HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Elvis Cruz-Guidelines, Fact Sheet and LettersCity of Miami Code, Ch. 23-6.2(h)(1)
Submitted into the public •3
recordf r it n s) L
on ( City Clerk
(h) Guidelines for issuing certificates of appropriateness.
(1)Alteration of existing structures, new construction.
Generally, for applications relating to alterations or new
construction as required in subsection (a) the proposed
work shall not adversely affect the historic,
architectural, or aesthetic character of the
subject structure or the relationship and
congruity between the subject structure and
its neighboring structures and surroundings,
including but not limited to form, spacing,
height, yards, materials, color, or rhythm and
pattern of window and door openings in
building facades; nor shall the proposed work
adversely affect the special character or
special historic, architectural or aesthetic
interest or value of the overall historic site or
historic district. Except where special standards and
guidelines have been specified in the designation of a
particular historic resource or historic district, or where the
board has subsequently adopted additional standards and
guidelines for a particular designated historic resource or
historic district, decisions relating to alterations
or new construction shall be guided by the
U.S. Secretary of the Interior's "Standards
for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings."
Page 1
- b660h,t>l- S4-tiv\i\\11-E\\3ANZ L\\\
Submitted into the public pi,
on recordCI I City Clerk
Excerpt from:
U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.
Not Recommended: Introducing new construction into historic districts that is
visually incompatible or that destroys historic relationships within the setting.
Not Recommended: Introducing a new building or landscape feature that is out
of scale or otherwise inappropriate to the setting's historic character.
Excerpt from:
Staff Report for 545 NE 55 Terrace (HEPB 7JUN 2016)
Both the 1964 Venice Charter and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for
Historic Preservation that were first issued in 1977, state that new
construction in historic districts be differentiated from the original
historic fabric. New construction projects should not duplicate a style from
the past, but should rather compliment with the use of materials found
within the district as well as architectural features that are common in
the surroundings. Additionally, it is important that new construction
projects fit in with the overall sense of scale of the district, and
compliments its surroundings with appropriate massing and setbacks.
Page 2
Submitted into the public
7
record or itlin(s)
HISTORIC AND on q
ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD
City Clerk
FACT SHEET
Morningside Historic District
ADDRESS
545 NE 55th Terrace
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
new sing
Applicattiion for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the family residenrre.
i?e construction of a
ANALYSIS
Because of the
Preservation p cpotential fora perceived conflict of interest, Preservation
r has recused herself from the
This application was reviewed bythe review of
Committee of the Planningthis
and Zoning Department.
ent. the Design Review
�y i.t,t=F t,.
The applicant is
he north side ofNE55 rg to construct a new house on a vacant lot on
primarily mason Terrace. Existing houses on this street are
stomesi masonry vernacular in style, and height varies from one to two
Houses are typically constructed of ,"o with
stories.
CBS flat or barn! tale
The proposed design for the house is found to be inconsistent,
of size and scale, with the character of neighboring
street and on the same lot size. in ter,,,,
post a19buildings that are s The character the street consn the ist of
ume
the architectural matt, single family residences that respect
character of the dlS�ii�t_
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Department recommends we recommends
the application be continued or deferred with the consent of the
in order to allow the a that
address the allow
th concerns applicant the opportunity to design the building
to
raised by staff. 9 b .ritding to
item #1
March 19, 2002
Submitted into the public
record r ite 1(5) r'
on�, City Clerk
i Alt i wik Mai
at • 'r anewwru 'a��aa
't��i,i,v,yaw Morninsic,e Civic Association
-�•r••�r+•• _
July lst,2016
City of Miami Commission
444 SW 2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor
Miami, FL 33130
Subject: - S45 NE 55 Terr— Construction of a New Single Family !tome
Dear Commissioners:
The Momingside Civic Association Board at its June 14, 2016 meeting voted to support our
Architectural Review Comrnifiee in opposing the current design of a proposed home at 545
55th Terrace, as incornpatibie with, the historic district.
The committee offered multiple constructive observations for evolution of the project to "make it
more congruous within the historic district and less of what is being
perceived
ish' rectangular concrete box with screens." The committee's full letter to the HEPB is attached.
The MCA board respect3njly requests that the commission overturn the Certificate of
Apimpriaieriess of the home at this time.
Sincerely,
Marc Billings
President
Submitted into the public t\��
recordf it (s)
on P �� City Clerk
MBE i.►1111111111111
A—i a soft I
Sri VM-
111111,
w
Morningside Civic Associatior
Architectural Review Committee
David Holtzman
Robert Graboski
Naomi Burt
Elvis Cruz
Cyril Bijaoui
15 September 2016
City of Miami Commissioners
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, FL 33130
Subject - 545 NE 55 Feu Cans -truth -mil of a eate S >3e FamHHy H 3
Dear Commissioners:
The Morningside Civic Association's (MCA) Architectural Review Committee (ARC) has reviewed the
subject COA far this proposed new, approximately 3500 sq. ft. single family home on a 6,660 sq. ft.
interior lot (incorrectly stated as 9,000 sq. ft. in the Staff Report).
We had the opportunity to meet with the applicant prior to submittal for the COA. The ARC provided
feedback regarding the materials and massing which have not been addressed. The applicant did make
some changes to materials by eliminating the brick texture and replacing it with day tile screen. The
coral stone finish was removed from storage closet and garage face and replaced with stucco finish.
A_rorrling to the app!ir`bie History District gguiddincs:
"An architectural feature is any distinct or outstanding component or characteristic of a building
that defines its style. A combination of elements such as windows, doors, parapets, chimneys, roof,
moldings, materials, colors, craftsmanship, design, porches, balconies, wall openings, and
ornamentations will distinguish one style from another."
