Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Carlos Lago-Presentation PacketITEM PZ.7 FILE ID 5901 5965 NE 6 AVENUE CITY COMMISSION u (� t J U LY 25, 2019 \ ' 5 \- �V f�6 I1T(A\" C LA(m) - �iP�?�nt����l.n �c►c UIP\- Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Item PZ.7 — Mr. Peter R. Wagoner and Michele Beauvais-Wagoner's Appeal (File ID 5901) 5965 NE 6 Avenue Exhibit Binder Table of Contents 1. Letter Requesting Dismissal of Appeal Based on Lack of Standing A. Section 23-6.2(e) of the City Code (aggrieved party) B. Ferreiro v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 928 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) C. Chabau v. Dade County, 385 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) D. Miami Dade County v. City of Miami, Case No. 18-32 (FLA. 1 l th Cir. Ct. 2018) E. Renard v. Dade County, 261 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1972) F. Battaglia Fruit Co. v. City of Maitland, 530 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) G. Messett v. Cohen, 741 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) H. Buena Vista East Historic Neighborhood Assn v. City of Miami, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33029, 2008 WL 1848389 (S.D. Fla. 2008) I. Hotel Corp. v. Forty -Five Twenty -Five, Inc., 114 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959) 2. Arborist Report 3. Staff Report Recommending Approval of Special COA 4. Transcript of April 2, 2019 HEP Board Meeting 5. Resolution HEB-R-17-016 approving Special COA 6. Recommendation Letter from Morningside Civic Association 7. Jacob Brillhart's Curriculum Vitae 8. Affidavit from Mark -Andreas Stephan 9. Exhibit Boards Presented at Appeal Hearing Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 1 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7— on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) Personally appeared before me, the undersigned authority, uk)►tifn A mS, Preservation Officer of the City of Miami, Florida, and acknowledges that s/he executed the foregoing Resolution. SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS i DAY OF , 201q SA4 t'eateZ- Print Notary Name / Personally know V or Produced I.D. Type and number of I.D. produced Did take an oath or Did not take an oath lic State of Florida My Commission Expires: ;,;'v,.ti SILVIAGONZALEZ 4: • ,•, s MY COMMISSION # GG 051561 EXPIRES: November 30, 2020 ' %;;;od€2. Bonded Thru Notary Pubic linden/tars City of Miami Page 2 of 2 Fife ID: 5659 (Revision:) Printed On: 4/3/2019 City of Miami Planning Department Historic Preservation Office Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk ANALYSIS FOR A SPECIAL CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICANT: Andrew Aquart FILE ID: PZ-19-2005 PROJECT ADDRESS:5965 NE 6 Ave ZIP: 33137 NET OFFICE: Upper Eastside HEARING DATE: 4/2/2019 COMMISSION DISTRICT: District 2 (Ken Russell) STATUS: Contributing TDRs: No A. GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Pursuant to Section 23-6.2(b)(4) of the City Code of Ordinances, as amended, the Applicant is requesting a Special Certificate of Appropriateness to allow for the new construction of a single-family, residential structure located on a parcel zoned T3-R "Sub -Urban Transect Zone". The subject property is located within the Morningside Historic District, Bayshore Subdivision and the Upper Eastside Net Area. The site is approximately the third parcel located on the Southeast quadrant of NE 60th Street, NE 6th Avenue, and Biscayne Boulevard. (Complete legal description is on file with Hearing Boards) Folio: 0132180340080 Lot Size: Approximately 15,321 sq. ft. B. BACKGROUND: On January 22nd, 1924, the Clerk of the Circuit Court, filed the Bayshore Subdivision, Revised, in Section 18, Township 53, Range 42 in the City of Miami establishing lot 8 and 9 of Block 6 also known as 5965 Northeast 6th Avenue. C. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The subject property is a vacant lot located within the Morningside 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. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 1 1 1 1 1 GT GreenbergTraurig July 10, 2019 Via Email Honorable Chairman and Commissioners City of Miami Commission 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 Carlos R. Lago Tel 305.579.0578 Fax 305.579.0717 lagoc ungtlaw.com Re: Appeal of City of Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board's Approval of Special Certificate of Appropriateness for the property located at 5965 NE 6 Avenue, Miami, Florida (Folio No. 01-3218-034-0080) / Resolution No. HEPB-R-19-018 / File ID 5901 Dear Honorable Chair and Commissioners: Our firm represents PIM INVESTMENTS, LLC (the "Applicant") in connection with the proposed construction of a single-family home at the property located at 5965 NE 6 Avenue, Miami, Florida (the "Property"). The Applicant hereby respectfully requests that the City of Miami (the "City") Commission (the "Commission") dismiss the appeal of Resolution No. HEPB- R-19-018 (the "Resolution"), attached as Exhibit 1, filed by appellants Peter R. Wagoner and Michelle Beauvais -Wagoner (the "Wagoners" or the "Appellants"). A copy of the appeal letter is attached as Exhibit 2. As explained below, the Appellants have no standing to appeal the Resolution because they are not aggrieved parties. INTRODUCTION On April 30, 2019, Jose Manuel Belsol, Mariana Evora, and the Wagoners filed an appeal letter with the City challenging the City's Historic and Environmental Preservation Board's (the "HEP Board") April 2, 2019 approval of a Special Certificate of Appropriateness (the "Special COA") for the construction of a new single-family home at the Property (the "Proposed Residence"). On June 24, 2019, Jose Manuel Belsol and Mariana Evora formally withdrew their appeal. A copy of the withdrawal letter is attached as Exhibit 3. BACKGROUND The Applicant owns the Property which was the subject of the Resolution. The Property is a vacant site located within the City's Morningside Historic District. The Property consists of two (2) platted lots and is zoned T3-R under Miami 21. The Property is instantly recognizable for its mature tree canopy, comprised in part by a specimen Slash Pine Tree located in the center of the Property and several large live oak trees. The Proposed Residence was designed to integrate the GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP ■ ATTORNEYS AT LAW • WWW.GTLAW.COM 333 Southeast Second Avenue • Miami, FL 33131 • Tel 305-579-0500 • Fax 305-579-0717 ADMIN 35301897v1 Honorable Chairman and Commissioners 5965 NE 6 Avenue HEPB-R-19-018 File ID 5901 July 10, 2019 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk majority of the specimen trees within the design (for example, the specimen Pine tree is in the center of the entry court) and to ensure that the architecture remains visually subordinate to the landscape. On April 2, 2019, the HEP Board considered and approved the Applicant's request for a Special COA for the construction of the Proposed Residence on the Property. The Proposed Residence consists of a single-family home with one (1) and two (2) story elements connected by roofed passageways. This fractured design was dictated by the preservation of the existing tree canopy on the site and to integrate existing trees and vegetation. The design of the Proposed Residence was inspired by the history and character of the Morningside neighborhood. The Morningside Historic District Designation Report describes the district as containing an eclectic mix of architectural styles. One of the architectural styles found in Morningside is tropical modernism, best resembled by the Alfred Browning Parker designed residence located at 5555 North Bayshore Drive. The Proposed Residence respects and embraces the spirit and direction of architectural design of the Morningside historic district —specifically in terms of scale, non -intrusive design, setback, and quality workmanship —and is directly inspired by the Alfred Browning Parker home and other homes in the historic neighborhood. Fundamentally tropical in terms of its narrow footprint, connection to the outdoors, natural materials and passive design strategies, the Proposed Residence continues the neighborhood's legacy of expression and celebration of landscape. Section 23-6.2(h) of the City Code of Ordinances (the "City Code") authorizes the HEP Board to approve new construction in a historic district where the proposed new construction does not adversely affect 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 district. The City's Preservation Officer found that the Proposed Residence complied with all the applicable criteria of the City Code and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and recommended approval of the Special COA. Following more than an hour of discussion among HEP Board members and input from the public, the HEP Board followed the Preservation Officer's recommendation and approved the Special COA. Mr. Peter Wagoner, who owns the property located at 5955 NE 6 Avenue, Miami, Florida (directly south of the Property), appeared before the HEP Board on April 2, 2019 and expressed his opposition to the Proposed Residence. Mrs. Wagoner did not attend the HEP Board meeting. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP ■ ATTORNEYS AT LAW • WWW.GTLAW.COM 2 ADMIN 35301897v1 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Honorable Chairman and Commissioners 5965 NE 6 Avenue HEPB-R-19-018 File ID 5901 July 10, 2019 MEMORANDUM OF LAW I. Appellants are not an aggrieved party and have no standing to appeal the Resolution. Under Section 23-6.2(e) of the City Code, only the applicant, the City's Planning Department, or an "aggrieved party" have standing to appeal a decision of the HEP Board. The issue of standing is a threshold inquiry which must be made at the outset of a proceeding before addressing [the merits]."I In other words, before the City Commission considers the merits of the Appellants' appeal, it must determine the threshold issue of whether the Appellants are an "aggrieved party" who have standing to challenge the Resolution. Absent standing to challenge the Resolution, the appeal must be dismissed since the Commission cannot properly review a HEP Board decision unless the appeal is filed by an "aggrieved party."2 In cases involving decisions made at a quasi-judicial proceeding, an "aggrieved party" is one who has a cognizable legal interest which is adversely affected by the decision being challenged.3 The cognizable legal interest must be definite and exceed the general interest of the community. Id. The factors considered to determine whether a person is an "aggrieved party" are: (1) proximity to the property which is the subject of the decision; (2) character of the neighborhood; (3) type of change being sought; and (4) whether the person challenging the decision was entitled to receive notice of the proposed action. Id. The Appellants do not possess a cognizable legal interest that will be adversely affected by the Resolution. The Proposed Residence does not modify the character of the neighborhood and does not involve a change in the regulations applicable to the Property. Additionally, Appellants were not one of the parties entitled to receive notice of the Special COA hearing for the Proposed Residence. As such, under Renard, the Appellants are not aggrieved parties and do not have standing to appeal the HEP Board's decision. Appellants may live near the Property but they do not meet any of the other factors required to establish aggrieved party status under the City Code and Florida law. As the court stated in Battaglia Fruit Co. v. City of Maitland, proximity to the subject property does not "in and of itself establish a legal interest adversely affected" by the Resolution.4 Since proximity alone is not sufficient to establish aggrieved party status, the Appellants must also demonstrate that they meet the other factors. In this case, Appellants do not meet any of the other factors required to establish standing and therefore are not "aggrieved parties." Ferreiro v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins., 928 So. 2d 374, 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). 2 See Chabau v. Dade County, 385 So. 2d 129, 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (holding that because an appellant was not an aggrieved party, the Miami -Dade Board of County Commissioners could not review a lower board's decision "and any decision of the Commissioners would be void ab initio."). See also Miami Dade County v. City of Miami, Case No. 18-32 (FLA. l lth Cir Ct. 2018). 3 Renard v. Dade County, 261 So.2d 832 (Fla. 1972). See Battaglia Fruit Co. v. City of Maitland, 530 So. 2d 943, 944 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP ■ ATTORNEYS AT LAW ■ WWW.GTLAW COM 3 ADMIN 35301897v1 Honorable Chairman and Commissioners 5965 NE 6 Avenue HEPB-R-19-018 File ID 5901 July 10, 2019 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk The Resolution and the Proposed Residence do not modify the character of the neighborhood. The Resolution approved the construction of a new single-family home on the Property which the Preservation Officer and the HEP Board found complied with the applicable criteria and is compatible with the historic neighborhood. Additionally, the Applicant presented the Proposed Home to the Morningside Civic Association's Architectural Review Committee which issued a letter in support of the HEP Board's approval of the Special COA. A copy of the Morningside Architectural Review Committee letter is attached as Exhibit 4. Accordingly, the City's Preservation staff, the HEP Board, and the Morningside Civic Association's Architectural Review Committee all found that the Proposed Residence is compatible with the Morningside neighborhood and therefore does not modify its character. Furthermore, the Applicant is not proposing any changes to the zoning regulations applicable to the Property. In fact, the Proposed Residence does not even maximize the available development capacity under the existing regulations. The Proposed Residence lot coverage is less than 40% of the maximum permitted. The open space provided is more than twice the required amount. The Proposed Residence also provides greater side and rear setbacks than those required by Miami 21. Finally, Appellants are not one of the parties that are required to receive notice of the Special COA. Under Section 23-6.2 of the City Code, a Special COA requires that notice be published in a newspaper of general circulation and mailed to registered homeowners and neighborhood associations. As demonstrated herein, Appellants are not aggrieved parties. Therefore, the Applicant kindly requests that the City Commission dismiss this appeal. Sincerely, Carlos R. Lago Enclosures cc: Mr. Peter and Mrs. Michelle Beauvais -Wagoner Ms. Victoria Mendez, City Attorney Mr. Francisco Garcia, Planning and Zoning Director Mr. Warren Adams, Preservation Officer Ms. Olga Zamora, Chief of Hearing Boards Division GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP • ATTORNEYS AT LAW i WWW.GTLAW.COM 4 ADM/N 35301897v1 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk The Applicant's request for the approval of new construction on a residential parcel is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 23 of the City of Miami Code of Ordinances, the Secretary of Interior Standards, and the Preservation Office Historic Design Guidelines. D. PHOTOGRAPHS: CURRENT CONDITION: 1 1 1 1 Street View 2019 PROPOSED PLAN: p 1 1 1 E. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: ZONING Subiect Property T3-R Sub -Urban Transect Zone Restricted (Morningside Historic District) Surrounding Properties NORTH: T3-R; Single Family Transect Zone (Momingside Historic District) SOUTH: T3-R; Single Family Transect Zone (Morningside Historic District) EAST: T3-R; Single Family Transect Zone (Morningside Historic District) WEST: T4-O: General Urban Transect Zone (MiMo/BiBo Historic District) F. ANALYSIS: Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION Single Family Residential Maximum of 9 D.U. per acre Single Family Residential Maximum of 9 D.U. per acre Single Family Residential Maximum of 9 D.U. per acre Single Family Residential Maximum of 9 D,U. per acre Medium Density, Restricted Commercial Maximum of 36 D.U. per acre The following is a review of the request pursuant to 23-6.2(b)(4) of the City Code of Ordinances, the Preservation Office Historic Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, Analysis: The existing vacant parcel is located at NE 6th Avenue in the Morningside Historic District. The applicant is requesting the construction of a new single-family residence. The applicant has submitted plans for a two-story single-family residence of modernlcontemporary design. The lot is currently a heavily wooded vacant lot. The proposed residence will face the Southwest with one and two-story building segments connected by elevated walkways and hallways. The front of the structure will contain a two- story garage connected to a single -story living space connected by a hallway to a two-story living space in the rear. Another hallway connects this space to a further living space that runs parallel to the front property line. The position of the structure creates a courtyard/garden in the center of the lot. The separation of the construction spaces is meant to reduce the impact of the new construction on the neighborhood's character and emphasize the green space. AA spaces overlook the central green space through fixed glass windows. The front building segment at the southemmost comer of the property and the rear building segment to the north have glass facades that lead to porches with tropical wood shutters. The inclusion of porches throughout the property pays homage to the front porches found on Miami's historic properties. Inclusion of wood shutters along the walkways and porches camouflages the Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk modern facade, further allowing the new construction to be an unobtrusive addition to the architectural rhythm of the street. The proposed new construction has a flat roof. The one-story building segments will contain a green roof. The green roof is a grass covered roof that is intended to visually lower the impact of the new construction on the neighborhood as well as reduce the temperature of the structure. The roof plan of the two-story building segment to the North depicts solar panels. The incorporation of a stem wall foundation, elevated walkways, and segmented building spaces are designed to protect the critical root zones of existing trees on site. The Applicant intends to keep most of the trees on site, with few relocations and removals. Environmental Resources Staff at the City of Miami has reviewed the plans and have provided comments (Attachment "A"). Environmental Resources Staff has. expressed concern for the critical root zone of nearby trees they have made the following recommendation and/or comments: 1. Foundation plan will be necessary to view any impacts to critical root zones 2. Certified Arborist should be on -site to monitor construction activity 3. Tree protection plan is required for the protection of all trees on site. Tree protection should be depicted and to scale around existing trees both on -site and in the right- of-way. Dimensions should be determined by a Certified Arborist (when applicable) to ANSI A300 Part 5: "Managing Trees During Construction" standards. Detail/fencing material should be in accordance to the Miami -Dade County Landscape Manual section "Landscape Details - Tree Protection and Support" and superimposed on the plan set for final approval (Sec. 17-7; City of Miami), Tree Protection depiction on site should be depicted in accordance with Miami -Dade County's Landscape Manual. Le. square/angular vs circular. Ensure that existing hardscape is considered, and protection fencing is depicted in a reasonable manner. Tree protection should be on -site prior to construction and not removed until construction has completed. 4. Staff recommends no ground disturbing activity, including landscape improvements, irrigation, grade changes, columns, walls, or anything with a footer within the tree protection zone of tree #19. Plans depict the installation of new walls along the rear and side property lines. The front elevation depicts a new 6' tall metal vertical picket fence set back from the front property line by 5ft. Though non -conforming to the Morningside Design Guidelines regarding fences, Staff does not object to a metal picket fence in the front yard. A metal picket will allow visibility from the street in to the property. A masonry wall would create too much of a visual distraction from the street. Zoning Staff at the City of Miami has reviewed the plans and have identified an issue with regards to compliance of Article 5, Section 5.3.4(c) of Miami21 Zoning Code: "Covered parking and garages and at least fifty percent (50%) of required parking shall be located within the Second and Third layers as shown in Article 4, Table 8; in T3-R and T3-L a maximum thirty percent of the width of the Facade may be covered parking." Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk To come into compliance with the facade covered parking requirements the Applicant should add a semi -permeable screen wall facing the street along the front covered walkway. Plans depict a narrow pool to the rear of the property and not visible from the right-of-way. Findings: Consistent G. NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES: Code Compliance No Objection Building Required NET No Objection Environmental Resources Approval with conditions pursuant to Attachment "A" Art in Public Places No Objection Zoning No Objection H. CONCLUSION: The application has demonstrated compliance with Chapter 23 entitled 'Historic Preservation" of the City of Miami Code of Ordinances and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Staff finds the request complies with all applicable criteria and finds that the request for a Special Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations does not adversely affect the historic, architectural, or aesthetic character of the subject structure or the aesthetic interest or value of the historic district subject to the following conditions as stipulated in subjection "I" entitled 'Recommendation" as listed below. I. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Section 23-6.2(b)(4) of the City of Miami Code of Ordinances, as amended, and the Secretary of Interior Standards, the Preservation Office recommends Approval with Conditions of the Special Certificate of Appropriateness. 1. The site shall be developed pursuant to the plans as prepared by Brillhart Architecture, consisting of eighty-six (86) sheets submitted under PZ-19-2005. The plans are deemed as being incorporated by reference herein. 2. All glass shall be clear with the option of Low-E. 3. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the_Miami 21 Code, Chapter 17 and Chapter 23 of the City of Miami Code of Ordinances, as amended. 4. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of all applicable departments/agencies as part of the City of Miami building permit submittal process. 5. This Resolution shall be included in the master permit set, Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 6. The Applicant shall add a semi -permeable screen wall facing the street along the front covered walkway. 