The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutM-02-1247ITEM PZ 12 HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD FACT SHEET NAME Ransom Everglades School ADDRESS 2015 South Bayshore Drive PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application for a Certificate of Approval for the installation of a playing field, involving tree removal and relocation, located within Environmental Preservation District #434 and along the South Bayshore Drive Scenic Transportation Corridor. ANALYSIS This item was continued from the meeting of June 20, 2000, so that the applicant could redesign the landscape buffer along the northeast property line. The applicant has submitted revised plans that are included in your packet. Please refer to the photographs provided in your packet last month. The subject property is adjacent to Ransom Everglades Middle School and was recently acquired by the school for a ball field. The property is located within a larger Environmental Preservation District and fronts on the South Bayshore Dive Scenic Transportation Corridor. The property contains a mixture of native, exotic and undesirable trees, in addition to an exposed section of the limestone bluff that runs along South Bayshore Drive. A portion of the bluff was destroyed years ago for a driveway. Of the 38 trees on site, the applicant is proposing to preserve seven trees, relocate two specimen oak trees and remove 29 trees, seven of which are either dead or in very poor condition. Of the remaining 22 trees proposed for removal, two are huge banyan trees, while the others are primarily fruit, umbrella and palm trees. With the exception of the two banyans, none of the trees proposed for removal are trees that either staff or the Board has ever considered being significant. According to Chapter 17 of the Miami City Code, the City cannot unreasonably restrict the permitted use of the property. Since the proposed use is permitted, the Board must determine whether it is reasonable to require preservation of trees considered to be significant. Because of their location within the proposed field, but because of their significance, the applicant is proposing to relocate the two specimen oak trees, an effort that will be difficult because they are growing on limestone. The two banyan trees also fall in the middle of the proposed field, but it is not reasonable that they either be preserved or relocated. Item #3 July 18, 2000 02-124'7 The applicant has calculated the square footage of the canopy to be removed and has proposed a mitigation plan to replace the lost trees. Despite a miscalculation on three of the trees, the proposed mitigation does provide the required square footage of new canopy. Staff believes that the proposed tree removal is much less of a concern than any potential impact of the project on the bluff. The applicant is proposing to fill the subject property and has addressed staffs concerns about the transition between the filled area and the top of the bluff. A section of the proposed treatment is provided on sheet MP -1. The applicant must also address the question of how the trees near the edge of the bluff will be removed and how the proposed new trees will be planted. In order to address the concerns raised by the Board at its last meeting, the applicant has revised the mitigation plan. Where the previous proposal called for the majority of the proposed new trees to be planted along the top of the bluff within the Ransom campus, the new plans calls for the new trees to be planted as a buffer along the northeast property line. RECOMMENDATION The Preservation Officer recommends that the application for a Certificate of Approval be approved, subject to the following conditions, because the tree removal complies with the criteria for tree removal as set forth in Chapter 17 of the Miami City Code and is consistent with the character of the Scenic Transportation Corridor, as stated above. 1. The applicant and his contractor shall provide for staffs approval the proposed means of removing trees near the edge of the bluff, as well as the method of planting new trees. The applicant shall demonstrate how the proposed methods shall ensure that the bluff is not damaged. 2. Archeological monitoring of all ground disturbing activity shall be undertaken, per the requirements of the Miami -Dade County Archeologist. 