The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR-94-042344 J-94-417(a) 5/13/94• RESOLUTION NO. -94- 423 A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD, WHICH DENIED AN APPEAL AND UPHELD A DECISION OF THE COCONUT GROVE NET OFFICE, WHICH DENIED A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR THE REMOVAL OF AN OAK TREE LOCATED AT 2129 TIGERTAIL AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board (HEPB) at its meeting of April 19, 1994, following an advertised public hearing, adopted Resolution No. HEPB-94-14 by a 7 to 0 vote, DENYING an appeal and upholding a decision of the Coconut Grove NET1/ office which denied a tree removal permit for the removal of an oak tree at 2129 Tigertail Avenue, Miami, Florida; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17-15(b) of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, an appeal to the City Commission from said denial of an appeal has been taken by Dr. Neil A. Fisher, owner of the property located at 2129 Tigertail Avenue, Miami, Florida, on the grounds that the Historic and Environmental 1/ This acronym stands for "Neighborhood Enchancement Team." CT1'Y COMMISSION KEETINTG OF J U N U 9 IM94 Resolution No. 94- 423 Preservation Board was non -responsive in listening to the damage this tree is creating; 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 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 affirms the decision of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board (Resolution No. HEPB-94-14, adopted April 19, 1994), denying an appeal and upholding a decision of the Coconut Grove NET office, which denied a tree removal permit for the removal of an oak tree, located at 2129 Tigertail Avenue, Miami, Florida, and denies the appeal giving rise to this hearing. Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. 2 '4_ 423 - - r PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th— day of June , 1994. Sl.. V • S EPHEN P. CLARK, MAYOR A E MA TY HIRAI City Clerk PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: JU eE20).-'B!-R� U Assistant City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: A Q N J , II City Atto oy JOB/kd/M4341 - 3 - O4- 423 �:IT, t#1J 0f IN iZtnit A. QUINN JONES, III City Attorney June 24, 1994 Dr. Neil A. Fisher, M.D. 2129 Tigertail Avenue Coconut Grove, FL 33133 (305): 579-6700 Telecopier: (305) 579-3399 r- i Re: Your letter of June 10, 1994 to A. Quinn *- Jones, III, City Attorney; Your appeal of decision of City of Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board ("H.E.P."); Agenda Item #51 of City Commission Meeting of June 9, 1994 Dear Dr. Fisher: This office is in receipt of your referenced letter to City Attorney, A. Quinn Jones, III, regarding the City Commission's decision of June 9, 1994 relative to your referenced appeal. I have attached a copy of relevant portions of the City Commission Agenda for that meeting. Your appeal (Agenda Item #51) is addressed under "General Legislative items": Items 22 through 51 may be heard in the numbered sequence or as announced by the City Commission. (Emphasis original.) Clearly the only item with a time certain on that particular agenda was item number 52, which was "Specially Scheduled" for a 6:00 p.m. Public Hearing. Your allegations regarding misinformation supposedly provided you by the staff of the Mayor, the City Clerk or any department of the City should be immediately directed to the Mayor, the City Clerk and the City Manager, respectively. If the Mayor or a City Commissioner determines that your statements are valid, he may request, at a public hearing, that the City Commission's decision denying your appeal of the H.E.P. Board's decision be the subject of a Motion To Reconsider by the City Commission. If a majority of the City Commission agrees with the motion's maker, the matter would then be renoticed and a new public hearing held. 94-- 423 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY/Dupont Plaza Center, Suite 300/300 Biscayne Boulevard Way/Miami, Florida 33131 Dr. Neil A. Fishes. June 24, 1994 Page 2 Please be advised that such procedural actions are solely the prerogative