 2: Paragraph 3 • Revisions to Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Board October 27, 1994 Mr. Smith moved to approve the minutes of the October 13, 1994 meeting as amended. If masonry tile roofing were to be installed, .. . He also stated his belief that the area has been shingled since it was built.. . Delete paragraphs 2 and 3 and substitute the following: ,After much discussion, Mr. Smith expressed extreme doubt about asphalt shingle having been the original roofing material on this building. He further stated that a lose inspection of the stucco along the upper edge of the wall of the gable end of this roof would reveal a 1/2 inch wide impression running the entire length of both sides of the gable. Mr. Smith stated that this is clear evidence that the roofing material at the time of construction of this building was exactly as hat which was used on every other inclined roof structure on this original portion of th building. This material is known to have been Historic Cuban Barrel Tile. Mr. Smith noted that this building is designated a Miami Shores Historic Landmark and asked if the applicant had received a certificate of appropriateness for asphalt shingles from the Historic Preservation Board as required by the Village Code. The applican replied that he had not. Mr. Smith stated his opinion that any ruling by the Planning and Zoning Board at this point would be inappropriate and contrary to the Code. Mr. Mark Sell, member of the church Board of Trustees, requested that the Board consider an approval of shingle contingent upon issuance of a certifica e of appropriateness by the Historic Preservation Board. The Board did not act on this request. Mr. LuBien suggested_ and the Chairman concurred. that Mr. LuBien and Mr. Smith meet with members of the church on the site prior to the next Planning and Zoning Board Meeting to further re earch and document thi matter. Item 4A Delete paragraphs 1 and 2, substituting the following: Item 4B Paragraph 2 Paragraph 3 Item 4C Mr. Smith began the discussion by asking that consideration be given to reinstating and strengthening a former policy of the Village of 1VIiami Shores that homeowners who undertake major alter tions or additions to their homes be required to sign and record an affidavit stating that the addition or alteration is not being undertaken for the purposes of creating a multifamily use and that the exis ing use of the property at the time of the alteration or addition is single family. Mr. Smith proposed that this document should be required when any applic t applies for a building permit in excess of $2,500 that involves any st ctural additions or alterations, but not in the case of non-structural work such as re -roofing or air-conditioning. All applicants for permits for work valued in excess of this amount are already required to file documents with the clerk of court, so this additional filing would not be burdensome. Mr. Smith stated that time -specific documentation of single family use would enable the Village to cessfully defend against claims by home owners that their properties are somehow grandfathered as legal non -conforming multi- family uses. contact the Building Officials of other Dade County municipalities .. . contact the Building Officials of other Dade County municipalities .. . Delete paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 and replace with the following: Mr. Walters opened the discussion by stating that he had become very concemed about the indiscriminate removal of high quality, original windows from older homes in Miami Shores and their replacement with low quality, architecturally inappropriate windows. Mr. Smith stated that this had long been a concern of other cities in Dade County, such as Miami Beach. where there are similar concentrations of high quality older housing stock. He stated that many cities that regulate window replacement have developed a bifurcated system whereby homes over fifty years old are subjected o the requirement that old windows must be replaced with new windows which match those originally specified for the structure by the architect. Exceptions to this may be approved by the Historic Preservation Board. 1n buildings which are less than fifty years old, preservation of the original windows is encouraged. Replacement with windows of the same mullion pattern may also be allowed. Replacement of jalousie windows with windows of a more substantial and secure v 'ety is also encouraged. • • Again, the issue of codifying the Planning and Zoning Board's authority to develop design guidelines was discussed. Mr. Smith suggested that the Village Attorney draft an ordinance granting such authority and providing for an appeals process. Mr. Smith agreed to provide the documentation required for drafting design guidelines for both garage enclosures and window replacement. PROPOSED POLICY GUIDELINES FOR ROOFING MATERIAL VARIANCES Requests for variances regarding roofing materials shall be accompanied by a written statement from an engineer licensed in the State of Florida containing the following information: A detailed description of the design of the roof structure. The maximum load capacity of the roof structure stated in pounds per square and citing 'at least one published standard of reference acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Board. A statement as to whether the inability of the roof structure to carry the load of masonry roofing is a result of the original design or deterioration of the structure. Brand name and manufacturer's specifications for a suggested roofing material alternative. Said specifications shall include the installed weight of the materials expressed in pounds per square. ADDITIONALLY: The weight of the approved roofing, material, including underlayment and fastening system', shalt -not be less than 75% of the stated maximum load capacity. Any building having a roof structure which cannot in the opinion of the engineer support a load capacity of 250 LBS. per square not be granted a variance and shall be inspected by the Building Official for overall structural integrity. • 6\w -a DRAFT Miami Shores Village Planning & Zoning Board Regular Meeting & Public Hearing October 27, 1994 The regular meeting of the Miami Shores Planning & Zoning Board was held on Thursday, • October 27, 1994 at Village Hall commencing at 7:35 P.M. with the following members present: Present: Cliff Walters Charles Smith Robert Blum Louis Imburgia Mark Ulmer Also Present: Frank LuBien ITEM #1 MINUTES Mr. Smith moved to approve the minutes of the October 13, 1994 meeting as amended. Mr. Ulmer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. ITEM #2 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF DIVISION OF LAND WITHOUT PLAT. Dr. Jay Stein 