3. The hedge proposed for the top of the bluff shall be planted in a meandering line that somewhat follows the outline of the bluff. Item #3 July 18, 2000 o2-1247 W. TUCKER GIBBs ATTORNEY AT LAW GRAND BAY PLAZA SUITE 603 2665 SOUTH SAYSHORE DRIVE COCONTJT Oltovz. Fr oRMA 33133 TELEPHONE (305) 856-2711 FACSIMILE (305) SU -6093 July 27, 2000 Carlos Gimenez, City Manager City of Miami 444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, Tenth Floor Miami, Florida 33130-1910 VIA HAND DELIVERY Re: Appeal of Certificate of Approval to City Commission Dear Mr. Gimenez: I represent the Banyan Bluffs Homeowners Association including Benedict Kuehne, Lynn Kislak, Irwin Gars, Diane Gars, who own property at 2001 and 2003 South Bayshore Drive, as well as Brenton and Anthea VerPloeg. Their property adjoins the site purchased by Ransom -Everglades School and which is the subject to the referenced Certificate of Approval. The Historic and Environmental Preservation Board approved the Certificate of Approval at its July 18, 2000 meeting. Let this letter serve as the notice of appeal pursuant to Section 17-40(b) of the Municipal Code of the City of Miami of the decision on July 18,.2000 of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board (HEP Board) granting to Ransom -Everglades School a Certificate of Approval for the installation of a playing field, involving tree removal and relocation, located within Environmental Preservation District #43-4 and along the South Bayshore Drive Scenic Transportation Corridor at 2015 South Bayshore Drive. The grounds for this appeal are as follows. The HEP Board approved the referenced application erroneously because: 1.A Certificate of Approval under Chapter 17 may not be issued for "the installation of a playing field." 02-1ti47 July 27, 2000 Carlos Gimenez Page 2 2. Athletic fields ancillary to a GI use in a GI zoning district may not be placed in an adjoining R-1 zoning district by action of the HEP Board. 3. The stated basis at the HEP Board meeting for permitting athletic fields on the property subject to the Certificate of Approval was a determination by the Acting Zoning Administrator that athletic fields in an R-1 zoning district are permitted. That determination by the Acting Zoning Administrator, according to city staff testimony at the HEP Board hearing on July 18, 2000 was "appealable" by the adjoining neighbors. Adjoining neighbors, my clients, were given no notice of the determination and therefore were given no opportunity to be heard regarding the determination or to appeal the determination. Absent this determination there would be no need for the Certificate of Approval. The legally flawed determination by the Zoning Administrator nullifies any HEP Board approval of the Certificate of Approval. 4. Even if athletic fields are permitted in this R-1 zoning district, the tree removal permitted under the Certificate of Approval is unnecessary. Chapter 17 sets forth criteria for the removal of trees. Tree removal as requested under the application does not meet those requirements. 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." The existence of trees that may restrict the use of one practice field out of six overlapping regulation size and practice fields on this site, does not unreasonably restrict the reasonable use of the R-1 zoned property. 5. Removing a mature tree canopy covering a great portion of the property and replacing it with a 15 foot wide planted buffer (that will take years to approach the coverage that exists today) between a middle school and single-family homes is grossly inadequate and is contrary to the charge given to the HEP Board by the City Commission in Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code. 6. The decision of the HEP Board will have a dramatic negative effect on the property values in the abutting single-family residential neighborhood. 0d-1247 July 27, 2000 Carlos Gimene�_ Page 3 7. The 15 foot planted buffer approved by the HEP Board is an unreasonably narrow buffer between this middle school and the abutting single-family neighbors along the property that is subject of the school's application given the fact that all other abutting single-family residential neighbors (along South Bayshore Drive, Emathla Street and Tigertail Avenue) are buffered from this incompatible use by approximately 80 feet of landscaping, roadway and swale. For those reasons as well as all other issues presented to the HEP Board, appellants Ben Kuehne, Lynn Kislak, Irwin and Diane Gars, Brenton and -Anthea VerPloeg, and the Banyan Bluff Homeowners Association, through their undersigned attorney, hereby appeal the decision of the HEP Board to grant a . Certificate of Approval to Ransom -Everglades School for the installation of a playing field, involving tree removal and relocation, located within Environmental Preservation District #43-4 and along the South Bayshore Drive Scenic Transportation Corridor at 2015 South Bayshore Drive. Furthermore, appellants Ben Kuehne, Lynn