Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Sarah Helen Sharp-Letter from Jorge M. Planas to the HEPBJorge M Planas 811 NE 715t Street Miami Florida 33138 May 23, 2018 Re: 571 NE 67 Street Historical and Environmental Preservation Board: abmitted into the public record for ite (s) �1 on 511 I City In regards to the proposed building at 571 NE 67 Street located within Historic Palm Grove and abutting the Historic MiMo District. It has been some years since Miami 21's adoption yet many seem to be unfamiliar with the Code, its intent, and proper implementation. As an author to this Code when I worked at Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company, I am surprised seeing the Code not being implemented correctly by designers, nor the staff reviewing for compliance. Perhaps it's a lack of knowledge or dare I say a purposeful overlook. Regardless, this is setting a dangerous precedent that will likely undo all the well - intended benefits this code was meant to offer and protect that replaced the previous zoning ordinance. The goal in any design should be to follow good urban design principles that benefit the entire community, including property owners. Good design should translate to higher value in function of building, aesthetics, and profitability. More importantly, good design will lead to a higher quality experience for pedestrians and add vitality to a neighborhood. Good design does not favor any particular sides of controversy, but instead help to bring in the reigns for a comprehensive and balanced project. My initial belief that many may oppose this project is due to its height. The height seems to be out of balance as the Historic MiMo District is forced to a measly 35' and the T5 zoning behind permits so much more in a neighborhood that is mostly made up of one to two story buildings with a T3 zoning. The objection to height is easily understood as there is an obvious imbalance. On the other hand, as we look towards redevelopment opportunities, we need to be flexible enough to encourage growth. The answer should lie in what the site yields in terms of its capacity that is reasonably economically viable and successful in the market place, while respecting the context that make these two historic neighborhoods abutting this site so special. Under the Miami 21 Code General Provision, there is a section on Purpose and Intent (2.1) which is often overlooked and highlights specific Conservation and Development Goals for our City. It is here where an answer to the controversial issues of heights and transitions between Transect zones may be found. A compromise that protects our historical resources and neighborhoods, and builds on its character, guiding growth or reduction with appropriate transitions. The questions we all should be asking... Does this building protect our historical resources and neighborhoods? Does it build on its character or does it seem out of place? What is the appropriate transition across the transect zones - considering one zone is forced to 35'? Perhaps that answer will be determined by this board, so I bring this portion of the Code to your attention for your own interpretation. However, although many may see the height as the main issue before you, the most important issue at hand is how the building behaves on the street at ground level. It is this relationship that is tied to the overall pedestrian experience and defines the quality of our public realm. If we fail "good design" here, the building becomes another lost opportunity. 1 lerk &\cor\-\-TA\-S"\\-\a�P �er�p.�n��,,eM.%1ew\\LVt) ��+1�c Jorge M Plarras 811 NE 71sY Street Miami Florida 33138 lubmitted into the u lic record f r ite s) P s 1__ on e City Clerk For a basic understanding under Miami 21 a property is divided into 3 layers. • The first layer is basically the area from where the property begins to where the building starts. It's defined by the setback — it is the "front yard." Each Transect zone will determine what is permitted within that area and what type of frontage is allowed. This layer shapes the public realm and determines what the street will feel like. • The third layer is the layer least visible from the street. Aside from whatever normal building functions one chooses to build or locate here, this area is where the least desirable functions or elements are permitted. Trash, utilities, and parking among other things. • The second layer is the most important of all layers. It is the layer that hides the least desirables of the third layer and it also gives life to the first layer feeding the public realm. It is at minimum 15' in depth, as illustrated in the corresponding transect diagrams. The depth is vital in assuring that it gives life to the street. It provides the eyes and ears that help make the street be and feel safe. The space here is often referred to as a liner or masking building which as defined by Miami 21 is "a building or part of a building with Habitable Space specifically designed