Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Melissa Tapanes-Historic Character and Design AnalysisSubmitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.1 on 7-28-2022 . City Clerk op - HISTORIC CHARACTER AND DESIGN ANALYSIS 7101 N.E. 101hAvenue and 1000 N.E. 72nd Street Miami, Florida Prepared For: Minor Street LP 1 3800 N.E. 11 Avenue, 6th Floor Miami, FL 33137 Compiled By: Heritage Architectural Associates 4300 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 203 Miami, Florida 33137 www.heritagearchitectural.com January 31, 2022 f %i S h ri G Chi a9d Ck4 I o Ps- sibm, Ad- I ��P S SCE �G � �� - D,es i 4 n ffn a ul5 iS Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.1 on 7-28-2022 , City Clerk TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 1 HISTORIC DISTRICT.......................................................................................................................... 2 HISTORICCONTEXT......................................................................................................................... 5 SETTING AND SITE DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................... 9 OVERVIEW OF PREVIOUS PROPOSALS..........................................................................................14 BASEFLOOD ELEVATION...............................................................................................................17 OVERVIEW OF CURRENT PROJECT................................................................................................18 FirstSubmittal (June 2021).......................................................................................................18 Addendum to First Submittal (September 2021)...................................................................... 20 CurrentDesign........................................................................................................................... 22 CONTEXTUALANALYSIS................................................................................................................ 23 PrescottMansion...................................................................................................................... 23 BaysideHistoric District............................................................................................................ 25 OtherModern Features............................................................................................................ 29 BASISFOR ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................... 30 ADDITIVELAYERS.......................................................................................................................... 32 ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED WORK................................................................................................... 34 PrescottMansion...................................................................................................................... 34 Addition to Prescott Mansion................................................................................................... 35 OtherNew Construction........................................................................................................... 38 DesignElements........................................................................................................................ 44 ANALYSIS OF PROPOSAL IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MIAMI CODE AND THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR'S STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES...................................................................................48 Standards Related to the New Construction............................................................................48 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................. SD BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................................................................. 51 Appendix A —The Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation iv Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.1 on 7-28-2022 . City Clerk INTRODUCTION A project is being planned for the property at 7101 N.E. loth Avenue and 1000 N.E. 72"d Street, Miami, which is located in the locally -designated Bayside Historic District (the District). Therefore, the proposed project will require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board (HEPB). Heritage Architectural Associates (HAA) has been commissioned by Minor Street LP 1, the owner of the property (the Owner), to provide an Historic Character and Design Analysis for the project as it relates to the governing ordinances and guidelines, including the Miami Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The Owner provided some documentation regarding the history of the site and previous projects to HAA at the outset of the project. To prepare the report, HAA conducted further on-line research. Additionally, on -site photography was conducted to document the neighborhood as it currently exists. This information has been compiled in the report, which includes a description of the historic context of the neighborhood and property, a current description of the property, historic character analysis of the Prescott Mansion and the neighborhood, history of past proposed projects, project overview, and analysis of proposed project in terms of the Miami Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Secretary of Interior's Standards. The text is supplemented by numerous historic and contemporary images. This report only addresses items that relate to the Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Other items are outside the scope of this document. This work was overseen by Steven G. Avdakov, R.A., principal of HAA. The report was written and compiled by Deborah Griffin of HAA. Unless otherwise specified, all photographs were taken by Steven Avdakov. 1 Submitted into the public record for items) PZ.1 on 7-28-2022 , City Clerk HISTORIC DISTRICT The Bayside Historic District was designated as a Local Historic District in 1991. (Figure 1) Therefore, all proposed rehabilitation projects and new construction in the District are subject to review in accordance with the City of Miami Historic Preservation Ordinance. The District is bounded by the rear lot lines between N.E. 72nd Street and N.E. 72nd Terrace on the north; Biscayne Bay and N.E. 7th Court on the east; N.E. 69th Street east of N.E. 7th Court (extended) and the rear lot lines between N.E. 67th Street and N.E. 68th Street west of N.E. 7th Court on the south; and the rear lot lines of properties fronting on Biscayne Boulevard on the west. Figure 1. Bayside Historic District Miami, Florida, 2011.. (Miami GIS Maps) The following is noted regarding the Bayside Historic District: The Bayside Historic District is significant in the historical, cultural, and architectural heritage of the City of Miami. This neighborhood reflects the City's development from the formative years of the early 1900s through the mid 1940s. Once a part of the pioneer settlement of Lemon City, Bayside contains the oldest intact community in Northeast Miami, as well as one of this area's last remaining bayfront estates. The visual composition of the district's buildings represents a diversity of architectural styles, including Frame Vernacular, Mediterranean Revival, Art Deco, and Streamline Moderne. From its onset, Bayside was the home of many prominent residents who played significant roles in the business life of both Lemon City and Miami. (Bayside Historic District Designation Report) 2 Y v L The Bayside Historic District is a residential neighborhood located on Biscayne Bay in Northeast NI u fl, a Miami. The primary streets run in an east -west direction and are bisected by avenues that run W v u north -south. The streets are generally narrow, with the exception of N.E. 69th and 715t Streets, o which feature grassy, tree -lined medians. Most of the streets have no curbs, and there are few L N 0 pedestrian sidewalks. The streets are lined with palm and deciduous trees. The buildings have a v moderate setback from the street. v L The District is comprised of four subdivisions that were platted between 1909 and 1925. The "' o southern part of the District, which was platted earlier, contains a larger concentration of 1920s and 1930s houses than the northern portion of the District. The buildings were generally constructed before 1970, with a few exceptions. In 2004, the HEPB approved parking guidelines for the Bayside Historic District. 