of the City Commission, and are purely discretionary. Sincerely, E . Ma xwe 1 eputy City ttorney Attachments cc: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission A. Quinn Jones, III City Attorney Cesar H. Odio City Manager Matty Hirai City Clerk Sergio Rodriguez Director, Planning, Building and Zoning Dept. JEM/mis/M434 94- 423 DR. MEIL A. FISHER, M.D. 2129 TIOERTAIL AVENUE COWNUT GROVE. FLORIDA 33133 (305) t159-9756 June 10, 1994 A. Quinn Jaws City Attorney 300 BWayne Blvd Way, Suits 300 Miami. Florida 33131 Door Mr. Jones: I am the gontlomn with the tree growing within my has. On the 9th of Juns my WMI was diocussad by you "the City Commission. I was not present due to misinformation given to me by City Mal 1.1 bel love I should be able to pretest my case befers you and the City Commiooiim On 9 June I talked with 3 city offices, the Mayor's Off lee, th Off lee of Appeals aid the City Clerk's Off loa I was led to bel law the mooting was to begin at 5 p.m. and that I wet item 061 out of 52 items Specifluaily, I believe an gnsking with Yvwm at the Mayor's Offim ohs informed m! that the only time she could see wing an due agnde with a time aaaeciated with It was 6 P.M. She ramrod no that I wou ld rat need to *ww up unti I ~ 6P.M. As you knees, I err ivod at 5:15 P.M. to sea OM my coee had airs* ban dbarad Due to this maounamication, I vane unable to present an iunparto aepoot of nW ass. the Structural Engineer's Report, that was ropestsd. This repert rorsais the I ip the tree is aeusing and atrengty rsoennueede renioai of tM tree► boi iavt with en appeal l aheuuid hew the r i jA is preaant nW ow MWh ft nsstlon from CNV Hall should not be do reeewu for a t pMu verse paid $300 for an appoai to not be halm 1 enclose a copy of do Enoinear's rapers liar yam rayssr. MThe report raiesi iaria w Nuus at liability ae we enter tht harriewsasm TAN, milled wilt die riot *A diva ba Wbq cede indicated that des area soevpioi0 by tM tree N a bulkhblo areal` lead no ee ra0W drat you piece rnw qWn an the City thneaisienoftble seft I way present tall a WuL Slaaerobr. T Dr. Nail A. Fisher. K& 94- 423 •r ti M.AIOR %ICE 10AY(-)R COM-MISSIONER CONVOISSIONER COMMISSIONER �TEPHE\ P CLARK CULLER 1 DA�KINS � ICTOR DE YURRE WIFREDO (WILLY) GORT I.L. PLUMMER IR. a uur uuU � CITN mANAGER CESAR H ODIO CITY COMMISSION AGENDA IMEETING DATE: JUNE 9, 1994 CITY HALL 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE CITY ORDINANCE NO, 10087, ADOPTED MARCH 18, 1986, AS AMENDED, GENERALLY REQUIRES ALL PERSONS APPEARING IN A PAID OR REMUNERAIED REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY BEFORE CITY STAFF, BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND THE CITY COMMISSION TO REGISTER WITH THE CITY CLERK BEFORE ENGAGING IN LOBBYING ACTIVITIES, A COPY OF SAID AMENDED ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, CITY HALL. REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING * * THIS MEETING SHALL CONVENE AT 9:00 AM THIS PRINTED AGENDA IS DISTRIBUTED AT LEAST FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING AND THE MATERIAL IN CONNECTION WITH EACH ITEM APPEARING ON THE AGENDA IS AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION DURING BUSINESS HOURS AT THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK IN CITY HAIL. ANY PERSON WHO SEEKS TO ADDRESS THE CITY COMMISSION ON ANY ITEM APPEARING IN THE FOLLOWING PORTIONS OF THIS AGENDA: "CONSENT AGENDA% "PUBLIC HEARINGS". OR "PUBLIC DISCUSSION" IS INVITED TO DO SO AND SHALL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE INFORM THE CITY CLERK OF HIS/HER DESIRE TO SPEAK, GIVING THE CITY CLERK HIS/HER NAME. AT THE TIME THE ITEM IS HEARD, THAT PERSON SHOULD APPROACH THE MICROPWNE AND WAIT TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE MAYOR WHO PRESIDES OVER THE CITY C"ISSION MEETING. Should any person .desire to appeal any decision of the Miami City Commission r,ith respect to any.matter to be considered at this meeting, that person shall ensure that a *verbatim record of the proceedings is:made including all testimony and evidence upon which any appeal may Le based. The City Com>wission har