to enfront a public space, masking a function without capacity to monitor public space, such as a parking lot, parking garage... the use involves human presence with direct view of the enfronting streets, excluding Parking garages..." "Habitable rooms in this space are designed and used for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, or working or combinations thereof. Bathrooms, toilet compartments, closets, halls, storage rooms, laundry and utility spaces, basement recreation rooms, and similar areas are not considered Habitable Rooms." Furthermore, "facades parallel to Frontage Lines define the public realm and are therefore more regulated...", which gives this board the authority to assure we regulate that these important spaces are not disregarded. The Miami 21 Code is not so stringent and has built in some flexibility to accommodate potential hardships or design opportunities. So even though parking is meant for the third layer, in T5, parking is allowed in the second layer for only 25% of the facade width on primary frontages as written in the text of the parking for T5 zones. A driveway is already permitted to disrupt this requirement up to 20' maximum. The Code also reads, "A driveway in the First Layer may be used for parking if it is less than the width allowed in the applicable transect, above which dimension it becomes subject to the constraints of a parking lot." Allowing more than the minimum already allowed is just abusive to the code and its intent. Without this habitable space/room with a depth that provides a true functioning use at the ground floor goes against all urban design principles that promotes the very things Miami 21 was designed to do. Turning a blind eye by allowing uses such as circulation, storage, parking, etc. to dominate this important layer makes for a bad building and an awful street. Also found within the Miami 21 Code: • The Block and Building- Guiding Principles (2.1.3.3), reads: o b-development should adequately accommodate vehicles while respecting the pedestrian and the spatial form of public space. o c-the design of Thoroughfares and Buildings should reinforce safe environments, but not at the expense of accessibility. Designs should incorporate principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. (i.e. Eyes and ears on the street) 2 Submitted into the pub('c record f ite City Clerk Jorge M Planas on � 811 NE 71sY Street Miami Florida 33138 • Within Article 4, worth noting some Design Review Criteria (Table 12): o BUILDING DISPOSITION: • Create transitions in height and mass with abutting properties and Transect Zones o BUILDING CONFIGURATION • Articulate the Building Facade vertically and horizontally in intervals appropriate to the existing Neighborhood and Transect Zone • Articulate the Building Facade at street level to recognize pedestrian continuity and interest, ... • Promote pedestrian interaction • Design all walls as active Facades, with doors and windows... o PARKING STANDARDS • Minimize the impact of automobile parking and driveways on the pedestrian environment and adjacent properties, especially T3 areas • Minimize off-street parking adjacent to a thoroughfare front and where possible locate parking behind the Building • Screen parking garage structures with Habitable Space Lastly, 1 would even propose to the owner(s) of this property that this building could be a better building if it were redesigned to incorporate the changes suggested. The habitable space will help to make the property feel and be safer and more importantly add life and vitality to the street and to its building. I am confident a unit with a potential ground floor patio or separate entrance will certainly be an attractive alternative that separates itself from the other units and should fetch a higher price. Modifying the structure somewhat so that it fits seamlessly into the neighborhood is better for the building, the neighborhood, its historical context and help shape the public realm and character we are all trying to protect within these two historic districts of Palm Grove and MiMo. I hope you find this informative and useful. Respectfully submitted, Jorge M Planas Resident of Historic Bayside Board Member of MiMo Biscayne Association Principal of Casa Landmark, Urban and Residential Design MIAMI 21 AS ADOPTED - JANUARY 2018 BUILDING DISPOSITION LOT OCCUPATION a. Lot Area - With rear vehicular access 5,000 s.f. min.; 40,000 s.f. max. 1,200 s.f. min.; 40,000 s.f. max. b. Lot Width - With rear vehicular access 50 ft min. 16 ft. min. c. Lot Coverage 80% max. d. Floor Lot Ratio (FLR) N/A e. Frontage at front Setback 70% min. f. Open Space 10% Lot Area min. 9. Density 65 du/ac max. BUILDING SETBACK a. Principal Front 10 ft. min. b. Secondary Front 10 ft. min. c. Side 0 ft. min. d. Rear 0 ft. min. e. Abutting Side or Rear T4 6 ft. min Abutting Side or Rear T3 10% of Lot depth"min. 11'through 2'd Story 26 ft. min. above 2" Story BUILDING CONFIGURATION FRONTAGE a. Common Lawn