3 Figure 6. N.E. 7151 Street looking east October2021. Figure 7. N.E. 7151 Street, looking west, October2021. Figure 8. N.E. 72nd Street looking east October2021. Figure 9. N.E. 72^d Street, looking west, Octob 4 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.1 on 7-28-2022 , City Clerk HISTORIC CONTEXT The area encompassed by the Bayside Historic District includes four subdivisions that were platted between 1909 and 1925. The subdivisions include Elmira, platted in 1909, Acadia, platted in 1915, Baywood, platted in 1921 with an addition in 1925, and Washington Place, which was platted in 1925. (Figure 10) Q,o 0 W Figure 10. Maps showing area included in the Bayside Historic District 1925. (Plat Book of Greater Miami, Fla. and Suburbs, 1925) The Elmira subdivision, on N.E. 681h Street, was platted in 1909 by William B. Miller and Fred C. Miller, who came from Elmira, New York in the late 1880s. Most of the lots were sold to Elmira families, many of which purchased two lots to allow room for a residence and a small orchard. Most of the early homes were constructed in northern styles, reminiscent of the origins of their original owners. At the time of the District designation, most of the homes were constructed in the 1910s. In 1915, Realty Securities Corporation and George E. Merrick platted the Acadia subdivision on N.E. 715t Street. Although only two houses were constructed prior to 1925, development escalated during the boom years of the mid-1920s. Most of the houses were constructed in Mediterranean Revival style. The Baywood subdivision was platted by the Krames-Corlett Company in 1921. The subdivision includes the south side of N.E. 715L Street. The First Addition to the Baywood subdivision was platted in 1924 by Annie H. Post and includes N.E. 69th Street. Most of the construction in these areas occurred between the late 1920s and the mid-1940s and was in the Mediterranean Revival style. In 1923, Samuel J. Prescott purchased a tract of land with ocean frontage north of the Baywood development. The next year, he constructed a winter home at 7101 N.E loth Avenue. August Geiger was the architect for the six -bedroom, four -bath Mediterranean Revival home. Prescott 5 was the founder and president of Samuel J. Prescott Co., Inc., contractors and builders, based in Washington D.C. Prescott platted Washington Place, located along N.E. 72md Street and the north side of N.E. 71"1 Street, in 1925. (Figure 11) Most of the homes in this subdivision were constructed in the 1930s through 1950s in the Mediterranean Revival and Modern styles. (Figure 12, Figure 13) idence Washmiton Place 0 CNn VC, Above is shown a pen and ink sketch of the new $250,000 home built by Mr. Y Samuel J. Prescott, developer of Washington Place. lhisbeautiful home, situated on one y of the Bay front lots, is conceded to be one of the finest homes in Miami, and expresses Urns out to beautiful Washington the confidence Mr. Prescott has in the future development of Washington Place. Arse today at this wonder -I and at nude F6a—ry. Flere Those who know Nk. Prescott know hum to be a roan of rate business itf�lgmait rc trt s full auhdi.;.ia yw will immedi- and foresight ..... They know that he is willing to back his judgment with his own atety be impressed with the high dollars in an enterprise of opportunity and poaaiblllties_ Investors andbomeeeeketa alike, .harbuilt and n the homes c on ..l. know that with Mr. PreswWr, judgment, ability and money beck of a project, its success htu7l and under twrutruclkn .. . the delightful sea unseat, -Weer, is already assured. frig esery soak sad moor. will in- agur to you........ the "r1ned Other beautiful homes are bong built in Washington Place. 11" will be fol. culitueal n rrour drags, maed-l- ed to escrylhtug here, —11 R lowed rapidly by homeseeVicera and investors who wish to live in the most beautiful and �a that here alone is the exclusive close -in subdivision in Miami. Situated but one-half mile north of the eaclu- tdaalspot roe a " ecu. hume-, -.. Plus the auwranm that property slve Bay Shore Development on the East Dixie, WASHINGTON PLACE offers unusual ,j— ...tfail torise inalow- opportunity for a beautiful homesite with remarkable ioveirtment posubilitiea The r am me genius of Exotic Gardens landscaped this development and will continue to look after the lawns and shrubbery, free of charge to all lot owners, for a period of three years from January, lint, this year. 1' Only a reu, lots remwln uneald in beautiful Washingim !tare, sat make your reamatiaoa at ores This in positively the last of tbnu lots offered for sale. W. P. CR.AIG REALTOR 109 VAM ARCADE PHONE 9M Figure 11. Advertisement for Washington Place development, 1925_ (Miami Herald, 1010411925, p. 130) I 6 1 14 J Ar SCele: 200 &d ta1b&. Figure 12. Plat map showing development in the northern part of future Boyside Historic District 1936. (Plat Book of Greater Miami, Florida and Suburbs, 1936) .. l^3�,. The architecture of the District reflects the evolution of styles over the course of time. Earlier buildings are Frame Vernacular and Bungalows. During the 1920s and 1930s, Mediterranean Revival evolved as the dominant style in the District. Other pre-war styles represented included Mission, Art Deco and Streamline Modern. The most recent style that is reflected in the District is the Mid -Century Modern style, which dominated the post -World War II era. Hallmarks of the Modern style include simplicity of form, exposed structural elements, honest expression of construction materials and use of modern technology. The Miami Modern style (MiMo) was an important regional response to Modernism. It was characterized by bright colors, unusual forms, and a response to the regional climate, including heat and light. Just west of the Bayside Historic District lies the MiMo/Biscayne Boulevard Historic District (designated 2006), which extends along both sides of Biscayne Boulevard from N.E. 7711 Street to south of N.E. 50th Terrace. The MiMo District features a mixture of commercial, residential and mixed -use buildings, but it is best known for the large number of MiMo motels located on Biscayne Boulevard throughout the District. 