9699 N.E. 2nd Avenue Mr. LuBien stated that Dr. Stein requested to remove this item from the agenda. The Board granted Dr. Stein his request. ITEM #3 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE TO ALLOW RE -ROOF WITH ASPHALT SHINGLES Egery Nelson, Jr. 9339 N.E. 10th Court Attorney Christopher Kelly represented Mr. Nelson. Mr. Kelly stated that the home was designed for asphalt shingle. Mr. Thomas Oliver of G & L Roofing stated the roof was constructed to hold asphalt shingles. If masonry tile roofing were to be installed, the weight of the tile would put stress on the structure and possibly collapse the roof. Mr. Paul Myers, general contractor for Mr. Nelson stated the roof will not support cement. Mr. Smith urged the applicant to seek out other materials to re -roof the residence. Mr. Smith explained the various weight and composition of various materials that have been approved by Dade County Product Code. Mr. Ulmer moved to approve the variance to re -roof the home with the condition that the material used would be of rigid cementious fibre specified in the proposed Ordinance before the Village Council. Mr. Imburgia seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. ITEM #4 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE TO ALLOW RE -ROOF WITH ASPHALT SHINGLES. Miami Shores Community Church Mr. Richard Karrer, Chairman of the Miami Shores Community Church presented a picture of the Church showing the existing roof with asphalt shingles. He also stated his belief that the area has been shingled since it was built in 1925 and was designated an historical landmark in 1985. After much discussion, Mr. Smith expressed extreme doubt about asphalt shingle having been the original roofing material on this building. He further stated that a close inspection of the stucco along the upper edge of the wall of the gable end of this roof would reveal a 1/2 inch wide impression running the entire length of both sides of the gable. Mr. Smith stated that this is clear evidence that the roofing material at the time of construction of this building was exactly as that which was used on every other inclined roof structure on this original portion of the building This material is known to have been Historic Cuban Barrel Tile. Mr. Smith noted that this building is designated a Miami Shores Historic Landmark and asked if the applicant had received a certificate of appropriateness for asphalt shingles from the Historic Preservation Board as required by the Village Code. The applicant replied that he had not. Mr. Smith stated his opinion that any ruling by the Planning and Zoning Board at this point would be inappropriate and contrary to the Code. Mr. Mark Sell, member of the church Board of Trustees, requested that the Board consider an approval of shingle contingent upon issuance of a certificate of appropriateness by the Historic Preservation Board. The Board did not act on this request. Mr. LuBien suggested, and the Chairman concurred, that Mr. LuBien and Mr. Smith meet with members of the church on the site prior to the next Planning and Zoning Board Meeting to further research and document this matter. ITEM #4A DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING DOCUMENTATION OF EXISTING USES. Mr. Smith began the discussion by asking that consideration be given to reinstating and strengthening a former policy of the Village of Miami Shores that homeowners who undertake major alterations or additions to their homes be required to sign and record an affidavit stating that the addition or alteration is not being undertaken for the purposes of creating a multifamily use and that the existing use of the property at the time of the alteration or addition is single family. Mr. Smith proposed that this document should be required when any applicant applies for a building permit in excess of $2,500 that involves any structural additions or alterations, but not in the case of non-structural work such as re -roofing or air-conditioning. All applicants for permits for work valued in excess of this amount are already required to file documents with the clerk of court, so this additional filing would not be burdensome. Mr. Smith stated that time -specific documentation of single family use would enable the Village to successfully defend against claims by home owners that their properties are somehow grandfathered as legal non -conforming multi -family uses. ITEM #4B DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING GARAGE ENCLOSURES. Mr. Smith began the discussion by stating that restrictions on enclosing an existing garage should be addressed. Specifically the lack of available parking for the resident that is enclosing the garage. The Board felt Mr. Smith had a good point and asked if he would contact the Building Officials of other Dade County municipalities to explore their specific Codes on garage enclosures and see how they could assist in the revamping of the Village's existing Code. Mr. Smith thanked the Board for their confidence and agreed to contact the Building Officials of other Dade County municipalities and prepare a report for the Board. ITEM #4C DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING WINDOW REPLACEMENT. Mr. Walters opened the discussion by stating that he had become very concerned about the indiscriminate removal of high quality, ori; nal windows from older homes in Miami Shores and their replacement with low quality, architecturally inappropriate windows. Mr. Smith stated that this had long been a concern of other cities in Dade County, such as Miami Beach, where there are similar concentrations of high quality older housing stock. He stated that many cities that regulate window replacement have developed a bifurcated system whereby homes over fifty years old are subjected to the requirement that old windows must be replaced with new windows which match those originally specified for the structure by the architect. Exceptions to this may be approved by the Historic Preservation Board. In buildings which are less than fifty years old, preservation of the original windows is encouraged. Replacement with windows of the same mullion pattern may also be allowed. Replacement of jalousie windows with windows of a more substantial and secure variety is also encouraged. Again, the issue of codifying the Planning and Zoning Board's authority to develop design guidelines was discussed. Mr. Smith suggested that the Village Attorney draft an ordinance granting such authority and providing for an appeals process. Mr. Smith agreed to provide the documentation required for drafting design guidelines for both garage enclosures and window replacement • A motion for adjournment was made at 9:35 P.M. L�xr�,GC�t Cf /ef Veronica A. Galli, Secretary • C lig W,1 Chairman