Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-03-0294J-03-226 (c) 04/02/03 (ccm) RESOLUTION NO. 03- 294 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION IN CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEALS FILED BY SANDY KARLAN, JOE LUPO, AND THE GROVE TREE -MAN TRUST ("APPELLANTS"), MODIFYING, WITH A CONDITION, A DECISION OF THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD ("HEPB"), WHICH APPROVED A TREE REMOVAL/ RELOCATION, PERMIT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI -FAMILY PROJECT LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2745-2833 COCONUT AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board ("HEPB") is charged with the responsibility of preserving and conserving the properties of historic, architectural, environmental and archeological significance; and WHEREAS, among the Board's duties are to hear and consider appeals from the decisions of the Coconut Grove, Northeast, Neighborhood Enhancement Team ("NET") Office under the applicable provisions of Chapter 17 ("Environmental Preservation") of the City --of Miami Code, the HEPB's Rules of Procedure, and other applicable laws; and CM COMMtSSiON WMETING OF MAR 2 7 ?Pnl Resolution No. 03- 294 WHEREAS, at its meeting of February 18, 2003, following a duly advertised public hearing, the HEPB adopted Resolution No. HEPB-2003-10, which denied the Appeal of Sandy Karlan, Joe Lupo, and the Tree -Man Trust (collectively referred to as the "Appellants") in a decision of the NET office that approved a tree removal/relocation permit in conjunction with the construction of a multi -family project located at 2745-2833 Coconut Avenue, Miami, Florida; and WHEREAS, the HEPB decision on this matter was a tie vote that resulted in a denial of the appeal by the Appellants, and the Official Rules of Procedure of the HEPB provide under Voting/Quorum, that in case of a tie vote by the HEPB on any question at a public hearing, such tie vote shall be construed as a denial of the appeal; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, in consideration of this matter has the ability to affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the HEPB; and WHEREAS, the City Commission after careful consideration of the matter and the evidence presented finds that the stated grounds for the appeal and the facts presented in support thereof justify modifying the decision of the Historic and Page 2 of 4 03- 294 Environmental Preservation Board in the manner provided for herein; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The recitals and 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 in consideration of the Appeal filed by Sandy Karlan, Joe Lupo, and the Tree -Man Trust modifies the decision of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board (Resolution No. HEPB-2003-10), which resulted in approving the decision of the NET office, which approved a tree removal/relocation permit in conjunction with the construction of a multi -family project located at approximately 2745-2833 Coconut Avenue, Miami, modifies, with conditions, the HEPB decision and its underlying NET decision as follows: (i) The NET Office shall, in accordance with the terms of this Resolution, issue the required tree removal/relocation permits, pursuant to the revised plans dated March 21, 2003, submitted by City staff to the City Commission at the March 27, 2003 public hearing, which plans are deemed as being incorporated by reference herein. Page 3 of 4 03— Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor.11 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of March ATTEST: PISCILLA A. THOMPSON CITY CLERK ,2003. APPROVED AS TO FORM _ND CORRECTNESS: Zow'/ 50.0 IU 11-41 W ANDRO VILARE LO CI ATTORNEY 040:RSR/dab 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 4 of 4 03- 294 ITEM PZ 3 HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD FACT SHEET ADDRESS Approximately 2745-2833 Coconut Avenue PROJECT DESCRIPTION Appeals of a decision of the NET Office, which approved a tree removal/tree relocation permit in conjunction with the construction of a multi -family project. ANALYSIS Several appeals were filed concerning the approval of a tree removal/relocation permit for the subject property. This item was continued from the meeting of January 21, 2003, so that the applicant and appellants could meet and attempt to reach a mutually agreeable solution. The applicant has redesigned the project to preserve additional specimen oak trees on the property. He has also retained the services of Lisa Hammer, horticultural consultant, to evaluate the existing trees and make recommendations for preservation, relocation and removal. Ms. Hammer initially prepared a report on October 19, 2002, and has also