7 Y U L - � G1 U aal>- U 0 4) C N rq L O � � N *' 'a 00 L E 0 N � L V C 0 The Bayside Historic District features a large number of MiMo residential properties with Modern features such as low-pitched roofs, overhanging; eaves, horizontal banding; and juxtaposition of materials. The vocabulary of the Modern style differs completely from Mediterranean Revival and other earlier styles. Since it is the most recent layer represented in the Bayside Historic District, the MiMo style is the logical foundation for the interpretation of the contemporary architecture proposed for the site. 8 Y U CU Z Q dl Q U t o v O N N C6 E OL N N L L O Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.1 on 7-28-2022 , City Clerk SETTING AND SITE DESCRIPTION Setting The subject property is located on two oceanfront lots with a combined total of 61,898 square feet. The lots are located on Miami -Dade County Tax Parcels 01-3207-032-0630 and 01-3207- 032-1030, which are situated on the east side of N.E. loth Avenue between N.E. 715L Street and N.E. 72"d Street in Miami, Florida. (Figure 14) Figure 14. Tax parcel map showing subject property lines in yellow and immediate area in red, 2021. (Miami -Dade County Property Appraiser) The property is located within the residential Bayside Historic District (Figure 1) described above. The setting is comprised of the immediate area around the parcels, which was determined to be N.E. 715t and 72"d Streets from the ocean to approximately 1000 feet west of the northwest and southwest corners of the property. The immediate area also includes Baywood Park to the southwest of the subject property. Baywood Park is a small oceanfront park that is bordered by N.E. 7151 Street at the north, Palm Bay Lane and N.E. 69th Street at the west, the parking lot of the Clipper on the Bay Condominium (880 N.E. 69th Street) at the south, and Biscayne Bay to the east. (Figure 15, Figure 16) 0 �J Figure 15. Baywood Park looking southeast October Figure 16. Baywood Park looking southwest, October 2021. 2021. N.E. 715t Street is a two-lane road, about 50 feet in width, that is divided by a 15-foot curbed median with grass and palm trees. (Figure 17) The south side of N.E. 71" Street features a pedestrian sidewalk and an adjacent road verge with grass and trees. The north side of N.E. 715t Street has no sidewalk. (Figure 18) The houses in this area of N.E. 715t Street generally date from the late 1940s and early 1950s, with a few later exceptions. The styles are Mediterranean Revival and Modern. T, new . Figure 17. View of N.E. 71st Street, looking east from Figure 18. View of N.E. 71st Street, looking east from Palm Bay Lane, October 2021. N.E. 10thAvenue, October2021. N.E. 72"d Street is a two-lane road, about 20 feet wide, with no pedestrian sidewalks. Palm and deciduous trees are located near the street. The easternmost block of N.E. 72"d Street, between N.E. loth Avenue and the ocean, fronts the subject property. (Figure 19, Figure 20, Figure 21) N.E. 101 Avenue, which fronts the subject property, is a two-lane road approximately 20 feet wide. (Figure 22) It has no pedestrian sidewalks. The houses in this area are Mediterranean Revival and Modern in style and generally date from the mid-1920s to the early 1960s, with one residence constructed in 2017. Y U L � OJ L U ++ E O a) +_' N L N O � 0 N +' -0 Ob 4+ L N E O , � O � L N � O 10 Figure 21. N.E. 72nd Street looking west, October 2021. Site '"figure 20. N.E. 72nd Street from N. E. 10th Avenue, looking east, October 2021. Figure 22. N.E. 10th Avenue looking south from N.E. 72nd Street, October 2021. The subject property is comprised of two vacant lots with ocean frontage. Only one other residence within the Historic District is located on the ocean, and that is the property directly to the north, at 1039 N.E. 72nd Street. Figure 23. View of the site, looking southeast, October 2021. 11 Figure 24. View of the site, looking south, October 2021. Figure 25. Detail of seawall at southeastern edge of site, October 2021. Y U L ei G1 CL 0- O � U t � O GJ - = N L N N �= N E O U � L N = O Figure 26. View of the site, looking south, October 2021. The property is located at the southeast corner of N.E. 72"d Street and N.E. 101h Avenue. The northern parcel is a grassy lot with some palm and deciduous trees. Figure 27. View of the site from the corner of N.E. 72nd Street and N.E. 10th Avenue, looking east October 2021.) Figure 28. View of the site from N.E. loth Avenue, looking east, October 2021.) The southern lot is the former location of the Prescott Mansion. (Figure 29) It is a grassy lot with deciduous trees and is bordered at the east by a partial concrete wall with concrete balusters and piers. (Figure 30, Figure 32) The gates are wrought iron. (Figure 31) 12 Figure 29. View of the former location of the Prescott Mansion, looking northeast October 2021. Y U L � U aal4:� L v U ++ E O N L Q N L E O N L V7 C O Figure 30. Detail of the fencing along the site of the former Prescott Mansion, October 2021. Figure 31. Detail of the wrought iron gates at the former Figure 32. Detail of the concrete balustrade at the Prescott Mansion, October 2021. site of the former Prescott Mansion, October 2021. 13 OVERVIEW OF PREVIOUS PROPOSALS The Prescott Mansion was located on the southern parcel of the subject property at 7101 N.E. 10th Avenue. The building stood unoccupied for many years and was the target of several unsuccessful attempts to demolish it in the 1990s. By the early 2000s, it was in extremely deteriorated condition. (Figure 33) In 2003, construction of ten townhouses on the site was proposed, but this plan was not implemented. The proposed townhouses were a mixture of Mediterranean Revival and Modern styles. In 2005, a new owner of the property received approval from the HEPB for the demolition of the Prescott Mansion, the reconstruction of the house south of its original location, the construction of a new building connected to the residence by an underground garage, and various site improvements. (Figure 34, Figure 35) The plan was to use some of the building materials salvaged Y U L - i--I G1 V CL s v V ++ E O D L N CD00 �p CD �= N E o � L V C O 14 from the original structure. Prior to demolition, architect Richard Heisenbottle thoroughly documented the building. Although the Prescott Mansion was demolished, the new construction was not undertaken. Also in 2005, the HEPB denied a request to subdivide the property into six lots. • •PRE MR 7 ._MMI 1' I •wea'TeLsV.TKW . s-r _ _ • .rr.. __ 7. 3 PMTML BOUTM E V11T AT TEARAOE J ^fOUTM ELEV/.TIOM Figure 34. Design drawings for reconstruction of Prescott Mansion, 2005. (Prescott Mansion Presentation to Miami HEPB June 2021 Meeting) ou�n ;,tl,�t..Tmor77-- 1111111s �isir1111111 Figure 35. Design drawings for proposed addition to reconstructed Prescott Mansion, 2005. (Prescott Mansion Presentation to Miami HEPB June 2021 Meeting) 15 U L Q f2l L ) (.J E o a, C +' N L N O N � N L Ob E O N L N � L L O In 2013, the HEPB approved a plan to construct a building on the northern parcel. The project was not constructed. (Figure 36) View `r' .,i : r-J !rice' I�Ieor View Fioure 36. Renderings of proposed new residence on the northern parcel at site of former Prescott Mansion, 2013. ((Prescott Mansion Presentation to Miami HEPB June 2021 Meeting) Another plan for the reconstruction of the Prescott with an addition to the north, was approved in 2015. Both the Prescott and the new residence were elevated 4'-10" to comply with flood regulations. This project also did not come to fruition. (Figure 37) 14 Figure 37. Rendering of proposed reconstruction of the Prescott Mansion with addition to the north, 2015. ((Prescott Mansion Presentation to Miami HEPB June 2021 Meeting) U L � N c.al� � vv E o a +' N _ L N O N � N � M 00 E O N � v ^ N CO 16 BASE FLOOD ELEVATION Base Flood Elevation is defined as the "elevation of surface water resulting from a flood that has a 1% chance of equaling or exceeding that level in any given year." (FEMA) Sea level rise and the associated negative