The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR-96-0600J-96-233(b) 3/13/96 RESOLUTION NO.`3 6 _ 6 0 0 A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE APPEAL OF STEVEN POLAKOFF AND MICHAEL CARVER AND REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD, WHICH DENIED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 4' FENCE AND 5' HEDGE RUNNING SOUTH AND EAST FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE HOUSE, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 759 NORTHEAST 57TH STREET, WITHIN THE MORNINGSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT, MIAMI, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board (HEPB) at its meeting of November 21, 1995, following an advertised public hearing, adopted Resolution No. HEPB 95-57, which denied a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a 41 fence and 5' hedge running south and east from the southeast corner of the house, for the property located at 759 Northeast 57th Street, within the Morningside Historic District, Miami, Florida, after finding that the proposed fence and hedge do not comply with the guidelines for walls and fences I for the Morningside Historic District as established by the i Historic and Environmental Preservation Board; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 23 .1-5 (b) (4) (3) of the Code of I the City of Miami, Florida, as amended, an appeal to the City Commission has been taken by Steven Polakoff and Michael Carver, owners of the property located at 759 Northeast 57th Street, Miami, Florida, on the grounds stated in their Notice of Appeal, filed December 6, 1995; and CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF J U L 2 5 1996 Resolution No. 96- 600 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 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 findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution are hereby adopted by reference thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this Section. Section 2. The City Commission hereby reverses the decision of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board i (Resolution No. HEPB 95-57, adopted November 21, 1995), which denied a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a 41 fence and 5' hedge running south and east from the southeast corner of the house, for the property located at 759 Northeast 57th Street, within the Morningside Historic District, Miami, j Florida, and grants the appeal giving rise to this hearing. Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of Jt,ly 1996. J�AROILLO, IIL;.YOR ATTEST: WALTER J. F CITY CLER - 2 - Ha PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: BITTNER NT CITY ATTORNEY D AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: A. Q"�' Y CITY - TTF W682.: ir".bss' - 3 - 96- 6( CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA PZ=7 INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM Honorable Mayor and Members JUL 17 1996 TO : DATE : FILE of the City Commission Appeal of Decision of the SUBJECT : Historic and Environmental Preservation Board: 759 N. E. 57th Street FROM : Ces REFERENCES: City er Agenda Item: ENCLOSURES: City Commission Agenda , 1 > > RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission grant the appeal of Steven Polakoff and Michael Carver and reverse the decision of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board, which denied a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a 4' fence and 5' hedge running south and east from the southeast corner of the house, located within the Morningside Historic District, per the attached resolution. BACKGROUND: Please refer to the attached memorandum from the Preservation Officer concerning this appeal. Attachment 96- 600 CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM ro : Jack Luft oarE : July 12. 1996 FILE Director, Department of Community Planning and Revitalization SUBJECT : Appeal of Decision of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board: FROM : �f�L �✓ REFERENCES: 759 N. E. 57th Street Sarah E. Eaton Preservation Officer ENCLosuREs : Agenda Item: City Commission b o RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission grant the appeal of Steven Polakoff and Michael Carver and reverse the decision of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board, which denied a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a 4' fence and 5' hedge running south and east from the southeast corner of the house, located with the Morningside Historic District, per the attached resolution. �•�fs-i�1i1�17 On April 4, 1994, the owners of the subject property at 759 N. E. 57" Street applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of both a wall set back from the southeast property line on N. E. 57' Street and a wrought iron fence at the end of N. E. 57" Street. At a public hearing on April 19, 1994, the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board (Board) authorized a Certificate of Appropriateness, subject to setting the wall back a much greater distance from N. E. 57`' Street. Both