7. The Applicant shall comply with the conditions, as stipulated in the memo from Environmental Resources, attached hereto as Attachment °A" entitled, Inter -Office Memorandum. Ki\ i Warren Adams Preservation Officer t Submitted into the public record for item(s) pZ,7 on _07/25/2019 City Clerk Attachment "A" Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Wendy Sczechowicz Historic Preservation Planner DATE: 3/12/19 FILE: PZ-19-2005 SUBJECT: New Construction Kyle Brudzinski vironmeptal esources Specialist / l REFERENCES: 5965 NE 6 Ave L �' ENCLOSURES: Environmental Resources has reviewed the proposed new construction at 5965 NE 6 Avenue. In response to this review, the following are Staff's recommendation(s) and/or comments: 1. Foundation plan will be necessary to view any impacts to critical root zones 2. Certified Arborist should be on -site to monitor construction activity 3. Tree protection plan is required for the protection of all trees on site. Tree protection should be depicted and to scale around existing trees both on -site and in the right-of-way. Dimensions should be determined by a Certified Arborist (when applicable) to ANSI A300 Part 5: "Managing Trees During Construction" standards. Detail/fencing material should be in accordance to the Miami -Dade County Landscape Manual section "Landscape Details - Tree Protection and Support" and superimposed on the plan set for final approval (Sec. 17-7; City of Miami). Tree Protection depiction on site should be depicted in accordance with Miami -Dade County's Landscape Manual. I.e. square/angular vs circular. Ensure that existing hardscape is considered, and protection fencing is depicted in a reasonable manner. Tree protection should be on -site prior to construction and not removed until construction has completed. 4. Staff recommends no ground disturbing activity, including landscape improvements, irrigation, grade changes, columns, walls, or anything with a footer within the tree protection zone of tree #19. Submitted into the public record for item(s) pZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk EXHIBIT 2 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk EXHIBIT 1 City of Miami HEPB Resolution Enactment Number: HEPB-R-19-018 Submitted into the public record for item(s)pZ_ on 07/25/2019 City Clerk City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com File Number: 5659 Final Action Date:4/2/2019 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD, PURSUANT TO SEC. 23-6.2(4) OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS A SPECIAL CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY SINGLE- FAMILY STRUCTURE TO A NON-CONTRIBUTING PROPERTY, LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 5965 NORTHEAST 6 AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, 33137, WITHIN THE MORNINGSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT; FURTHER, INCORPORATING THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS ATTACHED HEREIN AS EXHIBIT "A". The approval, as amended with the following conditions, is based on the project preserving the landscape at the lot, the property being located at the end of 6th avenue, close to the Biscayne Boulevard border, making the property unobtrusive to the majority of eyes that view the Morningside Historic District, and fact that the Secretary of Interior Standards require that new projects not copy what exists but be inspired by them : 1. The site shall be developed pursuant to the plans as prepared by Brillhart Architecture, consisting of eighty-six (86) sheets submitted under PZ-19-2005. The plans are deemed as being incorporated by reference herein. 2. All glass shall be clear with the option of Low-E. 3. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Miami 21 Code, Chapter 17 and Chapter 23 of the City of Miami Code of Ordinances, as amended. 4. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of all applicable departments/agencies as part of the City of Miami building permit submittal process. 5. This Resolution shall be included in the master permit set. 6. The Applicant shall add a semi -permeable screen facing the street along the front covered walkway. 7. The Applicant shall comply with the conditions, as stipulated in the memo from Environmental Resources, attached hereto as Attachment "A" entitled, Inter -Office Memorandum. 8. Prior to the issuance of the Building permit, exploratory and root conditions of Tree #19 be observed by a certified arborist to ensure that irrigation and extra intrusive landscape not intrude upon Tree #19. 9. Brillhart Architecture will work with staff to figure out the proper extent of the boundary fence along Northeast 6 Avenue and the security issue at the Biscayne Boulevard west edge. THIS DECISION IS FINAL UNLESS APPEALED IN THE HEARING BOARDS DIVISION WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS. Preservation Ofticer ' Date q City of Miami Page 1 of 2 File ID: 5659 (Revision:) Printed On: 4/3/2019 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk and the Morningside historic district, including form, spacing, height, yards, materials, color, rhythm, pattern and placement of windows and doors, The setback to the front facade of all the homes on NE 6th Ave. north of 59th St. is 30 feet or greater. The Project as approved allows for only a 20 foot set -back. Due to the location of the Project within the Morningside Historic District, setback requirements should not merely comply with the minimum requirements of Miami 21 but should rather reflect the higher standard of the historic district in which it is located. (Pictures, drawings, etc. will be presented.) The front setback should not be less than the houses on either side. The Project calls for a variety of fencing materials, heights and locations. While the details are to a large part vague, they are all arguably inconsistent with and in contradiction to the Morningside Guidelines and are non -cohesive with existing features. Preservation Office Staff stated in its analysis that front yard fencing is "non -conforming to the Morningside Guidelines regarding fencing". The SCOA has been approved even though the plans for fencing are vague, incompatible with existing features of the abutting properties and in contradiction to the Morningside Guidelines. We request that approval of the fencing aspect of the SCOA be returned to the Preservation Staff for re-evaluation, clarification and revision, including collaboration with adjoining property owners, as needed. We request that the Approval of the Special Certificate of Appropriateness be amended or set aside in its entirety. We further reserve the right to amend, revise or withdraw our appeal. SINCERELY, M"t"- PETER R. WAGONE MICHELE BEAUVAIS-WAGONER The undersigned Jose Manuel Belsol and Mariana Evora, live at 5966 NE 6 Avenue, Miami, FL 33137 which is directly across the street from the project address. We did not receive any notice of the HEP Board Hearing held on April 2, 2019, nor did we attend the hearing. We have Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk been aggrieved by the action of the HEP Board and join in this appeal. We reserve the right to amend, revise or withdraw our joinder in this matter. Sincerely ose Manuel Belsol Mariana Evora cc: Warren Adams, City of Miami Historic Preservation Officer 1 1 1 1 1 1 4/29/2019 https://secure35.ipayment.com/Miemi/my/0/print version.htm?_DOUBLESUBMIT=fbxla3YX7fsog%2b1UxD7XbztDVLyHIZn%2fPbku... Department of Finance Online Payments Receipt Your Reference Number: 2019119001-146 04/29/2019 1:12:21 PM Web_user TRANSACTIONS If you have a Transaction ID, please click here 2019119001-146-1 $917.00 TRANS ID: 598347 BUSINESS NAME: COM Fee Payment $525.00 FEE NAME: APPEAL - HISTORIC DESIGNATION/CERTIFICATE OF APPROPIATENESS Fee Payment $392.00 FEE NAME: PUBLIC HEARING - HISTORIC DESIGNATION/CERTIFI CATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPEAL MAILED NOTICE TOTAL AMOUNT: $917.00 PAYMENT Visa Credit Sale CARD NUMBER: ************3958 FIRST NAME: M chete LAST NAME: Beauva s wagoner 1111 UI llll 11lI 11111 fl CE2019 19001- 46 A $917.00 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk httpsJ/secure35.ipayment.com/Miaml/my/0/print version.htm?_DOUBLESUBMIT=fbxle3YX7fsog%2b1UxD7XbztDVLyHIZn%21PbkuVYpR6Uo%3d 1/1 Tit:, LTf tart BUILDING DEPARTMENT Transaction Statement Financial Transaction ID: 598347 Transaction Date: Apr 17 2019 12:11 PM Permit Number: Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Peter R. Wagoner (Appeal) (305)765-6645 FEE SUMMARY Fee Category Fee Code Fee Description Quantity Unit Type Amount HEARING BOARDS - APPLICATION/APPEAL MS-239 APPEAL - HISTORIC DESIGNATION/CERTIFICATE OF APPROPIATENESS 0.0000 N/A $525.00 HEARING BOARDS - PUBLIC HEARING MS-240 PUBLIC HEARING - HISTORIC DESIGNATION/CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPEAL MAILED NOTICE 112.0000 UNITS $392.00 Tota I : $917.00 Rev. Jul/02/2012 Generated on Apr/17/2019 12:15 PM 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 r 1 e i t i &iv O'fAilizuni BUILDING DEPARTMENT Transaction Statement Financial Transaction ID: 602112 Transaction Date: Apr 30 2019 4:04PM Permit Number: Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Peter R. Wagoner (Appeal) (305)765-6645 FEE SUMMARY Fee Category Fee Code Fee Description Quantity Unit Type Amount HEARING BOARDS - PUBLIC HEARING MS-240 PUBLIC HEARING - HISTORIC DESIGNATION/CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPEAL MAILED NOTICE 12.0000 UNITS $42.00 Total: $42.00 Rev. Jul/02/2012 Generated on Apr/30/2019 4:04 PM iBuild Miami Hi Silvia j Manage Application Reports Miscellaneous Payments Help MiscOmiair t tiaoln ransaction i Permit Number. 1 •Requestor Name: Peter R. Wagoner (Appeal) Address 1: Address 2: City State: Florida Zip: I Email: *Phone 1: (rig 1) 7651- F664n Phone 2: ( ) -C� Comments: Increase of mailed notices from 80 to 92 Folio Number. Last Updated By: FRIVERSIDE\SiIGonzatez1 Last Updated Date: [Apr/30/2019 16:04 Financial Transaction Tx Created On Receipt Number Receipt Date Transaction Amount Print 602112 Apr/30/201916:04 2019120001-245 Aprl301201916:09 Payment $42.00 Print Fee Category Fee Descr ption I Code I Units Unit Code Fee Amount HEARING BOARDS - PUBLIC PUBUC HEARING - HISTORIC DESIGNATION/CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPEAL MS-240 12 l UNITS $42.00 HEARING MAILED NOTICE COPYRIGHT 0 2019 CITY OF MIAMI Best used with Internet Explorer 11 - Download i Download Acrobat Reader 1111 User Working Online v.3.2019.422.1 Privacy Policy I Contact Us I Fee Guide Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07125/2019 , City Clerk 1 a NIL +Mr. 1 t e )1: S - Historic Preservation Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk PLANNING DEPARTMENT, HEARING BOARDS DIVISION S 2" Avenue, 3rd Floor • Miami, Florida 33130 • Telephone 305-416-2030 b i;D 9r,:s ..; man appeal period ends on a weekend or a holiday, the appeal period end date will be the close of business the fglIowiv business day. • If any appeal is late, missing full payment, missing property owner labels, or missing any other , ce§sary documents, the appeal cannot be accepted. • Certified list of adjacent property owner labels are to be'prepared by the appellant and submitted at the time of the appeal submission. • Only withdrawal letters shall be accepted outside of an appeal period. • Rescheduling fees indicated in Section 62-23 (d) shall apply. • Emailed appeals are not accepted; appeals to be submitted at the Hearing Boards Division, M-F (except holidays), 8 am to 5 pm. • Appeals must be written in English. • Appeal fees are non-refundable.. Appeal to City Commission (Indicate one): ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness [Sec 23-6.2(e)] ❑ Final designation [Sec 23-4(c)(3)a-e AND Sec 23-4 (c)(7)] I 'Yes ❑ No Is it within the 15-day appeal period, fro of renderings HEPB decision If No, cannot be accepted. If Yes: =? &Yes 0 No 0 N/A Appeal letter indicating HEPB Resolutio o. to aring Boards, copying Preservation Officer lA"Yes 0 No 0 N/A Certified list of adjacent owners (labels) with, = eet and signed preparer form Sec 23-4(c)(3)a-e 0 Yes 0 No 0 N/A Proof of Payment of a• •licfees Sec 23-4 (c)(7) 0 Yes 0 No 'N/A Proof of Lobbyist Registrations " ' able, must provide proof prior to hearing) Sec. 2-654 0 Yes 0 No 1(N/A 'N/A Valid Power of Attorney (If applica , must provide proof prior to hearing) 0 Yes 0 No I Proof of Boar & esolution (If applicable, must provide proof prior to hearing) OS .,, Rev. 01.31.2019 1 Submitted into the public record for item(s) pZ_7 on 07/25/2019 City Clerk Peter R. Wagoner Michele Beauvais -Wagoner 5955 NE 6th Avenue Miami, Florida 33137 CITY OF MIAMI HEARING BOARDS DEPARTMENT 444 SW 2 AVENUE, 3RD FLOOR MIAMI. FLORIDA 33130 RE: RESOLUTION NO, HEPB—R-19-018 FILE ID PZ-19-205 PROJECT ADDRESS: 5965 NE 6TH AVE April 30, 2019 To City of Miami Hearing Boards Department: This letter constitutes our notice of appeal of the Special Certificate of Appropriateness (SCOA) to allow the new construction of a single-family, residential structure located at 5965 NE 6th Avenue, on a parcel zoned T3-R "Sub -Urban Transect Zone", awarded by the City of Miami HEP Board on April 2, 2019 (the "Project"). We own and live in the home immediately abutting this property to the south, at 5955 NE 6th Avenue. We attended the HEPB meeting held April 2, 2019, and gave comments along with other members of the community. HEPB granted the SCOA, dismissing the public's concerns and applying incorrect standards. We have been aggrieved by this action and therefore seek an appeal. Our appeal challenges, among other things; (1) the front set -back of the Project, (2) the placement, height and types of the proposed perimeter fencing, and (3) that the Project adversely effects the historic, architectural and aesthetic character of the neighboring structures Miami, Florida 1 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Da e D , 2o1'j CITY OF MIAMI HEARING BOARDS MIAMI RIVERSIDE CENTER 444 SW 2ND AVENUE, 3RD FLOOR MIAMI, FLORIDA 33130 RE: Property Owner's List Within 500 Feet of: Street Address(es) Total number of labels without repetition: qz I 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. I also understand that a new list will be requested by the City of Miami Hearing Boards if it is determined the property owner information list initially submitted is older than six (6) months. Since Signature Printed Name or Company Name 5565 ,4 « 4v Address Telephone itemamtv benvy m ti l- yig,.G071 E-mail Rev. 10-18 4/10/2019 City of Miami Zoning Application a F^ b5iI LIr I l) ligkr4 Search Select Print Measure Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk hops://maps.miamigov.com/mlamizoning/Index.htm 1/1 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk EXHIBIT 3 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Jose Manuel Belsol Mariana Evora 5966 NE 6th Avenue Miami, Florida 33137 R CITY OF MIAMI CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE MIAMI. FLORIDA 33133 RE: RESOLUTION NO. HEPB—R-19-018 FILE ID PZ-19-205 PROJECT ADDRESS: 5965 NE 6TH AVE June 24, 2019 To City Clerk: This letter constitutes our withdrawal as co -appellants of the appeal of that certain Special Certificate of Appropriateness (SCOA) to allow the new construction of a single-family, residential structure located at 5965 NE 6th Avenue, on a parcel zoned T3-R "Sub -Urban Transect Zone", awarded by the City of Miami HEP Board on April 2, 2019 (the "Project"). We dismiss all claims in this matter. The Appeal is scheduled for the Planning and Zoning meeting of the City Commission on Thursday June 27, 2019, Agenda Item PZ-19 5901. Sincerely Jnuel Belsol Mariana Evora MiFlorida Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk EXHIBIT 4 A Aar . . - Ilia I AN a ■NIIIMi weasivemi - I - - ' M lowMorningside Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Civic Association Architectural Review Committee David Holtzman Robert Graboskri Naomi Burt Elvis Cruz Ligia Labrada Monday, June 24, 2019 Subject: Appeal of New Construction - 5965 NE 6th Avenue (Morningside Historic District) Dear Mr. Adams, The Morningside Civic Association's Architectural Review Committee (MCA ARC) has met on site with Mr. & Mrs. Stohner owners of 5965 NE 6th Avenue ("Applicants"), Mr. Jacob Brillhart, architect, Carlos Lago, Attorney and Landscape Architect on behalf of the Applicants. Present were also Mr. & Mrs. Wagoner abutting 5955 NE 6th Avenue property owners (Appellants"). The MCA ARC understands the HEPB did not have the benefit of our committee's comments during the March Agenda. Notwithstanding, the MCA ARC has reviewed and discussed extensively the scope and constraints of the subject property and supports the HEP Board's approval of this COA, but subject to the following seven conditions that allow this new home to be more consistent with the Morningside Historic Guidelines: 1. Allow the Applicant to install a new 5' metal picket fence along the property frontage to replace the chain link fence, running 17'+/- from the north west property line to the Morningside Perimeter Fence ("the area outside of the Morningside Perimeter Fence"). The new picket fence should be installed at the back of the sidewalk in the same location of the existing chain link fence. not 6' inward of the property as proposed. so existing tree root systems are not unnecessarily disturbed. 2. Do not allow a fence along the property frontage from the Morningside Perimeter Fence to the south west property line (the area inside the Morningside Perimeter Fence"), in accordance with the Morningside Historic Guidelines. 3. Set back the South property line perimeter fence and side gate to align with the frontmost building wall of the abutting 5955 NE 6th Ave. property, in accordance with the Morningside Design Guidelines. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 4. Applicant shall heavily landscape the South property line at their own expense and with the design consent of the abutting 5955 NE 6th Ave property owners to properly conceal the 2-story volume of the proposed home. The consent of the abutting 5955 NE 6th Ave property owners shall not be unreasonably withheld 5. Add a hardscape walkway defined and/or differentiated from the driveway, from the back of the sidewalk to the front entry of the new home. Walkway to be constructed of a material determined by the Applicant and acceptable to HEP Staff. 6. Open the front elevation of the front porch_for its intended use. 7. Define the "PTD Wood Siding" finish material and request applicant to present final selections to Staff & MCA ARC for review. The submitted plans show the project conforms to the required setbacks however there is dissenting opinion by one member of the ARC, that the Primary setback should not be less than the adjacent property due to the depth of the lot. The MCA ARC believes the conditions noted above would benefit the project and will render it more consistent with the character and style of the Morningside Historic District. Sincerely, The Morningside Architectural Review Committee Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk A Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Sec. 23-6.2. - Certificates of appropriateness. (a) Certificates of appropriateness, when required. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required for any new construction, alteration, relocation, or demolition within a designated historic site or historic district or for thematically -related historic resources within a multiple property designation. A certificate of appropriateness shall also be required for exceptions, or waivers or exclusion from the provisions of the zoning code, or any successor zoning code. A certificate to dig shall be required for any ground disturbing activity within a designated archaeological site or archaeological zone or within an archaeological conservation area. All certificates of appropriateness and certificates to dig shall be subject to the applicable criteria in this section and any other applicable criteria specified in this chapter, as amended. No permits shall be issued by the building department for any work requiring a certificate of appropriateness unless such work is in conformance with such certificate. (b) Procedures for issuing certificates of appropriateness. (1) Pre -application conference(s). Before submitting an application for a certificate of appropriateness, an applicant is encouraged to confer with the preservation officer to obtain information and guidance before entering into binding commitments or incurring substantial expense in the preparation of plans, surveys, and other data. At the request of the applicant, the preservation officer, or any member of the board, an additional pre -application conference shall be held between the applicant and the board or its designated representative. The purpose of such conference shall be to further discuss and clarify preservation objectives and design guidelines in cases that may not conform to established objectives and guidelines. In no case, however, shall any statement or representation made prior to the official application review be binding on the board, the city commission, or any city department. (2) Application for certificate of appropriateness. The applicant shall submit to the preservation officer an application together with supporting exhibits, other materials, and any applicable fees as required by the rules of procedure of the board. No application shall be deemed to be complete until all supporting materials required have been provided and any established fees paid. (3) Standard certificates of appropriateness. Where the action proposed in the application is a minor improvement, as specified by the rules of procedure or the board, and is in accord with the guidelines for issuing certificates of appropriateness as set forth subsection 23-7(c), the preservation officer shall, within ten calendar days of receipt of the complete application, issue a standard certificate of appropriateness with or without conditions, indicating in writing, conformity with said guidelines. Following such approval, permits dependent upon it may be issued if otherwise lawful. An applicant may request that the application be initially classified as a special certificate of appropriateness if they wish to have the matter heard by the HEPB. (4) Special certificates of appropriateness. Where the action proposed in an application involves a major addition, alteration, relocation, or demolition, as specified by the rules of procedure of the board; where the preservation officer finds that the action proposed in an application involving a minor alteration is not clearly in accord with the guidelines as set forth in subsection (c); or when the applicant is requesting a waiver, or exception or exclusion from the requirements of the zoning code the application shall be classified as a special certificate of appropriateness, and the following procedures shall govern: a. Public hearing. When a complete application is received, the preservation officer shall place the application on the next regularly scheduled meeting of the board. The board shall hold a public hearing to review the application. All public hearings on all certificates of appropriateness conducted by the board and hearings on appeals of board decisions to the city commission regarding certificates of appropriateness shall be noticed as follows: 1. The applicant shall be notified by mail at least ten calendar days prior to the hearing. 2. Any individual or organization requesting such notification and paying any established fees therefore shall be notified by mail at least ten calendar days prior to the hearing. (5) Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 3. An advertisement shall be placed in a newspaper at least ten calendar days prior to the hearing. 