HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal Letter & Supporting Documents?kh
Akerman
August 3, 2012
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Mr. Anel Rodriguez
Hearing Boards Administrator
Department of Planning & Zoning
City of Miami
444 S.W. 2nd Avenue
Miami, FL 33131
Javier E. Fernandez
Associate
n r+ ,3. t
Akerman Senterfitt
One Southeast Third Avenue
Suite 2500
Miami, FL 33131-1714
Tel: 305.374.5600
Fax: 305.374.5095
Re: Notice of Appeal of Historic & Environmental Preservation Board ("HEPB") Decision to
Deny a Special Certificate of Appropriateness for 5973 NE 5th Avenue, Miami, FL (the
"Property")
Dear Mr. Rodriguez:
Our firm represents the Cushman School, Inc. (hereafter, the "Appellant") with regard to the above -
referenced matter. On or about June 13, 2012, the Appellant filed a HEPB application with the Preservation
Section of the Planning & Zoning Department to request a Special Certificate of Appropriateness
("Certificate") for the demolition of the Property. A copy of the application is enclosed here and made a part
hereof as Exhibit "A". On or about July 20th, 2012, the request for the Certificate was considered by the
HEPB which denied the request by a vote of 5-0. A copy of the HEPB resolution is attached and made a
part hereof as Exhibit "B" The Appellant timely files this notice of appeal, pursuant to the authority provided
under Sec. 23-4.(c)(7) of the City of Miami Code of Ordinances ("City Code"), and respectfully requests that
the City Commission reverse the HEPB's decision and approve the issuance of the Certificate for demolition.
Appellate Standard of Review
Pursuant to Sec. 23-4.(e) of the City Code, the standard of review for an appeal of a decision by the
HEPB shall be de novo. The City Commission is, therefore, authorized to hear and consider all facts material
to the appeal, including new evidence or materials, and render a decision to affirm, modify, or reverse the
HEPB's decision.
Background and Chronology of Events
The Appellant operates the Miami's oldest, continuously operating private school and widely
recognized as one of our community's most accomplished educational institutions. As noted in Dr. Paul
akerman. com
{24601111;1)
Mr. Anel Rodriguez
August 2, 2012
Page 2
Georges extensive history of the school, Cushman has been located on its present campus since 1926 and
pre -dates the development of the residential neighborhoods to is north, south, and west,' including Palm
Grove. Throughout its long history, Cushman has been an asset and stabilizing force for the Palm Grove
neighborhood and the Biscayne Boulevard corridor, particularly during some of the area's darkest days in
the latter decades of the last century.
Today, the school's campus consists of several small buildings — a mix of historic, old, and new
structures — spread across a small, but expanding campus that presently straddles two (2) historic districts —
the Palm Grove Neighborhood Historic District and the Miami Modern (MiMo) / Biscayne Boulevard Historic
District. The Cushman School Building is designated as a historic resource and has been proudly preserved
by the school since its opening in 1926. The campus contains examples of work from some of Miami's most
distinguished architect's, including contributions from Russell Pancoast (designer of the Cushman School
library) and Russell Skipton (designer of the Cushman School Building). Cushman greatly values this part of
its heritage, as its founder, Dr. Laura Cushman, recognized the importance of "happy surroundings" to the
school's mission to develop a child mentally, physically and in character growth. •
Over the course of the last 20 years, the school has been opportunistic in its attempts to expand the
existing footprint of its campus. In 1996, the Walker family approached the school about the possible
acquisition of their home (5990 NE 51h Court) which immediately abuts the campus to the south along NE 5th
Court. With the financial assistance of school parents and alumni that acquisition was made for the purpose
of a future campus expansion. As with the Walker home Andrew Tobias, owner of a home at 5973 NE 5th
Court and the subject of this appeal, similarly approached the school in 1999 to gauge its interest regarding
a possible acquisition. In September of that year, the Appellant purchased the home with goal of its eventual
demolition to allow for the future campus expansion. A copy of the warranty deed for the purchase of the
Clarke home is enclosed and made a part hereof as Exhibit Q.
During the early part of the Appellant's ownership of the Property, it was used on a limited basis as a
classroom. Thereafter, its use was limited for storage given growing concerns among school administrators
that the home may be structurally unsafe.
On or about February 3, 2009, the HEPB adopted a resolution HEPB-2009-12 adopting the
designation report for the creation of the Palm Grove Neighborhood Historic District. The Property is
identified as a "Contributing Structure" on pg. 20 of said designation report. However, as evidenced by
Exhibit "C", the Property was acquired approximately a decade prior to the creation of the historic district
and its designation as a "contributing structure."
Towards the close of the school year in May of 2012, the Appellant sought and received a building
permit for the demolition (Permit No. BD12-002448-001-B001) of the Property. Due to an error in the City's
building permitting system, the permit was not flagged for review by the Preservation Office and, therefore, a
Certificate was never applied for, nor issued. Prior to the issuance of a stop work order, a portion of the
Property, specifically the port-cochere, was demolished revealing that the structure suffered from rusting of
the reinforcement bars and a lack of reinforcement steel required by current codes.2 Upon issuance of the
stop work order, the Appellant made application for a Certificate for demolition of the Property, which as
noted above was denied by the HEPB. In the interim, the Appellant also ordered an investigation of the
Property's structural, electrical, and plumbing components in order to have a comprehensive understanding
of the building's condition. Said investigation confirmed the Appellant's suspicions about the structural
integrity of the Property. A copy of the report is enclosed and made a part hereof as Exhibit "D".
1 Dr. Paul George, The Cushman School: A Historical Perspective 1924-2004 (Cushman School 2006).
2 Burton Silver, Ph.D. & Sandro Maldonado, P.E., Building Structure, Plumbing & Electrical Investigation of 5973 NE 5th Avenue, Miami,
FL 33137 3 (June 20, 2012).
{24601111;1)
Mr. Anel Rodriguez
August 2, 2012
Page 3
•
Application of Erroneous Criteria by Staff and the Board in its Analysis of Certificate for Demolition
In its analysis of the Appellant's request submitted to the HEPB, staff erroneously applied a number
of standards that are either inapplicable to the subject application or not found within the City Code. A copy
of the said report is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "E".
Staff's analysis begins by reviewing the subject request against the Secretary of Interior's Standards
for Rehabilitation, incorporated as part of the City's Historic Preservation Guidelines (the "Guidelines") dated
September 2011. The Guidelines are intended to supplement other applicable laws. "Rehabilitation" is
defined as:
The act or process of returning a property to a state of utility through repair or alteration which makes
possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions or features of the property
which are significant to its historical, architectural, and cultural values.
Sec. 23-2 of the City Code and Sec. 67-2(b) of the Code of Federal Regulations. Analysis of the subject
application against utilizing these standards is inconsistent with the subject demolition request.
Staff also erroneously utilized a number of other criteria not found within the City Code or the
Guidelines. These criteria include:
■ 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.
■ Whether the structure poses an imminent threat to public health or safety.
