HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-03-0293J -03-224(a)
03/21/03 rr��
RESOLUTION NO. 03- 293
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION
DENYING THE APPEAL FILED BY KENNETH MERKER,
AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE HISTORIC
AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD, WHICH
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS A CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS, AFTER THE FACT, FOR THE
ENCLOSURE OF A FORMER GARAGE DOOR AND PAVING
AT 95 NORTHEAST 47TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA,
LOCATED WITHIN THE BUENA VISTA EAST HISTORIC
DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board
("HEPB") is charged with the responsibility of preserving and
conserving properties of historical, architectural,
archeological and environmental merit in the City of Miami; and
WHEREAS, the HEPB, at its meeting of January 21, 2003,
following an advertised public hearing, adopted Resolution
No. HEPB-2000-3, which approved the application of Guillermo and
Jane Herrera ("Applicants") for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, after the fact, for the enclosure of a former
garage door and paving at 95 Northeast 47th Street, Miami,
Florida, located in the Buena Vista East Historic District,
after finding that there was substantial, competent evidence
presented at the public hearing to the effect that the Applicant
CITY COMMSMON
NIBETM OF
MAR 2 7 2003
Resolution No.
03- 293-1-
testified that the enclosure had been permitted and erected
years prior to the designation of the Buena Vista East Historic
District; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the applicable provisions of §23-5 of
the City of Miami Code, an appeal of the granting of this
certificate has been filed by Kenneth Merker, an aggrieved
party, on the grounds stated in his Notice of Appeal, filed on
January 31, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission after careful consideration of
this matter finds that the stated grounds for the appeal and the
facts presented in support thereof do not justify reversing the
decision of the historic and Environmental Preservation Board;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The recitals and the findings contained in
the Preamble to this Resolution are adopted by reference and
incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section.
Section 2. The City Commission denies the appeal filed
by Kenneth Merker and affirms the decision of the Historic and
Environmental Preservation Board (Resolution No. HEPB-2000-48,
adopted on January 21, 2003), which approved, with conditions, a
Certificate of Appropriateness, after the fact, for the
enclosure of a former garage door and paving at 95 Northeast 47th
Page 2 of 3
03- 293
Street, Miami, Florida, located within the Buena Vista East
Historic District.
Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor.!'
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of March ,2003.
MA�UEL A. DIAZ, MAY
ATTEST:
&12—'
PRISCILLA A. THOMPSON
CITY CLERK
RRECTNESS:
NDRO VILARELLO
ATTORNEY
W7030:RSR/dab:BSS
l� If the Mayor does not sign this Resolution, it shall become
effective at the end of ten calendar days from the date it was
passed and adopted. If the Mayor vetoes this Resolution, it
shall become effective immediately upon override of the veto by
the City Commission.
Page 3 of 3 03- 293
ITEM PZ 2
HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD
FACT SHEET- UPDATED
NAME Buena Vista East Historic District
ADDRESS 95 NE 47th Street
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, after -the -fact, for
the enclosure of a former garage door and paving.
ANALYSIS The subject property is a contributing structure within the Buena
Vista East Historic District. At least 20+ years ago, and many
years prior to the designation of Buena Vista East as a historic
district, the former garage was enclosed and new doors and
windows were installed. The current owner was recently cited
for the violation and is now requesting approval to retain the
existing appearance. The owner is not currently proposing any
alterations to the property and merely seeks to maintain the
existing configuration.
Although a copy of the permit for the enclosure has not been
located, the applicant testified before the Board that a permit was
obtained for the completion of this work.
The garage enclosure predates designation of the historic district
by a significant amount of time. Therefore, retaining the existing
configuration would not adversely affect the historic, architectural
or aesthetic character of the subject property, or the relationship
and congruity between the house and its neighboring houses
and surroundings.
RECOMMENDATION The Preservation Officer recommends that the application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness, after -the -fact, be approved
because denial of the application is not consistent with the intent
of the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance. Furthermore,
retaining the existing configuration would not adversely affect the
historic, architectural or aesthetic character of the subject
property, or the relationship and congruity between the house
and its neighboring houses and surroundings, pursuant to
Section 23-5(c)(1) of said ordinance.
Item #3
January 21, 2003
03- 293
January 31, 2003
Notice of Appeal r LJ
This letter is to serve as a written "Notice of Appeal" regarding the January 21, 2003 decision of
the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board on item number three; Buena Vista East
Historic District, 95 NE 47th Street, Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness,
after -the -fact, for the enclosure of a former garage door.