prohibited b. Porch & Fence prohibited c. Terrace or L.C. prohibited d. Forecourt permitted e. Stoop permitted f. Shopfront permitted (T5 L and T5 0 only) 9. Gallery permitted by Special Area Plan h. Arcade permitted by Special Area Plan BUILDING HEIGHT a. Min. Height 2 Stories b. Max. Height 5 Stories c. Max. Benefit Height 1 Story Abutting D1 ARTICLE 5. SPECIFIC TO ZONES ILLUSTRATION 5.5 URBAN CENTER TRANSECT ZONES (T5) Submitted into the pu li, BUILDING PLACEMENT record for items) on 5 /1.4 1( City Cler Comm 1-01 titerlor Lot 4r'4 ►4 ► 1M 3y 3rd PARKING PLACEMENT Caner Lot Viola Lot i • 80%mac 1 LEver as&ad tht .4 ter a'-ao' LEA BUILDING HEIGHT Max Bel r-►r Mac Height Mh Height a T Urrid.: 4 Mac Matt ABUTTING SIDE&REM D1 i ► a 4:1r 0nd —4 ABUTTING SDE &REM ALL ZONES INEPT T4 4 t a 2 Ont ►-1• t ABUTTING SIDE & REAR T4 ABUfINGSIDE &REAR Ta "1O% of Lot depth for Lots more then 120' deep G min for Lots less than 120' deep 22 me. I V.23 JORGE M PLANAS Submitted into the publi record fo ¢ite (s„' on City Clerk As Principal and Founding Member of Casa Landmark / UEDG, we are committed to bringing about a change in conventional patterns of development and introduce new principles based on the integration of neighborhood - based planning practices and sustainable community development. We take pride in designing unique buildings and spaces that have a relationship with the environment and that ultimately provides our clients, with a level of excitement, pride and joy in their everyday living. My personal experience varies from regional planning, urban revitalization to site -specific master plans, and architectural design. Among the most noted projects: Pedra Branca in Florianopolis, Brazil, selected by the Clinton Foundation as 1 of 16 founding projects of the Climate Positive Development Program; Lagos de Batan in Guayaquil, Ecuador which has redefined the real estate market in Ecuador through its extraordinary success; co -directed Miami 21, DPZ's most significant municipal zoning ordinance; and the Bayside Villa, a reimagined living footprint breathing new life to a historic Florida home. Business website: www.casalandmark.com Personal website: www.jorgemplanas.com WORK EXPERIENCE Casa Landmark / Urban Environments Design Group Principal January 2016 — Present Involved within the full spectrum of the company from lead design, implementation, to new business. Projects vary from interior designs, architecture, to urban communities and revitalizations. Urban Environments Design Group / formerly DPZ Latin America Principal May 2006 - December 2015 Involved within the full spectrum of the company from lead design, implementation, to new business. Independently produced a body of work that demonstrates our level of expertise within the field of Urbanism, Architecture & Project Implementation. Projects currently serve as models of planning throughout Latin America and have received various awards and recognitions. Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company Senior Project Manager February 1996 — April 2006 Over ten years working with Elizabeth Plater Zyberk and Andres Duany at DPZ. I participated in over 80 design charrettes and served as a project manager in nearly a third of them. Many of the projects have received various awards and recognitions. My responsibilities also included management of the company's staff work -loads. EDUCATION Master's Architecture in Suburban and Town Design University of Miami, December 1994 Bachelor's Architecture University of Miami, May 1993 Minor Landscape Architecture University of Miami, May 1993 Submitted into the pub on record t9 is RESOLUTION City Clerk WHEREAS, Miami Neighborhoods United, Inc., a Florida Not -for -Profit Corporation, is an organization formed and constituted for the purpose of advocating for better urban planning, zoning, and land development practices and decisions by the City of Miami and, thus, for the protection of existing neighborhoods, parks and public spaces, waterfronts, and quality of life; and WHEREAS, the members and the representatives of the various neighborhood civic associations and organizations which constitute the members of Miami Neighborhoods United, in furtherance of the earlier -stated goals for which Miami Neighborhoods United, Inc. was formed and constituted, have associated themselves for, among other purposes, the purpose of attempting to insure that The City of Miami complies with all laws, rules, regulations, and policies governing construction, licensing, and permitting of development in the City of Miami, with particular emphasis on requiring that The City of Miami heed the call of the people for public participation and the ability of the public to weigh in on all issues affecting the quality of life of the citizens of this City as previously stated above; and WHEREAS, representatives of the various neighborhood civic associations and organizations which constitute the members of Miami Neighborhoods United were, on April 17, 