■ Whether there is a compelling public interest requiring the demolition.
Pg. 5 of 6 of Exhibit "E". While each of the above -mentioned criteria are arguably useful in the review of the
application, they are not rooted in the governing code section or Guidelines and, therefore, not relevant to
the review of the Appellant's request.
In addition to the use of criteria not found in the City Code or Guidelines, the first two criteria utilized
as part of its analysis are found in Sec. 23-6.2.(h)(1). Said subsection is inapplicable to the subject
application as a plain reading of that subsection clearly indicates that it is intended to guide the analysis of
applications for Certificates for the alteration of an existing structure or new construction. The tern
"alteration" is defined in Sec. 23-2. as:
Any change affecting the exterior appearance of a structure or its setting by additions, reconstruction,
remodeling, or maintenance involving change in color, form, texture, signs, or materials, or any such
changes in appearance of designated interiors. (Emphasis added).
As evidenced by the definition, the demolition of a structure does not fall within the ambit of activity analyzed
pursuant to the subsection and, therefore, its consideration in evaluating the subject application is
inapplicable.
{24601111;1)
Mr. Anel Rodriguez
August 2, 2012
Page 4
Analysis of Certificate for Demolition Pursuant to Requirements of Sec. 23-6.2.(b)(4)b.
Sec. 23-6.2.(b)(4)b. of the City Code notes that decisions of the HEPB with respect to the issuance
of a Certificate shall be based upon the guidelines set forth in subsection (h), as well as the general intent
and purpose of Chapter 23 and any specific design guidelines officially adopted for the particular historic
district. An analysis of the Appellants request pursuant to the governing standards warrants the issuance of
a Certificate for demolition of the Property given its consistency with the purpose and intent of Chapter 23
and its satisfaction of the applicable standards in subsection (h).
■ Purpose and Intent of Chapter 23
(2) Foster civic pride in the accomplishments of the past. For more than 80 years, the Appellant
has served as an anchor institution for the initial development of the Palm Grove neighborhood and
its recent renaissance. The approval of the subject application will allow the Appellant to continue
to serve its student population consistent with the vision of its founder and the standards of
excellence for which it has become widely known.
(3)
Protect and enhance the aesthetic and environmental character, diversity, and interest of
neighborhoods. As noted above, the Appellant's educational use pre -dates the establishment of
the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the acquisition of the Property significantly:pre-dates
the designation of the historic district and the Property's designation as a contributing structure.
Approval of the requested Certificate will serve to harmonize the use of the Property with the
abutting educational use in a fashion consistent with the general aesthetic of the immediate portion
of the historic district. Finally, approval of the request will serve the interest of the neighborhood as
the enhancements to the campus will further advance the Appellant's educational mission and the
continued redevelopment of the surrounding neighborhood.
(4) Stabilize and improve property values in neighborhoods and in the city as a whole. As noted
above, approval of the Appellant's request will enhance the educational mission of the school. The
continued presence of a high -quality, educational institution within a transitioning neighborhood is
essential to the area's continued resurgence and, as a result, the enhancement of area'property
values.
(5)
Protect and enhance the city's attraction to residents...and thereby serve as a support and
stimulus to the economy. The Commission's approval of the Appellant's request will allow for the
continued enhancement and advancement to the school's educational mission that will allow it to
remain an asset essential to the continued renaissance of the surrounding neighborhood and the
city as a whole.
■ Applicable Criteria in Subsection (h)
(4) Unreasonable or undue economic hardship. Subsection (h)(4) allows for the HEPB to vary or
modify provisions of Chapter 23 where strict enforcement would result in unreasonable or undue
economic hardship to the applicant. In determining what constitutes, subsection (h)(4)a. states as
follows:
The fact that compliance would result in some increase in costs shall not be considered unreasonable
or undue economic hardship if the use of the property is still economically viable.
{24601111;1}
Mr. Anel Rodriguez
August 2, 2012
Page 5
In the instant case, the HEPB's denial of the Certificate constitutes an unreasonable or- undue
economic hardship, as both use of the property for educational purposes is not economically viable
for the following reasons:
i. As noted on pg. 4 of Exhibit "D", renovation of the existing structure is not economically
feasible relative to complete demolition and reconstruction given the Property's existing
condition;
ii. The physical layout of the Property renders its reuse for educational and/or administrative
purposes in connection with the operation of a school unviable, especially in light of the cost
of renovation of the structure; and
iii. The Appellant's initial acquisition of the Property for its eventual demolition coupled with the
recent acquisition of commercial buildings adjacent to its campus on Biscayne Boulevard
for use as administrative office space leave the Appellant with no viable economic use for
the Property related to its educational mission.
Additional Considerations Warranting Grant of Certificate for Demolition
In addition each of the foregoing reasons, the Appellant's request should be granted for two (2)
additional reasons: (i) the Appellant relied to their detriment on the erroneously issued permit and (ii) failure to
grant the Certificate would be inequitable given the Appellant's long ownership tenure when weighed against
the newly imposed designation.
■ Detrimental Reliance. As noted above, the Appellant applied and was issued a building permit for
the demolition of the subject Property. It was the failure in the City's permitting system which
allowed the Appellant to obtain a building demolition permit when the request should have been
flagged and referred to the Historic Preservation Section of the Planning Department so that the
Appellant could have procured the required Certificate in advance of the demolition. In reliance on
that permit, the Appellant engaged the services of a demolition contractor, incurring a legally -binding
obligation, and spent a considerable sum of money for the purpose of demolishing both the Property
and the nearby Walker home (5950 NE 5th Court). Therefore, the Appellant has made a substantial
change in its position in reliance on the issued permit. The City should be estopped from revoking
the building demolition permit in the event the Certificate is not approved.
• Recent designation of the historic district. As noted above, the Appellant's ownership of the subject
property pre -dates the designation of the historic district by approximately a decade. A denial of the
Appellant's request would necessitate the expenditure of scarce resources for the preservation of a
single-family home with marginal potential, at best, for adaptive reuse in support of the school's
educational mission. Such resources could be more productively used to support the school's
mission, including the continued provision of tuition support/scholarships for the students from low-
income families.
Conclusion
The HEPB's consideration of a series of inapplicable standards or standards not otherwise listed in
the City Code or Guidelines led to the erroneous determination to deny the Appellant's request for the
Certificate to demolish the Property. Moreover, the Appellant's request is consistent with both the purpose
and intent of Chapter 23 and other applicable standards set forth in Sec. 23-6.2.(h) of the City Code. Finally,
the Appellant's reliance on the improperly issued building demolition permit when coupled with the effect of
the HEPB's order, imposes an unreasonable economic burden that serves to undermine the educational
{24601111;1}
Mr. Anel Rodriguez
August 2, 2012
Page 6
mission of the school for the relatively marginal benefit of preserving a single-family home that has little to no
adaptive reuse potential compatible with the Appellant's mission.