The decision by the Board was to allow the illegal enclosure to maintain its inappropriate
architectural design as the homeowner admittedly constructed. The Board approved the
Certificate of Appropriateness based upon a decision of code enforcement sentiment and without
any respect to Miami Code Chapter 23.1 "Historic Preservation". The Code Enforcement Board
is an entirely separate entity and duties of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board
have no provision regarding code enforcement as set forth in Chapter 23.1 of the Miami Code.
Recent similar decisions within the Buena Vista East Historic District required homeowners at
121 NE 46 Street and 151 NE 46 Street to restore their illegal enclosures to a garage door. The
same decision as the "Staff Recommendation" by the City of Miami's Historic Preservation
Officer regarding this illegal enclosure appealed today.
Chapter 23.1 of the Miami Code clearly sets forth the responsibilities of the Historic and
Environmental Preservation Board and the Preservation Officer. The guidelines for issuing
certificates of appropriateness are found in Chapter 23.1-5(c). It states that " 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 or historic district." Decisions relating to alterations are
suppose to be guided by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings."
Clearly, the decision by the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board does not adhere to
the provisions as set forth in Chapter 23.1 of the Miami Code.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Merker
PO Box 370421
Miami, Florida 33137
305-573-1457
cc: City of Miami Manager
City of Miami Historic Preservation Officer
03- 293
RESOLUTION HEPB-2003-3
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PRESERVATION ("NEP") BOARD OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF GUILLERMO AND JANE
HERRERA ("APPLICANTS-) FOR A CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS, AFTER THE FACT, FOR THE ENCLOSURE OF
A FORMER GARAGE DOOR AND PAVING AT 95 NE 47T" STREET,
LOCATED WITHIN THE BUENA VISTA EAST HISTORIC DISTRICT.
Whereas, the Historic and Environmental Preservatlon Board is charged with the
responsibility of preserving and conserving the properties of historic, architectural,
environmental and archeological significance; and
Whereas, a public hearing was held before the HEP Board on January 21, 2003; and
Whereas, the Staff Fact Sheet concerning this item, and its attachments, are deemed as
being incorporated by reference herein and being made a part hereof; and
Whereas, the Applicant is not currently proposing any alterations to the property and
merely seeks to maintain the wdsfing configuration; and
Whereas, the garage enclosure predates designation of the historic district by a
significant amount of time; and
Whereas, the Applicant testified before the Board that a permit was obtained for the
completon of said work and there was no rebuttal evidence presented; and
Whereas, the Board finds that denial of the application is not consistent with the intent of
the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PRESERVATION BOARD OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference herein
as though set forth in full herein.
2. That following review of the preservation officer's recommendations and all the
submitted oral and written testimony received during the public hearing, a Certificate
of Appropriateness after -the -fad is hereby approved with the fdlowing oonditions
and the applicant shall be permitted to retain the current configuration of the garage
and paving.
a. This approval is based on the documents submitted by the above named
Applicant(s) and received by the Planing and Zoning Department on or about
November 18, 2002
b. The Applicant has represented that no other modifications would be made
without first securing the appropriate approvals
03 293
3_ This resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adaption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 216T DAY OF JANUARY, 2003.
03-- 293
APPLICATION FOR
CERTIFICATE
OF APPROPRIATENESS
ALTERATIONS, NEW CONSTRUCTION
of CITY OF MIAMI
F '3 HISTORIC AND
► ,,,,,, ,,.,, ENVIRONMENTAL
PRESERVATION
BOARD
APPLICANT'S NA (IF NOT OWNER) APPLICANT'S TELEPHONE NUMBER (DAYTIME)
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS, CITY, ZIP CODE
APPLICANT'S RELATIONSHIP TO OWNER
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT (USE ADDITIONAL PAGE IF NECESSARY)
0/1 ads !c- ti 2ca r I E4 in -P,
s
IS
Y
7-0
� e � -�- o Z�z� � �—� W D v 1 c� Ca Esc` � �2� �f � � ►�
1440—
r
99 PLANS OF PROPOSED PROJECT
® PHOTOGRAPHS OF PROPERTY
❑ MATERIAL SAMPLES
❑ OTHER
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) DATE
FOR STAFF USE ONLY:
APPLICATION NO. DATE RECEIVED
❑ STANDARD CA 0 APPROVED DATE OF FINAL ACTION
❑ SPECIAL CA ❑ APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
❑ DENIED
03' 293
APPLICATION FOR
CERTIFICATE
OF APPROPRIATENESS
ALTERATIONS, NEW CONSTRUCTION
OF M' CITY OF MIAMI
F '3 HISTORIC AND
• .........n ENVIRONMENTAL
PRESERVATION
BOARD
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT (USE ADDITIONAL PAGE IF NECESSAI,cvRY)
�e o_
o /vcif , f S Ci od w' Eo c1 f� �-! ►� 3)lqck-)9n15'
R u � 17 �
i 1
s �d _ _ Nn y
s y y .