effect on communities is a major area of concern in South Florida. The Unified Sea Level Rise Projection Southeast Florida, published in 2019, projects that by 2040, the sea level will rise by 10 to 17 inches from mean levels of 2000. (Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact's Ad Hoc Work Group 2019, 9) Resilience has become a new regulatory criteria, and building requirements have been revised accordingly. The base flood elevation for a particular property is now a valid design parameter that has to be addressed for any new construction along the waterfront. The subject property is a waterfront site that is categorized under two FEMA Flood Zones. Part of the property is located in a VE (High Risk Coastal) Flood Zone and has a base flood elevation of 10 feet. The remainder of the property is located in an AE (High Risk) Flood Zone and has a base flood elevation of 9 feet. (City of Miami GIS) When the Prescott Mansion was constructed in the 1920s, sea level rise was not a concern. The original design for a reconstructed Prescott Mansion, produced in 2005, incorporated base flood levels and placed the first floor level at 12'. With a current base flood level of 10 feet and a freeboard level of 15 feet, the proposed design for the Prescott Mansion places the first floor level at 16'-2", and increase of over four feet from the earlier design. All other new construction in the VE and AE Flood Zones is.subject to similar regulations. The proposed new residences also must be raised above the base flood elevation. As a result, all of the buildings in the proposed project, including the Prescott Mansion, will be taller than neighboring buildings with the same number of stories. 17 OVERVIEW OF CURRENT PROJECT At this time, the site of the former Prescott Mansion has been vacant for approximately 15 years. The house was unoccupied for many years before it was demolished. First Submittal (June 2021) The original application specified that the two-story Prescott Mansion was to be reconstructed in its original Mediterranean Revival style with a new rear addition. The Staff Report stated that, in 1991, when the District was designated, "the Prescott Mansion was the district's most significant estate." The report continued, "The intent and condition of the Prescott Mansion's reconstruction is to replicate the building's ornamentation as close as possible to the original, retaining its original size, shape, and scale. All exterior features, including and not limited to windows, doors, chimney, roof, etc. are to match the original ... The mansion shall be elevated to meet flood requirements, new spaces below shall be used as storage. The design also includes a new West entrance stair with an elevated porch, and new stairs on the North and South elevation." The application specified that the two lots would be divided into six parcels. (Figure 38). Additionally, the application specified the construction of five new homes on the lots, along with site improvements. (Figure 38) -_--_ - _�--_-----_------- --- —_ — ___�-- — V ,--I _CT_ . 0 Figure 38. Original site plan depicting five residences and reconstructed Prescott Mansion, June 2021. (Prescott Mansion Presentation to Miami HEPB June 2021 Meeting) 18 U_ � Y L The new development featured five modestly -sized homes of modern design but with inspiration � V drawn the Prescott design and the surrounding neighborhood. The homes would be elevated, v - � E U as required for floodplain regulations, and would be configured to provide public view corridors. o a += N The homes would be set back from the Prescott in order to emphasize the reconstructed _ L 4° N N Mansion. All of the lots would be landscaped with hard and soft landscaping. Four docks would o N be placed adjacent the seawall. a N � O An internal drive through private property would provide parking and access to the oceanfront lots. (Figure 39) Additionally, the project would provide for a raised seawall extending 350' across the property frontage and on -site storm water retention. Figure 39. Rendering of proposed project, June 2021. (Prescott Mansion Presentation to Miami HEPB June 2021 Meeting) The Staff Report concluded that the application was only partially in accordance with the Miami Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 23 of the City of Miami Code of Ordinances, the Secretary of Interior Standards, and the Preservation Office Historic Design Guidelines, and Miami 21 Code. The report found that the plans for the reconstruction of the Prescott Mansion and addition were appropriate and follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and the City of Miami Historic Design Guidelines. The report specified that the two lots at the corner of N.E. 72"d Street and N.E. loth Avenue should be consolidated into one lot with one residence. It also stated that no vehicular or pedestrian gates should be placed across the common driveway. 19 u Y L U Qal Addendum to First Submittal (September 2021) s Based upon Staff recommendation, the two lots at the corner of N.E. 72"d Street and N.E. loth 0 a += N Avenue were combined into a single lot. Four residences, in addition to the Prescott Mansion, - L N o would be constructed. (Figure 40, Figure 41) ,00., � V7 L C 0 39,f; 30% MIN OPEN SPACE REQ. f Figure 40. Site plan depicting reconstructed Prescott Mansion and four residences, November 2021. (Prescott Mansion Second HEPB Submittal) Figure 41. Rendering depicting single residence on Lot 2, January 2022. (Prescott Mansion City Commission Appeal Submittal) WO A new design for the combined lot positioned the residence with a large setback from both streets to allow it to blend into the landscaping. It was oriented with the narrow side facing the corner, thus reducing the perception of mass. Placement of the house provided a large amount of open space around the property. (Figure 40) The updated design provided for increased open space, decreased driveway widths, increased setback and a decrease in second level lot coverage on three parcels. Additionally, the designs for all of the residences were modified to incorporate architectural elements and materials from the Bayside Historic District. Architectural elements include angled roofs and eyebrows. Materials drawn from the surrounding construction include exposed brick, stone, concrete breeze block and naturally -finished wood. The plans for the Prescott Mansion remained unchanged from the previous design. The Addendum to the First Submittal was not approved by the HEPB. 21 Y U L � v U ++ E 0 u, _ L N "a O N E U N n � L V 0 Current Design The current design builds on the previous modifications. The intent is to strengthen the relationship between the new buildings, the reconstructed Prescott Mansion, and the waterfront, Since all of the buildings, including the Prescott, must be elevated to current base flood elevations, they will be taller than the other buildings in the neighborhood. The original Prescott Mansion was located at the waterfront, making it unique within the District. The scale and massing of the Prescott were historically different from the non -waterfront buildings in the District. Three of the four new structures are also located on the waterfront and are analogous to the Prescott in siting, massing and scale. The fourth new building, at the corner of N.E. 72"d Street and N.E. loth Avenue, serves as a transition building between the waterfront properties and the adjacent neighborhood. (Figure 42) Figure 42. Rendering of aerial view of proposed project Jan,_.; (Prescott Mansion City Commission Appeal Submittal) 22 Y U L U a al > N V t U ++ E ,— N — L N 0 o 4- -� 4' L 00 E 0 N � L 0 CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS Prescott Mansion Figure 43. View of Prescott Mansion, looking northeast Figure 44. View of Prescott Mansion, Iouxmy southeast, 2005. 