For all of these reasons, we respectfully request that the City Commission reverse the HEPB's
decision and, thus, approve the issuance of the Certificate for the demolition of the Property.
Sincerely,
vier Fern . ndez
Ass •, e
cc: Alex Adams, Historic Preservation Officer
Francisco Garcia, Director, Dept. of Planning & Zoning
Carmen Sanchez, Asst. Director, Dept. of Planning & Zoning
{24601111;1}
Mr. Anel Rodriguez
August 2, 2012
Page 7
EXHIBIT "A"
{24601111;1}
Cu ifs un
b M 1 A A N4
PLA.NNINO DEPARTMENT
PRESERV T [O•N 5ECTiON
II,;PI� APPLICATION
MAJOR PROJECTS
RESOURCE ADDRESS/NAME
CL1/41- (. -
DISTRICT/RESOURCE
OWNER'S NAME
OWNER'S DAYTIME PHONE NUMBER
OWNER'S ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE OWNER'S E-MAIL
I!-, " ---)1 i.4.5f .' i /2 4�r} p'tTi ,t�:a .: i OP SC, , if1 L � _E'',�`•,:.;, ! d /
APPLICANT/AUTHORIZED REPRESENTAT IVC (N MEP TITLE) , ,oLAPPLICANT'S DAYTIME PHONE NUMBER
5 ` .2! s` •� v� 7-7-1 /~ P-f i;4" -411 C;cj.:;i �r�C s' r:^i i-9(9...3_s),14 (A
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS, CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE /3--7 APPLICANT'S E-MAILf) L.
BELOW PROVIDE A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT. ATTACH SKETCHES AND/OR ILLUSTRATIONS SEPARATELY.
s i,4 CVo . 6•„ ;TIV'O t,°( S �ri' f ., j ji• ��y {` ;r `7 ;, aJ- „ pia Ie�j
d' �1=..., �`• S.,",.) :° .���„7 t._.� '`id'� `....s-�..�a +.. i.:�i �..5-''�'t.` .!``%� ...1 v tr<� � F...}'— GS �. �Q;�b . C'_�� .
cJ-.i 0A } � sC i \� �.,+f)! •� �� �� C.�' ? s :� 1-C2 .o f •(c_€. , ...4,-N2 bi.,A• r is
NOTE: A COMPLETE CHECKLIST AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS ARE ON FOLLOWING PAGE
❑ OTHER MATERIALS SUBMITTED
OWNER ATTESTATION: ICERTIFY THAT ALL INFORMATION PROVID.EDINTI-I'I-S PPL(CATION IS CORRECT.
°
+6 S )eJ � d:.. .� kin J;.{�.t� 4 —�.>l1 :...F{..�'�i Lr(1,A 'd ,�l...G%'C.. b•+'c5le.A.-- 4.
SIGNATURE OF PROPER i Y°C`JU`•N•E•R--�• /A.-�.-10.-,A,--1.-"=3 Q---;'.JiLv /I), t,t_� W DATE G 6 �� J�°- 9�,,1)--.
FOR STAFF USE ONLY:
APPLICATION # DATE RECEIVED STAFF INITIALS
o COA o APPROVED DATE OF HEP BOARD MEETING
❑ COE D DENIED
❑ CID o APPROVED UVITH CONDITIONS RESOLUTION
1.
2.
3.
QUESTIONS? PLEASE CONTACT :
O ALEXANDER ADAMS, PRESERVATION OFFICER AT (305) 416-1445 OR AADAMS@IVIIAMIGOV.COM
o MEGAN MCLAUGHLIN, PRESERVATION PLANNER AT (305) 416-1453 OR MMCLAUGHLIN@MIAMIGOV.COM
a OR VISIT OUR WEBSI T E: HISTORICPRESERVATIONMIAMI.COM
5
A NATIONAL SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE
June 13. 2012
To the City of Miami's Historic Preservation Board:
1 am writing on behalf of The Cushman School, Miami's oldest independent school. Founded by
a. visionary 88 years ago, Dr. Laura Cushman, The Cushman School continues to provide Miami
and its surrounding areas with it novattive educational opportunities for Nursery through eighth
grade students that focus on academic excellence and character gro ttlh.
Over the course of the past 88 years, Cushman's enrollment grew from tens of students to our
current enrollment of 500. As the student body expanded, so did our need to expand our facility
so we could. continue to provide our students with a well-rounded prograrn that incorporates the
visual and performing arts, world languages, athletics, and S.(science) T.(technology)
.(engineering)',and M. (mathematics) programs.
1n our quest to expand the facility, around 1998, we purchased a home on 5973 NE 5th Avenue.
This two story home initially and intermittently housed elective -classrooms for our Middle
School students. Most of the spaces, however, were and had continued to be for the past five
years, used as storage space. Nearly five years ago, we made a decision not to permit students
nor adults in that building as it was deemed by us to be unsafe, The School did not have a
budget that could support the complete restructuring of the building to once again, make if safe
for its use. Therefore, for the past five years, the building only has been used as a storage facility,
As our growing numbers of students increased, the need for additional free playground space on
campus increased as well. With students remaining supervised on campus up until 6:00 PM the
creation of a playground space that would allow them to engage in organized sports delivered
through ough our Physical Education Program or After -School Sports Program such as soccer became
of high interest. Knowing that the building on 5973 NE 5th Avenue could no Longer be usecl to
benefit stud.er,.ts because it was unsafe for them, and because one of our closest neighbors
repeatedly carne to us concerned that the building would collapse on his property, the decision to
bring down the building occurred.
i' n ft rthea t 60 j Str9Pt 0 Laura Cushman CirriP 0 t jy riCaritia 33i37
JI4'aiin Office (305) 757 1966 0 Fax(305) 757-1632
if the School is able to demolish the building, all trees will remain intact, The remaining property
will allow us to simply place mulch on it so it can be used in September, 2012, as a playground
space used for team sports.
The Cushman School asks that you provide us with the appropriate permit that allows us to
demolish the building. We understand the inii ortance of maintaining historical significance as
our main building is deemed au historical site. By no means, do we want -Co act irresponsibly by
not adhering to regulations that preserve the integrity of our neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration.
u«.�• .f o
Arvi Balseiro
Head of School
The Cushman School
Eaton Park Mt"ath
• i-. III 1114 Stilt 11114,
'a rl G �'
NE GY T si St a NE 6131 Si
■ ■
■
■
NE tiOtiti S
NE 59t"i St
1
IJ� f ;dr ii i1'.1
ARC Rr.0 1.JRL Cf]G RYCEh'1.•:G
g1C11ARRY,COM
2
i\VCit 4-0
June 13, 2012 -
The Cushman School
5973 NE 5th Ave., Miami, FL 33137
TreesPt13.C,iDiC
MOT' rOTTLAI n(1.