Kislak, Irwin and Diane Gars, Brenton and Anthea VerPloeg, and the Banyan Bluff Homeowners Association 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: Benedict Kuehne Irwin Gars Walter Foeman, City Clerk Sarah Eaton, Preservation Officer Alex Vilarello, City Attorney Francisco Garcia, NE Coconut Grove NET Administrator Vicky Garcia -Toledo 02-1247 RESOLUTION HEPB-2000-48 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, FOR THE REMOVAL AND RELOCATION OF TREES FOR THE INSTALLATION OF PLAYING (BALL) FIELDS AT RANSOM EVERGLADES SCHOOL, 2015 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, LOCATED WITHIN ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT #43-4 AND ALONG THE SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE SCENIC TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR, AFTER FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL COMPLIES WITH CRITERIA 1 FOR TREE REMOVAL AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 17-34(A)(1) OF THE MIAMI CITY CODE, AND THAT THE APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE SCENIC TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR. THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM 8' WIDE PLANTING AREA ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY (APPLICANT'S), SIDE OF THE PROPOSED WALL ADJACENT TO THE NORTHEASTERLY PROPERTY LINE. SAID PLANTING AREA SHALL CONSIST OF TWO DIFFERENT HEIGHT LEVELS OF PLANT MATERIAL, WHICH SHALL BE COMPRISED OF FLORIDA GAMA GRASS AND FIREBUSH. SAID PLANTING AREA SHALL BE DESIGNED BY THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND APPROVED BY STAFF; 2. THE APPLICANT AND HIS CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FOR STAFF'S APPROVAL THE PROPOSED MEANS OF REMOVING TREES NEAR THE EDGE OF THE BLUFF, AS WELL AS THE METHOD OF PLANTING NEW TREES. THE APPLICANT SHALL DEMONSTRATE HOW THE PROPOSED METHODS SHALL ENSURE THAT THE BLUFF IS NOT DAMAGED; 3. ARCHEOLOGICAL MONITORING OF ALL GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITY SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN, PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ARCHEOLOGIST; 4. THE HEDGE PROPOSED FOR THE TOP OF THE BLUFF SHALL BE PLANTED IN A MEANDERING LINE THAT SOMEWHAT FOLLOWS THE OUTLINE OF THE BLUFF. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2000. RESERVATION OFFICER l �s L< tor ►• 02-1247 CERTIFICA' c ��)I �� ,; 0"t) OF APPROVAL ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION WSTRICT ADDRESS OF onOPERTY 2015 South BayshoreDrive Coconut Grove FL 33133 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 7 Block A,"South Bayshore Drive" according to the P1at,there-li of Plat Book 2 -at page 36 of the public records of Dade County Pierian - EPD NO. ZONING CLASSIFICATION OWNER'S NAME Ranson Everglades School Inc. OWNER'S ADDRESS 35.75 Main AighEM-AtCoconut Grove Fl.er.; da 111 > A OWNER'S.TELEPHONE 005 ) 460 - A800 APPLICANT'S NAME (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) APPLICANT'S ADDRESS APPLICANT'S TELEPHONE APPLICANT'S RELATIONSHIP TO OWNER DESCRIBE THE 'PROPOSED PROJECT Remove existing house and trees{as per plan attached)and level for playing field. GIVE REASONS FOR REMOVAL OF TREES OR ALTERATION OF ANY OTHER NATURAL FEATURES OF THE SITE Frees are in.the area of the proposed playing field. 02"124 EXPLAIN ANY OTHER SPECIAL APPROVALS REQUIRED TO UNDERTAKE THIS o".QJECT. SUCH AS SPECIAL PERHITS. SPECIAL EXCEPTION. VARIANC' -)NING CHANGE. ETC. LIST ALL EXISTING TREES PROPOSED TO BE DESTROYED. INCLUDING NUMBER, NAME. TRUNK DIAMETER. APPROX- IMATE HEIGHT -AND SPREAD. IF. THE TREE \IS PROPOSED TO BE DESTROYED FOR A REASON OTHER THAN INTER- FERENCE WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION. PLEASE NOTE. Consult attached plans LIST ALL EXISTING TREES PROPOSED TO BE RELOCATED.. -INCLUDING NUMBER. NAME, TRUCK DIAMETER. APPROX- IMATE HEIGHT AND ...SPREAD. Consult attached plans LIST ALL NEW TREES PROPOSED TO BE PLANTED ON THE SITE. INCLUDING NUMBER. NAME. TRUCK DIAMETER, APPROXIMATE HEIGHT AND SPREAD. LIST OTHER SIGNIFICANT. PROPOSED LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS. Consult attached plans I CERTIFY TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWCED'G LIEF THAT ALL INFO$ ATTACHMENTS ARE TRUE AND CORRECTt / '1-7 —elades School SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER -- g SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) FOR STAFF USE ONLY: IN THIS'APPLTCAT3ON_•AND ITS DATE DATE COMPLETED APPLICATION RECEIVED SITE INSPECTION ❑ STANDARD CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL HEARING DATE ❑ SPECIAL CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL SINAL ACTION 02-124'7