2005. (Prescott Mansion Second HEPB Submittal) (Prescott Mansion Second HEPB Submittal) R � _ Figure 45. View of Prescott Mansion looking northeast, 2005. (Prescott Mansion Second HEPB Submittal) W—', ", APIKOP'm Figure 47. View of Prescott Mansion, looking northwest, 2005. (Prescott Mansion Second HEPB Submittal) Figure 46. View of Prescott Mansion, looking northeast, 2005. (Prescott Mansion Second HEPB Submittal) 23 Figure 48. View of Prescott Mansion, looking east, 2005. (Prescott Mansion Second HEPB Submittal) S t Figure 49. Rendering of proposed Prescott Mansion, November 1011. (Prescott Mansion Second HEPB Submittal) The Prescott has a number of significant features that will be replicated in the reconstruction and could also be referenced in the new construction. (Figure 49) 1. Tripartite emphasis a. Massing b. Fenestration on primary facade 2. Horizontal lines defining tripartite arrangement a. Base b. Top of portico at second level c. Projecting eave / roof with low roof pitch punctuated by chimney 3. Materials a. Base(new) — masonry / keystone b. Middle —smooth stucco finish c. Top i. Broad eaves with natural -finish wood soffit and natural -finish rafter tails ii. Clay tile roof 24 Bayside Historic District As the most recent layer in the Bayside Historic District, the Miami Modern style serves as a logical basis for reference and interpretation of the new architecture in order to relate it to the existing District. The buildings in the District that were within approximately 1000' of the site were examined for characteristic MiMo features and materials. Defining features of the neighborhood include the average lot size, absence of fencing at front yards and consistent frontages. The context of the examined buildings differs from the Prescott, as they are away from the waterfront. Contributing Miami Modern (MiMo) Features Figure 50. Smooth stucco walls, October 2021. (921 N.E. 71s' Street) Figure 52. Horizontal band of simulated masonry at base, October 2021. (880 N. E. 71 'Street) Figure 51. Horizontal band of brick at base, October 2021. (889 N. E. 7111 Street) ,7 25 Figure 53. Horizontal band of rubble stone of base, October 2021. (940 N.E. 71" Street) Figure 54. Smooth stucco walls with horizontal banding, October 2021. (880 N. E. 7151 Street) Figure 56. Vertical masonry panel, October 2021. (871 N.E. 72"d Street) Figure 58. Low pitched gable roof, October 2021. (965 N.E. 72"d Street) 26 Figure 55. Brick banding between windows, October 2021 (725 N.E. 72"dStreet) Figure 57. Simulated masonry panels and chimney, October 2021. Figure 59. Low pitched roof juxtaposru WILT) pai roof, October 2021. (1001 N. E. 72"d Street) Y U L U a al s U O = N - L N O 4- N -0 00 i C L C O ri fV u L N O Figure 60. Extended eaves with wood rafter tails, October 2021. (920 N. E. 72"d Street) Figure 62. Horizontal window openings, October 2021. (725 N.E. 72"d Street) Figure 64. Picture window flanked by awning windows, October 2021. (1001 N.E. 72"dStreet) 27 Figure 61. Horizontal projecting eaves, Octobi (990 ME 72"d Street) Figure 63. Clerestory windows, October 2021 (900 N.E. 72"d Street) Figure 65. Large picture window, October 2021. (965 N.E. 72"dStreet) -A Figure 66. Corner window, October 2021. (901 N.E. 72"dStreet) Figure 68. Planters at entrance, October 2021. (990 N.E. 72nd Street) Figure 70. Breeze block, October 2021. (725 N.E. 72"d Street) Figure 67. Carport October 2021. (871 N. E. 72nd Street) Figure 69. Projecting horizontal canopy with thin nit 1l supports, October 2021. (871 N. E. 72nd Street) 28 U i- - Q1 U Other Modern Features °- al Ln t �--- U The residence Villa Savoye in Poissy, France, by Le Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret, is elevated on 0 a, pilotis, a commonly -used Modern feature. L N � 0 0 N co �y E AA0 L 0 Figure 71 Villa Savoye, Poissy, France, 2008 (Wikipedia) 29 BASIS FOR ANALYSIS Since the property lies within the Bayside Historic District, any modifications must be compatible with the massing, scale, size and features of the existing District. The context includes both the Prescott Mansion and the surrounding neighborhood. The original Prescott Mansion was a waterfront property and was the most significant building in the District when it was designated in 1991. A COA was granted for the demolition of the Prescott on the condition that it be reconstructed at a later date. The initial Staff Report for the current project, dated 6/1/2021, states that "the intent and condition of the Prescott Mansion's reconstruction is to replicate the building's ornamentation as close as possible to the original, retaining its original size, shape, and scale. All exterior features, including and not limited to windows, doors, chimney, roof, etc. are to match the original." Other than the raised height due to flood requirements, the design for the reconstructed Prescott matches the original building. Since the Prescott was a prominent building located on the waterfront, it provides the direct and immediate context for the design of the other waterfront properties. The immediate neighborhood around the Prescott site, within the Bayside Historic District, provides an additional context for design of the new construction adjacent the reconstructed Prescott. The District was designated in 1991, and therefore, the 50-year threshold to be considered "historic" ended in 1941. In the 30 years since the designation, Mid -Century Modern architecture, including the regional variation Miami Modern (MiMo), has passed the 50-year threshold and is recognized as a significant architectural style in Miami and nationwide. MiMo architecture is found in residential, commercial, religious, educational and government buildings throughout the City. A district being considered for designation in the current day could have a period of significance end date of 1972, which would include nearly all of the mid-century construction within the Bayside Historic District. Although Modern styles were not mentioned in the designation report of 30 years ago, they certainly are now considered historically significant. The Staff Report states: "In considering new construction projects within a historic district it is important to make sure that the historic structures remain the central focus of the district; therefore, avoiding the use of incompatible style(s) not commonly found within the neighboring structures." The District contains a large number of Modern residences. Within the viewshed of approximately 1000' from the site of the proposed construction, approximately 40% of the residences have Modern styling. The Secretary of the Interior's Standard Number 9 states: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. III The layering of two different historic styles is commonplace and complies with Standard Number 9. MiMo is the most recent style historically significant architectural style represented in the District. Consequently, MiMo is a logical basis for reference and interpretation for the architectural language of new design within the District. A design that incorporates MiMo styling in a manner that is compatible with the existing residences in the District would comply with Standard Number 9. 