4. Any additional notice deemed appropriate by the board. b. Decision of the board. The decision of the board shall be based upon the guidelines set forth in subsection (c), as well as the general purpose and intent of this chapter and any specific design guidelines officially adopted for the particular historic resource, historic district, multiple property designation, or archaeological site or zone. No decision of the board shall result in an unreasonable or undue economic hardship for the owner. The board may seek technical advice from outside its members on any application. The decision of the board shall include a complete description of its findings, and shall direct one of the following actions: 1. Issuance of a special certificate of appropriateness for the work proposed by the applicant; 2. Issuance of a special certificate of appropriateness with specified modifications and conditions; 3. Denial of a special certificate of appropriateness, including denial of a special certificate of appropriateness for demolition; or 4. Issuance of a special certificate of appropriateness with a deferred effective date of up to six (6) months in cases of demolition or relocation of a contributing structure or landscape feature, pursuant to the provision of special certificates of appropriateness for demolition in this section or up to forty-five (45) calendar days for any work potentially affecting an archaeological site, archaeological zone, or archaeological conservation area, pursuant to the provisions of special certificates of appropriateness for demolition in this section. 5. Issuance of a written communication prepared by the preservation officer to the director of the planning department and the zoning administrator that sets out the exact parameters for the waiver (s) from the provisions of the Miami 21 code and the reasons wherefore, and/or their decision as to the exception allowed within a certain transect, and their reasons wherefore. 6. Accelerated certificate of appropriateness. There are occasions when an applicant is proposing physical changes to a resource that is simultaneously being considered for local historic designation. Under those circumstances, and only if the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, the historic preservation officer shall follow the procedures specified for a special certificate of appropriateness. A hearing for an accelerated certificate of appropriateness will be preceded by the preliminary designation report, in order to establish whether or not the resource appears to meet the criteria for local historic designation. Accelerated certificate of appropriateness. When an applicant is proposing physical changes to a resource that is simultaneously being considered for local historic designation, if the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, the preservation officer shall follow the procedures specified for a special certificate of appropriateness. A hearing for an accelerated certificate of appropriateness will be preceded by the preliminary designation report. in order to establish whether the resource appears to meet the criteria for local historic designation. (c) Time limitations. If no action is taken upon an application by the board within 60 calendar days, excluding those days within the month of August, from the receipt of a complete application, such application shall be deemed to have been approved, and the preservation officer shall authorize issuance of any permit dependent upon such certification, if otherwise lawful, recording as authorization the provisions of this section. This time limit may be waived at any time by mutual consent of the applicant and the board. However, should in the opinion of the preservation officer or the historic and environmental preservation board such delays be attributable to the applicant and/or their agent, this time limitation shall not apply, nor shall the application be considered approved. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk (d) Records. Written copies of all decisions and certificates of appropriateness shall be filed with the planning department. (e) Appeals. The applicant, the planning department, or any aggrieved party may appeal to the city commission any decision of the board on matters relating to designations and certificates of appropriateness by filing within fifteen (15) calendar days after the date of the decision a written notice of appeal with the hearing boards department, with a copy to the preservation officer. The notice of appeal shall set forth concisely the decision appealed from and the reasons or grounds for the appeal. Each appeal shall be accompanied by a fee of $525.00, plus $3.50 per mailed notice required pursuant to 23-4. The city commission shall hear and consider all facts material to the appeal and render a decision as promptly as possible. The appeal shall be de novo hearing and the city commission may consider new evidence or materials. The city commission may affirm, modify, or reverse the board's decision. The decision of the city commission shall constitute final administrative review, and no petition for rehearing or reconsideration shall be considered by the city. Appeals from decisions of the city commission may be made to the courts as provided by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Changes in approved work. Any change in work proposed subsequent to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness shall be reviewed by the preservation officer. If the preservation officer finds that the proposed change does not materially affect the property's historic character or that the proposed change is in accord with approved guidelines, standards, and certificates of appropriateness, the officer may issue a supplementary standard certificate of appropriateness for such change. If the proposed change is not in accord with guidelines, standards, or certificates of appropriateness previously approved by the board, a new application for a special certificate of appropriateness shall be required. Expiration of certificates of appropriateness. Any certificate of appropriateness issued pursuant to the provisions of this section shall expire 12 months from the date of issuance, unless the authorized work is commenced within this time period, or a building permit has been obtained. The preservation officer may grant an extension of time not to exceed 12 months upon written request by the applicant, unless the board's guidelines as they may relate to the authorized work have been amended. (f) (g) (h) Guidelines for issuing certificates of appropriateness. (1) Alteration of existing structures, new construction. Generally, for applications relating to alterations or new construction as required in subsection (a) the proposed work shall not adversely affect the historic, architectural, or aesthetic character of the subject structure or the relationship and congruity between the subject structure and its neighboring structures and surroundings, including but not limited to form, spacing, height, yards, materials, color, or rhythm and pattern of window and door openings in building facades; nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the overall historic site, historic district, or multiple property designation. Except where special standards and guidelines have been specified in the designation of a particular historic resource, historic district, or multiple property designation, or where the board has subsequently adopted additional standards and guidelines for a particular designated historic resource, historic district, or multiple property designation, decisions relating to alterations or new construction shall be guided by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings." (2) Applications for a waiver, or exception or exclusion. An application for a waiver(s), or exception or exclusion from the provisions of the Miami 21 Code will be made on forms provided by the planning department, and will be processed and noticed in accordance with the procedures for a special certificate of appropriateness. (3) Ground disturbing activity in archeological zones, archeological sites, or archeological conservation areas. a. No certificate of appropriateness shall be issued for new construction, excavation, tree removal, or any other ground disturbing activity until the city's archeologist has reviewed Submitted into the public record for item(s) pZ,7 on 07/25/2019 City Clerk the application and made his/her recommendation concerning the required scope of archeological work. The board may require any or all of the following: 1. Scientific excavation and evaluation of the site at the applicants expense by an archeologist approved by the board. 2. An archeological survey at the applicant's expense conducted by an archeologist approved by the board containing an assessment of the significance of the archeological site and an analysis of the impact of the proposed activity on the archeological site. 3. Proposal for mitigation measures. 4. Protection or preservation of all or part of the archaeological site for green space, if the site is of exceptional importance and such denial would not unreasonably restrict the primary use of the property. b. The board may issue a certificate to dig with a delayed effective date of up to 45 calendar days to allow any necessary site excavation or assessment. (4) Unreasonable or undue economic hardship. a. Where strict enforcement of the provisions of this section would result in an unreasonable or undue economic hardship to the applicant, the board shall have the power to vary or modify the provisions of this section, including adopted guidelines. The fact that compliance would result in some increase in costs shall not be considered unreasonable or undue economic hardship if the use of the property is still economically viable. b. Any applicant wishing to assert unreasonable or undue hardship must submit as a part of the application for a certificate of appropriateness a written statement presenting the factual data establishing such economic hardship. The written statement presenting factual data shall be in the form of a sworn affidavit containing the following information: 1. The amount paid for the property, the date of purchase and the party from whom purchased, including a description of the relationship, whether business or familial, if any, between the owner and the person from whom the property was purchased; 2. The assessed value of the land and improvements thereon according to the three most recent assessments; 3. The amount of real estate taxes for the previous three years; 4. All appraisals obtained by the owner or applicant within the previous three years in connection with the potential or actual purchase, financing or ownership of the property; 5. All listings of the property for sale or rent within the previous three years, prices asked and offers received, if any; 6. For income producing property only, a profit and loss statement for the property containing the annual gross income for the previous three years; itemized expenses, including operating and maintenance costs, for the previous three years; annual cash flow for the previous three years; and proof that the owner has made reasonable efforts to obtain a reasonable rate of return on the owner's investment and labor; 7. Any consideration by the applicant as to uses or adaptive uses of the property; c. In the event that any of the required information is not reasonably available to the applicant or cannot be obtained, the applicant shall file with the affidavit a statement of the information that cannot be obtained and shall described the reasons why such information is unavailable. d. Notwithstanding the submission of the above information, the board may require, at the applicants expense, additional evidence, including, but not limited to, architectural, Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25'2019 , City Clerk structural and/or financial evaluations or studies as are reasonably necessary in the opinion of the board to determine the economic feasibility of rehabilitation of the structure. (i) Demolition by neglect. (1) Demolition by neglect prohibited; affirmative maintenance required. The owner(s) of a property designated historic pursuant to this chapter, which includes a property either individually designated, designated as a contributing property within a historic district or designated as a thematically -related historic resource within a multiple property designation as defined by this chapter, shall comply with all applicable codes, laws, and regulations governing the maintenance of the property. It is the intention of this section to preserve from deliberate negligence, or inadvertent neglect the exterior features of property designated historic and the interior portions thereof when maintenance is necessary to prevent deterioration and decay of the property. All such properties shall be preserved against such decay and deterioration and shall be free from structural defects through prompt corrections of any of the following defects: a. Facades which may fall or damage the subject property, adjoining property, or injure members of the public. b. Deteriorated or inadequate foundation, defective or deteriorated flooring or floor supports, deteriorated walls, or other vertical structural supports. c. Members of ceilings, roofs, or other horizontal members which sag, split, or buckle due to defective material or deterioration. d. Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs, foundations, or floors, including broken or missing windows or doors. e. Any fault or defect in the property which renders it structurally unsafe, insufficiently protected from weathering, or not properly watertight. f. Defective or insufficient weather protection which jeopardizes the integrity of exterior or interior walls, roofs, or foundation, including lack of paint or weathering due to lack of paint or protective covering. Any structure designated historic which is not properly secured under the Florida Building Code or other technical codes and is accessible to the general public; or, any fault or defect on the property designated historic that renders it structurally unsafe or not properly watertight. h. Spalling of the concrete of any portion of the interior or exterior of the structure designated historic. (2) Unreasonable or undue economic hardship. A property owner who believes that application of this section creates an unreasonable or undue economic hardship, as that term is defined by this chapter, may apply for a special certificate of appropriateness to the board within 15 days of having notice or knowledge of any defect(s) referred to in this section. The procedure employed by the board shall be the same as for the consideration of a special certificate of appropriateness under this chapter. The board may grant the owner an extension of time to comply with corrective work or limit the scope of the corrective work. (3) Enforcement. a. Notice of administrative enforcement. Enforcement shall be as provided pursuant to Chapter 2, Article X, entitled "Code Enforcement," of the City of Miami Code, as amended. b. Civil actions for injunction and remedial relief. lien on property. In addition to code enforcement remedies, if the property owner fails to take corrective action within the time prescribed, the city may file any civil action ordering the property owner to take corrective actions and the city may seek damages and seek any other relief available under Florida Law. The court may order an injunction providing such remedies if the city proves that the owner has violated this ordinance and such violation threatens the integrity or existence of a designated historic property. In the event that a court order authorizes that the city enter g. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk into the property and take corrective action, the cost of the corrective action incurred by the city shall be a municipal special assessment lien against the property. Such lien shall, until fully paid and discharged, be of equal rank and dignity with the lien of ad valorem taxes, and shall be superior in rank and dignity to all other liens, encumbrances, titles, claims in, to or against the real property involved. Such liens may be instituted and enforced pursuant to Chapter 173, Florida Statutes, as amended, or the collection and enforcement of payment thereof may be accomplished by any other method authorized by law. The property owner shall pay all costs of collection, including reasonable attorneys fees, service charges, civil penalties, and liens imposed by virtue of this ordinance. (Ord. No. 13008, § 2, 6-26-08; Ord. No. 13116, § 2, 10-22-09; Ord. No. 13133, § 1, 1-28-10; Ord. No. 13142, § 10, 2-11-10; Ord. No. 13180, § 2, 5-27-10; Ord. No. 13676, § 2, 4-27-17; Ord. No. 13712, § 2, 11-16-17) Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk B Ferreiro v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 928 So.2d 374 (2006) 31 Fla. L. Weekly D719 928 So.2d 374 District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. Miriam Nancy FERREIRO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant, v. PHIL.ADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellee. No. 3Do4-3205. March 8, 2006. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 30, 2006. Synopsis Background: Rental car customer who purchased excess insurance coverage at time of rental brought declaratory judgment action against excess coverage insurer, claiming a right to uninsured motorist (UM) coverage from insurer for injuries sustained in accident soon after customer rented vehicle. The Circuit Court, Miami -Dade County, Jon I. Gordon, J., found in favor of insurer, and customer appealed. The District Court of Appeal, Schwartz, C.J., 816 So.2d 140, reversed. Upon remand, customer filed a motion for class certification seeking to obtain UM coverage for a class of plaintiffs. The Circuit Court denied motion for class certification based on lack of standing. Customer appealed. ]Holding:] The District Court of Appeal, Cortifias, J., held that customer had standing to bring class action against insurer. Reversed. Shepherd, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk West Headnotes (3) ]1] Parties Representation of Class;Typicality 287 Parties 287III Representative and Class Actions 287III(A) In General 287k35.13 Representation of Class;Typicality The issue of standing is a threshold inquiry which must be made at the outset of the case before addressing whether the case is properly maintainable as a class action. 5 Cases that cite this headnote ]2] Action ire Persons Entitled to Sue 13 Action 13I Grounds and Conditions Precedent 13k13 Persons Entitled to Sue To satisfy the requirement of standing, the plaintiff must show that a case or controversy exists between the plaintiff and the defendant, and that such case or controversy continues from the commencement through the existence of the litigation. 8 Cases that cite this headnote j31 Parties iP- Insurance Claimants 287 Parties 287III Representative and Class Actions 287III(C) Particular Classes Represented 287k35.73 Insurance Claimants Rental car customer that purchased excess insurance coverage had standing to bring class action against insurer for failing to offer uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage, even though insured was previously granted declaratory relief; customer's individual damage claims against insurer remained pending, and thus, she continued to have a case or controversy with insurer. WESTLAW Ferreiro v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 928 So.2d 374 (2006) 31 Fla. L. Weekly D719 1 Cases that cite this headnote Attorneys and Law Firms *375 Hunter, Williams & Lynch, P.A., Coral Gables, and Christopher Lynch and Steven K. Hunter, for appellant. Conner & Winters, L.L.C. and James E. Green; Hicks & Kneale, P.A.., Susan Y. Marcus, Hollywood, and. Mark Hicks, Miami, for appellee. Before WELLS, SHEPHERD, and CORTINAS, JJ. Opinion CORTINAS, Judge. The plaintiff, Miriam Nancy Ferreiro ("Ferreiro"), appeals from a non -final order denying her motion for class certification on the ground that she lacked standing to pursue this class action. We reverse. In January 1997, Ferreiro rented a car from a Budget Rent A Car facility in Miami, Florida. She purchased an optional Rental Supplemental Liability Insurance Excess Policy ("excess policy") from the defendant, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company ("Philadelphia"). Soon after renting the car and purchasing the excess insurance, Ferreiro was involved in a car accident and was seriously injured. On June 4, 2001, Ferreiro filed a second amended class action complaint 1 against *376 Philadelphia seeking (1) a declaratory judgment that Ferreiro and other similarly situated individuals are entitled to uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage pursuant to section 627.727(2), Florida Statute (1997), 2 and (2) damages resulting from her injuries. The parties do not dispute that the excess policy did not offer Ferreiro uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage. The parties dispute whether Ferreiro has standing to bring a class action against Philadelphia for failing to offer such coverage. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk This Court, in Ferreiro v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 816 So.2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), held that Philadelphia was required by section 627.727(2) to inform Ferreiro that uninsured motorist coverage was available. By mandate issued on July 19, 2002, we directed the trial court to hold Philadelphia to uninsured motorist coverage for Ferreiro. After this Court's decision in Ferreiro and following remand, Ferreiro filed a Motion for Class Certification seeking to obtain uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage for a "class" she redefined as: All individuals who purchased [excess policies] from Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company in the State of Florida prior to April 1, 2003, and all individuals or entities qualifying as either Class I or Class II insureds, pursuant to § 627.727 Fla. Stat., under said policies. Philadelphia objected to certification of a class action claiming that Ferreiro lacked standing. The trial court stayed discovery pending resolution on the issue of standing. Subsequently, the trial court denied Ferreiro's motion for class certification on the basis that she lacked standing. However, the trial court ordered that Ferreiro's individual claims would remain pending. On de novo review, we disagree with the trial court and find that Ferreiro has standing to pursue a class action. See W.S. Badcock Corp. v. Webb, 699 So.2d 859, 861 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)(holding that a trial court's decision as to whether a plaintiff has standing to bring a class action is reviewed de novo). (11 The issue of standing is a threshold inquiry which must be made at the outset of the case before addressing whether the case is properly maintainable as a class action. Taran v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 685 So.2d 1004, 1006 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. DeMario, 683 So.2d 641, 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Thus, in this appeal, we consider only whether Ferreiro has standing to seek class action certification. We do not address Ferreiro's capacity to represent the class as the trial court has not had an opportunity to consider and rule upon this issue. Griffin v. Dugger, 823 F.2d 1476, WESTLAW L Ferreiro v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 928 So.2d 374 (2006) 31 Fla. L. Weekly D719 1482 (11th Cir.1987)(holding that a court may address whether the plaintiff has representative capacity only after determining the issue of standing), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1005, 108 S.Ct. 1729, 100 L.Ed.2d 193 (1988). For the same reasons, *377 we do not address issues regarding the scope of the purported class or the merits of the class action. 