,Rc pan ID fa i .9- N, �- jQ (R' s�f- � Ir -e, a�tDm, adylsml�
41 RU U
{� PLANS OF PROPOSED PROJECT
® P TOGRAPHS OF PROP TY ` 11 �.
OTT RI SAMPLES V I n l� O O �Q'�r`O` Uk2s
FOR STAFF USE ONLY:
APPLICATION NO. DATE RECEIVED
STANDARD CA p APPROVED DATE OF FINAL
SPECIAL CA ❑ APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
❑ DENIED
03- 293
PETITION
For an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, after -the -fact; for
the enclosure of a former garage door and paving, at 95 NE 47m Street,
Miami, Florida 33137, in the Buena Vista. Historic District.
Name Address Phone
�Ga / pcv, r . 14,&&
.C -E- k2
14
NYi _ 4 S� _�
�_ ? g G 4 S7 LEO
l2 1a st4 �S n s!t-oS;
-'S2 - IS1S
LG 2:2 ^-&,/ A -e-
G D i Al. l= A Vr-
mss' s"r'n t f jr
��V-.
3os X51'« 1 -
/ Qi wE 7 6:rmdT
3oS 7aG - 9i/z
')4C- A L � Lam'% 5 t—AW reT
2,D t 751 -?/_ n
i
03- 293
RVE
GRAPHIC SCALE N
20 0 f0 20 40 80
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 20 fL
8 E. C
L 0 T 12
FND, 7/2' IRON p ` 20'
PIPE - NO CAP CONC. WALL (4' HIGHa )
N89 56'07 E 60.10'(M) 60.00'(R) FNI . Pp N IL
0.3' CNC. `?\UAL. o O.1 CLE IR
POLE 22.1'LQ
Y
5
CONG
cWi \ ^ry DR11C o
z m Ld a 1.
O 2 m
•� n Q
2� d LO 2 1i
N O n p (jlnl (n
-i p ..;6:.' 22.1' Q 4
CONC. a
T 5
6.01' cA SET NAL �
c� & DISK p
0129
� {I
SET NAIL
RA D= 25.00'
BEC
DISK
0729 A = 0'03'53
ci
AR 9.30'
FND.. AIL 35.00'(6 35.07'(M) 25. N TAN= TANGENT
06
`3' C01VC. WALK S89'56' 7 W FND, 1/ " I N
PIPE - 0 CAP
GRASS 0.5 FT. CONC. CURB 8��•
N
N. W, 'ny� 4 U `J� TH. �J `ate Po
�0 1
CITY OF MIAMI MONUMENT LINE
50 FT. R/W — ASPHAL T PA VEMENT
(SHADOW DRIVE — P.B. 6-47)
013 - 293
SHEET 1 OF 2
erecaornE ago COWAW, WC. PREIR,RED F,
529 ,�
EST"' Fuca. STREET Cermo P. Herrera
-•
NAM. 4 610 Jane M. Herrera
71
FAX. (305) 324-0909 SITE ADORES&: 95 ME 47TH ST.
ARAM, FL
0
`r 7j. BUENA
VISTA
EAST
Buena Vista East Neighborhood Association
101 N.E. 43rd Street, Miami, Florida 33137 (305) 573-8478
March 27, 2003
Honorable Commissioners
City of Miami Commission
Miami, Fl. 33128
Dear Sirs,
As Co -Chair of the Buena Vista East Neighborhood Association; I would like to request that you deny the
appeal before you today regarding Jane and Guillermo Herrera's garage enclosure and paved driveway.
Our Association has no problem with the after -the -fast permit given for the past alterations of the
Herrerra's property. The issue has never been raised at our monthly meetings, and the Herrera's immediate
neighbors have also not registered any complaint about these alterations. Which leads us to the question of
why exactly this issue is before you today.