31 Y U L +, E o a, N _ L N N 4- N 00 o N E U n � L 0 u � Y L N ADDITIVE LAYERS aI "The value of preservation is only partly in the accuracy and breadth of its understanding of the o E past. Its value in the end is the presentation the old and the new make together about continuity c L N and difference. The value of the combined work increases, the richer and brighter the light of its ;T; 4° o novelty." (Byard 1998, 182) a 06 N � L There are hundreds of examples of historic buildings with modern additions. Below are a few +r► o examples. 4W a Figure 72. Louvre Museum addition, Paris, 1. M. Pei —1988. (Britannica.com) Figure 73. Fire & Police Station, Berlin, Sauerbruch Hutton Architects-1999-2004. (Old Buildings, New Forms, p. 74-81) 32 Figure 74. Maison Carree and the Carre D'art, Nimes, France, Foster Associates-1992. (Foster+Partners) Figure 75. Allen Memorial Art Museum, Oberlin, Ohio, Venturi and Rousch —1976. (Allen Memorial Art Museum) 33 ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED WORK Prescott Mansion t Ir Figure 76. Rendering of proposed Prescott Mansion, 2021. (Prescott Mansion Second HEPB Submittai) The Prescott Mansion is the most significant building in the project, based on its size, scale and location. The relationship of the Prescott Mansion, and its site, to the waterfront is of primary significance. The original building will be replicated in size, shape, scale, style and features. Due to flood requirements, the reconstructed Mansion will be set on a raised base. The plans for the proposed reconstruction of the Mediterranean Revival Prescott Mansion, based on the original details, have been deemed appropriate by the Miami HEP staff. The required plinth to raise the structure above base flood levels uses Mediterranean Revival language, which is compatible with the original design. 34 Addition to Prescott Mansion The proposed work includes a rear addition at the east elevation of the reconstructed Prescott that includes a covered parking area, water equipment vault, grill area, multiple open decks, living room and master suite. The addition has the most direction association with the Prescott, which serves as the basis for the analysis of the addition. The Staff Report states, "it is important to make sure that the historic structures remain the central focus of the district." The addition meets this criteria, as it is placed behind the Prescott and thus will be less visible from the street. The current plan is more appropriate than the previously approved version, which had an addition to the north. The placement of the addition to the rear directs central focus on the Prescott Mansion. The Staff Report continues, 'The juxtaposition of the Prescott Mansion reconstruction in the front of the parcel and the new addition in the rear distinguishes two different architectural styles. The design does not support a linear alignment with architectural features and does not resemble in form to the Prescott Mansion. However, the change in architectural style and placement directs the central focus primarily on the Prescott Mansion. New additions are to be distinct yet must still stay in character with the historic district." The scale of the addition is compatible with the scale of the waterfront Prescott Mansion, including the elevation of the building to fulfill base flood requirements. To enhance compatibility, the addition references elements of the Prescott and of the Miami Modern features in the neighborhood. This layering is in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standard Number 9. Other design features that reference the Prescott and Miami Modern (MiMo) include: Addition - North Elevation 7 WOM FUM AM lMtwp 49 - 7 l� 5 • .: x-aus iq�o; - 4y 7 =0 R00R" at:_rNf#OI_ 4 _ .... - ;,.00AK* a•1ou� SE R F1W a-zur q►ge.zufao0 •� -f+is iii� ir�n�� a., 3 � ; ! NORTH ELEVATION Figure 77. Rendering of North Elevation of Prescott Addition, January 2022. (Prescott Mansion City Commission Appeal Submittal) 35 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.1 on 7-28-2022 City Clerk Prescott 1. Roofing - references color of clay the roof 2. Horizontal lines at base Prescott & MiMo 3. Masonry base 4. Smooth stucco walls 5. Roofing - pitch to match Prescott, low pitch MiMo 6. Masonry / simulated masonry panels 7. Windows - horizontal openings / banded 8. Windows - clerestory / ribbon windows 9. Pilotis Addition South Elevation 1 a u w r rx r _ -:„ i0 9ECADFLOptN F . _^. _ .. .. _ _ _ ..... _— _� _. — _ ❑ �i x11f1R00N IIIDfiEF LOW M. 4 DOR 16 7 ifs• e• - *, .. OF AD 5 .1iF — + 3 6 of SOUTH ELEVATION Figure 78. Rendering of North Elevation of Prescott Additi� _ . (Prescott Mansion City Commission Appeal Submittal) Prescott 1. Tripartite fenestration 2. Horizontal lines at base Prescott & MiMo 3. Masonry base 4. Smooth stucco walls 5. Roofing - pitch to match Prescott, low pitch MiMo 6. Masonry / simulated masonry panels 7. Windows -horizontal openings / banded 8. Windows - clerestory / ribbon windows 36 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.1 on 7-28-2022 , City Clerk 9. Pilotis 37 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.1 on 7-28-2022 , City Clerk Other New Construction The scale of the four new two-story residences is compatible with the scale of the waterfront Prescott Mansion. Like the Prescott, all of the residences are raised to comply with flood requirements. The residences are elevated on pilotis to provide an openness that reflects an interpretation of the Modern "city in a park" concept. The new residences are set back from Prescott to provide emphasis of the primary structure. The northwest non -waterfront lot (Lot 2) relates to the neighborhood and serves as a transition from the smaller existing residences to the waterfront scale of the Prescott. Figure 79. Rendering of proposed residence on Lot 2, which serves as a transition between the existing ,csw4nces and the waterfront properties, January 2022. (Prescott Mansion City Commission Appeal Submittal) To enhance compatibility, the new residences reference elements of the Prescott and of the Miami Modern features in the neighborhood. This layering is in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standard Number 9. 38 Lot 2 North Elevation Figure 80. Rendering of North Elevation at Lot Z January 2022. (Prescott Mansion City Commission Appeal Submittal) T.O.Ro W-t1MWq B:w-rMF 8ftMdW W-P" B.v•rRF. _ _ lwd�a•llMiYq B: tT • r AFF. ! Fbor t(1f • m tM1rq -r- WAFF c�udle•r►Mato1 NORTH ELEVATION Figure 81. Drawing of North Elevation of Lot Z November 2021. (Prescott Mansion Second HEPB Submittal) Prescott 1. Horizontal lines at base 2. Soffit in natural finished wood with natural finished rafter tails (second image) 3. Roofing references color of clay tile roof (second image) Prescott & MiMo 4. Smooth stucco walls 39 v Y L � -I U 5. Broad eaves — extended plane (second image) Q- 6. Roofing - pitch to match Prescott, low pitch v a,, E U MiMo o v 7. Windows - horizontal openings / banded v `~ -a 8. Windows - clerestory / ribbon windows +' v 06 9. Roof — low pitched juxtaposed with flat L 10. Pilotis o Lot 3 East Elevation Figure 82. Drawing of East Elevation of Lot 3, January 2022, (Prescott Mansion City Commission Appeal Submittal) Prescott 1. Horizontal lines at base 2. Soffit in natural finished wood with natural finished rafter tails Prescott & MiMo 3. Masonry base 4. Smooth stucco walls 5. Broad eaves — extended plane 6. Roofing - pitch to match Prescott, low pitch MiMo 7. Windows- horizontal openings / banded 8. Windows - clerestory / ribbon windows 9. Pilotis 40 Lot I North Elevation BREEZE BLOCK BEIGE BRICK WOOD CEILING -KEYSTONE STUCCO GLASS Figure 83. Rendering of North Elevation of Lot 3, November 2021. (Prescott Mansion Second