Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPre-Publication - Comment Letter - Mary FoehrenbachROBERT N. HARTSELL, P.A. Federal Tower Building 61 N.E. 1ST Street, Suite C Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 (954) 778-1052 — Fax (954) 941-6462 April 12, 2018 Miami City Commission 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL, 33133 Dear Chairman Hardemon and Commissioners, By way of introduction, my name is Robert Hartsell and I represent Ms. Mary Foehrenbach. Ms. Foehrenbach lives at 655 NE 55th Terrace, Miami, Florida 33137, directly across the street from Morningside Park. As you are aware, on January 2, 2018, the City of Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board voted 6-1 to approve the historic designation of Morningside Park, via Resolution HEPB-R-18-0011, making Morningside Park the 6th historically designated park in Miami. On January 30, 2018, James Rosenberg, who resides at 645 NE 55th Terrace, filed a letter of appeal of the City of Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board's historic designation of Morningside Park. Due to her unique interests in the Park, my client has requested party status for the appeal hearing and respectfully submits the following comments to the commissioners for consideration and inclusion into the record. I. Facts and procedural history: In 1952, under the leadership of P. Raymond Plumer, Miami's parks director at the time, the city invested $300,000 to turn a 42-acre waterfront tract into a public park, which is now known as Morningside Park. Plumer's original design and construction is largely intact. In recent years, attempts have been made by residents of Morningside (the historic development surrounding the park) to make substantial changes to the park, for example, removal of the swimming pool, basketball courts, softball field, loop road and restriction of access to the boat ramp. 1 subsequently rendered on January 18, 2018 In 2017, emails obtained via public records requests showed that various Morningside residents met with the City's Parks Director in October of 2016 to confer on a General Plan process which had yet to be announced to the Morningside Civic Association or the public at large. The City hired AECOM, which assigned their consultant, Joe Webb, to conduct the study. Taking notice of this attempt to redesign and restrict access to the historic park, a different group of area residents, from both inside and outside the Morningside development, began collecting petition signatures to preserve the park, have it historically designated and keep its existing historical assets. Dr. Paul George prepared a Preliminary Historic Designation Report for Morningside Park. On July 10, 2017, Dr. Paul George (a renowned state and local expert historian) submitted his Preliminary Historic Designation Report to the City's Historic and Environmental Preservation Board (HEPB), asking the board to accept it as their own and initiate the designation process. The board accepted the report and initiated the process. At this time, the Morningside community was also informed of the pending designation. On October 3, 2017, the first of two duly -noticed public hearings on the historic designation took place. Dr. Paul George was present for cross examination as an expert. Individuals made comments both in favor of and against the designation. At the hearing, the HEP board voted 9-0 in favor of advancing the report to a final designation hearing. In December 2017, after careful deliberation, the City released its version (the official version) of the designation report for the HEP Board to consider. The official report largely supports the preliminary version prepared by Dr. Paul George, but it differs in that it does not recommend historically designating the original 1953 buildings in the park as historic. On January 2, 2018 the second duly -noticed HEP board hearing takes place. Again at this duly noticed hearing, both sides were given the opportunity to be heard and testify.2 During the hearing, many in favor of the designation ask the HEPB to amend the City's proposed "official" designation report to include the original 1953 buildings. In support, Dr. Paul George narrates a PowerPoint presentation which shows that Historic Virginia Key Beach Park also has buildings with the same public -institutional architecture, also built in 1953, and they have been designated as historic. Subsequently, HEP Board member Lynn Lewis, moved to amend the designation report to include historic designation for the 1953 buildings. The motion was passed, 6-1; the designation is approved. On January 30, 2018, James Rosenberg filed an appeal against the historic designation admitting that he only to seeks delay the approval and not reverse the decision of the HEPB. II. Legal Criteria and Procedure for Historic Designation by the HEP Board The intent of [Chapter 23 — Historic Preservation - Miami Code of Ordinances] is to preserve and protect the heritage of the city through the identification, evaluation, rehabilitation, adaptive use, restoration, and public awareness of Miami's historic, architectural, and archaeological resources. In furtherance of the intent of the law, Chapter 23 "provide[s] the framework and legal 2 It should be noted that those in opposition to the historical designation provided no competent substantial evidence other than mere conjecture as to their preference. mechanism for identifying and designating those properties that have major significance in the city's historic, cultural, archaeological, paleontological, aesthetic, and architectural heritage." 23-1(b)(1). Chapter 23-4 sets forth the criteria for designation of historic resources such as Morningside Park. In order to be eligible for designation, historic resources must have significance in the historical, cultural, archaeological, paleontological, aesthetic, or architectural heritage of the city, state, or nation; possess integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association; and meet one or more of the following criteria: (1) Are associated in a significant way with the life of a person important in the past; (2) Are the site of a historic event with significant effect upon the community, city, state, or nation; (3) Exemplify the historical, cultural, political, economical, or social trends of the community; (4) Portray the environment in an era of history characterized by one or more distinctive architectural styles; (5) Embody those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, or period, or method of construction; (6) Are an outstanding work of a prominent designer or builder; (7) Contain elements of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship of outstanding quality or which represent a significant innovation or adaptation to the South Florida environment; (8) or Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. It is this criterion alone which may be considered by the HEP board in executing its duties under Chapter 23. Chapter 23-4 also sets forth the legally required procedure for designation of historic resources. That procedure includes the following: (1) Proposal for designation by the proper party, including the HEP board or one of its members, the mayor, the City Manager, resolution of the planning, zoning and appeals board, resolution of the city commission, the property owner, resolution of the county historic preservation board, resolution of any organization that has been a registered non- profit corporation in the state for at least five years with a recognized interest in historic preservation, or the preservation officer. 