Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Megan Schmitt-Buena Vista East Historic District Resurvey AnalysisCITYO'MA.MI PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT To: City of Miami Commission From: Megan Cross Schmitt Preservation Officer Submitted into the public fl recorc f r ite;n(s) on �. City Clerk Applicant: City of Miami Planning & Zoning Department, Preservation Office Subject: 184'NE 45 ST (Constructed in 1947; 40 years old in 1987) Buena Vista East Historic District Resurvey ANALYSIS: The Buena Vista East Historic District was designated by the Miami. City Commission in 1987 per Ordinance No. 10213. At the time of designation, approximately 54% of the buildings were classified as contributing structures, leaving approximately 46% of the rest of the properties vulnerable to demolition. It is the job of the Preservation Office to assist with the management of changes to the City of Miami's historic resources. This occurs on a daily basis through the review of proposed work to properties that are either individually designated or that are included within one of our local historic districts. However, in addition to the routine issuance of Certificates of Appropriateness, staff is obliged to periodically review the status of its existing portfolio to account for how the passing of time has impacted the integrity of each district on a case by case basis. For this reason, the Preservation Staff initiated a review of the. Buena Vista East Historic District. This exercise was intended to update which properties had been demolished since the establishment of the district in 1987, which vacant lots had been built upon, and which properties may have become eligible for consideration as a contributing resource. The survey methodology involved: • Photographing all of the properties within the district; • Verifying addresses and folio numbers; • Confirming year of construction for each structure; • Comparing current photographs of properties to tax card photographs to analyze level of alterations and evaluate architectural integrity; • Assigning an architectural style to those properties that were determined to be non- contributing at the time of designation in 1987; • Evaluating non-contributing resources for consideration of reclassification to contributing resources based upon the evolution of the importance of these more recent architectural styles and each building's individual integrity. City of Miarni Planning & Zoning Department, Preservation Office Page 1 of 5 Submitted into the public �. record r it (s) �. City Clerk Inherent within the practice of historic preservation is the fact that resources can gain significance with the passing of time. Age alone is not sufficient reason to identify a property as contributing, however it is true that architectural styles can grow into their significance over the span of almost three decades, as is the case with several of the structures within the Buena Vista East Historic District. In addition to managing change, it is the responsibility of the Preservation Office to protect the properties that are under its purview. One of Miami's most significant challenges in terms of safeguarding its historic resources is the unusually high number of non -contributing - structures that exist within our historic districts. When a historic district only has 55%-65% contributing structures, it leaves a large number of buildings vulnerable to demolition. Preservation Office staffwelcomes sensitive and appropriate new construction within historic districts, firmly believing that historic structures and contemporary design can live harmoniously next to one another. However, when close to half of the buildings within a district could be demolished, it becomes difficult to retain the sense of place for which the district was designated. The Preservation {Office will continue to evaluate the changes that occur within the City of Miami's historic districts at both a building by building level as well as at the broader district level. Both analyses require the understanding that, with the passage of time, significance evolves. City of Miami Planning & Zoning Department, Preservation Office Page 2of5 Submitted into the public(\ record for itrm(s) t, �z • on at j it City Clem Property: 184 NE 45 Street; Folio: 0131240240240; Constructed: 1947 Style: Masonry Vernacular. City