We would like to take this opportunity to express our opposition to Mr. Kenny Merker's long-standing and
continuing campaign of using Code Enforcement as a tool of harassment against his former Buena Vista
neighbors. For years, Mr. Merker has submitted lists of real and perceived code violations of residents he
either doesn't know or doesn't like. He has then demanded that the limited resources of the Little Haiti
NET Office be devoted to investigating and citing the hundreds of mostly minor violations on these lists.
Numerous times, I have received panicked emails and phone calls, often from new residents, asking, "Who
is Kenny Merker and why does he hate me?" Mr. Merker is not even a current resident of Miami, and his
single investment property in Buena Vista is a rooming house in poor condition.
As an Association representing an historic district, we understand the need for code enforcement.
However, there must be priorities, and given the fact that we have one code enforcement officer for all of
Little Haiti, nitpicking in Buena Vista is not a good use of our inspector's time. We have serious quality of
life issues such as illegal dumping and unsightly commercial areas that need the City's attention. Kenny
Merker's commandeering of the code enforcement process has been a detriment to our area's continued re-
development. We ask that you not indulge his strange obsession today, or in the future.
Sincerely,
_Z�-
Wendy Blair Stephan
Buena Vista East Neighborhood Association
SUBMITTED INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD FOR
ITEM Po -a ON 3-a'7'-0 3
January 31, 2003
Notice of Appeal
This letter is to serve as a written "Notice of Appeal" regarding the January 21, 2003 decision of
the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board on item number three; Buena Vista East
Historic District, 95 NE 471h Street, Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness,
after -the -fact, for the enclosure of a former garage door.
The decision by the Board was to allow the illegal enclosure to maintain its inappropriate
architectural design as the homeowner admittedly constructed The Board approved the
Certificate of Appropriateness based upon a decision of code enforcement sentiment and without
any respect to Miami Code Chapter 23.1 "Historic Preservation". The Code Enforcement Board
is an entirely separate entity and duties of the Historic and Environmental Board have no
provision regarding code enforcement as set forth in Chapter 23.1 of the Miami Code.
Recent similar decisions within the Buena Vista East Historic District required homeowners at
121 NE 46 Street and 151 NE 46 Street to restore their illegal enclosures to a garage door. The
same decision as the "Staff Recommendation" by the City of Miami's Historic Preservation
Officer regarding this illegal enclosure appealed today.
Chapter 23.1 of the Miami Code clearly sets forth the responsibilities of the Historic and
Environmental Preservation Board and the Preservation Officer. The guidelines for issuing
certificates of appropriateness are found in Chapter 23.1-5(c): It states that " 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 or historic district." Decisions relating to alterations are
suppose to be guided by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings."
Clearly, the decision by the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board does not adhere to
the provisions as set forth in Chapter 23.1 of the Miami Code.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Merker
PO Box 370421
Miami, Florida 33137
305-573-1457
cc: City Manager
City of Miami Historic Preservation Officer
SUBMITTED INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD FOR
ITEM�zz ON9 ?7
03- 293
§ 23.1-5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION § 23.1-5
Each appeal shall be accompanied by a
fee established by the city commission
to cover the cost of publishing and
mailing notices of the hearing. The city
commission shall hear and consider all
facts material to the appeal and render
a decision promptly. The city commis-
sion may affirm, modify, or reverse the
board's decision. The decision of the city
commission shall constitute final ad-
ministrative review, and no petition for
rehearing or reconsideration shall be
considered by the city. Appeals from
decisions of the city commission may
be made to the courts as provided by
the Florida Rules of Appellate Proce-
dure.
f. Changes in approved work. Any change
in work proposed subsequent to the is-
suance of a certificate of appropriate-
ness shall be reviewed by the preser-
vation officer. If the preservation officer
finds that the proposed change does not
materially affect the property's historic
character or that the proposed change
is in accord with approved guidelines,
standards, and certificates of appropri-
ateness, the officer may issue a supple-
mentary standard certificate of appro-
priateness for such change. If the
proposed change is not in accord with
guidelines, standards, or certificates of
appropriateness previously approved by
the board, a new application for a spe.
cial certificate of appropriateness shall
be required.
g. Conditional uses and deviations. The
board shall issue special certificates of
Appropriateness for conditional uses
and deviations, pursuant to the provi-
sions of article 7 of Ordinance No.
11000, the zoning ordinance of the city
as amended.
(5) Expiration of certificates of appropriateness.
Any certificate of appropriateness issued
pursuant to the provisions of this section
shall expire twelve (12) months from the
date of issuance, unless the authorized work
is commenced within this time period.
