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