HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal LetterAMENDED APPEAL LETTER REGARDING
COA ISSUED FOR 571 NE 67TH STREET 2n
RESOLUTION HEPB 3-3166
February 5, 2018
Dear Hearing Boards Department,
This is a timely appeal' from the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board's ("HEPB")
issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness ("COA") at its January 2, 2018, hearing ("Hearing"),
item number HEPB 3 — 3166, allowing for new construction of a five -story, multi -family
building with a rooftop terrace at 571 NE 67th Street, in the Palm Grove Historic District. The
appeal is brought pursuant to Miami City Code Section 23-5(e). Review is de novo.
The HEPB issued the COA at the Hearing against the recommendation of its staff, and even
though board member Mr. Todd Tragash declared, "I just want to say fresh from [the] start this is
the most articulate staff report I've ever seen in opposition to any project that I've been familiar
with." Indeed, the HEPB staff found that the proposed project was not in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 23 of the City of Miami Code of Ordinances, the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards, Preservation Office Historic Guidelines, or Miami 21. See Analysis for
Special Certificate of Appropriateness (hereinafter cited as "A") at page 2. The staff found that it
would "adversely affect" the Palm Grove Historic District. Id. at page 7.
In addition, the HEPB deprived the aggrieved parties of their procedural due process rights and
departed from the essential requirements of law in granting the COA.
The aggrieved parties respectfully request that the Commissioners reverse the COA, and remand
this matter to the HEPB with instructions that the developer, Interstate Development LLP
("Interstate"), reconfigure its plans so that the proposed development is not --- as HEPB staff in
their analysis found it to be --- incompatible "in size, massing, and design elements" with the
Palm Grove Historic District. Id.
I. The Historic Palm Grove District: A Success Story in Historic Preservation
The subject property is located in the Historic Palm Grove District, which was created in 2009.
See A. at page 1. The paramount goal in creating the Palm Grove Historic District was to protect
the integrity of a residential neighborhood, almost completely comprised of modest one- and
two-story residential properties, from looming new construction and commercial intrusion. In
actively and freely electing to become an historic district, the homeowners explained:
The aggrieved parties filed an appeal letter on January17, 2018, even though the HEPB
resolution had not yet been rendered by the Miami City Clerk. At that time, the aggrieved parties
reserved the right to amend the appeal once the resolution was rendered. Because the resolution
was rendered on January 19, 2018, an appeal is due to be filed today. See Rule 2.514(a)(1), FIa.
R. Civ. P.
1
We, the residents of the Palm Grove neighborhood, treasure our
remaining historic structures and our unique sense of community.
We feel that our neighborhood is at a crossroads, where
unsympathetic development is starting to creep in and beautiful
historic house are being demolished or neglected.2
We are supportive of creating a historic district for the entire Palm
Grove neighborhood, to offer economic incentives for historic
homeowners, to encourage sensitive rehabilitation of our historic
buildings and to guide new development so that it is compatible
with the surrounding built environment.
The resulting district is the largest residential historic district in the City of Miami. It runs from
NE 58th Street north to the Little River at NE 77th Street Road, and from the FEC railroad east, to
the rear property lines of the buildings along Biscayne Boulevard. The MiMo Historic District,
the city's largest commercial historic district, abuts the Historic Palm Grove District immediately
to its east and encompasses both sides of Biscayne Boulevard from NE 50th Terrace to NE 77th
Street.
Reflecting the boom and bust history of real estate development in South Florida, the Palm
Grove Historic District has an array of eclectic architectural styles. On NE 67th Street, for
example, eight properties including the subject property are Post -War Ranch style multi -family
residences, four are Art Deco, three are Spanish Eclectic, and one is Colonial Revival. A. at page
6.
While the houses may be "eclectic," there are several unique and common characteristics
throughout. Most structures have generous setbacks. For example, on NE 67th Street, including
the current property, all of the properties have an average setback on their primary frontages of
19 feet. A. at p. 6. In addition, the properties are modest in scale. Even though some parcels are,
like the subject property, zoned T5 and other parcels are zoned T3, virtually all of the structures
are one- or two -stories. In addition, a consistently balanced percentage of each lot has been used
for construction. Much effort has been devoted to preserving this environment; of the sixteen
(16) residences on NE 67th Street, twelve (12) have been recognized as contributing structures.
Id.
Notably, the Palm Grove Historic District, despite its geographic scope, has an intimate quality
to it. For example, on NE 67th street, the district is only two blocks wide. One block, where the
subject property is located, has been developed with single- and multi -family dwellings. The
next, the last block of NE 67th Street is comprised of the lovely verdant grounds of Momingside
Elementary on the south and Mount Zion Evangelical Baptist Church of Morning Side on the
north, oases of well -tended grounds with ample shade from specimen trees.
2 The homeowners proved to have excellent foresight. Today, even though occupancy levels are
so low in Midtown that developers have started rent -to -own programs, the Palm Grove Historic
District is surrounded on all sides by proposed SAP's with combined commercial and residential
elements.
2
Finally, the historic designation has been a success and enhanced the neighborhood in several
distinct ways. Chapter 23 provides that historic designation shall "[p]rotect and enhance the
aesthetic and environmental character, diversity, and interest of neighborhoods ... [and] stabilize
and improve property values in neighborhoods and in the city as a whole." Miami City Code
Chapter 23, § 23-1(3)-(4).
The residents of the Historic Palm Grove District have worked diligently to promote the
neighborhood, and as a result have more than fulfilled the City's explicit goals. The district is
one of the rare areas of the City where improvements and protections achieved under historic
preservation have increased property values while preserving affordable housing — two elements
which are normally perceived as incompatible. Engineers live side by side with blue collar
workers, teachers, and young professionals; youthful families new to the neighborhood live side
by side with retirees who have called Palm Grove their home for decades. All of this was made
possible by the historic designation of the neighborhood in 2009.
II. The City's Historic Preservation Provisions Serve the Legitimate Legislative
Goal of Limiting Development for Historical Concerns, While Compensating
Property Owners for Resulting Restrictions on the Use of Their Land.
The City of Miami enacted a new zoning code, called Miami 21, in 2009, and it went into effect
in 2010. Miami 21 is intended in relevant part "to promote the public health, safety, morals,
convenience, comfort, amenities, prosperity, and general welfare of the City and to provide a
wholesome, serviceable, and attractive community. including without limitation protection of the
environment ... [and] historic preservation." Miami 21, § 2.1.1(b). Pursuant to Miami 21, the
more restrictive provisions of Chapter 23 of the City of Miami Code of Ordinances and Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for Historic Properties supersede Miami 21 in historic districts such as
the Palm Grove Historic District.
Chapter 23 provides that, as to new construction:
[t]he proposed work shall not adversely affect the ... relationship
and congruity with the subject structure and its neighboring
structures and surrounding, 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,
Chapter 23-5(c)(1).
3Under Miami 21, "where the requirements of this [code] vary with the applicable requirements
of any law, statute, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code, the most restrictive or that imposing the
higher standard shall govern." Miami 21, § 2.2.2. Under Chapter 23, "[w]here there are conflicts
between the requirements of the zoning ordinance or other codes covering the same subject, the
most restrictive requirements shall apply. Chapter 23, §23-6(g).
3
Under Chapter 23, "it is important that new construction projects fit in with the overall sense of
scale of the district, and [complement] its surroundings with appropriate massing and setbacks."
A. at page 5.
Miami 21 and Chapter 23 overlap, and the result is that what might be as -of -right in another
unprotected area of the city, it is not necessarily as -of -right under the protections of an historic
district. Accordingly, for example, Chapter 23 imposes regulations and additional height
requirements on properties such as the subject property that have been zoned T5-L. See Miami
21 at § 3.5.6.
However, in many cases property owners are compensated for the limitations imposed by
Chapter 23. Under historic designation, owners of property located in the Palm Grove Historic
District who have not developed their property to the full extent permitted by the less restrictive
zoning laws under Miami 21 are allowed to sell transfer development rights ("TDR's") as a
result of the height restriction imposed by Chapter 23.
The TDR program allows owners and developers to sell "air rights" --- development rights they
can't use because of historic designation --- to developers who want to build bigger buildings in
high-rise districts such as Midtown and Downtown. The revenue can amount to millions of
dollars for developers, and incentivizes purchasing and renovating structures that are protected
by historic designation.
The subject property is eligible for TDR's. Interstate's attorney repeatedly acknowledged this
benefit at the hearing. And Interstate's architect is fully conversant with the financial benefits of
TDR's. As he once explained: "I assisted the city in writing into [Miami 21] a transfer of air
rights. The new code allowed owners of historic -district properties to sell their air rights to
developers who wanted to build taller buildings" in other locations as compensation for
limitations on development rights.4
Property owners also are protected to the extent that they can seek compensation when their
investment -backed expectations have been impaired. However, such protection is irrelevant in
this case, because the developer had limited investment -backed expectations. As its attorney
conceded at the Hearing, a business entity with the same managers as Interstate was already the
owner of the adjacent parcel of land, located at 563 NE 67th Street, when Interstate bought 571
NE 67th Street. In developing 563, the developer had to go through the approval process to
improve the property and to obtain a certificate of use. Therefore, Interstate well understood that
development of other parcels in the Palm Grove Historic District would be subject to rigorous
review and limitations unique to the historic district pursuant to Chapter 23, and not just zoning
under Miami 21.
III. The Proposed Development Is Too Large and Different from Existing Structures
to Be Allowable Under Chapter 23 and Excessively Tall to Be Allowable Under
As quoted in "The Boulevard's Design Doctor," by John Dorschner Biscayne Times, January
2014. This article can be found at the architect's website, at www.dblewisarchitect.comlpress.
4
Either Chapter 23 or the More Permissive Provisions of Miami 21.
As HEPB member Dr. William Hopper said, "The project is good, but there is no way I could
support the intrusion of something so large in a historic district ...." HEPB member Mr. Todd
Tragash expounded further: "The case for contextualism, the case for scale, the case for height,
all these factors make this [in]compatible with the historic district." For these reasons, the
Commissioners should reverse the COA.
A. The Proposed Development Does Not Fit Within the Historic Residential Character
of the Palm Grove Residential District.
The subject property, with its more than double -the -average neighborhood height, near zero lot
lines, rooftop terrace, disproportional mass, and modern design (e.g., floor to ceiling windows,
rooftop terrace), would create a shocking disruption of the surrounding historic setting, resulting
in a maximum, adverse, impact on the Palm Grove Historic District.
Unlike the other structures on and. around NE 67th Street, which are one- or two -stories high, the
proposed development would be six stories high (five stories and a rooftop terrace). A. 6. Unlike
the other structures on NE 67th Street, which have an average front setback of 19 feet, the
proposed structure would have a 10-foot setback on the ground floor, and encroach an additional
3 feet with 7-foot setbacks from the second floor through the rooftop terrace. Id. Unlike the other
structures on the street, the proposed development would have no setback in the rear and
severely minimal setbacks on the sides. Also, unlike the other structures on the street, the
proposed development would use aluminum as a main material and floor to ceiling glass
windows. Id. 5
Not even the trees are safe from destruction. Environmental Resources objected to the removal
of two specimen live oak trees at the subject property, and noted that planting new live oaks in
the front of the property with a 10 foot setback would not give them adequate room to grow,
Attachment to Analysis, and the trees would encroach on the roadway.
In a nutshell, the proposed new construction is simply incompatible "in massing, scale, setbacks,
[and] use of materials" with the Palm Grove Historic District. A. at 6. The COA needs to be
reversed and the developer given the opportunity to reconfigure its plans for the property.
5 In defending the aesthetics of its design, Interstate argued that the HEPB should ignore the
historical significance of the variety of designs located in Palm Grove on the basis that the word
"eclectic" gives developers unbridled latitude to build whatever they want. Given the anomalous
size, massing, scale, style, and materials of the proposed new construction, Interstate's argument
is like saying that a watermelon belongs in a basket of four or five different varieties of apples,
simply because the watermelon and the apples are all fruit. Clearly, the different apples have
many shared attributes, while given its much larger size and dramatically different
characteristics, the watermelon would stick out like a sore thumb.
5
B. The Proposed Development Is Too Tall
The COA allows the developer to build up to 55 feet,6 at least double the height of a majority of
the surrounding Palm Grove neighborhood buildings, including the historic two-story building to
the immediate west of the subject property. It also will be substantially taller than the buildings
directly adjacent in the MiMo Historic District, where heights are capped at 35 feet.
The drastic transition in height between historic structures in both the Palm Grove and MiMo
Historic Districts is completely contrary both to established principles of historic preservation
and, even, the more permissive provisions under Miami 21. As stated before, the surrounding
Palm Grove structures are one- and two-story buildings and the MiMo district buildings are no
taller than 35 feet.
Thus, in addition to being incompatible in its size, massing, and design elements, the proposed
structure would also be incompatible because of its excessive height. The permitted 55-foot
height violates both Chapter 23 and Miami 21, and threatens to marginalize not just the Historic
Palm Grove District, but the adjacent MiMo Historic District as well.
i. The Proposed Development Violates Reasonable Height Restrictions Imposed by
Chapter 23.
The HEPB has allowed the developer to build up to 55 feet, at least double the height of a
majority of the surrounding Historic Palm Grove District buildings, including the historic two-
story building to the immediate west of the subject property.
As noted above, Chapter 23 imposes regulations and additional height requirements on
properties zoned T5-L. See Miami 21, § 3.5.6. Both HEPB staff 7 and the HEPB itself evinced
some confusion about what is permitted on the subject property because it is zoned T5-L.
Chapter 23 leaves no room for confusion. Not only are the zoning provisions explicit, but it is
also clear that the legislative intent was to limit the height of buildings to be consistent with the
given historic districts in which they are located. Additionally, the financial impact to the
developer, if any, is limited because the subject property is eligible for the aforementioned
TDR's. See Interstate's attorney's discussion of TDR's at the Hearing, including his aim of
preserving the TDR's on the adjacent property. See also discussion supra.
6 One difficulty with the COA that was issued is that it is based on a submittal set that allows for
a maximum height of 71 feet. Although the COA provides that the development shall not exceed
55 feet, upon information and belief, no such plans have been submitted. Thus, there is no clarity
about what the heights are, other than that they are --- at either 55 feet or 71 feet --- too high for
the neighborhood.
7 While we agree with the Analysis in other respects, we do not agree that, as claimed by the
staff, height restrictions cannot be imposed. See A at page 6. As was discussed supra, not only
can height limitations be imposed, but there are mechanisms in place to compensate landowners
for this restriction on development.
6
It is axiomatic that being in the historic district resulted in height restrictions of the structure,
because the TDR's for the subject property are available.
ii. The Proposed Development Violates Miami 21 Design Principles.
The 55-foot height allowance is not compatible with the adjacent MiMo Historic District, which
has a 35-foot height limit.
Under Miami 21, T5 zoning was designed for folios located at the head of a commercial block,
and not the middle of a residential block, as is the case here, where the subject property is four
folios west of Biscayne Boulevard.8
In addition, Miami 21 requires transitions in height from commercial or mixed -use high -density
boulevards to adjacent purely residential neighborhoods such as the Historic Palm Grove
District. Miami 21 provides, "There are also regulations ensuring that transitions occur between
transects, and if there are situations where a T5 would be adjacent to (or abut) a T3 or T4, that
additional transitions and setbacks occur creating a natural separation between buildings of
incrementing capacity." See Miami 21 at http://www.miami21.org/T5_Specific.asp.
Not only would the 55-foot new construction marginalize the historic nature of Palm Grove, but
it would create an unharmonious transition from the adjacent MiMo District. Again, construction
in MiMo is capped at 35 feet. The much taller proposed new construction adjacent to MiMo will
constitute an incongruous and historically inappropriate background to the Palm Grove and
MiMo districts where none currently exists.
Moreover, if this COA is not reversed, it will pave the way for approximately fourteen blocks of
the type of construction that Miami 21 was designed to prevent, creating developments that will
be small on Biscayne, significantly taller for one to three folios, and then smaller once again in
the Palm Grove Historic District: a small -large -small pattern that undermines Miami 21's goal of
having harmonious and logical transitions between different transects.
ii. The Proposed Development Violates the Legislative Intent Behind the
Creation of the Palen Grove Historic District.
This outsized sort of project was exactly the type of development that Palm Grove residents
sought to prevent when they went through the historic designation process.
As HEPB member Mr. David A. Freedman noted at the Hearing, "[Members of this board who
were on this board in 2009 sat through interminable meetings often until midnight to go through
8 Palm Grove residents have long sought to correct this anomaly. But they understood that thee
would be height limitations for folios located in the historic district, zoning designations
notwithstanding. The zoning, such as T5-L, would only be relevant in terms of determining
allowable uses.
9 Notably, although this project provides for a 55-foot height limit, construction under T5 can be
significantly higher.
7
hundreds of properties in Palm Grove to give birth to the district. The constant mantra of the
residents was 'we want to protect our neighborhood from the incursion of more tall buildings."'
IV. The COA Should Have Been Denied Because the Proposed Development Will
Harm the District Without Providing Positive Externalities.
Again, historic designation has been a success in Palm Grove. The proposed development would
undermine that success while not offering the City or the neighborhood any positive
externalities; there simply is no "upside to the residents."