June 13, 2012
The Cushman School
5973 NE 5th Ave., Miami, FL 33137
Trees '5
Nor rcnr-rov.1 rkg
1'1w f
June 13, 2012
The Cushman School
5973 NE 5th Ave., Miami, FL 33137
Trees I
Kier rCrn air • rig
June 13, 2012
The Cushman School
5973 NE 5th Ave., Miami, FL 33137
Trees G •a-
[?C \ ) ko-i '.
r _
s-
V `
•
Mr. Anel Rodriguez
August 2, 2012
Page 8
EXHIBIT "B"
(24601111;1}
CITY OF M AMI,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT- ±PRESERVATION SECTIONS
444 SW 2ND AV Eire° FLOOR
MIAMI, FL 33130 < "
July 25, 2012
Arvi Balseiro
The Cushman School
592 NE 60th Street
Miami, FL 33137
Re: 592 NE 60 STREET, 6000 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, 593 NE 60 STREET, 577 NE 60 STREET,
AND 576 NE 61 STREET
5990 NE 5 COURT
5973 NE 5 AVENUE
PALM GROVE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND MIMO HISTORIC DISTRICT
Dear Ms. Baiseiro,
Thank you for your appearance at the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board (HEPB) hearing of July.20,.
2012. Enclosed is a copy of the HEPB resolutions which record the Board's decision and conditions of approval on
the proposed work. Please take special note of any approved conditions set forth by the HEPB.
Building permits are required before doing any proposed work, and may be obtained on the 4th floor of the Miami
Riverside Center, located at 444 SW 2nd Avenue.
We appreciate your continued stewardship to protect Miami's historic resources. If you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to contact our office at (305) 416-1400.
Sincerely,.
Alexander Adams, AICP
Preservation Officer
CITY OF MIAMI
HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD
FIEFS RESOLUTION 2012-54
7/20/12
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION
BOARD (" HEPB") OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO DENY A CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS FOR DEMOLITION OF A CONTRIBUTING SINGLE-FAMILY
HOME, AND CREATION OF PLAYING FIELDS AT 5973 NE 5 AVENUE, CONSISTENT
VVITf-I CHAPTER 23 OF THE CITY CODE.
ITEM NO. 10 - NEW BUSINESS
MOTION MADE BY GERALD MARSTON'SECONDED BY JORGE KUPERMAN
VOTE LIST:
,YES `"`.
No
'RECUSED
ABSENT
MR. WILLIAM HOPRER,,CHAIRMAN
, .. `
' El
■
■
MR. GERALD MARST.ON, VICE CHAIRMAN: is
t !; n
■
■
■
MR. DAVID FREEDMAN ^
■
■ :;:
■
►4
MR. GARY M. HECHT:'
:"0
•.-
■
■
MS. LYNN LEWIS ( i
,? •
, '= •
■
a
MR. NELSON DIAZ :'
;'::'::e: E
■
■
•MR.
_..
JORGE KUPERMAN
.
0
0
■
MR. ROBERTGFABOSKI
►2
■
■
■
MR. HUGH RYAN
■
■
❑
MR. TIMOTHY BARBER
■
■
■
EI
DENIED 5 TO 0
Recommendation:
'The applicant should meet with the Preservation Office to discuss options for rehabilitation and reuse of
the building, and integration of this historic resource into the school's long range vision for the future.
ATTEST: ,�" �- `:''�
ALEXANDER ADAMS, PRESERVATION OFFICER
WfLLIAM E. HOPPER, HEP HAIRMAN
Mr. Anel Rodriguez
August 2, 2012
Page 9
EXHIBIT "C"
(24601111;1}
ore.. 1 8779PC 663
htC
Return to:
Law Office of Alice W. Weinstein Property Appraiser's
930 N.E. 99' Street Identification
Miami Shores, Florida 33131 POI 3218-031-0190
This instrument was prepared by
Alice W. Weinstein, Esq.
930 N.E. 99th Street
Miami Shores, FL 33138
Grantee Tax identification #
99R.4-74440 1999 SEP 11 12:14
DOCSTPDEE 300.00 SURTX 0.00
HARVEY RUVIN, CLERK DADE (:RUNTY. FL
Space above this line for recording data
QUIT CLAIM DEED
THIS INDENTURE, made this .1 day of August, 1999 between ANDREW TOBIAS, a
single man, of the County of St -folk , State of New York, grantor, and THE CUSHMAN
SCHOOL, INC., a Florida not -for -profit corporation, whose post office address is 592 N.E.
60'1' Street, Laura Cushman Circle, Miami, Florida, 33137, grantee,
WITNESSETH that said grantor, for and in consideration of thesum of ten and no/00
Dollars, and other good and valuable considerations to said grantor in hand paid by said
grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has remised, released and quit -claimed,
and by these presents does remise, release; and quit -claim unto the said grantee and its
successors and assigns forever its successors and assigns forever, all the.estate, right title, lien,
equity, interest, claim and demand which the grantor has in and to the following described
property granted, bargained and sold to the said grantee, his interest in the following described
land, situate, lying and being in Miami -Dade County, Florida, to wit:
Lot 8 in Block 3, Map of BAY SHORE, according to the Plat thereof, as
recorded in Plat Book 5, at Page 116, of the Public Records of Miami -Dade
County, Florida.
Grantor herein affirms that he does not reside nor ever has resided on subject property
and that his homestead and principal residence is elsewhere.
t..
orr. (8TT9PC 664
etc.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year
first above written.
Signe and delivered in our presence:
Signature of Witness
li-t L t'S C. ►moo t /t�
Name of Witness
Signatur o
Ohnr-1
Printed Name of Witness
STATE OF NEW Y
COUNTY OF . St1 k.
• ANDRE TOBIAS, a single man
QED N CY,FC'Y r.FCO,'oS RON.16
CIF LADE COUNT?,Faortic%
/E� VERIFIED
HARVEY RUVIN
OLLRK CIRCUIT COURT
I hereby certify that ANDREW TOBIAS, a single man, appeared before me on this
day of August, 1999, and acknowledged before me that he executed the foregoing
instrument, and that he is known to me or pr- . - ' a d ivers license as proof of identification.
WITNESS my hand and official sj Uourt and State aforesaid:
My commission expires: Signature Notary ' .lic, State of New York
bOREEN ANN KATEN � I
Notary Public, State of Now York L�I fear? Y nn kc+-1-Pn)
No 4972145 Printed Name of NotaryPublic
Qualified in Suffolk County
Commission Expires Septomber 17,a�`�
C
Mr. Anel Rodriguez
August 2, 2012
Page 10
EXHIBIT "D"
{24601111;1}
_"L 1l►° EAL Inspections, Due diligence, Evaluation, ;kssessment and Loss Prevention
June 25, 2012
The Cushman School
592 Northeast 60th St.
Miami, Florida 33137
C/O Ms. Brenda Jennings
Email: brendapjennings@yahao.com
RE: STRUCTURAL, ROOF, ELECTRIAL AND PLUMBING INSPECTION
5973 NE 5th Ave.
Miami, Florida 33137
Ms. Jennings:
IDEAL Construction Consulting Services, LLC is pleased to submit this inspection report <. r
above referenced property.