Supp. No. 39
(c) Guidelines for issuing certificates of appro-
priateness.
(1) Alteration of existing structures, new con-
struction. Generally, for applications re-
lating to alterations or new construction as
required in section 23.1-5(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 surround-
ings, 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 or historic district. Except
where special standards and guidelines
have been specified in the designation of a
particular historic site or historic district,
or where the board has subsequently
adopted additional standards and guide-
lines for a particular designated historic site
or historic district, decisions relating to al-
terations or new construction shall be
guided by the U.S. Secretary of the Interi-
or's "Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings."
(2) Demolition of existing structures.
a. The board shall have authority to deny
a demolition permit only where such
authority is provided as a condition of
granting a conditional use or substan-
tial deviation under the provisions of
section 704.4.4 of Ordinance No. 11000,
the zoning ordinance of the city, as
amended.
b. Except as provided in (a) above, the
board may grant a certificate of appro-
priateness with a delayed effective date
up to six (6) months. The effective date
shall be determined by the board based
upon the relative significance of the
structure, the probable time to arrange
an alternative to demolition, and
1651
03— 493
VD PLANNING § 62-72 § 62.72
Miami City Code and in the zoning ordinance, the
board is hereby authorized to:
(1) Maintain and update files from the county
historic survey within the city for the pur-
pose of identifying and preserving those
properties and neighborhoods of special his-
toric, aesthetic, architectural, archeolog-
ical, cultural, social, or political value or
interest. It shall endeavor to improve and
expand the survey with additional sites, doc-
umentary information, oral histories, and
other such materials as may become avail-
able; and to periodically reevaluate the
survey to determine whether changing
times and values warrant recognition of
new or different areas of significance.
(2) Serve as a quasijudicial instrument to des-
ignate historic sites, historic districts, and
archeological zones pursuant to chapter 23.1
of the Miami City Code.
(3) Serve as a quasijudicial instrument to ap-
prove or deny certificates of appropriate-
ness pursuant to chapter 23.1 of the Miami
City Code and article 7 of the zoning ordi-
nance.
(4) Serve as a quasijudicial instrument to ap-
prove or deny certificates of approval pur-
suant to chapter 17 of the Miami City Code.
(5) Recommend to the city commission, in ref-
erence to specific properties or general pro-
grams, the use of preservation incentives
such as, but not limited to, transfer of de-
velopment rights, facade easements, finan-
cial assistance, public acquisition, building
code amendments, and special zoning reg-
ulations.
(6) Maintain a record of unique environmen-
tally significant lands or sites within the
city.
(7) Increase public awareness of the value of
historic and environmental preservation by
developing and participating in public in-
formation programs.
(8) Make recommendations to the city commis-
sion concerning the utilization of grants
MIA1
from federal and state agencies or private
groups and individuals, and utilization of
city funds to promote the preservation of
environmentally, historically, and aesthet-
ically significant properties and neighbor-
hoods.
(9) Promulgate standards for architectural re-
view in addition to those general standards
contained in chapter 23.1 of the Miami City
Code.
(10) Evaluate and comment upon decisions of
other public agencies affecting the physical
development and appearance of environ-
mentally, historically, and aesthetically sig-
nificant properties and neighborhoods.
(11) Contact public and private organizations
and individuals and endeavor to arrange
intervening agreements to ensure preser-
vation of environmentally, historically, or
aesthetically significant properties for
which demolition is proposed.
(12) Promote and encourage communication and
exchange of ideas and information between
the board and owners of historically and
environmentally significant properties, po-
tential developers, public officials, finan-
cial institutions, etc.
(13) In the name of the city and with the con-
sent of the city commission, apply for, so-
licit, receive, or expand any federal, state,
or private grant, gift, or bequest of any
funding, property, or interest in property
in furtherance of the purposes of historic
and environmental preservation.
(14) Approve historic markers and issue recog-
nition to historic properties within the city.
(15) Adopt and amend rules of procedure.
(16) Advise the city commission on all matters
related to the use, administration, and
maintenance of city -owned historic proper-
ties and environmental preservation dis-
tricts.
(17) Any other function which may be desig-
nated by resolution or motion of the city
commission. (Ord. No. 10875, § 2, 4-25-91)
Supp. No. 39
111
03- 293
ZONING § 704
704.2. Procedures for granting conditional uses and deviations.
704.2.1. Application for a special certificate of appropriateness. An application for a special
certificate of appropriateness shall be submitted pursuant to the provisions of section
23.1-5 of the Miami City Code. In addition, the application shall contain a written
statement justifying the requested conditional use or deviation and providing evi-
dence that the conditional use or deviation is necessary to encourage or assure the
continued preservation of the designated historic structure.