As Mayor Suarez once noted, affordable single-family homes are an endangered species in
Miami. Likewise, as the mayor and Commissioners Hardemon, Gort, and Russell have expressly
worried, the city has a critical need for affordable housing.10 The proposed development would
address neither of these needs and would in fact most likely encroach on the economic viability
of the surrounding properties.
The structure that Interstate wishes to demolish is a multi -family building with six rental units. It
is in good condition, according to the 40/50-year certification. A. at 5. With modest rents, it
typifies the affordable housing that remains in the Historic Palm Grove District, which is located
in one of only 10 of the county's 80 zip codes were a family with a median household income of
$42,926 can afford to live.' 1
The new structure threatens this sensitive balance between preservation and affordable housing.
Interstate wishes to replace this structure with a multi -family building of five significantly larger
loft units designed for the "high end rental professional." Again: the proposed building would be
five stories with a rooftop terrace. The setback on the primary frontage would be ten feet on the
ground floor and seven feet on the remaining floors. There would be zero setback in the rear of
10 "Miami is famously unrentable for average workers — 82% of households cannot afford to
own, and 60% are rent -burdened. Quoting from This Real Estate Attorney Will Likely Be Miami's
Next Mayor, Deirdra Funcheon, Bisnow South Florida, October 11, 2017 (in which then -future
mayor Francis Suarez acknowledged the housing crisis).
In response, Commissioner Keon Hardemon negotiated for $100 million of the Miami Forever
general obligation bond to be devoted to affordable housing. See, e.g., Miami has a cost of living
problem. Now, voters will decide on $100Mfor housing aid, David Smiley, Miami Herald, October
10, 2017. It seems that Miamians agreed with Commissioner Hardemon; in November, 56.8% of
voters supported the bond.
The existing structure is just the sort of affordable housing that Commissioner Hardemon seeks
to protect. He explained, "We have to find a way to keep the housing affordable to protect it and
the way you do that is by reinvesting into existing housing. You make those resilient. You bring
them to code." Id.
11 Locked out of boom, buyers hunt for new housing hot spots by Nicholas Nehamas, Miami
Herald, September 18, 2017.
8
the property, where the two specimen live oaks are now located, and severely minimal setbacks
on the sides.
This is the kind of legitimately -feared "unsympathetic development" that would make the district
significantly more expensive to rent a home in, would facilitate even more intrusive development
that would negatively impact the neighborhood's historic designation, and would make the
Historic Palm Grove District a less appealing place to live or to own property for current
residents. As HEPB member Mr. Todd Tragash explained, "I have a big problem with this . , .
[The] precedent that this would set 1 think is going to really negatively impact the historic
district."
V. The COA Was Improperly Granted on Procedural Grounds.
At the hearing, members of the HEPB negotiated with Interstate regarding the adjacent building
located at 563 NE 67th Street, which is owned by Interstate's principals under a different
business entity. See discussion supra. The result was that the HEPB agreed to allow Interstate to
develop 571 NE 67th Street with only minimal changes, in exchange for Interstate's making
concessions regarding the parcel at 563. This was improper for several reasons.
It denied the aggrieved parties procedural due process. No prior notice was given that review of
the COA would entail negotiations regarding 563 NE 67th Street. Nor was adequate notice given
for what amounted to a change in zoning. Finally, because the negotiations were conducted after
the public's right to comment had closed, aggrieved parties had difficulty responding to the
proposals, and only managed to do so in a very limited manner. In fact, several residents who
spoke during the comments portion had actually left and were not present or aware of the
subsequent negotiation of concessions.
The HEPB exceeded its authority by, essentially, redesigning the project itself when it repeatedly
telegraphed its own ideas to Interstate, coaching Interstate to come up with self-imposed
conditions or promises regarding 563 NE 67th Street in order to be able to develop 571 NE 67th
Street. The HEPB also exceeded its authority by ignoring "the guidelines set forth in section 23-
5(c), as well as the general purpose and intent of [Chapter 23] and any specific guidelines
officially adopted for the ... historic district ...." Chapter 23, § 23-5(b).
This transactional approach resulted in no tangible benefit to the neighborhood, because
Interstate's concessions regarding 563 only involved acknowledging restrictions that already
existed. As the COA states, "[Interstate's] voluntarily proffered covenant will not in any way
abrogate the HEPB Order of 2015 Certificate of Appropriateness for that site at 563 NE 67th
Street, and will not limit that property's right to seek TDRs in accordance with an existing law."
The result is that the COA is deficient on its face as being unduly vague because it creates
uncertainty. For example, it expressly "does not grant any deviations that may be found as part of
the building permit zoning review," when in fact as acknowledged by its attorney, Interstate will
have to seek variances for parking and setbacks. Thus, while it seems to prohibit additional
changes, additional changes will have to be made. There is no certainty as to what the final plans
will be.
9
VI. The Historic Palm Grove District Supports Reasonable Development.
The Historic Palm Grove District is not adverse to any and all proposed new projects. To the
contrary, the Palm Grove Neighborhood Association ("Association") acknowledges that the
district can benefit from sympathetic infill development, and understands the desirability of new
development within its historic district. Accordingly, the Association consistently works with
developers who seek to build in the district. Recently, the Association helped two developments
of multi -family townhomes. They have also worked, in the not too distant past, with Interstate's
architect on other projects in Palm Grove.
Unfortunately, in this instance, and despite the architect's past working relationship with the
Association, Interstate did not consult with the district's representatives before seeking its
Certificate of Appropriateness. Had Interstate done so, it is conceivable that the aggrieved parties
would not be before you today. Instead, regrettably, they are obliged to now seek relief from a
proposed development that is completely incompatible with the Historic Palm Grove District.
VII. Request for Relief.
For the foregoing reasons, the aggrieved parties respectfully request that the City Commissioners
reverse the COA and remand this matter to the HEPB with instructions that Interstate must
modify its development plans to be compliant with governing design guidelines, before obtaining
a new COA.
This Appeal Is Requested by the Following Aggrieved Parties
1. The Palm Grove Neighborhood Association, which serves the Palm Grove Historic
District, is an aggrieved party because the COA would deleteriously affect the
composition of the historic district. The officers, pursuant to Board guidelines, voted
unanimously to retain attorney Lowell Kuvin and to bring this appeal.
2. Bob Powers is a resident of Miami -Dade County and lives in the Palm Grove Historic
District at 565 NE 66th Street, Apartment 2, Miami, Florida 33138. Mr. Powers is an
aggrieved party as the owner of a nearby residential property that will be eclipsed by the
proposed construction on the subject property. He spoke at the January 2, 2018 hearing.
3. Alisa Cepeda is a resident of Miami -Dade County and lives in the Palm Grove Historic
District at 531 NE 76th Street, Miami, Florida 33138. Ms. Cepeda is an aggrieved party as
the owner of a home that is close to folios that are currently, like the subject property,
zoned T5-L. She spoke at the January 2, 2018 hearing.
4. The MiMo Biscayne Association, which serves the MiMo Historic District, is an
aggrieved party because the development as currently proposed is directly adjacent to and
negatively affects the MiMo Historic District. The officers, pursuant to Board guidelines,
voted in 2017 to oppose the development, and then -president Debby Stander spoke in
opposition at the December 2017 and January 2, 2018 hearings. At its most recent
meeting. MiMo's new board voted to continue to oppose the development and to
participate as an aggrieved party.
10
,A47
eighborhood Association
resident
Alisa Cepeda
Individual
MiMo Biscayne association Board
Alisa Cepeda, President
11
/ T/2018
Z/ 5-12018
2/ 5 /2018
2-/ 6/2018
a,13
APPEAL LETTER REGARDING COA ISSUED FOR 571 NE 67TH STREET 3 c, RP ' i`
RESOLUTION HEPB "
January 17, 2018,
Dear Hearing Boards Department,
This is a timely appeal' from the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board's issuance of a
Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) at the January 2, 2018, item number HEPB 3 — 3166,
allowing for new construction of a five -story, multi -family building at 571 NE 67th Street, in the
Palm Grove Historic District. The appeal is brought pursuant to Miami City Code Section 23-
5(e). Review is de novo.
The HEPB issued the COA at its January 2, 2018 hearing ("Hearing") against the
recommendation of staff, and even though board member Mr. Todd Tragash declared, "I just
want to say fresh from [the] start this is the most articulate staff report I've ever seen in
opposition to any project that I've been familiar with." Transcript of Hearing (hereinafter cited as
"2 ") at page 17. Indeed, the HEPB staff found that the proposed project was not in accordance
with the Comprehensive PIan, Chapter 23 of the City of Miami Code of Ordinances, Secretary of
the Interior Standards, Preservation Office Historic Guidelines, or Miami 21. See Analysis for
Special Certificate of Appropriateness (hereinafter cited as "A") at page 2. The staff found that it
would "adversely affect" the Palm Grove Historic District. Id. at page 7.
The appellants respectfully req uest that this matter be remanded to the HEP Board with
instructions that the COA be rescinded until the developer reconfigures its plans so that the
proposed development is no longer --- as HEP Board staff in their analysis found it to be ---
incompatible "in size, massing, and design elements" with the Palm Grove Historic District. Id.
I. The Historic Palm Grove District
The subject property is located in the Historic Palm Grove District, which was created in 2009.
See A at page 1. The paramount goal in creating the Palm Grove Historic District was to protect a
neighborhood almost completely comprised of modest one- and two-story residential properties
from looming new construction and commercial intrusion. The petitioners seeking historic
designation stated:
We, the residents of the Palm Grove neighborhood, treasure our remaining historic
structures and our unique sense of community. We feel that our neighborhood is at a
crossroads, where unsympathetic development is starting to creep in and beautiful
historic house are being demolished or neglected.
2 We are filing this appeal letter in an abundance of caution in order to meet stated hearing
guidelines that "an appeal be filed no later than 15 days from the date of the hearing." However,
as of the date of this filing the HEP Board Resolution has not been issued/rendered by the Miami
City Clerk. Appellants reserve the right to amend this appeal letter once the decision granting the
COA has actually been certified and rendered, in order to reflect the actual language.
i
We are supportive of creating a historic district for the entire Palm Grove neighborhood,
to offer economic incentives for historic homeowners, to encourage sensitive
rehabilitation of our historic buildings and to guide new development so that it is
compatible with the surrounding built environment.2
The resulting district is the largest residential historic district in the City of Miami. It runs from
58th Street north to Little River, and from the FEC railroad east, to the rear property lines of the
buildings lining Biscayne Boulevard. The MiMo Historic District, the city's largest commercial
historic district, is immediately to its east.
The Palm Grove Historic District has an array of eclectic architectural styles, reflecting the boom
and bust history of real estate development in south Florida. On 67th Street, for example, eight
properties including the subject property are Post -War Ranch style multi -family residences, four
are Art Deco, three are Spanish Eclectic, and one is Colonial Revival. Analysis at page 6.
The developer argued that the HEP Board should ignore the historical significance of the variety
of designs on the basis that the word "eclectic" gives developers complete latitude to build
whatever they want. E.g., T at page 1.3 Given the anomalous size, massing, scale, style, and
materials of the proposed new construction, the developer's argument is like saying that a
pineapple belongs in a basket of four or five different varieties of apples, simply because they are
all fruit. Clearly, the different apples have many shared attributes, while given its much larger
size and dramatically different characteristics, the pineapple would stick out like a sore thumb.
And, indeed, while the houses may be "eclectic," there are unifying characteristics throughout.
Most structures have generous setbacks.. For example, on 67th Street, including the current
property, all of the properties have an average setback on their primary frontages of 19 feet. A at
p. 6. In addition, the properties are modest in scale, being only one- or two -stories, and using a
balanced percentage of the lots for construction. Much work has been devoted to preserving this
environment; of the sixteen (16) residences on 67th Street, twelve (12) were designated as
contributing structures. Id. It is agreed that the proposed five story building will be a non-
contributing structure.
In addition, the Palm Grove Historic District, despite its geographic scope, has an intimate
quality to it. For example, on 67th street, the district is only two blocks wide. One block, where
the subject property is located, has been developed with single- and multi -family dwellings. The
next, last block of 67th Street is comprised of the lovely verdant grounds of Morningside
2 Palm Grove residents testified, generally,
attached as an exhibit to this concise statem
3 The developer did not ignore local design
elements, even though the subject property
district.
to their goal at the hearing. A sample petition is
ent.
elements entirely, repeatedly citing to MiMo design
most patently is not located in this commercial
2
Elementary on the south and Mount Zion Evangelical Baptist Church of Morning Side on the
north, oases of well -tended grounds with ample shade from specimen trees.4
Allowing the structure approved as appropriate by the HEP Board will upset the character of the
Palm Grove Historic District because of not only its design (floor to ceiling windows, rooftop
terrace) but by its near zero lot lines and its massive size in comparison to the homes within a
three block radius.
For these stated reasons, the Commission should revoke the COA issued by the HEP Board and
allow the developer to re -design and re -size the proposed structure.
II. The COA should have been denied because the proposed development violates
legislative intent, in which historic districts are entitled to special protections.
In historic districts such as the Palm Grove Historic District, the more restrictive provisions of
Chapter 23 of the City of Miami Code of Ordinances and Secretary of the Interior Standards for
Historic Properties supersede Miami 21.5
Chapter 23 provides that, as to new construction:
The proposed work shall not adversely affect the ... relationship and congruity with the
subject structure and its neighboring structures and surrounding, 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.
Chapter 23-5(c)(1)(emphasis added)
The result is that what might be as -of -right in another, unprotected area of the city, is not
necessarily as -of -right under the protections of an historic district. Accordingly, for example,
Chapter 23 imposes regulations and additional height requirements on properties zoned TS-L.
See Miami21 at 3.5.6
"[It] is important that new construction projects fit in with the overall sense of scale of the
district, and [complements] its surroundings with appropriate massing and setbacks" A at page
5. The proposed development violates Chapter 23. As Mr. Todd Tragash stated at the Hearing,
"The case for contextualism, the case for scale, the case for height, all these factors make this
[in]compatible with the historic district." T at page 20(emphasis added).
4 It should be noted that Environmental Resources objected to the removal of two specimen live
oak trees at the subject property, and noted that planting new live oaks in the front of the
property would not give them adequate room to grow, Attachment to Analysis.
5Under Miami 21, "where the requirements of this [code] vary with the applicable requirements
of any law, statute, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code, the most restrictive or that imposing the
higher standard shall govern." Miami 21, § 2.2.2.
3
A. The Proposed Development Does Not Fit Within the Historic Residential Character
of the Palm Grove Residential District.
Multi -family dwellings in the Palm Grove Historic District almost universally reflect the
modest, compact one and two-story dwellings built during the period of significance of the
neighborhood. Per established preservation guidelines, new construction within historic districts
must be differentiated from existing historic structures but must also be designed to have a
minimal, complementary, impact on the surrounding historic setting. The subject property, with
its more than double -the -average neighborhood height, near zero lot Iines, rooftop terrace,
disproportional mass, and modern design, creates a shocking disruption of the surrounding
historic setting, resulting in a maximum, adverse, impact on the Palm Grove Historic District.
The average street setback within the Palm Grove area in question is 19 feet. The single-
family homes and modest two-story apartment buildings lining the block are generally fenced off
from the street, with small front yards. The overall pattern is consistent and reflective of
setbacks in the period of significance. However, the proposed structure's set backs are
significantly less than the neighborhood average which cause the design to be disruptive of the
surrounding historic nature of the district.
The new construction calls for reducing the principal front setback to ten feet, the minimum
allowed by Miami 21, and close to half the average of the existing historic structures. Setbacks
for floors two through five and the rooftop terrace would encroach on the primary frontage by an
additional three feet. These minimal setbacks are allowable under contemporary zoning but not
characteristic of the period of historic significance, only serve to further accentuate the lack of
any relationship between the subject property and its historic setting, and thus violate Chapter 23,
which is controlling.
In a nutshell, the proposed new construction is simply incompatible "in size, massing, and
design elements" with the Palm Grove Historic District. As Chair Dr. William Hopper said,
"There's no way I could support the intrusion of something so large in a historic district. The
project is good, but there is no way I could support the intrusion of something so large in a
historic district ... "Tat page 30.
B. The Proposed Development Violates Reasonable Height Restrictions
The proposed construction, in addition to ignoring context and scale, is excessive in height.
The proposed development is not harmonious with the Palm Grove Historic District. At the new
structure's lowest point, the building will be 55 feet, at least double the height of a majority of
the surrounding Palm Grove neighborhood buildings, including the historic two-story building to
the immediate west of the subject property. Such a drastic transition in height between a historic
structure or historic setting, and new infill construction, runs completely contrary to established
principles of historic preservation.
Nor would the new construction create a harmonious transition from adjacent MiMo District.
The height of the East elevation of the proposed new construction which abuts MiMo is 70 feet
4
from ground level to the rooftop terrace parapet. This is double the currently allowable height
for new construction within MiMo, which is capped at 35 feet. The much taller proposed new
construction adjacent to MiMo would constitute an incongruous and historically inappropriate
background to the MiMo district. Further, such an abrupt transition in building height between
MiMo and Palm Grove would create an incongruous and historically inappropriate impact on the
two historic districts, where none currently exists.