establi'uhed•a 161icy.:that the lunch recess will begin at the conclusion of d0 iberations.of t" ''agenda item being considered a4.Noon; " further, that Cosmission meetings will adjourn at the., conclusion of _ f deliberations on the agenda ite®,befrg o�w.sidev* 4t PIC (Resolution No. 87.1415) - G t - 94- 423 PERSONAL APPEARANCES Items 13 through 21 may be heard in the numbered sequence or as announced b Comm ssion. GENERAL LEGISLATIVE ITEMS Items 22 through W may be heard in the numbered sequence or as announced 6—t�iie ommission. SPECIALLY SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING Item 52 has been advertised to be heard at 6:00 A. The City Commission shall consider this —item at the s ified tine or thereafter as may a announced. 11 PAGE 3 JUNE 9, 1994 94- 423 t It RESOLUTIONS CONT'D 50. RESOLUTION - (J-94-470) - (ACCEPTING BID) ACCEPTING THE BID OF BANNERMAN LANDSCAPING, INC. (BLACK DARE COUNTY VENDOR), IN THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF $197,050, TOTAL BID OF THE PROPOSAL. FOR "ALLAPATTAH SIDEWALK REBUILDING (IMPACT FEE PROJECT) B-4565"; WITH MONIES THEREFOR ALLOCATED FROM THE FISCAL YEAR 1993-94 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ORDINANCE NO. 11139~, AS AMENDED, PROJECT NO. 341200 IN THE AMOUNT OF $197,050TO COVER THE CONTRACT COST AND $32,330 TO COTTER THE ESTIMATED EXPENSES, FOR AN ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF $229,380; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH SAID FIRM. Department of Planning, Building and Zoning 51. RESOLUTION - (J-94-417a) - (DENYING THE APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD) (This item was deferred from the meeting of May 23, 1994) RESOLUTION - (J-94-417b) - (GRANTING THE APPEAL AND REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD) (This item was deferred from the meeting of. May 23, 1994) 0 PAGE 44 JUNE 9, 1994 d 94- 423 r` CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM 51 TO Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission DAIE . MAY 31 1994 FILE : SU&XCT Tree Remoyal t 2129 Tigettail Avenue FROM REFERENCES: Agenda Items City Comm fsion Agenda Cesa ENCLOSURES: June 9, 1994 City RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended that the City decision of the Coconut Grove NET office application for the removal of an oak tree Historic and.Environmental Preservation Board. BACKGROUND Commission deny the appeal of a concerning the denial of an and uphold the decision of the 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 a pealed this denial to the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board. The Board denied the appeal on April 19, 1994, by a 4-1 vote (Resolution HEPB- 94-14). 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. At the City Commission meeting of May 23, 1994, this item was continued. Doctor Fisher, the applicant, was directed to come back to the Commission meeting of June 9 with a report, by a registered structural engineer, certifying as to any structural damage caused by the tree to the foundation of his residence. As of June 2, we have not received the report requested. 9 9 4 -- 423 ,,. ury— -- -. . 41— SERCIO RODRIGUEZ. AICP Dirtoof May 31, 1994 C!%c# of��ux�t J,v CESAR 11. 0010 Chy Manager CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Dr. Neil A. Fisher 2129 Tigertail Avenue Miami, Florida 33133 Re: Appeal of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board DENIAL OF AN APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT Dear Dr. Fisher: In keeping with your discussion of the herein matter before the City Commission at the meeting of May 23rd, 1994 and in keeping with the City Commission's suggestion that you obtain a certification from a professional engineer ascertaining to whether the tree roots are, in fact, structurally damaging your house, the herein letter eeeks to follow up on this issue by requesting that you inform this office as to present status on this issue. Please be advised that your item has been rescheduled to be lieaaA.