of Miami Planning & Zoning Department, Preservation Office Page 3 of 5 Submitted into the public record tor it m(s) VL. 15 on q�• 16 . City Clerk Difference between Contributing and Non -Contributing and Designation • All of the buildings within the Buena Vista East Historic District have been designated since 1987. • At the f rce of designation, a report v as prepared documenting the evolution of the neighborhood,` its history, and the significance of its eclectic styles of architecture. • The designation report also assigned a status of either contributing or non- contributing to'each„building. • • As has been confirmed by a letter from the Preservation Consultant who prepared the report, contributing statics was applied: to those buildings that were at least 50 years old at the time Oft the survey, and_ Whose architectural "Merit was determined to be significant • Since 1987, all of the structureswithin the district boundaries have been regulated by the Preservation Office,regardless of their contributing or non-contributing status. Other communities are going through.sir ilar re-evaluations: • In 2015, the City`of Huntsville, Alabama completed a successful resurveyof their Twickenham Historic District. When it Was• listed .on the National Register in 1973, many of the homes built in the 1920's 1950s were too young to qualify as eligible. .. - • Boise, Idaho's South 8th Street Historic District was established in 1979 and resurveyed in 2007. • Culpepper, Virginia's National Register Historic District was listed in 1987 and resurveyed in 2012. • Rapid City, South Dakota Historic Preservation is a Young Field • The National 'Trust for HistoricPreservationwas established in 1949. • Columbia University opened the first Historic Preservation degree program in 1964. • The New York City Land arks Preservation Commission was created iti 1965. • The National Historic Preservation Act was passed in 1966. • A 1980 amendment 'to the NHPA created Certified Local. Governments which allowed local governments to administer their own preservation ordinances. • Miami first adopted its Historic Preservation ordinances in 1982. City of Miami Planning & Zoning Department, Preservation Office Page4of5 Submitted into the public \ . record or i m(s) on q`�.J�. i>{S City Clerk "There is a fourth phase in the history of historic districts, the history of what happens after they have become `historic.' A district does not pass out of history just because it has been given this label — unless it is a walled off museum. Districts that are designated as historic continue to be part of the ongoing history of the towns and cities in which they are located. Historic districts, unlike museum villages and heritage parks, are places where people continue to make their homes." (Page 145) "In the years following the creation of the National Register, the concept of the historic district moved from the original emphasis of the ideal, outstanding, and non -typical toward the view that it should be a showplace of the `representative' and the `typical, still exceptional, no doubt, but exceptional in relation to ability to represent a type of district that was once wide spread but was now to be found in a reasonably intact form only in these relatively rare localities. It soon became apparent that a new type of "historic" district was emerging — one n-nlike the old prestige places." (Page 1'74) "Ultimately the history that is in all historic districts is local history." (Page 198) David Hamer, History in Urban Places: The Historic Districts of the United States (The Ohio State University, 1998) City of Miami Planning & Zoning Department, Preservation Office Page 5 of 5 Submitted into the public ., record r it m(s)V ‘5 on City Cler Submitted into the publid1 record or it m(s)4,15 on City ( !cr 4. J 0 u DESCRIPTION ADZN E 8 "pc. / . • SE�ON TOWNSHIP RANGE tJ 811;11IEORE • a 5O* LOTS 3 & 4 BLS 2 2-17-0221 aer-a9 4 DIAGRAM OF STRUCTURES Z2.3 ie ►sr4AR1 13 n zi;a rt. • i • 4,. I in I txs Asa s.+ W re, A.La PB 6 PG 67 C / s6.7.S .ct Ts • A I4 r+ re in, re tL ,D,E1; cry.. e 5 i 5 a A 2 ► 1 Lx I 3~ rv) . ✓ REAL PROPERTY RECORID CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA CITY AS ESSoR NG. KIND OF STRUCTUR TAX MAP CONSTRUCTION comm.. I CLASS 1 TVPB A IJtr.PLC1L la vyELE.