This was the very vulnerability that Palm Grove residents sought to prevent when they went
through the historic designation process. As HEP Board member Mr. David A. Freedman noted
at the Hearing, "[M]einbers of this board who were on this board in 2009 sat through
interminable meetings often until midnight to go through hundreds of properties in Palm Grove
to give birth to the district. The constant mantra of the residents was 'we want to protect our
neighborhood from the incursion of more tall buildings.'" T at page 33.
Both HEP Board staff and the HEP Board itself evinced some confusion about what is permitted
on the subject property because it is zoned T5-L.7 First of all, as noted above, Chapter 23
imposes regulations and additional height requirements on properties zoned T5-L. See Miami 21,
§ 3.5.6.
In addition, it is clear that the legislative intent was to limit height to be consistent with the
historic district, because the subject property is eligible for transfer development rights
("TDR's"). As Mr. Lewis, who is the developer's architect on the subject property, explained: "I
assisted the city in writing into [Miami 21] a transfer of air rights. The new code allowed owners
of historic -district properties to sell their air rights to developers who wanted to build taller
buildings" in other locations as compensation for limitations on development rights. As quoted
in "The Boulevard's Design Doctor," Biscayne Times, January 2014, link available at
https:!/wv.dblewisarchitect.com%press
6 While we agree with the Analysis in other respects, we do not agree that, as claimed by the
staff, height restrictions cannot be imposed. See A at page 6. As will be discussed infra, not only
can height limitations be imposed, but there are mechanisms in place to compensate landowners
for this restriction on development.
7 There was further confusion when the developer failed to fully disclose that the folio to the
west of the subject property had once had more restrictions on its use. E.g., T at page 11.
In fact, the developer knows better. A corporation managed by the same individuals who manage
the development of the subject property first purchased the folio at 563 NE 67th Street ("563").
563 has a contributing structure. The developer sought support from the Palm Grove Historic
Association, in order to allow it to renovate the structure to create a professional doctor's office.
Because the structure on 563 is contributing, the Association did not contemplate height issues,
and only supported this specific effort at adaptive reuse. T. at page 21, et seq.
It might be noted that the developer told the HEP Board that 563 is currently being operated as a
counseling center. T. at page 19. In fact, 563 is still under construction and is not yet functioning
as any type of commercial business.
5
III. The COA should have been denied because the proposed development will harm
the district
Historic designation has been a success in Palm Grove. The Historic Palm Grove District is one
of the rare areas of the City of Miami where improvements and protections achieved under
historic preservation have increased property values while preserving affordable housing — two
elements which are normally perceived as incompatible. Engineers live side by side with blue
collar workers, teachers, and young professionals; youthful families new to the neighborhood
live side by side with retirees who have lived in Palm Grove their entire lives. All of this was
made possible by the historical designation of the neighborhood in 2009.
The structure that the developer wishes to demolish is a multi -family building with six rental
units. It is in good condition, according to the 40/50-year certification. With modest rents, it
typifies the affordable housing that remains in the Historic Palm Grove District,8 which is
located in one of onlyl0 of the county's 80 zip codes were a family with a median household
income of $4,926 can live. Locked out of boom, buyers hunt for new housing hot spots by
Nicholas Nehamas, The Miami Herald, September 18, 2017. See at Link.
The new structure threatens this sensitive balance between preservation and affordable housing.
The developer wishes to replace this structure with a multi -family building of five significantly
larger units designed for the "high end rental professional." T at page 24. The proposed building
would be five stories with a rooftop terrace. The setback on the primary frontage would be ten
feet on the ground floor and seven feet on the remaining floors. There would be zero setback in
the rear of the property, where two specimen live oaks are located. This is the kind of
8 It also helps to address the City of Miami's very real affordable housing crisis. "Miami is
famously unrentable for average workers -- 82% of households cannot afford to own, and 60%
are rent -burdened. Quoting from This Real Estate Attorney Will Likely Be Miami's Next Mayor,
Deirdra Funcheon, Biscayne Times, October 11, 2017, https://www.bisnow.com/south-
ilorida/news/state-of-market/francis-suarez-miami-real-estate-mayor-80148 (in which then future
mayor Francis Suarez acknowledged the housing crisis).
In response, Commissioner Keon Hardemon negotiated for $100 million of the Miami Forever
general obligation bond to be devoted to affordable housing. See, e.g., Miami has a cost of living
problem. Now, voters will decide on $100Mfor housing aid, David Smiley, Miami Herald, October
10, 2018 https://www.google.com/anip/amp.rniamiherald.corn/newsOlocal/community/miami-
dade/artiele178126006.httnl It seems that Miamians agreed with Commissioner Hardemon; in
November, roughly 55% of voters supported the bond.
The existing structure is just the sort of affordable housing that Commissioner Hardemon seeks
to protect. He explained, "We have to find a way to keep the housing affordable to protect it and
the way you do that is by reinvesting into existing housing. You make those resilient. You bring
them to code." Id
6
legitimately -feared "unsympathetic development" that would make the district significantly more
expensive to rent a home in, would facilitate more unsympathetic development which would
negatively impact the neighborhood's historic designation, and make the Historic Palm Grove
District a less appealing place to live or to own property for current residents. As stated, the new
non-contributing five -storied building contribute, significantly, to the further intrusion of
oversized non-contributing structures by developers who will indisputably argue that they too
should receive COA's from the HEP Board for similar structures.
This Appeal Is Requested by the Following Aggrieved Parties
The Palm Grove Historic Preservation Board, which serves the Palm Grove Historic
District, is an aggrieved party because the COA would deleteriously affect the
composition of the historic district. The officers, pursuant to Board guidelines, voted
unanimously to retain attorney Lowell Kuvin and to bring this appeal.
2. Bob Powers is a resident of Miami -Dade County and lives in the Palm Grove Historic
District at 565 NE 66th Street, Apartment 2, Miami, Florida 33138. Mr. Powers is an
aggrieved party as the owner of a nearby residential property that will be eclipsed by the
proposed construction on the subject property. He spoke at the January 2, 2018 hearing.
3. Alisa Cepeda is a resident of Miami -Dade County and lives in the Palm Grove Historic
District at 531 NE 76th Street, Miami, Florida 33138. Ms. Cepeda is an aggrieved party as
the owner of a home that is close to folios that are currently, like the subject property,
one T5-L. She spoke at the January 2, 2018 hearing.
ro e storic Preservation Board
s, C air
ers
isa ep da
7
l 0/2018
/1/2018
I /) ?/2018
City c l i131
Panni ; Zoning Department
Histor c Preservation Office
ANALYSIS FOR A
SPECIAL CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
APPLICANT: Dean Lewis FILE ID: 3166
PROJECT ADDRESS: 571 NE 67 ST ZIP: 33138
NET OFFICE: Upper Eastside HEARING DATE: 12/5/2017
COMMISSION DISTRICT: District 5 (Keon Hardemon) ITEM: HEPB.1
STATUS: Non -Contributing TDRs: Check
A, GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Pursuant to Section 23-6.2(4)(h) of the City Code of Ordinances, as amended, the
Applicant is requesting a Special Certificate of Appropriateness (SCOA) to permit the demolition
of a non-contributing structure and the new construction of a five story mufti -family residence, with a
rooftop terrace, on a parcel zoned T5-L "Urban Center Transect Zone",
The subject property is located within the Palm Grove Historic District, Momingside amended sub-
division, and the Upper Eastside NET area. The site is approximately located on Northeast 67 Street
between Biscayne Boulevard and Northeast 5 Avenue.
Folio: 0132180230660
Lot Size: Approximately 7,200 sq. ft.
B. BACKGROUND:
On February 24, 1925, the City Council of Miami, pursuant to Ordinance No. 348, approved the
Momingside amended sub -division in Section 18, Township 53, Range 42 in the City of Miami
establishing block 4 lot 27 also known as 571 Northeast 67 Street.
On February 3, 2009, the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board, pursuant to Resolution
No, HEPB-R-2009-12, designated the subject property located at 571 Northeast 67 Street, as part
of the Palm Grove Historic District,
V. Toranzo
11/17/2017
Revised
File No. 3166
Page 1 of 8
On November 7, 2017, the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board, pursant to Section,23-
6.2(4)(h) of the City Code of Ordinances, as amended, reviewed this request for a Special
Certificate of Appropriateness (SCOA), and letters of support, attached hereto as Attachement
"A", that Applicant submitted as part of the record. After consideration, the Board voted 7 to 0 in favor
of a continuance.
As of November 17, 2017, the Applicant has not submitted updated plans for review by Preservation
Staff,
As of November 17, 2017, the Preservation Office has received three letters in opposition to the
proposed plans, attached hereto, as attachment "B"
C. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The subject property is part of a designated historic district, Pursuant to Goal LU-2, 2.3 and 2.4 of
the Miami Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan the City will preserve and protect the heritage of the
City of Miami through the identification, evaluation rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, restoration and
public awareness of Miami's historic and archeological resources.
The Applicant's request for the demolition of a non-contributing structure and new construction of a
five story multi -family building, with a roof top terrace, is not in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plan, Chapter 23 of the City of Miami Code of Ordinances, the Secretary of Interior Standards, the
Preservation Office Historic Design Guidelines and Miami 21 Code.
V. Toranzo
11/17/2017
Revised
File No. 3166
Page 2 of 8
D. PHOTOS:
Historic Photo:
Current Photo:
V. Toranzo
11/17/2017
Revised
Fife No. 3166
Page 3 of 8
Proposed Design:
E. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS:
ZONING
Subject Property
T5-L: Urban Center Transect Zone
(Palm Grove Historic District)
Surrounding Properties
NORTH: T5-L: Urban Center Transect Zone
(Palm Grove Historic District)
SOUTH: TS L: Urban Center Transect Zone
(Palm Grove Historic District)
EAST: T5-L: Urban Center Transect Zone
(MiMo/BiBo Historic District)
WEST: T5-L: Urban Center Transect Zone
(Palm Grove Historic District)
V. Toranzo
11/17/2017
Revised
FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION
Restricted Commercial
Maximum of 65 D.U. per acre
Restricted Commercial
Maximum of 65 D,U, per acre
Restricted Commercial
Maximum of 65 D.U. per acre
Restricted Commercial
Maximum of 65 D.U. per acre
Restricted Commercial
Maximum of 65 D.U. per acre
File No, 3166
Page 4 of 8
F. ANALYSIS:
The following is a review of the request pursuant to Section 23-6.2(4) of the City Code of Ordinances,
the Preservation Office Historic Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards.
Analysis: The applicant is requesting a Special Certificate of Appropriateness to permit the demolition
of a non-contributing structure and new construction of a five -story multi -family residence,
with a rooftop terrace, located at approximately 571 Northeast 67 Street, within the Palm
Grove Historic District.
V. Toranzo
11/17/2017
Revised
Built in 1957, the one-story multi -family non-contributing structure has not been altered, and
according to the 40/50 year certification, which is included in the submittal packet, the subject
property is in good condition. The Applicant is requesting that a Certificate of
Appropriateness be issued for its demolition. Preservation staff is hesitant in supporting
demolition, as the building is similar to approximately 10 contributing structures within the
Palm Grove Historic District that are also Post -War Ranch style multi -family residences,
attached hereto as Attachment'`C"
The Applicant is proposing the new construction of an International style five -story multi-
family residence. According to Virginia and Lee McAlester, in their publication A Field Guide
to American Houses, the style is characterized by floor -to -ceiling windows, large sections of
blank windowless walls, flat roofs, asymmetrical facades, and smooth unornamented wall
surfaces.
The south and west elevations are storefront systems, which is characteristic of the style as
it meets the requirement of floor -to -ceiling windows. The proposed windows on the east and
north facades are elongated vertical fixed glass windows. All propsed windows and doors
intend to have anodized aluminum frames,
It can be argued that the east and north elevations contain large sections of blank
windowless walls, While there are windows, there are large portions of walls that contain no
openings. The use of louvers serves a functional purpose, as well as, breaking up the
portions of the waits that are windowless.
The proposed construction meets the rest of the characteristics of the International style.
The roofs are flat which naturally lends itself to a rooftop terrace. All facades are
asymmetrical and incorporate the use of landscaping of the upper floors visible from the
southern and eastern facades. And finally, all stucco walls lack the ornamentation that is
characteristic of other styles.
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.
File No. 3166
Page 5 of 8
V. Toranzo
11/17/2017
Revised
The proposed new construction of a five -story multi -family residence, with a rooftop terrace,
is not complimentary to its surroundings in regards to massing, scale, setbacks, use of
materials, and lacks architectural features that are common in the surroundings.
Massing and scale:
The subject parcel is zoned T5-t- which allows for a building with a maximum height of five
stories. This allowable height contributes to the inconsistency of massing and scale.
Because height restrictions cannot be imposed, Preservation Staff recommends the issue
of massing and scale be resolved by making use of another style and architectural elements
that are characteristic of the neighborhood as it will assist in deflecting from the height
discrepancy between historic and new construction.
Should the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board approve the Special Certificate
of Appropriateness, Preservation staff recommends removal of the rooftop terrace as it adds
more height to the building and contributes to the incompatible massing and scale of the
proposed construction with the historic properties along 67 Street.
Setbacks:
Staff conducted a review of the setbacks along Northeast 67 Street between Biscayne
Boulevard and Northeast 5 Avenue, attached hereto as Attachment D. There are currently
16 residences, including the non-contributing multi -family residence proposed for demolition,
with their primary frontage along Northeast 67 Street. The average setback is approximately
19ft,
The proposed new construction has a setback of 10 ft. on the first floor and a setback of 7
ft. on floors 2 through 5 and the rooftop terrace. The setback for this project is approximately
half of the average of the current setbacks. A more appropriate setback for this parcel would
be 15 ft. This would make the proposed construction compatible with the five contributing
structures that surrounds it.
Architectural features and materials:
Staff conducted a review of the architectural styles along Northeast 67 Street between
Biscayne Boulevard and Northeast 5 Avenue, attached hereto as Attachment "E", There are
currently 16 residences, including the non-contributing multi -family residence proposed for
demolition. Eight of the properties, half of which are contributing, are Post -War Ranch style
multi -family residences, Four of the properties, all of which are contributing, are Art Deco in
style. Three of the buildings, all of which are contributing structures, are Spanish Eclectic.
And finally.. the last is a contributing structure in the Colonial Revival style.
The proposed new construction is in the Internationat style and relies heavily upon
aluminum, As demonstrated, within close proximity, there are no structures of a similar style
or making use of aluminum as a main material. As previously mentioned, the Venice Charter
and the Secretary of the Interior Standards state that while new construction should not
File No. 3166
Page 6 of 8
duplicate an architectural style of the past, it should incorporate architectural features and
elements, and materials from the surroundings. The current proposed project does not
accomplish this, nor does it include architectural elements of other styles found throughout
the district, including, Mediterranean Revival or Minimal Traditional, and makes a substantial
use of a material not typical of those styles.
Miami 21 Code:
An intial review by the Zoning Office determined that the proposed new construction is not
in compliance with Miami 21 Code.
In order to come into compliance, the Applicant shall:
• Apply for a waiver to allow for vehicular entry on the Principal Frontage,
• Apply for a waiver to allow for parking in the second layer or eliminate parking spaces
13 and 14.
• Update proposed construction plans to include bay windows at the cantilevered
balconies.
• Remove all walls/fences from the first layer.
• Screen all internal elements of the garage.
• Provide more information regarding the location and design of the proposed bike racks
to ensure their compliance with Article 3, Sec. 3.6.10 of Miami 21 Code and the Historic
Design Guidelines.
As this was an intial review, it is possible there are other instances where the Applicant is
not in compliance with Miami 21 Code.
The Applicant has submitted a landscape plan. The proposed work was reviewed by the
Environmental Resources Division, and their comments are attached hereto as Attachment
°F"
Preservation staff finds that the proposed demolition of a non-contributing structure to allow
for the new construction of a five story multi -family residence, with a rooftop terrace, does
adversely affect the historic district it is within as it is not compatible in size, massing, and
design elements as to those in the surrounding area, nor does it meet the requirements of
Miami 21 Code.
Findings: In -consistent
V. Toranzo File No. 3166
11/17/2017 Page 7 of 8
Revised
G, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES:
Code Compliance
Building
NET
Environmental Resources
Art in Public Races
DERM
H. CONCLUSION:
No Objection
Required
No Objection
Reservations per Attachment "F"
No Objection
Required
The application is found to not be in compliance with Chapter 23 entitled "Historic Preservation" of
the City of Miami Code of Ordinances. Staff finds the request does not comply with all applicable
criteria and finds that the request for a Special Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of a
non-contributing structure and the new construction of a five -story multi -family unit, with a rooftop
terrace, located at approximately 571 Northeast 67 Street, within the Palm Grove Historic District,
does adversely affect the historic, architectural, or aesthetic character or the aesthetic interest or
value of the historic district.
Staff is recommending denial of the Applicant's request as it is found to be in -consistent with
Chapter 23, the Preservation Office Historic Design Guidelines, the Secretary of the Interiors
Standards, and Miami 21 Code.
RECOMMENDATION:
Pursuant to Section 23-6,2(4) of the City of Miami Code of Ordinance, as amended, and the
Secretary of Interior Standards, the Preservation Office recommends denial of the request for a
Special Certificate of Appropriateness.