-1 Juw& 9th, 094. Ploaao govorn yourself accordingly. Very truly yours, Teresita L. Fernandez, R.A., A.I.C.P. 1 Chief Hearing Boards Division CC: Joseph W. McManus, Deputy Director Planning, Building and Zoning Department Tomas Menendez, Chief of Inspection Services Planning, Building and Zoning Department Matty Hirai City Clerk 94- 423 PLANNING. BUIL6NG AND 'ZONING DEPARTMENT 275 N W. end Street/P.O, Box 330708: MIviii. FL W13-0708/(10S) S79-WOO 3 DR. NEIL A. FISHER, M.D. 2129 TIGERTAIL AVENUE COCONUT GROVE. FLORIDA 33133 (305)859-6756 APRIL 28, 1994 "1 :.1 Mrs. Teresite Fernandez Chief of Hearing Board Division City of M iami Miami. Florida 33128 1 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 wit in 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 Amer ican 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 house. These cracks are at the base of a steel column that supports the roof. Verbal ly Mr. Aviles, the Inspector, told me that if I was to buy the property to quick ly di root my attention to these cracks caused by the tree's roots I fitting the foundation. Soon after purchasing the property, I filed an application for a permit to remove this very large tree growing within my house and damaging it's foundation. With the unpleasant delays associated with applications/ denials/ hearings it was 2 1 /2 months later when I had Mr. Aviles of Amer loan Property Inspectors return for a repeat structural inspection. The enclosed letter detai Is the threat posed by this tree. He clearly documents the Rr gression of the damage in a short 2 1 /2 months. Furthermore, he cites in reference to the tree " the potential for severe Itructural danM to this property is very high " This tree cwmot be allowed to ruin my house. Barbara Smith, the previous owner and the former wife of the architect who designed end built 2129 Tigertail, agrees strongly that this tree should be ronvvs& 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 within 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 oomts from her former husband the architect who oversaw the previous enlargement of the opening. She furthermore writes of her oxperienoe of being within the house during Hurricane Andrew. She does not wish anyone else 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 TigertaiI 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 bacome 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 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 11 iam Greenwald who lives directly across the street came to the appeal hearing in my behalf. He stated, paraphrasing,"Dr. Fisher did not buy a treohouse - he bought a house wit@ 4 - 423 page 2 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. 1 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 Surt the house architectual ly, 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 real istic 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 reason 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. As a 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 ry through the court system to protect my house. I will hold the city of Miami liable for any additional darrsspe 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 9a- 423 1 DR. NEIL A. FISHER, M.D. 2129 TIGERTAIL AVENUE COCONUT GROVE. FLORIDA 33133 (306)369-8756 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. S. On roof looking at tree and massive arms over structure. 6. Inside -view of tree, paving bricks Iifted. 7. Cracks at foundation at base of steel column supporting roof. Level with bubble off center revealing rear foundation lifted by tree. 8. Brick pavers lifted making area non—functional. 9. Roof opening looking down. Roof opening has been enlarged to maximum size without Iffecting the structural support of the roof according to architect who bui It house. 10. Roof opening looking up. Reveals smai I amount of space al lowed for growth. LETTERS 1. Amer !can Property Inspectors, letter reveals from independent source damage created by tree, plus a prognosis is included. 2. Christian Schwantes Architect, letter dotal Is interesting architecture of house making modifications difficult. 3. "The Tree House" an article from the Miami Hearid in 1967 that diswssea 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. 