121 131 To satisfy the requirement of standing, the plaintiff must show that a case or controversy exists between the plaintiff and the defendant, and that such case or controversy continues from the commencement through the existence of the litigation. Godwin v. State, 593 So.2d 211 (F1a.1992); Montgomery v. Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Servs., 468 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Absent an existing case or controversy between Ferreiro and Philadelphia, there would not be standing to pursue a class action claim or represent a class. See Webb, 699 So.2d at 860. As we have previously held: [I]f none of the named plaintiffs purporting to represent a class establishes a requisite of a case or controversy with the defendant, none may seek relief on behalf of himself or any other member of the class. Taran, 685 So.2d at 1006 (quoting O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974)). Philadelphia contends that Ferreiro lacks standing to bring this class action because we previously granted her declaratory relief. In support of its position, Philadelphia relies on Chinchilla v. Star Casualty Insurance Co., 833 So.2d 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), Ramon v. Aries Insurance Co., 769 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), Taran, 685 So.2d at 1006, Baptist Hospital, 683 So.2d at 643, and Syna v. Shell Oil Co., 241 So.2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). in However, none of those cases support Philadelphia's contention that Ferreiro lacks standing. 1 1 1 For example, in Baptist Hospital, this court did not address the issue of plaintiff's standing to bring a class action and, instead, remanded the case to the trial court for a determination on plaintiffs standing. Baptist Hospital, 683 So.2d at 643. WESTLAW Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk In Ramon, the plaintiff brought a class action against an automobile insurance company after he was involved in an accident. The plaintiff conceded that the insurer settled all of his claims and that no money was due to him, but, nevertheless, he wanted to pursue the class action "so that the insurer would 'change the way they do things.' " Ramon, 769 So.2d at 1054. We concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing because he had already received full payment and, thus, did not have a pending case or controversy with the insurer. Ramon, 769 So.2d at 1055. In this case, unlike the cases cited by Philadelphia, a final judgment has not been rendered on Ferreiro's claim for damages or on Philadelphia's liability. In fact, the trial court correctly recognized that Ferreiro's individual claims remained pending after the prior appeal. As such, we find that Ferreiro has standing because she continues to have a case or controversy with Philadelphia. See Taran, 685 So.2d at 1006; Ramon, 769 So.2d at 1055. We note that the dissent confuses judicial review of standing with review of the criteria for certification of a class action. The differences in these inquiries has been described as follows: Though there is no additional standing requirement for the plaintiff who seeks to represent a class, a proper class action requires a similarity of claims between the named plaintiffs and the class members. This similarity of claims is tested not by principles of standing, but by the application of the Rule 23(a)(3) criteria. If a class action is proper, then by definition the class representative's claims will be typical of the class. Thus the class plaintiff's individual standing, linked to his or her asserted claim, becomes *378 automatically linked to the class claim. Having standing which a class representative shares with the members of a class is another way of saying that the class representative is a proper party to Ferreiro v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 928 So.2d 374 (2006) 31 Fla. L. Weekly D719 raise a particular issue common to the class. The commonness of issues is an express requirement of Rule 23 and is an attribute of the issue involved, rather than a threshold characteristic of whether the issue meets the constitutional case or controversy test. Accordingly, a plaintiff who meets individual standing requirements possesses [standing] in the constitutional sense, and whether the plaintiff may represent the rights of others depends on the application of Rule 23 tests in the case of a class action[.] Osgood v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., 202 F.R.D. 115, 120-21 (D.N.J.2001)(citing Herbert B. Newberg & Alba Conte, Newberg On Class Actions § 2.05 (3d ed. 1992)) (emphasis added). 3 Thus, standing is a threshold determination necessary for the maintenance of all actions, including class actions. In this case, the standing requirement is satisfied because there is a pending claim for damages between the parties as well as a pending determination of Philadelphia's liability. Whether plaintiff is a proper class representative or whether there exists similarity of claims between the named plaintiff and the class members are questions addressed not by principles of standing, but, rather, by the application of the requirements for class action certification, namely (1) numerosity, (2) commonality, (3) typicality, and (4) adequacy of representation. See Meyer v. CUNA Mut. Group, No. 03-602, 2006 WL 197122, at *14 (W.D.Pa.2006); Fallick v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 162 F.3d 410, 423 (6th Cir.1998); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.220. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's determination that Ferreiro lacks standing to bring a class action and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We express no opinion on the viability of the proposed class action. WELLS. J., concurs. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk SHEPHERD, J., dissenting. The precise issue presented in this case is whether an individual who has obtained a court decree establishing "imputed uninsured motorist coverage" for herself under a renter's supplemental excess insurance policy and for whom the only unresolved questions between her and her insurer are whether her actual loss falls within the established "imputed coverage" and, if so, the amount of damages to which she is entitled, has standing vel non to prosecute a separate claim for declaratory class relief to seek to establish that "imputed coverage" for persons other than herself. Because under the applicable law of this district, standing to prosecute cause of action "x" does not automatically confer standing to prosecute cause of action "y," I conclude that at such time as Miriam Ferreiro established imputed coverage for herself in this case, her standing to proceed on behalf of the class ceased. This conclusion is also constitutionally required. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. The Constitutional Dimension As the majority correctly suggests, see p. 377-78, supra, standing is a matter of constitutional dimension. In Florida, this means that "every case must involve a real controversy as to the issues presented." *379 Dep't of Revenue v. Kuhnlein, 646 So.2d 717, 721 (F1a.1994). See also Godwin v. Slate, 593 So.2d 211, 212 (FIa.1992)(pointing out that a case "present[ing] no actual controversy or when the issues have ceased to exist" will be dismissed as "moot"). Put another way, the parties must not be requesting an advisory opinion, Interlachen Lakes Estates, Inc. v. Brooks, 341 So.2d 993, 995 (1976), except in those rare instances in which advisory opinions are authorized. E.g., Art. IV, § 1(c), Fla. Const. (advisory opinions to the Governor). In the context of declaratory judgment actions, see 86.011, Fla. Stat. (2005), the Florida Supreme Court has reiterated much the same rule: Before any proceeding for declaratory relief should be entertained it should be clearly WESTLAW Ferreiro v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 928 So.2d 374 (2006) 31 Fla. L. Weekly D719 made to appear that there is a bona fide, actual, present practical need for the declaration; that the declaration should deal with a present, ascertained or ascertainable state of facts or present controversy as to a state of facts; that some immunity, power, privilege or right of the complaining party is dependent upon the facts or the law applicable to the facts; that there is some person or persons who have, or reasonably may have an actual, present, adverse and antagonistic interest in the subject matter, either in fact or law; that the antagonistic and adverse interests are all before the court by proper process or class representation and that the relief sought is not merely the giving of legal advice by the courts or the answer to questions propounded from curiosity. These elements are necessary in order to maintain the status of the proceeding as being judicial in nature and therefore within the constitutional powers of the courts. May v. Holley, 59 So.2d 636, 639 (F1a.1952)(emphasis added); see also Martinez v. Scanlan, 582 So.2d 1167, 1170 (F1a.1991)(reaffirming May); Kuhnlein, 646 So.2d at 721 (accord). Perhaps the greatest risk in the deployment of declaratory actions is that a party will seek to misuse the device to obtain an answer where it might be nice to have one, but where there is no "present, adverse and antagonistic interest in the subject matter." May, 59 So.2d at 639. In these cases, it is our sworn responsibility to police the boundaries. See, e.g., Martinez, 582 So.2d at 1170 ("[A]lthough a court may entertain a declaratory action regarding a statute's validity, there must be a bona fide need for such a declaration based on present, ascertainable facts or the court lacks jurisdiction to render declaratory relief."); Dep't of Ins. v. Dade County Consumer Advocate's Office, 492 So.2d 1032, 1043 (F1a.1986)("Courts, in performing their function of adjudicating cases and controversies within their Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk jurisdictions, interpret and apply the law when there is a dispute or conflict regarding how it applies."); In re Connors, 332 So.2d 336, 340 (FIa.1976)(Hatchett, J., dissenting)("In my opinion, no case or controversy is ripe for decision here.... Without doubting the importance of the question presented, I believe the Court oversteps jurisdictional boundaries in reaching the merits."). I am of the view that such is our obligation here. As previously indicated, the current circumstance of this case is that there is a case and current controversy between Ferreiro and her insurer with respect to whether or not her insurer owes her any compensation for the loss that she has suffered-i.e., whether she suffered a loss attributable to the act of an uninsured motorist. However, there is no longer any dispute concerning whether she has coverage under the policy for such a loss if it occurred. Indeed, because the decision rendered by us in Ferreiro is one of first *380 impression that has since not been considered or ruled upon by any other District Court in this state or the Florida Supreme Court, our decision would be controlling on the question of the existence of "imputed coverage" in any trial court in this state should another Philadelphia insured raise the question. Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665, 666 (F1a.1992)("[T]he decisions of the district courts of appeal represent the law of Florida unless and until they are overruled by this Court. Thus, in the absence of interdistrict conflict, district court decisions bind all Florida trial courts.")(internal citations omitted). Accordingly, to hold that Ferreiro has standing to prosecute the class action in this case simply because she has not prosecuted to completion her individual claim for damages based upon coverage previously established by her is violative of the constitutional underpinnings of the case and controversy requirement in Florida law. See Kuhnlein, 646 So.2d at 720-22 (The standing requirement in Florida's courts of general jurisdiction is co -extensive with the requirement that there be a case and controversy). Carefully examined, I believe the authorities from our District which the majority finds inapposite, see p. 377-78, supra, likewise compel this conclusion, OUR AUTHORITIES WESTLAW Ferreiro v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 928 So.2d 374 (2006) 31 Fla. L. Weekly D719 I find our recent decision in Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. DeMario, 661 So.2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), instructive if not controlling of the instant case. In DeMario, Michael DeMario sought declaratory class relief, alleging that he was overcharged for copies of medical records he requested from Baptist Hospital. See § 395.3025(1), Fla. Stat. (1995). When the hospital neglected to respond to the complaint, the trial court entered a default against it on the plaintiffs individual claim and then certified a class based solely upon the fact of the default. We reversed the class certification because the rigors of class certification had not been considered or satisfied. Id. at 320. We also sua sponte signaled the existence of a potential threshold issue concerning whether DeMario had standing to serve as the class representative. Id. at 322, n. 6 ("We likewise express no view on the question whether the existence of a default as to plaintiffs individual claim places the plaintiff in a different position than the rest of the class, such that the plaintiffs standing to serve as class plaintiff is adversely affected."). Rather than addressing that issue on remand, however, the trial court determined to delay it until the hearing on the motion to certify the class. The hospital countered by re -raising the issue to us on a petition for writ of certiorari and arguing its threshold character. Baptist Hosp. v. DeMario, 683 So.2d 641, 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We granted the writ and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to stay discovery on the class certification issue pending a determination on DeMario's standing to serve as the class representative because "DeMario, unlike any other member of the putative class, has had liability determined in his favor...." Id. at 643 (emphasis added). Just as in our case, DeMario's claim had not proceeded to a final resolution. Id; see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.500 (distinguishing between a default and a final judgment after default). If the fact that Mr. DeMario had not obtained a final judgment after default on his individual claim was immaterial to the remand of his case for the immediate resolution of the standing issue there, as it must have been, then whether or not Ferreiro has received a final judgment on her individual claim should likewise be immaterial to the resolution of the standing issue in our case. *381 Although the remaining authorities dismissed by the majority are factually distinguishable from both DeMario and our case on the ground that no separate, potentially viable, individual claim existed at the time Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk of the entry of the dismissals for lack of standing, nevertheless they illustrate the point that standing is determined by reference to the purported class action claim. For example, in Syna v. Shell Oil Co., 241 So.2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), the plaintiff Sidney Syna filed a class action complaint to recover alleged usurious credit card interest. On the day Shell's answer was due, its counsel informed Sy.na by letter that it was canceling his credit card and returning the three dollars in question. In its simultaneously filed answer, the company raised as an affirmative defense that the case should be dismissed because "there [no longer] existed [a] present controversy between 'the Plaintiff and the Defendant.' " The trial court agreed, and we affirmed. Syna, 241 So.2d at 459. Likewise, in Chinchilla v. Star Cas. Ins. Co., 833 So.2d 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), Star Casualty mailed Chinchilla a letter informing her that she needed to pay an additional premium by a date certain in order to maintain her personal injury protection medical benefits coverage on her motor vehicle. However, she never received the letter and her coverage was cancelled, a fact she did not discover until months later, when she was injured in a collision involving the vehicle. After determining that Chinchilla could reasonably have believed she had paid all premiums due, and wishing to avoid litigation, Star responded to her claim for benefits by reinstating her policy and providing coverage for the accident. Chinchilla then filed a class action suit on behalf of all persons who, among other things, had their policies cancelled for non-payment or who were charged a premium beyond the cancellation date stated in the letter. We affirmed the trial court's decision finding that Chinchilla lacked standing to be the class representative. Chinchilla, 833 So.2d at 805-06. "Chinchilla" we observed, "[refuses to] accept yes for an answer." Id. Ferreiro likewise seems unwilling to recognize what she has legally accomplished. In Ramon v. Aries Insurance Company, 769 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), Ramon sought to establish a class action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against Aries Insurance Company on the basis that the insurer had improperly withheld a personal injury protection deductible for medical costs incurred by him in an accident while a passenger in a vehicle owned by Irene Lopez. Months after the accident, he married Lopez' daughter and the couple moved in with Lopez. As Ferreiro v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 928 So.2d 374 (2006) 31 Fla. L. Weekly D719 events unfolded, Aries discovered that it had erroneously withheld the deductible on the mistaken belief that Ramon was living in the home of the named insured, Irene Lopez, at the time of the accident. See § 627.739, Fla. Stat. (1999). Upon discovering its error, Aries paid Ramon the deductible and moved for summary judgment on the ground that Ramon no longer had standing to maintain the class action because there was no case or controversy between him and Aries. The trial court granted the motion and we affirmed. Ramon, 769 So.2d at 1055. Finally, in Taran v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 685 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), Adam Taran and Eric Michalowsky brought a class action against their health insurers, alleging that they had been overcharged insurance premiums for newborn health insurance. The insurers filed affidavits demonstrating that the premiums charged were proper, which led to summary judgment in favor of the insurers based on lack of standing. We again affirmed. Taran, 685 So.2d at 1007. *382 From this group of cases -all from this court and spanning more than three decades -I believe the following conclusions flow. First, if a question of the standing of a class representative to represent the class exists in a case, that issue must be resolved before class certification is addressed. Second, the fact that an individual has standing to prosecute his individual claim to judgment but has not yet obtained that judgment is not dispositive of whether that individual has standing to serve as a class representative. See DeMario, supra. Third, it is a cardinal principle that standing ceases to exist where, prior to certification, an individual dispute is resolved, regardless Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk of whether it is through unilateral action of the defendant in removing the issue from dispute, an agreement of the parties, or a determination by the trial court which (as in the instant case) may be reviewed through appellate proceedings. Applying these principles drawn from our case law, I conclude that the law of this District compels us to affirm. CONCLUSION The court below entered judgment against the plaintiff on the class claim presented by her on the ground that her standing to continue to represent the purported class ceased at the time we issued our Ferreiro decision which fully and finally determined that she had "imputed coverage" for any loss caused by an uninsured motorist as a matter of law by virtue of the fact that Philadelphia neglected to give her the opportunity to accept or decline such coverage at the time she purchased Philadelphia excess insurance coverage. At the same time, the trial court held that she could continue to pursue her individual claim made in a separate count of the complaint for damages alleged by her to have been caused by an uninsured motorist pursuant to her policy as legally reconstructed. For the reasons stated, I believe the trial court was correct in this decision and would therefore affirm the judgment below. All Citations 928 So.2d 374, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D719 Footnotes 1 In her second amended class action complaint, Ferreiro defined the "class" of persons entitled to a declaration of uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage as: Individuals who have purchased from Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, [an excess policy] which is delivered or issued for delivery in Florida in conjunction with the rental of a vehicle which is registered or principally garaged in Florida, as well as occupants of said vehicles, and who have sustained damages in the past five years as a result of the alleged negligence of an uninsured/underinsured motorist while an occupant of said rental vehicle. 2 Section 627.727(2) provides, in pertinent part, that: [A]n insurer issuing [an excess policy] shall make available as a part of the application for such policy, and at the written request of an insured, limits [of uninsured motorist coverage] up to the bodily injury liability limits contained in such policy or $1 million, whichever is less. § 627.727(2), Fla. Stat. (1997). WESTLAW Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Ferreiro v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 928 So.2d 374 (2006) 31 Fla. L. Weekly D719 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) is virtually identical to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(a). End of Document © 2017 Thomson Reuters No claim to original U.S. Government Work WESTLAW • 1 I Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Chabau v. Dade County, 385 So.2d 129 (1980) Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 385 So.2d 129 District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. Arturo CHABAU et al., Appellants, v. DADE COUNTY and Key Biscayne Property Taxpayer's Association, Inc., Appellees. No. 80-761. June 17, 1980. Rehearing Denied July 21, 1980. Developers appealed from a decision of the Circuit Court, Dade County, Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr., J., which denied their petition for a writ of prohibition. The District Court of Appeal held that association representing individual property owners in their opposition to developers' request for zoning variances was not an "aggrieved party" within meaning of Dade County Code and therefore lacked standing to appeal zoning appeal board's decision approving the variances. Reversed. West Headnotes (1) 111 Zoning and Planning �•= Variances or exceptions Association representing individual property owners in their opposition to developers' request for zoning variances was not an "aggrieved party" within meaning of Dade County Code and therefore lacked standing to appeal zoning appeal board's decision approving the variances. 