Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-94-0359Subxwfi(-;Ginto the gu.Olic record in item 12: —_4 Ml-,ttv Hirai 'Da- 359 Subm-itted into the public record in connec Lion with item 7- on 5- 1) 3)q Hirai Cit.y Ulerk @ �' a Y .� n. �i . + � � _` s .g � r ,�. Et vat �'Y � \ w r� � ... ty « � y,� t � � k�,a -vim � i . � ' �' ,..+ .`h i i. .. � - �. _ . _ � �_ APPELLANT: PROJECT ADDRESS: PZ=4 APPEAL OF THE Historic and Environmental Preservation Board DENIAL OF AN APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT Dr. Neil A. Fisher 2129 Tigertail Avenue Miami, FL 33133 2129 Tigertail Avenue PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Appeal of a decision of the Coconut Grove NET Office concerning the denial of an application for the removal of an oak tree. ANALYSIS: On March 22, 1994, the Zoning Inspector for the Coconut Grove NET Office denied an application for a permit to remove an oak tree. The owner then appealed this denial to the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board. Although the subject tree is growing through the house, the house was designed in this manner to preserve the tree and incorporate it into the design. This oak is a specimen tree and greatly contributes to the character of Coconut Grove. The Board typically requires the preservation of specimen oak trees unless retaining the tree would unreasonably restrict the permitted use of the property. On many occasions, the Board has approved applications for new construction where oak trees are only a few feet from the foundation of the house. Preserving this tree would not unreasonably restrict the use of this property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial of Appeal The Planning, Building and Zoning Department recommends that the appeal be denied and the decision of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board be affirmed. HEPB: Denial of Appeal, Resolution HEPB 94-14, 4 - 1 Vote. DATE: April 19, 1994. 94-- 359 DR. NEIL A. FISHER. M.D. 2129 TIGERTAIL AVENUE COCONUT GR0VE. FLORIDA 33133 (305)869-8756 APRIL 28, 1994 Mrs. Teresite Fernandez Chief of Hearing Board Division City of Miami Miami. Florida 33128 I wish to appeal a recent decision made by the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board on 19 April 1994. 1 am the owner of 2129 Tigertai I Avenue in Coconut Grove. I have a very large tree growing tdjkt my house that is causing structural damage to the foundation of the house. I believe the Historic Preservation Board was non —responsive in listening to the damage this tree is creating. They were only concerned with the welfare of the tree. I purchased this property , to use as my residence, on 1 March 1994. Prior to purchasing the house I had American Property Inspectors look at the structure. The inspectors gave an unsatisfactory rating on the structural report. The negative rating was secondary to cracks that had formed in the foundation at the rear of the houses These cracks are at the base of a steel column that supports the roof. Verbally Mr. Aviles, the inspector, told me that if I was to buy the property to quickly direct my attention to these cracks caused by the tree's roots lifting the foundation. Soon after purchasing the property, ! fi led an application for a permit to remove this very large tree growing within my house and damaging it's foundation. With the unp Ieasant delays associated with applications/ denials/ hearings it was 21 /2 months later when I had Mr. Aviles of American Property Inspectors return for a repeat structural inspection The enclosed letter details the threat posed by this tree. He clearly documents the progression of the damage in a short 2 1 /2 months. Furthermore, he cites in reference to the tree " the potential for severe structural damage to this property is very high." This tree cannot be al lowed to ruin my house, Barbara Smith, the previous owner and the former wife of the architect who designed and built 2129 Tigertai 1, agrees strongly that this tree should be removed. She states in her enclosed letter that "the tree has outgrown its space as a