94_ 423 MERICAN PROPERTY INSPECTORS sure before you sign. "�-' 79 p1 :"1 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 opin: on 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- 423 9 Certified and Approved by U.S. H.U.P. and the R.T.C. • Member of the National Association of Home Inspectors BARBARA SMITH 3015 LUCAYA STREET COCONUT GROVE. FL 33133 AP ; � 19.1994 I, Barbara Smith, am the former owner and the former wife of the architect who designed and bui It the residence at 2129 Tigertal I. I need to clearly state that I am in agreement with the removal of the large ark 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, cannot be enlarged secondary to structural considerations. What I am trying to say is that the tree has outgrown it's space as a iardscepI g and interesting asset to the house. At this point it can only be considered a liability. It is a I lability secondary to structural and hurricane considerations. Those of us who have witnessed the power of Hurricane Andrew realize the powerful force this mighty ask might exert on both the structure and people in It's path. have discussed with Dr. Fisher his plans for renovation. 1 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 architoctual melange that is Coconut Grove. I understand he is more than wi I ling to plant other trees on his property or in Coconut Grove to meat the needs of the Historic Preservation Board Respectfully, Barbara Smith �4- 423 �l Jon W. Ewing 2121 Tigertail Ave. Miami, FL 33133 City Of Miami City Hall on PanAm Circle Miami, FI 33133 To Whom It May Concern: �/t/f►yYP 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 alternatives to alloow the tree to remain. ft 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, -7 n W. Ewing ��, 34- 423 PETER T. OTTO 2175 TIGERTRIL RUE. COCONUT GROUE9 FLORIOR 33133 RPRIL 17, 1994 BORRO OF APPEAL THIS LETTER CONCERNS DOCTOR NEIL FISHER'S APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF A PERMIT TO REMOVE AN OAK TREE FROM THE MIDDLE OF HIS 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 VISIBLE FROM MY BEDROOM GOT ME OUT OF MY BED AND FORCED ME INTO A SAFE ROOM. I WAS IN FEAR OF MY LIFE AND I FEARED FOR MY NEIGHBOCOR, 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 1S 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 HIS LIVING AREAS AND THAT IS A THREAT TO THE HOUSE. I FULLY SUPPORT DOCTOR FISHER'S REQUEST FOR A PERMIT TO REMOVE THE OAK TREE IN QUESTION. l SINCERELY, A- 423 CHRISTIAN SCHWANTES D I PL. I NG. 1 NNENARCH I TEKTUR FISCHERGASSE 6 56116 MAINZ, GERMANY 13 APRIL 1994 As the architect working on Dr. Fisher's house I need to clearly state that this house 'Ise statement of America's modern architecture of the 1960's. It wes designed by Mr. Frank Vel lake who has worked with Alfred Browning Parker. It should be allowed to remain intact while allowing for updating needed for the 1990's. The problem is that the house is smal I by today's standards. The house has no dining room and the I iving room is effectively only 16' x 16'. Dr. Fisher cleer ly outlined to me 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 Vellaks'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 see the house, another point concerning the tree becan more important. The tree's roots are 1 ifting the rear foundation and cracks have formed at the base of the main steel supports for the large overhanging roof. 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 limits of the opening. From studying the plans I see no way to enlarge the opening without removing a large portion of the roof 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 Iandscaping in the front garden that is now only gram Dr. Fisher has informed me of the initial denial of his tree removal permit. I have worked• numerous hours on alternative plans trying to saw the tree whi Is enlarging the house. Secondary to the antral 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 lines of the hove and encroach upon the existing lush l,ndscapirg associated with the house. I strongly believe that the tree needs to removed and replaced by