This report has been prepared todocument the critical concerns about the overall future servic o
building and components at the above referenced address. The inspection results as shown r 1
report have attempted to identify major defects in its structure, electrical and plumbing system:
would reasonably render the building economically not viable.
The structure and roof exhibit substantial levels of deterioration and component failure, Areas . .{ tr
building are considered to be unsafe and are subject to collapse. The plumbing system is consul_.!-d
to be unsafe for movement of waste and a substantial portion of the electrical system dates t•-, „r•
original construction around 1930. Upgraded components require replacement due to water into -- .n
and rust and other degrading factors.
Based on the condition of the building at the time of the inspection, our professional recommenc ion
is to demolish the existing building and construct a new building on the site which conforms to ail
current building codes and statutes.
Expected costs to renovate this existing structure in order to provide a structurally sound and safe
environment, and to update its components in order to conform to current Florida Building Code and
to the National Electrical Code would not be economically feasible relative to demolition and
reconstruction.
IDEAL Construction Consulting Services, LLC
6054 {Glendale Drive Boca Raton, Florida 33433 (954) 253-14130
Email: burtsilverpbeilsouth.net www.IdealConstrvctionCensuWGngServices.com
r_��a,gsaa..ncaxk
Florid License: BN 2171 ' ICC: 5142697 Ceriified Building, Electrical, Mechanical and Plumbing Inspectors
Florida Licensed Home Inspector: Hi 1995 Florida Certified Pest Control Operator: 7270
Quality Assurance/ Defect Mitigation/ Building Turnover/ Loss Prevention inspections/ Building Envelope/ Roof/
Water ir:trr *fort IPhatormet es/ Thertnegraphy/ Seawalls and docks/ Commercial . nd Ressdang-91 Conslimetion
IDEALInspections, Due diligence, Evaluation, Assessment and Loss Prevention
We trust that you will find this ins Lion report to be informative, and encourage you to contract us
with any questions or comments.
Respectfully submitted,
IDEAL Construction Consulting Se€ vices, LLC.
l l�f I. P•
Burton Silver, Ph.D., 5.1. Sandenada, P.E.
State of Florida:
Standard Inspector (S.I.)
Certified Building, Mechanical,
Electrical and Plumbing Inspector No: BN 2—
Licensed Home Inspector, HI 1995
International Code Courier!:
Certified Building, Mechanical,
Electrical and Plumbing Inspector No: 5147
State of Florida:
Professional Engineer
License number: 73057
IDEAL Construction Consulting Services, LLC
6054 Glendale Drive Boca Raton, Florida 33433 (954) 253-1490
Email: burtsilvengibetlsouth.rset wvvw.IdealConstructfonConsultinoServices.com
Florida License: BN 2171 * ICC: 514Z697 Certified Building, Electrical, Mechanical and Plumbing inspectors
Florida Licensed Home Inspector HI 1 95 Florida Certified Pest Control Operator. 7270
Quality ,4Issurance/ Defect Mifigatfon/ Building i term vest Los Prevention 1nspeadons/Buuilding Envelope/ Roof/
ulster Intrursion/Photomstrics/ Thrinag phy/ seer! docks' Commercial and Residential Ccns uct'ian
Building Structure, Plumbing and Electrical
Investigation
5973 NE 5irt Ave.
Miami, Florida 33137
Inspection performed on:
June 20, 2012
Inspection Performed by:
IDEAL Construction Consulting Services, LLC
6054 Glendale Drive Boca Raton, Florida 33433 (954) 253-1490
Email: burtsllver@beilsouth.net sysrtr.IdealConstructionConsultineServices.cm,
Florida Building Corte Inspector License: EN 2171 Florida Home inspector License: $I 1995
ICC: 5142697
Certified $wilding, Electrical, Mechanical and Plumbing Inspectors
Q alily Assurance/ Defect M lgetion/EuiMing Turnover! Loss Prevention Inspections/ Building Envelope/Roof/ Water
intrusion/ Photometrics/ Thennograplry/ Seawalls and docks/ Commercial and Residential Construction
IDEA
Construction Consulting Services, LLC
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The report documents observations irorn the site inspection al the locations referenced
on the cover page of this report. The summary below highlights patterns observed.
Specific conditions are discussed in the site report. :leadthe entire report
for a full discussion ar defects and observations.
Structut t :
• There is a substantial amount of damage to the exterior building wails. There
@re wide cracks at the east wall by the northeast Corner below the roof and
vertical cracks at grade level. The pattern of cracking is consistent with
settlement and foundation failure.
• Entry stoop is settled posing Trip and fall hazard.
• The chimney is leaning and substantially cracked above the roofline. There
appears to have been previous repairs. The deflection appears to be long tern..
Cracking observed at the south side interior plaster walls first and second
flours, appears to be related to stresses associated with the chimney failure..
Cracks in interior wails also appear to be related to failures of the internal
support structure — floor beams and joists. Large cracks are present in Inc
plaster walls at the stairs from floor one to floor two.
• The first floor support structure has failed. Photographs taken of the floor
joists and beams within the crawl space show advanced water damage. The
first floor deflects in all rooms.
• The floors supporting the bathtubs have failed and the bathtubs have swik
about two inches based on the gaps between the tub rims and the bottom tile
courses. This condition is present at both the first and second floors..
• There is an extensive amount of drywood termite, srsbterranean termite and
wood decay damage at areas throughout the building. Damage was observed
in window frames, door frames, flooring, wall baseboards and ceiling joists
and roof rafters at the second -floor attic space. The amount of termite fecal
matter and visible damage suggests that the infestations have been present
Property Inspection
Address: 5973 NE 5111 Ave. Miami, Florida 33'137
Date: June 20, 2012
IDEAL
Construction Corisufting Services, LLC
for decades. Subierianean terrnite shelter tubes were visible arid rotted woos!
(wont decaying fungi) was self evident.
▪ The exterior stair system has compt .tely failed as the bottom one third of thy:
stairs is missing and stringers are broken.
• Samples of the original piaster which has fallen away from the walls from
crown moldings exhibit hairs which inay be "horsehair plaster" or asbestos.
Further investigation should be considered. The presen a of lead paint should
also be investigated given the building age.
• The roof decking is open in several areas due to long term rotting. Water was
streaming into thr building at the time of the inspection due to heavy rains at
the time of the inspection.
■ The roofing cap is cracked at parapets and the rooting is degraded.
• Based on the observations and measurements taken at this inspection, we
conclude that there is a substantial amount of remaining moisture entrapped
within the block walls.
■ A portion of rho building structure demolition was begun prior to the
inspection - the porn.*--c. chere at the south side was removed. The partial
demolition exposed rusting reinforcement bars and also the lack of
reinforcement steel rtr}un ett by current codes,
Plumbing:
• The cast iron piping visible within the crawl space appears to be original to the
building construction - about 80 years (+1-). There is substantial rusting at the
surface walls which is consistent with rusting and degradation from within.
The likelihood of leaks is high.
