Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-94-0540J-94-583(a) 7/14/94 RESOLUTION NO. 9 4 -- 540 A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL OF STEVEN POLAKOFF AND MICHAEL CARVER FROM THE DECISION OF THE HISTORIC AND ENVTPa MFIrUAL PRESERVATION BOARD, WHICH AUTHORIZED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 5' CBS WAIF, AT THE SOUTHEAST SECTION OF THE PROPERTY, A 5' WROUGHU IRON FENCE AT THE EASTERN END OF NORTHEAST 57TH STREET, AND A DRIVEWAY ALONG NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 759 NORTHEAST 57TH STREET, WITHIN 'IHE MOIUMMIDE HISTORIC DI STRICT , MIAMI , FLORIDA, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. WHEREAS, the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board (HEPB) at its meeting of April. 19, 1994, following are advertised public hearing, adopted Resolution No. HEPB 94-10, which authorized a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a 5' CBS wall at the southeast section of the property, a 5' wrought iron fence at the eastern end of Northeast 57th Street and a driveway along North Bayshore Drive, for the property located. at 759 Northeast 57th Street, within the Morningside historic District, Miami, Florida, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 23.1-5(b)(4)(e) of the Code of 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 May 4, 1994 ; a xi. WHEREAS, the City Commission after careful consideration of this matter finds that the stated grounds for the appeal and the facts presented in suTmort thereof are not .iustified: CITY CoNcaftsmON DIEET'114C OF j U {_ i if 1991 RGZ0111tion No. 94� 40 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 axe hereby adopted by reference thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this Section. Section 2. The City Commission hereby denies the appe.,a7. of Steven Polakoff arxi Michael from the decision of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board (Resolution No. HEPB-94-10, adopted April 19, 1994), which authorized a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a 5' CBS wall at the southeast section of the property, a 5' wrought iron fence at the eastern end of Northeast 57th Street and a driveway along North Bayshore Drive, for the property located at 759 Northeast 57th Street, within the Morningside Historic District, Miami., Florida, subject to conditions. Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of July 1994. HEN P. CIAK, MAYOR A MATTY HIRAI. CITY CLERK BITTNER NT CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: A. I CITY A 2 r 94- 540 J CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM 58 I TO Honorable Mayor and Members DATE JUL "L` of the City Commission � 7 1994 SUBJECT Appeal of Decision of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board: FROM REFERENCES 759 N.E. 57th Street Cesa ENCLOSURES Agenda Item: 58 City Wer City Commission Agenda RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission modify the decision of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board, which authorized a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a wrought iron fence and CBS wall for the property located at 759 N.E. 57th Street, by: (I) Item 58 - Upholding the appeal on behalf of the owners of the subject property, Steven Polakoff and Michael Carver, concerning the location of said wall only; and (2) Item 59 - Denying the appeal on behalf of the neighbors of the subject property, Jesse H. Diner, Pierce H. Mullally, and John R. W. Parsons. BACKGROUND: Please refer to the attached memorandum from the Preservation Officer concerning this appeal. Attachment 94- 540 SC7 CITY 01= MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO Sergio Rodriguez DATE June 20, 1994 FILE Assistant City Manager SUBJECT Appeal of Decision of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board: FROM ASarah REFERENCES 759 N.E. 57th Street E. Eaton ENCLOSURES Agenda Item: Preservation Officer City Commission Agenda 1-1,, 1 A I Q 94— RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission modify the decision of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board, which authorized a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a wrought iron fence and CBS wall for the property located at 759 N.E. 57th Street, by: (1) Item A - Upholding the appeal on behalf of the owners of the subject property, Steven Polakoff and Michael Carver, concerning the location of said wall only; and (2) Item B - Denying the appeal on behalf of the neighbors of the subject property, Jesse H. Diner, Pierce H. Mullally, and John R. W. Parsons. BACKGROUND: On April 4, 1.994, the owners of the subject property at 759 N.E. 57th Street applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a CBS wall in an east -west direction set back eight feet from the property line on N.E. 57th Street, and a wrought iron fence in a north -south direction at the end of N.E. 57th Street (see attached plan). The Preservation Officer recommended to the Historic and Environmental Board (Board) that the application for the wall and fence be approved according to the plans submitted. At a public hearing on April 19, 1994, the Board authorized a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of -the wrought iron fence as proposed by the applicant, but required that the proposed CBS wall have a greater setback from N.E. 57th Street and be located approximately one foot behind the south facade of the house (see attached plan). This decision was made pursuant to the provisions of Section 23.1-5 of the Miami City Code. On May 4, 1994, two appeals of the Board's decision were filed. One appeal was filed by Earl G. Gallop on behalf of the owners of the subject property, while the second appeal was filed by Jesse H. Diner, Pierce H. Mullally, and John R. W. Parsons on behalf of the neighbors of the subject property. The rebuttals to the grounds for each appeal are as follows: 94- 540 3 r Page 1 of 4 Sergio Rodriguez June 20, 1994 Appeal On Behalf of the Owners of the Subject Property: The owners are appealing two parts of the Board's decision only: the location of the CBS wall and the requirement concerning landscaping. The Preservation Officer's recommendation to the Board, as set forth in the attached evaluation sheet, supports the appellant's position concerning the location of the wall. The Preservation Officer, however, supports the Board's requirement that no shrubs higher than 18" at maturity be planted behind the wrought iron fence. In fact, the landscape plan submitted by the applicant specified only low shrubs and ground cover. The Board's landscaping requirement does not prohibit trees or palms in this location. Although agreeing with the appellants concerning the location of the wall, the Preservation Officer finds no merit in the majority of the grounds for the appeal, as summarized below in the rebuttals to each of the stated grounds: (a) The Preservation Officer acts in an advisory capacity to the Board and provides recommendations, per the provisions of Section 62-75 of the Miami City Code. Although the Board may not have agreed with the Officer's analysis of the relationship of the Board's guidelines for walls and fences to the character of the houses on the bayfront, there is no evidence that the Board disregarded the Officer's analysis. The Board simply had a different opinion. (b) The Board is not required to apply the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in determining the front of the property. The Board looks at a house from a historic and architectural perspective in determining where the front entrance is located. No evidence was supplied to suggest that the main entrance to the house is not located on N.E. 57th Street. (c) The Board is fully within its authority in determining where walls should be placed in historic districts. The Board is required to apply the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation" and any additional guidelines it may adopt to assure that all alterations and additions to a property are consistent with its historic and architectural character. (d) The Board's decision furthers the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan as those goals and objectives encourage the preservation of Miami's heritage. (e) The Board based its decision on its guidelines for walls and fences as set forth in Resolution hEPB-91-44, as amended, which states that no walls or fences shall be constructed between the front facade of the house and the sidewalk. The guidelines, however, allow exceptions if said exception is historically appropriate to a particular house or if unique cirCumstances can be demonstrated. The Board, however, disagreed with the Preservation Officer's contention / that the Board's guidelines were written for the majority of the L t Page 2 of 4 94- 540 Sergio Rodriguez June 20, 1994 houses in Morningside which do not front on Biscayne Bay. The unique character of the bayfront properties on North Bayshore Drive and the fact that all but two of the thirteen houses have walls, fences, or hedges along their front sidewalks were not considered when the guidelines were adopted. (f) There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious. Section 23.1-5(c)(1) of the Miami City Code allows the Board to adopt additional standards and guidelines for issuing Certificates of Appropriateness. The Board has, in fact, adopted Resolution HEPB-91-44, as amended, which supplements the "Standards for Rehabilitation." The provisions of said resolution were applied by the Board in arriving at the decision in question. Thus, the Board's action was neither arbitrary nor capricious. (g) No evidence has been presented concerning allegedly improper solicitations and lobbying activities of a Board member. Appeal On Behalf of the Neighbors of the Subject Property: The neighbors are appealing the entire decision of the Board. The Preservation Officer finds no merit in the grounds for the appeal, as summarized below in the rebuttals to each of the stated grounds: (1) 'The Board protected and perpetuated those scenic vistas which represent distinctive elements of the City's heritage by requiring that only a wrought iron fence, which allows visibility, and not a wall, which blocks visibility, be installed across the end of N.E. 57th Street, and by requiring that shrubs no higher than 18" at maturity be planted behind this fence. (2) The proposed new wall and fence are compatible with the property's historic character in terms of form, color, materials, and location. (3) The Board's decision does not adversely affect the relationship and congruity between the subject structure and the surroundings and does not affect the character of the historic district. The wall and fence are consistent with the character of other historic walls and fences in the district. The placement of the fence at the end of N.E. 57th Street and the resulting partial obstruction of the view is based on the historic precedent of a boat house and hedge which partially obscured the view. As such, the Board's decision is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation." (4) The Board considered all historic information and documentation presented by the opponents at the hearing before making its decision. This information, however, was not persuasive. The Board realized that times have changed since 1924'and that the original developer's "intent," as suggested by advertisements promoting the sale of lots in the district, may have to be somewhat modified in 1994 to Page 3 of 4 94- 540 I Sergio Rodriguez June 20, 1994 accommodate certain modern amenities, such as fences, street barricades, etc., which were not envisioned in 1924. (5) The Board's decision is consistent with prior Board decisions concerning walls and fences in frontyards, including but not limited to an approved wall at 589 N.E. 57th Street (Resolution HEPB-92-10), which was an exception to the Board's guidelines. The Board's guidelines (Resolution IIEPB•-91-44) make provisions for exceptions based on unique circumstances. No other house in Morningside has a lot at the end of an east -west street. (6) A perusal of the record indicates that all information presented by the Preservation Officer was factual and based on Drofessional research, observations, and analysis of the application.' It is the role and professional responsibility of the Preservation Officer, per the provisions of Section 62-75 of the Miami City Code, to present expert testimony and recommendations to the Board, as well as the underlying analysis upon which such recommendations are based. (7) The public hearing was conducted in accordance with all applicable statutes and rules of procedure. All normal procedures were followed. (8) Chapter 23.1 of the Miami City Code in no way lends itself to arbitrary and capricious actions by the Board, and there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the Board's decision in this case was arbitrary and capricious. The vagueness, equal protection, and due process claims concerning the ordinance and Board actions are questions of law. However, our analysis reveals nothing to support such allegations. Attachment i �D 94-- 540 i :. Page 4 of 4 APPEAL 759 N.E . 67 ST. BISCAYNE BAY N. BAYSHORE DR. one Eon Gaon nd on, non non. non* 0n9104 H G/I n Ln W Z WALL FENCE ®: WALL/FENCE PROPOSED BY OWNERS ,omem n me son WALL/FENCE APPROVED BY HEP BOA p� WALL PROPOSED BY NEIGHBORS 94- 540 9 IN THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA HEPB RESOLUTION NO. 94-10 IN RE: THE APPLICATION OF STEVEN POLAKOFF AND MICHAEL CARVER FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5701 NORTH BAYSI LORE DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA NOTICE OF APPEAL Pursuant to Section 23.1-5(b)(4)c of the Miami City Code, Appellants Steven Polak -off and Michael Carver, through their attorneys, appeal certain conditions in I4EPB Resolution No. 94-10 to the City Commission. Specifically, Appellants appeal: (1) only that part of Section 1 of the resolution that requires that the approved concrete and stucco wail be located twenty-eight (28) feet within their property line, approximately flush with the southern wall of the house, rather than eight (8) feet within the property line as proposed by Appellants; and (2) Section 3 of the resolution, which prohibits shrubs and vegetation higher than eighteen inches along the property adjacent to a public street. As grounds for this appeal, Appellants contend, among other reasons, that the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board: (a) disregarded the analysis and recommendation of its Historic Preservation Officer; (b) misapplied §2502 of the Miami City Code in determining the front of the property; (c) exceeded its delegated authority regarding the placement of the wall. Further, Applellants believe the decisions appealed from: (d) do not further the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan; (e) are not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record; (f) are arbitrary and capricious; and (g) occured in a proceeding that may have been tainted by the improper solicitations and lobbying activities of a quasi-judicial board member. This appeal is timely. A copy of the Resolution for Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness from which this appeal is taken is annexed as Exhibit A. Notice of Appeal to the City of Miami Commission, Page 1 BAILEY HUNT JONES & BUSTO 94- 540 A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, ATTORNEYS AT LAW COURVOISIER CENTRE, SUITE 300, 501 SRICKELL KEY DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131.2E23 - TELEPHONE (305) 374.5505 Appellants' attorneys will be out of the country the first part of June and Appellants are advised that the City's Preservation Officer will be out of the City the second half of June. Accordingly, Appellants request a hearing before the City Commission at the earliest available date in July, 1994. BAILEY HUNT JONI:S & BUSTO, a professional association Attorneys for Appellants 300 Courvoisier Centre 501 Brick -ell Kev Drive Miami, Florida 33131-2623 (305)374-5505 Earl G. Gallop Fla. Bar No. 173468 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that true and correct copies of' the foregoing Notice of Appeal were hand delivered to the City of Miami's Planning, Building and Zoning Department, at 275 Northwest Second Street, Miami, Florida 33130 and to the City of Miami's Historic and Environmental Preservation Board's Preservation Officer at 275 Northwest Second Street, Miami, Florida 33130 this 4th day of May, 1994. BAILEY HUNT JONES & BUSTO, a professional association Attorneys for Appellants - - 300 Courvoisier Centre ` 501 Brickell Key Drive Miami, Florida 33131-2623 (305)374-5505 - 1 a By: Earl G. Gallop ^' Fla. Bar No. 173468 FADATAWGUMUMENIVALMA.NOT 1 i Notice of Appeal to the City of Miami Commission, Page 2 94- 540 i o BAILEY HUNT JONES & BUSTO A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, ATTORNEYS AT LAW COURVOISIER CENTRE, SUITE 300. 501 BRICKELL KEY DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131.2623 • TELEPHONE (305) 374.5505 r^. RESOLUTION HEPB-94-10 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 5' CBS WALL AT THE SOUTHEAST SECTION OF THE PROPERTY, A 5' WROUGHT IRON FENCE AT THE EASTERN END OF NE 57TH STREET, AND A DRIVEWAY ALONG NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 759 NE 57TH STREET, WITHIN THE MORNINGSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THAT SECTION OF CBS WALL RUNNING IN AN EAST -WEST DIRECTION PARALLEL TO NE 57TH STREET SHALL BE SET - BACK APPROXIMATELY 1', OR AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, BEHIND THE FRONT (SOUTH) FACADE OF THE HOUSE; 2. THAT SECTION OF WALL. AND/OR FENCE RUNNING IN A NORTH -SOUTH DIRECTION PERPENDICULAR TO NE 57TH STREET SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ENTIRELY OF WROUGHT IRON WITH CONCRETE POSTS, AS NEEDED; 3. NO SHRUBS OR VEGETATION HIGHER THAN 18" AT MATURITY SHALL BE PLANTED BEHIND THE WROUGHT IRON FENCE; 4. DRIVEWAY SHALL BE PAVED WITH EITHER CONCRETE OR PAVERS, NOT GRAVEL; AND FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED WORK, AS MODIFIED, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE BAYFRONT PROPERTIES WITHIN THE MORNINGSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND COMPLIES WITH BOTH THE GUIDELINES FOR WALLS AND FENCES AS ESTABLISHED BY THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S "STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION." PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 1994. z�. SERVATION OFFICER CAR 94- 540 If APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Historic Preservation District Evaluation Sheet Name of Property: Morningside Historic District Address: 759 NE 57 St Project Description: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of a 5' wall at the southeast section of the property, a 5' wrought iron fence at the eastern end of NE 57 Street, and a gravel driveway. Analysis: The revised submission presented by the applicant is a significant improvement over the previous proposal for a 6' CBS wall (see attached staff evaluation sheet for March 15, 1994). The height of the wall has been reduced to 5' and is set back 8' from the property line on NE 57 Street. In addition, the enclusure at the eastern end of NE 57 Street has been changed to a 5' wrought iron fence with gates. Since the preparation of the previous staff report concerning the overall character of the historic district, additional information has been presented to cause a reevaluation. It appears that from a historic perspective, the view from NE 57 Street to the Bay was never unobstructed. In 1926, Mr. Nunnally constructed a boat house at the end of 57 Street, blocking the view. This structure was standing at least through 1957. Hedges have also been planted here and a portion currently exists. In addition, the majority, if not all, of the houses on the east side of N Bayshore Drive have historically been enclosed with wails or hedges. This proposal, therefore, is not inconsistent with the character of the bayfront properties and would still provide a vista to Biscayne Bay. Because of the historic precedent for other walls on bayfront properties, it also appears to be appropriate to permit a 5' wall along 57 Street, particularly because of the proposed location and the fact that it is set back 8' from the property line. Staff Recommendation: The Preservation Officer recommends that the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness be approved because the proposed project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation," and the character of the historic district, as stated above. Conditions, if any: 1. Replace gravel with either concrete or pavers. Morningside Historic,District 759 NE 57 St April 19, 1994 54- 540 �3 APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Historic Preservation District Evaluation Sheet Name of Property: Morningside Historic District Address: 759 NE 57 St Project Description: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of a 6' wall at the southeast section of the property and at the eastern end of NE 57 Street, and construction of a gravel driveway. Analysis: It has been the policy of the Board that all applications for fences or walls on corner properties be reviewed by the entire Board. Generally, the Board has permitted 5' wrought iron fences and 4' CBS walls to enclose the rear yards of these properties. No enclosure higher than 5' has been allowed. The proposed 6' wall is not consistent with these previous approvals. In adopting its policy on fences and walls in the Morningside Historic District, the Board considered the overall historic character of the neighborhood and the historic relationships between buildings, landscape features, and open spaces. One of the most significant character defining features of Morningside is the unobstructed views of Biscayne Bay at NE 55 Terrace, NE 57 Street, and NE 59 Street. Just as the Board determined that the front facades of houses should not be obscured with fences or walls, so too should the ends of these three streets remain unobstructed. The applicant could still enclose his "rear" yard by extending a wall or fence along NE 57 Street directly eastward to Biscayne Bay. The small lot at the end of NE 57 Street could then remain open. The applicant is also proposing to modify the shape of the existing driveway and use gravel as a paving material. It has not been determined that gravel was ever used historically in Morningside. The Board has previously permitted concrete or pavers only. Staff Recommendation: The Preservation Officer recommends that the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness be denied because the proposed project is not consistent with either the Board's guidelines or the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation," as stated above. Staff, however, would recommend approval if the following modifications were made: Conditions, if any: 1. Either reduce height of wall to 4' or substitute a 5' wrought iron fence. 