704.2.2. Notice and hearings, generally. The board shall hold a public hearing with notice
as set forth in section 62-55 (1 through 4) of the Miami City Code.
704.2.3. Decision of the board. The board shall make findings based upon the standards
set forth in section 704.3 and shall take one (1) of the following actions:
1. Issuance of a special certificate of appropriateness for the conditional use or
deviation proposed by the applicant; or
2. Issuance of a special certificate of appropriateness with specific modifications and
conditions; or
3. Denial of a special certificate of appropriateness.
704.3. Standards.
In addition to guidelines for issuing certificates of appropriateness as set forth in section
23.1-5(C) of the Miami City Code, the board shall determine that the following standards have
been met before reaching a decision to grant a special certificate of appropriateness:
1. The conditional use or deviation shall provide a public benefit and shall be the min-
imum necessary to encourage or assure the continued preservation of the historic
structure; and
2. The conditional use or deviation shall be in harmony with the general intent and
purpose of this article and shall not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare; and
3. The project shall be designed and sited in a manner that minimizes the impact on the
surrounding areas in terms of vehicular ingress and egress, offstreet parking, pedes-
trian safety and convenience, public utilities and services, lighting, noise, or potential
adverse impacts.
704.4. Conditions and safeguards.
704.4.1. The board may impose conditions and safeguards. In granting any conditional
use or deviation, the board may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards
necessary to protect and further the interest of the area and abutting properties,
including, but not limited to, landscape materials, walls, and fences as required
buffering; modifications of the orientation of any openings; modification of site ar-
rangements; and control of manner or hours of operation.
303
03- 293
The Secretary of the Interio_r_'s
Standards for ^�
Rehabilitation
and Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings
U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Preservation Assistance Division
Washington, D.C.
ess of carefully documenting the historical appearance. Where an important architectural feature is missing, its recovery is always recom-
mended in the guidelines as the first or preferred, course of action. Thus, if adequate historical, pictorial, and physical documentation exists
so that the feature may be accurately reproduced, and if it is desireable to re-establish the feature as part of the building's historical als--
pearance, then designing and constructing a new feature based on such information is appropriate. However, a second acceptable option for
the replacement feature is a new design that is compatible with the remaining character -defining features of the historic building. The new
design should always take into account the size, scale, and material of the historic building itself and, most importantly, should be clearly dif-
ferentiated so that a false historical appearance is not created.
Alterations/Additions to Historic Buildings
Some exterior and interior alterations to the historic building are generally needed to assure its continued use, but it is most important that
such alterations do not radically change, obscure, or destroy character -defining spaces, materials, features, or finishes. Alterations may in-
clude providing additional parking space on an existing historic building site, cutting new entrances or windows on secondary elevations; in-
serting an additional floor; installing an entirely new mechanical system; or creating an atrium or light well. Alteration may also include the
selective removal of buildings or other features of the environment or building site that are intrusive and therefore detract from the overall
historic character.
The construction of an exterior addition to a historic building may seem to be essential for the new use, but it is emphasized in the guidelines
that such new additions should be avoided, if possible, and considered only after it is determined that those needs cannot be met by altering
secondary, i.e., non character -defining interior spaces. If, after a thorough evaluation of interior solutions, an exterior addition is still judged
to be the only viable alternative, it should be designed and constructed to be clearly differentiated from the historic building and so that the
character -defining features are not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed.
Additions to historic buildings are referenced within specific sections of the guidelines such as Site, Roof, Structural Systems, etc., but are
also considered in more detail in a separate section, NEW ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS.
Health and Safety Code Requirements; Energy Retrofitting
These sections of the rehabilitation guidance address work done to meet health and safety code requirements (for example, providing barrier -
free access to historic buildings); or retrofitting measures to conserve energy (for example, installing solar collectors in an unobtrusive loca-
tion on the site). Although this work is quite often an important aspect of rehabilitation projects, it is usually not part of the overall process of
protecting or repairing character -defining features; rather, such work is assessed for its potential negative impact on the building's historic
character. For this reason, particular care must be taken not to radically change, obscure, damage, or destroy character -defining materials or
features in the process of rehabilitation work to meet code and energy requirements.
03- 293