9 Cases that cite this headnote Attorneys and Law Firms *129 John G. Fletcher, Coral Gables, for appellants. Robert A. Ginsburg, County Atty. and Stanley B. Price, Asst. County Atty., Mann & Dady and Stanley J. Mann, Miami, for appellees. Before HENDRY, NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ. Opinion *130 PER CURIAM. Appellants Chabau and others want to erect an apartment building on Key Biscayne; some 800 Key property owners disapprove of their planned construction. The corporate appellee (hereinafter "association") professes its authority to represent the individual property owners in their opposition to appellants' request for zoning variances. The association appealed to the Dade County Board of County Commissioners from the Zoning Appeals Board's decision approving the variances. After the association's appeal was made, but before a decision was rendered by the Commissioners, appellants sought a writ of prohibition in the circuit court. Their petition was denied, and appeal to this court was taken from the denial. The petition and appeal challenge the subject -matter jurisdiction of the Board of County Commissioners, which ultimately overruled the Zoning Appeal Board's decision: According to appellants, the Board of County Commissioners was without authority to overturn the decision of the lower administrative tribunal, because the association lacked standing to appeal to that Board. We agree that the association was without standing to appear before the Board of County Commissioners, and reverse the ruling of the circuit court. We are referred by both parties to s 33-313, Dade County Code (1979): Any appealable decision of the zoning appeals board may be appealed by an applicant, governing body of any municipality, if affected, or any aggrieved party whose name appears in the record of the zoning appeals board... . Thus, if the association were not an "aggrieved party", it could not properly appeal to the Board of County Commissioners, that Board could not review the decision of the Zoning Appeals Board, and any decision of the Commissioners would be void ab initio. WESTLAW Chabau v. Dade County, 385 So.2d 129 (1980) It is clear that a representative association, such as appellee, could not sue in state courts; it would have no standing. unless it. rather than its members, had suffered some special injury. United States Steel Corp. v. Save Sand Key, Inc., 303 So.2d 9 (Fla. 1974); Hemisphere Equity Realty Corp. v. Key Biscayne Property Taxpayer's Association, Inc., 369 So.2d 996 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). The association urges, however, that if it is not "aggrieved" sufficiently to have state court standing, it nevertheless is aggrieved for purposes of review by the Board of County Commissioners. Although the appellees have referred us to two foreign decisions in which the requirement of aggrievement was lowered to facilitate administrative appeal by representative groups, we are not disposed to embrace their holdings. Contra our decision, Douglaston Civic Association, Inc. v. Galvin, 36 N.Y.2d 1, 324 N.E.2d 317, 364 N.Y.S.2d 830 (1974); East Camelback Homeowners Association v. Arizona Foundation for Neurology and Psychiatry, 19 Ariz.App. 118, 505 P.2d 286 (1973). If Dade County wishes to liberalize access to its local tribunals, it may undertake to do so. We have considered the other arguments of appellees, and find them to be similarly without merit. Therefore we have concluded that the circuit court erred in denying the writ of prohibition. For the reasons stated the order appealed is reversed. Reversed. All Citations 385 So.2d 129 End of Document © 2017 Thomson Reuters No claim to original U S Government Works. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk WESTLAW 7 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk D Page 1 of 8 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11" JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA In the Interest of: APPELLATE DIVISION Miami -Dade County, Case Number: 18-000032-AP-O a Petitioner `A rvi v. c- r City of Miami, w Respondent s i / o w Before SCOTT BERNSTEIN, ROSA FIGAROLA and RAMIRO ARECA. PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from proceedings stemming from plans to renovate the Coconut Grove Playhouse which opened as a silent movie theater in 1927. The Playhouse was designed by the critically important architectural firm of Kiehnel & Elliott. The dramatic entrance portal and the front of the building are considered to exemplify the Mediterranean Revival style of architecture deemed a prominent feature of Miami's architectural history. The interior of the Playhouse was substantially renovated in 1955 by noted Florida architect Alfred Browning Parker. Extensive additional interior renovations were completed during the ensuing years giving rise to conflicting views as to whether the interior of the building maintains the architectural integrity of either Kiehnel or Browning Parker. Despite best efforts, the Playhouse fell victim to financial difficulties and eventually became the property of the State of Florida. In 2005, the Playhouse was designated a local historic site by the City of Miami's Historical and Environment Preservation Board (herein referred to as Historical Board). Although the Designation Report establishing the site as historic Page 1 of 8 https://www2.miam i-dadeclerk.com/ocs/V iewerHTML5.aspx?QS=B6%2f9EwnZlliih%2... 12/ 10/2018 Page 2 of 8 1 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk was expansive in its recognition of the Playhouse's significance to the City of Miami, it found that only the south and east facades of the building remained architecturally significant. The Historical Board's Designation Report did not include the building's interior. The absence of the building's interior in the Designation Report removes renovations to the interior of the building from the Historical Board's purview. In 2013, the State entered into a lease agreement with Miami -Dade County and Florida International University to renovate the Playhouse. The County, FIU, and the GableStage theater company adopted a business plan to develop a regional theater on the property. The business plan was approved by the Board of County Commissioners and an architectural firm was selected to develop the plan after a public bidding process. The County sought a Certificate of Appropriateness from the City's Historical and Environment Preservation Board after completing plans for renovation of the • Playhouse. A Certificate of Appropriateness is required before undertaking renovations within a designated historic site. City of Miami Code Section 23-5 (2005) requires that the Historical Board evaluate whether the proposed alterations "adversely affect the historic architectural or aesthetic character of the subject structure or the relationship and congruity between the subject structure and surroundings..." before issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness. The Historical Board held a public hearing in which experts and members of the public with differing opinions regarding the appropriateness of the plan were heard. Included in the debate were discussions regarding the extent to which the building's interior maintained the integrity of either Kiehnel's or Browning Parker's designs given the extent of renovations completed during the Playhouse's history. One of the Historical Board members ultimately motioned the Board to deny the County's application and, given the nature of the debate, suggested that the Board Page 2 of 8 • 1 https://www2.miam i-dadeclerk.com/ocsNiewerHTML5.aspx?QS=B6%2f9EwnZlI iih%2... 12/ 10/2018 Page 3 of 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk explore revisiting the Designation Report's exclusion of the interior of the building from the Report. The motion was not supported by any of the other Board members. The existing plan was adopted by the remaining members of the Board and a Certificate of Appropriateness was granted. The plan approved by the Historical Board restores the front of the building that is deemed historically significant in the Designation Report and replaces the existing auditorium with a new 300 seat theater that incorporates historic elements of the existing playhouse. Grove residents filed a timely appeal of the Board's approval with the City of Miami Commission. The County objected arguing that the residents filing the appeal did not have standing and did not meet the definition of an "aggrieved party". Neither the City nor any other entity filed an appeal of the Historical Board's decision to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness. City of Miami Code Section 23-4 (c) (7) provides that "any aggrieved party" may appeal decisions of the Board to the City Commission. The Code does not define the term "aggrieved party." The City overruled the County's objection and granted the Residents standing to appeal. In so doing, the City acknowledged it had previously opined that an "aggrieved party" for standing in zoning matters was a resident that lived within 500 feet of the property. Although the residents lodging the appeal did not fall within this category, the City concluded they nevertheless had standing because the Playhouse was a facility they could elect to attend, they lived close to the Playhouse, they wanted the Playhouse preserved, and the Playhouse was deemed important to the community. The appeal was heard before the Commission. Varying opinions regarding the plan were once again addressed. The discussions once again included comments regarding preserving the interior of the building which was not included in the Historical Board's Designation Report. At the end of the hearing, the City Commission granted in part and denied in part the appeal. Page 3 of 8 1 https://www2.mi am i-dadeclerk.com/ocs/V iewerHTML5.aspx?QS=B6%2 f9EwnZlI iih%2... 12/ 10/2018 Page 4 of 8 Submitted into the public record for item(s) p on 07/25/2019 City Clerk Unlike the plan approved by the Historical Board through the issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness, the City Commission made substantial changes to the plan: the Commission required that the entire Playhouse structure, rather than merely the front facade be preserved; the Commission required that various specific fixtures of the interior of the building be preserved in their location; and the Commission required that, contingent upon an additional 20 million dollars being pledged within 100 days, the auditorium have no less than 600 seats rather than the 300 seats envisioned by the plan. The Court finds that these changes represent a substantial change from the plan approved by the Historical Board prior to the appeal• The County seeks certiorari review of the City Commission's decision reversing in part the issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness. The County maintains that the City's decision departs from the essential requirements of law, violates due process, and is not supported by substantial competent evidence. The Residents were permitted to file an appellate brief regarding their standing to appeal the Board's issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness to the City Commission. The Court's review on a writ of certiorari is limited to determining whether procedural due process was accorded; whether the essential requirements of the law were observed; and whether the administrative fmdings and judgment are supported by competent substantial evidence. City of Deerfield Beach v. Valliant, 419 So. 2d 624, 626 (Fla. 1982); see also Metro Dade Cty. v. Blumenthal, 675 So. 2d 598, 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The County argues that the City departed from the essential requirements of law by granting residents standing to appeal the preservation board's decision to grant the Certificate of Appropriateness law because it is at odds with governing case law, particularly Chabau v. Dade County, 385 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The Court agrees. Page 4 of 8 i https://www2.miami-dadeclerk.com/ocs/V iewerHTML5.aspx?QS=B6%2f9EwnZlIiih%2... 12/10/2018 Page 5 of 8 1 1 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk An appellate court may not find a departure from the essential requirements of the law when it merely disagrees with the lower tribunal's interpretation of a general principle of law. Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So. 2d 679, 682-83 (Fla. 2000). Instead, there must be a specific legal precedent that directly addresses the issue decided below: the departure from the essential requirement of the law necessary for the issuance of a writ of certiorari is something more than a simple legal error. A district court should exercise its discretion to grant certiorari review only when there has been a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d 885, 889 (Fla. 2003); see also Nadar v. DHSMV, 87 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 2012) quoting Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d at 890. The error must be "'sufficiently egregious or fundamental to fall within the limited scope' of certiorari jurisdiction.'" Nader, 87 So. 3d at 723 (quoting Kaklamanos, 843 So. 2d at 890). The Grove residents appealed the Historical Board's decision to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness as "aggrieved parties". The term is not defined in the Code. The City asserts that its determination to include the Grove residents within the City's definition of aggrieved party was not a departure from the essential requirements of law because local governments are charged with the interpretation and enforcement of their codes and their interpretations are entitled to judicial deference if they are within the range of possible permissible interpretations. Although the City correctly articulates the general principle that courts are to afford an agency difference regarding interpretation of their own ordinances when the agency is responsible for the administration of that ordinance, See Shamrock - Shamrock, Inc. v. City of Daytona Beach, 169 So. 3d 1253, 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Las Olas Tower Co. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 742 So. 2d 308, 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), this generalized principle is not thwart controlling caselaw. Page5of8 https://www2.miam i-dadeclerk.com/ocsNiewerHTML5.aspx?QS=B6%2f9EwnZlIiih%2... 12/10/2018 Page 6 of 8 1 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk In Chabau v. Miami Dade County, 385 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), the Third District overruled the County's determination that an entity had standing to appeal a zoning board's decision as an "aggrieved party." The Court ruled that absent a definition of the term "aggrieved party" in the County's code to the contrary, the definition of an "aggrieved party" to appeal a decision of the zoning board was governed by imposing the requirement for standing found in case law. In other words, a party must have suffered some special injury to have standing. Chabau, 385 So. 2d at 130. Like the County Code in Chabau, the City Code in this case fails to define the term "aggrieved party". Chabau is binding case law from the Third District Court of Appeal establishing that unless the term "aggrieved party" is defined by a local governmental entity's code, the governmental entity must utilize the special -injury standard when determining standing before it rather than making its own interpretation of what constitutes an aggrieved party. See also F&R Builders, Inc., v. Durant, 290 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Therefore, the parties in this case were required to establish more than a generalized interest. Renard v. Dade Cnty., 261 So. 2d 832, 837 (Fla. 1972) (standing requires "a definite interest exceeding the general interest in community good shared in common with all citizen"); O'Connell v. Florida Dept. of Cmty. Affairs, 874 So. 2d 673, 675 (Fla. 4th DVA 2004) ("a mere interest in a problem, no matter how longstanding the interest" is insufficient to render an appealing party "adversely affected or aggrieved"); Pichette v. City of N. Miami, 642 So. 2d 1165, 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (appellant, who did not live adjacent to rezoned parcel, lacked standing because "there is no genuine issue raised by this record that [they] would be affected by noise, traffic impact, land value diminution, or in any other respect" by the rezoning). The residents in this case did not meet the special -injury standard for designation as "aggrieved parties". Observing the essential requirements of the law Page 6 of 8 1 411111 lila https://www2.mlami-dadeclerk.com/ocsNiewerHTML5.aspx?QS=B6%2f9EwnZlliih%2... 12/10/2018 Page 7 of 8 1 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk requires applying the correct law in proper fashion. See Haines city Cmty Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995). The City's failure to apply Chabau was a failure to follow established precedent and a departure from the essential requirements of the law sufficiently egregious or fundamental to result in a miscarriage of justice warranting issuance of certiorari. The Court declines an invitation to distinguish the Third's decision in Chabau on the basis that the instant case addresses historical preservation, not zoning. The issue was not raised below and no authority is relied upon to make the distinction. The argument that standing is conferred by application of Section 163.3215 Fla.Stat.(2017) is also not persuasive as the expanded definition of "aggrieved party" in section 163.3215 only applies to actions brought pursuant to that statute. Significant conditions were imposed upon the plan that had previously been approved by the Historical Board dramatically changing the plan: the shell of the building was required to be preserved; specific fixtures in the interior of the building were required be preserved in their current location; and the size the Playhouse was required to seat 600 rather than 300, contingent upon the pledging of an addental 20 million dollars within 20 days. Moreover, the County was not afforded procedural due process. Due process is satisfied if the parties are afforded notice of the relevant hearing and an opportunity to be heard during that proceeding. Adequate notice requires that the scope of the hearing be properly identified. Therefore, granting relief "which is not sought by the notice of hearing or which expands the scope of a hearing and decides matters not noticed for hearing, violates due process." Connell v. Capital City Partners, LLC. 932 So. 2d 442, 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Consideration of preservation of the interior of the building was outside the purview of the appeal and expanded the scope of the hearing without proper notice. Page 7 of 8 https://www2.miami-dadeclerk.com/ocsNiewerHTML5.aspx?QS=B6%2f9EwnZ1I iih%2... 12/ 10/2018 Page 8 of 8 I Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 02./Z12019 , City Clerk The 2005 Designation Report did not include the interior of the building. The City previously acknowledged that preservation of the interior of the building was thus not within the purview of the Historical Board. A motion to deny the plans in order revisit excluding the building's interior from the Designation Report was rejected by the Historical Board. The Certificate was thus issued with the express acknowledgment by all parties that exclusion of the building's interior precluded consideration of the interior as a basis for issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness. The appeal was clearly governed by the existing designations. The City exceeded the scope of the hearing by including the interior of the building in its decision to grant the appeal thereby violating the County's procedural due process. Having found that the City departed from the essential requirements of law by granting standing and that issuance of a writ of certiorari is warranted in this case, the Court declines to rule on any further issues raised. REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions that the decision of the Miami City Commission denying the Certificate of Appropriateness be quashed. SCOTT BERNSTEIN ' OSA FIGA' 1LA RAMMRO Copies provided to parties Circuit Court Judge Page 8 of 8 https://www2.m iami-dadeclerk.com/ocsNiewerHTML5.aspx?QS=B6%2f9EwnZII iih%2... 12/ 10/2018 1 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk E Renard v. Dade County, 261 So.2d 832 (1972) KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Superseded by Statute as Stated in Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. v. Shidel, F1a.App. 4 Dist., September 26, 2001 261 So.2d 832 Supreme Court of Florida. Grace RENARD, Petitioner, v. DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, et al., Respondents. No. 41388. April 19, 1972. Rezoning proceeding. The zoning officials rezoned tract from industrial to multiple family residence and abutting property owners sought certiorari. The Circuit Court for Dade County, Grady L. Crawford, J., entered ruling, and abutting property owner appealed. The District Court of Appeal, 249 So.2d 500, affirmed, and writ of certiorari issued. The Supreme Court, Boyd, J., held that owners of property abutting property sought to be rezoned from industrial to multiple family residence, with increased setback restrictions different in kind from community generally, had standing to bring suit attacking rezoning ordinance as not fairly debatable. Affirmed. West Headnotes (9) [1] Zoning and Planning Right of Review;Standing 414 Zoning and Planning 414X Judicial Review or Relief 414X(A) In General 414k1584 Right of Review;Standing 414k1585 In general (Formerly 414k571) The aggrieved or adversely affected person having standing to sue is a person who has a legally recognizable interest which is or will be affected by the action of the zoning Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk authority in question; the interest may be one shared in common with a number of other members of the community as where an entire neighborhood is affected, but not every resident and property owner of municipality can, as a general rule, claim such an interest. F.S.A. §§ 176.11, 176.16. 7 Cases that cite this headnote 12j Zoning and Planning Right of Review;Standing 414 Zoning and Planning 414X Judicial Review or Relief 414X(A) In General 414k1584 Right of Review;Standing 414k1585 In general (Formerly 414k571) An individual having standing to challenge proposed zoning action must have a definite interest exceeding the general interest in the community good shared in common with all citizens; so-called "spite suits" are not tolerated. F.S.A. §§ 176.11, 176.16. 6 Cases that cite this headnote 131 Zoning and Planning Modification or amendment 414 Zoning and Planning 414X Judicial Review or Relief 414X(A) In General 414k1584 Right of Review;Standing 414k1587 Modification or amendment (Formerly 414k571) In determining sufficiency of a party's interest to give standing to challenge action of zoning authority, factors such as proximity of his property to property to be zoned or rezoned, character of the neighborhood, including the existence of common restrictive covenants and set -back requirements, and the type of change proposed are considerations; fact that a person is among those entitled to receive notice under the zoning ordinance is a factor to be considered on the action of standing to challenge proposed zoning action but notice WESTLAW Renard v. Dade County, 261 So.2d 832 (1972) requirements of area are not controlled on question of standing. F.S.A. §§ 176.11, 176.16. 7 Cases that cite this headnote [4] Zoning and Planning Burden of Showing Grounds for Review 414 Zoning and Planning 414X Judicial Review or Relief 414X(C) Scope of Review 414X(C)3 Presumptions and Burdens 414k1684 Burden of Showing Grounds for Review 414k1685 In general (Formerly 414k680.1, 414k680) Even though a person has sufficient standing to challenge action of the zoning authority, he must still carry the burden of proving that the challenged action was not fairly debatable. 