2. Eliminate wall or fence at end of NE 57 Street, and instead extend wall or fence directly eastward along NE 57 Street to the bay. 3. Replace gravel with either concrete or pavers. Morningside Historic•District 759 NE 57 St March 15, 1994 94- 540 � � The Vintage Group of Companies April 4, 1994 City of Miami VINTAGE Historic Preservation Board PROPERTIES Dear Board Members: INCORPOR,�TED Enclosed with this letter please find a significantly altered VINTAGE submission for enclosing a portion of our side and back yards. You will REALTY see from the architect's plans that, unlike the prior submission, a substantial portion of the enclosure is now wrought iron fencing which GROUP, INC. completely preserves the vista to the water. The other portion of the License Real enclosure has been reduced from six feet to five feet and moved north off Estate Broker the south property line by eight feet. Wrought iron and new curves have also been added to the portion coming off of the house. These changes help maintain the openness of the street. This current submission fairly balances historical preservation and restoration of the estate as it was in the 1930's (see discussion below), the concerns of the neighborhood and the privacy and liability issues which I face as an owner. 1601 Jefferson Avenue Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Tel.: (305) 534-1424 Fax: (305) 532-5325 So as to assist all of us in expediting this matter at the April 19th meeting, let me briefly outline below the key points which I will be discussing. Privacy In its current condition, there are no fences and little hedging around the property as most of it was removed either by the prior owner in 1993 in order to clean up the property for sale or by us in order to rebuild the foundation and reconstruct the facade. Now that the outside work is nearing completion, we would like to return the property to its condition of the late 1920's which would in effect afford us some privacy in what we consider our back yard. The improvements are very much in keeping with the other bayfront homes. The first owner's original intention was to retain the land for his private enjoyment. The original owner, Mr. Nunnally, was the developer of Morningside and when he laid out the streets, he deeded the land at the end of 59th and 61 st Streets to the City but he maintained ownership of the 40 x 70 foot lot at the end of NE 54- 540 / 1 City of Miami Historic Preservation Board April 4, 1994 Page 2 57th Street, On this land he put a large boat house (Exhibit A), boat davit, dock and hedged the entire area from the street with a six foot hedge and sea grapes. (Additional evidence to be submitted.) This lot has been deeded to each of the four prior owners of the house for their exclusive use and enjoyment and was part of the land that was noted on the deed that conveyed the house to me. The way the property has been maintained or neglected over the past two decades when the house was owned by Mr. McCormick (from whom I purchased the house) is not relevant in terms of historical preservation. By way of historic example, the 400 block of Lincoln Road had its art deco facades obliterated 20 years ago with faux Spanish hacienda arcades. If the owner came before you to restore the original architecture of the 1930's, you would not deem it relevant that neighbors of Lincoln Road liked walking under the arcade. What is relevant to historic preservation is accommodating the historical past, and by that I mean the decade when this area was first developed with the changing world in which we live. It is why the neighborhood has changed historic street layouts, it is why the street lighting is not historic but functions well in the type of world in which we live. It is why my neighbors desire privacy in this age of greater street traffic and crime - as evidenced by the numerous fencing and wall applications and the large number of oversized hedges and non complying walls. It is why I must fence/wall in this back portion of my property. Liabili The enclosures are also necessary due to the substantial liability issue to which we are exposed by having no barrier between the public and the water over our land. You will see from the enclosed correspondence (Exhibit B) between myself and my insurance company that they are requiring an enclosure to be built much higher than I am requesting. I will have to convince them that the enclosure is adequate for their purposes. However, should I not be granted an enclosure of reasonable height (reasonable, that is, from a liability point of view), my insurance company will not renew the policy and it is currently very difficult to obtain property and liability insurance on waterfront property since Hurficane Andrew. Should '• • i 1 i 94- 540 City of Miami Historic Preservation Board April 4, 1994 Page 3 I fail to satisfy the insurance company because I am not able to put up this enclosure, the policy will not be renewed. I will then not only be subject to large liability awards given to litigants who fall off the seawall but I will be in violation of my mortgage and subject to foreclosure. Enhancement of the Property in Character with its First Decade This property was the winter estate of a very wealthy mid - western entrepreneur who decided to develop a neighborhood of beautiful homes during the real estate boom of the mid 1920's. Mr. Nunnally's estate occupied all of the land bounded by Biscayne Bay and North Bayshore Drive from Northeast 57th Street (then Coconut Avenue) to Northeast 59th Street. It wasn't until the 1960's that the 120 foot lot to the north of the house was sold, the sale of which included the carriage house. The main house was not your typical 1920's suburban home with a maid's room off the kitchen. There were servants' quarters accommodating five servants, a servants' dining porch and, outside, a gardener's bathroom. In addition, there was the boat house (on the lot at the end of 57th Street) and garages for four motor vehicles. Mr. Nunnally must have viewed 57th Street, the grandest boulevard in Morningside, as a magnificent driveway to his property. Do you really think that the house was unlandscaped and without privacy? No, this was a private estate (letters from residents of Morningside in the 1930's to be submitted) which was able to show its front facade to the world as an advertisement for Mr. Nunnally's development efforts. The rest of the property was hedged and a small portion of that hedge has survived to today at the end of 57th Street and was viewed by Sarah Eaton. Our neighbors just to the south of us, on the other side of 57th Street, who have lived there since 1978 will testify to the existence of a five to six foot hedge around the entire 57th Street frontage of the property from the front walk to the housearound the cul de sac of 57th Street. 94- 54 �� City of Miami Historic Preservation Board April 4, 1994 Page 4 In conclusion, I believe the current submission accommodates our concerns as well as those of the neighborhood and the insurance company. Most importantly, the current submission fully maintains the vista to the water and allows a full view of the front facade of the house (i.e., 57th Street) and total open views from North Bayshore Drive. There will be a landscaping plan submitted prior to April 19th which will show that the entire south lawn in front of the house and all land west of the house to North Bayshore Drive will remain open without fencing. I thank you in advance for the time and consideration which I know you will give to this new submission and look forward to providing additional historical evidence as to the condition of the property in the 1920's and 1930's at the April 19th meeting. ALIL41ESI — ----- t� CARO$ CITY OF MIAMi, FLORIDA TAX ASSESSOR KIND OF I IIE USE.. CONOTRUCT ION COND. CLAN! T BAY SHORE UNIT 2 ---------- ------- ------- t. jr O V"A790 --- ------ I.XTERIOR FEATURES FOUNDATION LXTL141014 WALL.0 AND FIM011 floor 7yr& ROOF MATERIAL DIAGRAM W SIRlKIW1ES e, Cl F 7 d A . . . . . . . . . . EXTERIOR FEATURES INTERIOR FEATURES EXTERIOR TRIM W-0-6 L)oQHq POIACIIED UADEMENT FLO-OR TYPI FLOOR MATERIAL WA" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Z 710 L n V 0 x A FEATUREG FINIGIS TRIM AT f I C PLUMIJING PLUMI)MG fjXTLJllf.0 IMATING ROOMS L 2- _c: LIYIHC. NOOU Dl.MkOOM kilcolt. 0 btpkul). A Aulo cm— T. A" OUR L)JHG CULIPUT A TIONS AMOUNT CQUIPMENT A U C SQ. f F. fill Conic F T. NAM Coir %CON CON FWD. El klATORt 70 L ... URY [MAY$ "N cut"TIOH.G s I U.. I. NI It NI ).u)LAfllJVAJ.Ls fiNEET I.WL 41 Lt, kUOf w I I LM .'U W­tVOU I Of ELLCIRICOUILE IS n 110.01 I,rk ut .1�1.c 5 btl.l (.114 C All 1. 1 1 S ------- --- - LAND COYPUTATIONJ I LAMDfLAIUREl TLAw LaNU runuul.: nnu auNc A■ArL REASON rowulANL NI Wt.11 COwntN ( INNtWt.N INI AIIUIL NINUtN •. ANVUIII ._ — .. — -_-_— t VA UI VALUE-- . —V AI Uf -- .. ----- _-,_ VALUt--- ---------_— WIN —_—.—__ -__--. UAL — ._--. INUtlI _l ... DarU _ ._. U I. ... __. ___ A I. /. -. _ , 1. I 1 l L. _. __ U.11 _--... -.. 1955 _.—___,-- -----•_--- — 1 195G uIC INIc _---- -- -- - -_-- - ---- ------ --. _. ._ `---- 1957 _-_ILLLCIwl!IL - _-- _.. ----' ---- — _----- — 1951 ------ "------------- --rereeu+Let.__ ----1--- --. - -------- - 1950 - I9GO -- ------ --- - - -- - � 1 s Unu YMJrIU S1. ^ _ P_SU At LI - 1962 CUMtlIN� - uDL..I[ 1967 t 1964------------ .mll..r t\ tnLLlllcrulnc 19G5 19GG n...tI Lit 19G7 I.N 1+.IN llUNN 11.IN 19GG IOPOLNAPNT 1969 LANDIL.PInL 1970 1971 .ILL L All. SPA-1 EN _.---__---_ 19721974. ' 1975 ' Eo.IEU tow --.-- _-- — SUAWANY N ! AMOUNT AEIOUNT AMOUNT AAOINII AMOUR AI.YJIRIT LNUS1 LAnD Y.I Of RAT It*; f�l lNIIANCINL , AUJUIiLU U1lf Mrf 11 w•E OL TNAC fINL 1_-- ----- NET LAND VALUE1-1 1 BUILDINGS l r Af [ Nl N I 1.7 Ilfr ALIOUni . Il ILNIUN NAl t I S NWf Yf$CEI LAHLOUl s L 1l oull IGNIOII C f III I LN IOW C l,lw CNtS —_ f MI UNNIMI. l NOP1 GROSS OL. vAl VE _ 1 IIL AI UN' I wANSPUNIAIIIwI - (NIIANCIIIL , ---_ _ _ _ _--- --- IN Il IC INI111/ U 111, 1RENO Utiw ICIIIIL , 11 NI)C. -_ -_-. NLI SILUC. v.AL UE U TUTAL VALUE . IJIAL Un1I 1U11 NAN[ll-NlClIuL-NIlCI LI.Nl OU1 UAIA DUII IIIIIL PI NNI I S — - I -- REIL.(RRI. --- - Yf AN -- - No. nAIL RIND If i - t.IN ANn U.I. DNUS) -` --" -- — — FAIR w IAl NL I NAIL CAPIIAI IE/U V.IUE SAIL UIIIf N.I )t DL INAL IN, 1.ft. O+nIM') t11111A1E t All N.4[t l v.l Ut V V JJJ ''Since 1935" WORI.EY HUMPHREY & BALL, INC. INSURANCE / FINANCIAL SERVICES 9500 S Dadeland Blvd., Suite ?00. fAami, FL 33156 • P.O. Box 561567, Miami, FL 33256-1567 (305) 670-61 11 R Fax (305) 670-9699 • Outside Dade (800) 273-4433 March 9, 1994 Mr. Steve Polakoff Vintage Properties 1601 Jefferson Avenue Miami Beach, FL 33139 RE: Lexington Insurance Homeowners H030042144000 09/27/93 - 09/27/94 Dear Steve: You will recall when we originally wrote the above captioned policy it was with the understanding that you were going to be doing substantial renovations to the residence. The underwriter for Lexington indicated that they are looking for you to upgrade the roof, replace the wiring, replace the kitchen, upgrade the plumbing, and do something to reduce the liability exposure generated from being on the water. There is, very obviously, an increased liability exposure as a result of this. When you have an opportunity, please advise the progress you have made with regard to these items so that we might pass that information on to the Lexington. We appreciate your usual fine cooperation and assistance. Best regards, Hayes Worley, Jr. t� HW/mld The Vintage Group of Companies VINTAGE PROPERTIES INCORPOR,�TtD V I NTAG E REALTY GROUP, INC. License Real Estate Broker 160it 'Oeron Avenue Micri Becc-, Flcrcc 331;`; TeL (305) 534.1424 Fax: (305) 532.5325 March 16, 1994 Via Fax Mr. Hayes Worley Worley Humphrey & Ball, Inc. 9500 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33156 Fax Number 670-9699 Re: 5701 North Bayshore Drive Homeowner's H030042144000 Dear Hayes: I am in receipt of your letter of March 9th regarding the renovations needed in order to insure renewal of my homeowner's policy. To date, we have completed the replacement of the roof, replacement of all plumbing (converting to copper) and replacement of all electrical wiring. At the current time, the kitchen has been completely gutted and the installation of the new cabinetry and appliances is scheduled for the week of April 18th. With regard to the liability exposure generated from being on the water, we are planning to go before the Preservation Board on April 19th with a proposal that would approve a wall running from the southeast corner of our house to the southwest corner of the lot at the eastern end of 57th Street (please see attached diagram). Would you please indicate to me how high this barrier should be in order to sufficiently reduce our liability exposure and satisfy the underwriter. I need an answer by no later than Monday, March 21 st. Sincerely, 1 c� �. Steven Polakoff SP/ae Attachment 94-- 540 a � 1=�Y. .. .. �— 1 l V�i'! �' �1: .�.��(�`.,`. .. � _ I .- r - _ Y�^^�-Yr.�R.^_-1•�"`S-"".. ..-... - .. .I1`'^,4-i... a.^r.,^;�;Y -`�,"''�- i ` c�•�. 1�:, :I ill;! � —1 �Y/ ------ IL. ,� y 1. :_ Lam,-�.:.�• .��_,______.!.— J �� �I1 i i S 1:. k rz=.:.If'.Ir.t-.r-Y �K�1�c3�T M'd -lHlcl Y Y "Since1935" TADRLEY HL-WHREY & BALL, INC. INSURANCE / FINANCIAL SERVICES 9500 S. Dadeland Bwd., Sure 203, Miami, F. 83156 • PO. Box 561567, P,rlia-ni, FL 33256-1567 (305) 670-6 , 11 • Fax (305) 67G•9699 * Outside Dade (8C0 273-4433 March 22, 1994 Mr. Steve Polakoff Fax: 532-5325 1601 jeffer5on Avenue Miami Beach, FL 33139 RE: Dwelling Homeowners H030042144000 : 090127/93 - 09/27/94 Dear Steve: I am in receipt of yours of March 16th and appreciate your prompt response to my inquiries with regard to the renovations of the residence. Also at this point, let me suggest that any wall you construct should be tall enough to keep adults from easily climbing over same. My suggestion would be in the area of 6 to 7 feet. Our concern would be twofold- First, when the possibility of burglary is reduced the more difficult you make it. And secondly, the liability hazard of trespassers falling in the bay (in our opinion an attractive nuisance) would be greatly reduced. Should you have any further questions in regard to this matter, please let me -know. Thanks so much. Best regards, J . es W Hay Orley, Jr. HW/mld 1- 540 APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE nav�''� OF APPROPRIATENESS ALTERATIONS, NEW CONSTRUCTION NAME OF HISTORIC SITE/HISTORRIC DISTRICT Mori I p E--- ADDRESS OF PROPERTY OWNER S NAME j Mic-N4,,P-I`�� Ji-�✓N �oyf�I�o OWNER S ADDRESS OWNED. S TELEPHONE APPLICANT'S NAh)E (IF NOT OWNER) RELATIONSHIP TO OWNER MATERIALS SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION MINOR ALTERATIONS MAJOR ALTERATIONS SIGNS ❑ EXHIBIT NO. 1 ❑ EXHIBIT NO. I ❑ EXF'IbiT NO. i ❑ EXHIBIT NO. 2 ❑ EXHIBIT NO. 2 ❑ EXHIBIT NO. 2 ❑ EXHIBIT NO. 3 Cl EXHIBIT NO. 3 ❑ EXHIBIT NO. 3 ❑ EXHIBIT NO. 4 ❑ EXHIBIT NO. 4 ❑ EXHIBIT NO. 4 ❑ EXHIBIT NO. s ❑ EXHIBIT NO. s ❑ EXHIBIT N0. 5 ❑ EXHIBIT NO. 7 ❑ EXHIBIT NO. s DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF REHABILITATION V!ORK PROVIDE AN OVERALL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT. DESCRIBE THE NATURE AND SPECIFIC LOCATION OF ALL PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS OR CHANGES TO THE PROPERTY. USE ADDITIONAL PAGE IF NECESSAPY. gf%) GZAR--t, p f?-A VF, UAY �o "2Z' LACE i�,KL51-11;1 co A6fMA i- V-V-tVP- VV4,V RF,k1 ID' - o" &AT' e-N (C0KC QVT6 .A. Rp 1 U(j Gam' I e-ftt) 54- 540 33 REASONS FOR PROPOSED IMPROVE JS OR CHANGES PitVA6Y Tv BAc-k YAY,D o:r kl0v56 . mp PROFESSIONAL ADVISERS LIST THE NAME AND FIRI1 OF SUCH PROFESSIONAL ADVISERS AS ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. CONTRACTOR, AND PRESERVATION CONSULTANT. NAME/FIRM ADDRESS TELEPHONE ;,�--'PKESTo ?-oo slLam 4�f8-21�5 NAME/FIRM ADDRESS TELEPHONE NAME/FIRM ADDRESS TELEPHONE NAME/FIRM ADDRESS TELEPHONE NAME/FIR4 ADDRESS TELEPHONE EXPECTED SCHEDULE I CERTIFY TO THE BEST OF MY KNOY' DGE AND BELIEF TPAT ALL I'IFORHATICN IN THI' APPLICATION AND ITS AT 7: S IS 1 RU . AND C RRECT V1 - z / SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNE DATE 5I6I4A,TURE OF APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) DATE FOR STAFF USE ONLY] APPLICATION NO. DATE RECEIVED STAFF REVIEW FINAL ACTION p,$TANDARD CA WSPECIAL CA HEARING DATE FINAL ACI ` 9 4 - 540 June 10, 1994 Keith Soto 527 NE 56 Street Miami, Florida 33137 305-756-8730 w Ms Matty Hiri City Clerk r,1 City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive I Miami., Florida 33133 Dear Ms I-1iri: Attached is a copy of a letter which I faxed to the Hearing Boards Division of the Planning, Building and Zoning Department on June 6, 1994. In this letter I request that the appeal, to be heard at the June 30th Commission Meeting, of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board decision regarding a property wall and fence at 759 NE 57th Street be heard at a specific time for the convenience of Morningside Residents. Because I have not yet received a response to the letter, and I know that there is a deadline for such requests, I respectfully ask that the City Clerk's Office follow up on this matter to ensure that our agenda item is scheduled for a time certain after 5:OOPM at the June 30th Commission Meeting. i Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your reply. Sincerely, eith Soto 94- 540 1 June 6, 1994 Keith Soto 527 NE 56th Street Miami, Florida 33137 305-756-8730 Hearing Boards Division City of Miami Planning, Building and Zoning Department Dear Sir or Madam: On behalf of many of the residents of Miami's historic Morningside neighborhood, I am writing to ask that the City Commission's consideration of the appeal of a request for a fence and masonry wall at 759 NE 57th Street in Miami be placed on the agenda for the June 30th commission meeting at a time specific after 5:OOPM. A significant number of people have expressed an interest in attending this meeting. Hearing the case after 5:OOPM will allow these working Miami voters an opportunity to address this matter. Thank you. A telephone call from your office confirming this request would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely,-, Keith Soto i { 94- 540 I vAILEY HUNT .JONES & BUS10 A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS Al LAW RAUL A. ARENCIBIA COURVOISIER CENTRE • SUITE 300 OF COUNSEL GUY B. BAILEY, JR. 501 BRICKELL KEY DRIVE LAWRENCE S. EVANS KATHY J. BIBLE JEROME M. HESCH� MERCEDES C. BUSTO MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-2623 J. BRUCE IRVING SCOTT I.. CAGAN TEL. 13051 374-'_i505 ROBERT E. SCHUR TIMOTHY CONE '. FAX 130E,1 374 6715 STEVEN CARLYLE CRONIG SENIOR COUNSEL JAMES C. CUNNINGHAM. JR. WM. R. DAWES RICHARD 111. DAVIS EARL G. GAI_LO{h GEORGE J. BAYA JUDITH B. GREENE AOIAITTEO IN NEW YORk ONLY RICHARD H. HUNT, JR. Thursday, July 14, 1994 BRUCE HURWITZ JESSE C. JONES JOHN B. LEVITT Hon. Wilfredo Gort Commissioner of the City of Miami Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33131 Hand Delivered RE: Steven Polakoff and Michael Carver / 5701 North Bayshore Drive Dear Commisioner Gort: This firm represents Steven Polakoff and Michael Carver, the owners of the property located at 5701 North Bayshore Drive, (a/k/a 759 Northeast 57th Street, ) in the Morningside area of Miami. Our clients have tiled an appeal from a decision of the City's Historic and Environmental Preservation Board, which is to be heard by the City Commission today as Agenda Item #58. Enclosed is a copy of the Memorandum in Support of our clients' appeal and in opposition to that appeal filed by Jesse Diner, et a/. Copies of this memorandum have been hand delivered today in accordance with the enclosed Certificate of Service. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions or problems, please call me. Sincerely, BAILEY HUNT JONES & BUSTO �- en Carly e. Cronig 94- 540 1 ;�� ;� IN RE: THE APPLICATION OF STEVEN POLAKOFF AND MICHAEL CARVER RESOLUTION HEPB 94-10 APPEAL TO THE CITY COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA FROM A PORTION OF THE DECISION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA'S HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD, A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY AND IN OPPOSITION TO THAT NOTICE OF APPEAL DATED APRIL. 26, 1994 FILED BY JESSE H. DINER, ET AL. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of Appellants' Memorandum in Support of Appellants' Appeal to the City Commissioners (Agenda Item #58) and in Oppostion to Notice of Appeal filed by Diner, et al. (Agenda Item #59) has been band delivered this 14th day of July, 1994, as follows: Hon. Stephen P. Clark Vice Mayor Miller Dawkins Mayor of the City of Miami Commissioner of the. City of Miami Miami City Hall Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33131 Miami, Florida 33131 Hon. Victor De Yurre Hon. Wilfredo Gort Commissioner of the City of Miami Commissioner of the City of Miami Miami City Hall Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33131 Miami, Florida 33131 Hon. J.L. Plummer Joel Maxwell, Esquire Commissioner of the City of Miami Deputy City Attorney Miami City Hall City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive 300 Biscayne Boulevard Way Miami, Florida 33131 Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33131 Mr. Cesar H. Odio Jesse Diner, Esquire City Manager, City of Miami 1946 Tvler Street Miami City Hail Hollywood, Florida 33020 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33131 Bailey Hunt Jones &. Busto a professional association Courvoisier Centre, Suite 300 501 Brickell Key Drive Miami, Florida 33131-2623 Telephone (305) 374-5505 4y-S en C. Croni_v, Florida Bar No. 07068 n C t, r7 540 � BAILEY HUNT JC�,JES 6 BUS10 j A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIb�NEYS Al LAW COURVOISIER CENTRE, SUITE 300, 501 6RICKELL KEY DRIVE, MIAMI. FLORIDA 33131-2623 -TELEPHONE 13051 374.55O5 ""N IN RE: THE APPLICATION OF STEVEN POLAKOFF AND MICHAEL CARVER RESOLUTION HEPB 94-10 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL TO THE CITY COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA FROM A PORTION OF THE DECISION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA'S HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD, A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY AND IN OPPOSITION TO THAT NOTICE OF APPEAL DATED APRIL 26, 1994 FILED BY JESSE H. DINER, ET AL. r' `z i_, item � C'I '�. - . _.. _•,1 e •'i2 Clerk - Appellants' Attorneys Bailey Hunt Jones & Busto a professional association Courvoisier Centre, Suite 300 501 Brickell Key Drive Miami, Florida 33131-2623 Telephone (305) 374-5505 94- 540 BAILEY HUNT JONES & BUSTO A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, ATTORNEYS AT LAW COURVOISIER CENTRE, SUITE 300. 501 BRICKELL KEY DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131.2623 • TELEPHONE 1305, 374-5505 c111?1IORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF AI)IIII'Al, APPELLANTS. STIATN N)LAKOFF and MICHAEEL. CARVER, ("Appellants") hereby file this Memorandum in Support of Appeal to the City Commiss)oilers of the City of Miami, Florida from a Portion of the Decision of the Citv of Miami. Florida's Historic and Environmental Prescr�ahon Board, a Qmisi-Jmlicial Body and in Opposition to That Notice of Appeal Dated April 26, 1994 filed by Jesse H. Diner, crt al. I'll [ E 1'IZ0CEEI)1NGS The Appellants, Stcyen Polakoff and Michael Carver, applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of a privacy wall and a wrought iron fence for their property <� at 5701 North Bayshore Drive. On April 19, 1994, a public hearing regarding this application was held before the City of Miami's Historic and Environmental Preservation Board, (the "HEPB" or "Board,") at the City Commission Chamber at Citv Hall. The Board issued a Resolution which approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for a wall and fence, but with conditions not contained within the Appellants' application. Appellants are appealing certain Im ILI IC I� portions of the Board',, Rc-,olution. A group of area property o%�tiers have also filed an appeal. IMOTO OF SUBJECT PROPERTY MEMORANDUM / CITY OF h11AN11 COMMISSION, PAGE 2 94- 540 E 441LF, HUiJT jor4E3 & T) PROIC 3, iiONIL �55CC ATICN. -7TORNE IS :aYr Fc. +T4:i ��irE>. _...