• Galvanized piping shows rusts at Joints in crawl sparse.
• The bathrooms are demolished. The bathtubs on the firs and second floors
have settled due to failures of the wood support ;oists. Sinks and toilets are
not mounted.
• Leaks, past and present are evident in the crawl space and within the building
interior.
Property inspection
Address: 5973 NE a* Ave. Miami, Florida.33137
Date.- June 20 2012
IDEAL
Construction Consulting Services, LLC
Electrical:
• Original non -grounded wire is present throughout the building. The insulation
has degraded to a point that if energized, overheating and fire are highly
possible. Metal conduit is rusted through where the wire strands have been
run through.
• Upgraded components are rusted and wet frorrr exposure sure to the weather.
Rusted and wet components are not allowed per the NEC.
• A substantial portion of the electrical system dues riot appear to be effectively
grounded.
• Based upon the viable condition of the building structure, it appears that any
attempt at renovation or reconstruction of the existing building would include
almost every structural and mechanical component. Complete gutting to the
walls would be nix:essary, including roofing, flooring, vrralis. doors windows,
floors, ceilings, etc. Note however, that the exterior wall cracks suggest
stemwall foundation failure at several areas, particularly at btritdrng ::orner'a.
Prior to any Internal (and exterior) renovations, foundation stabilization would
be necessary.
• Based on the condition of the bedding at the time of the rnspeclicm. our
professional recommendation is to demolish the existing building and construct a
new building on the site which conforms to all current building codes ,and statutes.
Expected costs to renovate this existing structure in order to provide a structurally
sound and sate environment, and to update its components in order to conform to
current Florida Building Code and to the National Electrical Code would not be
economically feasible, relative to complete dernolltion and reconstruction.
Property Inspection
Address:5973 NE 5L' Ave. Miami, Florida 33137
Date: June 20, 2012
IDEAL
Construction Consulting Services, LLC
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The investigation consisted of a visual inspection of the building's exterior, interior, crawl
space, attic and limited portions of the roof surfaces.
No air or surface sampling was initiated nor were any tests conducted for the presence of
mold, asbestos, lead or any other environmental substance. The references to mold, asbestos,
lead. etc., are visual only.
The investigation was conducted on Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at approximately
10:04_=.rr
BACKGROUND
The b. 'r ' - rstr+ucted in or around 1930. The building is set on shallow footings
with a r, =; i -. = seter wall upon which cinder block units were set. The perimeter
walls - -- second levels are all block. The interior support structure is wood
beams .• coporting the first floor and second floor. Beams are set on
intern-•.;._.- ..:hin the crawl space to support the spans. Floor beams are set into
the bloc- -.eter walls. The interior walls are constructed of plaster set on wood
lath. Cro,•.- .V .. are plaster, possibly "horsehair plaster'" or asbestos reinforced.
(Traditional 1.- mortar/plaster often incorporated horsehair or asbestos which
reinforced the c, _-work, helping to prevent the keys breaking away.) The fireplace face
is painted brick_ ' fireplace is a wood burning unit. The chimney is brick and block to
the cap. Flooring s a combination of wood planks and other materials installed when open
porches were closed and formed as occupied space. The plumbing system consists of
galvanized piping with some copper tubing water distribution, Waste, drain and vent piping
consists of cast iron and appears to be original to the building. Some sections might be
replacements. There is a limited amount of PVC drain pipes at bathtubs and sinks. The
electrical system was substantially upgraded from the original. However, there is evidence
that original wiring is present throughout the building.
Property Inspection
Address: 5973 NE 5'" Ave. Miami, Florida 33137
Date: June 20, 2012
IDEAL
Construction Consulting Services, LLC
METHODOLOGY
Visual Inspection;
The interior walls, floors and ceilings and attic spaces were inspected visually for the
distribution of mold growth and for signs of water intrusion and associated structural
damage. The attic was entered so that a visual inspection of the area above the subject
bedroom could be made, The building envelope was examined along with the roof surface
for signs of cracks, voids or other structural inconsistencies which could be potential
moisture entry points.
Photographs were taken and are included in this report.
Property Inspection
Address: 5973 NE 5'}' Ave. Miami, Florida 33137
Date: June 20, 2012
IDEAL
Construction Consulting Services, LLC
OBSERVATIONS
System
Summary of Observations
Roof
•
Extensive Teaks, water stains, active water during rain.
•
Sheathing deteriorated, holes through sheathing at northwest
corner, second floor.
•
Cap sheet deteriorated — east first level roof. (Second story roof
not accessed due to rain at time of inspection.)
Structure
•
Wide cracks through block below roof at northeast corner_
•
Verical cracks at grade level, northeast corner.
•
Vertical and diagonal cracks, east elevation exterior walls.
•
Chimney leaning above roofline, wide cracks in chimney.
•
Plaster walls cracked (wide cracks) stairwell at walls and
ceilings.
•
Plaster walls cracked, second floor and first floor at landing and
outside (south) walls.
•
Floors deflected, first level and second level.
•
Floors deflected by bathrooms, first level and second level_
•
Floor joists and beams rotted and deflected in crawl space.
•
Extensive termite and wood decaying fungi damage at window
frames, floors, baseboard, ceiling joists, subflooring throughout
building,
Electrical
•
Original cloth insulated, non -grounded wires present throughout.
•
•
Metal conduit substantially rusted,
Upgraded components rusted and wet.
•
Ungrounded condition throughout the building.
Plumbing
•
Cast iron DWV piping is rusted and leaking.
•
Galvanized distribution piping is rusted at joints — possible leaks.
•
Fixtures (tubs and toilets) are not effectively supported due to
failed flooring from leaks at fixtures.
Property Inspection
Address: 5973 NE 5th Ave. Miami, Florida 33137
Date: June 20, 2012
7
Subject Property:
IDEAL
Construction Consulting Services, LLC
North
The building is main entry is located to the left of the photograph facing NE
5ih Ave. The secondary stairs are shown in the foreground at the south
elevation. The porto-cochere is present in this photograph and is located at the
front (yellow arrow.)
Property Inspection
Address: 5973 NE 51h Ave. Miami, Florida 33137
Date: June 20, 2012
IDEAL
Construct Consulting Services, LLC
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the observations at the time of the inspec,lion we conclude:
a Advanced and serious structural failure is present at the foundation and
exterior support walls and fireplace chimney.
b. Advanced floor support failure at the first and second levels — deflection,
movement, jack of adequate support for imposed loads.
c. Extensive damage to interior plaster walls throughout the building and applied
tiles in bathrooms.
d. Extensive damage to the flooring throughout the building.
e. Substantial termite and wood decaying fungi damage to the structural support
components —floor joists, ceiling joists, roof ratters, etc. Substantial terrnite
damage to the window casings, door casings, subflaor, etc.
f. Advanced failure of the roofing system with structural damage to the decking.
g. Failure of waste and drain piping and possible health hazard due to leaks.
h. Failure of plumbing -fixtures due to lack of structural support in bathrooms.