landscaping and Interesting asset to the house — at this point it can only be considered a liability." This former owner is closely associated with the house since it was bui It for her parents and she I ived many years with in the house. She has witnessed the damage this tree has caused. She importantly states in her letter that the roof opening for this tree has been enlarged to its maximum size without affecting the support structure of the roof. This fact comes from her former husband the architect who oversaw the previous enlargement of the opening. She furthermore writes of her experience of being within the house during Hurricane Andrew. She does not wish anyone also to be in danger of such a large tree within a house. She writes " those of us who have witnessed the power of Hurricane Andrew realize the powerful force this mighty oak might exert on both structure and people in its path." My immediate neighbors Mr. Peter Otto, 2176 Tigertai I Avenue and Mr. Jon Ewing, 2121 Tigertail Avenue have both seen the tree and have written letters in support of the removal. Mr Ewing states " the oak has just become too massive for the area where it is located. It's time for it to go!" Mr. Otto writes " it has been obvious to us that the tree had grown beyond it's bounds 3 and that it was a threat to both the foundation of the house and to the roof and to the house as a whole". Mr. Wi I I ion Greenwald who I Ives directly across the street came to the appeal hearing A _ 359 my behalf. He stated, paraphrasing,"Dr. Fisher did not buy a treehouse — he bought a house with page Z a tree within it. If It is upsetting the house it needs to go." No one from my area of the Grove showed up at the hearing against my position. I have searched for other options. This house, although not historic, is as -my architect states " a wonderful example of modernism in America in the 1960's. I felt the board was particual ly non- responsive to this issue since it is not a "registered" structure. Trying in any way to -, ; : accommodate the tree would entail destroying the rear of the house. This would not only liiurt the house architectually, it would greatly reduce my living space. After spending time, energy, and money, my conclusion is clear; the removal of the tree is the only realistic and aesthetic option that allows me to use the house as designed and save the structure. In addition, I clearly stated to the board that I am more than willing to plant additional trees on my property or within Coconut Grove to help replace this tree. I believe that trees are an important characteristic of the Grove. We need, however, to focus with room at each situation and not just rubber stamp denials to all tree removal applications. I felt the board did not focus on the damage this tree has caused and the continued threat it poses. I feel that the board denied the removal without consideration of the consequences. i again clearly state that I am willing to plant other trees on my property or within Coconut Grove to help keep the Grove green. In summary, I implore you to use reason and focus on the damage this large tree has caused and wi I I cause to my house. Asa homeowner I need to protect my house from it's threat and that means removal of the tree. I will continue to pursue this If necessary through the court system to protect my house. I will hold the city of Miami liable for any additional damage to my house if my permit is denied I do hope that we can be in agreement that this tree has become too massive to be within a house, that it is a liability, and that it is time for it to go. Neil A. Fisher 04- 359 OR. NEIL A. FISHER. M.D. 2129 TIGERTAIL AVENUE COCONUT GROVE. FLORIDA 33133 (305)859-8756 APRIL 28, 1994 Mrs. Teresita Fernandez Chief of Hearing Board Division City of Miami Miami. Florida 33128 ENCLOSURES PHOTOS 1, View of house from front. 2. View of house from rear clearly showing large tree within house. 3. View of house from rear. 4. Closer view of large tree from the rear of the property. 6. On roof looking at tree and massive arms over structure. 