-.BR,CKr—�Er DR,VE.Mi.Ml. cLORina 33i ?�.'_c.2?.rE�Ear+Orir �.-._ _-1 SUMMARY Oh r1•HE APPEA1 'rhe property owners appeal only those portions of the &CiSiOn of the HELM that require the Five foot high %%,III it) he located t%%entv-seen Beet inside the right of "my and as close as possible to the call of their historic home h I of the Resolution) and Much limits vegclatiun on a portion of their property to a hcWht of eighwen incites (§ 3 of the Resolution.) These condition, ,me unrcammahle ,utd exceed the 1xiwers granted to HFPB by the Cite ('ode. Viet' deprisc the wners of the reasonable use of their backyard along Bisuayrtc Bay: they hying approximately 5,M) square feet of private property within the public: domain: and, they hear no rcasoniblc relation to the City's gui dhws for issuing certificates of 23.1- 5(c), Cite ol' Miami Code. They are also in direct contravention to the holding in the t'nited States SUpremc Court's recent ruling in Dolan v. Ui v of Tigal-& 62 U.S.I..W. 4(� (June 24, 1994.) All property owners have a clear right under the City zonin", code to place a �kall next to the City right of "my. § 908.8, City of [Miami Zoning Code. That ri__ht has been exercised by most owners in the Morning ide n6ghhorhood. On properties located along the Bay. and in the interior lots, their walls, fences and hed-cs are located next to the sidc%kalks and reach up to eight feet. :any power the HIM has to regulatc the location of a "M at an historic honk is limited to rcglrkg de gn compati idity amo g the home, the %trail and the identified special charactcristies ol' the historic dklricl. Decisions must he guided by apIWcahle U.S. Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitatiou 11storic Buildings" and by City guidelines. I'I1r)t<i ACROSS Sl'WECT PROPERTY FACING Nowl'HFAST I ...J MEMORANDUM 1 Crry OF ;MIANn CO,nrnn�siuv. PAGE 3 f ;.a 94- 540 The owners propose to locate a compatible wall eight feet inward from the right of way, which wall will not block the public's view of the historic facade facing Northeast 57th Street. The City's Historic Preservation Officer recommended that the certificate of appropriateness be issued for the wall location contained in the owners' plan. This recommendation properly considered the applicable criteria for decision -making. The Board ignored the Preservation Officer's recommendation and insisted that the wall be relocated to provide a historically unauthentic view of the bay across the owners' property, 1-'he decision utterly ignores the City's guidelines for issuing certificates of appropriateness. It [)cars no relation to the Secretary's standards and guidelines. And, by government action, it burdens the owners' private property rights for the benctit of some residents who have no legal right to visual access across their property. In the final analysis, the owners are deprived of property rights for reasons that have nothing to do with historic preservation, and in violation of the constitutional property, substantive due process and equal protection rights. 1 SUNINIARY OF FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS 1. THE APPELLANTS, Steven Poiakoff and Michael Carver, are the owners of the property located at 5701 North Bayshore Drive, (also sometimes referred to as 759 Northeast 57th Street,) Miami, Florida (tile "Prolx rty. ") On April 4, 1993 Appellants, following extensive discussions with the City of Miami's Historic quid Environmental Preservation Board's Staff and with neighboring residents, submitted an amended application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of a concrete and stucco wall enclosing a portion of their Property and a wrought iron fence enclosing another portion of their Property. A copy of Mr. Polakoff's letter to the City's Preservation Officer, Sara Eaton, and the amended presentation, y (the "Application") is attached to this Mc nlorandum as Exhibit A. Ms. Eaton recommended that the Board approve the amended Application as submitted. A public hearing was held before the Board on April 19, 1994 at the City Commission Chamber at City Hall. At the hearing, the Board heard testimony, reviewed evidence and approved issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the design and construction of a Five foot high concrete and stucco privacy wall to be located along a portion of the southern boundary of the Property (the "Privacy Wall") and a five foot high wrought -iron fence along the western boundary of another portion of the Property, (the "Fence") but with significant changes in the location of the Privacy Wall. A copy of the Board's Resolution granting the Certificate of Appropriateness (the "Resolution") is attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit B. The Appellants appeal only those portions of the ReSOlutiOn which require the Privacy Wall to be located twenty-eight feet within their property line, approximately flush with the southern wall of the house, (§1 of the Resolution) and which limit vegetation on a portion of their property to a height of eighteen inches (§ 3 of the Resolution.) An appeal from the Board's action also has been tiled by Jesse H. Diner, et al. As the "issues" raised in that Notice of Appeal are inextricably intertwined with Appellants' appeal, it is assumed that the Commission will consolidate the hearings. Although it is difficult to ascertain from their Notice what legal basis Diner et al. present for overturning the Board's actions, to the extent possible, those issues are also addressed in the discussions contained herein. 00 MEMORANDUM / CITY OF MIAMI COMNUSSION, PAGE 4 4 - 540 BAILEY HUNT JONES 6 BUSTO A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, ATTORNEYS AT LAW ® COURVOISIER CENTRE, 51JITE 300. 501 BRICKELL KEY DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIOA 33131-2623 •TELEPHONE (3051 374.5505 "i 1 C7 HISTORIC HOUSE O% NED BY CROSS -APPELLANT PIERCE MULLALEY, ESQUIRE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 2. Matters of zoning within the City of Nliami, Florida are subject to the jurisdiction of the City Commission, acting through the Department of Planning, Building and Zoning. The City Commission created the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board' to review the appropriateness of proposed plans for structures and neighborhoods which are, individually, deemed historic or which lie within the boundaries of a historic district, such as the Morningside neighborhood. The Property falls within the jurisdiction of the Board for both reasons. Among the Board's functions is the obligation to "Serve as a quasi-judicial instrument to approve or deny certilicates of appropriateness pursuant to chapter 23.1 of the Miami City Code and'artiele 7 of the zoning ordinance."' Appeals from the actions of the Board are made to the City Commission, which itself acts in a quasi - Judicial role in its review of such appeals.' 1. Code of the City of Miami, §62-70. 2. Code of the City of Miami, §62-72(3). 3. Code of the City of Miami, §23.1-5(b)(4)(e). See nlvo Jennings t,. Dade CounJv, 589 So.2d 1337 (Fla. 3d D.C.A., 1991,) rev. den. 598 So.2d 75, (Fla. 1992.) MEMORANDUM / CITY OF NIIAN11 COMMISSION, PAGE 5 94_ 540 1 BAILEY NIJt,T .:CUES .1; ©USTO PR01ESS�011AL ASSOCI4TIOtj. ATTORNE/S AT LAv, Y " COURYCISIER ENTRE. SUITE 3 ZRICf.ELL ✓Er DRIVE. MIAMI. FLORIDA -i. -ti23 tELE PMJt1C -g ff I STATEMENT OF FACTS 3. The Property. The Property consists of two parcels. The larger is a corner lot 107 feet wide and 300 feet deep, running from North Bayshore Drive to Biscayne Bay, upon which is located a large house, originally constructed in 1925 and to which later additions were made, (the "Main Parcel.") Tile second parcel. located south of the Main Parcel at the east end, is 70 feet wide and 40 feet deep, separating the eastern end of Northeast 57th Street from Biscayne Bay, and upon which was located, front 1927 until the 1960s, a boathouse which was an outbuilding of the main house, (the 11Boathouse Parcel.") A survey of the Property is attached to this Memorandum as Q?xhibit C. 4. The Ordinal House. The main house was constructed in 1925 by John Nunnally, who was the developer of the Morningside neighborhood in which the house is located. It is an Italian Revival palazzo containing approximately 6,000 square feet. The original plans for the house show that the main entrance was located on the North Bayshore Drive (west) side of the Property, which was reached by entry through a courtyard located at the end of the driveway from North Bayshore Drive. A set of steps runs the full eighteen foot length of the courtyard's east wall, leading to the main entrance. The floorplan of the house shows a double - vaulted entrance and foyer with freestanding columns from which persons entering the house could see through the living room windows out to Biscayne Bay. The focus of all of the main rooms of the house was the view of the Bay. "]'his main front hall leads to a study located at the southeast corner of the first floor and a dining room located at the northeast corner of the first floor, a simple and extremely elegant floorplan which captured the breezes from the Bay. Smaller side doors were located at either end of the front hallway, one of which led to the coat closet located next to the main entrance and one of which led to the Northeast 57th Street (south) side. A drawing of the original floorplan and exterior western elevation is attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit 1). A discussion of the historic significance of the house and the function of its original floorplan, prepared by Ernesto Fabre, AIA, together with Mr. Fabrd's qualifications, are attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit E. Approximately in 1931, a wing was added at the southwest corner of the house. At some later point in time, a garage and servants' quarters were constructed at the northwest corner of the house, replacing a freestanding garage which was sold along with another parcel of land north of the Main Parcel. 5. The Boathouse. The original owner of the house, Mr. Nunnally, also constructed a boathouse on the Boathouse Parcel. The boathouse appears in the plat of Morningside, (originally called Bay Shore) a copy of which is attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit F. Aerial photographs obtained from the United States Department of Agriculture, U.S. Geological Survey, which were entered into evidence at the Board's April 19th hearing, show the existence of the boathouse as late as 1952, as well as thick hedging along the perimeter of both the Main Parcel and the Boathouse Parcel as late as 1972.' 4. The United States Geodesic Survey took only periodic aerial photographs of the Miami area. 1952 was the earliest year available, 1972 was the last year available. MEMORANDUM / CrrX OF MIAMI COMMISSION, PAGE G 94-- 540 BAILEY HUNT JONES 6 BUSTO A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, ATTORNEYS AT LAW COURVOISIER CENTRE, SUITE 300. 501 EIRICKELL KEY DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-2623 -TELEPHONE 1305, 374.5505 N 6. Restoration of the I'ruw:.. The Appellants acquired the Property in 1993 and have performed an extremely detailed and expensive restoration of the house and grounds in an attempt to bring them back to their appearance circa 1925 - 1935. The restoration has involved structural reinforcements, recreation of many details of the original appearance of` both the interior and exterior of the house, rewiring and replumbing, stripping and refinishing of the original pecky cypress ceiling beams and other wood trim, reroofing in the original style, restoration of the original windows, including seventeen sets of french doors, and repainting of the house in its authentic colors. The only arguably "modern" area of' the house is the new kitchen, which combined several smaller pantries into one large room and which includes new appliances. All of this work should greatly enhance the character and value of the Morningside. neighborhood. ISSUES FOR DECISION BY THE CO1MMISSION 7. DID THE BOARD'S ACTIONS CONSTITUTE AN UNCOMPENSATED CONDEMNATION OF APPELLANTS' PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S "TAKINGS" CLAUSE? By requiring the Appellants' proposed Privacy Wall to be located Hush with the southern facade of the house, the Board directs the Appellants to remove twenty-eight feet from the original back yard, destroying the symmetry of the original historic yard plan,' as well as ible taking of approximately 2,800 square feet of the Appellants' back effecting an impermiss yard plus the 2,800 feet contained within the Boathouse Parcel for public "vista" purposes, in total, approximately 20% of Apl-.,cllants' entire Property. While such takings are common ninety miles south of Key West, they are not permitted under the laws of the United States or the State of Florida. The Board's mandated location of the Privacy Wall would destroy the historic intent of the yard's original design, which featured tour benches located at each corner, facing into the main garden. Under both the Citv's zoning code and the Board's own precedents, side yard walls may be built immediately adjacent to the boundary of the side yard. The Appellants' plans actually call for construction of this wall eight feet inward from the southern boundary of the Main Parcel and they have asked for nothing more than the right to limit entry onto the Property and to gain a degree of privacy. The United States Supreme Court, in a decision issued June 24, 1994, vigorously reaffirmed that local governments are permitted to impose only those conditions for development which are "roughly proportionate" to the added burden which the development will place on the public. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 62 U.S.L.W. 4576, (June 24, 1994.) In Dolan, the City of Tigard, Oregon required, as a condition of granting a building permit, that the owner of the property dedicate an easement for a pedestrian/bicycle path through the property. The Court, in a detailed analysis of the rights of local governments and private property owners under the 5. See the architect's discussion of the historic plan for the back yard, including the discussion regarding the four corner benches, two of which would he bisected by the mandated location of the wall. MEMORANDUM / CITY of MIAMI COMMISSION, PAGE 7 94- 540 BAILEY HUNT JONES 6 BUSTO A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, ATTORNEYS AT LAW COURVOISIER CENTRE, SUITE 300. 501 BRICKELL KEY DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 2623 .TELEPHONE 13051374.5505 Irmil `4 CE 1.1 Fifth Amendment's "Takings Clause" established a test of so-called "rough proportionality." The Court stated that a municipality, in setting conditions for issuance of a building permit, must make an individualized clef crmiflat ion that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of' the prolx)scd development,' and, in such situations, the burden of proof properly rests with the city. In Dolan, the Court determined that the city of' Tigard had not met its burden to prove that the imposition of the pedestrian/bicycle casement was a "price" which was proportional to the public detriment which the increased use of the property would create. The Court went on to state, "One of the principal purposes of the Takings Clause is to 'bar government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.'? Without question, had the city simply required petitioner to dedicate [certain lands] for public use, rather than conditioning the grant of her permit on such a dedication, a taking would have occurred." Does the defiic•to eondenination of 5,600 square feet of Appellants' private property for public view purposes meet the "rough proportionality" requirements of Dolan? The Board would be hard-pressed to argue that the present taking even approaches such a "rough proportionality," given that there is no public "view right" in the first place, (either historically or under Florida. law.) The public is well afforded excellent views of the Bay from the forty-two and one half acre Mornim-,side Park, located two blocks south of the Appellants' Property and the Board was presented with clear evidence, including photographs, that until recently, the Property was entirely enclosed. [R:24] The taking proposed by the Board is wholly impermissible under the rule in Dolan since the Board will be unable to justify "compensating" the public for a right which never existed in the First place. To do so would directly contravene the limits on government takinLo now established by the Supreme Court. The parties in the appeal tiled by Dinar, cat al. somewhat clumsily argue that no wall at all should be permitted. For liability reasons, if no others, it may be, seen that such a denial could well result in a complete, governmentally induced, forfeiture of the entire Property due to the Appellants' inability to obtain insurance as required by their mortgagee. During the past few decades, the tiling of multi -million dollar personal injury suits has increased exponentially, for good reasons and for no reasons at all. If the Appellants were prohibited from limiting access across their Property, the Appellants could well be the subject of litigation in the event that any member of the public should injure himself or herself on their Property or by falling into the Bay over the edge of the seawall. The first issue leads inexorably to the second, which is the availability of insurance. The Applicant's insurance company has demanded, as a condition to continued coverage, that the Appellants place a fence between the street and the seawall in order to deter injury claims on the property. A copy of the letter from the Appellants' insurer is attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit G. The Appellants' mortgage with City National Bank 6. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 62 U.S. L.W. 4576, at 4606. 7. Ibid, at 4582, quotinv, from Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, (1960.) MEMORANDUM / CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION, PACE 8 9 4 - 540 BAILEY HUNT JONES 5 BUSTO A PROFE5SIONAL ASSOCIATION. ATTORNEYS AT LAW ® COURVOISIER CENTRE. SUITE 300. 50, BRICKELL KEY DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131.2623 -TELEPHONE 13051 374-550S -, W HE specifically requires the Appellants to maintain liability insurance on the Property or be declared in default. Thus, if the Appellants fail to maintain insurance, their mortgagee may declare the mortgage in default and foreclose upon the Property, effecting a forfeiture. 8. DID THE BOARD'S ACTIONS CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF APPELLANTS, RIGHTS TO EQUAL_ PROTECTION AND A FAIR HEARING? The United States Constitution provides that all {arsons shall have equal protection under the laws of the States." The actual conditions existing in the Morningside neighborhood at the present time are Unalllbl-110U$; almost without exception, every Bay Front Lot is surrounded either by a high privacy wall or by it tall hedge. Not only are the properties belonging to many of the people objecting" to the Appellants' plans are themselves surrounded by walls or hedges in excess of nine feet in hCiLht, but all of the Citv's inlnlediatcly adjacent public parks are similarly fenced in. HOUSE ON EAST SIDE OF NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE To deny Appellants the right to privacy in their back yard, aside from being historically inaccurate, would clearly be a violation of equal protection udder the law (in this case, the zoning law) since such privacy is the rule in this area. The house at the corner of North 8. Amendment XIV, United States Constitution. MEMORANDUM / CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION, PAGE 9 94- 540 . - BAILEY HUPIT ,OtJES 6 aIjSTOL „ PROFE5SIONAASSOCIATION. ATTORNErS AT SAW ® _CV R•lOI SIER �Erl'F E. -J;TE _ � 8R,CKELL KEY DRIVE. MIAMI. FLORICA 33i3' 2�",23 • TELEPHONE i i Bayshore Drive and Northeast 59th Street, two blacks north of Appellants' Property. is idelitic;illy sittl.>Iicd nest to a eul-ale-sac. fts hack yard is surrounded by a seven foot high privacy hedge and fence which tins �lireetll' on the Northeast 59th Street right of way. 1 %4 Photo of House at N.C. 59th Street and N, Bayshore Drive It is interesting to note that the "Morningside Civic Association, Inc." which now thunders so ponderously and ri(Thteously about "preserving" the previously non-existent view over the Appellants' Property, was the driving force behind totally obscuring the view at the end of Northeast 55th Street, adjacent to Morningside Park,. by the planting of a multitude of bushes and trees across the end of that street, which is directly adjacent to the Bay. Unless the Commission intends to require removal of all fences and hedges east of North Bayshore Drive in some effort to provide "public vistas" to the Bay across the entire Morningside development, it cannot single out the Appellants' Property for such a requirement. (Continued on page 11) MEMORANDUM / CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION, PAGE 10 9 4 — 540 BAiLEe H(JrrT j lr•!E- � BUSTO A PROFESS,ONAL ASSOCIATION. ATTORNEIS AT LAW GURVOi SiER CENTRE, SUITE BR1r_KELL KE'I DRIVE, NI�AMA . FLOR''CA 33t3+ 2623 -TELEPHONE i PHOTO OF ENTRANCE. TO MORNINGSIDE PARK a. WAS THE BOARD IMPERIMISSiBLY PREJUDICED BY THE ILLEGAL LOBBYItiG EFFORTS OF CERTAIN AREA RESIDENTS, INCLUDING ONE OF THE BOARD'S OWN SITTING MEMBERS? Florida law is crystal clear on the extent to which members of the public may lobby public officials acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. In Jennings v. Dade CountY, Floizda, 589 So.2d 1337 (Fla. 3d D.C.A., 1991, rev. den. 598 So.2d 75, Fla. 1992,) the Court declared that ex paste lobbying of government officials prior to a public hearing on land use decisions is inherently improper and subjects the decision to being stricken down on appeal as a violation of due process. The Jennings Court recited the four basic requirements of due process in a quasi judic•iell setting: (i) notice and opportunity to be heard; (ii) ability to present evidence; (111) right to cross-examine witnesses; and (iv) the right to be informed of all the facts upon which the decision was based. The Court then added a Fifth element to quasi-judicial due process, an Unlobbied decision -maker, saying that c;C purte communications in such a setting are anathema, creating a cause of action for reversal because of prejudice on the part of the governmental body. Prior to the April 19th hearing, Board Member Norah Schaefer, a local real estate salesperson incited residents of the Morningside neighborhood to lobby both the Preservation Officer and other members of the Board, seeking to have the Appellants' application rejected, MEMORANDUM l CiTY OF MIAMI COMMISSION, PAGE I I 94- 540 cA+LEI F-iU1ITBI_'STO aROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION. ATTORNEYS AT '-All COURVOISIER CENTRE. S��TE '.. .. ". BPICIELL N.E'I DRIBE. t4IAMI. FLORIDA 33131.2623 • TELEPHONE 13051 -'4 55G5 1 (see Exhibit H.) She also wrote to George Percy, Director of the State of Florida's Division of Historical Resources, asking him to intervene in the application process against the Appellants, and, although the Board members had received an amended application five days earlier, attempted to mislead Mr. Percy about the contents of the application by sending him a copy of Appellants' initial application, which included a solid wall at the end of the cul-de-sac, (see Exhibit I.) The Court in the Jennings case addressed the issue of outside lobbying of a public body. Mrs. Schaefer's conduct was far more egregious since by inciting the turmoil which resulted at the hearing on the Application, Mrs. Schaefer has not only, in effect lobbied her owes board, but created the presumption that the hearing was irreparably tainted and unfair. Indeed, this is demonstrable, given the Board's failure to provide the safeguards mandated by Jennings. We can only spcculatc about the motivations of Mrs. Schaefer and others proponents of this illegal action, but two facts are demonstrable: (i) the houses of many of the people who spoke against the Appellants' plans are surrounded by privacy walls; and (ii) the market value of several of those sl-wakers' houses would be enhanced by the creation of a bay view from their properties. To uphold the Board's decision would be to unfairi_y penalize Appellants by imposing a special burden not shared by any other resident in Morningside, in effect sending a message to all potential buyers that any improvements which they wish to make" may subject them to the fanciful whim of whatever conditions, however expensive or unlawful, certain influential neighborhood residents may care to impose upon theta. I B. WAS THE BOARD IMPERMISSIBLY PREJUDICED BY THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPELLANTS' APPLICATION? ' At the April 19th hearing, the Appellants presented their plans for the wall and the fence to the Board. Board Member Norah Schaefer acknowledged on the record that she could not participate in the discussion or the vote on the application because of her active role in organizing opposition to the application.'