I. Possible health related factors as asbestos. lead, meld, etc., present in the
building.
WE RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS:
a) Complete continued demolition of the building.
b) Reconstruction of a building on the existing site conforming to all current
building, plumbing, electrical, mechanical, health and safety codes and wind
codes.
Property Inspection
Address: 5973 NE 5" Ave. INiliarni, Florida. 33137
Date: June 20, 2012
9
IDEAL
Construction Consulting Services, LLC
PHOTOGRAPHS and ANNOTATIONS:
ROOF
Typical examples of roof leaks, rotted sheathing, failed parapet cap and cap sheet,
failed shingles. The photographs are representative but do not reflect all of the
conditions and all of the locations present at the time of the Inspection.
The photographs also show examples of wood decay arid deterioration which may be
represented in the structural section of this report.
Property Inspection
Address: 5973 NE 5th Ave. Miami, Florida 33137
Date: June 20, 2012
10
IDEAL
Construction Consulting Services, LLC
Property Inspection
Address: 5973 NE 5`h Ave. Miami, Florida 33137
Date: June 20, 2012
Property Inspection
Address: 5973 NE 5th Ave. Miami, Florida 33137
Date: June 20, 2012
IDEAL
Construction Consu]tim Services, LLC
12
IDEAL
Construction Cori uIting Services, LLC
BUILDING STI-WCTURi
• The photographs below illustrate. The advanced degree of structural damage at
exterior load bearing wails, load nearing floor beams and stairs. Exterior
damage includes chimney, building corners and field over window spans.
• Evidence of significant plaster damage due to cracking (settlement, deflection,
etc.) and water intrusion is present.
• Damaged wood casings and missing windows are throughout the building.
• Significant presence of and damage from termites and wood decay is
photographed.
• The attic and crawl space is shown with damaged wood beams, joists and
subfloor.
Property Inspection
Address: 5973 NE 5th Ave. fvliar ri, Florida 33137
Date: June 20, 2012
li
Property inspection
Address: 5973 NE 5th Ave. Miami, Florida 33137
Date: June 23, 2012
IDEAL
Construction CoMuulting Services, LLC
}4
Properly Inspection
Address: 5973 NE 51" Ave. Miami, Florida 33137
Date: June 20, 2012
IDEAL
Construction on Consulting Services, LLC
15
Property Inspection
Address: 5973 NE 5th Ave, Miami, Florida 33137
Date: June 20, 2012
IDEAL
Construction Consulting Service, LLC
16
Property Inspection
Address: 5973 NE 5th Ave. Miami, Rorida 33137
Date: June 20, 2012
IDEAL
Construction Consulting Services, LLC
17
Property Inspection
Address: 5973 NE 5th Ave. Miami, Florida 33137
Date: June 20, 2012
IDEAL
ConstructionConsulting Services, LLC
18
Property Inspection
Address: 5973 NE 51 Ave. Ivliarni, Florida 33137
Date: -June 20, 2012
IDEAL
Construction Consulting Services, LLC
4.4
19
Property Inspection
Address: 5973 NE 5'' Ave. Miami, Florida 33137
Date: June 20, 2012
IDEAL
Construction Consulting Services, LLC
20
Property inspection
Address: 5973 NE 51" Ave. Miami, Florida 33137
Date: June 20, 2012
IDEAL
Construction Consulting Services, LLC
21
Property Inspection
Address: 5973 NE 5th Ave. Miami, Florida 33137
Date: June 20, 2012
IDEAL
Construction Consulting Services, LLC
A.
t
22
IDEAL
Construction Consulting Services, LLC
Property Inspection
Address: 5973 NE 5th Ave. Miami, Florida 33137
Date: June 20, 2012
Property Inspection
Address: 5973 NE 5th Ave. Miami, Florida 3 137
Date: .tune 20, 2012
IDEAL
Construction Consulting Services, LLC
24
a
++� ' -,
•
L
Property Inspection
Address: 5973 NE 5'h Ave. Miami, Florida 33137
Data: June 20, 2012
IDEAL
Construction Consulting Services, LLC
25
IDEAL
Construction Consulting Services, LLC
ELECTRICAL
Photographs show rusting to electrical components, substantially obsolete wiring, lack
of adequate safety Treasures, etc.
Property Inspection
Address: 5973 NE 5th Ave. Miami, Florida 33137
Date: June 20, 2012
26
Properly Inspection
Address: 5973 NE 5J' Ave. Miami, Florida, 33137
Date: June 29, 2012
IDEAL
Construction Consulting Services, LLC
27
Property Inspection
Address: 5973 NE 5th Ave. Miami, Florida 33137
Date: June 20, 2012
IDEAL
Construction Consulting Services, LLC
1
28
IDEAL
Construction Cvrnsu1ting Services, LLC
PLUMBING
• Obsolete and failed piping are shown in the crawl space, main entry, at
bathrooms, etc.
• Broken and unsupported fixtures are present.
G Obsolete toilets and other fixtures.
Property Inspection
Address: 5973 NE 5'4 Ave. Miami, Florida 33137
Date: June 20, 2012
29
Property inspection
Address: 5973 NE 5th Ave. Miami, Fonda 33137
❑ate: June 20, 2012
IDEAL
Construction Consulting Services, LLC
30
IDEAL
Construction Consulting Services, LLC
CLOSURE
This report is intended for the exclusive use of our clients. We make no representation as to
any third party benefit. It is not to be considered a warranty, but a report en the general
condition of the building and building systems at the time of inspection. It aces nc: ,-_-present to
have found all defective items that may exist: rather our services were provided it A concerted
effort to identify as many deficiencies as possible during our inspection of the pro= sty. IDEAL
Construction Consulting Services, LLC, Burton B. Silver, directors, employees. suo- .onsultants,
and agents are not responsible, nor do we accept any liability for defects not reported herein, or
problems that occur with the structure or its systems in the future,
END OF REPORT
Property Inspection
Address: 5973 NE 5"' Ave. Miami, Florida 33137
Date: June 20, 2012
31
Mr. Anel Rodriguez
August 2, 2012
Page 11
EXHIBIT "E"
{24601111;1}
ITEM 10
HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD
STAFF REPORT
NAME Palm Grove Historic District
ADDRESS 5973 NE 5 Avenue and 5990 NE 5 Court
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application of a Special Certificate of Appropriateness for the Demolition
of a contributing single-family home and rear garage, the After -the -Fact
Demolition of a second contributing single-family home, and creation of
playing fields for the adjacent school
BACKGROUND
The Cushman School is a long-standing private school in Miami's Upper
Eastside that began as a small courtyard building in the midst of the
commercial strip of Biscayne Boulevard and the older residential
neighborhoods to the west. The original courtyard building is individually
listed on the City of Miami's Register of Historic Sites.