additional trees and plantings on the property. Sincerely, 0203'"'r-02 ,W►� ' Christian Schwantes 14- 423 t3 The Tree House lou rarely hear the Leo `1c Leans talk about the "old home- :tead ha•-k in Fairfield. III They're to aken with the new. a contempurary dwelling on a lushly landscaped Int in Unconut Grove. rove. lion - in-law Frank %ellake de- signed it. Daughter Barbara Vel- lake is decorating it. "'hen the McLeans decided it, move to Florida. then realized many thane" Rare in .tore Ad- justing to a sub -tropical climate. Learning to follow a more leisure- ly routine Finding new friends. All the other changes in living patterns that result when retirees forsake a familiar environment. Wellake made these changes easy for his in-laws. Thev are content with their new lea." on living. it lease that prnvides a standard of comfort and conven. ience that a couple half their ape would welcome. Vellake, who received his de- gree in architecture from the I ni%ersuy of Miami. is develop. ing a deign stvie that not only is contemporary in concept but also compatible with a subtropical locale such as nuns. The home he did fnr the Me - Leans is a clear statement of that concept. Its design is linear. an interraing play of hnrn.nntal and vertical plans that are site-onent- ed to take advantage of the pre- vailing southeasterly breeze. The dwelling also was planned is A surveyor's error has provided a novel touch to a lush new home in the Grove so that very little of the existin plant growth on the lot had to b removed. Vellake's structural speciftce Lions called for exposed concret block — the 4x8's rather the W's because the scale was mot in keeping, concrete tie beams - redwood trim. fenestration i fixed glass and panels of redwoo louvers. The patio is paved with bnc and enclosed in fiberglass cal with redwood ribs. A giant of grows through the patio roof. surveyor's mistake made it nece nary to include the tree but t! .M Leans don't mind — its lea limbs help to provide shade. 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. R SERVATION OFFICER ml'W� .a - j i% OJ4- 4 DR. NEIL A. FISHER, M.D. 2129 TIGERTAIL AVENUE COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 (305) 858-8894 APRIL 1, 1994 f'0PU � 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 em still formulating the actual appeal and information 011 be brought to your office when available. If any questions please feel free to contact me at the above address or telephone. Sincerely, G A,, A. Fisher 4?Y 14- 423 • "' �� City of Miami BUILDING AND ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION Folio No: /y Appf�i�ction Status: .30 9 (/ 9� Actual Application ❑ Dry Run Job Address: Suite No: Z / If Lapel Description, Lot Block Subdivision: _ , . _ r or. , n P , ► Louts Name: DEPARTMENT SE ONLY Plan Numbers ft'IeO-57O Total Due: Permit No: Ownar's Adtlress: I OwT-t-TgroD.��b -s,..n �.ri..n Ti bf A At/C M/YhM; lCl _ �t P.O �e Contractor's Name: Contractors'* No: Contractor's Address: Ouslflier's Name. Social Security No: Architect Address: .sue Engineer. Address Threshold Inspector. Bonding Company: Address: Permit Type: ❑ Building ❑ Electrical ndseape ❑ Mechanical/AC ❑ Meehan"iBoiler ❑ Mechanical/ENvator ❑ Mechanical/Gas ❑ Plumbing ❑ Sign For Building Permits check appropriate type: ❑ New Construction ❑ Addition ❑ Demolition ❑ Remodeling ❑ Repair r ❑ Conversion ❑ Roofing ❑ Foundation ❑ Fumigation Proposed Use: Gallons: Nsipht Feet Type: Units: Floors: Purpose!!� nLiss a Check all applicable boXes: • ❑ Change of Contractor (RV) ❑ Recertification of Plans (RC) ( ` ❑ Completion Permit ❑ Change of Qualifier (RV) ❑ Plans Revision (Rh If you checked any of the above items, you must pmvids MG following: Building Permit No. Plans No.: I understand that separate permits must be obtained for other Hama, unless specifically coverad 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, stab, and county laws aplicable. 