° Indeed, the atmosphere of the hearing was so hostile," the Appellants strongly believe that their right to a fair and impartial hearing was violated. Assistant City Attorney Julie Bru, Esquire, stated exactly that in a letter directed to the Board, --j 9. At least, 1eyal improvements; it should he noted that the Morningside neighborhood is rife with examples of homeowners constructing illegal additions and renovations without City approval. Unlike many of their neighbors, Appellants have complied in every instance with all permitting requirements and, as such, are now mired in the appellate process. 10. Mrs. Schaefer is a resident of the Morningside neighborh(md and a local real estate salesperson. Upon the Board's receipt of the Application, she sent out a letter to the residents of the neighborhood, which incited residents to deluge the Board upon which she sat with opposition to the Application. Mrs. Schaefer's conduct was so egregious and in conflict with her role as a member of this quasi-judicial body, that the Appellants filed a complaint with the City Manager, who referred the matter to the City Attorneys' Office for investigation, which is pending. Her actions, aside from constituting a violation of her role as a member of a quasi judicial governmental body, also clearly constitute the sort of impermissible lobbying prohibited by the Florida Supreme Court in the Jennings case. II. Following the hearing of the Application turd the granting of the Certificate of Appropriateness, one of the speakers physically accosted one of the Appellants' 'OUnsel. Throughout the hearing, the chairman was forced to call for quiet from the members of the audience. MEMORANDUM / CITY of MIAN11 COMMISSION, PAGE 12 1 O BAILEY HUNT JONES 6 BUSTO A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, ATTORNEYS AT LAW COURVOISIER CENTRE, SUITE 300, 501 BRICKELL KEY DRIVE. MIAM1, FLORIDA 33131,2623 •TELEPHONE 13051374.5505 the Mayor and the City Commission. A copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit 1. The Chairman asked that those appearing in opposition to the application designate representative speakers. Five representatives of the crowd were designated and spoke against the application and, in the course of their presentations: (i) denied that the Nunnally boathouse had ever existed, (while facing the aerial photograph which showed it existed as late as 1952;) (ii) made passionate pleas for the "historic vista," (while facing the same photographs showing the hedges;) and, (iii) flatly denied the possibility that any liability would be imposed against the Appellants should someone be injured or killed on the Property or by being drowned after falling off the seawall. Even if this proposition were true, whether liability accrued or not, some person, perhaps a child, would still be injured or dead! One of the speakers even offered to sell the Appellants insurance, riglit frorn the speaker's podium. Throughout the hearing, these speakers purported to present hearsay evidence from persons such as John Nunnally's grandson and read from letters which were not placed into evidence. One speaker even went so far as to suggest that had his architectural services been engaged, the Appellants would not be having any problems with the Board. At the end of the hearing, the Chairman asked the crowd for a SLOW OF HANDS concerning whether the Board should approve the application. This action, in and of itself, vividly illustrates that the HI PB's decision was tainted by the actions of a well -orchestrated opposition. The Board's function was to review substantiated evidence and make its decision based upon fact and the law. In City of Apopka v. Oiange County, 299 So.2d 657 (4th DCA, 1974) the Orange County Tri-City Airport Authority, a quasi jwliciul body, held hearings regarding an application for construction of certain airport improvements. During the course of those hearings, as in these, that Board "polled" the neighboring landowners. The Court, invalidating the proceedings, stated, "The objections of a large number of residents of the affected neighborhood are not a sound basis for denial of a permit. The quasi jutlicial function of a board of adjustment must be exercised on the basis of facts adduced; numerous objections by adjoining landowners may not properly be given even a cumulative effect. " In Connela v. City of Sarasota, 400 So.2d 1051 (2d DCA, 1981) the Court stated that decisions based upon the sentiments of adjoining landowners are impermissible, citing City of Apopka, supra. Although promised the right to do so at the beginning of the hearing, Appellants were denied the right to present rebuttal and the basic fundamental rights required for a fair hearing, as set forth by the Florida Supreme Court in Jennings v. Dade County, Florida, 589 So.2d 1337 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1991; rev. den. 598 So.2d 75, Fla. 1992.) The Board considered and approved issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, with the proviso that instead of being permitted to bring the Privacy Wall out twenty feet from the side of the house, the Privacy Wall would have to be flush with the southern wall of the house. The Board apparently based its ruling: (i) on the erroneous determination that the front of the Main Parcel is the 57th Street side, rather than I MEMORANDUM / CITY OF MiAMI COMMISSION, PAGE 13 94- 540 BAILEY HUNT JONES 6 BUSTO A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, ATTORNEYS AT LAW COURVOISIER CENTRE. SUITE 300. 501 BRICKELL KEY DRIVE. MIAMI. FLORIDA 33131-2623 • TELEPHONE 13051 374-5505 iN the North Bayshore Drive side; and (ii) an erroneous belief that the Board's prior determination concerning one lot west of North Bayshore Drive now required that walls located in "front yards" of Bay Front lots cannot obscure the front tftcade and must protrude no farther than the front facade of the house. 9. DID THE BOARD MISAPPLY THE STANDARDS WHICH IT IS REQUIRED TO OBSERVE IN IMPOSING CONDITIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PRIVACY WALL AND BY LIMITINGTHE 1-1EIGH'i' OF VEGETATION ON THE PROPERTY? a. DiD ,iron BOARD MISAPPLY 11R.' SECRi"I'ARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR REHAB ILiTATION AND GUIDELINES FOR RI HABILITATING HISTORIC STRUCTURES? The United States Department of the Interior has promulgated "The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Structures.'= At the Board's hearing, the Chairman and several members of the Board stated that these Standards were the basic criteria used for review of proposals for historic rehabilitation in the City of Miami. The Appellants' plans meet the criteria set forth in those Standards, as well as the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan.'' In particular, the Commissioners should note that. the Appellants' plans allow public view of the entire historic facade along the Northeast 57th Street side of the house; the only area to be obscured from public view is the back yard, which is a historically accurate use of the Property and provide for a wrought -iron, (rather than concrete,) fence at the end of the cul-de-sac. In their Application, the Appellants seek only to shield their private back yard from public view and to prevent access across the Main Parcel and the Boathouse Parcel. By requiring the Privacy Wall to be located twenty-eight feet from the side „j yard line, the Board is, in effect, mandating not a 1925 historical preservation result, but rather imposing a 1994 aesthetic judgment ulion the Appellants. The Board is not empowered to make de novo judgments regarding aesthetics or to effect any sort of eminent domain taking. If something was ugly, but nevertheless historically accurate or significant, the Board must rule in favor of historical accuracy, even another, more modern design, would produce a more aesthetically pleasing result. The plans submitted by the Appellants are not only historically i accurate and aesthetically pleasing, but are in complete conformity with all applicable zoning and historic laws and regulations. 19 b. DID THE BOARD MISAPPLY CITY OF MiAMI CODE §908.8 BY REQUIRING A TWENTY-EIGHT FOOT SETBACK FOR THE PRIVACY WALL? City of Miami Code §908.8 (the Zoning Code,) expressly allows all property owners to erect walls adjacent to the City right of way and, indeed, almost every property owner in the Morningside neighborhood has done so, including most of the people who joined in the Diner, et al. appeal. The HEPB's role in the building permit application process is not to create a 12. 36 CFR 67. 13. City of Miami Ordinance 10544, enacted February 9, 1989; amended January 24, 1991. n n ` 5 A o � aJ `1 `t L` MEMORANDUM / CrrY OF MIAMI COMMISSION, PAGE 14 BAILEY HIJNT JONES 5 BUSTO A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION. ATTORNEYS AT LAW COURVOISIER CENTRE, SUITE 300. SGI BRICKELL KEY DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-2623 • TELEPHONE 13051 374.5505 Mi W parallel zoning code, separate and apart from that applicable to non -historic areas, but only to consider whether proposed improvements to historic properties are consistent with historic use of the property and the historic design features of the original improvements. By purporting to impose this setback requirement and by purporting to limit the height of vegetation on tite Boathouse Parcel, the Board goes far beyond its mandate; by re -writing the City's Zoning Code in derogation of the clear rights of the owners of' waterfront property. C. DID THE BOARD MISAPPLY 'i in. DEFINITION OF A "CORNER LOT" CONTAINED iN CITY OF MIAMI CODE §2052, WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE FRONT OF A CORNER LOT IS CONCLUSIVELY DEEMED "TO BE THE NARROWER SIDE, AND THUS ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINE THE REOUIREMEN'TS FOR LOCA"PION OF THE PRIVACY WALL? City of Miami Code §2052 defines a "Corner Lot" as, "A lot or parcel of land abutting upon two (2) or more streets at their intersection, or upon two (2) parts of the same street "r forming an interior angle of less than one hundred thirty-five (135) degrees. The frontage of a corner lot shall be deemed to be the narrower of the two (2) sides abutting a street or, in the case where the two (2) abutting sides are of equal length, the frontage shall be determined by the applicant at the time of the first building permit." It is absolutely clear that under any rational reading of this definition, the front of this 107 foot. by 300 foot corner lot is the narrower side which fronts on North Bayshore Drive. At the hearing, Javier Carbonel, of the City's Planning, Building and Zoning Department, read this definition to the Board. [R:58] The architect's discussion, attached as Exhibit E, and the original floorplan, also make clear that the house's front facade faces North Bayshore Drive, despite being obscured from easy view by later additions and renovations. Accordingly, although there is a side door on the Northeast 57th Street side of the house, this was not the original entrance and the Northeast 57th Street side of the property is clearly the side yard, not the front ,yard of the house. The Board's only error in regard to the wall is the location mandated by the Board. In preparing their plans for the Privacy Wall, the Appellants were highly sensitive to the unique nature and historic significance of the Property. During the course of the hearing, the Board apparently misapplied the legally mandated definition of a corner lot, ignored the objective evidence, (including the floorplan Of the house and the location of the actual main entrance,) and declared, without factual or legal basis, that the Northeast 57th Street side of the house was the "front" and thus led themselves to an erroneous conclusion concerning the required location of the Privacy Wall. d. DID THE BOARD IGNORE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SHOWING THE DEVELOPER'S ORIGINAL INTENTIONS FOR THE MORNINGSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD, IN FAVOR OF COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY OPPOSITION SPEAKERS? The Morningside (Bay Shore) neighborhood was one of Miami's earliest land developments. At the Board's hearing on April 19th, much was made of the developer's original intentions for the neighborhood. Special stress was given to an advertising brochure prepared not by the developer, but by ''Junkie & Erdmans Co., Realtors," which stated, in the finest tradition of 1920's Florida real estate salesmen, "Each homesite is an individuality. Every house can be placed where a view of the bay and its cooling breezes can be enjoyed to the full extent." MEMORANDUM / CiTY OF MIAMi COMMISSION, PAGE 15 9 4 - 540 BAILEY HUNT JONES G BUSTO A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION. ATTORNEYS AT LAW COURVOISIER CENTRE, SUITE 300. 501 BRICKELL KEY DRIVE, MIAMI. FLORIOA 33131-2623 • TELEPHONE (305) 374.5505 What this phrase actually means is open to question, but one thing is certain, if this advertisement were being run today, it would also have included the following language: ORAL REPRESI?NTATiONS, (and salesmen's t1yers,) CANNOT BE RELIED UPON AS CORRECTLY STATING THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE j DEVELOPER. 7 What, then, does state the actual "Representations of the Developer?" The Plat as Eviticnce of Develo er's Intent. The plat of Morningside (Bay Shore) includes several streets running from Biscayne Boulevard to North Bayshore Drive, a few of which end at the edge of Biscayne Bay, most of which terminate at North Bayshore and face the front yards of the waterfront lots. 'The Boathouse Parcel is one of four lots that front on the end of a street, the only difference being that the Boathouse; Parcel is somewhat shallower than the others. Of the streets which terminate at the Bay, those that, arguably, could have been intended to provide public access to the Bay run all the way to the water. Northeast 57th Street ends fifty- five feet from the water. The reason for this is clear; the developer, like most developers, reserved certain rights to himself for what he was building as his personal residence. He created Block F, (which is the Boathouse Parcel,) and then proceeded to build himself a palazzo on the Main Parcel and a boathouse on the Boathouse Parcel and he surrounded both of those with high hedges. The siting of the house on the Main Parcel clearly demonstrates that the yard located between the eastern end of the house and the Bay was intended as a private outdoor sitting area. The aerial photographs, the, plat, the remaining hedges and the remains of root systems, show that for many years, a high hedge bounded this back yard, as well as the Boathouse Parcel and provided privacy for the house's residents. it is only in recent years that a portion of these old hedges died. Imposition of any ri.striction on the plantings which may be done on the Boathouse Parcel to create a "public vista easement" across private property are not only historically inaccurate, (which is the only question upon which the Historic Board had the power to act,) but would also constitute an impermissible taking of this separate, buildable lot, prohibited by both the United States and Florida Constitutions, as well as a plethora of cases interpreting those constitutional provisions. Deed Restrictions as Evidence of Developer's Intent. At the April 19th hearing, one witness recited almost verbatim a set of deed restrictions, which he baldly misstated applied to all of the property in Morningside. A copy of those deed restrictions is attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit K." While these restrictions no longer govern use of the Property, they are useful evidence of the developer's original intentions for the plat and for the Property which was his personal residence. The deed restrictions set out a complete development plan for Bay Shore, (now Morningside) and specifically impose different types of restrictions on different types of lots within the plat. At the hearing, the Preservation Officer stated that it is evident 14. It is unlikely that the restrictions contained in a deed recorded in 1924 remain in effect seventy years later. Florida Statutes §712.02, (the "Marketable Record Title Act,) extinguishes such deed restrictions in regard to persons vested with any estate in title for thirty years or more, free and clear of all claims and restrictions except certain rights reserved to the State of Florida and certain other parties described in §712.03, none of which are applicable to this Property. 94- 540 MEMORANDUM / CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION, PAGE 16 BAILEY HUNT JONES 6 BUSTO A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION. ATTORNEYS AT LAW COURVOISIER CENTRE, SUITE 300. 501 BRICKELL KEY DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131.2623 •TELEPHONE 13051 374.5905 4 1 that there is a difference between questions of appropriateness regarding Bay Front lots and the other lots west of North Bay Shore Drive. [R:21] This statement is clearly borne out by the developer's intentions as set forth in these deed restrictions. The general restrictions" applied to all of the lots named in the deed; other restrictions concerning the value of improvements and the set -back requirements for the various types of lots identify with specificity the lots which were subject to those restrictions. Probably the most probative evidence concerning the developer's intentions regarding use of the Property and views of the Bay is that the legal description of the land subject to deed rights does not even include Block F of the plat, which is the Boathouse Parcel, i.i', none of the deed restrictions ever applied to the Boathouse Parcel. The details of the plat and the developer's specitic exclusion of the Boathouse Parcel from Bay Shore's deed restrictions make it clear that the developer had no intention to create a view across his personal residence as a public alnenitY. e, DiD THE BOARD ERRONEOUSLY IGNORE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF PREVIOUSLY } EXISTING HEDGES ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE MAIN PARCEL AND THE BOATHOUSE PARCEL? At the Bearing, the Appellants presented substantial evidence that large hedges had been located along the southern boundary of the Main Parcel and the western boundary of the Boathouse Parcel for many, many years. [R:24] Aerial photographs, remaining hedges, remaining root systems and the plat of Morningside itself confirm this. Even after the boathouse was destroyed, apparently by a hurricane sometime in the 1960s, the hedges continued to block any view of the Bay from 57th Street until the early 1990s, when the prior owner of the house had some of them removed, (apparently without applying to the Board for review.) f, DID THE BOARD MISAPPLY ITS OWN RESOLUTION HEPB 91-44 AND THE CONDITIONS iN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN REQUIRING A TWENTY-EIGHT FOOT SETBACK FOR THE PRIVACY WALL? ? The Board's approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of the Privacy Wall must be considered strongly probative that the design for the Privacy Wall itself is historically appropriate and, indeed, the Privacy Wall is wholly consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and the City's own guidelines, since it provides a full view of the house's Northeast 57tll Street facade. In testimony given at the April l9th hearing, the City's Historic Preservation Officer stated that she had viewed all of the Bay Front Lots in the Morningside neighborhood and, almost without exception, each of them had either a high wall or a high hedge. [R:241 (See photographs of various houses in the immediate area are shown below.) At the hearing, the Preservation Officer presented a lucid and comprehensive discussion of the existence of vistas and privacy walls surrounding the houses on the east side of North Bayshore Drive. Ms. Eaton presented evidence that all but one other waterfront house had either hedges, walls or some other provision for privacy, effectively blocking any view from the k10 15. Specifications concerning construction materials, permitted residential uses, construction of only one residence to a lot and a prohibition against ownership by persons not of the Caucasian race. MEMORANDUM / CiTY OF MIAMi COMMISSION, PAGE 17 94- 540 BAILEY HUNT JONES 6 BUSTO A PROFE55IONAL ASSOCIATION. ATTORNEYS AT LAW COURVOISIER CENTRE. SUITE 300, 501 BRICKELL KEY DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-2623 • TELEPHONE 13051 374.5505 street to the Bay. She stated that there was a substantial difference between the factors which the Board should consider regarding properties east of North Bayshore Drive and those west of that street. Specifically, it is clear that by their eery size, the lots east of North Bayshore Drive were intended to he more "estate -like," providing more privacy, not Icss, than the other lots within the development. JR:241 VIEW OP HOUSE AT 5925 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE In making its decisions, the Board must consider not only the original plans and conditions under which a historic structure was constructed, but also how the neighborhood has evolved and matured over time. Clearly, as time passed, the residents of the Morningside neighborhood planted hedges, built walls and landscaped their yards as all homeowners do. To prevent the Appellants from re -constructing provisions for privacy which are appropriate to the house's location and age are to segregate it from the rest of the neighborhood, a derogation of the very purpose which the HEPB is mandated to accomplish. The Appellants' plans do not obstruct in any way the front facade of the house, but seek only to provide privacy to the back yard, which is entirely appropriate, both historically and legally. A Resolution passed by the Board in 199116 purports to establish standards for fences and walls to guide the granting of Certificates of Appropriateness, supplementing the Secretary's 16. Resolution HEPB 91-44. 