►Ai 13 4[l l5ili(rE 5►MG1FDWELL /NG. 2 p FOUNDATION IrINI18H TR M sass ■a€p, C, iL A s it E S 57-0)triGE C i3 5 EXTERIOR FEATURES EXTERIOR WALLS AND FINISH ROOF TYPE D a m x G px D• r p F P X a 11 n • 2 p .r ,QjG QJ� V a 7 V Q r. u U m II j. 2 a p Y U S i ea r S O C I ROOF MATERLAi EXTERIOR FEATURES INTERIOR FEATURES PLUMBING � D PORCHEf N 0 N EASEMENT INTERIOR FEATURES PLUMBING FIXTURES DU LDING CO'MPIIfAT1ONB Oa. FT. HT. Cum fr. RATE FLOOR TYPO FLOOR MATERIAL AMOUNT ROOMS A R C WING mom 2 L swum ROOM 2 xrrcl0N 2 / DELNLoaw 2 2 BATH 2- AUTO ' EQUIPMENT SLEVATORR C i s A lox 3o Eea. o¢ a 31fc7,7f 3e''/0 X.78. �} iX37.00 a3 9• s X r r r o LF re 4x ►o/15; 3tas r}3.Sa % 7l.2.3y,rZ.>IXI7 3 2 7.5* 3 C a2�*max L+K �e /+ox l7 44- 3X.►a 3'CJ_r-- 7p F`rs 2.- &- 71a fa ft'1 / 7 1r Y7.4 }- 97. /7flrea {,ij .G} 617 fo REMARKS: 4?13 ▪ 575 rHo /WRINKUR •TOTR POUR NaTRA LAUNDIIT TRATR AIR COIInITIDIIING RTORM ON UTTER• INOU i_wrioaWAW 'N•ULATRD ROOF UTTER AND 001/R•POUT 5- Or IL2C*IIIC OUT.•T• M 2.e NO. Or BCTRIC?IET'IIRa jar i Tyre or WIRI11 MROuoNT IRON c rr 0*1 MUILT•rx CARINITR C WIND MATURES LAND COMPUTATIONS LAND VALUE BFDbiN6 VALUE YaT*L VALUE CRANES TANA*IA VALUE rtrAllnM imp L`MAHG6 WATER REGULAR } GORMRM I 1RAEGULAR TRIANGLE I MERGER T ANCjirr Y`"11 GAS II FRONT DEPT1[ D. F. A. 1. F. % C. I. F. R. L. tnlrt 1938 • ELECTRIC r 1939 TELEPHONE Y 1940 PAYED STREET ✓ 194E . tMPROVEO ET. 19.12 UMINFROVED ST. 1949 PAVED ALLIT • 1944 CURSING 1945 WIDEWA..x 1944 WHITE WAY 1947 STREET LIGHTING. 194E SEAWALL* 1948 ..AN- *EWER 1990 -. STORM SEWER 1951 TOPOGRAPHY : 1952 LANESCAPIHa ' 1933 W LI. 1954 LAWM SPRINKLER 1955 5 t ar 1956 feat ZONED FOR 12-1 195a SUMMARY 1940 AMO95T AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT 1959 R••2 1960 R.3 GNOON LAND VALUE 1961 9-1 INNANCINP4 % -- 11362 9-2 DETMACTING 11. 1969 B-a NET LAME. VALUE 1964 T-1 mu LLD LNG6 T965 1-7 1154 AMOUNT 1966 A -- 1967 11T64RLLAMEGUE B 1969 9CH DOLS 6. G 1969 ENURCMFS C. - 1970 61101.E C. ERCIIS BLDG. VALVE _ 1971 - TRANSPORTATION O. RNMARCIN l3 XI 1972 DIs7. TWtND %i 11t'TRAC1ING % 1979 NET 111-D0. VALUE 1974 TOTAL VALUE . . . 1975 MARKE]—I NOON9—MI6t4 LAANVOUN 4ATA BUILDING PERM ITs RE1,iARlC6; Submitted into recordi r ite on I.n .. the public s) lq,, 15 YEAR NO. DATE EOM AMOUNT PAIR ANNUAL CROSS JJj�7 ! iXOP. 'F `/4'1.( efi Sac FAIR ANNUAL MET f RATE CAPITALLTED VALUE: *ALE. LEGITIMATE• SALE OTHERWISE 4,1TRACT1Nr. TNPi. PWRER.6 E*TNIA'TE PAIR MARKET VALUE City {Clerk FIRE INSURANCE Submitted into the publicn f record r ite (s) s 15 on ''` City Clerk City of Miami Planning Department 275 NW 2nd Street Miami, Florida 33128 19 June 1987 Attn: Sarah Eaton Ref: Buena Vista East Historic Preservation Planner Historic District Dear sirs: In compliance with my Professional Services Agreement with the City of Miami dated 1 May 1987, enclosed please find: Designation Report Florida Master Site File - Inventory Form for Contributing Buildings Research Form for All Buildings within the Historic District Also enclosed please find: List of Buildings within the Historic District, with annotation denoting contributing status. List of Contributing Buildings within the Historic District List of Sites of Major Architectural Significance As mentioned in the Designation Report, criteria used to determine con- tributing status is based on a cut-off date of 1936 as well as the extent of alteration or preservation of the architectural fabric. In determining date of erection, whenever a conflict exists between data derived from primary sources, an interpolation of dates is used to arrive at an approximate date. In the Research Form, the following abbreviations are used to denote type of building shown in the G.M. Hopkins Maps of 1925 and 1936: SNBROL Stone, concrete or brick tile (1925 Map) BROL Brick or Brick tile (1936 Map) SNOC Stone or Concrete (1936 Map) IOIC Iron or Iron Clad (1925 & 1936 Maps) FRAME Wood Frame (1925 & 1936 Maps) GAR Garage (1936 Map) SHOSBL Shed or Stable (1925 Map) GRHS Greenhouse (1925 & 1936 Maps) To indicate number of lights in a window, the symbol # is used next to the window type indicated in the Master Site File Inventory Form. It has indeed been a pleasure working with the City of Miami, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank Ms. Sarah Eaton for her invaluable help and cooperation. Should there be further research or consultation needed for this Project, please do not hesitate to advise me. With the hope for