Loading...
12-08-1994 Regular MeetingMiami Shores Village Planning & Zoning Board Regular Meeting December 8, 1994 • The regular meeting of the Miami Shores Planning & Zoning Board was held on Thursday, December 8, 1994 at the Village Hall commencing at 7:40 P.M. with the following members present: Present: Absent: Also Present: Cliff Walters Charles Smith Robert Blum Louis Imburgia Mark Ulmer Frank LuBien William Fann ITEM #1 MINUTES Mr. Blum moved approval of the November 10, 1994 Planning & Zoning Board minutes as submitted. Mr. Smith seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. ITEM #2 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING PROPOSED POLICY GUIDELINES FOR ROOFING MATERIAL VARIANCES. MR. SMITH/MR. LUBIEN - MR. KNEZEVICH Due to the number of homeowners in attendance wishing to present their requests, Chairman Walters deferred this item until a later point in the meeting. ITEM #3 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FLAT ROOF ADDITION MARK CARPENTER 1400 N.E. 101 Street • Mr. LuBien outlined the particulars of the request, indicating that the requested flat roof addition was well below the structural allowance. Mr. LuBien also indicated that there is no need for a variance approval. Chairman Walters stated that it is helpful to the Board when elevation drawings are included in the agenda packets to more clearly defme the request. He asked that Mr. LuBien attempt to provide elevation drawings for all requests. Mr. Smith moved approval of the flat roof addition. Mr. Blum seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. ITEM #4 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF WHITE PAINT FOR GRAY ROOF TOYA & ANDREW DUBIN 374 N.E. 95th Street Mr. LuBien stated the reason for the request to paint the roof white. Ms. Toya Dubin addressed the Board as the homeowner. She indicated that in order to restore the roof to its original style, she must paint the color-thru grey barrel tile. Ms. Dubin stated that when the roof was replaced last year, she was unable to purchase the exact tile which had been previously installed, as it was no longer available. Other manufacturer's color-thru white tile did not meet the specifications of the previous roofing tiles. Mr. Smith detailed past conversations with Mr. LuBien regarding the probability of the homeowner wanting to paint the grey tiles at a later date. It was the consensus of the Board that the roof should be painted, however they were concerned about setting a precedent if they moved approval. Chairman Walters suggested that due to the architectural design of the home, the Historic Preservation Board could be asked to make a recommendation and declaring the home an historical landmark. Ms. Dubin stated that she wanted to restore the home to its original art -deco styling and will take the necessary steps to ensure its integrity. Mr. Smith was asked to act as liaison between. Ms. Dubin and the Historic Preservation Board. This item was tabled until such time as the Historic Preservation Board can make a recommendation. ITEM #5 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE TO PERMIT FURTHER CONSTRUCTION TO MAIN BUILDING AND THE INSTALLATION OF A SWIMMING POOL SAAD MAHMOUD 1100 N.E. 91st Terrace Mr. LuBien indicated this item was before the Board due to existing non -conforming set -backs and the homeowners request to build a swimming pool and an addition to the home which would further the non -conforming status and require a variance. Mr. Franklin Grau, Architect, was present representing the homeowner. Mr. Mahmoud was also present. The question arose regarding Code requirements for front -yard swimming pools. Mr. LuBien and Mr. Grau both indicated that the Village Code does not specifically address the issue of front -yard swimming pools. Mr. Grau pointed out a number of peculiarities with regard to this home. The home was built prior to the Village's incorporation. The front yard was previously the rear yard, and the rear yard, previously the front yard. When the home was constructed there had not been a road to the rear of the house. In addition, only a portion of the property is within the current Miami Shores Village limits. The other portion of the property is situated in Unincorporated Dade County. Due to these circumstances, the required set -back limits are non -conforming to the Village Code. Mr. Fann stated that he did not see a problem with expanding the non- conformance of the property. Mr. Smith asked to review the property file which Mr. LuBien supplied. Mr. Smith pointed out that the house is a duplex property with a shingle roof and voiced his concerns regarding the number of non -conforming items related to this property. Mr. Smith asked the homeowner if the property had one or two kitchens. The homeowner indicated that the house has two kitchens but only one family resides in the residence. Mr. Smith was reminded that the issue at hand was a set -back variance. Mr. Fann suggested that a covenant be used to require the homeowner to remove one kitchen and to state the property's use as single • family. Mr. Smith moved to grant the set -back variance with the proviso that an affidavit is obtained from the homeowner indicating single family use and that he will remove one of the kitchens. Mr. Blum seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. ITEM # 2 PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING PROPOSED POLICY GUIDELINES FOR ROOFING MATERIAL VARIANCES. MR. SMITH/MR. LUBIEN - MR. KNEZEVICH Mr. LuBien introduced Mr. Knezevich who is a local engineer and who was invited to attend the meeting to address the Board regarding roofmg guidelines. Mr. Knezevich reviewed his comments regarding the draft of the proposed policy guidelines which had previously been submitted by Mr. Smith. Mr. Knezevich indicated that a number of issues raised in the draft policy would be satisfied by the submission of the Notice of Acceptance at the time a roofing permit was applied for. This Notice of Acceptance states that the roofmg material maintains product approval through the South Florida Building Code. He suggested that Mr. LuBien obtain a list of approved roofing materials from Dade County for reference. Chairman Walters asked how engineers determine the load capacity of a structure. Mr. Knezevich stated that in many homes it is difficult to determine without destructive testing, which is not feasible. Mr. Knezevich indicated that many times the engineers must make assumptions as to the timber, trusses and fastening systems used, formulate the weight load originally intended, factor in age, and then down -grade the newly calculated load capacity. It is not an exact measurement. Mr. Blum indicated that the Board is looking for documentation or references from the engineer stating how the conclusion of "this structure cannot hold any roofing material other than asphalt shingle" is reached. Mr. Knezevich stated that there is no reference guide to speak of, but the engineer could be requested to state the formula used to determine the load capacity. The consensus of the Board was to request that Mr. Knezevich draft proposed policy guidelines for roofmg material variances to be reviewed upon completion. Mr. Knezevich stated that he would draft a policy for the Board using tonight's discussions and the previously submitted draft. Chairman Walters reminded the Board that the policy will be used as a guideline only for requests that come before the Board to re -roof with a material other than tile. ITEM #5A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VARIANCE TO ALLOW RE -ROOF WITH ASPHALT SHINGLES EGERY NELSON, JR. 9339 N.E. 10th Court Mr. LuBien explained that this item is back before the Planning & Zoning Board having been deferred from the Village Council Agenda due to there currently not being Dade County approval on file for cementious fibre roofmg shingles. Christopher Kelley, attorney for Mr. Nelson detailed his conversations with the Dade County Code official regarding the product approval procedures. Mr. Smith indicated that during an afternoon conversation with the same Dade County Code official, the official indicated to him that product approval is due in approximately 30 days. Mr. Smith suggested deferring a decision until such time as product approval of the cementious fibre material is obtained. Attorney Kelley stated that the roof is now • leaking, whereas the prior request was made for non -repair reasons. Chairman Walters outlined the variance approval procedures for Attorney Kelley, stating that this item still needs to go before the Village Council for ultimate approval and the next Council meeting is not scheduled until January Mr. Smith moved to grant the variance with first preference to re -roof with cementious fibre roofing material if it has received Dade County product approval by the time the request reaches the Village Council. If there are no products approved that are cementious fibre, that the homeowner use a dimensional fiberglass shingle with an approved color by Mr. LuBien. Mr. Imburgia seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. ITEM #6 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING DOCUMENTATION OF EXISTING USES. MR. SMITH Mr. Smith explained the past practice of the Village requiring the filing of an affidavit outlining the specific use of property when a building permit for improvements was applied for. This practice is no longer in use. Mr. Smith has requested that the Village once again require these affidavits in order to determine and hold accountable, multi -family dwelling property owners. Discussion ensued regarding the feasibility of having this information contained on the building permit application versus an affidavit. In addition, the question of whether the information contained in the affidavit would be enforceable was raised. Mr. Smith indicated that similar affidavits were found in property files recently and the homes will be restored to single family status based on the affidavit and Code Enforcement involvement. There was further discussion regarding the mechanism for obtaining and the filing of the present zoning/present use information. Mr. Imburgia moved to forward the affidavit to the Village Manager for approval. Mr. Blum seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor. Mr. LuBien reminded the Board that there will not be a Planning & Zoning Board meeting held on Thursday, December 22, 1994. He also reminded the Board to respond to the invitation for the Volunteer Recognition Reception. ITEM #7 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M. icii/AAG? Barbara Fugazzi, Rordmg Secretary