Preservation Officer
V. Toranzo
1111712017
Revised
File No. 3166
Page 8 of 8
HEP Board Hearing January 2, 2018 Item HEPB 3 - 3166
Ben Fernandez:
De ar members of the board, once again Ben Fernandez, 200 South Biscayne
Boulevard. On behalf of the applicant, I want to thank Mr. Adams fora very
thorough presentation and introductory comments. I would just like to point
out before we begin that I think the statement that was made with respect to
the project's compliance with the zoning code Miami 21 and the statement that
it is not in compliance, it is simply not in compliance yet because the project has
only one frontage. Whenever that condition exists, a waiver is required in order
to allow a project to be developed on a property with only one principal
frontage. That waiver is typically applied for and obtained after the Certificate of
Appropriateness or special Certificate of Appropriateness as it may be in this
case. So I just wanted to ... That's my understanding, Mr. Adams.
With that said, let me say I'm joined today by Mr. Lewis, Dean Lewis, our project
architect. We have approximately five letters of support from abutting property
owners, nearby property owners that we'd like to submit and share with you for
the record. I also think it's important to note that in this case the Palm Grove
Historic District is the most eclectic historic district in the city. That's the way it's
described on the city's website on the very first page that discusses the palm
Grove Historic District. It's described as Miami's largest and most eclectic
historic district, a [lustre 00:01:40] of various architectural styles. l think that
that's important because this eclectic nature should provide a broad pallet for
the architect to work from in designing buildings that can coexist simultaneously
and compliment the district. We believe that our project has met this burden. I
think that it is a difficult one to meet in this case because the project is in Palm
Grove but it also abuts the MiMo Historic District.
It's also significant to note that Palm Grove is the only historic district that does
not contain specific design guidelines, therefore it's up to the architect to use
his or her discretion in designing a project that incorporates design cues from
buildings within the district and within its surroundings. As I said in this case, the
property abuts MiMo and the plan has been designed to be aesthetically
compatible with both Palm Grove and with the MiMo Historic District.
Just as importantly in this case, the massing of the building is sensitive to the
less intense parts of Palm Grove. This is true even though the property happens
to be sandwiched between two T5 zoning transects, which are not single-family
residential transects, as you can see from the image that Mr. Lewis is pointing
out here. You do have a what was developed as a single-family residential
structure to the west, but that structure is in the T5L zoning district as is this
property. It's also significant to note that that structure to the west is not a
single-family home. I don't think that that's pointed out anywhere in your staff
analysis and I think it's a very significant point for you to consider. The structure
is the subject of a Certificate of Appropriateness that was in fact approved by
this board, which authorized a redevelopment of the structure to accommodate
a counseling center on the property that is presently under construction.
More importantly here, the building that we're proposing is not developed to
the full potential of the T5 zoning district regulations. The owner has self-
imposed restrictions to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. For
instance, in terms of height, the project is considerably lower than the
maximum height permitted under the zoning regulations. Under T5, it's possible
to develop a structure of up to 81 feet in height. In the present case, what you
have is a total height of 60 feet to the rooftop.
Yes, 25% lower than is allowed by the underlying zoning transect.
With respect to the setbacks, the building provides greater setbacks and
required under T5 as well. This is done in order to create the transition into the
residential area to the west. The building is pushed back from the west up to 25
feet. At the lower levels, it is five feet. Once you get past the first storey, the
project sets back 25 feet out of respect for those lower intensity projects to the
west or development sites to the west.
Also, you have a five-foot setback from the north, which is not required. The T5
zoning transect allows a zero -foot setback on the north. You have a five-foot
setback from the east, where a zero -foot setback is possible as well under the
zoning regulations; 025 feet along the east.
With respect to the maximum floor area, and this one is very significant, the
maximum floor area is less than 50% of the maximum allowable under the
zoning regulations. Zoning regulations will accommodate a floor area of 28,800
square feet and this project has a total of 11,395 square feet. That is of course
the result of the fact that we are limiting the height. We are increasing the
setbacks on three sides. We're providing a greater amount of open space and
landscape open space than is required into the code. We have 19%, little better
than 19% landscape open space where only 10% is required under the code.
Also, the floor -to -ceiling heights are at 12 feet whereas 14-foot floor -to -ceiling
heights are permitted under the Miami 21 zoning regulations, which is why you
can get to a height of up to 81 feet by right. We're limiting that self -restricting
the project to a lesser floor -to -ceiling height.
Finally, with respect to density, the maximum density allowed under the zoning
district would be 10 units. We are proposing a total of six units. So this really
only about a six -unit residential project. It happens to abut a two -storey
residentially developed structure, but we have been sensitive to that by
providing the additional setback that I described at the beginning of 25 feet. It's
also important to note that presently the property has developed with five
units. So we're only proposing one additional unit over what is presently on the
property today.
Clearly, I think that a full blown T5 project would be out of scale with the
development to the west. So I think the question for this board to consider is
exactly what point does the building need to be scaled back to be inoffensive or
to be deemed compatible with the historic district. It's our position the new
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 2 of 37
construction should be achievable by breaking walls down into segments and
placing taller masses away from the street and away from adjacent buildings, as
we have done here. Also, we've implemented courtyards to create a separation
between the properties to the west. Within that 25-foot setback area, you have
a reflection pond and open accessible area so that there's more air and more
light that will continue to reach the properties to the west.
With respect to staff's analysis, we would submit to you that this is not a pure
international style. We believe it does share the clean lines and the sense of
efficiency that is consistent with buildings within the MiMo District and that
have a MiMo influence. We believe that it is really more of an eclectic style that
borrows from in fact structures that are immediately across the street to the
south from this building, as Mr. Lewis will explain to you in just a moment. We
don't believe this building is an imitation of a style because that would be
inappropriate under the Secretary of Interior's guidelines. So we believe it's
really eclectic within an eclectic district.
I'm also not sure that I completely understands staffs analysis. When I read it, I
seemed to understand that if we were to change the style that somehow the
issues of massing and height would be resolved. We would submit to you that
style should be within purview of the designer, as long as it is deemed to be
compatible and inoffensive to the historic district.
Before I turn it over to Mr. Lewis to explain how he has drawn on the various
styles within the area, I just like to point out that within the MiMo, and I know
that this isn't in MiMo, but I think it's significant to bring up the MiMo design
guidelines since there are no design guidelines in the Palm Grove district. The
MiMo design guidelines talk about the art deco and art moderne style, and I'm
reading from page five of those design guidelines. It says, "Modern styles found
on the boulevard are stylistically interpretations and derivations from the
international style." So I think that it's sort of significant to understand that all of
these styles draw in one way or another from the international style.
So Mr. Lewis, can you go to the exhibit and describe where you've drawn the
various design elements from?
Dean Lewis: Good afternoon. Thank you very much for your patience. I'm very pleased to
have the opportunity to fully present to you the project at this time.
Chair Hopper: Name and address please?
Dean Lewis: Dean Lewis. Address, 5910 North Bayshore Drive with offices at 6301 Biscayne
Boulevard.
In particular, I want to call reference to the fact that the period of significance
for our historic district was 1920 to early 1960s, as per your webpage and
criteria, 1959, 1921, 1959. It's also Miami's largest and most eclectic historic
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 3 of 37
district. Palm Grove is illustrative of the growth and development of Miami from
the '20s through the sate '50s.
The example on the website is a two -storey bay window, art moderne structure.
That's 6621, 6623 on Northeast Fifth Avenue, i want to show you that. Here you
do have the two -storey bay windows in recess and in a beveled -angled form
configuration, which actually is a reference to the octagon window geometry
across the street at 572 Northeast 67th Street. In fact, what I would forward to
you is that our design is more art moderne and art deco than international
styled reference without detail. In fact, the emphasis on our deco design was in
its streamline simple geometry, planar walls and the frequent use of flat roofs
all of which you see here.
Typical characteristics include symmetrical or asymmetrical plan, as you can see,
generally with a vertical emphasis indicated here, and central emphasis often
with a projecting parapet, which we have the parapets though sliced with linear
sky windows we call them to break down the parapet and further open up the
box and avoid the excessive massing.
Ornamentation may be incised during relief ranging from organic forms to
geometric forms. I want to also play up the fact that again, directly across the
street, we have five references reinterpreted and employed here that tie us to
the neighborhood with local references, one of which is the corner glass
window base, corner glass window base you see here as well.
You also have the horizontal tan -bronze colored banding across the street,
which we reinterpreted with anodized light bronze if you will, gold -tinted
horizontal banding to separate the floors, as well as the louvers and ornamental
louvre detailing, similar in color but different in material. Decorative linear slots
and bands related to the project, linear window slots and louvers of our trellis
design. Our linear window detailing, you can see prevalent, whether horizontal
or vertical is also sincere and compatible.
As it relates to MiMo, because we have to remember we're interfacing between
MiMo to the east on our line and Palm Grove directly to the west, which were
surrounded with TSL zoning on both sides, and that zoning is not by accident.
That zoning if you look at my reference here, here is our site, over four blocks of
T5 zoning since 2006 Miami 21 overlay. That was the preferred zoning of the
neighborhood for this area. Why? Because it was originally R3, R3 office,
minimum 50 feet of height. The neighborhood didn't want to change it. They
had multiple years and opportunities to do so. Here we are today with the
project. It's not a full on T5 at 81 feet. It's a short, small, 50% reduction in mass
and square footage, four scale down T5 building of only 60 feet. Joyous and
animated to the point where our most sensitive neighbors to the west are in
support of it, which is also a commercial business, a specialty business, fully
supported by Palm Grove approved by your board.
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 4 of 37
So today I'm a bit surprised with the pushback. 1 want to let you know that I
heard you the last time we had a few moments of exchange of commentary,
one of which to increase the linear windows. Why do I have to have high
windows on the west facade for this duplex unit on these two storeys?
Primarily, because these units face towards the street. These windows on the
west facade are secondary windows and have to have enough height to allow
furnishings, bed walls, TV, media centers, et cetera. We did enlarge the size of
those windows for you.
In addition, I heard MiMo saying, "Wait a minute. This isn't MiMo enough. This
facade it's cold. It's austere. It's blank walls." Well, there's no blank walls an
anyone of these four facades on the contrary. There's multiple recesses,
projections. The bay windows in recess angled back in the octagon shapes on
the front facades to the south, as well as to the west. The balconies project
forward within that depth. You can see in the plan and understand a little better
what I'm referring to on your plans A202 and A203.
Suffice to say, we've also built in a water feature and an animated courtyard to
fully bring forth a beautiful experience of light, space, and compatibility with our
neighbors for over 75% of the length of the building reducing its width
tremendously. Again, less than 50% of my allowable square footage for this site,
only 60% of my allowable density from 10 units down to six units. Quadruple
the required setbacks. How much further do we need to go, I ask the board? We
are sensitive to the compatibility situation. We know we are the transition
project. We know it has to interface between two styles. If you want, I'll further
articulate where I was going with accent colors, MiMo detailing, tile glass, tile
glazing. All that you can find illustrated on A302 relative to the east facade,
hopefully garnishing more support from MiMo, who, by the way since 2003,
wholly advocated for Miami 21, support of Miami 21 in the letter that I gave to
you, with the one exception that their district not be lower in height than 53
feet with the exceptions to particular case studies of up to 70 feet.
So to all of a sudden come back and say, "Well, hold on. Wait a minute. MiMo is
only 35. How dare you?" Just doesn't make sense to me. It seems unfounded. I
need logic and facts and basis to proceed with these kind of projects that make
a difference. It's a lot of work to put this together and bring it to where we are
today to avoid the substandard one -storey, five -unit nonconforming buildings to
sit and proliferate this secondary layer behind MiMo and next to our historic
districts, whether it'd be Palm Grove or others.
What do you think? That reserve some more time for any responses? I would
graciously appreciate at this point your support and recommendation of
approval. As I said, we've worked this building down tremendously from 81 feet
to 60 feet to roof deck. I think we're reasonable. I think we are compliant. I think
that it's time for all of us to come together and make it happen.
Mr. Tragash: Thank you, Dean. I think that that's pretty complete. I would only say and this is
not technical, but to me what really caught my eye about this design is that that
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 5 of 37
Trachtenberg:
Ben Fernandez:
Chair Hopper:
Debbie Stander:
the use of horizontal lines really changes the scale of the project and makes it
looked like you're looking at three storeys or three volumes rather than five. I
think that that's really significant and I think that they're elegant, tall and -
As well as the vertical division of the front facade. Remember Miami 21 doesn't
advocate for you to set building back 19 feet. This setback discussion of all the
average is 19 feet. Well, you didn't really take a full average. You didn't continue
the street all the way to Biscayne Boulevard where you have zero setbacks, two
and three and four -foot setbacks. Where are the interface buildings? So it
seems disingenuous not to include the whole street and say, "Well, hey, the
right compromise is in fact T5 zoning, which we're compliant with," which is 10
feet and an allowable bay -balcony projection of three feet on the upper two
levels, seems only fair to recognize. The only nonconformity is the waiver
required for the trans -vehicular access to the front facade because it's a buried
single frontage lot, which every single frontage lot has to go through. That
doesn't mean the project is incompatible or noncompliant with Miami 21. It just
means it needs a waiver just like every project.
l sit co-chair the Urban Development Review Board for the City of Miami. We
review every month multiple projects much larger scale. We our best to add,
make positive contributions to all these issues, which I know very well and
respect and appreciate. They all ask for waivers because they all need waivers.
That's the way the code is set up and it gives us a preview to ensure that it's
done the right way. As you can see, you're not going to see parking on the street
like all these other buildings that are overly set back that have commercial uses
along 67th Street, which is very different than other sections of the historic
district. They have parking. Parking is illegal in the first layer. We pull the parking
in and behind the lobby hence the little driveway, the gate, the pavers, the
plaza, et cetera.
Then the vertical integrated gardens in the facade further breaks down that
massing that we talked about while still respecting the minimum 70% of
frontage required of Miami 21 of our facade at our minimum setback of 10 feet.
Thank you.
Thanks. We'll reserve some time for rebuttal if that's all right with the board.
Thank you. Is there anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item?
Please come forward and give your name and address for the record.
Debbie Stander, 830 Northeast 74th Street. I have one main point to make,
which is that Mr. Lewis and his attorney I supposed had been consistently
referring to Miami 21, Miami 21, Miami 21. Really I believe that it is the job of
this board to represent and uphold the provisions of chapter 23, Historic
Preservation Ordinances, which actually state that in historic districts, building
should conform to this and the other. Those are the ordinances that are used as
the basis for preservation staff's objections to this particular building. They
simply did not feel that this particular building sufficiently took the
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 6 of 37
requirements of the ordinance into consideration, and of course that's going to
be up to the board to decide. I'm personally not very happy with the eastern
facade as it relates to the MiMo Historic District and as a backdrop to the MiMo
Historic District. It just looks awfully I'd have to maybe there have been some
changes since the last time I looked at it. It didn't say MiMo to me, so.
Finally, with respect to the comments of Mr. Lewis about the MiMo Biscayne
Association having previously advocated the possibility of higher structures
other than 35 feet. Absolutely, for quite some time, the MiMo Board supported
I think a slightly up to maybe 50, 53 feet, but that decision was abandoned. It
was abandoned at least a year and a half ago when we realized that there could
be some real problems if we started to mess with the zoning laws because we
immediately sense that a lot of people would come in and want to get involved.
All of a sudden, any production that we had for height limitations might be
disrupted. So we backed up that position and I don't think we should be held to
it forever afterwards. Thank you.
Chair Hopper: Thank you. Anyone else? Go ahead. So everybody else could speak, ! need to get
set up here. Were you sworn?
Bob Powers: Bob Powers ... Yes, I was.
Chair Hopper: Thank you.
Bob Powers: Bob Powers, President of the Palm Grove Neighborhood Association. I resided
565 Northeast 66th Street, Miami, Florida. I'll be seeing this building from the
back of my house, directly from the back of my home.
So the issue at hand is some of the things that Dean brought up were very
interesting. The fact that there's a T5 there is for use. It was never supposed to
be for height because it was supposed to codify the ST9 overlay and that's why
the Transfer Development Rights were put into effect so that people could
transfer their development rights elsewhere instead of having height. Those
buildings that all of that was done and I know because I was there. I was there
with the Miami Neighborhoods United working to do Miami 21. There has been
a push to address some of these issues. The bottom line in order to have an
office use, you had to go to T5. There's no other way to do it. You can't do it in
T4 and you can't do ... No you couldn't at the time, you could not. I have the
floor right now, you don't. You could not at the time that this was done and I'm
going to tell you something.
If you really want me to go through my emails of all the requests that have been
made to the zoning department to address this issue, literally hundreds of
requests that this was going to be a problem and Mr. Garcia to make meetings
and he knows that this is a problem that needed to be addressed and it's still
has not been addressed. So you can't put that on a neighborhood who wanted
to achieve not losing uses in it when the original zoning was for certain use. The
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 7 of 37
only way to ensure that use was to give it a T5 usage. So it was never supposed
to be about height, never supposed to be about height.