1 certify thal_ ❑ then are no trees W be to;! W or reloat od on this site as a result of the construction for which this application is submitted. or a that a Uovalplication has beenapproved. I have read trnIni Uonparent.and understand that any laWficatlon consburm fraud and could void an pormH %UE/C Signature of ifW a Owner Builder Print Name Proof of Ownership: Date Accepted: Clark Accepted: Signed and Sealed before me this day of Year My commission Espirp Notary Public FOR PLANNING, BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY t.agal Address: DUPI: Current Use: Job Name: IF Census Code: Certificates Required: Plans: yes o No. of Show: ❑ C.O. ❑ C.U. ❑ C.C. As built survey with elevation and setbacks is required after completion Lowest Nablteb Finished Floor Elevation (inctudmc element) -. ^� of lowest floor slab before any further Inspection. ❑ Yes ❑ No SFH CNN OTHERS 1 „ram Shall be at least ^T_ Group Occupancy: DISTRICTS Inches above crown of street Building Height uadtuple Fee: REOUIRED ❑ Yea PROPOSED ,-; - o1 � V , 1 104— 423 . � -` -� •--fir � �) C. N . /�/� rye � � Yh��rni FL 10 ,fiA c r4 q y 'PJ-8 - 88y v .,..1. rfCt"evJAlw�-v 4w ero' J G(1N1 d evirc 4 1',I fvir -CZ �`f'hw iS 5y Awi4SIVY 7. hewF+ !' Aaujr & lit rfj � 6b incorPoinjtj or, ofi� -W-c- I�76 A famn-ed lqorc4 M-et4-: nIfj cm �byc j 70 Ivbw 'alld IT n o I,J 4 1 rfroT -a f 4 � �1 l N� U ft 6o2rr+ Y�c �orc�n Gf�p �.! ✓T�r��+j S-r qtm -&w► d h 4-z4" , '-IL n b le 1 N p b v 10 UJ 6 (�1►� IA Ov+ WO"coiV1vCti lYdwq (NI �rIm k-k ejjcj 4 '46-� " fom . em porrjcr/ ghoul V4 4reel /,9 hLlrit2Ict3vjE 1iouIU his✓✓t. 7�14{ ilt ✓r-r.Q w�rrrH �dv� f c(kd w%Atid YVY dmLr /Jr 14 (?,t4 k7goee,4 )J "Iq� l'eewL � Wy I o vi r /A! n ,fcr-teh-ed n 0\1 Gti j9�r1,(f9-, "'�` °'' �`/ e- 1 c."� ace w � � c d{ � ( �n I J �� 4 4v ✓tQ , 1 %��-�P��" �4V► l` jilt C'!YJ <torZ/�/N /l a mo w/ j 23 .FIELD INSPECTION REPORT BUSINESS:- x J11/ Y to •' `• ;,. :i•�:: _ ..?.t t 23 AN 4: 31 DATE INSPECTED BY: TITLE: _ h m �� •ter - ''. �. r� Z 4,� L '._.'� ;..s �/ •..-•.'"^"�►�-� �� Oyu .. _ . 4� � •mil ��\�Vh �. ,`^-.. 111 1�, I 423 -, .*,tip• �.r. y ,,fir r 4: • , Rr ,16�. �� ` of , . '•''�"_�.a.+�_a,.• —' = _ � .. -� -_J 3j�7 04_ 423 ;"Or PETER T. OTTO 2175 TIGERTRIL RUE. COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 MAY 31, 199 COMMISSIONER WILLIE GORTSubmitted public.94 -6 P4 :CAI MIAMI CITY HALL record in cone, �: c_jl 'with 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE !`sir' r COCONUT GROVE, FL 33133 item--5*L-- Oil DEAR COMMISIONER GORT: 131(a1tY' Hirai CDY Clerk I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING WITH INTEREST THE DEVELOPMENTS SORROUNDING MY NEIGHBOR'S, DR. NEIL FISHER'S, PETITION TO CUT DOWN AN OAK TREE THAT IS GROWING THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF HIS HOME. I READ THE DETAILS OF THE COMMISSION HEARING AND SUBSEQUENT ARTICLE BY MR. CHARLES STROUSE, IN THE MIANI HERALD. I FEEL THE ARTICLE IS SOMEWHAT INACCURATE IN THAT IT SUGGESTS THAT SOME OF DOCTOR FISHER'S NEIGHBORS OPPOSE HIM CUTTING DOWN THE TREE. WE DONT. ALSO. THE ARTICLE STATES THE TREE IS ONE HUNDRED YEARS OLD, IT IS NOT. IT IS PROBABLY 50 YEARS OLD. IF RECEIVING A NOTICE FROM THE CITY BECAUSE 1 LIVE WITHIN 275 FEET OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, CONSTITUTES THE DEFINITION OF A NEIGHBOR, THEN NONE OF DOCTOR FISHER'S NEIGHBORS OPPOSE THE CUTTING OF THE TREE. THE TREE HE WANTS TO REMOVE HAS BEEN, IS, AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE A SERIOUS THREAT TO HIS PROPERTY AND MY OWN, UNLESS IT IS REMOVED. DURING HURRICANE ANDREW, I WAS PROPELLED FROM MY BED BY THE MOVEMENT OF THE BRANCHES OF THIS TREE. IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT THE TREE'S BRANCHES WOULD LEVEL THE HOUSE AND KILL MY NEIGHBOR, BARBARA SMITH WHO WAS IN THE HOUSE, IF THEY SHOULD FALL. DOCTOR FISHER IS MY IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOR. HE MOVED TO THE GROVE BECAUSE HE LIKES TREES AND OUR ENVIRONMENT. HE IS A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND A TAXPAYER. HE WANTS TO REPAIR AND IMPROVE HIS PROPERTY. HE IS NOT A DEVELOPER, HE IS A HOME OWNER THAT HAS A PROBLEM CAUSED BY A TREE. HE PLANS TO PLANT OTHER TREES IN OTHER AREAS OF HIS PROPERTY � _ 423 PLEASE ALLOW THE ISSUANCE OF THE NECESSARY PERMIT TO CUT THE THE . SINCERELY t,(, G PETER OTTO /�� -� /yA 6L& s-