2018, presented by a representative of Palm Grove Neighborhood Association with all of the issues pertaining to their present appeal regarding a HEPB Board decision impacting their historic neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the members and the representatives of the various neighborhood civic associations and organizations which constitute the members of Miami Neighborhoods United also are particularly concerned with the proposed and approved out of scale project that is the subject of Palm Grove's appeal to the City Commission; and WHEREAS, the members and the representatives of the various neighborhood civic associations and organizations which constitute the members of Miami Neighborhoods United, Inc. find the granting of the proj ect's approval by the HEPB Board highly egregious to the Historic Palm Grove Neighborhood Association and a harmful precedent for all single family residential neighborhoods in the City of Miami. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: That Miami Neighborhoods United supports the Historic Palm Grove Neighborhood Association's appeal to the City Commission from a decision by the HEPB and therefore request the City Commission that it approves Palm Grove's appeal. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of April, 2018. GRACE SOLARES President Submitted into the publi record for ite on .5 f,i City Clerk 10 November 2017 Historic and Environmental Preservation Board City of Miami Planning and Zoning Department 444 SW 2"d Avenue, 3rd Floor Miami, FL 33130 RE: APPLICATION OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE DEMOLITION OF A SINGLE STORY MULTI -FAMILY BUILDING AND THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A FIVE STORY SIX UNIT BUILDING LOCATED AT 571 NE 67 STREET IN THE PALM GROVE HISTORIC DISTRICT ABUTTING THE MIMO BISCAYNE HISTORIC DISTRICT Dear HEP Board Members and City Staff, The MiMo Biscayne Association reviewed the application and plans prepared by Dean Lewis Architect and agree with the Historic Preservation Office's analysis for a Special Certificate of Appropriateness and would like to add the following even though this project is not in the MiMo District, it is adjacent to the MiMo Historic District and would adversely affect the MiMo district and Palm Grove. The Secretary of the Interior Standards recommend that in a historic district, designs for new exterior additions to historic buildings or adjacent new construction must be compatible with the historic character of the setting and preserve the historic relationship between buildings and the landscape. The standards also recommend ensuring that new construction is secondary to the historic building and does not detract from its significance. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment We feel this project fails to comply to these recommendations. Chapter 23 Section 23-6.2 (h)(1) Guidelines for issuing certificates of appropriateness. (1) Alteration of existing structures, new construction. Generally, for applications relating to alterations or new construction as required in subsection (a) the proposed work shall not adversely affect the historic, architectural, or aesthetic character of the subject structure or the relationship and congruity between the subject structure and its neighboring structures and surroundings, including but not limited to form, spacing, height, yards, materials, color, or rhythm and pattern of window and door openings in building facades; nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the overall historic site or historic district. Except where special standards and guidelines have been specified in the designation of a particular historic resource or historic district, or where the board has subsequently adopted additional standards and guidelines for a particular designated historic resource or historic district, decisions relating to 8101 Biscayne Boulevard #309, Miami, FL 33138 www.mimoboulevard.org Submitted into the publ. record o item ,D /( on ,V / City Clerk MO AYN i ASSOCIIA`rsoft alterations or new construction shall be guided by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings." A (5) story building adjacent to a single family residence will diminish the integrity of the single family residence and the Historic District in which it resides. Historic Properties and Districts are inherently not developed to their potential and the TDR program was developed to compensate them for this fact. This property is eligible to participate in the TDR program. The Historic Board has the right to deny an application in which the scale, massing and setbacks are not compatible with the district and setting it is in. Palm grove is a low scale residential district and a (5) story apartment block with minimal setbacks is not compatible. The site seems to be enclosed by a wall, but it is not called out in the site plan, floor plan or elevations. What is the height of this wall and what is the finish? The center driveway