At any rate, the other thing that you need to know because I've lived 18 years in
my house, been there for a long time. I've seen that whole boulevard get
cleaned up. It wasn't because of Dean Lewis, It was because of people like me
who are active in our neighborhoods. Now Dean is right in the way for that.
That's great, but not then.
The other thing also was the letter that was sent out as a letter of support. It
was a letter of support for the next door for the use that they were going to use
that building and that went through my board. Before I wrote that letter, the
letter that's in your pocket from 2015, that went through the board. That was
signed by me to Dean so that he could get the use for what he wanted on that
other property next door, which turns out to be owned by the same people who
own this property, which is coming before you on under different LLC but the
same people.
So I would just want to clean up any of that like any of that, anything else. I'll be
around if you have any questions to ask me because I've been going through
this for a very long period of time. Thank you very much.
Chair Hopper: Thank you. Yes sir.
Elvis Cruz: Mr. Chairman of the Board, thank you. Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street.
If I could draw your attention to the handout that I gave all of you just a
moment ago, at the top are two excerpts from Miami 21. Without reading them
verbatim to save time, they completely empower this board to make changes or
to reject this application because as they say in those excerpts they are
superseded by the city code regarding historic preservation. The standard is
absolutely correct. Miami 21 yields to the historic preservation laws. I have
those below, You see that excerpt from chapter 23, section 2362. I have
highlighted and bold and specifically I've highlighted that one word height. It is
completely within your authority, your jurisdiction to reject the application
because it is incongruous because it adversely affects the historical,
architectural or aesthetic character, and congruity between the subject and the
neighboring structures, et cetera, because of height, nor some of proposed
work adversely affect the special character of the historic district. It's very plain.
It's very clear.
Now if I can draw your attention to the PowerPoint. Why are we here having
this argument? Because there's a strange anomaly in the zoning here. This is the
zoning map before Miami 21. You see the Biscayne Boulevard corridor was
commercial C1. For some strange reason, two to three lots deep into Palm
Grove was zoned 0 for office. I was part of the committee with Miami
Neighborhood United that oversaw the Miami 21 process. We asked the
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 8 of 37
planning department pointblank, why is this? Why is it that you have three lots
going into what is basically a one and two -storey single-family duplex, maybe a
handful of three or four -unit buildings? Why do you have office zoning intruding
in? At the time, under 11,000 office zoning included are four, which meant they
could build a high rise of unlimited height with 150 units per acre. This was
insane. This was madness. Nor was there anywhere else in the City of Miami
that we could see a strange zoning anomaly like this.
In Palm Grove, you can see that it was only in that small piece from 69th to the
mid block of 63 to 64, only that small sliver. The city was never able to tell us
why that happened. We said, "Are you going to fix that as part of Miami 21?"
They said, "We're going to look into it." They gave us fabulous answers. They
sometimes do that. Yet when Miami 21 came along, what did they do? They
changed it to T5L. TSL is all wrong. If you've been there, I'm sure some of you
have, you know that five -storey zoning is completely incongruous with that
whole area. We were told that, "Oh, don't worry. Once you got your Palm Grove
Historic District, you're going to be protected from tall buildings," and yet here
we are having to go through this and having to put you through this, that's not
quite right.
1 would ask this board to consider a motion, asking the city to down zone this
sliver from T5, take it down to T3, maybe T4. The overwhelming character of the
existing built environment in that sliver is one to two -storey buildings. Thank
you.
Chair Hopper: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Yes, ma'am.
Sarah Helene 5.:
Hello, My name is Sarah Helene Sharp and I live at 636 Northeast 70th Street. I
move to this area of the city to try to run away from the white boxes that are
taking over Coconut Grove that are destroying the tree canopy and the nature
of the neighborhoods. I hope that you won't approve this white box. It is not
compatible with Palm Grove in any respect. 1 think it's disingenuous to use the
eclectic nature of the neighborhood as the basis for anything goes. If you walk
through that neighborhood, it's clear that it's unified perhaps not in style but in
scale and in setbacks. There is a rhythm and reason to that neighborhood. It's
not the Wild West.
Speaking of the west, I was a little taken aback by a comment that was made by
Mr. Lewis. He said, "The most sensitive neighbor to the west supports this
development." As Mr. Powers pointed out, it's important for you to know that
the neighbor to the west is an LLC that is managed by the same people who own
the LLC for the subject property. So they might be the most sensitive, but they
also benefit the most from a decision to approve this construction. Thank you.
Chair Hopper: Is there anyone else from the public wishing to speak on this item? Yes sir.
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 9 of 37
Michael L.:
Hi. My name is Michael Loveland. I live at 510 Northeast 64th Street. I sat on
Palm Grove Homeowners Board for 14, 15 years. I helped create the historic
district there. For this very reason, we've worked with Dean in the past with
other projects. I personally don't have any issue with Mr. Lewis and his projects,
but we have had issues in the past. I personally live on the street where the
Starbucks project happened. We saw issues that were going to be happening
with that project. We met with them, went with his drawings; we'll take care of
it, we'll look into it, we'll try to do our best, nothing changed and now we're
stuck with traffic jams at the corner every single day.
I think this building is quite beautiful. I just think it's out of scale for the
neighborhood. At this point in this stage in the game, we have to really consider
the scale. If the zoning isn't going to be our friend, I would only hope that the
preservation board would be able to step in and help mitigate these things
because this is just the first of I'm sure many if we can't work on this T5 hole we
seem to have. 50, thank you.
Chair Hopper: Were you sworn?
Christine Rupp: No.
Speaker 1: Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Christine Rupp: I do.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Christine Rupp: Good afternoon. Christine Rupp, Executive Director, Dade Heritage Trust. I really
didn't come prepared today to speak on this issue, but as the conversation went
along I took the liberty to do a Google street view of the property. You can see
how out -of -scale this project is with the surrounding neighborhood. Dade
Heritage Trust is working on preservation of neighborhood issues around urban
Miami. People, residents of various urban areas especially those in resort
districts are speaking up and speaking out and they want to take control of the
future of their neighborhoods. I believe they have worked and really make a
statement today to look at the surrounding neighbors, look at this
neighborhood and see what this building would mean to that neighborhood as
far as the context and the historic integrity of the area. Thank you.
Alisa Cepeda: Good evening, Alisa Cepeda, 531 Northeast 76th Street.
I'm still not sure why this can't be three storeys, why we can't come to a
compromise. I, too, appreciate the design. I think it's a lovely building, but it is
just massive for our neighborhood. T5 in my understanding is to be at the head
of a block in a more commercial area, something that starts. This is three almost
four folios back in the neighborhood. Our neighborhood is only two blocks wide.
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 10 of 37
That's it. So when you're half a block in, that is a substantial impact on our
neighborhood. This project is sandwiched on a little sliver of land in between
historic districts and it's permanent. Once it's built, it's there. It creates that
impact forever.
I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around the size, the scale of this
building. I'd really like to say if there's some way that we can still come to a
compromise and reduce this down to a possibility of three storeys. Thank you, I
appreciate it.
Chair Hopper: Thank you. Anyone else from the public wishing to speak on this item?
Ben Fernandez: Thank you. If I may have a few minutes for rebuttal?
Chair Hopper: Yes, Mr. Fernandez.
Ben Fernandez: Well, I think that all valid comments from the neighbors I think we heard many
of these comments before when this hearing was continued to today. I think ifs
important to emphasize the fact that our client does own the property to the
west. That property did come before this board did obtain the Certificate of
Appropriateness. It remains a contributing historic structure that we have not
applied to modify. We have not applied for a height increase on and addition
for. We're utilizing it as an adaptive reuse of the structure that is there today
and that in of itself provides a transition into the other residents that live on the
block that they wouldn't otherwise have 1 believe.
In addition, this project is entirely a residential project that although it is taller,
it will only add one residential unit over what is already there today on the
block. The current zoning T5L would allow more commercial uses potentially, as
it is a mixed -use transect, which would be arguably more incompatible and
introduce more intense uses into this mixed -use character street, I would
describe it as, than the residential project introduces. So I think that as a full
residential project, you have a much more friendly neighbor than you could
otherwise have as a commercial project.
We're not disputing the fact that the height is a factor that this board can
consider. We can read the code. We understand that that's the case and that's
in fact why we have capitulated and provided a height reduction of over 25%
over what is permitted under the code. We think that that's very significant.
We've taken every design, element design cue, potential use such as a
courtyard, hanging gardens, flat roof, every type of design cue possible to move
the massing and the impacts of the structure towards the east and separate the
arguable impacts from the areas to the west.
As to Mr. Cruz's comments with respect to the zoning that was in place under
the prior code and I think that those comments are entirely irrelevant, the
commission had the ability to revisit the zoning in this area when they adopted
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 11 of 37
Chair Hopper:
Mr. Campbell:
Chair Hopper:
Miami 21. At that time, I'm sure that Mr. Cruz made the same arguments that
he is making today to the commission that this area should be down zone or
should be limited as MiMo has been limited, but the commission decided not to
take that action. In fact, the reason that you have office zoning near this area
and why you have more intense development in this area is that this is a duplex
area and always has been a duplex area and that's across from Legion Park.
Under the old code Ordinance 11000, the code acknowledged that properties
across from large parks would be entitled to additional floor area because they
were across from large vast open spaces. There was a certain balancing act that
took place under that code in recognition of that fact.
We could go on for hours and I could bore the board as to why things were the
way they were, but I won't. I would just say that we have made a significant self-
imposed restriction here in an effort to obtain favorable staff recommendation.
We think that we are entitled or should be entitled to the Certificate of
Appropriateness based on the good design that is before you and the fact that it
is sensitive and compatible with both Palm Grove and MiMo districts. Thank
you.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, may I ask a question?
Let me close the public hearing period. I'll close the public hearing and open up
to the board for questions, comments beginning with Mr. Campbell.
Mr. Campbell: This is for the attorney or Mr. Lewis. Your property, the property you're
designing for is four lots in from Biscayne Boulevard, correct?
Dean Lewis:
As you can see, yes sir. We are the fourth lot, commercial, commercial parking
to the boulevard, 6600, and you also have this parking lot, which will never go
away because it's integral to the Biscayne Inn Hotel, which completes the rest of
the block. This is a narrow sliver of utility easement alley also.
To your question, this is the line, which starts Palm Grove. it's not three folios
deep, as implied. It's actually right on the edge where they advocate for a little
more buffer in height.
Mr. Campbell: On the property immediately to the west of use also T5, correct?
Dean Lewis: Yes sir.
Mr. Campbell: Does T5 end after that?
Dean Lewis: Yes, it then goes to T3L, which is -
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 12 of 37
Mr. Campbell:
Dean Lewis:
Mr. Campbell:
How many lots are left on the block to the nearest North -South Street, west of
Biscayne?
How many more blocks this way?
How many more lots are ... How many lots are left on that block as you move
west?
Dean Lewis: I'm going to have to look at my zoning map to confirm that, at least half -
Ben Fernandez: I believe five.
Dean Lewis: One, two, three, four, five, six. Six, half a dozen.
Mr. Campbell: Thank you.
Dean Lewis: Sure. These are the buildings that complete the street with zero to maximum
five-foot setbacks and the parking imposing that we wanted to buffer.
Chair Hopper: Mr. Fernandez?
Ben Fernandez: Yes sir.
Chair Hopper: Who is the owner of this property?
Ben Fernandez: The owner is Interstate Development LLC.
Chair Hopper: LLC or LLP?
Ben Fernandez: LLP. Interstate Development LLP.
Chair Hopper: Are you -
Ben Fernandez: Sorry, LLP.
Chair Hopper: Are you aware that this was administratively dissolved in 2001?
Ben Fernandez: No, I'm not aware of that.
Chair Hopper: According to sunbiz.com, it was. It does have an effect on your application.
Ben Fernandez: I would have to look at that. I don't know that it hasn't been reinstated. It's
possible that it's been reinstated.
Ms. Lewis: Did you say LLP as in Peter or LLC as in cat?
Ben Fernandez: LLP as in Peter. I did not create the corporation. I'm not the corporate -
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 13 of 37
Chair Hopper: I would trust you. It's LLC. My mistake, that was an LLC of the same name, also
[inaudible 00:47:21]. To your knowledge, the LLP as in Paul is active.
Ben Fernandez: It's active.
Ms. Lewis: What's your restriction? Is it [formed in 00:47:38]? Do you know?
Ben Fernandez: Which was incorporated in the partnership? I do not know. 1 assumed it's
Florida, but I do not know. I could find out for you.
Chair Hopper: Just make sure all our eyes are dotted in our cross or Ts across.
Ms. Lewis: May I ask a question?
Chair Hopper: Yes, Ms. Lewis has a question.
Ms. Lewis: Mr. Fernandez, did I understand correctly that the ... What's the street address
of the property immediately to the west of 571?
Ben Fernandez: 563.
Ms. Lewis: 563-
Ben Fernandez: Perhaps this will refresh your recollection.
Ms. Lewis: Expect me to remember that long? 563. 563, that's property is also in T5L?
Ben Fernandez: Yes.
Ms. Lewis: Did I understand correctly that the beneficial owners of whoever owns 563
Northeast 67th Street are the same beneficial owners of 571 Northeast 67th
Street?
Ben Fernandez:
Dean Lewis:
Ms. Lewis:
That is correct.
It's at least one of them, which we've always -
I'm sorry, I can't hear you. I'm on a lineal progression. Did I also understand you
to say that it is of note or that this board you suggested that this board should
take note that the owner of 563 could under existing zoning come to this board
and seek a Certificate of Appropriateness to -
Ben Fernandez: Modify?
Ms. Lewis: ... do what we did in 2015?
Public Comments Sc. Discussion (Cut) Page 14 of 37
Ben Fernandez:
Ms. Lewis:
Ben Fernandez:
Ms. Lewis:
Ben Fernandez:
Ms. Lewis:
Ben Fernandez:
No, what I said was that they didn't come and apply for an addition to that
structure. In fact, they sought to simply adaptively reuse the contributing
structure as is and they're comfortable with that. They could have also
incorporated that structure as part of this application and combine both lots
and provided an argument that they were providing even a greater amount of
setback by unifying the lots. Since they are both T5 and they aren't T3, a unity of
title would have been possible to increase the lot's size and make an argument
that the zoning intensity is much, much less. So we didn't do that to create that
artifice even though it would have been entirely technically accurate. We're
suggesting to you that the fact that they do own it means that there is in fact a
transition taking place that is the result of the actions of the similar beneficial
owners.
Since you brought it up, it would seem to me that it would be helpful to the
folks owning the six lots to the west were they comforted that the lot abutting
the lower zone residential lots would not seek the height that is permitted by
T5L. So since you brought it up, what about the unity of title?
We were going there. Well, I don't know about the unity of title that's history. I
think that what you're getting at is a restriction on the contributing structure
that they would not apply for any height increase. Is that where you're going
with this? In other words -
You brought it up. For me, I have thought of it on my own.
Absolutely, and I think we would be amenable to that.
So that there would be, just to be clear, you're pointing at 563 Northeast 67th
Street and it is now two storeys. Legally, as we've all discussed, it go up much
higher even though it has a historic designation and that would have to come
back to our board. I think it might be helpful and awfully good gesture if the
owner of 563 Northeast 67th Street were to bind that property in some;
voluntarily bind of course, in some recordable way and assurance to the City of
Miami, to staff, to Palm Grove, to this board that that property would never be
sought to have its height restricted above the existing two storeys.
I think that that's perfectly acceptable subject to being able to utilize TDRs to
transfer the unused development capacity as this is permitted under all historic
districts.
Chair Hopper: Why would you be unwilling to do that in this proposed -
Ben Fernandez:
Because today there is no market for TDRs for one. Number two, that shouldn't
be a requirement within historic district that you have to use TDRs. It's a
voluntary process that's available to an owner under the code.
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 15 of 37
Ms. Lewis: Let me go back to your subject too. Today 563 Northeast 67th Street could go
through the TDR process. Today it could.
Ben Fernandez: Absolutely.
Ms. Lewis:
We don't know whether it would comply let alone whether there would be a
market for those TDRs. So the idea of let's put a restriction on 563 Northeast
67th Street so that its height would be tapped at two storeys whatever that is,
not in any way abrogating the prior historic designation nor in any way
abrogating its right under the code to seek TDRs.
Ben Fernandez: I think that's acceptable.
Ms. Lewis: Thank you.
Ben Fernandez: Thank you.
Mr. Calley: I think the point being made that this is the site with a folio that creates the
entry to Palm Grove is an interesting one because that's entry where the
neighborhood begins. It seems the question about the height is pretty much the
major concern from ... I unfortunately was not here during the last meeting so I
missed that conversation. It seems as though that's sort of the direction in
which they're heading especially since staff has commented on that within the
report. So in that regard, 1 have a question. This isn't negating the fact l think
the design has a very interesting modern approach. I think the aesthetics of the
building whether it'd be here or somewhere else is rather I think definitive and
nice for its own right. In the zone, it does have an issue with a height in
comparison to its running context. Seeing as a MiMo just to the city east is 35
feet and then of course whether or not this goes through with the two storeys
to the west. My question will be for Mr. Lewis is had he tested the idea of this
floor -to -floor of 12 feet?