9 !} — 540 MEMORANDUM / CrrY OF MIAMI COMMISSION, PAGE 19 71ILE, r1.)r.1T J0h1E56 631-ISTO r,�"+Uf'E55�pr+c� -SS.iC inTiot1. ATTORNEYS aT L�Vi ^' COURVOISIEP CEriTRE. 'i jJ TE BPICIEIL rE'l DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-2623 •TELEPHONE t3C,5, 374.5505 guidelines. Section 4 of these standards, if valid, would be applicable to the present situation. That Section states only, "Fences or walls proposed for corner lots to enclose the rear yard shall be subject to approval by the Board." "These "standards" are, in realty, no standards at all, since the only criterion supplied is the unbridled discretion of the Board. The Board is without power to vest such absolute discretion in itself in derogation of the City's powers as clearly set forth in the zoning code. I'urlx)rting to grant itself this power, the Board then goes even further and states, in Section 5, that it may grant exceptions to the "standards." Under the Board's erroneous determination that the Northeast 57th Street side of the house is the "front," it would be arguable that Section 3 would apply and that "no fences or walls shall be constructed either along the front property lines or between the sidewalk and the front facade of the house." Elveil under this clause, the prohibition appears only to bar walls which obscure the front of the house, which no one argues is contemplated in Appellants' plans. Section I of the Resolution, inapposite here, allows the construction of a nlLlch higher wall, (eight feet) if the wall is to be constructed gush with or behind the front facade of the house. During the hearing, there was discussion of the "precedent" of the Soika application, which allowed construction of a wall forward of a house's "front" facade. The property in question was located on the west side of North Bayshore Drive, an area having different historical characteristics than the Bay Front Lots. While, presumably, this "precedent" would have supported the Appellant's application rather than mandating rejection, the plain fact is that it is irrelevant to the present Application. The Board's mandate and sole jurisdiction is to encourage restoration of structures within historic districts in accordance with the original condition of those structures and the neighborhoods in which they are located. As previously stated, the developer of Morningside expressed his original intention in a detailed series of deed restrictions which make clear that Bay Front lots were to be treated significantly differently from lots to the west of North Bayshore Drive. Since its inception, the Board has not been faced with any applications involving the construction of walls or fences on the Bay Front lots. Indeed, all of those Bay Front lots have historically been walled or fenced from public view. Thus, there is no precedent involving this particular issue and the Board must look solely to the historic condition of the neighborhood, as evidenced by the deed restrictions discussed above. Those deed restrictions neither prohibit walls nor specify the location of walls on the Bay Front lots, nor mandate any views at all over those Bay Front lots. (Continued on page 20) 94- 540 MEMORANDUM / CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION, PAGE 19 BAILEY HUNT JONES 6 BUSTO A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, ATTORNEYS AT LAW COURVOISIER CENTRE. SUITE 300, 501 EIRICKELL KEY DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-2623 • TELEPHONE (305) 374.5505 SUMMARY The Appellants are entitled to privacy within their Property and have the right, indeed the obligation, to exclude the public and to protect the public against injury on their Property and themselves against liability for such injury. The plans presented to the Board are historically appropriate and conform with all existing zoning and historic preservation codes, which are the only bases upon which the Board may make its decision. The City's own Preservation Officer recommended approval. Thc. City Code clearly identities the North Bayshore Drive side of the Property as the front, and this is confirnhed by the original plans for the house and the Property. By basing its decision on the erroneous conclusions that: (1) the Northeast 5701 Street side of the Property is the "front;" and (11) that the permitted wall must be ±lush with the edge of the house; the Board has mandated a wall location which will deprive the Appellants of 2.800 square feet of their back yard and which will essentially destroy the original, historically accurate, layout of that back yard. 'File Board's prohibition against vegetation in excess of eighteen inches in height is an impermissible taking of a visual casement and a violation of the "Takings" clause of the Flttll Amendment to the United States Constitution, recently reinvigorated by the Supreme Court. This decision amounts to talking that 5,600 square feet to the public for "view" purposes, an action far beyond the authority of the Board and in direct conflict with the recent Dolan case. The City Comnhission should approve the Application as submitted. Respectfully submitted Bailey Hunt Jones & Busto Earl G. Gallop, Florida Bar No. 173468 II ,) 54- 540 MEMORANDUM CITY OF MiAMI COMMISSION, PAGE 20 BAILEY HUNT JONES 6 BUSTO A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION. ATTORNEYS AT LAW COURVOISIER CENTRE. SUITE 300. 501 BRICKELL KEY DRIVE. MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131.2623 •TELEPHONE 13051 374-5505 . .,3 ) 1 '. 0 i i Exhibit List Exhibit A; Copy of Application to Historic and Environmental Preservation Board Exhibit B Order of Board granting Certificate of Appropriateness Exhibit C Survey of the Property Exhibit D Drawing of original tloorplan of the house Exhibit E Architect's discussion and qualifications Exhibit F Plat of Bay Shore (Morningside) Exhibit G Letter from Insurer Exhibit H Schaefer Letter to Morningside Residents Exhibit I Schaefer Letter to George Percy Exhibit J Bru Letter to Historic and Environmental Preservation Board Exhibit K Deed Restrictions for Bay Shore (Morningside) F:\DATA\SCC\DOCUM ENT\PAI.MAAPP. M E2 Fib M935303:Maday, May 4, 1944 01994 Bailey Hunt Tara & Blab 94- 540 MEMORANDUM CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION, PAGE 21 BAILEY HUNT JONES 6 BUSTO A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, ATTORNEYS AT LAW COURVOISIER CENTRE. SUITE 300, 501 BRICKELL KEY DRIVE. MIAMI, FLORIDA 33134-2623 • TELEPHONE 13051 374-5505 J L---z4rT1 rHJ=/t-r"m1r` t- Ut- April 41 1994 City of Miami Historic Preservation Board Dear Board Members: Enclosed with this letter please find a significantly altered submission for enclosing a portion of our side and back yards. You will see from the architect's plans that, unlike the prior submission, a substantial portion of the enclosure is now wrought iron fencing which completely preserves the vista to the water. The other portion of the enclosure has been reduced from six feet to five feet and moved north off the south property line by eight feet. Wrought iron and new curves have also been added to the portion coming off of the house. These changes help maintain the openness of the street. This current submission fairly balances historical preservation and restoration of the estate as it was in the 1930's (see discussion below), the concerns of the neighborhood and the privacy and liability issues which I face as an owner. So as to assist all of us in expediting this matter at the April 19t1i meeting, let me briefly outline below the key points which I will bo discussing. Priva In its current condition, there are no fences and little hedging; around the property as most of it was removed either by the prior owner in 1993 in order to clean up the property for sale or by us in order to rebuild the foundation and reconstruct the facade. Now; that the outside work is nearing completion, we would like to` return the property to its condition of the late 1920's which would; in effect afford us some privacy in what we consider our back yard. The improvements are very much in keeping with the other bayfront homes. The first owner's original intention was to retain the land for his private enjoyment. The original owner, Mr. Nunnaily, was the li developer of Morningside and when he laid out the streets, he, deeded the land at the end of 59th and 61 st Streets to the City but I he maintained ownership of the 40 x 70 foot lot at the end of NE 94- 540 as-03-1,3 4 ir-': 5srr; Ff-jh Q L I I Ht.=, --mHK I rH City of Miami Historic. Preservation Board April 4, 1994 Page Z 0 57th Street, On this land he put a large boat house (Exhibit A), boat davit, dock and hedged the entire area from the street with .a six foot hedge and sea grapes. (Additional evidence to be submitted.) This lot has been deeded to each of the four prior owners of the house for their exclusive use and enjoyment and was part of the land that was noted on the deed chat conveyed the house to me. The way the property has been maintained or neglected over the past two decades when the house was owned by Mr. McCormick (from whom I purchased the house) is not relevant in terms of historical preservation. By way of historic example, the 400 block of Lincoln Road had its art deco facades obliterated 20 years ago with faux Spanish hacienda arcades. if the owner came before you to restore the original architecture of the 1930's, you would not deem it relevant that neighbors of Lincoln Road liked walking under the arcade. What is relevant to historic preservation is accommodating the historical past, and by that I mean the decade when this area was first developed with the changing world in which we live, It is why the neighborhood has changed historic street layouts, 4 is why the street lighting is not historic but functions well in the type of world in which we live. It is why my neighbors desire privacy in this age of greater street traffic and crime - as evidenced by the numerous fencing and wall applications and the large number of oversized hedges and non complying walls. It is why i must fence/wall in this back portion of my property. Liability The enclosures are also necessary due to the substantial liability issue to which we are exposed by having no barrier between the public and the water over our land. You will see from the enclosed correspondence (Exhibit B) between myself and my insurance company that they are requiring an enclosure to be built much higher than I am requesting. i will have to convince them that the enclosure is adequate for their purposes. However, should I not be granted an enclosure of reasonable height (reasonable, that is, from a liability point of view), my insurance company will not renew the policy and it is currently very difficult to obtain property and liability insurance on waterfront property since Hurricane Andrew. Should 94- 540 05-03-1994 12:55PN FR011 itr I ;a City of Miami Historic Preservation Board April 4, 1994 Page 3 . I fail to satisfy the insurance company because I am not able to put up this enclosure, the policy will not be renewed. I will then not only be subject to large liability awards given to litigants who fail off the seawall but I will be in violation of my mortgage and subject to foreclosure. Enhancement of the Propgft. in Character with its First Der-ade This property was the winter estate of a very wealthy mid - western entrepreneur who decided to develop a neighborhood of beautiful homes during the real estate boom of the mid 1920's. Mr. Nunnally's estate occupied all of the land bounded by Biscayne Bay and North Bayshore Drive from Northeast 57th Street (then Coconut Avenue) to Northeast 59th Street. It wasn't until the 196U's that the 120 foot lot to the north of the house was sold, the sale of which included the carriage house. The main house was not your typical 192Q's suburban home with a maid's room off the kitchen. There were servants' quarters accommodating five servants, a servants' dining porch and, outside, a gardener's bathroom. In addition, there was the boat house (on the lot at the end of 57t.h Street) and garages for four nwWr vehicles. Mr. Nunnally must have viewed 57th Street, the grandest boulevard in Morningside, as a magnificent driveway to his property. Do you really think that the house was unlandscaped and without privacy? No, this was a private estate (letters from residents of Morningside in the 1930's to be submitted) which was able to show its front facade to the world as an advertisement for Mr. Nunnally's development efforts. The rest of the property was hedged and a small portion of that hedge has survived to today at the end of 57th Street and was viewed by Sarah Eaton. Our neighbors just to the south of us, on the other side of 57th Street, who have lived there since 1978 will testify to the existence of a five to six foot hedge around the entire 57th Street frontage of the property from the front walk to the housearound the cul de sac of 57th Street. 94- 540 19J-k7J-177ti _ • ?Gr i i r r.I r , i + i riut r1m • r C.r City of Miami Historic Preservation Board April 4, 1994 Page 4 t In conclusion, I believe the current submission accommodates our concerns as well as those of the neighborhood and the insurance company. Most importantly, the current submission fully maintains the vista to the water and allows a full view of the front facade of the house (i.e., 57th Street) and total open views from North Bayshore Drive. There will be a landscaping plan submitted prior to April 19th which will show that the entire south lawn in front of the house and all land west of the house to North Bayshore Drive will remain open without fencing. I thank you in advance for the time and consideration which I know you will give to this new submission and look forward to providing additional historical evidence as to the condition of the property in the 192O's and 193O's at the April 19th meeting. Very truly yours, Steven Polakoff SP/ae cc: Sarah Eaton 94- 540 TOTAL F'.O- w MRE �rsaa pn»� LI N 0 THt orrica Or ERNESTO FABRE Hwomo PnrWM.% Om - t Thom 81%00 0. m i � :� �� �, ,� ,, << ,, _, I 'I �1<j 10 RESOLUTION REPB-94-10 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 5' CBS WALL AT THE SOUTHEAST SECTION OF THE PROPERTY, A 5' WROUGHT IRON FENCE AT THE EASTERN END OF NE 57TH STREET, AND A DRIVEWAY ALONG NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 759 NE 57TH STREET, WITHIN THE MORNINGSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THAT SECTION OF CBS WALL RUNNING IN AN EAST -WEST DIRECTION PARALLEL TO NE 57TH STREET SHALL BE SET BACK APPROXIMATELY I', OR AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, BEHIND THE FRONT (SOUTH) FACADE OF THE HOUSE; 2. THAT SECTION OF WALL AND/OR FENCE RUNNING IN A NORTH -SOUTH DIRECTION PERPENDICULAR TO NE 57TH STREET SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ENTIRELY OF WROUGHT IRON WITH CONCRETE POSTS, AS NEEDED; 3. NO SHRUBS OR VEGETATION HIGHER THAN 18" AT MATURITY SHALL BE PLANTED BEHIND THE WROUGHT IRON FENCE; 4. DRIVEWAY SHALL BE PAVED WITH EITHER CONCRETE OR PAVERS, NOT GRAVEL; AND FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED WORK, AS MODIFIED, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE BAYFRONT PROPERTIES WITHIN THE MORNINGSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND COMPLIES WITH BOTH THE GUIDELINES FOR WALLS AND FENCES AS ESTABLISHED BY THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S "STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION." PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 1994. G. ,fRESERVATIOIN OFFICER R AN . 94-� 540 N w rR• TENTATIVE PLAT --- CA A DE LAS PALMAS--- _-----_ ---- - A REPLAT OF THE ---- - __. SOUTH 107 FEET OF BLOCK 9 AND ALL 1OF BLOCK F. AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF SAYSHORE UNIT NO.2 RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE 98. AND LOT 1, BLOCK 20 AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF BAYSHORL UNIT NO. J RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 12, PAGE 50. 1! VIERAY- INC.-- ENGINEERS, PLANNERS 9 SURVEYORS -5970 SUNSET DRIVE -- SUITE 60T /� •�/�'l���/ MIAMI, FLORIDA, lIIAS---- --- A'P /,wRf ♦EMI'. 1�/,I-/�i•��� w� �`l ` "1 �: y:� ,j I `. �'r f6b-vJti"l=64 14-bJP#i rrturi . nur %..ntiR,mm t'13"U•+�-i a7�+ .i � �..ir+i�i rh���� .-.i�iraac� �nr+rcicr. ��. .1,-�t �. r .�,.: THE OFFICE OF ERNESTO FABRE HISTORIC PRESERVATION • DESIGN STUDIO July 12, 1994 Mr. Michael Carver and Mr. Steven Polakoff C/O Vintage Properties 1601 Jefferson Avenue Miami Beach, FL 33139 RE: Notes and Comments for Historic Preservation Board Meeting PROJECT: Casa de Las Palmas- Morningside SUMKARx and Environmental Based on the original architectural design, historic research, and a variety of discoveries during restoration, the front of the house for street front purposes was the west elevation facing North Bayshore Drive. The new gates on this elevation offer- the opportunity to make this elevation once again the front of the house. From an architectural an urban point of view, the residence and the neighborhood would benefit from the proposed scheme. The original architecture would be disfigured if the wall is built at the setback of the house. The ironwork and gate at the end of the cul- de-sac would offer an elaborate composition that can only embellish the urban landscape. The view of the bay is framed, falling in line with the width of the street, as opposed to the required scheme which would create an unbalanced design. DISCUSSION The Nunally Residence was originally constructed in 1925. Evidence discovered during the restoration work indicate that certain portions of the house were added at a later date. At the N. W. corner of the residence the present garage appears to be one such instance. on the first floor plan, the garage door to the courtyard suggests a discontinuation of the overall door detailing and circulation schemes. Details of most window surrounds, sills, eaves and trim do not conform to the profiles and types common to the rest of the house. On the second floor, a passage way from the house to the rooms over the garage seems to be carved out of what was originally a closet. 700 BILTMORE WAY SUITE 1003 CORAL GABLES, FL 33134 TEL. (305) 448-2125 FAX. (305) 446-3839 Page 1 of 10 94- 540 July 12, 1994 Casa de Las Palmas Continued...... The floor level drops dramatically from one to the other as well. Roof lines are also discontinuous. Though the overall expression reads as a flowing play of volumes that adds to the picturesque quality of the house it is very likely an addition to the residence. This can be further reinforced by the fact that a neighboring garage at the N . W . corner of the property which appears as part of the property in a Real Property Record of the City of Miami, City Assessor's Office dated , has garage doors facing the subject property, suggesting a detached garage situation. The garage and neighboring property were later sold (see site plan). Another area of the house that appears to have been added is the bedroom in the S. W. wing. Not only are there certain details that are original to this portion of the house, but there was also a line in the masonry (prior to its being patched in the present restoration) that clearly indicated a break in the masonry pattern, the masonry ended at this point. The roof line also does not continue. Most interesting is the shadow of a previously existing window in the interior plaster at the stairwell. This window would have faced west. A suggested floor plan and elevation of the house in its original configuration accompanies this text. The entrance to the house on this side reveals an elaborate door that faced west. The present entrance on the south side may have been developed as a more elaborate opening when the southwest addition was added to the house, since the south entrance is obscured from view by the addition. Based on these and other assumptions it is very probable that the west elevation was the main facade of the house. The volumetric composition, rooted in a tropical vernacular, is embellished with ornament borrowed from a variety of styles. The main body of the house, being one room deep, is placed parallel to the water front, offering not only a clear path for the bay's cooling breezes, but also an unobstructed view from all the important rooms in the house. The bay front elevation is composed symmetrically in a tri-partite } fashion. On the ground floor the two side bays are each composed of two adjacent arched openings separated by round cast stone columns, complete with capitel and base. Above each pair o-f arches hangs a balcony that projects towards the bay. The balconies are protected by extensions of the roof which are supported by turned wood columns. Page 2 of 10 94- 540 July 12, 1994 Casa de Las Palmas Continued...... At the center bay on the ground floor there is a flat roofed screened porch projecting from the plane of the masonry towards the bay. It is made with turned wood columns in a rhythmic pattern that maintains a symmetry with respect to the whole composition. Above the .flat roof of the porch, at the plane of the masonry, there are windows embellished with a variety of decorative elements, including floral relief panels and faceted columns, all protected with an extension of the roof whose cantilever is supported by an intricate wood structure of rafter tails and beams. When observing the elevation from further away, the spire of the chimney, which is on the other side of the house, stands out accentuating the center of the facade. The bay front elevation by its own merits is the most significant of the elevations, not only because it appears to be the only original untouched elevation of the house. Its presence on the bay, which is a public right of way, is enhanced by the fact that it stands out in the landscape completely detached and unobstructed in its symmetry. It is an extremely important example of an original type of architecture unique to our city, and it has been restored by the present owners with extreme thoroughness and respect for the building fabric. The proposed walls and gates on the bay side have been given j considerable attention in the recent past. A previous decision by the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board required that the masonry wall parallel to 57th Street be placed on the same plane as .