the owners and neighbors appealed the Board's decision to the City Commission. On July 14, 1994, the City Commission heard both appeals and denied the appeal of the property owner and upheld the appeal of the neighbors. At the public hearing, the City Commission also acknowledged that the property owners could submit a new application to the Board. Following the Commission's action, the owners appealed the Commission's decision to the Circuit Court. On August 25, 1995, the Circuit Court upheld the decision of the City Commission, whereupon the owners appealed that decision to the Third District Court of Appeals. The Third District Court of Appeals struck down the Circuit Court's decision on May 8, 1996, and remanded the item back to the Board for a new hearing. kml 96- 600 While the appeal to the Third District Court of Appeals was still pending, the property owners applied for a new Certificate of Appropriateness on November 6, 1995 for the construction of a wall and hedge set back from the southeast property line on N. E. 57" Street. This application included no fence, wall, or hedge across the end of N. E. 5701 Street. At a public hearing on November 21, 1995, the Board denied the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. The property owners are now appealing this decision to the City Commission. This application represents a good compromise between the applicant's earlier proposal and the desire of the neighbors to preserve the view corridor to Biscayne Bay. One of the neighbors' primary objections to the original application was that the wrought iron fence at the end of N. E. 57' Street blocked the view of the bay. The present application leaves this area completely open, yet provides an adequate fenced area in what is, for all practical purposes, the property owner's back yard. The Historic and Environmental Preservation Board denied the owners' application because it does not comply with the Board's guidelines for walls and fences in Morningside. This action was taken despite the fact that these same guidelines clearly allow exceptions if the proposal is historically appropriate to a particular house or if unique circumstances can be demonstrated. This application meets the criteria for unique circumstances and is similar to the application for a wall at 589 N. E. 57" Street, for which the Board had previously granted an exception to its guidelines. The unique circumstances are as follows. Strict compliance with the Board's guidelines would adversely affect the architectural and aesthetic character of the house and its relationship to the bay. One of the primary facades of the house is the bayfront (east) elevation. This elevation is characterized by a strong symmetrical composition, which would be enhanced by the proposed location of the fence and hedge. The proposed hedge is sited so as to be the same distance from the house as the hedges and landscaping along the north property line, thus framing the house from Biscayne Bay. There are many similarities between the subject application and one for the property at 589 N. E. 57`h Street. These properties represent two of the most significant houses in the Morningside Historic District, both historically and architecturally. While the subject house was the residence of the developer of the neighborhood, the 57" Street house was the home of Laura Cushman, an important educator. Both have a high degree of architectural value, and both are located on corner lots, with an additional vacant lot next door. In 1992, the Board made an exception to its guidelines and approved an application for a wall on the lot next to the Cushman House. This wall, which was proposed to be located between the house and sidewalk, was approved in order to preserve historic fish ponds. Although the Board could have required that the wall be set back behind the ponds, the Board felt that this would deprive the owner of the use and enjoyment of too much of his property. `i- This same reasoning would justify an exception to the guidelines for the subject application. Placing the fence in the location proposed by the applicant would preserve the historic symmetry of the bayfront elevation, yet would not unreasonably restrict the owner's use of the property. In fact, the proposed location of the fence and hedge in the subject application would have even less of an impact on historic features and views than the wall at the Cushman House. By making an exception for the Cushman House, the Board preserved the ponds, but allowed them to be concealed from the public view, in effect, depriving the neighborhood of the enjoyment of these features of historic significance. In the subject application, the proposed location of the fence and hedge leaves open to public view all features and views of historic significance. Both the house itself and the vista from N. E. 57`'' Street toward Biscayne Bay would remain unobstructed. 