The proposed home is a stucco box that does not have a defined central style but takes cues from
several different design styles found in Morningside which range from Art Deco and
Mediterranean/Modern styles for the building massing with details crossing over into the Spanish
Mediterranean and Mission style.
Unfortunately, those cues are not fully developed in a unified or cohesive manner in this application.
1
Submitted into the public(��
record f r it n(s) 1 �,, iL
on City Clerk
The main architectural features and embellishments are limited to an eyebrow which frames an open
clay accent tile wall enclosing the front entry porch next to a flush panel garage door; a second -story
window covered with the same clay accent tile; and a balcony that continues the stucco of the walls on
the parapet instead of a railing. The front facade is capped with a stucco band and an even higher
parapet for the mechanical equipment is beyond.
When ioolong at succes:fill versions of modern architecture, the vi ua! interest and fanciful nature of
the style is apparent even to the layman. These rich homes contain elements such as opposing
structural boxes, differing facade elevations, heights and setbacks, walls with textured finishes,
structural projections, exposed structural beams or columns, and many other elements that when
brought together, create a well thought out and unified design. We believe that the picking of a detail
from one style for use in another does not work, as the applicant has done here. We do not encourage
the mere changing of materials but instead want designs that once built will "be recognized as products
of their own time" while also presenting the right fit in our historic district.
We find the application does not meet the following criteria set forth by the Secretary of the interior
standards or the City of Miami Guidelines which include some specific to Morningside:
Massing:
"New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic
materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be
compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity and
its environment."
MASS: The three dimensional character of a building that create its size, shape, and proportion_
The two-story s massing early from setback to side setback along the front building lines t.._ sro:� m� .a is n��:..; side �._..a o _.
This creates a large stucco square surface when it is surrounded by single -story residences. This
is not compatible to the massing size and scale.
The massing has a stucco finish for walls, handrails, parapets, moldings and sills. The day accent
tile will enclose the porch and ground -floor windows and cover the window on the second floor,
!caving the doors to the balcony which sit behind the stucco parapet as the only non obstructed
glass in stucco facade.
2
Submitted into the public
recor�fp�i I.'s)
on I 0
City Clerk
Porch Endosures:
"Porches are an important character -defining feature on a historic building." The one-story
porch across the front of the home obstructs the front windows with clay tiles which go to the ceiling
and enclose the porch instead of stopping at the handrail height. This design is discouraged by
Morningside-specific guidelines:
"An enclosure is any fence gate wall or hedge that fully or partially encloses property or
otherwise obstructs the view of the house from the street. The intent of the enclosure
guidelines is to allow for the most important feature of the homes, their facades to be seen and
appreciated from the public right of way." — [Morningside Specific Guideline attached as Page 7]
Windows:
"Covering Windows or changing the muntin pattern by removing or adding muntins is
discouraged" — [HP Guideline attached as Page 8}
The dear glass windows are covered by clay accent tiles and there is limited fenestration or dear
glass in windows visible from the street. This is out of scale with the neighborhood and the
amount of unembeilished stucco wall.
This application has created quite an interesting dialogue. For the members of the ARC, we wrestle with
the balance between historic preservation, quality of design, and helping our neighbors achieve their
goals and dreams making homes their owf Weoften faced withthe debateof whether ..
.. of their areof �e d; .au whether ,�
"modern" style home has a place in this historic district, and while our committee is often split on this
question, when it comes to this application, we are all in full agreement that this particular design falls
short.
1. 1. It is attempting to be too many things. A modem design with elements of the Art Deco —
S AIetldli i2 movement, with
a nod to iYi LUit erran CCn materials. This mixing or styles sadlyly
comes across only as a cold `square-ish' rectangular stucco box with clay accent tile enclosures.
2. 2. Regardless of style(s), the overall execution and quality of the design is poorly thought out
in two dimensions, and would fail terribly in three.
Our role as the ARC is to represent the neighborhood as a whole when it comes to design and
i • > ! b__
preservation issues in the Historic District, and in most cases we do this without much neighbor
participation.
In this case, the immediate neighbors have banded together in solidarity opposing this home, and have
taken it so far as to appeal the approval of this design to this City Commission, and that effort should not
be taken lightly. In meeting with the applicant in an attempt to find some middle ground, they have 7
shown temperance and intelligence with the hope that their concerns would be in some way mitigated
by the applicant.
Unfortunately, the applicant is steadfast in pursuing this design with only the slightest of modifications
and ignoring the will of the Morningside neighborhood. The applicant is also the project's architect, and
has gone to great lengths in the creation of this design, including a rather camplex study and modeling
of most of the homes in the District. Unfortunately for all that good and hard work, it has not yielded a
design that is on par with newly constructed homes that have been approved and built in the
Submitted into the publicQ tto
record for itpm(s)
on '� 1 !. (, 1 1 {� City Clerk
neighborhood in just the last two years, nor does it stand up to the immense quality and diversity of
styles that has existed in Morningside since the 1920's.
Even the best architects in the world get it wrong sometimes. Certainly this architect cannot ignore the
feedback without questioning the merit of this design? And most certainly, they are capable of coming
up with something that will gain the support of the neighbors and will better fit within this wonderful
Miami neighborhood.
In summary,
The Morningside Civic Association has taken a position opposing this home's design.
The MCA's Architectural Review Committee has taken a position opposing this home's design.
The adjacent neighbors to this property have a taken a position opposing this home's design.
All three entities/groups would like nothing more than to see a wonderful home built on this property
that will be enjoyed not only by the applicant, but by the Morningside neighborhood for many years to
come.
We hope our commentary is constructive and results in the re -evolution of this design with the HEP
Board having another chance to review.
Sincerely,
Architectural Review Committee
4