� the existing house. from an architectural point of view this would significantly compromise the extremely well achieved symmetrical composition the house has towards the bay. By placing the wall on the corner of the house and extending it towards the bay, an immediate imbalance would occur, and the free standing quality of the elevation will have been lost. The proposed scheme provides an alternative which "respects" the existing house and still provides for the program requirements. From the bay side there is little doubt that the offsetting of the wall further to the south will reduce the imposition of the solid plane on the symmetry. More significant is the fact that the scheme calls for ironwork to be the only attachment of the solid plane to the existing house, offering a transparent connection that leaves the house almost untouched. On the south elevation, the quarter circle and bench that starts the wall is a gesture that not only breaks the hardness of a sharp corner but offers a picturesque urban amenity that complements the Page 3 of 10 94- 540 July 12, 1994 Casa de Las Palmas Continued...... architecture. The sweep of the curve which incorporates a bench is intended to help focus attention to the house. If the wall were on the same plane of the south elevation it would be difficult to provide any courtesy towards the house since it would be transfiguring the original intent of the Architect. Though the neighborhood preservation ordinance requires garden walls to be set back to the existing plane of the house, this is a clear instance where this requirement would be in substantial detriment to the architecture of the house and character of the urban scheme. Based on the ambiguity of the south elevation being the original entrance side versus the west elevation being the original entrance side, the architecture of this house merits special consideration. Every elevation is very significant in its own right. To specifically classify one elevation as the "main" elevation or "entrance" facade in this instance is dubious and should be reconsidered in light of the unique circumstances and substantial quality of the architecture on all elevations facing public right of ways. At the end of the cul-de-sac, the required scheme calls for ironwork to extend all across the plane, from the corner of the masonry to the south of the property. The proposed scheme suggests a more sophisticated expression that would offer a design element to the urban landscape. A symmetry has been maintained with respect to the dimensions of the street. The centering of the iron gate and columns responds to a desire to create a point of attention, a gesture that at an urban level invites contemplation rather than discourages it. By framing the cul-de-sac symmetrically, the road leading to the bay is celebrated, and the view towards the bay is dignified. By offsetting the wall from the south elevation, deference is made to the architecture of Kiehnel and Elliot. The design is not only in keeping with both the architecture and the romantic theme of the neighborhood but is making the best use of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation. k4 IM Page 4 of 10 94- 540 V { 1 J 1 m ®FL%r. mA1.. 6 IT F- P l.. 1 --- f 'o (ke om%Qsop LRNi6t0 I*MFL. oils Top-Ir. o"'o Y X v �u 'Z� P -ii „0 CO o ORIGINAL GROUND FLOOR PLAN ?ago g of 10 July 12, 1994 Casa de Las Palmas ' Continued...... j Ernesto Fabre, MS, Intern AIA, a native of Coral Gables, received his professional degree in Architecture at the University of Los j Andes in Bogota, Colombia and his Master of Science in Historic Preservation from Columbia University in New York. He published a thesis entitled "Adaptive Reuse in the Historic Center of Popayan, a designated World Heritage Site". He was appointed as conservation architect for various projects including the Municipal Building in New York. He also designed and produced the "Superintendent's Maintenance Manual" for the New York Landmarks Conservancy. Since his return in 1989 to Coral Gables, Florida he has acted as preservation consultant on a number of private and public buildings in the greater Miami area, including the Ebenezer Church in The Goulds and the Swanson -Nyberg House for the City of Dania. He has restored a house originally designed by George Fink which was featured in the Miami Design Preservation League lecture series. Other projects include a new residence; numerous additions and interior remodels; the reconstruction and restoration of two i L �_ `t. ,F .. ,- �� .. .9"'• r;. �i MY �� ' - 't '1 i t 4 -y nrtt�tw�upuvt �' I ' 1 e1sc.�rnc: � .A vetrrrA i � i • •I•..' 6 1 r ! _ I •'�: ?a i � :' 'I. � �It r. ° a�I �` _ I e •1 � �i f°ri � c. 1f � I ( � � \'�• tql rltt, •_ i lit � !!D� � .�} 'i __u a ! �4 }; ,{( i 't''.:1�°?u, 'n' %�''t-sIt$� h^ V ,r•` a Cj r ♦ /,, � !7 •n � r' I� n I I I,•el ,r' ,. 7i, n .1� .' e ' f � ` ', � 1 � `mot � • r•r r, - , c_. JdJ{o+i Vs - c urtiYS'JVt��1'-� `!i I {'f� [' _ I Ni I I I' •r'` ��, is •.':• � ') , ` i r t.'• „(•(! I M '�'Y �`r 'u�•�rY I er ,I _ . �+ �• �1 �.\ •, .. ��r f e . „�I .1 f �� t.�l' � �` � ` � f �-� 'S• t>A1 •r.. _;;t-t..e7- �•. =ri; -n„'+- i� r t7.Y i/�'�'/; rT 1-t- - �'-� i _ „ ,i' ; /!� !'`""-`'''%'�e a-' �t1 ;r4,.J• I rf - ! t �,t��1 1''`1, ��,(Y�/ `t` r .. ' ,� F-�i1t�� I •.S'' �1 :ri,i 'i 1 _ A r: I !6 /S rf � I /' �' 1�4 �hift•' �,j (' •. •t a i i i � � f �'s '•• .f. r.. Li ., •r• ° \' y_u r. I •r N— rr ,,' I r'e/ �t:Jl ,\`""'rr t t_J r _i=', y.1�...,1L.r J - J ti.\ t ` r� n� \ �� �N. .4 Carttr-•t'._ � rrr'. •e •.jr-r •'r -.r��1 � .! V✓ $ �i BA Y .9HORe VNI T JVO a PL A r aHOWING IV C Al ^(�• P/O ^t.rry io;'.. .. , ` , .. .R Irr 4ai •' Cl- Yyf= OQFSt- A/^C - C••j �•� Cfr fCCr rr'.'7.h + 'V.' w1, .'.^e .,.•r.: >•,J,: +I•d "Ll.a.' Y.' .'.t !S 7 • `A'T CJA fP.t,Y'r' 'r :l'irT>' Dr D/1 �:• S S. a .':r :.•,0?r .-Pf- I-•• if—, ..'r''.4: r •.'r .' /r;:1 r, f.Y !J lr r.'rJa: .' ', thr yn yr r.f •r .f• .\. -e'! :a..^ :. ••'J hrr•r n� :erf .^ �••.•'m brt :er..Te r Pie' .'J••. •.,n:. ,. Ile `r rtC n/J' „+ bt lUrvrrrd, '+rrrea.•r0 Fr:'w �f .. " ♦�. n,.sf/fir r F-r.�•!rr•J •.•_• ! t �•., rne� uAo "a to' r—df.- r,' ra. -: ( _ - .:+ 4_,,. ,....^.. �. _. ,•• n101F•�, Sra rl/Ir C! a p7r -C .••. e.l' ry•rf CJmnJ- •r -,p S,J S: s.'4 :i C.• •i r.'o.r _r - .�-.!d. a,•,y.'r �r .'�J„ a! `r :.r N•.f Or —e .irar:..i . f_ ..trI /r• f•.••.. A:'.t..� rl• • 'r •Y ;., .;ree:r w,.i .'srs!.-' r-. ,-i rc 9ro lh :f wno _"eft :/ •.Jr,do, a'IQ l.hry Inc Coe .4 am-!.+• _ .f..; •a •. ••f ,/'t. t••rr rr .. . 'r! /. .. le J. cl+4! arC^ • r.,� ,.. 't .4.t 4f/ J!- ,\. �. fT. r. .1'- � JA.!PA/Yy•d rl Ar ^r lr � t� •nr As'•s r.'.. 'ff . . •A � • f' r^t^ . .. : J ♦ :' Ser,�f.• A.•rr-r.r ' +ra wJ •JAOw J/-'I•I' '•n+ Jn', Pe Ia. r•I'r'fJ a�a Ju( i—cefie, /^! -fr♦-J :'J "e'• r, . C.r rrn/•,•c h' S. :DJ J •"I :! .w,v rf •r �'.-r •r n.-: rrc +r Je.a -^Ir r' . w� tr wam 'r I.Y •rrr^a ,r •��• ' ••• CA',.. t r'rt 'rr, •!r .. :aur. .7a cO LJa, n!J, .' /•• r. r .r♦ t'�y !r ♦•.rw�r o/ rr c.+_^ a.:! a•+rr r .:.> 'At rrr r- e'a r • ., 4 '!,$T.'N.OIV)' :S'1/GRe'Jf '.'r •!•.+ a..r t•c-t .'nvrJt^:trl Cr.-rpa..•: •r• r•t re-41'r.'r w,-:r •n;/ r frrre"t yrr, wvd •AresQn •/!-rf,.�r+! 4 r'w-� ►' e'an. rla�,aa, }h a-.�.�.. ..-_ .wr .•� t<�. C .AO - :9!I C. i a•, f .. -S S �r'Y'.'J1' T r^C.+^•A 1 t S e'r I'•J�V er r• t-//.•e1^r/ .� 04r !-f Jf•rrf a' •. - .fe' _d'cl,,On v N,r,Y »,, .f f_ • ,►•� •'''✓r '4r SKechrd!•..v r �.. r. _ I'e , - •� - _ .N) rf^ .r exurd /. :f rf/r hr'O rr w- •� _,r v. .,!•. .. r.r:. .9: .[' i. i •^r' ' Vrnl ,l •": rr'aJ /.'i e' (r�r^ /�' I••?• � �!'t � :l .. • �C'•� .•"J.�. ,'r • .. '!e' 74'r'f.'�'"« i�'--_ -- " r'r.t hr-rr ^f.• !C', y�. rry., o !rtr.' •.( N. ,Or*'r, r7nor C.r�.• ° ;. ... :a, � .. C..w.['.i....�. ..' w efy [.^ri •-�r.fi rh rt� •^r'.� ..._-J ..s_.•�a C i. ._ ! .� Pt,�• r+'a • L+. -r, rd r. r4 ,� 'r! .''f•.rt • .. ,•� .•� J 5 LASON SYSTEMS, INC. - SOUTHEAST 6954 N.W. 12 STREET MIAMI, FLORIDA 33126 (305) 477-9149 FAX(305) 477-7526 (800) 287-4799 IT WILL TAKE MULTIPLE IMAGES .ems•-•-.-•--� � .�....�...-®.....�-� -- - i `..�. \ ,` �..J�� f. •� � rr T �.� .� /fie ; 9'rw _ `ec Cl, , Yr er t `j fe 1 rs �,�, ; r� ; •• ,yams ., P,� F' 1 + rOw wlu /u • +. � iJ' � J. • � w> i�t 1 AI rf z BAY PIL A T SHOWING iv C C� A �'1Td r�• �._ ✓h�cwtJ,.~'+Pd "Lg/!. •Y: r:ti'i'►S NY'. R ;td�' CNr rc.;®?iP v�.��- �'•! illvl .�•J.h; c '� w :rt :" dwrJ•. ri- ed lO 9lQ.7Ss:! ^'... _ •w �•S.�rtS�s ItiP :CI.SCO �'SP �J�+ i✓e1': F • ��C 4.[� s•% tJ be Sury.:•yfC, pl4V'0ea end C­fffr fr- rw- • ;�� 3�_--:� �.. d. b....s A SG'i.Pror. ift wp 10 ate: it t 1 - fr .: c 'tF .mob. r. . 1 ter • �` aid. S: • tf i/7� J: L'�r JJJ A.ritrr+r .rirC11: C �.i •"titSJ' ' v-. r �i ,., r-c .7 srrd C'osf oP' ,tc S4rd ,0il: Or- mar •br, 7tr'C dfrosr.Mny: .. a:.MPA' dot- hrr-r hr dRdst.i/C 09 f/9I PO/y'! :..+ .. 1 / 7% . . •!i •'.f' J+ y-.r-.lr- r•:, :.f:1 e/i : O-ecily. ;tvcmc s, �•tw!� ersf L%�: �.7 .fhdwri .fa fro' rn;+ .rn;-r PC va:^<,rrcy •^y uur scrrcessC.'.s +l,r . re•rr-,�oJ- OJ+> ^!rr•J':.-d ,Il.lro ,. r. C..�frnP.,-ur.y --or�. _.arm ,t.•.c-! of .9rv. rXgr-rr.�♦ .t ar•r jpp, ..•.. �.�� 7l.O :rr i.'yd .S! evm..v.a "ece^a ,r, �JN t i ar .`?� .r• r6♦ [7f�',:. �' P.b! . r!r>' C" 1.41 ti •-•� ..OUr1, ✓4=0 4J4?!y, .r;,,•. s /.•-r:r-:ra o-✓ •Jo ,lmi,r nt rrcc* r::��::rirct r,..th �hr 4_9 .'.:' 'R3r.'A;'ON)' :/rt!CRt'Of' f.`r ..-r••f ate.• r.c,.t nvlSl--tr+/ Comc,rn: AAs I-Ort4r Oil y�� IpJSl .'/1 Pre 3,a*cqf r•tar, !h:� r..Ls_.._._ O;#! ..� gaj. ,rt U. �' Prt*,er .'i� +.rd, s rr !d' l Ii! ►r ^R rt ,r, lh,f nrt f•r1 P a.r cr�•*� f'P FCc��•_ r c'n•rY o-- OAL_ 13I0do H 5cers•. µ,r ww.q of fne .a r teJrtdd�0,1d 1•t7Cf' a 4c�rr� G'9drtdliDfl �'. j,n,r rd Ors rr'S.7 P ni,.', r e,.+, r - rh,e p!+ • �% s . .­ . ._ ..:a �n..�31.d/e1G�,i``�..Y.f_�It� _ - .. � :. .r `l � f�EI � z � • -I-^•--� �•--;--' � ---�----•-r--r-- ,-ter -- . �---'�•' Oct �, • +� r �. ��.._1 _ . �'Y � :� _ :� ..' _ i���fr� �r l • °�t.. 1(� ���A'7�" � �";:T7�j� �,1 .u,::+�'T` = � -, h„ O I' { � . ar .-\� •�^,- ° 1 1 1 � tlln, •'+ :E7i ( " ° =�• ',•,,, � rc � c�1��. _,+..,,._.. # ... .�, ,�/° I !q � /H /� j .'(ti ' � d l t,�l� ,1y.1' 'r%�i a ��� ��' 'I °`"• n•.:- , t•j L9 ej.' - _ fri• `DI:._. r O � C-... —_.. _' •� '� a :: t : / -�1 , � P � � � ^T ' tll b � � 1 , ��•�►4 �f I� Q'�l ! '.I �± � f / ,o�+ R �� ` .) 4 T 1 r ^l •, •{�•�" ' 1 qw.•- ,A. ., t -� , Re.f-..e «• 1 y. •�-.�., I c,`r! 1,..__i J- I `, -,1 � j � •v =% -` `� -;.f=) -�-- -- � t"-�-u��=�•� � ;ty�•�� -R�' ��qye ! .ctCx-� r.,{ '���'r ,'n7M / _� a .° �•• w1� � .. , � 1 1 � 4• f1e8w• "l� /!1 Ly /�j � A - - 1 1 •. : '. • . i• JB !?'..'� J', ° .'a.•° �< i� b sa 1I M u -.cry 1 -, f ` D'.'ta' Ct 1 ►'�.` `°, v i ,: r �,' � N.'�r C:tterry r .r^a a s^ ': •er.`t'•t `P-�rr••-^.� � �C BRA Y SHOAe .._ VNI Pl- A i' SHOWING - ' iV. C Blass, S C Dl%rp A /V Y " �r :a dui!•°'ri' eY 10 Irons&:! :r'drrl, b:~,yirtP .JOL'7/i OJ St'u;h .7 '"� .)afd pl«I or• met; an �cre.: ' � e:Mi�.�lJy.•dccs h�^rer •.�, :.fi: J d /i .,f �r't ,6•iJ, .+�vtrtc�f, •n+� m.►ef a'+d pur ai.ecaJc. s rl.e ;3i�d.••C•}. y!;arV. rr �.irJ .'.e oairs..''li.y rpco^d ,r, •~cam � ::aur1, e%r,=o ia�✓t!y, nv S.'"rrr ;nVcsl,-:en! Ccrrrt•a.,; ' / fDP of !ern rA7-^ nP f-L or,L7A C-CG'!vTY OA OAOrr .5.S. tha t1r7dr -1 •Q +�♦ .O; -a,! .�°e-:,.: . do he re : rr.4 it !J1P�•f !7 Gr f9rr2�•%' etppeo:csY It". _. -'"y .i'::nny(lly /•.'.^PS•�'!'n� I�'.: .�.F{~ 1)!od0a lt, SR'Crv{wry GJmP.f jr ^OGf►' ce e _ KP KN'� 9P rnC .hare i '�". �• }`, Iee j1e ni".RB• • .4 ! ^CS► ' = '•Y'c •Y 1.°7Cy cV/7C C/C.h O: /A/_.. - !: . ^. . •' -4 : : ^e •.�� eP/.T41 4' !diCi•!IDrt bV al.c1 "YM ,.nc f~ ' rr'� I i < ,•rr d ;';'CC10: .9 C` . ^•c-.? .: A'L•..,.. a•..+ , .rr.•ir +M9elied eo! ,, '. P--v .., r:e •.e, ,rr,A-ed ®: rd a /!ec h.,•d .4 y a ^e .*W "r r✓t.w� -. •,• rf `.*tip 9 . e• ,c' :r n ..,. • . a • �s r ' ~r $Vnd thtlIe7` we+� a ^y ar•r, . - �/J •�ri-.l C f'i �►' �!•-'r ..^A 4d',•r /t r•rP l:^1S Sim •T•`• Ild n. � J • '� i •"' �ru! ..P N'ian-,, l>ddt Co..,-� '� ..,. .... z :�.,. •' � r •p`. ,.� Gam. . - ` r �,a• .RCY tC,",'•')13i'o.•v r'x••,^t•.f ..,...11.:.si_�..a_.� _ G%_. :....•1. 94- 540 1 T'."'J P�?1 ►'•'13 ►nrrel•Pd 4: /�[ .. � •� 'rC- N.^P V :•:/.. i 1+• `�d Y.):J lrTCj' r J_ fa F, .Y'...d -c ♦. �t'1-. 'JDff. //M� .r_.. *fd ,�,. .. r'.' ..'... •J r � ' err .r.• t+,. • Y ,�►r.t mid' rti a / A'.. .. .•r .. I�' !'�.�1..• l 1''� f. SMS.,04 .'i .1% 4 t"MR-Iff I 41.7 J1L ,A� . �"`� r'1 t �� ,� _ ',� ,, `� �;,,� :� F .:J ! i i\ j i ! I I I "l 4 y }yy 1 i i i 1 i i ?C `k C3 � T I i 'Since 1935" INSURANCE / F1NANCiAL SERVICES 95^0 S. Geee;and 3 vC., Sj�-e NI:arni, F_ 33' 56 • R4. Box 56"567, !rti&mi FL 33255-1567 t (305) 670-3; 11 • Fax (Wz:) GIC-9:�9 • CUtside Dade {8-^' 273-44-33 March 22, 1994 Mr: Steve Polakcff Fax: 532-5325 i 1661 .;efferson Avenue Miami Beach,, FL 33139 I RE: Dwelling lic=eowners NC2C 42144300 03/27/93 - 09/27/94 I Dear Steve: ! I am in recei p : of yours of March 16 th and appreciate you-- prozPt response to my inquiries with regard to the rencvatiors Of the residence. A —so at this point, let me suggest that a.ny ;gall you j construct should be '.ail encQgh to keep adults from easily cliAtbing i ovex same. My wcu_d be =n t*e area of 5 T-a 7 feet. i Our conz7e n would be twofold_ First, ::tan the passti!�.ility of burclarir is reduced the mcre diff—ioZ t yc'= wake it. Pnd sacond-lY, •t...,e 1ia::ility P.azard of trespp_sse_s falling in the b'ay (in OlU opinion an attractive nuisance) ,-rind be greatly reduced. whould you -ave arty further g1:.es".zons in regard :.o this matter, j please let me 'know. i Thanks so much. j Haa t regards , d ' J. ;ia'yes W7orley, dr. 7-0*d SIL9PLZ Cl d31�"HD/3CUIHITr1 ALidd wdtjr:LJ voo�-� 4-ter r'..fa - d -kilCU. i I � "a^lixae 19W )RM HRY & BA11, INC. INSURANCE / RNANC IAL SERVICES 9500 S. Dadeland 8tvd, Suke 200, Miami, FL 33156 • P.O. Boot 66156?. Miami, FL 33256.1507 1,3175) 670-6111 * Pax (305) 670-9699 • Outside Dade (8M) 273."33 marsh 9, ! 1994 i leer. ] Stevb Polakoff Vintage Properties 1601 Jefferson Avenue mia>pi Reach, rL 33139 RE % Lexington Iri.Wu3Mnca ;k mewners H0300421.44000 09/27/93 - 09/27/94 Dear Steve: Youi will recall when we originally wrote the above captioned policy it iaae vilth the understanding that you were going to be doing zuklstantial renovations to the residence. The underwriter for Lei*ingtori indicated that they rare Inoking for you to upgrade the roof, replace the wiring, replace the kitchen, upgrade the pluwkbing, and do something to reduces the liability exposure genermtexd from being an the water. Thera ia, very obviously, an increased liability ex0osure its a result of this. When you have an opportunity, please advise the progress you have sate wLth regard to these items so that we might pass that information on to the Lexington. I We;appreciate your usual fine cooperation and asalatance.. Sept regards, I f .1Mayes Worley, Jr. J AWimld I C©'d STL9VLz Oi d31d0HD/H+JiH10 XaI Wd6':2'3 V66T-zT-LE Y W4 rw a The Vihtage Croup of Companies March 16, 1994 i Via Fax VINTAGE Mr. Hayes Worley PROPERTIES Worley Humphrey & Ball, Inc. 9300 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 200 INCORPORATED Miami, Florida 33156 Fax Number 670-9699 VINTAGE ��L.T., Re; 5701 North Bayshore Drive ; Homeowner's H030042144000 GROUP, INC. License Real Dear Hayes; Estate Broker I am in receipt of your letter of March 9th regarding the renovations needed in order to insure renewal of my homeowner's policy. To date, we have completed the replacement ;of the roof, replacement of all plumbing (converting to copper) and replacement of all electrical wiring. At the current time, the kitchen has begin completely 1601 Jelerson Avenue gutted and the installation of the new cabinetry and appliances is scheduled for the week of April 18th. Miomi Beach, Aodda33139 With regard to the liability exposure generated from being on the Tel.. (305) a341424 water, we are planning to go before the Preservation Board on April 19th with a proposal that would approve a wall running from the southeast Fax; (34 532-5325 corner of our house to the southwest corner of the lot at the eastern end of 57th Street (please see attached diagram). Would you please indicate to me how high this harrier should be in order to sufficiently reduce our liability exposure and satisfy the underwriter. need an answer by no later than Monday, March 2'1st. I Sincerely, Stevep Polakoff I. SP/ae 94- 540 Attachment b0'd SZL9VLE Ol 831ddH0%30d1NIn W08J Wd6z:E0 b661-Ei-LA YJYGc-lyy4 lit cGr� . r n-i57th r STREET ALERT! Dear Morningside Neighbor, As you may have noticed, the owners of the property at the end of 57th street and the bay, Steven Polokoff and Michael Carver, have made application to the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board for the approval of a privacy wall at their property line. ~they wish to erect a six foot high solid masonry wall with wrought iron accents on their south property line along 57th Street and across the end of the 57th Street cul-du- sac (See the attached drawings). This would substantially, if not completely, block the view of the bay from 57th Street. I believe that this is totally unacceptable and incompatible with the historic fabric of the neighborhood. The developers of Bayshore (Morningside) laid out this street specifically to create a vista to the bay from those properties not fronting the bay. We must not allow the installation of any opaque barrier between 57th Street and the bay. it is is.perative that you express your opposition to this wall st the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board meeting on Tuesday, March 15 at 4:OOPM. The meeting will be held in the City Commission Chambers at City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive. Your input is all the more important because Board Member Norah Schaefer will not be allowed to vote on this issue at the meeting, and I will be out of town on the meeting date and will not be able to present our case. Sarah Eaton, Miami's Historic Preservation Officer, suggests that the neighborhood meet and form a consensus on how to approach this problem and then have one or more persons rationally express our concerns. It is important, however, to also have as many concerned residents as possible at the meeting. IT IS UP TO YOU TO PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. Because Steven and Michael will probably be represented by a lawyer it is important that our attorney neighbors be at the meeting to correct any errors of law presented to the Board. If you require further information you can contact Sarah Eaton at the City of Miami Planning Department - 579-6086 or Norah Schaefer at 757-2272. Thank you and good luck, KEITH SOTO 94- 540 MO RNMGSIDE NEIGHBORS Enclosed is a copy of the request for approval to build a b foot wall across the and of 57th Street at the Bay This request has been made to the Historic and .Environmental Preservation Board of the Cite of Miami by the owners of'the home at 576 Strut and the Bay. 1t goes without saying that a great m*nty of tic residents of Morningside are opponad to this wall or any other stmeture being placed at the end of the cut de aac. The history and background of this horrifying "happening' are as follows: I. We are on the Nztional K*ster of Historic PUces► arrd are the th'st historic district in the City of Miami. 2 We are protected under the Secretary of the Intaim`5 Standards for Rehobilitation,(pertinent portions attached) These are a set of guidelines extretmety important to our cause because the Board follows these guidelines in their decision-nruikinyg. The Board is meeting on TUESDAY, MARUI 15TH AT 4 PM tit City hall,, at which time it will hear the request by the owners of the property. 4 The owners' property lies between the sidewalk and the 1341y. This was done back in 1925 when Mr. Nunnally (the developer) built the hone ftr himadf Obviously it wu not his intention to block off the wator view Prorn the developffmt or he would have done it SEVENTY N'EA>RS ACy)1 04 5, If it were not for our historic designation, the owners would have been able to construct this wady across the entire strew. At least we have a chanoe to prewar our Wings before the Board (a panel of citizens who are obligatbd to follow these guidelines in making their decisions) 6. Most of the neighbors can not possibly conceive of any reason why someone would want to block off their view of th a water. The owners have said that if tho PUBLIC WISHES TO SEE THE WATER, THEY MAY GO TO n E PARK 7. The park was not there in W24-25 when Mhroinoeide was balk. The r:ubdMsion was laud out ® vAth straets open to the 138y40 'crem a vises" for those properties noton the wmter. This was advertised by the duvc1oprr ern corporation as one of'its great attributes U3 94- 540 0 T%iE SECRETARY r— THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FO' 21~.HABILITATION THE DISTINGUISHING ORIGINAL QUALITIES OR CHARACTER OF A SITE AND ITS IENV ONMENT SMALL NOT BE DESTROYED, NOT RECOMWNDED Removing or radically changing those features of the dimicrt or neigh*orhood which are important in defining the OVERALL HISTORIC CHARACTER so that, a: a rettalt, the character is DItv3MSHED. RECONMCNDED Retaining and preserving streetsonpe and landscape fttures which at impominl in defining the overall historic character of the district or neighborhood. WHAT WE NEED FROM YOU LETTERS We hope each homeowner will write a letter addressed to the following; Ms Sarah Eaton City of Miami Plartning garment 275 N. W. Serpnd Str+ect Nfisinii, Fl. 33I2S Please write your letter before the weekend and call rae on my beeper 996-1026. 1 will pick up � d the letters and personally deliver it to the City before Monday Please also request that your letter be read into the record The Board looks at the crowd and listens to them. 1 APPEAR AT THE HEARING AT XUAMI CITY HALL, MARCH 15, 1994 AT 4 PM 'J We must have a iergc group of concerned citizens at the hearing beause the Board's decisions are sometimes influenced by the number of people affected by their rulings. TWs is a cause that is �y very imPOTUnt to all of us. The gentles were fully swore of the probletne of the neighborhood when they purchased the property A good portion of their conaems is a reao6 n to friendly encouragement from residents in MorNngside who were plead to see the old house came back tv life. It is sad that they were unable to understand the good will and pride that make our community so unique. Sincerely, Norah Satiwefer 9 4— 540 757.2967 906-1026 Re"w VOTE: All letters must be rettaxned trc Norah Schaafvr, egg NE 56th st., by Tuesday morning, March 15th. Eli G "I of SdLdefef lkc,. April 7, 1994 Per. George Parcy, state Historical Preservation officet Division of HistOriCal Resources R. A. Gray Building 500 S. Bronough Street Tallahasee, Florida 33399 Dear George: Z am writing you with preference to a problem thathas arisen in the National Historic District of Morn-- ingsxde in Miami. Np doubt you are familiar with it as 2 won't belabor. that. The history of the problem begizio with two gentlemen's purchase of a property on the Bay at 759 N. E. 57th Street. Z will enclooe a small map, etc. for your reference. With the property that the home Nits on is an additional. 40` deep, 70' wide piece that sits between the dead-end street and the seawall/Bay. This property belonged to the developer, Mr. Nunnally, and has never been developed. The size of a buildable lot in the City of Miami is 5,000 so, ft. The home was built in approximately 1924 with a front door facing N. E. 57th St. Also enclosed is a copy of the- advertis- ing brochure for the Bayshore Development Corp., aescribing the fact. that Bayshore (now Morningsi.de) offered Bay unobstructed Bay views. The purchasers of the property are proposing a wall across thc, end of the street, enclosing their 40' piece Of ground. In addition, they are requesting that they be given the permission to build a wall from the east front corner of their home to the sideway and then to the Bay. This closing off of the 7i.