HomeMy WebLinkAboutFact SheetHISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD
FACT SHEET
NAME Spring Garden Historic District
ADDRESS 1010 NW 9th Court
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition
of the subject property and the construction of a new single
family residence.
ANALYSIS
This applicant appeared before the Board in September, asking
for approval to demolish the existing property and to erect a
similar house in its place. There was some confusion over
whether the applicant planned to reconstruct the existing house
or build a new design. Upon discussion, the applicant now
understands the definition of "reconstruction" in a preservation
context, and is proposing demolition and new construction.
The Board requested that the applicant submit additional
information prior to reappearing before the Board, including: a
cost estimate to demolish and reconstruct the house vs. a cost
estimate to the rehabilitate the house as is; a signed and sealed
survey of the property; measured drawings of existing structure,
and a full set of notated architectural plans. All of these
materials have now been provided.
As stated in the City of Miami's Historic Preservation Ordinance,
when considering applications for Certificates of Appropriateness
involving demolition, the Board shall consider the following
criteria:
1) The degree to which the structure contributes to the historic
and/or architectural significance of the historic site or district;
2) Whether the loss of the structure would adversely affect the
historic and/or architectural integrity of the historic site or
district;
3) Whether architectural plans have been presented to the
board for the reuse of the property if the proposed demolition
were to be carried out, and the appropriateness of said plans
to the character of the historic site or district, if applicable;
4) Whether the structure poses an imminent threat to public
health or safety;
5) Whether the applicant has demonstrated that the retention of
the structure would create an unreasonable or undue
economic hardship;
6) Whether there is a compelling public interest requiring the
demolition.
Item #7
January 20, 2004
The subject property is a contributing structure within the Spring
Garden Historic District and is one of the district's most
distinctive properties. Its architectural design, setting and
location make the property a focal point within the district.
Therefore, the loss of the structure would adversely affect both
the historic and architectural integrity of the district. Every
reasonable attempt should be made to preserve this house.
The applicant has submitted new architectural plans for the
reuse of the property, in compliance with Criteria 3. It should first
be noted that the replacement of a contributing historic property
with modern construction is always a last resort. While the
proposed design would be compatible with the character of the
district in terms of form and materials, the design appears to
replicate too closely a historic architectural style and is not
clearly a product of the twenty-first century. Furthermore,
several elements of the proposed house, particularly the
elevated garage and the slope of the driveway, are not
compatible with the historic district and should be avoided.
Also of concern is the location of the proposed house on the
property. While the historic house is located in the center of the
parcel, the proposed house is sited within 5 feet of the side
property line. As a result, the relationship between the house
and its neighboring structures as related to spacing and yards
has been disrupted. It appears as if the applicant has sited the
proposed house completely within lot 3, thus leaving open the
possibility of building an additional house on lot 4 in the future.
The applicant has presented an argument that Criteria 4 has
been met. According to the engineering report submitted by the
applicant, "All structural systems, including the foundation,
exterior walls, interior walls, first and second floors, roof framing,
sheathing and roofing material have completely failed and have
no useful life remaining." The engineer concluded that the
structure cannot be saved and recommended demolition. In
reaching his conclusions, however, the engineer failed to take
into consideration the provisions of the Florida Building Code
and FEMA regulations as they apply to historic buildings. One of
the engineer's primary arguments for demolition is that the
building would have to be raised to minimum flood elevation.
The Code, however, allows the Building Official to grant waivers
of this requirement for historic buildings, and many such waivers
have been granted. Other requirements of the Code can also be
modified. The applicant has also cited a letter from the Unsafe
Structures Division requesting that he "secure or demolish" the
property. This is a standard letter sent to owners who have a
property that is not adequately secured and is not a requirement
by the City that the subject structure be demolished. The first
option as stated in the letter is to repair the structure.
Item #7
January 20, 2004
RECOMMENDATION
The applicant has also claimed that retention of the structure
would create an undue economic hardship. Figures have been
presented suggesting that the rehabilitation of the property would
cost more than three times the cost of demolition and new
construction. Just because the cost of rehabilitation is greater
than that of demolition and new construction does not create an
undue economic hardship. If this were the case, it is likely that
any house in a deteriorated condition would then qualify for
demolition.
The applicant's analysis of the market value of the rehabilitated
house also fails to take into consideration that the square
footage of the house could be increased by constructing an
addition in the rear and/or on the sides. The Board may
remember the house at 4719 North Miami Avenue in the Buena
Vista East Historic District. That owner of that house had
previously proposed demolition because of the damage caused
by several fires in the house. At the last meeting, however, the
Board approved a request by a potential buyer who plans to
rehabilitate the house and construct an addition in the rear. The
buyer made the argument that the additional square footage
would make such a difficult rehabilitation economically feasible.
Staff is further concerned that applicant was considering the
demolition of the house at the time he purchased the property
(on or about May 2003), not after he discovered the type of
construction of the house. The applicant had several
discussions with Staff at the time of purchase and requested the
procedures to apply for demolition. It should also be noted that
Staff has been contacted by at least one individual willing to
purchase the property as -is from the applicant for the purpose of
rehabilitation. Therefore, Staff is not persuaded that the
applicant will be the victim of undue economic hardship if he is
not permitted to demolish the house.
The Preservation Officer recommends that the application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness be denied because the proposed
demolition does not comply with the guidelines for issuing
Certificates of Appropriateness for demolition, as stated above.
CITY COMMISSION March 25, 2004
Item #7
January 20, 2004