6. Inside -view of tree, paving bricks lifted. 7. Cranks at foundation at base of steel column supporting roof. Level with bubble off center revealing rear foundation Iifted by tree. 8. Brick pavers lifted making area non-functional. 9. Roof opening looking down. Roof opening has been enlarged to maximum size without affecting the structural support of the roof according to architect who built house. 10. Roof opening looking up. Reveals small amount of space allowed for growth. LETTERS 1. American Property Inspectors, letter reveals from independent source damage created by tree, plus a prognosis is included. 2. Christian Schwantes Architect, letter details interesting architecture of house making modifications difficult. 3. "The Tree House" an article from the M iami Hearld in 1967 that discusses the home's interesting architecture. includes photos of tree and roof opening when house was originally built. 4. Barbara Smith, letter from former owner mentioned in newspaper article as" Barbara Vol lake". She considers the tree a liability." Tree has outgrown it's space" S. Peter Otto, neighbor, discusses hurricane threat. "Tree has grown beyond its bounds." 6. Jon Ewing, neighbor, "I have seen the destruction it is causing" , " too massive for the area where it is located". BUILDING PLANS 1. Shows tree at rear of house. 2. Area of damage to paving bricks detailed. ^l 'i 1159 5 ►1lJf'ERICAN PROPERTY INSPECTORS sure before you sign. April 19, 1994 RE: 2129 TIGERTAIL AVENUE, COCONUT GROVE FINDINGS: The above -captioned property was inspected by this firm on February 2, 1994, for Mr. Neil Fisher, who was interested in purchasing it. At the time of the inspection Mr. Fisher was advised of a negative structural condition being caused by the tree roots of a large oak tree that was planted in the rear patio covered area. This condition consisted of the raising of the brick pavers on the patio floor. We expressed our concern that the tree roots could cause damage to the foundation and footings located nearby. We also expressed our concern regarding the premature wear of the roof cover, caused by the leaves and sap. A return visit on April 19, 1994, has revealed that the brick pavers are now substantially more elevated; the foundation footing shows at least 4 structural cracks and the tree trunk is almost covering the entire opening. It is our opinion that this tree is causing more damage than good and that the potential for severe structural damage to the property is very high. AMERICAN PROPERTY INSPECTORS PETER AVILES, CHIEF INSPECTOR 94- 359 N Certified and Approved by U.S. H.U.D. and the R.T.C. • Member of the National Association of Home Inspectors ion.. nIIAP ==�I,r-r1IIt7Tr'ICr'I C AAIAAAI QI nPInA7-An IF.dd1R -r=1 POI-d('1NIP -fRnS"R7A_Q=kA'A GGX, r'A0ci1 c;c;A.?fiF;S BARBARA SMITH 3015 LUCAYA STREET COCONUT GROVE. FL 33133 APRIL 19.1994 I, Barbara Smith, am the former owner and the former wife of the architect who designed and built the residence at 2129 Tigertail. I need to clearly state that I am in agreement with the removal of the large oak tree in question. The tree was a landscaping asset as is evident in the attached photo and article taken from the Miami Herald In 1967. You might say the reason for the article is the architecture that represents 1960's modernism. In the article's photo please note the size and shape of the roof's opening as compared to the enlarged opening seen on present photographs. The current roof opening, according to the architect of the house, canna be enlarged secondary to structural considerations. What I am trying to say is that the tree has outgrown it's space as a landscaping and interesting asset to the house. At this point it can only be considered a liability. It isa liability secordery to structural and hurricane considerations. Those of us who have witnessed the power of Hurricane Andrew realize the powerful force this mighty oak might exert on both the structure and people in It's path. have discussed with Dr. Fisher his plans for renovation. I understand he plans to respect the current structural integrity while updating the