(-w of the Bay to everyone in the neighborhood is extremely ,lcjgative and has caused a great furor to say the least. 94-- 540 REALTOR 5810136c;wne B�,ukvard, Miami, Florida 13137,005) 757.2967 t,r i Ir-L;JV-+-e__—Llq :'l, .... ^CFI LJ V4 LJ,-1 IV aQ- r Paged ;WG My experience on the preservation board in the City with regard to rulings for Morningside has reinforced my opinion that any obstruction of the Bayfront is not in keeping with the guidelines based on the fact that than prop- erty has not had obstructions since the Platting of the sub- division. In addition, the ouestion of a wall or fence go- ing From the front of a hnuee directly to the sidewalk has never been granted in the area, There was one exception which was made when two lily pondm were saved and a wall was al- lowed to be conatr.uctod half --way to the sidewalk. It is the feeling of the neighborhood homeowners that support .from the Division of Historical Resources and most especially the State Historical Preservation Officer would lend credence to their cause. Will you Please do some investigating and if you have any guostions, please feel free to call. sincerely, t.rah K. Schaefer NKS Enclosures VIA FAX 1-904- 4iTO-1153 94-- 540 • 1� IM „f) r - _ wx"w ,--- — - Olt- �� i I i April 25, 1994 Arthur King, Chairman 1795 N.W. 83rd Street Miami, Florida 33147 Re: Norah Schaefer Dear Chairman King: I respectfully request that you consider disqualifying Norah Schaefer from any further participation as a member of the Historic Environmental Preservation Board of the City of Miami, and further recommend to the City Commissioners that Ms. Schaefer not be reappointed to serve on the Board. Ms. Schaefer conduct at the April 19, 1994 Board meeting was totally inconsistent with the standard of conduct required of individuals appointed to s:•rv,a on public boards. w: I feel compelled to address this matter because of the following incident which I personally witnessed during the aforementioned meeting. At said meeting, the Board was reviewing an application for a certificate of appropriateness in connection with certain construction to a structure within a designated historic district, specifically Morningside Historic District. Prior to the meeting, Ms. Sarah Eaton, the Ci.ty's preservation officer had undertaken a review of the application and accordingly recommended approval of the application with certain modifications. The Board, following a lengthy hearing wherein much testimony was presented and ample evidence was introduced, adopted Ms. Eaton's recommendation subject to further modifications. Ms. Schaefer, for whatever reason, became infuriated with the Board's action, as well as the fact that Ms. Eaton had recommended approval of the application. Consequently, immediately after the vote was taken she directed herself towards Ms. Eaton and threatened her that she would loose her job over this. Her threats were voiced out loud and repeated. As a fellow public servant, and one who has worked with Ms. Eaton for quite sometime, I was personally offended by Ms. Schaefer's conduct. Ms. Eaton is not only highly qualified and competent, but is also, in my opinion, dedicated and devoted to historic preservation in the City. Not only was Ms. Schaefer's conduct unprofessional, and uncivilized, but in fact, it was 94- 540 �r 1 "1 1 ") 1 .:") 104 04 Arthur King, Chr ' -man April 25, 1994 Page 2 clearly a misuse of public office. Coercion and unlawful threats against public servants for purposes of influencing how the public servant carries out his/her public duties is unlawful and should not be tolerated. Your immediate response to this matter will serve to reassure both the public and the city employees who serve the public that performance of their jobs will not, under any circumstances be subjected to or subservient to coercion or abuse from board members appointed by the Commission. Very truly yours, Julie O.ru, Esq. 1140 Castile Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 cc: City of Miami Historic and Environr�ntal Preservation Board Members Stephen Clark, Mayor Members of the City Commission Cesar Odio, City Manager Sergio Rodriguez, Assistant City Manager .� ,t `,, ,, i '� _� STATN ur FLu1.IDA, ) . COURTY OF DADB. ) .. Before so. the andorsigomd autbority, this day personally apprarej daces a, B. 031aren and R. S. Blodgett re@poetivoly vivo -president and eeeretary of DIY SHORE INrRSPY1tIi4 ( ; COUPANY, a corporation organised and existing under the laws of tte State of Delaware, to m I( well known to be th, person* described to and who executed the foregclnie tonvoyanee to rrnaeie S. Whitten and severally acknowledged the execution thereof to be their free and voluntary r. cat and deed as such officer@ for tht uses and purposes therein expreseed; that they affixed i thereto the offisialfeel of said corporation by due and regular corporate eutherity. and said ir.strustat to the free set and deed of said corptxatien. ID WITNESS WEShRot. I have hereunto set sy hand and effiolal goal in the mount) and stet@ aforesaid, tbi, twentieth day of North A. D.. 19E4. R j� I D/ e o ry a e•@ a or a• Fire. (1:.►. SEAL) Yy eenalaslon expires Janttary 13. 1926. I 111te for rotor& Mareb 20-19C4, at 1:10 P.M.. Record@- in Dead book 406. on pair@ 61. Witness q hand and official goal. Don 3heper6, Clerk. 1 THIS ISDUTUhl, Made this loth any of llareb A. D., 1914. between SAY SNONEi Ih7ESTMV.T COUARY, a body corpor9te under the laws of Delaware. bovir.s its principal plage or; buaines• at Riai@i. Florida. party of the first part, and J. E. Banally of the County of Dade in the State of Florida party of the second part. WITNESSBTH. That the amid Party of the first part for and in eonsidtxmtieo of the dun of Ter Dollars and other wood and valuable considerations. to it in land paid by the said part of the eseond part, the receipt whereof In horoby aoltnowledred, bag granted, I bargainod and sold to the said part of th.e second part, him tolls and agsigng for over. the followirr d@ecrl:.ed land, to -wilt All of Bleat Nine (9). and bete Five (b), Si: (6). and Seven (7) of bluets Tea (10) of MY SHORR, a ■ubdivlal-a of part of the South half (of) of beation 16, Tmwostip a bb South, Rouge 42 last, Dada County, Florida. an is abew on a certain nap or plat thereof �. recorded In Plat Root 9, pare 98, Dad* County Records. It If tlnderatoed and a greed that this deed Is given subject to the followtas restrictions, which apply to all lots In Bleak@ 1, R. B, 6. 7, 6. "A." "B". SAT SWORN as the ! and are shown on plat recorded in Plat book 6 at page 116 Dade Oounty Records; also to all. A", lots In Block& 4 and 6, and Tracts "0" and 11" BAY 91101,E as the seat are shown on revised plat 94- Or- 40 i3 M.. _.. recorded in Plat Book 9 at pace 60 Dade County ),@Cords; also to all lets in Blocks 9. 10. 11, Ia, la, lv, is, and 19 BAY SdO.1 Unit No. t as the same are shown on plat records in Plat Book 9 at page 9s, Dads flaunty Records; each and evert one of which restrictions the pa ty of the second part hereby agrees to observe and perform. to -wit: (a) The above deearibid property shall never be sold, rented, lot al leased to any person other than of the Caucasian rase nor shall any persons otter than of the - Caucasian root ever be permitted to "oury the premisto as lessee, ♦end@e of oPner thereof. (b) go building shall be aammeno@d or erected or in anywtat asnstruetea on tr.@ above property until after the piano and specifications therefor have been approved tm the grantoT torein in smiting. Tt.en the bnildirvr moat br treated In accordance with said plans and specificstions, a eery of such plant and opootfications to he deposited with the tPreat*? and to bt retained by it for its tilts. All butldinga to 'to oreeted ®net be treated of extorter smsonry walls. ouch as hollow tile, brick, cement block or local rock, and suet have the fintttahe' exterior of ourfmot material. mach as face brick, stone or wtuaco. tto*4 framint shall not be used for ex-terior calla, but may be used for interior partitions and roof oenstruction. If any laundry In built within eaI building tt.a four walla thereof oust be lolly inclosed ru *e to aenoesl She 1 interior thereof, and so that said Interior any not be risible from the *%Toots and adjacent i properties. (a) The minimum price of reei6oneee shall be as follower s i. All of Block 1; lots ! to 19 inclusive, Block ai lets 1 to 9 In - elusive, Bleak B; Seven Thousand Dollars (�7,000.00)inalnding earart. a. Iota I and e0. Block a; lots to to Is Inclusive Moak al All of Treat 030; all of Treat "C"1 all of Blocks 4, D, lt, 16 and 17; lots I to it inclusive, Block Ai atvon Theaeaaa Five Bundred Dollars (#v.600.00) including garage. �. P/B. Lots 15 to as Inclusive. Block A; Into 1 to 96 inclusive. Blook vt all of Blocks 11 and 19, lots 1 to 4 inclusive, and s to 11 inclusive. Block 10; lots 1 to 6 inclusive, and 9 to 18 inclusive, Block Itt line Thousand Dollars (",000.00) including @avagt. 4. Lots Ba to 106 inclusive. 81oek v; lots B. 6 and 7, Block 30; lots G. v and B. Block 19; Ten Thousand Dollars (010,000.00) including garage. S. All of Blocks s and 91 Thirteen Thonaand Dollars (d13,000.00) in - eluding savage. the anounte named above smut be aetually expo M ed in the construetion , and er@etion of amid rooidencee and garages and @loll be exolusive of any fees paid tar arebi- toots and exclusive of the cost of planting and landscaping the grounds. (a) to buildinc, oT any portion thereof, including porches and proI@otitns. ,roets4 on lots in Blocks 1. E. 3. 4. D, 6 and v shall be placed nearer the front property line than thirty toot; In the case of corner lots In said bloat@, me such portion of any building *hall be placed nearer the aide street lino t}an twenty feet. No building or any portion thereof, including poraheo and in o'aations. *rested on iota io Blooko 10, 11, it, IS. 19, 10 and 10, and Tracts "C" and "B" shall be placed sewer the front property line than twenty-five fast; in the case of corner lots in salt blacks and treat*, no snob portion of any building @ball be placed nearer the aid@ street line than twenty foot, provided, however, that is the nose of into 5 and? of Blo ?pp�and lots A and 6 of i Y hock It. no such portion of any Wilding 0all be placed noa-sr than twoaty-five toot free either tte front or aide strost lingo. And ne building or any Portion thereof 120156100 pwr- ++ i ohs* and pro;eotioog, shall be *loser then five (a) feat from any adjoining property line. And in eess of l<ay Front late no building or any portion thereof Including parObsq Meld pre'oe> Sj tione. shall be closer than fifty (50) feet from the bay at :to nsaffest point, and Ws sash pew tion of any building *hall extend within eorenty-five (Ta) Sect of ffiay Ohara Drivso T (s) go buililno or structure aba.11 be used or $rested en thg property stbtr R ttso buildings for strictly residential parpooes exceptlax tho nectsemry garages to be weed in connection therewttb. This provision shall arcludo th.a oroction and operation of hotels, r apartment bottles, dupleR reeidenoes. htuetnote houses of all kinds. and in connection with the understood tat no rs shall be built on the property Got used for residoMial� garages, !t ish too ge p P 7 + purposes pending the erection a ad oonstruction of the emir residence. Provided, however, aM It is dlatinotly understood that the yrshiaitted �'• herein contained skainat the $?action and operation of bottle and apartment hemsee shall not be tq� � I doewd to include the following property, to Witt it is understood and Wreod that tbiO deed to ttiven subjeat to a aettalai 4e94 ! of trust encumbering the herein described lands, together with other lands. which dead of /f trust secure* bonds aggrogatinx tha sun of Two aundrod Thousand Dollars ( $M&M .00). re- • �++ earStd in hlortgaa* look 111. page Sat of th.t fablio kOGOTda Of Bade caanty- Flatlds; and alms e sabjeet to a certain mortgage encumbering the heroin doscribei Ionia. togstber with Other lanise iwhich m artroge It toted dareh 1. 1930 and scourge the payment Of a cam of Forty RheaaoOA Dollars ($40,000.00) Pro orded in morteagg look 104. pairs 2v5 of thg wabliw btoarda of Dada county. Flori/si both of which encumbrances the orantor herein Opeoifteally airvoos to pay on of before April 1, 1925, as a part of the con@idoration of the purOhate price of the lands do- ,, soribod above. All of blfek &Ight 18). lying North of Lot fifty-four (64) thereof= ail of j hooks "1", and "H"; all of Treats "0" cad '40; all of Block four (41. Eotsls *CA SWtzont speciboumes may be constructed and treated on the lands dust described, but the plane and fi-cations thgrtfor mast, btfcro the aork to eo®enutd, be first iabaitt6i to and approved b • th.t trrantOr horein, said orrantor reesrving th* ritrbt to rejeot any plans and specifications when such plant and epeaifi*ations are not satiafaOtory to it And in ooaneatloo tbsrowitb. its u Y, l dealsion shall Wo sonalusiva and finale "! ff) No boathouses, obelttre or buildings of any kind @hell be oroet*A se the bay in front of any Day front lot except that a landiar for boat purposes stall be pvTMIt- tad, provided that such lending shall not be hither than the present balk head =2 1 and Owl � ..Wtiot extoce out :nto the aay a diatom* of Wore than fifteen (18) feet from tiw present balk head wall, measured at right angles at the point whoro•the work'lo boing Sons. The probibitiea a!•ainet the sroetion of docks, best houses and the like shall not however extend to or elver ON property set out in block '1', but as to this block, such structures Oro pmroiitted. IS) While the doedo to Bay front Iota carry riparian rights thereante boloneing.•yet 1t Is understood and agreed by all parsoaa asoopting deals for lay front late w. p', that no fills will be =de into the Proxy in front of any suet property until and unlace the fill is agreed to by all the property more owning property in blocks Bight (W . and Hine (l) e fh) only one residence shall be treated on any one lot Or On Onto all a fraction of another lot as @boom by the plot., but this provision. however, @hall not apply Qs, 9� - 540 to the Lots in Blocks Seven ('). Eight (Of and We M i with reference to Dloeks '1, S and 9. it is understood as follower In oonne*tlon with Slook Seven no resideseo *hall be *rooted upon any plat of lose then fifty (BO) foot frontage; In other words,in order to *?set two remissness a party mast purchase at loses one hundred feet frontage. And in eonnsdtIM with 910ska eight and nine no rosidenso shall too sr*ot*s upon any plot of less than one hundred foot frontage; in other words. in order to trust two reoidenees a party most purchase at leeat two hundred foot front*go. V/ (1) 110 lot or butleine of any kind *ball be used for illepsl war isanral purposes. and no borece. *maw, hogs, cattle or poultry .ball be paraittss to be raised or kept upon said property. (a) All does* to property in DAY 3HO1.R are Riven subject to a certain reservatior as to shown on the aforesaid plat, in which reser ations the boner rseervea an �oaswment rtpbt to lase underground all nooseser conduit* P gr y pipe*. mains, wf�e*. eebles and the like for the purpose of furnlobinR to the property in all said block* water.►taa, pbone service, electricity, sewer disposal and tho like, toltetber with noaeasory sipbts of ingross and epToss. Each and every one cf the above covenants and oondltlons shall bps @on- stdored covenants running with thv land and o M 11 be binding upon 00 Tarty of the •*send part, l� „ V sA well as his heirs, eseouters, administrators or assigns. And the eaid party of the first part does h*r*by fully warrant ti•e title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons wboa*osysr. IN WITYN53 WEM,10y- the sold party of tLo first part has hereunto @&used Its corporate new and seal to be set and affixed by its Prosident, the day and year first above written. (Corporate Seel) Attests -1. a. Blod1et6 care ry. 41goed, sealed and delivered in the prememe cf: - H. E. Benton Live L. game DAY SHOE. IE•SST:ZaI1T COSPANY, 37 Jas H. Oilman IM-yreenen-. *'1L.00 1. R. Stamps essoellod. t�. STAT1 or non IDA ) COUNTY OF DADA. 1 Before me, the unasradpned authority, this day personally appearod James pC�T R, 011man and E. S. Blodgett roapsctivoly vino -president and secretary Of RAT 5901.1 1FMTIFC IMPAST, a corporation organised and eiisting under tie lows of the ntats of Delaware, to se well known to be the peracn* described in and who executed tho foregoing conveyance to J. H. Val"117 and severally seknowledwed the oxeeu3loe thereof to be their free and voluntary act and does as each officers for ti.ouees and purposes therein expr*sssd; that they affixed thereto the official seal of said corporation by due and regular oon`` rporato authority. th , and e said in- strastat Is the free sat aM 4404 of said earporstion. ly wiTnsa WMEOP, I have bertuato sot my head and *ftlelal seal in the twenty sad state aforesaid, this twentieth day of Marob A. a., 292P.. ro Mwry AN91m. 6r play et Large. (ti.r. Stu) 17 commission expires aftnusiq Is. l"s V, Filed for voeo7d March 20-29114. at lily N.. heeoidtd In Dead Book 405. to page 55. Witnoos my hand *ad official seal. Boo It epard, Clark. va- D.O. "!3 InUTVI.s. Made this l2th day of Sarah A. D. 1924 between J. 3. 103115090' joined Ir his Ws. WWII A. TiOSINSM of Dodo County. Florida parties of the flirt part, aims W. JAIJ2DT. of Dade County, Florida, Party of the second part. WITN35311TR, That the *aid Parties Of the first Part for and In 0008160WID11 of the am of men dollars and otb4r hood and valuable considerations, to them In hand paid Toy the said nasty of the second part, the receipt whereof to b@r*b7 seknowledired. hAve PTSAtQ4.' bar Rained and Sold to the said laity of the eoaon8 part, his heirs arA foTQTQT, the following dtoerib*d land. eltuate, 17in(t and Wine in County of Dade State of Florida to -aft: Lot mine (9) of Bleak 41tree (3) Boulevard Park. an addition to the arty of Miami, Florida, seetmdInr to the plat hereof recorded In ?)At Book ? at Fare 55 of the Put'lle koserds of bade bounty, Florida. And the said Parties Of UA first part 40 tt?Qbl fully 10621sAt the 11U6 to said land and will defend tto come awainat the lawful alai" of all persons 0hOa*OQTGV- ll wl?lmsS WM[Evor, Or @&IS patties of the first part ?isvo hor*tnts sot their banjo and goals at 111aml. Ines County, Florida the day *ad year first above written. s. 31pood, sealed and delivered In the prosonce oft 1,osalInd Garfunkel JA I. 10blason —(8981) Rally mpbrozo-- Zatbr-Zg A. 1kobigoog—JUX11 yr A0 94- 540 0 XN~ AL1 Ail& � 7iAIN Ol AtAl1 t• drArr OP a`aOM" � • ii1�0ese Ate euevev ee0 A~JrAiCAFr c AIY'r p9° OP Or►� y 4 ?14A M� erMar, ad�hs**6All- ryea er .a. e.Qa�f 'r'� a ""se"r.°wµ Y er deeq cwwl', Ark9, e, /saA�d�aaa% AA�babro�.eg wi 69A[ aa2.eD!4 AoJam+ d� Irs- ewV easne � AOr &&W pA l ss w� eewwad �od ne�1 oErAl,aPMdo aed Aa�P Gsg.�e8 os *a&d � l mtt � A6e/ Ab ame A�. �aa arAatwr cons+w`a.�o Aesq► ..v..ss a,.. ee+s.nms sdrO a• A1. .argil d iY►m'� ae ar ah+eaR��o®.aw.ee. maw* rand o" Akr Fj air ae aear ~04mwra ofand 0,E. w. +Ite.mse M. , AA.. —A ! AI!®sa.p I po�s� Ate/ A!. ardf0 s e^oa Abu .e.r�.o ,d. wn✓ ®r A�r�i. �' '�' e ar aw #090 AD oar �W'oe" e/ iilc Ctar4 0� aU. 6 1+ CemrP. Coro t.LSA). s�.iaetr fk.�ir AN by rsomrbpro AW AP P~w d awl At o~ Aamv a.% Ns ewe Aoftiae.ee+uly ems' ee �Alo A a s mw m1a emi/ O� /wwoAftdaW Tide PW aw�at gWomso bq Abe cee.r9y k%WA smr me AMOX& F�PaY m1 e e dohEf .w of AA °° Gw!jr' ©.�71T9rr- sAr d/!SWd / drAwVVr CvAA'a omr Me �aqt/ emra A4u� p aws e�AsA iy Ale QVg Bwe.wb.4i+as� ve A..ernd, f9brMd f AGg.�LifB...i.A [!1'A ATTlJT i Aa OW pwo .! . _ Ad 171�r / 9mr rwas CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO : Matty Hirai DATE City Cje,r>) �� SUBJECT FROM : ,) (Willy) GOrt REFERENCES: lssloncr ENCLOSURES: July 12, 1994 FILE Pursuant to the City Attorney's memorandum dated July 7, 1994 with reference to the construction of a wall on the property located at 5701 N. Bayshore Drive in the Morningside Ilistori:; District. 1 am forwarding for inclusion in your Iile(s), unsolicited documents on this matter which were in my files. I have no knowledge of whether this information is of an exclusive nature since I have not been apprised nor have I personally reviewed said documents. However, this information should be, made available to all parties involved with this issue for their review and comment, relative to agenda item numbers, 58 & 59 on the City Commission agenda July 14, 1994. Additionally, I have been informed that my staff did discuss this issue with individuals from the community prior to the filing of the subject appeals, however I was not personally aware of said discussions because my staff had not briefed me on this matter. Thank you. WG/rr cc: Chief of the Hearing Board Division Planning, Building & Zoning Dept. City Attorney City Manager Submitted ".;o flO 3U�?I3C "' UJ City Clerk 94- 540 94- 54.E BHP TEL g�1; un 21 94 11 lU No . UU (' 1' . Ul i FLORIDA DEI'ARTMEN1 OF STATE Jim Smith Seem y of State DIVISION OF HISTORICAL PkESCURCCS R.A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough iallahl%wt, Florida 37)99-0250 Director's Office l'elccop{er Number (FAX) (904) 4 88-1480 (904)495.1353 FACSTMILL TRANSMITTAL 9REET TO FAX NUMBER: 30S - 250 - 5456 Please deliver the following pages to: NAME: C;omrlissiosier 11illic Gort COMPANY: Citv of Mi arni CITY/S T'ATB t Miami, Flori& SENDER: Bill 'Thurston 0 D1irr>r: 6/20/��4 NUMBER OF PAGES (including transmittal, sheet): 3 FROM FAX: (904) 922-0496 COMMZ14TS: For your information as reauested hN, 1.1s. Nora K. Schaefer If there are any problen►s in receiving this transmissoi.or,, Tease call (904) 487-2333. 540 j 94-- 541 Archaeological Research Florida Folklife Programs Historic Preservation Museum of intidr•. 1-141-- 0 c TtL:904-922-0496 Jun 21 94 t: Ad FLORII)A DEPARTNIFNT Ol- STATE )im Sinith Secretary of State DIVISION OI: HISTORICAL RL•.SOURCLS WA Grab Iluildir,g 500 So'.01 vfonouhh Tallalob. vc, Flc md.i 32399-0250 Director. Officc Telecctpier Numbet IFAX) (904) W-1 483 (904) 48N-3353 April 18, 1994 11:11 No.007 P.02 Ms. Sarah Eaton City of Miami Planning Department 275 N. W. Second Street Miami, Florida 33128 Dear Ms. Eaton: It is my understanding that there is a proposal pending before the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board of Miami for a privacy wall to be built at the end of 57th Street in the Morningside (Bay Shore) area. while this is clearly a local government decision, I want to share with you some information from our files relating to this historic neighborhood. The neighborhood was listed on the National Register of Historic Places as the Bay Shore Historic District on • October 2, 1992. In describing the setting of the neighborhood for the National Register nomination, there were several statements made which may be relevant to your consideration of this matter. one it that "the neighborhood's bayfront location and the landscape and streetscape improvements provided by the developer were important ingredients in defining the character of what is known as bay .shore Historic District". The nomination also states that "All east -west (streets, except the most northern and southern two, terminate at Biscayne gay, providing visual access to the water". In deciding whether or not a privacy wall. should be built in this location or in deciding what height and materials should be allowed, it is our belief that the Board should carefully consider the historic setting and how it might be affected by this decision. • C a 1 Archaeological Research Florida Fulklife Programs Hiiauric Pteser►atiun Museum of Florida History t9041 4$-•2203 (004) }?7-2192 10J4.487.233; (0041 468-IJ84 Hs. Sarah Eaton April 18, 1994 Page Two xf you have any questions concerning this letter, please feed, free to contact me at 904/488-1480. Sincerely, Geor a W. Percy,, i actor Division of Historical ResouJrces :`WP/sw cc: Norah Schaefer 94- 540 94- 541 5701 N. p 'HORS DRIVE - FACT SHEET -_ UNE 6. 