Dean Lewis:
Mr. Calley:
Dean Lewis:
Mr. Calley:
Mr. Lewis, you work floor -plate package. So the ceiling to slab is how deep?
it would average 11. The 12 feet is including as floor -to -floor. So subtracting
your structural depth in most cases it would be hopefully at least 10 when we
have our docks or ceilings and our secondary, tertiary spaces and clear in the
larger spaces 11, which is -
So you think about a foot. In the package, it will be about a foot.
Structurally, yes.
asked that because if you're looking at a 24-foot floor -to -floor, when you're
thinking of unit -to -unit, because the majority of your unit has a sort of open
mezzanine space. Have you tested the same strategy, the same layout with a
floor -to -floor height of 10 or nine and a half to see what happens? Because
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 16 of 37
Dean Lewis:
Mr. Calley:
Dean Lewis:
Mr. Tragash:
Mr. Calley:
Mr. Tragash:
Ben Fernandez:
Mr. Tragash:
when you get through a foot package, you end up getting nine to 10-foot clear
in that regard. in that move, you end up gaining what I guess to be anywhere
between eight to 10 feet of drop of height with your building.
We came down from 14. Our competing market is about 14 in these lofts. We
felt that 12 was a fair compromise as opposed to 14. Could we go slightly lower
and squeak outs a little bit more height is your question?
I'm trying to see what the ground here is in terms of the lowest comfortable, if
you studied these or not of course. Because if we are able to generate a lower
height, I don't know if it's agreeable -
I will be frank because I've already looked at that. In response, we have already
offered as well as the accommodations provisioned herein in setbacks, density,
scale, height to go down to 11 feet floor -to -floor, which would give us a 55-foot
height to top of roof deck in exchange for Palm Grove's support. We never got a
response back to them on that, which remember would barely squeak out nine
and a half clear, 10 in the larger spaces and the lower in the secondary, tertiary
with ducting and ceilings, et cetera. So that's on the table. If you want to make
that a condition, we're willing to accept that.
Are you finished?
Go ahead.
I just want to say fresh from start this is the most articulate staff report I've ever
seen in opposition to any project that I've been familiar with.
We have to agree with you.
I think it's for a reason though and I think the reason is how not the design of
the building; you have a talented architect doing a very qualified design, it's the
context. It's the massing. It's the scale. It's the height. It's what should be denser
along Biscayne Boulevard and higher is now the low point, and now this
intermediary space next to single-family residences is now very high. I'm trying
to understand because I'm looking at the zoning. I'm trying to understand how
the floor area fits in to this equation. So I'm looking at this and you have 7,200-
square foot lot and you're putting on 11,395 square feet. How is that 11,395
arrived at? Is that the maximum you can put?
Ben Fernandez: No, [crosstalk 01:00:21] 28,000.
Dean Lewis: 28,800 square feet.
Mr. Tragash: How is that determined, by 2.0 FAR?
Ben Fernandez: By lot coverage times five storeys.
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 17 of 37
Dean Lewis:
Ben Fernandez:
Dean Lewis:
Mr. Tragash:
Ben Fernandez:
Dean Lewis:
Chair Hopper:
Dean Lewis:
Mr. Tragash:
That's not quite right. In T5, you take the 80% of the lot coverage and you
multiply it by your five storeys. That's your maximum available area, which in
this case the math is 28,800 square feet.
That's what I just said.
It's not an FLR, sorry. He was right. 80% of the lot times five and successively T4
is 60% times three.
Are you arguing that even though that's the maximum allowed it's not
desirable?
No. What we're saying is -
[crosstalk 01:01:08] less than 50%.
One of you at a time.
Yes sir. We're less than 12,000 square feet. In fact, our building I've already gone
like this. You got to stop feeding ... We're there, that's my point.
I like your contortion of how you're describing the architecture. This is
something you said that everything has been done architecturally to keep this
building in small scale as possible, and I would argue on the contrary. l would
argue the fact that you have two -storey volumes of space is bulking the building
up. The fact that on the; I guess it's on the west side, you pulled the building
back. Your floor plates on the larger floor plate is only 40% of the lot. Your floor
plates on the smaller, only 30% of the lot. You could get the same 11,395 square
feet in three storeys. You have exactly that much -
Ben Fernandez: The setbacks would be very different. The setbacks would be right in front of
the abutting -
Mr. Tragash:
That's what I'm trying to understand. The setbacks as you're describing them,
there is zero setback on the east, west, and rear side. There's only a 10-foot
front setback on the front.
Ben Fernandez: That's allowable. We're providing much more than that. We're providing five on
all sides, 10 in the front -
Mr. Tragash:
Dean Lewis:
What I'm saying is instead of having, and you could go even higher. You're trying
to squish this down, but go higher floor by floor. Don't put two -level
apartments, put one -level apartments.
You're changing the demographics of our client's analysis with his people, his
brokers. They wanted lofts, lofts. People, the market is lofts. [crosstalk
01:02:52].
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 18 of 37
Mr. Tragash:
Dean Lewis:
What I'm trying to do is find an equation where you can get the five units you
want. You can get them at the full 11,395 square feet and you can build a three -
storey building.
Well, then I wouldn't have any windows or view. I have the courtyard that I
created with the west setback of over 27 feet from the property line in order to
ensure the those units have a private spacial environment and further frame
with the trellis work. That's a key to the zero lot line developments. If I all of a
sudden pack in flats and I'm three storeys of flats in my unit, it has a window
where my living space is and I got a wall banger or whatever and I'm looking at
another wall, which there's an eight -foot wall here built by the neighbor. There's
no value there for the residence hence the setback, so that's why we did it.
Mr. Tragash: I'm looking at the -
Dean Lewis:
Could we have done it and squish it down a little, then I got smaller units. The
client wanted larger loft units. There's only six instead of 10. There is obviously
those design decisions were taken into consideration, and we believe ... By the
way, the ST9 overlay that was referenced by one of our opponents Mr. Powers,
ST9 employed this kind of horizontal setback that was all adopted by the
community way back when when I was there, and also on the board and
reviews with a 45-degree setback. As opposed to trying to pull the building
down to 40, 50 feet full width, they rather 24 feet of height and then a 45-
degree angle. Why? Because that created this such highly desirable living space
buffer, green, landscape, et cetera that we herein present to you as the best
solution.
Mr. Tragash: The result of what you're saying is making this building go higher than it would
have to go. [crosstalk 01:05:01].
Ben Fernandez:
When you combine it with the restriction being imposed on the T5L lot to the
west and it gets highly significant because that lot could be the subject of an
application in the future for additional intensity based on the underlying zoning.
I'm not saying that they would necessarily do that, but the future owner might
do that. So by proffering a condition that would in perpetuity limit that ability I
think that's highly significant and creates an appropriate transition outside or
abutting the T3L transect, which is further west.
Mr. Tragash: I'm trying to find a way where the concern of staff, the concern of the
neighbors -
Ben Fernandez:
I don't think it's the staff with all due respect factored in what I just described to
you the fact that the owners are the same beneficial owners, number one.
Number two that that contributing structure to the west isn't a residential
house at all but that it is a counseling center that was approved by this very ...
Those facts are omitted from the staff report as thorough as it is. I'm bringing
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 19 of 37
Mr. Tragash:
those things to your attention now because I think that they're salient and
significant for you to consider.
I think this project represents a larger issue where it's not just the immediate
neighbors. This seems to be a component of the Miami 21 zoning that occurs
for, and I forget exactly, five or six blocks. So what we approved today is going
to then set the precedent for those five or six blocks.
Ben Fernandez: As for this board say many times, every application is taken on a case -by -case
basis.
Mr. Tragash:
The case for contextualism, the case for scale, the case for height, all these that
make this compatible with the historic district doesn't stop. It just [crosstalk
01:07:19] that's what we're looking at.
Ben Fernandez: I understand.
Mr. Tragash:
Then one last thing. I'm trying to look at how you're getting 1,400 square feet of
open space when I look at this. What part is considered open and what part is
not considered open on your ground floor?
Dean Lewis: Open space by definition, undeveloped, accessible -
Mr. Tragash:
If you can just get to ground floor and just kind of show me, because I'm seeing
how is open space even on the building on the second floor covers it but it's set
back on the ground floor?
Dean Lewis: No, of course not. You have your open space -
Ms. Lewis: What sheet are you on?
Dean Lewis: A201. I'm going to look at my diagram two seconds here.
Mr. Tragash: From 1,400 square feet for 7,200, that's 20%. I don't see 20% open space.
While he is looking and I'm just looking at you Mr. Powers, the letter that was
signed on your behalf -
Bob Powers:
Mr. Tragash:
Bob Powers:
Correct.
... on -
That was why at least I want to come up and say, because we want to make
something very clear to this board.
Mr. Tragash: Open space.
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 20 of 37
Bob Powers:
Mr. Tragash:
Bob Powers:
Mr. Tragash:
We approved the changing of that house to be used as an office for commercial
use. The neighborhood, but at the time the neighborhood didn't know that that
owner also own the property next door nor did they ever plan to build a building
on it. So that was done in good faith with Mr. Lewis at the time to give his client
[crosstalk 01:09:34].
This is specifically the December 4, 2017 letter.
No, that was for '15, 2015. That was for 563.
No, but this is saying signature Alisa Cepeda on behalf of the Palm Grove
Neighborhood Associations, Bob Powers, president.
Bob Powers: Right. No, no, no, but I also want to clear up the other Fetter that Mr. Lewis
gave. I'm sorry. What was the other thing, Alisa?
Alisa Cepeda: The letter that he is referencing is from 2015. This was a home. People live
there.
Mr. Tragash: I'm referring to this one that's signed on 2017.
Alisa Cepeda: No, that was an opposition to this ... That was back in November or December
believe when we started this process.
Mr. Tragash: We've voted-
Alisa Cepeda: I am referencing one from 2015 that I believe is in your package.
Mr. Tragash: I get it.
Alisa Cepeda: This was always a single-family home. We agreed -
Mr. Tragash: That's discrepancy before-
Alisa Cepeda: We agreed to allow this -
Bob Powers: We didn't know. We had no idea that this project was coming along. We didn't
know that.
Alisa Cepeda: We feel we keep getting pushed.
Mr. Tragash: Understood. Thank you.
So you were just looking at the open space requirements.
Dean Lewis: Yes sir. Open space, any parcel or area of land. This is how we calculated it
based essentially unimproved permanent by permanent building open to the
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 21 of 37
Mr. Tragash:
Dean Lewis:
Mr. Tragash:
Dean Lewis:
Mr. Tragash:
Dean Lewis:
Mr. Tragash:
Dean Lewis:
Mr. Tragash:
Dean Lewis:
Mr. Tragash:
Dean Lewis:
Mr. Tragash:
Dean Lewis:
Mr. Tragash:
Dean Lewis:
Mr. Tragash:
sky such they shall be reserved for public or private use. Open spaces may
include parks, greens, squares, courtyards, hence our garden courtyard is
included in that open space on level two.
So the open space isn't on the ground floor. It's in level two.
It's combined. It's on the ground and on the courtyard level, and includes
gardens, playgrounds -
The roof as well?
... patios. This is as per article one, definition of Miami 21. Just to follow up, our
green space is also -
On both levels.
... combined and that open space outdoors at green, on roof landscape and free
of impervious surfaces, and now you have 795 square feet.
So they occur on multiple levels, isn't it?
Yes. Open space, yes. It's allowed -
One last question just to understand this. So I see there's a pool on the second
floor.
It's more of a water feature than a pool. You could call it a plunge pool.
Is it only accessible to the lower floor units?
No, no, it's accessible to everybody.
How would they get there without going through those units? It looks you have
to walk through someone's unit to get there unless those are your, the three
units.
The three -unit lofts, the unit lofts have access to that pool. The upper three
units don't have immediate access to that. They have separate balconies since
then.
They have the overlook to it, but they can't. Got it.
Then of course every tenant or occupant has access to to the roof terrace,
trellis.
So let me just -
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 22 of 37
Dean Lewis:
Mr. Tragash:
Garden trellis.
... just get back to where I think the other board members were trying to find a
resolution and myself as well as how can this be more compatible with the
neighborhood. How can it go down in height? What l'm saying the having floors
that are only 30% of the site that you seem you could increase that so you could
eliminate the whole floor or eliminate two floors. There were some other
suggestions, well, maybe there could be a covenant for adjacent property and
so therefore this would be a little bit higher but that wouldn't it will create a
better buffer. I think that's the direction we -
Ben Fernandez: I had that discussion with ownership. They are willing to drop down another
foot on each floor to 55 to roof deck and response to your concern.
Ms. Lewis: Say that again?
Ben Fernandez:
Instead of 60 feet to top of roof deck, we'll push down another five feet by
going to 11 feet floor -to -floor instead of our proposed 12, which is already two
feet lower than our entitled 14.
Ms. Lewis: What does that make your height?
Ben Fernandez: 55 to roof deck instead of 60.
Ms. Lewis: 55 feet to the top of roof deck from grade.
Ben Fernandez: Yes.
Mr. Tragash: You see I'm looking at it from a different standpoint of if you have; and let me
just see what it is.
Dean Lewis: The trellis is above on top of the roof.
Mr. Tragash: Yes, but 21-foot setback on the west side.
Dean Lewis: That's actually greater than 21. As you can see here, depending on what you're
including [crosstalk 01:15:041,
Mr. Tragash:
Dean Lewis:
Mr. Tragash:
It's 22-foot 3 inches?
Yes.
So if you didn't have a 22-foot 3-inch setback and you had a 12-foot setback,
could you take two floors off?
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 23 of 37
Dean Lewis:
No, I couldn't. I couldn't take two floors off. That would eliminate the courtyard
and the terrace, reducing it down to the size of a bedroom as opposed to a
courtyard. 20 feet -
Mr. Tragash: More of an urban -
Dean Lewis:
Remember it's 20 feet of courtyard plus five feet of landscape buffer that comes
up from ground level. The ownership is adamant about the two -storey loft
product moreover than squeezing wider flats. You would significantly have to
reduce the square footage. Again, we are willing to come further down in height
to 11 feet floor -to -floor. Hopefully, that's amenable as well as offering up a
covenant to limit future development on the adjacent historic site to the west
to say for example maximum of T4 development or three storeys, two storeys,
three storeys, exactly three storeys. T4 is three storeys by the way.
It would seem to me that if the transition is sit and separate from the supports
but also part of your concern is that we introduce in the rezoning band of T4
transitional zoning on that westerly strip. We can resolve this issue for future
concerns.
Chair Hopper: So just out of curiosity, who is the target market for this type of facility?
Dean Lewis:
High -end rental professionals. It's not expected to be a condominiumization.
The live -work loft product this was demographically tested, proven, found to be
the most attractive. They can have an office space and still their bedroom on
the loft level.
Chair Hopper: So would include office use as well?
Dean Lewis: Live -work meaning -
Chair Hopper: No, I mean, yes, they would have their office -
Dean Lewis: Not per se. Everybody likes to have a workspace and that seems to be the
attraction of the double -level loft.
Mr. Campbell:
Chair Hopper:
Mr. Campbell:
May I?
Yes Mr. Campbell. Sorry.
In terms of Mr. Tragash's suggestion, I do understand Mr. Lewis' position
because squashing down to three would eliminate the more sophisticated
spatial amenities, which is client desires. I would really make it a more a lower
costing housing project more than a more sophisticated urban product. So I
understand the difficulties in trying to cut two storeys and bring down to three
but in losing courtyard, losing those features. So I understand the difficulties
there and why he's at upside feet.
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 24 of 37
I also wanted to talk about this for everyone but especially the neighbors who
are in the area about urban theory in general, the New York City of 1992 and
how do you sophisticatedly advance and densify a neighborhood over a period
of 50 years to a century in a way that's compatible with life and enjoyment of
life for a neighborhood. We see what happened pre -Miami 21 in the Bayside
area where a single-family cottage have been next to a 50-storey building.
That's some of the things that Miami 21 came along to resolve because
development rights, some property rights, some property ownership and the
capitalism opens the door to certain activities in development.
So I think the neighbors should actually be grateful to Miami 21 and be grateful
for T5 transects and designations for those lots, because it has effectively
disempowered any kind of 50, 30, 20-storey high rise desires who are definitely
being or should I say Biscayne Boulevard is definitely being eyed for. So Miami
21 actually saved the Biscayne Boulevard and those neighborhoods from that
kind of speculation. They should also be grateful for Mr. Lewis' efforts to really
minimize like he said legally, there are about 84 or 85 feet. This is now 60 feet.
I will ask the neighbors to think about if you do have children and you have a
business, where do people live? The City of Miami needs many, many more
apartment buildings than they have right now to come on line. They need
apartment buildings that are neighborhood scale. I think this one example of a
project that accomplishes this. 5o I'm approaching from the angle of a hundred
years from now. What would the neighbors think of this project as you're
viewing it as it unfolds today. That's why I am in agreement with this project
because it really has solved a lot of urban theory issues that I have studied and
seen in many cities around the world and what I have seen happened here in
Miami itself in the last 20 years.
There's also a couple of things about the staff analysis I want to talk about. On
packet page 158 on the; one, two, three, four, on the fifth paragraph it says, "It
can be argued that the east and north elevations contain a large sections of
blank windowless walls." So I'm not sure if there is an adjustment between that
paragraph when it was written and the drawings we see now. I'm not seeing the
large windowless walls situation that is written here. That's one thing.