interior. I believe it is important to respect the architecture to help maintain the arch itectual melange that is Coconut Grove. I understand he is more than willing to plant other trees on his property or in Coconut Grove to most the needs of the Historic Preservation Board. Respectfully, Barbara Smith 314— 359 9 Jon W. Ewing 2121 Tigertail Ave. Miami, FL 33133 City Of Miami City Hail on PanAm Circle Miami, FI 33133 To Whom it May Concern: a'a/t/Yff I am Neil's direct next door neighbor, owning the property just to the Northeast of his. I have seen this Oak tree and certainly admire its beauty and longevity. I have also seen the destruction it is causing to the foundation and flooring of his living area. The Oak has just become too massive for the area where it is located. It is time for it to gol Removing the tree robs no one of its pleasure and allows the owner to complete his plans to best utilize the existing structure and preserve the existing architecture. The removal of this tree will have no bearing on myself or my property, and its removal is quite OK with me. I feel that this tree is the private property of the owner of the land, Neil. I am convinced that he has considered all altematives to alloow the tree to remain. It should be his decision, and his alone as to whether the tree should remain or be removed. Please rule in Neil's favor to allow the removal of the Oak tree so he can proceed with the work to improve his home at his earliest convience. Respectfully, n W. Ewing �1 -"- 359 PETER T. OTTO 2175 TIGERTRIL RUE. COCONUT GROUE, FLORIOR 33133 RPRIL 17, 1994 BORRO OF RPPERL THIS LETTER CONCERNS DOCTOR NEIL FISHER'S APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF A PERM I T TO REMOVE AN OAK TREE FROM THE M I DOLE OF H I S HOME. I RESIDE AT 2175 TIGERTAIL AVE, AND AM DOCTOR FISHER'S NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR. THE TREE IN QUESTION HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF MANY DISCUSSIONS OVER THE YEARS, WITH BARBARA SMITH,THE FORMER OWNER OF THE HOUSE. FOR YEARS IT HAS BEEN OBVIOUS TO US THAT THE TREE HAD GROWN BEYOND IT'S BOUNDS AND THAT IT WAS A THREAT TO BOTH THE FOUNDATION OF THE HOUSE AND TO THE ROOF AND HOUSE AS A WHOLE. THIS BECAME VERY CLEAR IN THE HOURS PRECEDING THE FULL FORCE OF HURRICANE ANDREW. THE DRAMATIC SWING OF THE TREE'S BRANCHES WHICH ARE V I S I BLE FROM MY BEDROOM GOT ME OUT OF MY BED AND FORCED ME I NTO A SAFE ROOM. I WAS IN FEAR OF MY LIFE AND I FEARED FOR MY NEIGHBOOR, BARBARA. IF ONE OF THE GIGANTIC BRANCHES OF THIS TREE WERE TO COME DOWN, IT WOULD SURELY HAVE CRUSHED THE HOUSE. IF IT BLEW IN THE DIRECTION OF THE WIND, IT WOULD HAVE CAUSED SERIOUS DAMAGE TO MY HOUSE. WE WERE FORTUNATE THAT WE DID NOT HAVE HIGHER POWERED WINDS IN OUR AREA. DOCTOR FISHER MOVED TO COCONUT GROVE BECAUSE HE LIKES GARDENS, TROP I CAL LANDSCAPING AND OUR ENVIRONMENT. HE HAS PLANS TO REMODEL HIS HOME AND EXPAND GARDEN AREAS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE PROPERTY. DOCTOR FISHER IS A GOOD NEIGHBOR WHO WANTS TO IMPROVE HIS PROPERTY AND OUR GENERAL LIVING ENVIRONMENT. THERE IS NO REASON WHY DOCTOR FISHER SHOULD BE DENIED A PERMIT TO REMOVE A TREE THAT IS GROWING THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF ONE OF H I S L I V I NG AREAS AND THAT I S A THREAT TO THE HOUSE. I FULLY SUPPORT DOCTOR FISHER'S REQUEST FOR A PERMIT TO REMOVE THE OAK TREE IN QUESTION. SINCERELY, _ 3 15 9 Axe dui 13 CHRISTIAN SCHWANTES D I PL. I NG. I NNENARCH I TEKTUR FISCHERGASSE 5 56116 MAINZ, GERMANY 13 APRIL 1994 As the architect working on Dr. Fisher's house I need to clearly state that this house -is a statement of America's modern architecture of the 1960's. It was designed by Mr. Frank Vei lake who has worked with Alfred Browning Parker. It should be allowed to remain intact whi le al lowing for updating needed for the 1990'& The problem is that the house is smal I by today's standards. The house has no dining room and the living room is effectively only 16' x 16'. Dr. Fisher clearly outlined tome the need to enlarge the living space of the house, but to respect