1 Cases that cite this headnote 151 Zoning and Planning i Regulations in general 414 Zoning and Planning 414X Judicial Review or Relief 414X(C) Scope of Review 414X(C)3 Presumptions and Burdens 414k1684 Burden of Showing Grounds for Review 414k1686 Regulations in general (Formerly 414k681) To have standing to enforce a valid zoning ordinance, party seeking enforcement must show special damages; however, a lenient application of that rule prevails. 3 Cases that cite this headnote [6] Zoning and Planning Validity of regulations 414 Zoning and Planning 414X Judicial Review or Relief 414X(A) In General 414k1584 Right of Review;Standing 414k1586 Validity of regulations (Formerly 414k571) Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Persons having a legally recognizable interest, which is adversely affected by the proposed zoning action, have standing to attack a validly enacted zoning ordinance as being an unreasonable exercise of legislative powers. 7 Cases that cite this headnote [7] Zoning and Planning Validity of regulations 414 Zoning and Planning 414X Judicial Review or Relief 414X(A) In General 414k1584 Right of Review;Standing 414k1586 Validity of regulations (Formerly 414k571) An affected resident, citizen or property owner of the governmental unit in question has standing to challenge a zoning ordinance as void because not properly enacted such as where required notice has not been given. 20 Cases that cite this headnote [8] Zoning and Planning Modification or amendment 414 Zoning and Planning 414X Judicial Review or Relief 414X(A) In General 414k1584 Right of Review;Standing 414k1587 Modification or amendment (Formerly 414k571) Owners of property abutting property sought to be rezoned from industrial to multiple family residence, with increased setback restrictions different in kind from community generally, had standing to bring suit attacking rezoning ordinance as not fairly debatable. 9 Cases that cite this headnote [9] Zoning and Planning Amendment or Rezoning, Sufficiency of Evidence 414 Zoning and Planning 414X Judicial Review or Relief 414X(C) Scope of Review Nr Ni Nr Renard v. Dade County, 261 So.2d 832 (1972) 414X(C)2 Additional Proofs and Trial De Novo 414k1668 Amendment or Rezoning, Sufficiency of Evidence 414k1669 In general (Formerly 414k652.1, 414k652) Record established that rezoning of one parcel of land in unincorporated area from industrial to multiple family residence was "fairly debatable" and therefore was a valid exercise of power by the zoning authority. Cases that cite this headnote Attorneys and Law Firms *833 Eugene P. Spellman, of Law Offices of Eugene P. Spellman, Miami, for petitioner. Stuart Simon, County Atty., and St. Julien P. Rosemond, Asst. County Atty., and Paul Siegel, of Sinclair, Louis, Sand & Siegel, Miami, for respondents. Opinion BOYD, Justice. This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 249 So.2d 500. Jurisdiction is based on the certification of the District Court under *834 Article V, s 4(2) of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., that the decision sought to be reviewed passes upon a question of great public interest, to -wit: 'The standing necessary for a plaintiff to (1) enforce a valid zoning ordinance; (2) attack a validly enacted zoning ordinance as not being fairly debatable and therefore an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of legislative power; and (3) attack a void ordinance, i.e., one enacted without proper notice required under the enabling statute or authority creating the zoning power.' Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Petitioner Renard and respondents Richter, owned certain adjoining properties in the unincorporated area of Dade County zoned IU-2, industrial. The Richters applied for a rezoning of their parcel. The Board of County Commissioners ultimately permitted a rezoning from IU-2 to multiple family residence with certain exceptions relative to a nine -hole golf course and a variance for private, in lieu of public, roads. This was in accordance with the recommendations of the planning board as approved by the zoning appeals board of the county. Petitioner was an objector in the zoning proceedings held before the Dade County Zoning Appeals Board and an objector before the Board of County Commissioners. Following adverse rulings by the appeals board and County Commission, petitioner sought certiorari before the Circuit Court pursuant to applicable county ordinances. 1 The Circuit Court ruled that petitioner, not having alleged a special interest, had no standing to prosecute the matter in the Circuit Court and, even if she had standing, the record adequately demonstrated that the issue was fairly debatable and petitioner would not have been entitled to the relief sought. On appeal, the District Court held that petitioner had sufficient standing to institute suit in the trial court but, that the rezoning in question was fairly debatable and therefore within the legislative discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. The District Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court but certified its decision as one passing on a question of great public interest. The decision of the District Court on the question certified is as follows: `First, as indicated above, the appellant as an abutting property owner to the property rezoned would, in fact, suffer a special damage by virtue of the increased setback restriction different in kind from the community generally; and this would meet the test of special damage. But, even without meeting this test, we hold that these cases would not be applicable to a property owner within the area wherein actual notice was required to be sent to him prior to any rezoning hearing. Anything to the contrary said in S. A. Lynch Investment Corporation v. City of WESTLAW Renard v. Dade County, 261 So.2d 832 (1972) Miami, supra, is hereby specifically receded from. We further note that there is a distinction in the cases relied on by the County when there is a proceeding in which a plaintiff seeks to enforce an existing zoning ordinance, such as a violation of a setback requirement, special damage is necessary, and no special damage is necessary when a plaintiff seeks to *835 have an act of a zoning authority declared void or is within the immediate area to be affected. Hartnett v. Austin, F1a.1956, 93 So.2d 86; Josephson v. Autrey, F1a.1957, 96 So.2d 784. In other words, we hold special damage must be shown when a taxpayer or property owner seeks to enjoin the violation of an existing ordinance (i.e. Boucher v. Novotny, FIa.1958, 102 So.2d 132; Conrad v. Jackson, Fla.1958, 107 So.2d 369), But need not be shown if the taxpayer or property owner is within the affected range of the property which requires actual notice before the rezoning made may be considered by the legislative body (Hartnett v. Austin, supra; Elwyn v. City of Miami, F1a.App.1959, 113 So.2d 849; Friedland v. City of Hollywood, FIa.App.1961, 130 So.2d 306; Vol. 3, American Law of Zoning, Anderson, s 21.05, p. 558), Or when he seeks to review an alleged void act. Hartnett v. Austin, supra; Josephson v. Autrey, supra; Rhodes v. City of Homestead, F1a.App.1971, 248 So.2d 674 (opinion filed May 25, 1971). Therefore, we find that in the instant case the appellant had the standing to institute the suit in the trial court.' (Emphasis supplied.) In the years following this Court's decision in Boucher v. Novotny, 3 a split has developed between the various District Courts on the issue of standing to sue on zoning matters. The Boucher case was a suit to enjoin the violation of the setback requirements of a municipal zoning ordinance. The Bouchers sought to obtain mandatory injunctive relief to compel the Novotnys to remove allegedly illegal encroachments constructed on their motel. The City had approved the building plans for the Novotny's motel which included the complained of encroachment. The properties of the parties located in the City of Clearwater, were separated by a sixty -foot wide street. The Bouchers attempted to allege special damages by reason of proximity and by reason of being within the zoning area subject to the same setback requirements as the Novotny's property. This Court held, however, that Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk the Bouchers did not have sufficient standing to sue and stated the following rule: 4 'We, therefore, align ourselves with the authorities which hold that one seeking redress, either preventive or corrective, against an Alleged violation of a municipal zoning ordinance must allege and prove special damages peculiar to himself differing in kind as distinguished from damages differing in degree suffered by the community as a whole.' (Emphasis supplied.) The `special damage' rule of the Boucher case is an outgrowth of the law of public nuisance.5 Zoning violations have historically been treated as public nuisances not subject to suit by an individual unless that individual has suffered damages different in kind and degree from. the rest of the community. The Boucher rule was not intended to be applied to zoning matters other than suits by individuals for zoning violations. 6 The general rule regarding standing to contest the action of a zoning authority was *836 stated by this Court in Josephson v. Autrey: 7 'We have on numerous occasions held that persons adversely affected by zoning ordinances or the action of zoning agencies have a status as parties sufficient to entitle them to proceed in court to seek relief.' To like effect is this Court's decision in Hartnett v. Austin. 8 In Wags Transportation System v. City of Miami Beach, 9 this Court held that homeowners in a zoning district would be permitted to intervene in an appeal from a decree breaking zoning restrictions and commercializing the area where their homes were located. The District Court of Appeal, Third District, in Elwyn v. City of Miami, 10 held that abutting homeowners were entitled to maintain a suit challenging an ordinance granting a variance for a gasoline service station. On petition for rehearing, the Boucher case was raised by the zoning authority and distinguished by the District Court as follows: WESTLAW Renard v. Dade County, 261 So.2d 832 (1972) 'That case (Boucher) was not applicable here because of material difference in the factual situations presented in the two cases. 'The instant case was not one dealing with the violation of a zoning ordinance, but one which challenged the validity of an amendatory zoning ordinance, which, by granting a variance amounting to spot zoning, permitted appellees to put their property to a liberal business use (gasoline service station), prohibited in the more restricted R-3 classification for which the area involved was zoned. The right of an adjacent or nearby home owner directly affected by an alleged improper intrusion of such liberal business to challenge the validity thereof, is recognized.' A similar case is that of Friedland v. Hollywood, 11 wherein the District Court of *837 Appeal, Second District, held void an ordinance which would have allowed the variance for the construction of a service station in the vicinity of property owned by the plaintiffs. Some of the foregoing cases attacking the validity of zoning ordinances came to the Circuit Court as petitions for writ of certiorari to review actions of the zoning board of adjustment under Florida Statutes Chapter 176, F.S.A.; others originated in the Circuit Court. On the question of standing to sue there is no basis for distinguishing between cases reaching the courts after appeal to a zoning board, in areas where such boards exist, and those cases originating in the court system. 12 Florida Statutes s 176.11, F.S.A., provides for appeals to the zoning board of adjustment by 'any person aggrieved.' Florida Statutes s 176.16, F.S.A., provides that 'any person aggrieved' by the decision of the zoning board of adjustment may petition the Circuit Court for writ of certiorari. 111 121 An aggrieved or adversely affected person having standing to sue is a person who has a legally recognizable interest which is or will be affected by the action of the zoning authority in question. The interest may be one shared in common with a number of other members of the community as where an entire neighborhood is affected, but not every resident and property owner of a municipality can, as a general rule, claim such an interest. An individual having standing must have a definite interest exceeding the general interest in community good share in common with all citizens. So-called `spite suits' Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk will not be tolerated in this area of the law any more than in any other. 131 In determining the sufficiency of the parties' interest to give standing, factors such as the proximity of his property to the property to be zoned or rezoned, the character of the neighborhood, including the existence of common restrictive covenants and set -back requirements, and the type of change proposed are considerations. The fact that a person is among those entitled to receive notice under the zoning ordinance is a factor to be considered on the question of standing to challenge the proposed zoning action. However, since the notice requirements of the many zoning laws throughout the State vary greatly, notice requirements are not controlling on the question of who has standing. Persons having sufficient interest to challenge a zoning ordinance may, or may not, be entitled to receive notice of the proposed action under the zoning ordinances of the community. [4] It is to be remembered that even though a person has sufficient standing to challenge the action of the zoning authority, he must still carry the burden of proving that the challenged action of the zoning authority was not fairly debatable. 1 151 The question certified to this Court, set out supra, has three parts. Part (1) deals with standing to enforce a valid zoning ordinance. The Boucher rule requiring special damages still covers this type of suit. However, in the twenty years since the Boucher decision, changed conditions, including increased population growth and *838 density, require a more lenient application of that rule. The facts of the Boucher case, if presented today, would probably be sufficient to show special damage. 161 Part (2) of the question certified to this Court deals with standing to attack a validly enacted zoning ordinance as being an unreasonable exercise of legislative power. As indicated above, persons having a legally recognizable interest, which is adversely affected by the proposed zoning action, have standing to sue. [7] Part (3) of the question certified deals with standing to attack a zoning ordinance which is void because not properly enacted, as where required notice was not given. WESTLAW Renard v. Dade County, 261 So.2d 832 (1972) Any affected resident, citizen or property owner of the governmental unit in question has standing to challenge such an ordinance. 14 181 j9] The District Court found that petitioner Renard had sufficient standing to attack the rezoning here in question, but, on review of the record, determined that the rezoning was `fairly debatable' and so was a valid exercise of power by the zoning authority. We agree. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, the decision of the District Court of Appeal is affirmed. It is so ordered. ROBERTS, C.J., and ERVIN, CARLTON and McCAIN, JJ., concur. All Citations 261 So.2d 832 Footnotes 1 Metropolitan Code of Dade County, s 33-316: 'No Person aggrieved by any zoning resolution, order, requirement, decision or determination of an administration official or by any decision of the zoning appeals board may apply to the Court for relief unless he has first exhausted the remedies provided for herein and taken all available steps provided in this article ... it is intended and suggested that such decision may be reviewed by the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, in accordance with the procedures and within the time provided by the Florida Appellate Rules for the review of the rulings of any commission or board; and such time shall commence to run from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed.' (Emphasis supplied.) 2 Renard v. Dade County, 249 So.2d 500, 502 (FIa.App.3rd 1971). 3 102 So.2d 132 (FIa.1958). 4 Id. at 135. 5 Boucher v. Novotny, 102 So.2d 132, 135 (FIa.1958); North Dade Bar Assoc. v. Dade -Commonwealth Title Ins., 143 So.2d 201, 205 (FIa.App.3rd 1962): "*' A public nuisance is an offense against the State, and as such is subject to abatement or indictment on the motion of the proper governmental agency. * * * "* * * An individual cannot maintain an action for a public nuisance as such. But when an individual suffers special damage from a public nuisance, he may maintain an action.' 'This rule has been applied in Florida to suits to enjoin a zoning violation. Boucher v. Novotny, FIa.1958, 102 So.2d 132.' 6 Boucher has been subject to criticism even as applied to zoning violations: 12 Univ.Fla.L.Rev., Third Parties in Zoning, 16, 23, 40 (1959). 7 96 So.2d 784, 787 (FIa.1957). 8 93 So.2d 86, 90 (FIa.1956): 'We encounter no difficulty in concluding that the appellees were entitled to bring the suit. They occupied their homes immediately across the street from the proposed parking area. They relied on the existing zoning conditions when they bought their homes. They had a right to a continuation of those conditions in the absence of a showing that the change requisite to an amendment had taken place. They allege that the contemplated change would damage them and that it was contrary to the general welfare and totally unjustified by existing conditions. This gave them a status as parties entitled to come into court to seek relief. True their rights were subject to the power of the city to amend the ordinance on the basis of a proper showing. Nonetheless, they have a right to insist that the showing be made.' See also, 35 FIa.Jur., Zoning Laws, s 30: 'Persons adversely affected by zoning ordinances or the action of zoning agencies have a status as parties sufficient to entitle them to proceed in court to seek relief.' 9 88 So.2d 751, 752 (FIa.1956): 'The petition for leave to intervene alleges that petitioners are within the same zoning district as the property described in the complaints in the consolidated causes, that the decree destroys the value of their property because petitioners have homes on said property which they use for residential purposes, therefore the decree of the lower court breaking these zoning restrictions and commercializing the district renders their property less suitable for residential purposes. Petitioners' property was purchased on the strength of the zoning ordinance and in reliance upon the fact that all property within the zoning district would be maintained as residential property. * " WESTLAW Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Renard v. Dade County, 261 So.2d 832 (1972) 'We think the petition to intervene showed such an interest in the res that the ends of justice require that it be granted. "' Nothing is more sacred to one than his home and the petitioners should have been permitted to come in and bring their rights in this to the attention of the court.' 10 113 So.2d 849 (Fla.App.3rd); cert. denied 116 So.2d 773, (FIa.1959). 11 130 So.2d 306 (Fla.App.2d 1961). 12 2 Rathkopf, Zoning and Planning, 36-1 (1971): 'Generally, any person who can show that the existence or enforcement of a zoning restriction adversely affects, or will adversely affect, a property interest vested in him or that the grant of a permit to another or rezoning of another's land will similarly affect him, has the requisite justiciable interest in the controversy, and is a proper party plaintiff. In this aspect, the right of a litigant to sue for declaratory judgment or for an injunction is based upon the same criteria as are determinative of the status of a petitioner as a 'party aggrieved' to bring certiorari to review the determination of a board of appeals or adjustment. The difference, if any, relates only to the forum and form of the remedy.' (Emphasis supplied.) 13 City of Miami v. Hollis, 77 So.2d 834 (FIa.1959); City of Jacksonville v. Imler, 235 So.2d 526 (FIa.App.lst 1970). 14 See e.g., Rhodes v. City of Homestead, 248 So.2d 674 (Fla.App.3rd 1971); Knowles v. Town of Kenneth City, 247 So.2d 748 (FIa.App.2d 1971). End of Document C 2017 Thomson Reuters No claim to original U S Government Works WESTLAW Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk F Battaglia Fruit Co. v. City of Maitland, 530 So.2d 940 (1988) 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1733 KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment Distinguished by Cook County Republican Party v. State Bd. of Elections, III.App. 1 Dist., December 17, 2007 530 So.2d 940 District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. BATTAGLIA FRUIT CO., etc., Petitioner, v. The CITY OF MAITLAND, etc., et al., Respondents. No. 87-1296. July 21, 1988. Rehearings Denied Sept. 15,1988. City and homeowners' association filed petitions for certiorari review after board of county commissioners approved application for rezoning. Upon consolidation of petitions, a circuit court quashed board's decision, and applicant sought certiorari review. The District Court of Appeal, Orfinger, J., held that: (1) board's failure to observe general rule of parlimentary procedure with respect to tie votes did not violate any party's procedural due process rights; (2) homeowners' association failed to timely invoke jurisdiction of circuit court; and (3) city lacked standing to file petition for certiorari. Writ issued. Sharp, C.J., dissented and filed opinion. West Headnotes (6) Itl Constitutional Law Proceedings and review Zoning and Planning d.-Number of votes required 92Constitutional Law 92XXVIIDue Process 92XXVII(G)Particular Issues and Applications 92XXVII(G)3Property in General 92k4091Zoning and Land Use 92k4096Proceedings and review (Formerly 92k278.2(2)) 414Zoning and Planning 4141IIModification or Amendment; Rezoning 414111(B)Proceedings to Modify or Amend WESTLAW 121 131 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 414k1185Enactment and Voting 414k1188Number of votes required (Formerly 414k198) Absence of county code provision under which tie vote would constitute final decision in zoning matter did not require board of county commissioners to follow generally accepted rule of parliamentary procedure under which tie vote would be considered denial of rezoning application, and board's failure to observe such general rule did not violate any party's procedural due process rights. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14. 2 Cases that cite this headnote Zoning and Planning tp-Time for Proceedings 414Zoning and Planning 414XJudicial Review or Relief 414X(B)Proceedings 414k1604Time for Proceedings 414k16051n general (Formerly 414k584.1, 414k584) Homeowners' association's notice of intent to file petition for writ of certiorari in circuit court in zoning matter was untimely when filed 11 days after decision by board of county commissioners, and circuit court lacked authority to extend filing period. Laws 1963, Sp.Acts ch. 63-1716, § 1 et seq. 2 Cases that cite this headnote Zoning and Planning «[Time for Proceedings 414Zoning and Planning 414XJudicial Review or Relief 414X(B)Proceedings 414k1604Time for Proceedings 414k1605In general (Formerly 414k584.1, 414k584) Battaglia Fruit Co. v. City of Maitland, 530 So.2d 940 (1988) 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1733 141 151 Homeowners' association's petition for writ of certiorari in circuit court in zoning matter was untimely when not filed within 30 days of board of county commissioners' decision. West's F.S.A. R.App.P.Rule 9.100(c). 