96- 60 G�EENBfBG °IBflVBIG Lucia A. Dougherty (305) 579-M I. A a' 9"D NOV 36 Pr 3: 10 ILrt1;) IJ t.:1,.,- i r .._. December 6, 1995 HAND DELIVERY Ms. Teresita Fernandez Clerk, Hearing Boards City of Miami 275 N.W. 2nd Street Miami, Florida 33128 Re: Appeal of Denial of Certificate of Appropriateness for 759 N.E. 57th Street Dear Teresita: On behalf of my clients Michael Carver and Steven Polakoff the Owners of the property located at 759 N.E. 57th Street, Miami, Florida (the "Subject Property"), this letter constitutes our letter of appeal of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board's (the "HEP Board") denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the Subject Property. The Owners requested a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a four (4) foot fence and five (5) foot hedge running south and east from the southeast comer of the house. The Owners are appealing the HEP Board's decision for the following reasons: 1. The HEP Board's decision was not based on substantial competent evidence. 2. The HEP Board improperly voted in favor of the largest numbers of persons attending the hearing, instead of on the facts and the overwhelming substantial competent evidence. 3. The HEP Board improperly relied on the Assistant City Attorney's opinion that administrative res judicata applied to the application which was filed. 4. The HEP Board's decision of denial was not based upon the guidelines set forth in section 23.1-5(c) of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida. 5. The HEP Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious. 6. The HEP Board's denial results in an unreasonable and undue economic hardship. GREENBERG TRAURIG HOFFMAN LworF RosF.N 3 QUENTEI.. P. A. I221 RI?ICKE1.1. AVENUE N11AW. FLORIDA 33 13 1 305.579-0500 FAX 305-579.0717 N11AAf1 Fo RT LAUDERDALE WEST PAL11 BEACH T:\I.I.AIIAS,;F.F M,w YURK WASHING711N. D.C. 96— 6 i Ms. Teresita Fernandez December 6, 1995 Page 2 For all of the reasons stated above, the HEP Board's decision should be overturned. Please schedule this appeal before the City Commission. We are requesting to be placed on the February 1996 City Commission agenda, in order for my client to put together the necessary materials for the Commission meeting. Thank you very much for your attention and please call if you have any questions. cc: Mr. Steven Polakoff GI%%PAF WA\M2U6.1\l2/OS/95 Very trul yours, Lucia ougherty GitFf..NttP.it(: Tit:%uittc RESOLUTION HEPB-95-57 A RESOLUTION DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 4' FENCE AND 5' HEDGE RUNNING SOUTH AND EAST FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE HOUSE, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 759 N.E. 57TH STREET, WITHIN THE MORNINGSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT, AFTER FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED FENCE AND HEDGE DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE GUIDELINES FOR WALLS AND FENCES FOR THE MORNINGSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT AS ESTABLISHED BY THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1995. /xoL'XZ ('�' Gi�- RESERVATION OFFICER CHAIRMAN / ��- 600 APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS ALTERATIONS, NEW CONSTRUCTION NAME OF HISTORIC TE/HISTORIC DISTP.I. T ADDRESS OF PROPERTY �l T OWNER S NAME HERITAGECONSERVAT OWNER'S ADDRESS— '1 OWNER S TELEPHONE APPLICANT'S NAME (IF NOT OWNER RELATIONSHIP TO OWNER - MATERIALS SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION MINOR ALTERATIONS MAJOR ALTERATIONS SIGNS ® EXHIBIT NO. I ❑ EXHIBIT NO. I ❑ EXI-161T, NO. I ❑ EXHIBIT NO. 2 ❑ EXHIBIT 110. 2 ❑ EXHIBIT NO. 2 Cl EXHIBIT NO. 3 ❑ EXHIBIT NO. 3 ❑ EXHIBIT NO. 3 ❑ EXHIBIT NO. a ❑ EXHIBIT NO. a ❑ EXHIBIT NO, a ❑ EXHIBIT NO. 5 ❑ EXHIBIT N0. 5 ❑ EXHIBIT NO. 5 ❑ EXHIBIT NO. 7 ❑ EXHIBIT N0. s DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF REHABILITATION Y!ORK PROVIDE AN OVERALL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT. DESCRIBE THE NATURE AND SPECIFIC LOCATION OF AL PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS OR CHANGES TO THE PROPERTY. USE ADDITIONAL PAGE IF NECESSARY. 1 � 6- � 96- 6 REASONS FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS OR CHANGES A-'-y-A ?-- . I (r� s- -r'�—' k4a'r I u f 5-L/� p P'- - JA-� Q 60.) P sk, PROFESSIONAL ADVISERS LIST THE NAME AND FIRM OF SUCH PROFESSIONAL ADVISERS AS ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, LANDSCAPE ARCIiITE CONTRACTOR, AND PRESERVATION CONSULTANT. NAME/FIRM r1 ADDRESS / TELEP}�QbLE J 2- 0&0-3 V CA�� J �T -�-%- r l �l L NAME/FIRM b/3 ESS �9:1 TELEPHONE NAME/FIRM ADDRESS TELEPHONE NAME/FIRH ADDRESS TELEPHONE NAME/FIRM ADDRESS TELEPHONE EXPECTED SCHEDULE Ul-T L w- i S I CERTIFY TO THE BEST OF KNOV!L GE NO BELIEF TI'AT I.':FORHATICN IN THIa APPLICATION AND I ATTAC"ENTS IS TRUE ANO COR ECT.--W, 1 Il SIG RE OF PROPERTY OWNER DATE i SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) DATE FOR STAFF USE ONLY, APPLICATION NO. DATE RECEIVED ❑ STANDARD CA STAFF REVIEW FINAL ACTION HEARING DATE FINAL ACTION b 0 SPECIAL CA B 8 1' A 1. 1: 1 /3s ' . 1 0 ' Vrm 41 HIGH AMIHINUN rlcK£r r•£NC£ !Il .IA'NITN kjN11rACTlIRINC 110D£L 1101 Ir.e. If YICA'KLC O 3-U-06' 11 C. 1'1I" .q'NINCL'RS AND Y'XV POSTS kA-