1994 WHAT WASPS PROPO*ED STREET CLOSING -- Owners were told most people would not care and this was cheapest way to get privacy. Plan withdrawn. SIX FOOT WALL -- Provide view corridor to water and only enclosed backyard --Plan withdrawn before presentation to Board to further poll neighborhood. FIVE FOOT WALL AND FENCE-- Entire end of 57th Street to be wrought iron with vistas to the bay; CBS/Stucco wall running east/west lowered to 5 foot and pulled back from property line by 8 feet. (See enclosed diagram) FACTS TO SUPPORT CURRENT PROPOSAL, 1. 1935 Plat Book shows separate end lot with 12 x 20 boathouse. Always owned privately. 2. City Of Miami permit records show 12 x 20 foot boat house with cement footings, electric, etc. constructed on the end lot at the end of 57th Street. 3. US aerial photos surveying the coastline in 1942 and 1952 show the boathouse and extensive perimeter hedging. 1972 photos shows no boathouse but extensive hedging. 4. Original developer excluded lot at the end of the street from any deed restrictions regarding vistas and hedging. 5. The Miami historic preservation officer found not only that the enclosure is historically appropriate but also very much in keeping with the state of other eastern lots on N. Bayshore Drive. 6. The City of Miami Zoning Dept., found at the hearing that the zoning code, as written, defines the front of the house to be North Bayshore and thus the proposed enclosure runs out from the rear portion of their side yard to enclose backyard and is therefore appropriate. 7. What is proposed obscures no view of the 57th Street or N. Bayshore Drive facades of the house nor the view of the water. The Historic Board voted 6 - 0 in favor of the enclosure. CONCLUSION The restoration of this key house has been well done and enhances the neighborhood. The enclosure is historically appropriate and allows the owner the privacy they need given the fact that a public street dead ends in their backyard. What they want is the very least each of us would require in such a house. The evidence they provided was absolutely conclusive as to the use and enclosure of the property and was generated by government authorities years ago and is not subject to alteration or interpretation. Having conclusively prover, the historical appropriateness of their plan and conceded a vista which is not even historically accurate, these people should get what they asked for and be left alone. 9 4 - 540 94" 541 Sincerely, NAME ADDRESS: NAME L ADDRESS ------ NKME ADDRESS: NAME ADDRESS: r Llz—' LLI NME ADDRESS: NAME r. 17 'D be) ST ADDRESS:, C)Sbceroc NAME _Si.� N-z- -ST- ADDRESS'--- NAM Tit- c-'r- ADDR S' NAME DDRE \ S: 94- 540 94- 541 M. I] rot 4 .. Y x/ Leon Y THE Ormx OF ERNESTO FA®RE HISTORIC PREVrAVAMN-0criCN STUDIO O I • I l { I i i i THE Off IGE Of ERNESTO FA13RE HISTORIC PREGEAVATION()[SIGN PTUMI! it . I III ; 1 1 ,�i{ ,•j �I I.4 �Ll � 1 I I I I��lI1lNII1i1��'���� � � ��1�11l11111111i111I11111111111�111111���___.__.��.�. Miami City Hall (� 3500 Pan American Dr. Coconut Grove, Fla. 33133 Dear On May 4, residents of Yorningside, Miami's first historic district, filed an appeal of the city's Historic and Environuental Preservation Board's April 19 ruling that property owners at 759 NE 57th St. could build a five-foot combination wall/fence at the east end of. Northeast 57 Street. More than 50 neighborhood residents were in the City Commission chambers to witness the board's actions. Five speakers presented Save Our Bay Vista petitions that contained almost 500 signatures from people opposed to this bayfront lmped1ment. Please know that 1 support this appeal and urge you to review the matter in detail. ` Sincerely, i J , G� I t `l''`e'✓ � )ve* 94- 540 9�_ 541 ALFRED P. SASIADEK. 453 Northeast 55th Terrace, Nflami, Florida 33137 (305) 757-1584 May 11, 1994 Commissioner Willy Gort Miami City Mall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Commissioner ('.Tort, I am writing this letter as a concerned voting citizen of the City of Miami, and as a resident of the Momingside Historic District. Soon will come before you an appeal of a Historic Preservation and Environmental Review Board decision to allow a combination 5 foot masonry and wrought iron fence at the end of NE 57th Street, effectively blocking the view of Biscayne Bay. This appeal was filed May 4 by the residents of Momingside, Miami's first historic district. The ruling in question was handed down on April 19 by the Preservation Board as a quasi - compromise after more than 2 hours of testimony. The ruling answered the owner's rightful desire to block his private property, but did not sufficiently reflect the overwhelming desire of other residents to preserve another beautiful, waterfront view available to the citizens of Miami. More than 50 neighborhood residents opposed to this plan were present in the City Commission chambers to witness the action of the Board. Petitions containing almost 500 signatures to save the Bay view were also presented. Please know that I support this appeal and urge you to review the matter in detail and consider the implications of supporting the removal of more bay view from public sight, as you deliberate this matter with the City Commission. You might also consider that many residents support the city claiming this land for the public, and would work to generate funds required to compensate the owner so there would be no cost to the city. Before I close, it has come to my attention thhat most of the Members of the Historical Preservation Board do not even reside in die City of Miami. I resent outsiders being appointed to such boards by the City Commission, where they make decisions that impact residents of Miami. Thank you for your consideration on these matters. Sincerely, 4.,,.,,,I. Alfred P. Sasiadek 94- 540 94- 541 un46ai nwil, ou�cuolrul,a t I SCIV I pt , i HUNT..ONES &, Bus ,1LEY A P*01RKBB10NAL ABBOCIATION V 4,TTORNRYB AT LAW COURVOIBIta CXIVTRII a BUITit41va 7100 or COjN*XL LAWR9NQ& 4. EVA" RAUL A. ARRNCIYIA GUY N. I♦AILRY, AC RRICxRLt itOCY L9R1V8 J, BRUCt 114VINO a, ,LATHY J, R191•R 041AMt, PLOPICkA 93W-841*3 RoBeRT R. BCHUR AltRCROR® G. OUSTO SCOTT L. r.AOAN TRL, (000) 074-6606 0914404 dGLiNBL� TIMOTMY CONK PAX (OOR) 374-0715 WM, R. O.AWRB rT&VlCN CARLYLr CRQNICO OgOR®IC J. SAYA JAMItB C. CLINNINQHAM, JR. RICHARD M. MAVIS BAPtL 0, 0^6LOP JUCITH B• OR69149 RICHARD H. HUNT, JR, RRUCR HURWI?Z JBB>•[ C, JONLG JOHN 0. LRVITT Monday, May 2, 1994 City Commission Agenda Clerk City of Miami, Florida Miami City Mall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Plozida 33133 AO Tel fa .1707 RE: Steven Polakoff and Michael Carves / 5701 North Bayshore Drive Dear Sir or Madam: This firm represents Steven Polakoff and Michael Carver, the owners of the property located at 5701 North Bayshore Drive in the Morningside area of ?&ami, (sometimes known as 759 Northeast 57th Street.) We have bun advised that the Morningside Civic Association, in a letter to the Commission dated April 4, 1994, requested that the City Commission grant It a homing, (which has been wt as item #31 on the Commission's May 5, 1994 agenda,) to hear its opposition to approval Of "a six foot concrete wall blocking the view at the end of Northeast 57th Start." Our clients' application for a five foot 9hL was scheduled to be heard by the Mstoric and Environmental Preservation ward on April 19, 1994. Ito Civic Association's request apparently was based upon pmUminary plans which were not the subjoct of the Board's hearing. At the Mstoric and Environmental ITwes6rvation Board's hearing on our clients' application for a certificate of Appro]P&Mnm held on April 19th, the Board aetod on our clients' application for a five foot ww�UU kQIa fence running across the end of Northeast 57th Stmet, (a conmte and stucco wall was also approved, but it does not block the end of Northeast 57th Street,) approving uge application with some changes which gave even greater "view vistas" across our clients' property, Agenda Clerk Monday, May 2, 1994 Page 2 Sirice our clients' application was for a five foot wrought iron fence which does not in any way block the view from the end of the cul-de-sac, the Civic Association's request is both improper atld irrelevant. We also strongly suspect that the Civic Association will attempt to use this erroneous agenda item as an opening through which to introduce a request that the City Commission take our clients' property by eminent domain for "view purposes." Such a request would be entirely illegal, not only be auso the agenda item fails to properly apprise the public of the subject matter to be discusW, but becauso discussion of eminent domain issues requires the utmost in public notice and notice to the owner, which clearly would not exist in this case. We formally request that since agenda item #31 deals with erroneous subject matter, that it must be mmoved from the agenda. Thank you far your consideration in this matter. Please contact me to confirm that this agenda item has been removed. Sincerely, WS°TO cc: Steven Polakoff Michael Carver Bail Gallop, Esquire Julie Bru, Esquire, Assistant City Attorney EBAILEY HUNT JONES & BUSTO A POROPI {SIONAi, AMSOCtATION ATTOPNgY5 AY L.AW •..• C�'fy �i ,'`.ale. + � i'.R�i�1� „n_41 �,;, {��t+'�.y ��.p, _ ... -- 94- 540 94- 541 SENT BY: 2-94 ; 2 : 20PM BAILF" INUNT-► 3058581707;# 1 Raul A. Araw1bla ouy B. Bailey, Jr. Blicnboth B&kar Raspy J. Bible Uarce des C. Bueto Soott L. Cagan Timothy Cone swan C. Csvnig Daum C. Cunningham, Jr. Richard Zvi, Devie Bart 0. ©atlop Judith B. flrems Jerome liaacho Richard H. HUW' Jr. Bnw Hurwitz law C. Janoe Jahn B. Levitt *Admhtad in New York Oely BA ZY HiT1VT JONE.S & BUSTO a profewoaal "Sociatioal Attorooye at Law 300 Courvoirdw COMM 501 Brickell Roy Drive Miami, Florida 33131-2623 Telophoas (305) 374.5505 Tetafactim a (305) 374-6715 TELEFACSrvME MEMORANDUM Lawrence S, Evans J. Bruce Irving Robert E. Schur 3e3ior Coaateel: Wm. R. Dawu GKTV BAY& gON REQUESM pw iVbmtratlon contained in this teWacstmlle message is privileged and xnfidential ig67miation intend'*d onlyfor the use of the IndivWuai or entity named btlow, V the reader of tuts ntesaage is not the intended reciplou, or the amplo w or apm rerpavible to deilvm- it to the Wended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dixtemination, distribution or ovpying of this communication is strictly proWiied, Reaaipt by anyone other than the twended reetplent is not a waiver of any attorney -aids or worn pmdtd privilege, V you have received this communication In error, pleam immoodlately noo Us. Nyisray l"if long distance, by cvllea call, parson -to parson) at (30) 374-3505 and rourn the original copy of this oommuniauion to us at the adduct abowt by V.S. Penal service. We will reimburse you for the postage. 7w4nk you. DATE: Monday, May 2, 1994 TW: 2:24 pm EDT TO: Asenda CIwk Mr. Savor PoWcoff & Mr. Michael Carvat PAX At: 858.1707 $32-532.5 TELEPHONE #: 250-5400 $34.1424 T0: )ulic Btu, Esquire FAX N: 579-3399 TELEPHONE a: IW-6700 FROM: Stevea C, Ctomig Flu C 935300 RE: Powmf% and Carver Please call AU-374-53505 01you do not receive S papes (Including this memorandum), M$S9Aa13: Lotter attacw. NOTE: To reduce the use of non-reuwable paper rvsourom and to Wlkv duplication in ewryone's files, originals of Letters and other materiabr sent by teWacsh"Ile are not sent'by mail unless apec(ftcally norad or'nVueited. I � ,A1 QJ MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW • WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1993 eiehbc rhcaods by Review staff >z .louse sales double in Morningside area BY CAROLYN GUNISS REVIEW STAFF N the northeastern Miami neigh- borhood :of Morningside, house doubled and prices rose distinctly duj,ng the six-month period of April through September of this year. Twenty houses sold in this year's period, compared with 11 during the same period last year, according to data provided by the Prudential Flor- ida Realty. Prices increased sharply on houses of about the same size. The average square footage of houses sold last year was 2,145, 44 square feet more than this year's average of 2,101. The aver- age price per square foot this year was $70.94, nearly $10 more than last year's $61.02. `1• / C . 2 S- P. Prices can range up to $135 per ire foot on the high end, not in- cwding oceanfront sales, said Rusty Atlas, one of the brokers at Atlas Re- alty Inc. Prices for April through September reflected a marked increase. Last year during the six-month period, the aver - Neighborhoods is a weekly column on residential real estate values in South Florida cities and towns, Broward County y ti , f Mr Niemi NDTI t LaksaP It�nl K �>: � - � � * adoGounty �N rth [iaacrt / � l)a� Htalcah Htate ; y4iaml ; S I �' Jk Garoen ` }r T orel rfekSe s c t .�ESpnngs: Miami Beadi Miami U NE 60 St. J "Ag X1 �":. w coconut ' t NE 54 St. a Grove I �n ,�,+'t7. 7 �tyjM`jh;C�A. .yam Q NE50SL � Atlantic p`t _P Ocean Homestead Broker Norah Schaefer: `Even though it is an inner-city Roridect ! 1/ neighborhood, homes in the area have architectural value.' age price of houses sold was $130,863. some of them bayfront, and is east of lie added: "Most of the shoppers in This year's average is $149,070. Biscayne Boulevard between Northeast Morningside are coming from urban "The low prices are the last of de- 50th and 60th streets. It is partly sur- areas, so they want to be near multi - pressed market sale prices," said bro- rounded by a high -crime area. cultural activity, and it's usually places ker Norah Schaefer of Norah Schaefer Atlas defends the neighborhood, like Morningside that can give people Inc., which sells real estate in the area, though. "Crime is -a citywide problem the best value for their money." "Even though it is an inner-city but ... it's all about percepti6n," he neighborhood, homes in the area have said. "People perceive Morningside as The neighborhood's proximity to architectural value, plus the area is being near a crime -filled area, but sd is j downtown Miami andthe airport charming," Schaefer said. Coral Gables. The difference 'is, Coral The neighborhood has 400 houses, Gables isn't perceived that way." SEE NEIGHBORHOODS, PAGE Al2 + 1-7 A10 MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW a WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9,19% Neighborhoods by Review staff House sales up in Bay Point, 0 �{t�Fs��;�r�n��a �` � � �♦y;�qr �,��+�p �� gated l community . � r l,r " ya f ti�Y A iy;it � S } AIA N -AJ street lights," said longtime resident "The g"A � M BY LORNA JOHNSON-NOEL REVIEW S FAFF Mary Jordan. city changes the light bulbs and picks up the trash, but IAMI's exclusive Bay Point we still have to meet the lighting neighborhood saw a mild standards and pay city and county I W increase in sales during the taxes." second half of 1993, with I I of its 250 The community is run by the Bay F, N A 'g, homes sold, compared with seven dur- Point Property Owners Association, ing the same period in 1992. and any improvements must be ap- Bay Point is bordered by Biscayne proved by the association. The associ- ;;ZN : Bay to the east, Northeast 50th Terrace ation has 123 members and is governed k to the north, Biscayne Boulevard to the by a six -member board of directors west, and Northeast 39th Street to the that is elected every year, said Beverly south. French, of Prudential Florida Realty. Beverly French, of Prudential Florida Realty: 'There is no association al According to data provided by Pru- "There is no association approval to 10 I)uy'a home here, but a yearly fee is paid on your land.' dential Florida Realty, the average price of houses sold during the second buy a home here, but a yearly fee is Broward County: Optimism Elsewhere in South Florida half of 1993 was $369,090, orS123.10 paid on your land to the association," i the economy, particularly per square foot. The average house size French said. Palm Beach County: An improved northeastern United States, see was 2,998 square feet. The least ex- The neighborhood is an enclave of economic climate in 1993 led to a spill over into Lighthouse Poir pensive sale in 1993 was $260,000, for a luxury houses — it has no condomini- dramatic increase in home sales in the netian Isles neighborhood, two -bedroom house, and the most ex- ums — close to downtown Miami. small Central Palm Beach County town housing sales jumped 33 perct pensive was $1.6 million. "Bay Point is a very suburbanlike of Haverhill, which is west of Palm year. There were 76 sales in V By comparison, the houses sold dur- neighborhood with a 24-hour security Beach International Airport. Twenty- Isles last year, compared with ing the second half of 1992 tended to gate," said Evelyn Framer, president five houses sold in 1993, compared to in 1992. The average price of be bigger, 3,686 square feet on average. of Framer Realty in Miami Beach. just two during 1992. The average price sold dropped about 12 perct In 1992 the average price was $389,928, "Many of the residents are executive for Haverhill houses sold in 1993 de- 1 $268,639, from $307,698 in 199 or $105.79 per square foot, types who live here because of the lo- creased to $117,348, from the unusu- estate agents attributed the sim Bay Point is a private, gated com- cation," within a 15-minute drive of ally high average of $562,000 registered ous surge in sales and price de( munity where the residents own the Miami International Airport, Miami from January through December of an increase in sales of lower streets. "The residents also own the I Beach and downtown, she added. 1992. nonwaterfront properties. f MIF OF Je1,,1#VM"V.14""11"_1k1, 1.1 ­11 9 #_ I 1 -­1 11 : ­1 " 11 ­ T V t j—1Jf*�EC 19 T 5 3 S 4 2 .'.; JAN o f {Jt�ty !.';-i) {fig ( j�{} ,1 i EE —pp�► 'Ii? 4r t {�'���?'J},� ter yy f.'({ tt `, k"�(l , �F} i � ��" 1 �6T"' CUE�Jc r3����tttt��Q i-1� �+•5 � , �S �f Nil � F i r '�•�r�Q `�� I�,r � I ' �„ ,{I 1`• 'YYi 'r' � � 4�`�} �F� t.a z I{cr � r Ifi ,,i„ , +� �f'�� � I t'�3'.�"i'� „-� " � , i' r•'� , .KA t�>,j iy �r ,� "�, }�� it �.'� ,i .� * � � !. � -.: • ' t � �• 1 �,�' I <.. � t ,`� °' �,��}�! ' �. �`.�<;. -.c �'P' •�' �� (�"`^'#a, � �J. c . �.� . �iY 0� .11.3� , }�^k'}` 4g s•, , ,�, 4 =y"-x' t j n, },=,e*...* l n��r3�.,_ ,ry c,r ,r ;rf F a' �..:. �'. ,}P" ...aa .� ,.�.. ,- •1 (�` dY� � fr��hti1 �P t � _� �$. "`',�"�'2 i .�yf; �'� � f i"•�.:�' s' ts' ;.. .f.•,. ���r ,tea 1�ry' '-c 4�;1r-..-...�`�'.- ,y..g�, ti!i t T'j�, P rYt tX S• yt�+ �� (,� ZSb' "!'+',� ft t� � �{{ C��-4 r �+a�. t r + -z. i. • , .�ty �,s M ,M �} ���F`�(4`� Y'tm� �`q. �W F"�'-' 14 ! rift., t >k �-fit r a • • -'�k , l `,. � l '�R Z,'�lQ ��-+� , ! yp - '+'T� y.�,'t I� I �{ �. P � {[{.�yo- r t '�7 � �,7�j^ �+�..... � t htw, ,,,. �-"<r✓ �� f {� j � C�•X� ,��' . I A'5S'++��� 1� 5.6.., l / l"' �� R'q A E�-�'�'� r�� `., q*'x'�':lS�;y„`y. v' '`R` .+p�'�e-. * � .�i"FaA���� •� �1 �`!!F� Y P� i.. f5{L `+� V �-!r j.1 �F.n \ h��UIT�'�'�'r}?¢�+ � y,- �.,`°sM..�m._,,,<,,,��-Fa4,'��jP�`F��,.�1�-�-~`:.9'�•� K+ � ' �t dZO� �t�f�tn � •'i'Mr Yi.'t � � y4 �,' f ti- � r{1�T't w� l � �'R� 'S1fBF CQiP �tl - t;' ::.ORRI .`458:^!!_. ♦ ... .. ... _ as a ohotocon m I ri June 14, 1994 To: All Morningside Residents,* esidents Like several other neighbors "who have recently sent you a fact sheet on 5701 North Bayshore Drive, n we also feel obliged to write to the residents of Morningside because of a recent article in the ��� "Neighbors" section of the May 15th Miami Herald. The article was about the Nunnally house at North Bayshore and 57th Street and the owners' application for some privacy walling and fencing for the site. A member of the group that has vigorously opposed everything the owners propose was quoted in the Herald as stating that "419 of the 420 homes in Morningside" are opposed to what is planned. This st,,temcrnt is Outrageously false. What is true is that them has been a relentless campaign against these new neighbors who have done absolutely nothing but restore an architectural treasure to perfection and ask for a little privacy. (See the enclosed schematic of the proposed fencing.) As many of you know, the group we referred to above have waged a very ugly fight against these new owners in an effort to prevent them from fencing in any of their property on the water at the end of NE 57th street. This view is unsupported by the law and the historical evidence and even defies common sense. In support of their application for some privacy the owners submitted to the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board the official 1935 plat book of the City of Miami, the original permit for construction of the boathouse on the property, and old U.S. Government aerial photographs showing a boathouse and extensive privacy hedging. The Board agreed with the owners evidence and rejected the opposition's position on April 19, when they ruled 6 to 0 in favor of the owners' application. Even this, however, failed to deter this group and they have recently sought community support for their appeal of the Board's decision in the owners' favor. Moreover, realizing that their "historic preservation" argument is without merit, certain members of the group have even requested that the City Commission put on its agenda the confiscation of the property in condemnation proceedings. It is our opinion that the tactics and objectives of this group are an insult to everyone in the Morningside community and should be rejected. The sensitive restoration and preservation of the Nunnally house benefits the entire neighborhood, and with 57th Street ending in their back yard, we believe that the owners deserve and need privacy and security from trespassers just like everyone else. The property at the end of NE 57th street has belonged to every owner of the Nunnally house since 1925. The lot has been built on and hedged over the years, and the opposition group's argument about "historic vistas" may sound appealing, but has nothing to do with historic preservation. Fair and equal treatment of these new neighbors as well as historical evidence and the constitutional issues of private property rights dictate supporting what is a carefully designed proposal that we believe will enhance the neighborhood. 94- 540 94- 541 i Sincerely, , NAME ADDRESS I E A DRESS: It) AM E NJIME ADDRESS: NAME ADDRESS:LS� ADDRESS: NAME ADDRES SCL T 0 4 A 11 11 C A I J �4;V `a f nl ` tl �� I (Jr .� r l,l 7'T�y hh�' nnj I ` � JJ��^� 5/ C � 1 Cl I. L' 4A. I�ALMF11 '> A u[ F h J: n+ • j_,�j�j}may (_•.t ]>jj.1 (� ]J ].��']t': Ir .\"1• 111. J111\l (,i N E � : J{1•MI /'1.0 ;: U♦ i1J 1:1► �Il + i. t1 LL D 1"- 1'.i 1 L`j JJ. u1JJY��J a.a. J.lr■ I.Fa ,Y>.i [ 1.J 11L•'I.111 rlr.. 1. ...... a.l. rr 1.1 Jrr 11 0 R H I \ U S ] U Y. . FLORI 0 A -. - -- -'---' -- I i