HomeMy WebLinkAboutFR Fact SheetHISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD
FACT SHEET
NAME Amendments to Chapter 23 of the Miami City Code, entitled "Historic
Preservation"
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Discussion concerning amendments to the Historic Preservation
Ordinance to retain jurisdiction over archeological zones within the City,
to provide for an interim protection measure for properties proposed for
designation, and to enact certain "housekeeping" measures.
ANALYSIS This proposed amendment to the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance
address a number of issues that have arisen in the last year.
Recent amendments to Miami -Dade County's Historic Preservation
Ordinance have implications for the City of Miami and therefore require
action by the City Commission. The County's amendments specify that
in order to retain jurisdiction over archeological properties within the City,
and not lose such jurisdiction to the County, the City must by March 11,
2004, enact an ordinance which expressly retains jurisdiction over
archeological properties. This amendment to the City's Historic
Preservation Ordinance expressly retains this jurisdiction.
The amendment also proposes an interim protection measure for
properties that are under consideration for designation by the Historic
and Environmental Preservation Board. The need for such a measure
was recently brought to light when the owner of the Alonzo Bliss House
applied for and obtained a permit to demolish the house after he
received notice from the City that the Historic and Environmental
Preservation Board had scheduled a hearing to consider the designation
of the property as a historic site. The demolition of properties proposed
for designation, however, is not a new problem. In fact, in 1988, all of
the buildings in the proposed S.E. 61h Street Historic District were
demolished after the owner received notice of the designation hearing,
but before the hearing could take place. The City was powerless to stop
the demolition of these properties because of the limitations of its
ordinance.
An interim protection measure is therefore needed to address this
problem and prevent the demolition or alteration of properties while a
decision to designate is pending. Through the adoption of such a
measure, the City can prevent an owner from circumventing the intent of
the Historic Preservation Ordinance while the Board evaluates the
proposed designation and considers the appropriate preservation
criteria.
The proposed interim protection measure is a temporary restriction only
and is limited in duration to a maximum of 120 days. The owner is
notified and is given the opportunity to be heard by the Board at the
RECOMMENDATION
preliminary evaluation hearing. While this temporary restriction is in
place, however, the owner can seek relief by applying for an accelerated
approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for any work he is proposing.
If the City adopts the proposed interim protection measure, it would
follow the lead of such local governments as Miami -Dade County, Coral
Gables and Miami Beach, all of which protect properties which are being
considered for historic designation. Similar measures have also been
adopted by cities throughout the country.
In addition to the above -mentioned measures, the amendment includes a
number of "housekeeping" items. These include a clarification of certain
definitions; a modification of the notice and appeal fee provisions to
make them consistent with other City codes and ordinances; a
clarification that decisions made by the Board on Certificates of
Appropriateness involving Major Use Special Permits are advisory to the
City Commission; a provision allowing the Preservation Officer to grant
extensions of time on Certificates of Appropriateness; and a correction of
department names and code references.
The Preservation Officer recommends that the Board recommend to the
City Commission adoption of the proposed amendments to Chapter 23 of
the Miami City Code.
CITY COMMISSION January 22, 2004