looks to be open to the street and no fence or screen is shown on the plan or elevations. The driveway width is also not clearing identified on the plan. The West side building setback is called out to be 5'-0", but no setback dimension is given for the parking on the ground floor or the green space between the parking and property line wall. The rear setback is called out to be 5'-0" although a 4'-8" dimension is shown on the ground floor plan sheet A2.01. There is no dimension given for the east parking setback or the size of the green space along the wall. Will these green spaces be large enough to support vegetation given the height of the wall and the location of the building above? There are (2) large oaks at the rear of the property which should remain and the building designed around them. No trees should be mitigated off site. The front (south) elevation is detailed with windows, doors, balconies, openings and louvers and provides a minimum 10'-0" setback with an encroachment of the living area and balcony to 7'-0" where the rest of the street provides approximately 19'-0" of front setback. The larger setback is a character defining feature of a residential streetscape and would be compatible with this neighborhood. The east elevation which faces the MiMo Biscayne Boulevard Historic District is very plain with few windows, some louvers and the exterior hallway. This elevation is very prominent being the backdrop to the lower scale commercial district and should have more detail and less blank wall. The west elevation which is facing the contributing single family residence is also lacking in detail. There is a large 32'-5" length of building providing a 5'-0" setback and it has small horizontal windows and is not compatible with the neighborhood since the majority of this wall will be in front of the residences on the street since it only provides a 7'-0" setback when the other structures are setback 19'-0". Although the rest of the enclosed building is set back further, there is still an open canopy at +48'-0" which covers the second floor terrace and water feature. The water feature is represented by a large blank wall and the height and width dimensions are not provided. The profile of the existing 8101 Biscayne Boulevard #309, Miami, FL 33138 www.mimoboulevard.org Submitted into the pub 'c record foy items on ! J t4 11 . City Clerk MO SSOCIATI0K residence, if shown, would be dwarfed by the proposed structure and is not compatible with the adjacent single family residence. The north elevation which faces the rear and is abutting an 8 unit two story complex of buildings and is also very plain with limited window openings and louver details. The proposed project is not in the same character, scale, massing or setbacks of the existing neighborhood and should be denied. The applicant should be required to work with the neighborhood association to redesign and come back with something that is more in keeping with the neighborhood scale and character. Thank you for the opportunity to share these comments. MiMo Biscayne Review Committee 8101 Biscayne Boulevard #309, Miami, FL 33138 www.mimoboulevard.org Submitted into the publ'c record for items) p7,e 6 on t� I2) 1lS. City Clerk MO CAYNE ASSOCIATION 10 November 2017 Historic and Environmental Preservation Board City of Miami Planning and Zoning Department 444 SW 2"d Avenue, 3rd Floor Miami, FL 33130 RE: APPLICATION OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE DEMOLITION OF A SINGLE STORY MULTI -FAMILY BUILDING AND THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A FIVE STORY SIX UNIT BUILDING LOCATED AT 571 NE 67 STREET IN THE PALM GROVE HISTORIC DISTRICT ABUTTING THE MIMO BISCAYNE HISTORIC DISTRICT Dear HEP Board Members and City Staff, The MiMo Biscayne Association reviewed the application and plans prepared by Dean Lewis Architect and agree with the Historic Preservation Office's analysis for a Special Certificate of Appropriateness and would like to add the following even though this project is not in the MiMo District, it is adjacent to the MiMo Historic District and would adversely affect the MiMo district and Palm Grove. The Secretary of the Interior Standards recommend that in a historic district, designs for new exterior additions to historic buildings or adjacent new construction must be compatible with the historic character of the setting and preserve the historic relationship between buildings and the landscape. The standards also recommend ensuring that new construction is secondary to the historic building and does not detract from its significance. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment We feel this project fails to comply to these recommendations. Chapter 23 Section 23-6.2 (h)(1) Guidelines for issuing certificates of appropriateness. (1) Alteration of existing structures, new construction. Generally, for applications relating to alterations or new construction as required in subsection (a) the proposed work shall not adversely affect the historic, architectural, or aesthetic character of the subject structure or the relationship and congruity between the subject structure and its neighboring structures and surroundings, including but not limited to form, spacing, height, yards, materials, color, or rhythm and pattern of window and door openings in building facades; nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the overall historic site or historic district. Except where special standards and guidelines have been specified in the designation of a particular historic resource or historic district, or where the board has subsequently adopted additional standards and guidelines for a particular designated historic resource or historic district, decisions relating to 8101 Biscayne Boulevard #309, Miami, FL 33138 www.mimoboulevard.org Submitted into the public on record fo ite (s City Clerk MO ASSOCIATION alterations or new construction shall be guided by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings." A (5) story building adjacent to a single family residence will diminish the integrity of the single family residence and the Historic District in which it resides. Historic Properties and Districts are inherently not developed to their potential and the TDR program was developed to compensate them for this fact. This property is eligible to participate in the TDR program. The Historic Board has the right to deny an application in which the scale, massing and setbacks are not compatible with the district and setting it is in. Palm grove is a low scale residential district and a (5) story apartment block with minimal setbacks is not compatible. The site seems to be enclosed by a wall, but it is not called out in the site plan, floor plan or elevations. What is the height of this wall and what is the finish? The center driveway looks to be open to the street and no fence or screen is shown on the plan or elevations. The driveway width is also not clearing identified on the plan. The West side building setback is called out to be 5'-0", but no setback dimension is given for the parking on the ground floor or the green space between the parking and property line wall The rear setback is called out to be 5'-0" although a 4'-8" dimension is shown on the ground floor plan sheet A2.01. There is no dimension given for the east parking setback or the size of the green space along the wall. Will these green spaces be large enough to support vegetation given the height of the wall and the location of the building above? There are (2) large oaks at the rear of the property which should remain and the building designed around them. No trees should be mitigated off site. The front (south) elevation is detailed with windows, doors, balconies, openings and louvers and provides a minimum 10'-0" setback with an encroachment of the living area and balcony to 7'-0" where the rest of the street provides approximately 19'-0" of front setback. The larger setback is a character defining feature of a residential streetscape and would be compatible with this neighborhood. The east elevation which faces the MiMo Biscayne Boulevard Historic District is very plain with few windows, some louvers and the exterior hallway. This elevation is very prominent being the backdrop to the lower scale commercial district and should have more detail and Tess blank wall. The west elevation which is facing the contributing single family residence is also lacking in detail. There is a large 32'-5" length of building providing a 5'-0" setback and it has small horizontal windows and is not compatible with the neighborhood since the majority of this wall will be in front of the residences on the street since it only provides a 7'-0" setback when the other structures are setback 19'-0". Although the rest of the enclosed building is set back further, there is still an open canopy at +48'-0" which covers the second floor terrace and water feature. The water feature is represented by a large blank wall and the height and width dimensions are not provided. The profile of the existing 8101 Biscayne Boulevard #309, Miami, FL 33138 www.mimoboulevard.org Submitted into the public record fo ite s) on MO CAYf4E ASSOC C4T oN residence, if shown, would be dwarfed by the proposed structure and is not compatible with the adjacent single family residence. City Clerk The north elevation which faces the rear and is abutting an 8 unit two story complex of buildings and is also very plain with limited window openings and louver details. The proposed project is not in the same character, scale, massing or setbacks of the existing neighborhood and should be denied. The applicant should be required to work with the neighborhood association to redesign and come back with something that is more in keeping with the neighborhood scale and character. Thank you for the opportunity to share these comments. MiMo Biscayne Review Committee 8101 Biscayne Boulevard #309, Miami, FL 33138 www.mimoboulevard.org