the important design elements of the structure. The solution that best respects the integrity of Mr. Frank Vellake's original design would be to enclose the rear screened porch making it the living room. This would only be possible with removal of the tree. My plans were done long distance from Germany. When I arrived to no the house, another point concerning the tree became more important. The tree's roots are I ifting the rear foundation and cracks have formed at the base of the main steel supports for the large overhanging root. Additionally the porch floor has been lifted by the tree's roots making much of this room non— functional. I am also concerned with the roof opening, the tree is soon to reach the I imits of the opening. From studying the plans I see no way to enlarge the opening without removing a large portion of the root thereby affecting the original design. This has made me more secure in my position as an architect that the tree needs to be removed and replaced by additional new trees and landscaping in the front garden that is now only grass. Dr. Fisher has informed me of the initial denial of his tree removal permit. I haw worked numerous hours on alternative plans trying to save the tree while enlarging the house. Secondary to the central location of this tree, my other plans have not been able to effectively enlarge the house while maintaining the original structural limits. I believe that new additions to the structure would hurt the I Ines of the house and encroach upon the existing lush landscaping associated with the house. I strongly believe that the tree needs to removed and replaced by additional trees and plantings on the property. Sincerely, wa - U411 Christian Schwantes .)A- 359 The Tree House )ou rrirei% near the Len %Ic Leans t:iik shout the Fuld home -tend hack in Fairtietd 111 .1.he,. re tt.� taken with the new. a cnntetit pOritry If weIIInk un ,, lushl% landscaped Int in ( ,co nut (�rnve. s,on-in-law Frank %eliake de, sicned it Uaughter Barbara `,el - lake is decorating it. When the \Ict.eans decided ti, mo%e to Florida, they reaiir.ed many wrrr in •tnrr Ad- Iusting to a sub -tropical climate I.earnine to (allow a more leisure. ly routine Finding new friends All the other chanties in living patterns that result when retiree Ionake a familiar environment Vellake made these rhimize, easy for his in laws I hey are content with their new lease Im Its tng. it lease that prm ide, a stannard to comfort and cun%en- ience that a couple half their age would welcome. ellake. An,) recet%ed tit, de- gree in architecture Inim the I ni\er,it\ of Miamt, is develop- ing a destim stvte that not onh is contemporary in roncept but also compatible with a soh-troptcal locale such as Our,., I -he home he did fnr the Mc - Leans is a clear statement of that Con CI?- pl Its rle,ikn I, linear. an mterestin, play ill h0r17ontal and vertical plans that are siie-ortent- ed to take advantage of the pre - %ailing southeasterly hreeze. 'l he dwelling also was planned 18 -Is . A surveyor's error has provided a novel touch to a lush new home in the Grove in that sem- little of the existin plant growth on the lot had to b removed. Vellake's structural specifics lions called for exposed concret block — the 4x8's rather tha Axb's because the scale was mor in keeping, concrete tie beams redwood trim, fenestration fixed glass, and panels of redwt)4 lou%ers The paten is pa,.ed with brit and enclosed in tibergiass ca; with redwood ribs, A ;iant of crows through the patio rnof ,urevor s mistake made it nece sat\ fit include the tree but r NIcLeans don t mind — its ie,: limbs help to provide shade. 17 RESOLUTION HEPB-94-14 A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING, BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT CONCERNING THE DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE REMOVAL OF AN OAK TREE AT 2129 TIGERTAIL AVENUE, AFTER FINDING THAT THE TREE DOES NOT UNREASONABLY RESTRICT THE PERMITTED USE OF THE PROPERTY. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 1994. 