HEPB Submittal) Prescott 1. Horizontal lines at base Prescott & MiMo 2. Masonry base 3. Smooth stucco walls 4. Broad eaves — extended plane MiMo 5. Masonry / simulated masonry panels 6. Windows - horizontal openings / banded 7. Windows - clerestory / ribbon windows 8. Breeze Block 9. Pilotis 41 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.1 on 7-28-2022 , City Clerk Lot 4 West Elevation Prescott 1. Horizontal lines at base 2. Soffit in natural finished wood Prescott & MiMo 3. Masonry base 4. Smooth stucco walls 5. Broad eaves 6. Roofing - pitch to match Prescott, low pitch MiMo 7. Masonry / simulated masonry panels 8. Windows - horizontal openings / banded 9. Windows - clerestory / ribbon windows 10. Recessed entrance 11. Pilotis 42 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.1 on 7-28-2022 , City Clerk Lot 5 West Elevation 12 NFMRRO ---L Figure 85. Rendering of northwest elevation of Lot 5, January 2022. (Prescott Mansion City Commission Appeal Submittal) Prescott 1. Horizontal lines at base 2. Soffit in natural finished wood Prescott & MiMo 3. Masonry base 4. Smooth stucco walls 5. Roofing - pitch to match Prescott, low pitch MiMo 6. Masonry / simulated masonry panels 7. Windows - horizontal openings / banded 8. Windows - clerestory / ribbon windows 9. Recessed entrance 10. Carport 11. Pilotis 43 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.1 on 7-28-2022 . City Clerk Design Elements The proposed design has been analyzed in regard to each of the following elements: Form The reconstruction of the Prescott Mansion is appropriate in scale. As new construction, the height must be increased from the original construction due to flood regulations. The new rear addition is consistent in scale with the reconstructed Prescott Mansion. The addition defers to the Prescott with its siting at the rear of the property, as opposed to the side of the Mansion, as per the previously approved design. (Figure 37) The massing of the addition is smaller in scale and defers to the Prescott, unlike the previously approved design. (Figure 37) The building forms and materials interpret and reference the modern language of MiMo, the most recent significant contributing design style in the Bayside Historic District. The new construction adds an additional layer to the District. Per Secretary of the Interior's Standard 9, new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural features of the existing resources. 5 acin "The Bayside Historic District's (BHD) streetscape is irregular and differs widely from street to street. In general, streets are narrow; there are few sidewalks, gutters or curbs." (Bayside Historic District Parking Design Guidelines) Waterfront lots are often irregular in size and shape due to the topography of the location. An example is found on 69th Street within the District. (Figure 86) The irregular lot sizes in the proposed project are a response to the oceanfront siting. (Figure 40) Many of the streets in the District are narrow and some are curved in response to the topography. The curved drive within the proposed project is consistent with curved streets found elsewhere in the District. (Figure 87) Figure 86. Map showing irregular lots in southern portion of District, 2021. (Prescott Mansion City Commission Appeal Submittal) 44 The lots in the Bayside Historic District were platted at a much smaller size than the two lots associated with the Prescott Mansion (Figure 12, Figure 13). Subdivision of the two subject parcels will bring the lot sizes closer in alignment to the rest of the District. Height The properties are located on the waterfront (except for adjacent Lot 2) and are not typical of the rest of the District. The scale of the new design is compatible with the scale of the Prescott Mansion and is appropriate for the waterfront location. The height of the Prescott Mansion will be higher than the original due to flood regulations. Base flood elevations have evolved over time, and all new construction must comply with the regulations. Above the base flood elevation, the height and massing of the proposed new construction is consistent with the earlier residences in the neighborhood. The new construction will feature pilotis, which elevate the buildings and provide light and openness below. The use of pilotis is a complimentary approach for modern structures, compared to the solid mass of the elevated Prescott. The new addition has smaller massing that the Prescott. Key features of the addition, such as the base and roof eaves, are horizontally aligned with the Prescott to enhance compatibility. Yards The yards in the proposed design will continue a pattern of a developed green area for each single family residence. Landscaping will be utilized extensively to provide green areas and natural surfaces. The setbacks for the new construction are consistent with the neighborhood. (Figure 88) 45 M Figure 88. Comparison of setbacks of proposed project with neighboring properties. (Prescott Mansion City Commission Appeal Submittal) Materials The materials proposed for the reconstruction of the Prescott Mansion are based upon careful documentation that was completed prior to demolition of the original building. The materials to be used in the reconstruction are appropriate. The new base utilizes architectural detailing and materials that are consistent for an interpretation of Mediterranean Revival architecture. The materials for the proposed new construction reference both the immediate context of the Prescott Mansion and the context of the surrounding neighborhood. Materials that reference the Prescott Mansion include keystone, smooth stucco walls, naturally -finished wood and clay tile roofs. Materials that reference MiMo styling include concrete, stucco, keystone and breeze block. (Figure 77-Figure 78, Figure 82-Figure 85) Color The proposed colors are consistent with the colors found in the Historic District, including white stucco walls and red roof tiles. Rhythm and Pattern of Window and Door Openings The new construction uses a modern language that references and interprets MiMo. Typical MiMo features include horizontal banded windows, clerestory windows, ribbon windows, recessed entrances and carports. In the MiMo style, windows were intended to provide much natural light at all different levels of the building. The proposed designs are consistent with this approach. (Figure 77-Figure 78, Figure 82-Figure 85) 46 Summary The proposed design employs a modern architectural language that utilizes MiMo styling as a basis for reference and interpretation. The MiMo style is prevalent in the Bayside Historic District and is an appropriate reference for the new construction. The site is a waterfront location that is on the edge of the District and therefore has a different context than the inland, non -waterfront sites. The scale of the proposed new construction is compatible with the scale of the reconstructed Prescott Mansion and is appropriate for the waterfront location. The Prescott will remain the largest building in the District, and the new construction will reference features and materials of both the Prescott and the surrounding neighborhood. The new construction will add another layer, which will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural features of the surrounding neighborhood, per Secretary of the Interior's Standard 9. Comparison to Previously Approved Design The previously approved design (2015) was significantly out of scale with the reconstructed Prescott Mansion in massing and lot width. (Figure 37) The current design of the proposed addition is compatible with the Prescott Mansion in scale, massing and height. The proposed addition relates to the Prescott in terms of horizontal alignment of key features, including the base. In addition, the approved design was sited to the north of the Mansion with a similar setback, which would have drawn attention away from the reconstructed Prescott Mansion. The proposed design defers to the Prescott by its siting at the rear of the reconstructed Mansion. The proposed design is much more compatible with the design of the Prescott Mansion than the design that was approved in 2015. 