3 (2) Preliminary Evaluation of data in proposal for conformance with criteria, and if appropriate, direct planning department to prepare designation report. Notice must be 3 Chapter 23-4 requires a heightened level of outreach required when a historic district is being considered which does not apply in this case. provided in conformance with 23-4(c)(1)(a). Preparation of designation report containing a designation report'', boundaries depicted by map, interior features subject to review under Chapter 23. (3) Public Hearing to determine whether the resource meets the criteria set forth in Chapter 23-4. The hearing shall be properly noticed pursuant to Chapter 23-4(c)(3). III. Postponement of the Historic Designation is an improper use of appeal and contrary to the purpose of Chapter 23, Miami Code of Ordinances According to the letter of appeal, appellant Rosenberg seeks to postpone the designation of Morningside Park until the AECOM planning study is complete. First and foremost, it is widely recognized by courts of law that delay is an improper purpose for filing of a legal challenge and is sanctionable. State v. Titusville, 173 So. 2d 443, 444 (Fla. 1965), (A court will quash a frivolous appeal taken only for the purpose of delay, and the appeal will be dismissed with prejudice.). The City, which is sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity for purposes of this appeal, must not allow abuse of the system of review for a purpose that is not consistent with intent and letter of the law. Second, the intent of [Chapter 23 — Historic Preservation - Miami Code of Ordinances] is to preserve and protect the heritage of the city through the identification, evaluation, rehabilitation, adaptive use, restoration, and public awareness of Miami's historic, architectural, and archaeological resources. By prioritizing re -design of a historical resource over protection via historic designation, as appellant Rosenberg admittedly is attempting to do by virtue of appeal, appellant openly and brazenly requests the City Commission to undermine the goals of the Miami Code of Ordinances which they are charged with upholding. Finally, consistent with the purpose described above, Chapter 23 assures that alterations and new construction within designated historic sites, historic districts, and archaeological zones are compatible with the property's historic character. 23 -1(b)(8). Thus, alterations can be made to Morningside Park, such as those proposed AECOM, however, the historic designation will ensure that those alterations be made in a manner which is compatible with the historic character of the Park. IV. Morningside Park meets the historic designation criteria set forth in Chapter 23-4 4 Report must contain a statement of the historic, architectural, and/or archaeological significance of the proposed historic resource, historic district, or archaeological site or zone; the criteria upon which the designation is based; a physical description of the property; an identification of contributing structures and/or landscape features; present trends and conditions; and incentives to encourage preservation, rehabilitation, or adaptive use. The designation reports issued by Dr. Paul George, City staff, and the HEP Board's findings, showed that the criteria was met and Morningside Park merited historic designation pursuant to Chapter 23, Miami Code of Ordinances. Moreover, and with respect to the ultimate approval's deviation from staff s recommendations, the HEP Board was within its authority to accept, reject, or amend any designation report before it for a vote. The Appellants fail to demonstrate whatsoever any failure to meet such criteria and is therefore devoid of legal merit. Instead, the appeal letter is replete with unqualified contentions and subjective opinions with no proven basis or expert analysis. For example, Appellant subjectively asserts that the buildings within the Park are not worthy of designation and that the condition of the pool renders it inappropriate for designation. The condition of a particular building or structure is not listed in the criteria set forth in Chapter 23-4. Furthermore, Dr. Paul George, an expert witness, testified that the buildings and the pool were historically valuable, contributing, and showed the example of similar historic 1953 buildings at Historic Virginia Key Beach Park. V. All procedural requirements were met by HEPB in designation of Morningside Park and due process was afforded to all citizens Contrary to appellant Rosenberg' s assertions, HEPB met all procedural requirements for historic designation of Morningside Park. Specifically, HEPB conducted 2 duly noticed hearings, first on October 3, 2017 and second on January 2, 2018. Notices for those public hearings were sent out and received by property owners within the required radius, as well as by registered associations in the area.5 At those hearings, expert Paul George was available for cross examination by any party. Moreover, the designation report was available for review to the public prior to the hearing. The Appellant's complaints regarding the process by which Morningside Park was designated is accordingly without merit. The appellant had ample time (6 months), ability to review the report, request further information from HEPB, conduct cross examination of the expert witness and provide his own expert witness to provide contravening testimony — he did not. Instead, appellant was not in attendance at either hearing. Furthermore, appellant's complaint as to the lack of social media postings and workshops is not a requirement for designation under the law or for a practical matter. In closing, we respectfully request that you DENY the appeal and allow the HEPB designation of Morningside Park stand. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact myself at the letterhead contact information. Respectfully submitted this 12th day of April, 2018. Sincerely, 5 It is important to note that Morningside is but one of the neighboring communities that use and enjoy this historical asset. /s/ Ro6vtt Z qwr.. a Robert N. Hartsell, Esq. Robert N. Hartsell, P.A.