1 v R"SERVATION OFFICER �c ei'64- THAIRMAN 94- 359 19 DR. HEI L A. FISHER, M.D. 2129 TIGERTAIL AVENUE COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 (305) 858-8894 APRIL 1, 1994 Sara Eaton, In reference to the tree removal permit that was denied at 2129 Tigertail Avenue. This letter is to inform you that I will be appealing that decision. I am still formulating the actual appeal and information will be brought to your office when available. If any questions please feel free to contact me at the above address or telephone. Sincerely, �A A. Fisher Ln 9?- 359 0,u• yh• I 21 ,,�� City of Miami 4V 1.,, ,r, BUILDING AND ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION Follo No: 2 p /, Application Status: Gr / rj d / �%�� J L/ Oi Actual Application 0 Dry Run Job Address: Suite No: Its �'1&EZ7_41L Block: Local Description: lot DEPARTMENT USE ONLY Plan Numbers: 9Yoo� NO Total Due: Permit No: IBubdivislort:' t; L.! f � "A hAl IJAdL E/ .Te��t T _P-604.01 Lessee Owner's Address: Owner's Contractor's Name: Contractors's N : Contractor's Address: Qualifier's Name: Sociai Security No: Architect Address: �.- s Engineer. Address: / Threshold Inspector. ( Bonding Company. Address: Permit Type: C) Building ❑ Electrical ndscape ❑ Mechanical/AC ❑ Mechanical/Boiler ❑ Mechanical/Elevator ❑ Mechanical/Gas ❑ Plumbing ❑ Sign For Building Permits check appropriate type: ❑ New Construction ❑ Addition ❑ Demolition ❑ Remodeling ❑ Repair ❑ Conversion ❑ Roofing ❑ Foundation ❑ Fumigation Proposed Use: Gallons: Estimat Po Height Feet Type: Units: Floors: Purpose: 1 ./ C( Check all applicable boxes:. ❑ Change of Contractor (RV) ❑ Recertification of Plans (RC) ❑ Completion Permit ❑ Change of Qualifier (RV) ❑ Plans Revision (RV) It you checked any of the above items, you must provide the following: Building Permit No: Plans No,: I understand that separate permits must be obtained for other items, unless specifically covered by this permit In signing this application, I am responsible for the supervision and completion of the construction in accordance with the plans and specifications and for compliance with all federal, state, and county laws aplicable. I certify that_ ❑ there are no trees to be rem ed or relocated on this site as a result of the construction for which this application Is submitted. or ❑ that a tr emovel per 'application has been, approved. I have read the inlor tion ntained is permit and understand that any falsification constitutes fraud and could void the permit. Signature of Q flier or Owner Builder Print Name Proof of Ownership: Date Accepted: Clerk Accepted: Signed and Sealed before me this day of Year My Commission Expires: Notary Public FOR PLANNING BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY Legal Address: Dupl: Current Use: Job Name: Census Code: Certificates Required: ❑ C.O. ❑ C.U. ❑ C,C. Plane: ❑ Yes As built survey with elevation and setbacks is required after completion of lowest floor slab before any further Inspection. ❑ Yea ❑ No Lowest Ha Shall be at Isaat inches above crown of street. Group Occupancy: DISTRICTS Building Height uadruple Fee: ❑ Yes REQUIRED PROPOSED � AoDlicetion Receiv d By Date Pe n I R711c 41d P— tnrgt I Metrihulinn• Orinin.r . nnnn 1-1 QPI'finn Pit- Ran. 04 r ) L No. of Sheets: o Finished Floor Elevation (including basemen) SFH I CNN I OTHERS II rized By Date r..... _.,..,..n... c-.. 23 A- 3;r-)-9 �9 T/7'f1c, rv�. iro - B8 g v Hf� e c4a, C,rawkj lw k ►16wE. TIC A,4UJ� &IN f/J J � � �� �nca�pa�n�cd an OPr 1L �� IK� R ,iCrtt'n�d r�o✓'c�i 1�2P�4: -)-a va v.) mid !s n 6 w o 41,m �b 1 11 7L i1 owe-, ��� (6 /M? Irl zx'; L� Uf J-C AM114) � VI't f 6 VIC4 amd /� �,7 A o p S £ 1' '` van A �`i,� � 11-4 A 6 (e 1 N (4 Fed 6 ¢ Gw /OLzF -iPIa IM4pa bj pVIDUJ 0wv bu+ , coiVivcd gvaw�„ U Will {41--k ejjcj 4 '46� " vrom V4 r1 U✓�t2rt19n�E �6v�u� I7Yi✓�. {� Ytitr,( ✓(ZX 'o w-ele( 14f�vv�" Cckd wQ41pi m if 14 /. e �ree 13 Pr+ CevvL �0UJIr lti 1i ✓-cr�efh-ed � y pord, f%!!,(jR--, 'Q �l1Ne. �1 C ✓eo w�►�C� d-civ-, I qIS r o7vvu , S PI& C"e'Y/«'�fly7 �/,/✓ /1�,r��i^ �Jiyll�il��y 399 i tt,*> iit;k8itii'.iir. i :�tv�iif tSifiitttihi+;il>y o i � Z • _o U W n. Z J W LL z y m "i