submitted a new report dated February 10, 2003. Copies are included in the Board packet. The most significant trees on the property are four specimen oak trees, #7, 10, 20 and 35. The plans for the property and designs for the buildings have evolved from an initial proposal to relocate all four trees to a plan that now preserves #7 and 20 in place, relocates #35 and removes #10. According to Ms. Hammer, #20 is in the best condition of the four oaks. The revised plans call for grade beams adjacent to this tree. Although #7 is in a state of decline, the applicant has chosen to preserve this tree in a sunken garden. Ms. Hammer has provided specifications on how to best preserve the tree. Ms. Hammer stated that #35 is a good candidate for relocation, provided certain specifications are followed. Despite many design changes, the applicant has determined that it is not feasible to preserve #10 in place, given the amount of canopy that would have to be removed. Ms. Hammer has stated that this tree is in a state of decline and has also recommended against relocation. She has proposed removal and mitigation. Staff concurs with the NET Office that tree #10 is located in the buildable area where a structure could be placed and unreasonably restricts the permitted use of the property. Item #1 February 18, 2003 03- 294. RECOMMENDATION The Preservation Officer recommends that appeals be denied and the decision of the NET Office be modified pursuant to the revised tree disposition plan provided to the Board, and subject to the following condition, because the proposed tree removal and relocation comply with the criteria set forth in Chapter 17 of the Miami City Code, per the analysis above. 1. All specifications proposed by Ms. Hammer (dated 10-15-02 and revised 2-10-03) shall be followed. Item #1 February 18, 2003 .03- 294 GIBBS AND WISS A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS P.O. Box 1050 CocONUT GRovE, FLORIDA 33133 (� TELEPHONE (305)8%'1" ' ( 'I q v " v! U"3F L S L V i i i FACSIMILE (305) 8546093 W. TUCKER GIBBS ILONA-ANNE WISS February 27, 2003 City Manager City of Miami 444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, Tenth Floor Miami, Florida 33130-1910 VIA HAND DELIVERY Re: Appeal Historic and Environmental Preservation Board ("HEP Board") Board Decision regarding Tree Removal Permit Granted to GREC/Luis, Ltd. at 2755, Coconut Ai Dear Sir: I represent Sandy Karlan, who owns property at 2845 Coconut Avenue (adjoining the site which is the subject to the referenced HEP Board decision). The City approved the tree removal permit on December 17, 2002 and the HEP Board apparently denied an appeal of that tree removal permit at its February 18, 2003 meeting. Let this letter serve as the notice of appeal pursuan to Section 17-40(b) of the Municipal Code of the City Miami of the HEP Board decision that apparently denied the appeal of a tree removal permit for tree removal and relocation, at the above referenced address. The grounds for this appeal are as follows: 1. Chapter 17 of the Miami Municipal Code sets forth criteria for the removal of trees. Tree removal as requested under the application does not meet those requirements. Among other things, that chapter requires that "the tree marked for removal is located in the buildable area or yard area where a structure or improvement may be placed and unreasonably restricts the permitted use of the property." (emphasis added) Because there is no approved set of plans that depict what is proposed to be built, only a proposed site plan for the properties on Coconut Avenue, there is no way to accurately make this determination. 2. At the core of this application is a "conceptual plan" that may or may not be submitted to the City. This is 3-21 94. February 27, 20C City Manager Page 2 the first such application of this type and is not authorized by the City's Code. 3. Furthermore, given the Unity of Title, the removal of specific trees proposed under this application may not unreasonably restrict the reasonable use of the R-3 zoned property for R-3 purposes. For those reasons, appellants Sandy Karlan and her husband Joe Lupo, through their undersigned attorney, hereby appeal the issuance of a Tree Removal Permit(s) for the referenced property to GREC/Luis, Ltd. Furthermore, appellants reserve their right to supplement this appeal letter with briefs or memoranda prior to City Commission consideration of this appeal. Sincerely, W. Tucker Gibbs cc: Sandy Karlan Priscilla Thompson, City Clerk Sarah Eaton, Preservation Officer Alex Vilarello, City Attorney Terecita Fernandez, Director, Hearing Boards Office Haydee Regueyra, NE Coconut Grove NET Administrator Ron Nelson, President, Coconut Grove Civic Club Jim McMaster, President, Coconut