47 v L CL L E O N - L N O N 00 E OU N � L 0 Y v Z -!I a� ANALYSIS OF PROPOSAL IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MIAMI Q a_ N - U CODE AND THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR'S STANDARDS AND o e, GUIDELINES N w N Because the subject property is located in the Bayside Historic District, the project is subject to -a N review for compliance with Chapter 23 of the Miami Historic Preservation Ordinance and the E u r; Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines in order to obtain a Special Certificate of Ln o Appropriateness. Standards Related to the New Construction The new construction consists of the reconstruction of the Prescott Mansion on an elevated base, an addition to the Prescott, and four additional new residences. Miami Code Chapter 23 — Historic Preservation (h) Guidelines for issuing certificates of appropriateness. (1) Alteration of existing structures, new construction. Generally, for applications relating to alterations or new construction as required in subsection (a) the proposed work shall not adversely affect the historic, architectural, or aesthetic character of the subject structure or the relationship and congruity between the subject structure and its neighboring structures and surroundings, including but not limited to form, spacing, height, yards, materials, color, or rhythm and pattern of window and door openings in building facades; nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the overall historic site, historic district, or multiple property designation. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties Standard 9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Guidelines - Reconstruction Building Exterior Recommended: Reconstructing a non -surviving building to depict the documented historic appearance. Although the use of the original building materials (such as masonry, wood, and architectural metals) is preferable, substitute materials may be used as long as they recreate the historical appearance. Building Interior Recommended: Recreating the historic floor plan and interior spaces, including the size, configuration, proportion, and relationship of rooms and corridors; the relationship of features to spaces; and the spaces themselves. Analysis The proposed project will not adversely affect the relationship and congruity between the subject structure and its neighboring structures and surroundings. Please refer to the Analysis of 48 Proposed Work above for a discussion of form, spacing, height, yards, materials, color and rhythm and pattern of window and door openings. The proposed work will introduce an additive layer that references the design of the reconstructed Prescott Mansion and also the existing MiMo residences in the District. The project will not adversely affect the special character and value of the Bayside Historic District. 49 Y U L � GJ CL � � U +J E o N _ L N O 4- N -a 06 E O N L O U ,L G1 � al CONCLUSION CL s v 4' E In order to receive a Special Certificate of Appropriateness, the Historic Preservation Ordinance 1 °1 N of the Miami Code requires proposed work to comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. (Sec. 23-6.2(b)(h)(1)) N � v The proposed work complies with Secretary of the Interior's Standards Number 9 and the City of N Miami Historic Preservation guidelines as detailed in Chapter 23 of the City Code. 0 The design relates to the most immediate and direct connection of the Prescott Mansion in its waterfront location. It also relates to the neighborhood by providing an interpretation of Miami Modern, the most recent architecturally significant style in the District. The design is compatible with both contexts and provides a complimentary additional layer to the District. It does not adversely affect the special character and value of the Bayside Historic District. • Design of new differentiated from old • Design of new references and interprets features of the Prescott Mansion • Design of new references and interprets features of MiMo in the Bayside Historic District Therefore, the request for a Special Certificate of Appropriateness should be APPROVED. its 41] Y U L � G1 U BIBLIOGRAPHY s v u E 2021. "7101 NE 10 AV and 1000 NE 72 ST." Analysis for Special Certification of Appropriateness. °1 N - L N O n.d. Allen Memorial Art Museum at Oberlin College. https:Hamam.oberlin.edu/visit. °�' Obb E UO N n.d. "Base Flood Elevation." FEMA. https://www.fema.gov/node/404233. L N C Bollack, Francoise Astorg. 2013. Old Buildings, New Forms. New York: The Monacelli Press. O Byard, Paul Spencer. 1998. The Architecture of Additions. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc. n.d. "Carre d'Art." Foster + Partners. https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/carre-d-art/. City of Miami. n.d. City of Miami GIS. https://gis.miamigov.com/miamizoning/. City of Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board. n.d. "Bayside Historic District Parking Design Guidelines." 2021. "Folio 01-3207-032-0630, 1000 N.E. 72nd Street, Miami." Miami -Dade Property Appraiser. https://www.miamidade.gov/Apps/PA/propertysearch/#/. 2021. "Folio 01-3207-032-1030, 71071 N.E. loth Avenue, Miami." Miami -Dade Property Appraiser. https://www.miamidade.gov/Apps/PA/propertysearch/#/. 1995. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service. n.d. "Louvre Museum." britannica.com. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Louvre-Museum. Mlami Herald. 1925. "Confidence in Washington Place on the Bay." October 4: 130. Miami Herald. 1924. "Plans are Prepared for Two Residences." March 3: 10. Miami Herald. 1923. "Washingtonian Buys Dixie Highway Tract." February 24: 25. 1925. Plat Book of Greater Miami, Fla. and Suburbs. Philadelphia: G. M. Hopkins Co. 1936. Plat Book of Greater Miami, Florida and Suburbs. Philadelphia: G. H. Hopkins Co. 2021. Prescott Mansion Presentation to Miami HEPB, June 2021 Meeting. June 1. 2021. "Prescott Mansion Second HEPB Submittal." November. Seco, Manuel, and Sarah Eaton. 1991. "Bayside Historic District." Designation Report. Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact's Ad Hoc Work Group. 2019. "Unified Sea Level Rise Projection South Florida." Uguccioni, Ellen J. 2006. "MiMo/Biscayne Boulevard." Designation Report. 51 n.d. "Villa Savoye." Wikipedia. https:Hen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Savoye#/media/File:VillaSavoye.jpg. 52 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.1 on 7-28-2022 , City Clerk I_12:14zI ]1:V_1 THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION Y v � - � a V THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION al svv 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal 0_ .+' N change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships. -a ,o 0 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of a, , E o N distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that v characterize a property will be avoided. N o 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.