continued Preservation efforts, I remain, 0111 Sincerely, [.grin :,sus . Archi e P A Hintane i'reUervatpan Consultant • 2656South ha enure Drive, Suite 602 • Cocoanut Grove,Florida 331,33 hay shore $58tJ4t34 Submitted into the public --rec0r City Cl SOUTH HISTORIC HIS' 'oRIC DISTRICT Tills tree-tined ne..ah- betwe today nestled the district and zoll business Campuses. recalls t1e Kalamazoo at prosperous O. the centum The street was platted in P841- Its beautifully preserved houses, which were built between then and 1915. reflect the spectrum of c architecture l domesof the period with the Italian Revival style most prevalent. The :Historic 'Districts of tie Linited States DAVID HAMER Sprague historic y volun- historical ton played trio nomi- survey of nd build- hborhood ing a sig- ple from , in 1975 responsible The forma - in a corn - houses. and inspi- fa bric, ause the ty into endent operty protect of group oath ing to share cod As - side as a .T-he dents by the meats, alReg. fed for ebusi- ve not e re_ augh A Strategy for Historic Preservation cfrurrs to I?roteCt the inte4 rite artd_ap fir ,t hr IErs- toric houses and house museums of which they are the custodians. Local historians and historical societies and their libraries have often played a kcy- role in the research needed for historic district designation and in the sub- sequent efforts to keep alive informed awareness of the history of a historic district's But there has been an evolution in the activities of some tradi- tional historical societies so that they have eventually assumed the charac- ter of preservationist pressure groups. A new breed of historical societies has developed as part of the preservationist movement. These societies — sometimes the older societies given a new purpose in life —have assumed a much more activist role in preservation. At Tecumseh, Michigan, a popu- lar house tour program was organized by the historical society. It is cred- ited with helping to mobilize the awareness of architectural heritage that persuaded the city to pass a historic district ordinance and have a district placed on the National Register.39 The historical society in Birmingham, Alabama, is now in large part a preservationist organization —and a very active one• At Galesburg, lliinois, it was a grassroots preservationist move- ment that formed the Galesburg Historical Society in the 1970s for the express purpose of protecting architecture through zoning regulation. In 1976 the society began developing a strategy to preserve the Public Square, the city°s historic core. it was the society that took the initiative in getting the Public Square nominated (successfully) to the National Register as a historic district.'o The Existence of Districts as Historic Districts There is a fourth phase in the history of historic districts, the history of what happens after they have become "historic.'" A district does not pass out of history just because it has been given this label --unless it is a walled - off museum. Districts that are designated as historic continue to be part of the ongoing history of the towns and cities in which they are located. His- toric districts• unlike museum villages and heritage parks, are places where people continue to make their homes:'' Inevitably, therefore, compromises between the past and the present have to be made to accommodate the re- quirements of modern living. After thirty years it has become apparent that historic districts are not functioning just as add-ons to the variety of neigh- borhoods in cities. They are themselves part of the texture of the modern city. Much of this is attributable to the alliances that have been forged in so many cities between planners and historic preservationists. Policies for the conservation of existing housing stock in particular have brought plan- ners and preservationists together at the district level. Historic preservation 145 •f Submitted into the public IMti record or it rn(s) on City Clerk Submitted into the public reCorr it� mq (5) + on City Clerk 15 Chapter 7 ric over the years. What now appears as a historic district at Irvine Park is nothing like any district that existed previously at that location. Its history is in large part the history of what historic preservation and modern-day strategies of neighborhood rehabilitation have wrought. However, it must also be recognized that what