The 19-foot setback, which was written in the next page 159 on the fourth
paragraph, rough to understand urban design theory and that a 19-foot setback
is appropriate for a one -storey or two -storey single-family home. When
buildings get larger and have more dense features, setbacks are reduced and
that's to accommodate the functions of the building. So that's why when
Biscayne Boulevard is so close over a setback on the four Tots back, it still a
reduced setback situation. That's part of urban design theory.
So for these reasons, I ask the neighbors to really think about what I have said is
in front of them what T5 Miami 21 has done, because I think the problem is not
necessarily Mr. Lewis or his project but the size of buildings that will come on
line for the neighborhood in the future. I hope that in compromise with
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 25 of 37
development in the City of Miami the fact that high rises would want to go in
Biscayne Boulevard 50, 30, 40 storeys and now you have T5 that gently, maybe
not to your absolute liking but gently in terms of urban theory in general brings
buildings down to scale back into the single-family neighborhood as if the street
is ... two streets in from Biscayne Boulevard. That block is directly on Biscayne
Boulevard. A block shares Biscayne Boulevard so it is open to more intense
development, which is this building is not really that intense at all. Thank you.
Chair Hopper: Any other comments?
Mr. Calley:
Dean Lewis:
Mr. Calley:
Dean Lewis:
Mr. Calley:
Dean Lewis:
Yes. So just rewinding back a little bit to this concept of the reduced height, I say
we somehow agree to a concept of the 55-foot. Regardless, we're still able to
see this dramatic facade from Biscayne Boulevard, which is all this naturally
ventilated corridors. You've seen in the other building that is along Biscayne
Boulevard set and basically the same spot I figured it's on maybe 68th Street. It's
a similarly scaled building, very tall, brown. It's definitely an eyesore in a lot of
ways. I don't know if you're familiar with which one I'm referring.
That's why this one was designed.
Right. What's interesting about that is as we are setting a precedent here and
this is sort of the gateway to the neighborhood because it is that line that runs
along parallel to Biscayne Boulevard, it is an opportunity with that phase.
You had mention the parking lot that's to the east of it. That one never be built
on because it's connected to the hotel on the north side of the block, so always
build [seal as facade 01:25:50]. I'm curious since you mentioned this is a
commercial product that they're going to be doing rental .. It's going to be
maintained by a specific owner. You've designed plantings for the street side of
the building. Would it be a problem and you got pretty nice wide five-foot
corridors. Is it pretty healthy with corridor to create a green wall or whether be
internal or along the railing itself to allow for more of a green aesthetic, small
plantings, [inaudible 01:26:28] or something simple. Because it's going to be
maintained by one owner, that will give a very nice lush green aesthetic to the
eastern facing facade.
We opted to put the common green space primarily on the roof, which will
overhang and you'll see dearly from the east as well. Those corridors and the
width, the planting ledge ends up being built into your structural component of
your parapet and heighten or thicken the parapet. We wanted a lighter or glassy
look on those railings in those walkways.
What are the bars that are designed into the facade? I'm talking about the
eastern facade of course.
Yes, right here.
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 26 of 37
Mr. Carley:
Dean Lewis:
Mr. Calley:
Dean Lewis:
Mr. Calley:
Dean Lewis:
Mr. Carley:
Dean Lewis:
Mr. Calley:
Dean Lewis:
Mr. Calley:
Dean Lewis:
Mr. Calley:
Yes, exactly.
This is an eight -inch slab projection with mosaic tile on the face of that edge to
create that linear line work and further reduce the height impact.
If that was thickened vertically to be able to house a planting device, then we'd
be reading a facade that would basically the ... Yes, exactly. I think it would
soften the edge condition that's being created while also setting a precedent for
something more interesting than just a stock of edge of a building.
Perhaps imagine that that here in these two bays to parallel.
You mean as opposed to running in along the hall cordon.
The full length. Well, yes, I'd rather see it here in the center full length or on the
two edges.
I would say the longer portion of the building be nice. I don't know if -
Two every other or all this floor we don't need, but one, two, three levels, three
levels?
I would say the ones that we be able to actually see from the street side. I'd be
above the third storey right around there.
So these two levels here.
Yes.
It's a good idea. it's always a great element. I'm always pro -green space that
increased the cost of construction, planters, drainage, sprinklering,
maintenance. It's better than some of the plastic mesh painted green I've seen
throughout the town.
What becomes interesting about this lot is it actually does have two main
frontages. You've got your main street frontage, but you've got your Biscayne
Boulevard frontage, which will be able to be seen up and down the corridor, so
that's -
Dean Lewis: I like the idea. It's perfectly adaptable to us.
Trachtenberg: Mr. Chair, care if I ask a question?
Chair Hopper: Yes.
Trachtenberg: Mr. Lewis, quick question. The green space area is on the first floor are
overhung by the second floor floor plate, is that correct?
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 27 of 37
Dean Lewis:
No, sir. The green spaces on Plan A201 are open to the sky here. You have your
green space and you have a five-foot rear setback of green. We have a little less
than three feet of green planting area, but five feet void along the west
boundary and then that's on the ground level, as per code requirement.
Trachtenberg: Well, I guess what I'm ... My take is this. I think that the -
Dean Lewis:
Trachtenberg:
The wall is already constructed on the neighbor side. We do foresee travelers
palms along that boundary to compliment their landscaping, which I happen to
know. It also includes traveler palms.
Somebody mentioned earlier that I made obviously the idea to look every
project within context. My feeling being a resident in the neighborhood is that
the architecture ... I really, really, like the architecture. I think you've done a
really, an excellent job in making the building seemed very transparent. I think
that the elevation in the front the way you've treated with those two big picture
frame windows so to speak I think that that's really successful. I think the way
that you broke up the front facade and you have the linear vertical strip with the
plantings I think is really cool.
Dean Lewis: Thank you.
Trachtenberg: The western massing is from my understanding, so you're involved with both
projects, correct?
Dean Lewis: Yes.
Trachtenberg: The one to the west and the one to the east. The way you have that the pool
courtyard garden area is completely open so there is no ... You've completely
gotten rid of the mass with the exception of your I guess vertical or your
horizontal structure.
Dean Lewis:
Trachtenberg:
Dean Lewis:
Trachtenberg:
Yes, sir. This is open space. There is the fountain wall that you see here in the
elevation from the level of the courtyard here with me. Other than that, this is
all open.
What I'm looking at is I'm looking at what are the possibilities here that you can
just make some, maybe there are some landscape -related adjustments that can
be made.
We do have palms planted in there on the courtyard already, structured
planters.
I see that. I see at the ground floor there's a really, really narrow landscape strip
in between the parking and the wall in the adjacent west, correct? So you're a
little bit limited in terms of what you can do from a vegetative massing
standpoint in that location.
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 28 of 37
Dean Lewis: Yes.
Trachtenberg: Theoretically, you could take the, you could really bolster the water feature
courtyard garden. You could adjust it and put a much extensive landscape
screen along that western side, maybe minimize the size of the water feature,
do something more thick and lush and like a tropical garden there. That could
be really awesome. I would imagine that your neighbors would necessarily, that
the residents would necessarily want to be looking west across at the roofs of
the other buildings beyond. So I'm saying is you could totally make that. The
way this designed you could make that a much more effective tropical garden
on that second level.
Dean Lewis: Yes, absolutely we could.
Trachtenberg: That could very well be more cost-effective than building a big water feature or
something in conjunction, just doesn't -
Dean Lewis: So smaller, significantly smaller. In exchange for the wall panel, introduce a layer
of green here that's -
Trachtenberg: That would be -
Dean Lewis: At least seven feet in mature height.
Trachtenberg: Or could even be taller, correct? The space is completely open.
Dean Lewis: Sure.
Trachtenberg: It could be taller. You could basically make that entire west side completely
almost disappear with bamboo or something like that. I'm not to go too far in
the direction, but you could make that a really, really awesome tropical garden.
Dean Lewis: An elegant layer of bamboo along this would be fantastic.
Trachtenberg: So that would do a lot to that -
Dean Lewis: Richer.
Trachtenberg: That would do a lot to that western elevation and then ... I understand the
height issues. I understand that this is complex because it's in a historic ... It's on
the border between one historic area and another, correct? There are larger
buildings in the neighborhood. There are big buildings all around. They're just I
guess grandfathered in or that they were there previous to a lot of these
discussions. So I think that if you look at everything within context and if scale is
a major issue here, it just seems to me that the architecture is really I think
really classic, really nice. If there's a way to tweak it with the exterior and the
landscape and some of these high compromises and then the concept that you
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 29 of 37
have this western parcel as well, I think that it's a really cool project. To the east,
it's a parking lot. To the east, it's a parking lot. So this building ends up becoming
the -
Dean Lewis: Buffer.
Trachtenberg:
If you drive down Biscayne Boulevard, there's the brown building on the corner
there. You end up seeing this beyond and it's 25 feet taller now, So I wish that ...
My feelings are that if that helps.
Dean Lewis: Thank you.
Chair Hopper: Anyone else before I make a comment?
I'm looking at sheet looks like IM 1.04 where you have shadowed the, I guess
allowable volumes present in that.
Dean Lewis: Yes.
Chair Hopper:
Mr. Tragash:
Yes. That's what really, really troubling Miami 21 notwithstanding. There's no
way I could support the intrusion of something so large in a historic district. The
project is good, but there is no way I could support the intrusion of something
so large in a historic district, Miami 21 and zoning notwithstanding. That's all I
have to say. Perhaps someone has some more.
I just want to say in terms I have a big problem with this for the same reason of
this precedent that this would set I think is going to really negatively impact the
historic district. I look at it in doing a lot of work in Miami Beach Flamingo Park
area, which has very high cost per square foot, very desirable areas. Those are
50-foot wide lots basically the same depth 120, 130 feet. There are two to three
storeys. They are well over the 12,000 square feet that you have. They don't
have these gardens. They don't have these two -storey volumes, but the location
of this being one block off of Biscayne Boulevard or not even a whole block is
going to be very desirable. I think the extra height, that's what I'm saying is you
could go the 14 feet high, but you could get this within three storeys. I think it
would be extremely marketable. I think the economics of it, the value of your
either sale or rental per square foot will be as high or higher and it would be
more contextual with the neighborhood.
So I just feel I can't ... We keep saying, "Well, you have to have this garden. You
have to have this thing." I find it somewhat if I were on the ground floor or the
second floor and I had people on the unit above me overlooking me and had to
share that terrace space, I don't see it as a real benefit. Again, I'm not saying for
this. I'm saying primarily, my decisions being formulated by the context,
Ms. Lewis: Mr. Chairman?
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 30 of 37
Chair Hopper: Yes, Ms. Lewis.
Ms. Lewis:
I would like to make a motion for the issuance of the Certificate of
Appropriateness for property at 571 Northeast 67th Street to permit the
demolition of a non-contributing structure and the new construction of a multi-
storey residence with a roof top terrace in accordance with plans. I'm going to
say they were prepared by DB Lewis and dated December 5, 2017, but staff can
correct me if I don't have that date correct, on four conditions.
Number one that the applicant and its beneficial affiliate will voluntarily proffer
a covenant restricting the height of property co -owned the address of which is
563 Northeast 67th Street to not greater than the height permitted by T3L
zoning without in any way abrogating the HEP Board order of 2015 Certificate of
Appropriateness for that site at 563 Northeast 67th Street, and without limiting
that property's right to seek TDRs in accordance with the existing law.
Number two that the height of the structure from grade to the top of the roof
deck shall not exceed 55 feet.
Number three that there will be levels of horizontal landscaping from floors
three to roof on the east elevation of the structure to be approved by staff.
Number four that the west elevation will be made into a lush tropical garden
not less than seven feet of height, also to be approved by staff.
Ben Fernandez: In level two.
Chair Hopper: In level two.
Ben Fernandez: Which is the courtyard level so to speak.
Ms. Lewis: Okay. West elevation at level two will be a lush tropical garden not less than
seven feet in height to be approved by staff.
Chair Hopper: Is that it?
Ms. Lewis: That's it.
Chair Hopper: is there a second?
Mr. Campbell: Yes.
Chair Hopper: Mr. Campbell is second.
Alisa Cepeda: If I may quickly? I do have one somewhat of a concern to put a restriction on the
property that's that in front of the board. It's not a part of the application. I do
have somewhat of a concern.
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 31 of 37
Ms. Lewis: Counsel voluntarily proffered it. Counsel has represented that he represents
both property owners.
Alisa Cepeda:
If we could just have on the record that it's voluntary and if we could just put a
specific relationship on the record, then I would feel a little bit more
comfortable.
Ben Fernandez: Obviously if we don't satisfy that condition, the Certificate of Appropriateness or
Special Certificate of Appropriateness would be meaningless.
Ms. Lewis: Void up this year.
Ben Fernandez: Exactly. Thank you, counsel.
Mr. Campbell:
Before we proceed, I'll request info for counsel. When that special relationship
goes on the record, is it binding in the future for when ground breaks or when
plans are submitted for the property next door? Is it binding straight all the way
to the moment of potential construction on that lot?
Alisa Cepeda: The board's decision, the board's condition?
Mr. Campbell:
Alisa Cepeda:
The special relationship you described should be on the record that the counsel
for the owners agreed to abide by the condition hence that abiding of the
condition binding for the life of that property to the point where it begins to be
built upon.
I'm not sure I understand the question, so let me explain a little bit further by
what I meant by a special relationship. So one, l just wanted to be clear on the
record that it is voluntary. Two, the special relationship is between why this has
anything to do with this specific project that is in front of the board, so what
does limiting the height next door, what's that relationship with approving this
specific property. Does that make sense?
Mr. Campbell: Yes.
Alisa Cepeda: So whatever the board decides at the end, it would be a condition and the
covenant would be binding if that's where you were going with it.
Mr. Campbell: Yes, thank you.
Alisa Cepeda: All right, perfect.
Chair Hopper: Any other questions on the motion? [Marian 01:44:071 roll call please.
Mr. Freedman: I'm sorry. Is this discussion or questions?
Chair Hopper: Either one.
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 32 of 37
Mr. Freedman:
Two items. One, kudos to Mr. Lewis for a very professional job. Number two,
members of this board who are on this board in 2009 sat through interminable
meetings off until midnight to go through hundreds of properties in Palm Grove
to give birth to the district. The constant mantra of the residence was we want
to protect our neighborhood from the incursion of more tall buildings. For that
reason, I can't support it.
Chair Hopper: Anything else? Roll call please.
Speaker 2: Before you do the roll call, staff has a number of other conditions that the board
would perhaps like to consider.
Ms. Lewis: Where might we find those?
Speaker 2:
We actually have them here, which I can read and you can either agree with
them or not agree with them, because staff's initial recommendation was for a
continuance so there wasn't a continuance with conditions.
Ms. Lewis: In an effort to speed things up?
Speaker 2:
We were thinking number four, preservation staff showed, reviewed and
approved the pervious pebbles for the proposed driveway located on the
ground level of the primary frontage along Northeast 67th Avenue.
Ms. Lewis: Yes.
Speaker 2:
Number six, environmental resources staff showed, reviewed and approved an
alternative to the proposed two new live oaks and proposed two new
Montgomery palms.
Ms. Lewis: Yes.
Speaker 2:
Ms. Lewis:
Speaker 2:
Ms. Lewis:
Number seven, should environment resources staff pursuant to chapter 17 of
the City Code of Ordinances determine specimen -sized trees would be
negatively impacted by the new construction. The matter shall be referred to
the head for its decision.
Reluctantly, yes. You want to know that by now. Before we get to this, we've
been at this for two hours. This is the third time that all these neighbors have
come down and all these applicants have come down and to say, "Oh by the
way, we need to refer this to another department," is not way ought to be.
Number 10, the applicant showed update proposed construction plans to
include bay windows at the cantilever balconies.
I don't know what that means.
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 33 of 37
Speaker 2: That's actually zoning, so zoning the actual [inaudible 01:47:07] will take care of
that. That's for Miami 21.
Ms. Lewis: Wouldn't that be covered by ... I assume you're going to want 15.
Speaker 2: Yes [inaudible 01:47:23].
Ms. Lewis: So 15, yes.
Speaker 2: Number 13, preservation and zoning staff showed, reviewed and approved the
location design of the proposed bike racks.
Ms. Lewis: Yes,
Speaker 2: Number 15, the project shall ... We have that.
Ms. Lewis: 14.
Speaker 2: We had one other here. The property owner shall maintain all landscaping
specifically because of the new landscaping requirements on the building. We
want to make sure the property owner will maintain that landscaping on the
building.
Ms. Lewis: Yes.
Chair Hopper: [inaudible 01:48:04].
Ms. Lewis: One, two, three, four, five, six. Six plus four, 10.
Chair Hopper: Plus the last one.
Ms. Lewis: That's three. One, two, three.
Mr. Campbell: As a second though, let me make clear on the staff proposed conditions;
number six, number seven, 10, 13 and 15. Am I correct?
Ms. Lewis: What about four?
Speaker 2: Four. Number four -
Mr. Campbell: Number four also.