In recent decades, the school has been successful and has expanded its
land holdings, purchasing the properties on the adjacent blocks and
expanding its campus to include most of the surrounding block bounded
by NE 61 m Street, NE 51h Avenue, Biscayne Boulevard, and NE 60°
Street. as welt as multiple properties south of NE 60`h Street. In addition,
the right-of-way of NE 60'h Street from 5'h Avenue to 5'h Court has been
vacated and is used as part of the campus.
All of the properties currently owned by the Cushman School are part of
the Palm Grove or MiMo Historic District, and many of the structures are
contributing historic resources. in recent years, multiple buildings along
NE 61'4 Street were demolished to make a stacking area for cars when
parents are dropping off or picking up their children from school.
Numerous other properties along 51h Avenue were demolished to build a
large classroom building with a parking lot fronting the street. As the
School prospers and grows, its success has the potential to spark the
further revitalization of the MiMo and Palm Grove Historic Districts.
However the current trend of demolition of historic resources and
replacement with parking lots and open space could have the opposite
effect of impeding the neighborhood's revitalization.
July 20, 2012
Page 1 of 6
ITEM 10
ANALYSIS
`... .°.f &I
Map of Cushman School property holdings, 2012 (Nate the pink overlay
in the top map, representing historic preservation overlays for Palm
Grove, MiMo, and Morningsrde Historic Districts and the Cushman
School individual site.)
The single-family home at 5973 NE 5`" Avenue is a typical example of
Spanish Eclectic architecture of the 1920s, with a hip barrel -tile roof, an
elaborated chimney top with a barrel tile roof, and curved side walls off of
the central block of the second floor. A small open air porch is located
above the main entrance, and a porte-cochere was located on the south
side of the building. A one-story, hip roof Spanish Eclectic style garage is
located at the rear of the property. The building was purchased by the
Cushman School in the mid 1990s. The building was initially used as a
classroom and later as storage. The building has deteriorated over time
and no repairs have been made in recent years.
In May 2012, the applicant applied for and received a demolition permit
from the City of Miami, permit BD12-002446-001-B001. Due to an error
in the City's building permitting system, the permit was not flagged for
review by the Preservation Office and a Certificate of Appropriateness
was never issued for the project. The porte-cochere of the building was
tom down before a stop work order was placed on the property- The
applicant is coming before the Board for a Certificate of Appropriateness
July 20, 2012
Page 2 of 6
ITEM 10
for Demolition of this building and the rear garage. The Cushman School
intends to use the site as playing fields and a playground.
5973 NE 5 Avenue
5973 NE 5'n Avenue — rear garage
The single-family home at 5990 NE 5th Court was a typical example of
Spanish Eclectic architecture of the 1930s, with a rounded tower
entrance, L-shaped plan with a low-pitched combination hip and gable
barrel -tile roof. Faux quoining details were applied around the windows
and doors, however in general the building had very restrained details.
The building was purchased by the Cushman School in the mid 1990s.
In May 2012, the applicant applied for and received a demolition permit
from the City of Miami, permit BD12-002447-001-B001. Due to an error
in the City's building permitting system, the permit was not flagged for
review by the Preservation Office and a Certificate of Appropriateness
July 20, 2012
Page 3of6
ITEM 10
was never issued for the project. The building has been demolished. and
the site has been cleared for playing fields for the school. The applicant
is coming before the Board for the After -the -Pact Certificate of
Appropriateness for Demolition of this building.
5990 NE 5 Court
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation provide the
following guidance for alterations to historic properties:
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a
new use that requires minimal change to the defining
characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and
preserved. The removal of historic materials or alterations of
features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
The demolition of the two contributing single-family homes and creation
of playing fields on the empty lots for the adjacent school does not meet
the Secretary of the Interior's Standards because of the significant impact
an the character of each property and the Palm Grove Historic District.
The following additional criteria can be used to evaluate demolitions of
historic properties:
1. The degree to which the structure contributes to the historic and/or
architectural integrity of the historic site or district
Both properties are listed as contributing structures in the Palm
Grove Historic District, and the property at 5973 NE Sin Avenue
is one of the finest examples of 1920s Spanish Eclectic
architecture in the District.
2. Whether loss of the structure would adversely affect the historic
and/or architectural integrity of the historic site or district
Palm Grove Historic District is transitioning neighborhood
whose buildings vary widely in date of significance,
architectural style, and state of repair. Every demolition in this
neighborhood is significant, as it has the potential to disrupt the
momentum of the neighborhood's revival.
3. Whether architectural plans have been presented to the board for
the reuse of the property if the proposed demolition were to be
July 20, 2012
Page 4 of 6
ITEM 10
carried out. and the appropriateness of said plans to the character
of the historic site or district, if applicable
The short -terra proposal for open playing fields on cleared Tots
is not appropriate to the dense, residential and mixed -use
character of Palm Grove,
4. Whether the structure poses an imminent threat to public health or
safety
Neither property was listed on the City of Miami's Unsafe
Structures list.
During Preservation staff site visits on June 13, 2012 and July
3, 2012, the property at 5973 NE 5th Avenue had not been
secured with a fence, and windows and doors were open,
allowing full access to any member of the public from the street
or from within the Cushman School campus. Preservation
Staff toured all rooms in the building, both first and second
floor. Significant damage is evident in the building, including
cracks in the exterior walls, however buildings in similar
condition have been and can be rehabilitated.
The structural condition of the building at 5990 NE 5th Court
prior to demolition is unknown.
5. Whether applicant has demonstrated that retention of the structure
would create an unreasonable or undue economic hardship
No evidence of this kind has been submitted to the
Preservation Office.
6. Whether there is a compelling public interest requiring the
demolition
No evidence of this kind has been submitted to the
Preservation Office.
RECOMMENDATION Part 1:
The Preservation Office recommends Denial of the application for a
Special Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of the properly at
5973 NE 5th Avenue and the creation of playing fields on the cleared lot.
We recommend that the applicant meet with our office to discuss options
for rehabilitation and reuse of the building, and integration of this historic
resource into the school's tong range vision for the future.
Part 2:
The Preservation Office recommends Continuance of the application for
a Special Certificate of Appropriateness for the After -the -Fact Demolition
of the property at 5990 NE 5th Court and creation of playing fields on the
cleared lot until the applicant is able to bring the following items before
the HEPB:
1. A complete survey of all properties owned by the school, created
by a licensed surveyor.
2. Evidence that all outstanding code violations have been cleared,
including windows and interior renovation work from 2011.
3. A Florida Master Site File, including photos of all sides of the
exterior of buildings, for each property owned by the Cushman
School or its affiliate. CEIBA Realty.
4. A complete tree survey by a certified arborist or landscape
architect of all properties owned by the Cushman School or its
affiliate, CEIBA Realty,
5. A plan to plant shade trees along all street frontages planted at a
maximum spacing of thirty feet (30") on center. •
July 20, 2012
Page 5 of 6
ITEM 10
A master plan of the campus, illustrating the school's long-term
vision for growth and its impact on historic resources in the MIMo
Historic District and Palm Grove Historic District.
July 20, 2012
Page 6 of 6