they have wrought belongs to certain aspects of the traditions of neighborhood change. From the Special to the Representative Historic districts have evolved from the rare and exceptional to the rep- resentative and typical and finally to the comprehensive application of the model and the emergence of the generic. The origin of the historic district was as a very special place, a tradition that can be traced back to the emer- gence of the concept in places such as Charleston and Beacon Hili. Prior to 1966, although there was no overall national set of criteria, it is clear from the character and very small number of historic districts that had been cre- ated that they were perceived as very exceptional places, not representative of anything but worth preserving because of their unique qualities. The multiplication of historic districts since 1966 has caused this tra• dition to lose much of its farce _Tn the years following the creation of the National Register, the concept of the historic district moved from the origi- nal emphasis on the ideal, outstanding, and nontypical toward the view that it should be a showplace of the "representative" and the 'typical,' still excep- tional, no doubt; but exceptional in relation to ability to represent type of district that was once widespread but was now to be found in a reasonably intact form only in these relatively rare localities. It soon became appar- ent that a new type of ''historic" district was emerging -one unlike the old prestige places. Richard Guy Wilson wrote, "The principles of preservation long considered applicable to areas with established historical pedigrees — the Vieux Carre in New Orleans or Society Hill in Philadelphia —are being tested in the much more common late-l9th-century middle-class neighbor- hood." What was unclear was whether all districts of a particular type that satisfied the criteria should be deemed acceptable for inclusion on the Na- tional and State registers or whether only some were to be chosen. The trend toward the third phase of historic district development, based 0 comprehensiveness, was given strong impetus by the opportunities and ir'. centives set up through the regimes of tax credits and the routin1zauon of the process of creation of a historic district through the establishme'=` of bureaucratic procedures and regulations. As the lists of historic d&siuics continue to expand without any established cur -off in place, we seem ra be 4 174 -- historic Var' i rs1 now •, The of a Ct how more:.: of \r;: atren irnag- of vi and SAr 7/29/2016 Preservation Historic preservation challenge - historic vs. contributing vs. non-contributing Urban planning curl m nity #theplannerlife G+1] o' a User name Password Home Forum Biggs What's New? 0 Ri rnernher time Gallery Log in Help Register FAQ Calendar Forum actions Quick links * Forum Planning and the Built Environment Land Use and Zoning PURI 3t Historic preservation challenge - historic vs. contributing vs. non-contributing Top Medicare Plans 2016 I Advanced search Stabmitted into the publj record for items) on Compare Medicare Supplement Rates. Free Quotes From Trusted Companies! 0 Cyburbia connects planners, students, academics, urbanists, and others who are interested in or help shape the built environment, Join our community, and register today! Reply to thread Thread: Historic preservation challenge - historic vs. contributing vs. non-contributing 08 Sep 2011, 4:20 PM FLPlanner 0 Member Registered: Sep 2011 Location: Florida Posts: 8 Results 1 to 4 of 4 Thread tools Historic preservation challenge - historic vs. contributing vs. non- contributing Hello Fellow Planners, #1 I'm seeking input on a historic preservation challenge that we're facing. Currently, there are 7 historic districts located within the City. Each district was designated and added after their structures were surveyed (and deemed contributing or non- contributing depending on age, characteristics, etc.) at various times within the fast 20 years. My historic board just recently denied the demo of a project based on the fact that they deemed the structure "historic" - that is 50 years or older, even though it was not considered contributing at the time of the survey (but would be now if resurveyed). The applicant also submitted a replacement structure design that was not compatible with the neighborhood. They have decided to come back to the HPB with a new design and argue the "non-contributing" and "historic" point. The question is, how does your organization deal with historic structures that are not considered "contributing" but are considered "historic" by age and/or located within a historic district. Also, do you have a definition of a historic structures within your regulations? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Troy FLPlanner http://www.cyburbia.orgitorumsishowthread.php?t=45046 1/3 7/29/2016 Preservation Historic preservation challenge- historic vs. contributing vs. non-contributing 08 Sep 2011, 6:40 PM beach bum Cyburbian Registered: Jul 2007 Location: more West now Posts: 3,400 08 Sep 2011, 7:10 PM docwatson 0 Cyburbian Registered: Jul 2010 Location: BC, Canada Posts: 219 Submitted into the publieni , Quote record or it ni(s) 3 on Ili lit City Clerk #2 Ahh, we are grappling with a similar issue and the best solution is to update your district surveys to include those structures that are now over 50 years old (I won't go into my opinion of the 50-year "rule", but I view it as a guideline in the legislation, not a hard and fast rule). The key is to figure out your period of significance for each district and look at all the structures build during that time period. Another tool to deal with your situation is to have a Zoning Overlay district to control aesthetics of infill and new development in your historic districts. Anyways, we paid a local HP consultant to update our survey and are in the process now of submitting those to our SHPO office for consideration. Best of Luck from a former Floridian! "Never invest in any idea you can't illustrate with a crayon." Peter Lynch Quote #3 ... the best solution is to update your district surveys to include those structures that are now over 50 years old (1 won't go into my opinion of the 50-year "rule", but ! view it as a guideline in the legislation, not a hard and fast rule). The key is to figure out your period of significance for each district and look at all the structures build during that time period. would concur. If the period of significance of a district is 1890-1936, then the 1959 brick ranch that was built there would probably be non-contributing, but a survey would be the way to know for sure. If you can't pay for the full survey or need answers now, perhaps someone at the SHPO, such as the register coordinator or certified local government person, could come out and tour your district and offer some thoughts/technical assistance? Quote 09 Sep 2011, 11:52 AM #4 FLPlanner 0 Member Registered: Sep 2011 Location: Florida Posts: 8 Thanks for the recommendations. My board has recommended that the city resurvey those areas again; however, until that happens we are trying to justify staff and the board's direction to deny the demolition. Our historic preservation ordinance doesn't distinguish contributing vs. non-contributing structures and only refers to "historic structures". I'm am trying to determine whether that definition alone with justify our denial. Doc, our 1950's homes in this area are definitely nothing special, but they do show a good transition from our 1930's to the 1954 homes. Our concern is that approval of this demolition project will set a precedence for some of the other homes that this organization has purchased outside of their campus area. Quote http:flwww.cyburbia.orglforumslshowthread.php?t-45046 2/3 712E" 2016 Preservation Historic preservation challenge- historic vs, contributing vs. non-contributing 0 4- Reply to thread cc Older thread I Newer thread » More at Cyburbia Historic preservation - historic site/structure plaques Design, Space, and Place MS historic preservation? Student Commons My historic preservation gig Introduce Yourself Historic preservation, or planning degree with preservation courses? Student Commons historic preservation APA Los Angeles Section (archive) Submitted into the public record r it m(s) V ti 15 nn Q 9 7 1[ City CT ', Replies; 5 Last post: 47 Sep 2011, 9:57 AM Replies: 7 Last post: 30 Sep 2008, 10:41 AM Replies: 2 Last post: 25 May 2007, 10:57 AM Replies: 8 Last post: 30 Aug 2006, 11:10 PM Replies: 0 Last post: 17 Oct 2005, 12:02 AM Contact Cyhurbia Privacy policy Top Z1994-2016 Cyburbia vBulletin 4.1.7 ©2000 - 2016 Je€soft Enterprises Ltd. httpl/www.cyburbia.orgiforums/showthread.php?t=45046 3,3