1 Cases that cite this headnote Zoning and Planning Modification or amendment 414Zoning and Planning 414XJudicial Review or Relief 414X(A)ln General 414k1584Right of Review; Standing 414k1587Modification or amendment (Formerly 414k571) City lacked standing to file petition for writ of certiorari in circuit court to challenge zoning decision by board of county commissioners; although county gave city notice of hearings concerning application for rezoning, and although city residents voiced opposition, no representative of city appeared or spoke against application, and, in conducting certiorari review, circuit court was limited to administrative record. 2 Cases that cite this headnote Zoning and Planning Decisions of boards or officers in general 414Zoning and Planning 414XJudicial Review or Relief 414X(C)Scope of Review 414X(C)lln General 414k1624Decisions of boards or officers in general (Formerly 414k605) In certiorari proceeding in zoning matter, circuit court has no zoning powers, but can only review administrative record of agency that has such powers. Cases that cite this headnote WESTLAW 161 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Administrative Law and Procedure 4 Substantial evidence 15AAdministrative Law and Procedure 15AVJudicial Review of Administrative Decisions 15AV(E)Particular Questions, Review of 15Ak784Fact Questions 15Ak791 Substantial evidence In reviewing action of county agency, circuit court is limited to determination of whether agency provided procedural due process, observed essential requirements of law, and whether its decision was supported by competent substantial evidence. 3 Cases that cite this headnote Attorneys and Law Firms *941 Scott E. Wilt of Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., Orlando, for petitioner. Lawrence M. Watson of Carlton, Fields, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A., Orlando, for respondent Mark Cooper and Maitland Assoc. of Homeowners, Inc. Joseph A. Frein of Broad and Cassel, Maitland and Paul R. Gougelman, II1 of Reinman, Harrell, Silberhorn & Graham, Melbourne, for respondent City of Maitland. Opinion ORFINGER, Judge. The Orange County Board of County Commissioners approved Battaglia Fruit Company's application for rezoning of a 33.3 acre tract after finding that the proposed rezoning complied with the County's Growth Management Policy. A petition for writ of certiorari was filed by the City of Maitland in the Circuit Court, Ninth Judicial Circuit, and a similar petition for writ of certiorari was filed in the circuit court by Mark Cooper and the Maitland Association of Homeowners, Inc.' These petitions were subsequently consolidated. The circuit court granted the consolidated petitions, and quashed the county commissioners' decision. Battaglia Fruit Company Battaglia Fruit Co. v. City of Maitland, 530 So.2d 940 (1988) 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1733 seeks certiorari review of the circuit court order. Battaglia's property is located in an unincorporated area of Orange County, near the City of Maitland. Battaglia's application requested a change in zoning from low density residential to a planned development that would allow professional offices and multifamily residential units to be built on the property. On October 21, 1985, a public hearing on Battaglia's application was held before the Board of County Commissioners' At that hearing, a motion was made and seconded to approve the application for rezoning; a 2-2 tie vote resulted. On October 28, 1985, the hearing was continued and the application was approved by a 3-2 vote. In their petitions for writ of certiorari filed with the circuit court, the City of Maitland and Maitland Association of Homeowners, Inc. argued that the initial tie vote should have constituted a binding denial of Battaglia's application. It was also argued that the rezoning was not consistent with the county's growth management policy and future land use policy guide map. Battaglia filed several motions to dismiss, which raised various grounds, including the arguments that Maitland Association's petition did not timely invoke the circuit court's jurisdiction, and that the City of Maitland lacked standing to file a petition for writ of certiorari in the circuit court. The circuit court refused to dismiss the petitions for writ of certiorari, ruling that petitioners demonstrated a preliminary basis for relief. In granting the consolidated petitions, the circuit court held that petitioners' due process rights had been violated by the *942 county commissioners' failure to abide by their initial tie vote on October 21, 1985, which under proper parliamentary procedure would have defeated the motion to approve Battaglia's application. Under the Orange County Code, an unsuccessful applicant must wait nine months before applying for another hearing concerning the same property; the circuit court reasoned that the 3-2 vote on October 28, 1985, violated this provision. The circuit court also held that the evidence before the county commissioners was insufficient to support their determination that the rezoning was consistent with the county's growth management policy. In the petition for writ of certiorari filed with this court, Battaglia once again alleges that the petition filed by Maitland Association was untimely, and that the City of Maitland lacked standing to file a petition for writ of certiorari. Battaglia also argues that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law in WESTLAW Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk construing the tie vote as a binding denial of the rezoning application. 1'1 Turning first to the controversy surrounding the county commissioners' initial tie vote, the Orange County Code does not contain a provision that a tie vote constitutes a final decision in a zoning matter. The circuit court stated that in the absence of a formal rule, a deliberative body must follow generally accepted rules of parliamentary procedure. We do not agree. Parliamentary rules not adopted as part of a governmental body's organic law may be waived or disregarded, and courts will not enforce their observance. See 59 Am.Jur.2d Parliamentary Law, § 4 (1987). The failure of the county commissioners to observe a general rule of parliamentary procedure did not violate any parry's procedural due process rights. 121 131 We now turn to Battaglia's claim that Maitland Association failed to timely invoke the jurisdiction of the circuit court. The Orange County Zoning Code was established by a special act of the Florida Legislature. See Chapter 63-1716, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of I963. Section 37-16 of the Code states that any person aggrieved by a decision of the county commissioners may file a petition for writ of certiorari in the Circuit Court of Orange County in the manner prescribed by the Florida appellate rules. Section 37-I6 also states that a notice of intent to file a petition for writ of certiorari must be filed in the circuit court within ten days after rendition of the county commissioners' decision. The petition and transcript shall be filed in the circuit court within thirty days after rendition of the county commissioners' decision, except the circuit court may extend the time for filing the petition and transcript for good cause shown. The county commissioners' decision was rendered on October 28, 1985. Maitland Association's notice of intent was filed on November 8, 1985, eleven days later. The petition was filed on December 2, 1985, 35 days after rendition of the county commissioners' decision. Maitland Association alleged that an employee of the clerk's office in Orange County represented that the decision of the county commissioners had not been reduced to writing and had not been filed. The circuit court, in denying Battaglia's motion to dismiss, stated that "The delay in filing the writ [sic] was occasioned in part by an agent of defendant [the Board of County Commissioners]." Under the special act establishing the zoning code, the circuit court is not authorized to extend the 10 day period for the filing of the notice of intent. Maitland Battaglia Fruit Co. v. City of Maitland, 530 So.2d 940 (1988) 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1733 Association's notice of intent was untimely because it was filed one day late. Whereas the circuit court disregarded this infraction, we are not disposed to take such liberties with a procedural requirement enacted by the legislature. See Buck v. City of Hallandale, 85 So.2d 825 (FIa.1956). Maitland Association's petition for certiorari was also untimely. The remedy of statutory certiorari is independent and cumulative to common law certiorari. Common law certiorari is available if a statutory remedy fails. See Grady v. Lee County, 458 So.2d 1211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); G-W Development Corp. v. Village of North Palm Beach Zoning Board of Adjustment, 317 So.2d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). *943 However, Maitland Association did not file its petition for certiorari within the 30 day jurisdictional period established by the special act nor within the identical jurisdictional period for common law certiorari by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(c). The circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law by not dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by Maitland Association. 141 We now address Battaglia's claim that the City of Maitland lacked standing to file a petition for certiorari. Orange County gave the City of Maitland notice of the hearings concerning Battaglia's application for rezoning. At these hearings, Maitland residents who lived in subdivisions near Battaglia's property voiced opposition, but no representative of the City of Maitland appeared or spoke against the application. The fact that the City was given notice of the county hearings would not automatically establish standing. See F & R Builders, Inc. v. Durant, 390 So.2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). See also Renard v. Dade County, 261 So.2d 832, 837 (FIa.1972). The circuit court's certiorari review in this case was limited to the record below. See § 37-16, Orange County Code (Circuit court shall not conduct a trial de novo). The record before the circuit court was composed of the transcripts of the county hearings and exhibits considered by the county agencies and commission. The record before the circuit court did not demonstrate that the City of Maitland was a party aggrieved by the decision of the Board of County Commissioners, because the City never appeared or presented any evidence or objection. In its petition filed with the circuit court, the City of Maitland listed several interests that would be adversely affected by the planned development to demonstrate that it had a special interest exceeding the general interest of all citizens in the community. See generally Citizens Growth Management Coalition v. West Palm Beach, 450 So.2d 204, 208 (F1a.1984); Renard, supra. However, the City did not allege and prove the existence of those interests WESTLAW Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk before the county agencies and commission considering Battaglia's application, so they were not part of the record before the circuit court. Therefore, the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law in not dismissing the City's petition for lack of standing.' I51 Whatever objections the City of Maitland had to the proposed rezoning were never made to the agency which had the power to grant or deny the rezoning request. Its complaint that the planned development would burden its municipal services and require it to furnish additional police and fire protection was never presented to the Board of County Commissioners and there is no such evidence in the administrative record.' The first time any such allegation was made was in its petition to the circuit court, where it was made too late. In a certiorari proceeding the circuit court has no zoning powers but can only review the administrative record of the agency that has such powers. The dissent is in error when it says that the circuit court may hear an objection de novo. Not only does the legislative act which gives Orange County its zoning powers specifically prohibit de novo court review, but the law generally limits the authority of a reviewing court to the record made at the zoning hearing. *944 The administrative record in this case showed only that the property in question abuts Maitland's boundary. However, the City's proximity to the property would not in and of itself establish a legal interest adversely affected by the rezoning. 161 In reviewing the action of a county agency, the circuit court is limited to a determination of whether the agency provided procedural due process, observed the essential requirements of law and whether its decision is supported by competent substantial evidence. City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 399 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); affirmed, 419 So.2d 624 (FIa.1982); BML Investments v. City of Casselberry, 476 So.2d 713, 715 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), review denied, 486 So.2d 595 (FIa.1986). The limitation on the review powers of the circuit court were clearly stated in Skaggs-Albertson's v. ABC Liquors Inc., 363 So.2d 1082, 1091 (F1a.1978), where the court held that: The circuit court, therefore, transcended the scope of its certiorari review by substituting its judgment for that of the local zoning authority. Because zoning Battaglia Fruit Co. v. City of Maitland, 530 So.2d 940 (1988) 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1733 or rezoning is the function of the appropriate zoning authority and not the courts, the circuit court was not empowered to disapprove the finding of the Board unless the record was devoid of substantial competent evidence to support the Board's decision. [Footnote omitted]. The record before the Board of County Commissioners contains competent substantial evidence to support the county's actions. Perhaps the result would have been different had the City presented its evidence to that body, but having failed to do so, it should not have been permitted to present de novo evidence to the circuit court which had authority only to review what had been presented below. The circuit court order granting the consolidated petitions for certiorari filed by Maitland Association and the City of Maitland is quashed. WRIT ISSUED. DAUKSCH, J., concurs. SHARP, C.J., dissents with opinion. SHARP, Chief Judge, dissenting. I disagree that the City of Maitland failed to establish in this record sufficient standing to challenge the rezoning of petitioner's land; and I do not think the Maitland Association of Homeowners, Inc. should be foreclosed from seeking review under the Orange County Zoning Code.' Since one or both of the respondents properly sought review of the rezoning in the circuit court, I reach the merits of the rezoning issue, and conclude that the trial court should be affirmed. The rezoning was contrary to the Orange County Comprehensive Zoning Plan, and the County Commission did not follow the proper procedures to amend the zoning plan. I. STANDING: CITY OF MAITLAND Pursuant to the Orange County Zoning Act, "Any person aggrieved by the board of county commissioner's V'v E 5 L K'r`ti Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk decision ... may file a petition for writ of certiorari ... in the circuit court of Orange County...." (Ch. 71-795 sec. 16). This language is similar to the provisions in section 163.3215(1), Florida Statutes (1985). However, the express provision, which defines an "aggrieved party" as: [A]ny person or local government which will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by a local government comprehensive plan, including interests related to health and safety, police and fire protection service systems, densities or intensities of development, transportation facilities, health care facilities, equipment or services, or environmental or natural resources became effective shortly after Battaglia filed its application for rezoning, and therefore is not strictly applicable to this case. *945 Nevertheless, it appears to me the statutory language is primarily derived from case law which clearly can be applied to this case. To challenge a rezoning decision, it is no longer necessary to prove special damages as was required in nuisance suits, one of the sources of zoning law. It is only necessary to establish that some kind of legally protected interest of the challenging party will be potentially affected by the decision. Renard v. Dade County, 261 So.2d 832 (F1a.1972). This interest must exceed the general interest shared by all members of the community. Citizens Growth Management Coalition v. West Palm Beach, 450 So.2d 204 (F1a.1984). Standing is generally established by considerations such as the proximity of the rezoned land to the challenger's lands, the character of the neighborhood and the anticipated effect on it of the rezoning. Renard at 837. Where spot -zoning is the basic challenge to the rezoning, proximate and adjacent landowners and even those a mile or more away, if affected by the new zoning, have standing to contest the issue. See Exchange Investments, Inc. v. Alachua County, 481 So.2d 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); SW Ranches Home Owners Association, Inc. v. County of Broward, 502 So.2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. den., 511 So.2d 999 (FIa.1987); Albright v. Hensley, 492 So.2d 852 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Wager v. City of Green Cove Springs, 261 So.2d 827 (FIa.1972); "Standing to Appeal Zoning Determinations: The `Aggrieved Person' Requirement," 64 Mich.L.Rev. 1070, 1079 (1965-1966). Courts also recognize that city and county boundaries Battaglia Fruit Co. v. City of Maitland, 530 So.2d 940 (1988) 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1733 have become irrelevant in determining standing, as a local zoning decision may have impact far beyond the entity's borders. Annot. 69 A.L.R.3d 805; Anderson, 4 American Law of Zoning 3d (1986) § 24.01. It is also clear that the better view is that cities, counties, or other local governmental agencies may be "aggrieved persons" within the scope of applicable statutes permitting appeals from zoning decisions.' The court in Ruegg v. Board of County Commissioners, Clackamas County, 32 Or.App. 77, 573 P.2d 740 (1978), held that a neighboring city had standing to contest the county's rezoning of lands in the county because the rezoning undermined the city's planning efforts and would adversely affect its downtown development. It said: In view of the interrelationship between the county's and the city's land use planning, the proximity of the city's boundaries to the subject property, and the trend in the law to extend standing in land use cases to persons other than those who own contiguous property, [citations omitted] the city should have been permitted to appear as a party in this proceeding. Ruegg, 573 P.2d at 742. Neighboring cities and counties such as Maitland and Orange County, are required to cooperate in regional planning, both under the Special Act and state law.' In a reverse situation, the County of Pinellas was allowed to challenge rezoning of lands in the City of Gulfport.' The majority opinion takes the view that because Maitland did not appear in the zoning proceedings before the county commissioners and other county bodies, it failed to establish its standing or right to challenge the zoning decision in the circuit court. 1 submit that the special zoning act authorizing certiorari review of zoning decisions does not limit such right of review solely to persons who appeared or were parties in the rezoning process. The interpretation of "aggrieved party" under the Special Act, and under statutory law, means much more than merely a party who attends the administrative proceedings.' As discussed above, standing in this context means proximity and affect or impact *946 on a legal interest. Surface Water Management Permit No. 50-01420-S v. Florida Land and Water Adjudicator), Comm., 515 So.2d 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); rev. den., 525 So.2d 876 (FIa.1988); Carlos Estates, Inc. v. Dade County, 426 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Further, the majority assumes that Maitland had to have appeared in the rezoning proceedings below in order to have established its right of standing, because the method 'VLSTLAVJ Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 _, City Clerk of review in the circuit court is limited to certiorari, and that court (as well as this one) can only consider the record sent to it from the administrative proceedings. I am not convinced that a party seeking to challenge a rezoning decision cannot by proper allegations and proofs in the circuit court, de novo as it were, establish his right to bring that action.' In other certiorari proceedings like this one when the standing challenge is raised, courts have resolved this question by examining the "allegations" of the challenger's complaint filed in the case with the court. See Wager, 261 So.2d 827 (F1a.1972); Exchange Investments. The allegations in Maitland's petition filed with the circuit court in this cause abundantly established Maitland's standing as an "aggrieved party." Maitland alleged that the rezoning in question would have a material effect on the city, and the abutting lands within the city, because this rezoned thirty-three acres was an enclave surrounded on three sides by the City of Maitland. It also alleged that the planned development would burden Maitland's municipal services, and require it to furnish police and fire protection. It further alleged that the traffic from the development would impact the city and its streets because the rezoned property's sole access was through the downtown area of Maitland. I assume all these matters were proven to the satisfaction of the circuit court which heard this matter, and ruled accordingly. This hearing was apparently not reported. But even if it is necessary to disregard the allegations of Maitland's petition regarding standing and any proofs it may have offered at the hearing, I submit that the proximity and interrelationship of Maitland to the rezoned property is adequately established by the record before the administrative bodies. Accordingly, Maitland's status as an "aggrieved party" is clear on the certiorari record before us, if anyone chooses to read it. The following is a summary. The physical location of the rezoned land, surrounded on three sides by Maitland, was repeatedly shown by maps, exhibits and testimony. There was testimony concerning ingress and egress onto Maitland's roads, and the necessity to add turn lanes and lights in order to handle the anticipated traffic impact of the development. It was pointed out that the commercial office building part of the development could only be accessed by Maitland Boulevard, and downtown Maitland. The county staff recommended against the rezoning because it is inconsistent not only with Orange County's in i Battaglia Fruit Co. v. City of Maitland, 530 So.2d 940 (1988) 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1733 Growth Management Plan, but Maitland's as well. Both Orange County's and Maitland's plans restrict high density commercial development to lands west of I-4; and keep lands east of I-4 where this property is located as low density residential zones. Surrounding the rezoned land are Maitland's low density residential areas. This enclave is the only county land along Maitland Boulevard, East of I-4. All the rest is in Maitland. Efforts are made by Orange County to coordinate land use planning with cities when they share mutual boundaries. The original zoning on this