Speaker 2: ... number six, number seven, number 14, number 15 and we introduced the
new one that the property owner shall maintain the landscaping on the
building.
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 34 of 37
Mr. Freedman:
Mr. Chair, I have a question. This brings up some interesting points. There's
conditions here they mentioned things. There's existing trees on the property.
There's things that are going to come into play as this process moves from this
board into permitting. So rather than go piece by piece through every single
component of for instance landscape plans, I think I would like to add an
additional condition to the ones that are already made, which is that the
applicant should thoroughly study the existing landscape plan, should really
beef up the landscape on the north elevation in all locations possible to ensure
that the building is going to be adequately screened on all sides in a tasteful
manner that's conducive with the architectural design. Because there just things
that are going to happen. You're not proposing a lot in the northern setback
area. There's a lot of blank wall in there, riot an attractive blank wall but it's a
big facade and you have your largest ground level landscape area along that
northern elevation. So a lot of things you could do there that could substantially
make this architecture blend into the surrounding environment and still be
within context.
So that's a general condition, which I would suggest should be added.
Ms. Lewis: Increase landscaping on north elevation to be approved by staff.
Mr. Freedman:
Greatly increase proposed size, quantity, location, material of landscaping and
all landscape areas to further enhance the interior or exterior garden
architectural design style, and then to be reviewed and approved by staff.
Chair Hopper: You got it.
Ms. Lewis: I accept.
Mr. Campbell: Reflected and updated landscape plan.
Mr. Freedman: That's all going to happen when they hit that portion. That's what I'm
suggesting.
Chair Hopper: Any other discussion? We have a roll call please.
Alisa Cepeda: Excuse me. If I could please, if I could have the board put on the record that
special relationship between the neighboring property and this one.
Ms. Lewis:
Can I talk? We have heard sworn testimony from applicant's counsel; A, that he
represents the owner of 571 Northeast 67th Street and that he also represents
the owner of 563 Northeast 67th Street.
Mr. Freedman: Isn't there some overlapping ownership there?
Ben Fernandez: Yes.
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 35 of 37
Ms. Lewis:
That there is overlapping ownership and that in recognition of the planning
principles of transition zoning and transition of heights between taller structures
and lower structures. That those beneficial owners recognize the value of having
a step-down; I think that's the right word, between heights specifically 55 feet at
571 Northeast 67th Street and the single -storey residences to the west, which
are located in the T3L district. That the applicant's counsel recognizes all of that
and has with the approval of his clients voluntarily proffered to record a
covenant the form of which will be subject to the reasonable approval of
counsel, the applicant and the city attorney, which will reflect that the
maximum height on the property the address of which is 563 Northeast 67th
Street will not be greater than that permitted by T3L. Does that do it?
Alisa Cepeda: Yes.
Mr. Freedman: Uses not affected by that.
Ms. Lewis: I'm talking height.
Mr. Freedman: I'm talking uses.
Ms. Lewis: I'm talking height.
Alisa Cepeda: Thank you.
Chair Hopper: Do we have roll call now please.
Speaker 1: Roll call. Roll call on HEPB item number 3, file ID 3166.
Ms. Lewis?
Ms. Lewis: Yes.
Speaker 1: Mr. Campbell.
Mr. Campbell: Yes.
Speaker 1: [Mr. Calley 01:53:39].
Mr. Calley: Yes.
Speaker 1: Mr. Freedman.
Mr. Freedman: No.
Speaker 1: Mr. Tragash?
Mr. Tragash: No.
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 36 of 37
Speaker 1: Mr. Trachtenberg?
Trachtenberg: Yes.
Speaker 1: Chair Hopper.
Chair Hopper: No.
Speaker 1: Motion passes four to three as amended. This decision is final unless appealed
in the hearing board's division within 15 days.
Ben Fernandez: Thank you.
Chair Hopper: Thank you.
How did we do?
If you rate this transcript or bei
this agent will not work on your
future orders
Rate this transcript
Public Comments & Discussion (Cut) Page 37 of 37
The Palm Grove Neighborhood Association
565 NE 66th Street
Miami FL 33138
(305) 299-0052
Jan. 9, 2018
To Whom It May Concern:
The Palm Gove Neighborhood Association's Board ("PGNA Board") makes the following
resolutions:
1. We the PGNA voted to appeal the City of Miami HEP Board's decision from Jan. 2, 2018 to
approve and provide a special certificate of appropriateness of the project at 571 NE 76th
Street in the Palm Grove neighborhood. Motioned by B. Powers and seconded by M.
Loveland. Vote was unanimous.
2. We the PGNA voted to retain Mr. Lowell Kuvin, Esq. to assist us with the appeal to the
City of Miami HEP Board's approval of the proposed project at 571 NE 67`1' Street.
e by B. Powers and seconded by M. Loveland. Vote was unanimous.
Presiden
of the Palm Grove Neighborhood Association, Bob Powers
Secretary of the Pa Grove Neighborhood Association, Alisa Cepeda
[end of document]
Page 1 of 1
APPEALS
PREPARING LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET
You will only be responsible for providing the documents as instructed below in order to meet the filing
criteria. You will not need to obtain signatures from any of your neighbors before, during, or after the
public hearing process.
Below is the format required for preparing the ownership list of real estate properties within 500 feet of
the subject property. This information must reflect the most current records on file in the Miami -Dade
County Tax Assessor's Office. If you have any questions, please call us at 305-416-2030.
• Should you wish, you may obtain this information from a real estate consultant found in the
yellow pages of your phone book, or from the City of Miami's GIS map located at the following
web address:
https://maps.miamigov.com/miamizoning/index.htm
1. COVER LETTER — You may use the format shown on the following page. The letter is to be signed
by the person who composed the list.
2. MAP — A map of the property showing the radius —from the outside boundary of the site —indicating
all properties within a 500-foot radius.
3. OWNERSHIP LIST — The list should include the owners' name(s), mailing address, property street
address(es) and legal descriptions, including one individual from the condominium association
within the notification area. This list must be provided in the format shown below.
OWNERSHIP LIST
Legal Description: Mailing Label:
SUBDIVISION NAME (Plat Book/Page) Owner's Name(s) and
Block #, Lot #, Mailing Address
Street Address City, State Zip Code
Example:
A.L. KNOWLTON'S MAP OF MIAMI (B-41)
Block 1, Lot 2
345 SW 6th Street
JOHN SMITH
123 SW 4th Street
Miami, Florida 33156
4. MAILING LABELS — One (1) set showing only the name and mailing address of all property owner(s)
listed in the ownership list, as in the example above, using one space per name. Be sure to observe
the margins of each space. Please avoid duplication of labels where the same owner name with the
same property address appears more than once.
R.ev. 01-2018 7
APPEALS
709
Date
CITY OF MIAMI
HEARING BOARDS
P 0 BOX 330708
MIAMI, FL 33233-0708
Re: Property Owner's List Within 500 Feet of:
Street Address(es)
Total number of labels without repetition:
FG�
certify that the attached ownership list, map and mailing labels are a complete and accurate
representation of the real estate property and property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject
property listed above. This information reflects the most current records on file in the Miami -Dade
County Tax Assessor's Office.
VC
Name or Company_ ame
Add
3°5/
t5/05- —CLW
,eatE-mail
_
^f�
1,0471,
Rev. 01-2018
8
CITY OF MIAMI-DEPT OF P&D ASSET
MANAGEMENT DIVISION
444 SW 2 AVE STE #325
MIAMI, FL 33130-1910
MARIA DANIELLA MORAN JTRS MARIA DE
LOURDES MORAN JTRS
551 NE 69 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138
6925 BISCAYNE LLC
1261 20 ST
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139
M1169 INC
6900 BISCAYNE BLVD 8
MIAMI, FL 33138
MARIE SMITH
636 NE 68 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138-6211
TIXE DESIGNS INC
714 NE 59 ST
MIAMI, FL 33137
CARLOS R PERUYERA
524 NE 69 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138-5629
ERIN LUCAS
650 NE 68 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138
LORETTA TARPIN
657 NE 67 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138-6204
MIMO 68 ST LLC
2742 BISCAYNE BLVD
MIAMI, FL 33137
HINT 68 LLC
2515 FLAMINGO DR
MIAMI, FL 33140
MILUTZOK & LEVY PA TRUSTEE
3230 STIRLING RD # 1
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021
NANCY M ESCOBAR JUAN J YACTAYO
500 NE 68 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138
FRA!SANT ENTERP CO
180 ISLAND DR
KEY BISCAYNE, FL 33149
BETANCUR INC
341 NE 92 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138-3133
MEV PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT LLC
542 NE 139 ST
NORTH MIAMI, FL 33161
MIS KILITOS LLC
235 NE 25 ST
MIAMI, FL 33137
CAROLINE DEFREZE
635 NE 68 STREET
MIAMI, FL 33138
LIVEWORK 560 LLC
6900 BISCAYNE BLVD #8
EL PORTAL, FL 33138
VIRGILE C PIERRE MARTHE PIERRE
516 NE 69 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138
BALANS BISCAYNE PROPERTIES LC
1022 LINCOLN RD
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139-2502
6621 BISCAYNE LLC
4213 NAUTILUS DR
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140
FALKON PROPERTIES LLC
36 NE 1 ST #512
MIAMI, FL 33132
6700 BISCAYNE BLVD LLC
4550 Sabal Palm Rd
Miami, FL 33137-3378
522 NE 68 ST LLC
146 NE 47 ST
MIAMI, FL 33137
INNAD INC
650 NE 122 ST
NORTH MIAMI, FL 33161
NEW YORKER HOTEL MIAMI LLC
6500 BISCAYNE BLVD
MIAMI, FL 33138
MARIO CASTILLO ANA M CASTILLO
530 NE 66 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138-5619
IGNACIO GOMEZ
539 NE 67 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138
MORNINGSIDE MIMO APARTMENTS LLC
2742 BISCAYNE BLVD
MIAMI, FL 33137
MARIE VEROLISE LUCIEN HOLKYN
GENESTE
500 NE 66 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138
MIMO 67 ST LLC
2742 BISCAYNE BLVD
MIAMI, FL 33137
INTERSTATE DEVELOPMENT LLP
2295 NW CORPORATE BLVD 210
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
CYRIL MATZ
2742 BISCAYNE BLVD
MIAMI, FL 33137
SCHOOL BOARD OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
1450 NE 2 AVE
MIAMI, FL 33132-1308
JUDY S CARTER
PO BOX 370828
MIAMI, FL 33137
LARRY WEXLER
3030 NE 13 AVE
OAKLAND PARK, FL 33334
ORANGE JUICE PROPERTIES LLC
235 NE 25 ST
MIAMI, FL 33137
ARTHUR NOGUERA
175 SW 7 ST #1605
MIAMI, FL 33130
DISTRESSED MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS
LLC
PO BOX 7802
JUPITER, FL 33468
BETTY DOYLE
535 NE 69 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138-5628
6925 BISCAYNE LLC
1261 20 ST
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139
FARAH KHALIL
536 NE 69 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138
JEAN M GUZ & ANNE CHARLES
511 NE 68 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138-5624
GREGORY POMARET SABRINA IDDOU
637 NE 67 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138
ALEXANDER KING GEOVANIS STEVEN
GEOVANIS
41 RIVER TER
NEW YORK, NY 10282
DOMINIC TERRY &W CONSTANCE
211 MANNA WAY
SYLVA, NC 28779
EUGENIA ROSS ROBINSON
9135 LITTLE RIVER DR
MIAMI, FL 33147-3242
6660 DN LLC 3404 N MIAMI AVE LLC
4550 SABAL PALM RD
MIAMI, FL 33137
CYRIL MATZ
2742 BISCAYNE BLVD
MIAMI, FL 33137
MARGARITA CAPELES LE REM FREDERIC
MIGUEL FRANCES JR
513 NE 66 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138
6800 BISCAYNE BLVD LLC CIO KURKIN
BRANDES LLP
18851 NE 29 AVE STE 303
AVENTURA, FL 33180
NP528 LLC
528 NE 69 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138
IPANEMA MORNINGSIDE LLC
5150 N MIAMI AVE
MIAMI, FL 33127
SEBASTIAN VEGA MARGARET PAULA
BENDER
645 NE 67 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138
FELD SUB A LLC
1750 N BAYSHORES DR
MIAMI, FL 33132
MOUNT ZION EVANGELICAL BAPTIST
CHURCH INC
6720 NE 5 AVE
MIAMI, FL 33138-5611
LOGIS 68 LLC
640 NE 51 ST
MIAMI, FL 33137
GERARD SIMILIEN &W FIDONIE
6701 NE 5 AVE
MIAMI, FL 33138-5610
ROMAIN LAGUERRE &W SEDLAIT
508 NE 67 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138-5621
NILDA PUCHADES
6601 NE 5 AVE
MIAMI, FL 33138
LARRY WEXLER
557 NE 66 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138
572 MORNINGSIDE LLC
2742 BISCAYNE BLVD
MIAMI, FL 33137
SYNERGY CONSULTANTS GROUP LLC
175 SW 7 ST STE 1605
MIAMI, FL 33130
KERRY WARE
547 NE 69 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138
DRORE I LLC
2290 S STATE RD 7
MIRAMAR, FL 33023
C & A LTD LIABILITY CO
282 PALM AVE
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139-5142
PAUL GARNER
5 CLAREMONT DR LEEDS
ENGLAND LS6 4ED,
ND570 LLC
6900 BISCAYNE BLVD STE 8
MIAMI, FL 33138
WAYNE A SUMNER
1400 COLORADO ST
BOULDER CITY, NV 89005
SANDRA SIMIONI
300 SUNRISE DR APT 1F
KEY BISCAYNE, FL 33149-2103
ROBERT H DUNN III
628 NE 67 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138-6205
KENNETH KING
545 NE 68 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138-5624
BISCAYNE INN & APT LLC
16485 NW 13 ST
PEMBROKE PINES, FL 33028
ADELINE CHERISCA
540 NE 68 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138
STANLEY JAMES BROWN JR
2975 NE 164 ST
NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FL 33160
INTERSTATE DEERFIELD LLC
2295 NW CORPORATE BLVD 210
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
MICHELET PHILOME &W AGNES
550-552 NE 67 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138-5621
MARGARETTE AUGUSTIN
6919 NE 5 AVE
MIAMI, FL 33138
ROGER D ST LOUIS &W MARIE A
545 NE 66 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138-5618
MAURICE DAVID GEROVITZ CASSANDRA
ANN VELTMAN
637 NE 68 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138
WAM RLTY LLC
1602 ALTON ROAD #11
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139
TONY MILHOMME &W ELISNA
501 NE 68 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138-5624
BLUAIS INVESTMENTS LLC
511 NE52ST
MIAMI, FL 33137
DANIELA GROUBECHLIEVA
634 NE 67 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138
JAVA HOLDINGS LLC
12555 BISCAYNE BLVD #877
NO MIAMI, FL 33181-2522
PIERRE M GOSSELIN & CJ RAMEIZL
2902 ALTON RD
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140
ROBERT J POWERS
565 NE 6
KNOCK KNOCK INVESTMENTS INC C/O
GLOBAL INVESTMENTS REALTY
235 NE 25 ST
MIAMI, FL 33137
553 NE 65 ST LLC
175 SW 7 ST #1606
MIAMI, FL 33130
RAMON T NAVARRO
567 NE 65 ST
MIAMI, FL 33315
UPTOWN SHOPS LLC
2025 TYLER ST
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33020
SUSAN L SONSON
520 NE 67 ST
MIAMI, FL 33138
537 NE 66ST LLC
1435 WASHINGTON AVE
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139
ALLIFE 66 CORP
333 NE 24TH ST # 441
MIAMI, FL 33137
522 NE 66TH STREET LLC
1281 NW 51 STREET
MIAMI, FL 33142
Page 1 of 1
Department of Finance
Online Payments
Receipt
Your Reference Number:
2018017001-221
01/17/2018 5:19:50 PM
Web_user
TRANSACTIONS
If you have a Transaction ID please click $957.00
here
2018017001-221-1
TRANS ID: 470576
BUSINESS NAME: COM
Fee Payment S525.00
FEE NAME: APPEAL - HISTORIC DESIGNATION/CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPIATENESS
Fee Payment 5432.00
FEE NamE: PUBLIC HEARING - MEETING MAIL NOTICE - NEIGHB
ORS
PAYMENT
Visa Credit Sale
CARD NUMBER: ********%*`*3936
FIRST NAME: Al sa
LAST NAME. Ce eda
111 I I I I I I Ili
i
CE20 8017001 22
I
TOTAL AMOUNT:
$957.00
i
$957.00
https: //securc3 5.ipayment.com/Miami/my/0/print_version.htm?_DOUBLESUBMIT_=S... 1 / 17/2018
NAME
1.
4. anflOW
(3000 C"0iG-
5. - ..iifl oLl^N
6.
Planning. Department
Hearing Boards Section / Appointments
REASON
c3-4 Vol) 1 Ot au 2 -oc---‘
lv,010c 'Ih eA.os
TIME IN
i � s 20
lc
(off
cC
TIME
ATTENDED
1o'30
vl
date: vin. I--1
PLANNING HEARING STAFF/
ZONNING BOARDS PLANNER
9.
11.
ootA
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
12o?
b
rio
c