Grove Treeman Trust _003 15:01 30555941PO FRIErIDS OF EVERGLADE PAGE 02 The Grove Tree -Man Trust P. O. Box 1971 Coconut Grove, Florida 33133-1971 February 27, 2003 Mr. Joe Arriola, City Manager City of Miami 3500 Pan America Drive Miami, Florida 33133 VIA HAND DELIVERY Re: ADoeal of the decision of the Citv of Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board, on February 18, 2003. to uphold the N.E. Coconut Grove NET _Administrator's approval of the permit for tree removal and relocation at 2745, 2755, 2803, 2813, 2823 and 2833 Coconut Avenue to Grec/Luis LTD. NET Area/Plan number 02-0018225. Process number 020021451. Dear Mr. Arriola. Let this letter serve as notice of appeal pursuant to section 17-40(a) of the Municipal Code of the City of Miami of the decision of the Heritage and Environmental Preservation Board to uphold the N.E. Coconut Grove NET Administrator's approval of the permit for tree removal and relocation at 2745. 2755. 2803. 2813.2823 and 2833 Coconut Avenue. The grounds for this appeal are as follows: The owner of the subject property has submitted to the City of Miami tree removal and relocation plans that call for the removal or relocation of four oak trees #7.#10, #20 and #35. These trees should remain in their present locations. They do not unreasonably restrict the permitted use of the property. For these reasons The Grove Tree -Man Trust hereby appeals the decision of the Heritage and Environmental Preservation Board to uphold the decision of the N.E. Coconut Grove NET Administrator to approve the permit for tree removal and relocation to GreciLuis LTD. at 2745, 2755, 2803, 2813.2823 and 2833 Coconut Avenue. The Grove Tree -Man Trust reserves the right to supplement this appeal letter with briefs or memoranda prior to City of Miami Commission consideration of this appeal. 03- 294 15:01 305'r-)694109 FRIEN'DS OF EVER' -ADE PAGE 03 February 27, 2003 Joe Arriola Page 2 The Grove Tree -Man Trust is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to consem,ation and protection of the natural and physical environment. It is my understanding that no fee Will be charged for appeals initiated by such a group. Sincerely, i James G. McMaster President, The Grove Tree -Man Trust Cc: Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk Sarah Eaton, Historic and Environmental Preservation Officer. City of Miami The Grove Tree -Man Trust Board 03— '294 RESOLUTION HEPB-2003-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION ("HEP') BOARD OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, DENYING THE APPEALS AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE NET OFFICE, WHICH APPROVED A TREE REMOVAL/TREE RELOCATION PERMIT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI -FAMILY PROJECT LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2745-2833 COCONUT AVENUE. Whereas, the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board is charged with the responsibility of preserving and oonserving the properties of historic, architectural, environmental and archeological significance; and Whereas, among the Board's duties are to hear appeals from the decisions of the NET office under the applicable provisions of Chapter 17, Environmental Preservation, Miami City Code, the Board Rules, and other applicable laws; and Whereas, a public hearing was scheduled before the HEP Board on January 21, 2D03, which was continued to February 18, 2003 to consider this appeal; and Whereas, the Preservation Officer recommended that the appeal be denied and that the decision of the NET office be modified pursuant to the revised tree disposition plan provided to the Board, because the proposed tree removal and relocation on the modified plan comply with the criteria set forth in Chapter 17 of the Miami City Code, and which Staff Fact Sheet for this item is deemed as being incorporated by reference herein as though set forth in full 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. Pursuant to the Official Rules of Procedure of the City of Miami in V(c) Voting/Quorum, it is provided that in case of a tie vote on any question at a public hearing, such vote shall be construed as a denial. 3. The Board had a to vote on the question of approving the appeal, which pursuant to the Board's Rules of Procedure, results in a denial of the appeal. 4. The appeals of a decision of the NET Office, which approved a tree removal/relocation permit in conjunction with the construction of a multi -family project are hereby denied and the decision of the NET Office is affirmed. 5. This resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and Staff shall mail a copy to the appellant and appellee of record. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2003. 03— U4 r : ;�. ;,