property was consistent with both entities' plans. This change is not. Nor was any coordination with Maitland undertaken prior to the rezoning. *947 The county commissioners were aware that Maitland viewed this enclave of county land as land it planned to annex in the future. Commissioner Carter stated at the only evidentiary hearing before the commission that only two months prior to the rezoning proceeding, Orange County officials had met with Maitland's officials and assured them that the enclave would be their "urban expansion area." Maitland told them they wanted the enclave zoned residential. Commissioner Carter stressed that the proposed high density development would adversely impact Maitland and its future planning. II. TIMELINESS OF THE MAITLAND ASSOCIATION OF HOMEOWNER'S CERTIORARI PETITION As the majority opinion points out, the Association's certiorari petition was five days late in being filed in the circuit court; and its notice of intent to sue required by section 16, Chapter 71-795 (Orange County Special Act) was one day late. A motion to dismiss was filed raising both grounds, and a hearing was apparently held, although not reported. In a written order the circuit court denied the motion because it found that the delay in filing was caused in part by the county. At a later reported hearing, the trial judge said he considered the notice and petition timely because: [T]here was good faith reliance, on behalf of the complainants, of the representations made by an agent of the clerk's office in Orange County that this [the decision] had not been filed, [when it had been W EST LAV Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk filed]. Filing is the critical act which triggers both time periods under section 16. See Kowch v. Board of County Commissioners, 467 So.2d 340 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Clearly, the ordinance gives the circuit court authority to extend the 30-day time period to file the petition, which it did in this case. Although not expressly applicable to the 10-day notice provision, this extension power of the circuit court must, in my view, apply to the notice as well. Of what value is the court's power to extend the longer time period, if the shorter one cannot be extended or ignored as not jurisdictional? See Anderson 4 American Law of Zoning 3d (1986) § 27.24. If a party misses the longer time barrier, he will almost certainly have missed the shorter one. Further, as in this case, where the court finds that the delays are attributable to the county, some remedy analogous to rule 1.540 should be available to the aggrieved party. See New Washington Heights Community Development Conference v. Department of Community Affairs, 515 So.2d 328 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1987). This extension provision should be employed to give such relief, in these administrative proceedings. Ill. MERITS OF THE REZONING ISSUE The certiorari record (no de novo evidence was presented to the trial court on the merits of the rezoning) establishes the following facts.' The Battaglia property involved in this case is a 33.3 acre enclave of Orange County unincorporated land, surrounded on three sides by lands in the City of Maitland. For many years a producing citrus grove, it was burned out by recent winter freezes, and is now essentially vacant. It is the only Orange County property east of I-4 (a major interstate highway) along Maitland Boulevard. All the rest of the property along this boulevard lies within Maitland. Maitland Boulevard runs along the north of the Battaglia land. It is a four -lane *948 state road which runs through the center of Maitland and crosses 1-4 to the west. South of the property, Sandspur Road, a two-lane street serves the residential neighborhoods to the immediate south, east and west of this land. Along Maitland Boulevard, running east from I-4 to downtown Maitland, commercial usage has not been allowed. There is only low density residential Battaglia Fruit Co. v. City of Maitland, 530 So.2d 940 (1988) 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1733 development, except for a church, a school and community center, and one single office professional building, which is set far back from the Boulevard. High density commercial and office building developments have been restricted to areas west of I-4. The Battaglia land was zoned R-IAA in 1957. This is a single-family, low density category, which permits at the most 4.4 dwelling units per acre. The lands surrounding the Battaglia property are also zoned low density residential. This zoning is consistent with growth management policies and plans of both Maitland and Orange County. Orange County's plan was adopted in 1980, and readopted in August of 1985, pursuant to section 163.3161. Both zoning plans show the Battaglia land as a low density residential area. Battaglia sought to change the zoning on its 33.3 acres by obtaining county approval of a planned unit development, which combines commercial office space and multifamily apartments. The plan shows 28 acres will be used to construct 240,000 square feet of office space, plus parking. Ingress and egress from the office development will be onto Maitland Boulevard. The *949 traffic will require the addition of lanes to Maitland Boulevard and a traffic signal. The remaining five acres will be used to construct apartments, with a density of ten dwelling units per acre. Access to this portion of the property will be onto Sandspur Road. The Orange County Development Review Committee, charged with the function of reviewing applications for zoning changes, for consistency with the comprehensive plans,' recommended against the Battaglia application. It found the planned unit development (P.U.D.) was inconsistent with Orange County's Growth Management Plan, Maitland's Comprehensive Plan, and that it was incompatible with the surrounding existing residential areas. At the planning and zoning commission level, testimony concerning the proposed development and the anticipated impact on the neighborhood was presented. The developer's representatives minimized the traffic and other impact the planned unit development would have on Maitland and its residential neighborhoods. Representatives from subdivision associations, encompassing 1,000 residences, spoke against the P.U.D. The meeting was so large it was held at the Maitland City Hall. Some residents pointed out that they opposed any commercial zoning along the Boulevard, fearing a domino effect, and that the area logically should be included in Maitland. Many Maitland residents wanted to have the Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk area used for a city park. Without any finding that the proposed development was consistent with Orange County's Comprehensive Plan, the Planning and Zoning Board approved it, subject to various conditions, including walls and landscaping. On October 21, 1985, the county commissioners considered the rezoning application. The planning department staff recommended against it because it was inconsistent with Orange County's and Maitland's Growth Management Plans, incompatible with the surrounding and adjacent single-family residential development, and because it would set a precedent for allowing commercial development along Maitland Boulevard east of 1-4." At this hearing, the developer's attorney and planning witnesses presented the project, and explained how it would not adversely impact Maitland's surrounding residential areas. They argued that professional offices are not incompatible with residential use. In opposition were representatives of more than 1,000 homeowners. They stressed there was commercial use only east of 1-4 of on Maitland Boulevard and that it would impact the city's police and fire services, traffic problems, and would lead to more commercial development along Maitland Boulevard to the east of I-4. The developer argued that putting office buildings along major arterial streets is an element of Orange County's Comprehensive Plan. This is one of 14 general planning principles contained in Orange County's Plan. Maitland is such an arterial street. Therefore, the developer argues the project was in fact "consistent" with Orange County's Growth Management Plan. Other Orange County "policies" of equal standing with this one relied upon by the developer militates against this rezoning. For example, two provide that commercial and industrial uses should not be allowed to encroach on established residential areas. The developer also argued that the land use map which showed the area as residential, was not a part of Orange County's Plan. It is not clear why the Orange County Board of Commissioners ultimately voted'2 to approve the P.U.D. rezoning. It may have been because of the generalized policy *950 singled out by the developers of putting offices on arterial streets. Or, it may have been a misapprehension on the part of three of the county commissioners that the county plan was so flexible it could be changed in this manner; or that the P.U.D. was so well planned that it was not inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. In any case, I agree with the trial judge that the P.U.D. proposed here is clearly inconsistent 1 r 11.3 Battaglia Fruit Co. v. City of Maitland, 530 So.2d 940 (1988) 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1733 with Orange County's Growth Management Plan. Orange County's special zoning act provides that all development orders shall be "consistent with the growth management policy" (Sec. 37-85). It further defines what is meant by "consistency:" "Development proposals and development orders should be deemed consistent with the growth management policy if such proposals or orders involving equal or lesser intensity or density than projected by the policy for the area, ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses, generally conform to specific area or neighborhood studies or other development policies adopted from time to time by the board, and conform generally with the overall spirit and intent of the policies of the growth management policy." (emphasis supplied) (§ 37-85(C)). Since the density and intensity of the P.U.D. is much greater than projected by the current plan, the rezoning is per se inconsistent with Orange County's plan. Further, it is clear that the future use map adopted by the Board pursuant to section 37-87, which establishes this area as residential, is a vital element of the plan. Machado v. Musgrove, 519 So.2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (land use color coded map held to be an element of the Dade County Comprehensive Plan). Section 37-87 says the map "is intended to be a visual representation of the goals, objections and policies contained in the growth management policy and of the proposed general distribution location and extent of the uses of land." Without a comprehensive map or plan as a part of its policy, it is doubtful that Orange County would be in compliance with the requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (Ch. 163) § 163.3177. The fourteen generalized planning principles, urged as Orange County's Plan by the developer, would clearly be insufficient. See also, Machado, supra. Pursuant to both the local act, § 37-87, and the state law, § 163.3231, all development decisions must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. if it is not, then the rezoning change can only be made after the required procedures to change the plan have been followed. § 163.3194(1)(a); 1 Florida Real Property Practice Service, § 3.03 at 37-38; Yokley, 1 Zoning Law and Practice (1978) § 5-6. Admittedly, no effort by Orange County was made in this case to amend its Comprehensive Growth Management WESTLAW Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Plan. Nor was any effort made by Orange County to coordinate the rezoning with the City of Maitland, despite the mandates of section 163.3161, Chapter 163, and section 37-82, Special Act. Since the adoption of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, in 1975, (Ch. 163) and its implementation through the required adoption of growth management policies and plans by local govemments, the standard of review by courts of zoning decisions has changed dramatically. The prior well established "fairly debatable standard" which accorded the zoning authority a wide range of discretion, [see Skaggs-Albertson's v. ABC Liquors, Inc., 363 So.2d 1082 (F1a.1978); Marell v. Hardy, 450 So.2d 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Broward County v. Capeletti Bros. Inc., 375 So.2d 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. den., 385 So.2d 755 (F1a.1980); Shaughnessy v. Metropolitan Dade County, 238 So.2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) ] has been limited by these new laws. 1 Florida Real Property Practice Service § 1.01.B.3 at 17; Machado. This standard, relied upon in the majority opinion, is no longer applicable when the issue is that the rezoning is inconsistent *951 with a comprehensive plan. Machado. "[A] zoning action not in accordance with a comprehensive plan is ultra vires." Machado at 632. Zoning decisions must now be made within the guidelines and dictates of the comprehensive plans." In reviewing zoning decisions, a court is charged with the responsibility of determining that the zoning decision is consistent with the comprehensive plan, or that the plan has been duly amended to allow the zoning to be consistent." In so doing, zoning decisions are held by reviewing courts to strict scrutiny when the change is apparently inconsistent with the plan.15 This court in City of Cape Canaveral v. Mosher, 467 So.2d 468 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) held that a zoning change inconsistent with a duly adopted comprehensive plan could not be sustained. Summary judgment for the land owner was affirmed because the city admitted it failed to give the landowners notice of the rezoning, the rezoning was not consistent with the comprehensive plan, and it was not reasonable. Judge Cowart concurring specially said he would have reached the same result simply because the rezoning was inconsistent with the plan, although the rezoning was to be a less intensive use or density. This view was adopted by our sister court in Machado. Other district courts apparently take the view that if the Battaglia Fruit Co. v. City of Maitland, 530 So.2d 940 (1988) 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1733 rezoning is to a lesser intensity or density, the fairly debatable standard applies. In such a case, the zoning entity is not held to a strict scrutiny test regarding consistency with its plan and it is accorded a broader discretion. See Southwest Ranches Homeowners Assn. v. Broward County, 502 So.2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. den., 511 So.2d 999 (FIa.1987); City of Jacksonville Beach v. Grubbs, 461 So.2d 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), rev. den. 469 So.2d 749 (F1a.1985). However, this case involves rezoning to a greater intensity or density. Thus we need not resolve any area of potential conflict with our decision and those of our sister courts. Under all current Florida district court views, the zoning change in this case is subject to the strict scrutiny test -not the fairly debateable one. It appears to me that the trial judge correctly applied the existent law and recent controlling decisions to the facts presented in the record before him. His conclusions that Footnotes Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk the rezoning is inconsistent with the Orange County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan is a fair one and it is more than adequately supported by the record. Frankly, there is almost no basis in this record from which one could conclude that the P.U.D. is "consistent" with the comprehensive plan. See Hall v. Korth, 244 So.2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Since we cannot as a district court grant a second "certiorari review", and second-guess the circuit judges in such cases,16 we should affirm his decision and deny this petition for writ of certiorari." All Citations 530 So.2d 940, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1733 1 Respondents Mark Cooper and the Maitland Association of Homeowners, Inc., will be collectively referred to as the "Maitland Association." Petitioner Battaglia Fruit Co. will be referred to as "Battaglia." 2 The County's Planning and Zoning Commission recommended to the Board of County Commissioners the approval of the planned development, notwithstanding a recommendation to that Commission by the Development Review Committee that the proposal be rejected. 3 Assuming, without deciding, the power of the legislature to permit the circuit court to extend the time for seeking statutory certiorari (But see Article V, Section 2, Florida Constitution, which gives to the supreme court the exclusive power to adopt rules of procedure in all courts, including the time for seeking appellate review), there is nothing in the record to disclose that Maitland Association ever applied for or that the circuit court ever granted an extension of time for filing the petition. 4 Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes (1985), which authorizes an action for injunctive or other relief to enforce a local comprehensive plan is not applicable as Battaglia filed its application before July 1, 1985. See § 163.3215(3)(a), FIa.Stat. (1985). 5 On the contrary, there was expert testimony presented to the Board of County Commissioners that the traffic impact of the planned development would be less than if the property were fully developed for residential purposes. 1 2 3 4 Established by a special act of the Florida Legislature. See Chapter 63-1716, Laws of Florida, Special Acts 1963. § 163.3215(2), FIa.Stat. (1985), effective July 1, 1985. Anderson, 4 American Law of Zoning 3d (1986) § 27.20. § 163.3167, FIa.Stat. (1985); Ord. 37-82 I -II; Borough of Cresskill v. Borough of Dumont, 28 N.J.Super. 26, 100 A.2d 182 (1953); affirmed 15 N.J. 238, 104 A.2d 441 (1954). 5 Pinellas County v. City of Gulfport, 458 So.2d 436 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). WESTLAW Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Battaglia Fruit Co. v. City of Maitland, 530 So.2d 940 (1988) 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1733 6 Anderson 4 American Law of Zoning 3d (1986) § 27.10. 7 Note, that, an individual need not, in all cases, be a party to a proceeding to obtain certiorari review so long as he has sufficient interest in the subject matter of the challenged order. See generally State ex rel. Boyles v. Parole and Probation Comm., 436 So.2d 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). 8 Contrary to statements in the majority opinion, the record before us and the trial court is strictly proper in a certiorari case. It is composed of the administrative hearings and trial court pleadings. The only "de novo " matters are in Maitland's pleadings, in an attempt to establish its standing to appeal. If a hearing was held on those allegations, it was not recorded, and it is not a part of this record. Maitland did not, nor was it permitted to present de novo evidence to the circuit court on the merits of the rezoning issue. In all fairness, if this case must be reversed, it should not be reversed because of any improprieties regarding the certiorari record. 9 Section 163.3161, Florida Statutes, states: 163.3161 Short title; intent and purpose.- (1) This part shall be known and may be cited as the 'Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act.' (2) In conformity with, and in furtherance of, the purpose of the Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972, chapter 380, it is the purpose of this act to utilize and strengthen the existing role, processes, and powers of local governments in the establishment and implementation of comprehensive planning programs to guide and control future development. (3) It is the intent of this act that its adoption is necessary so that local governments can preserve and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and general welfare; prevent the overcrowding of land and avoid undue concentration of population; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within their jurisdictions. (4) It is the intent of this act to encourage and assure cooperation between and among municipalities and counties and to encourage and assure coordination of planning and development activities of units of local government with the planning activities of regional agencies and state government in accord with applicable provisions of law. (5) It is the intent of this act that adopted comprehensive plans shall have the legal status set out in this act and that no public or private development shall be permitted except in conformity with comprehensive plans, or elements or portions thereof, prepared and adopted in conformity with this act. (6) It is the intent of this act that the activities of units of local government in the preparation and adoption of comprehensive plans, or elements or portions therefor, shall be conducted in conformity with the provisions of this act. (7) The provisions of this act in their interpretation and application are declared to be the minimum requirements necessary to accomplish the stated intent, purposes, and objectives of this act; to protect human, environmental, social, and economic resources; and to maintain, through orderly growth and development, the character and stability of present and future land use and development in this state. (8) It is the intent of the Legislature that the repeal of sections 163.160 through 163.315 by section 19 of chapter 85-55, Laws of Florida, shall not be interpreted to limit or restrict the powers of municipal or county officials, but shall be interpreted as a recognition of their broad statutory and constitutional powers to plan for and regulate the use of land. It is further, the intent of the Legislature to reconfirm that sections 163.3161 through 163.3215 have provided and do provide the necessary statutory direction and basis for municipal and county officials to carry out their comprehensive planning and land development regulation powers, duties, and responsibilities. 10 § 163.3194, FIa.Stat. (1985). Battaglia Fruit Co. v, City of Maitland, 530 So.2d 940 (1988) 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1733 11 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk While staff recommendations by the planning department of a zoning entity are not binding on the zoning authority, they are due great weight, particularly when the Comprehensive Planning Act is involved. 1 Florida Real Property Practice Service § 1.01.8.3 at 19. 12 The final vote to approve rezoning came a week after the hearing when a fifth commissioner appeared to break the two to two tie vote. No additional evidence was taken at that meeting. As irregular as it was, I agree with the majority that there is no procedural ground for a court to reverse this rezoning vote. 13 Yokley, 1 Zoning Law & Practice (1978) § 5-2. 14 Anderson, 4 American Law of Zoning 3d, (1986) § 23.14; 40 A.L.R.3d 372 Requirement That Variations or Exceptions Be Made In Accordance With Comprehensive Plan § 163.3194(4)(a). 15 40 A.L.R.3d 372, at 392; see Norwood-Norland Homeowners Assn. v. Dade County, 511 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. den., 520 So.2d 585 (FIa.1988). 16 Norwood-Norland Homeowners Assn. v. Dade County, 511 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. den., 520 So.2d 585 (FIa.1988). 1 Florida Real Property Practice Service, Ch. 5, p. 37; Chicken 'n Things v. Murray, 329 So.2d 302 (FIa.1976). 17 Machado v. Musgrove, 519 So.2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). End of Document 2C ' Thomson Reuters No tc orig nal U S Govern Works. WESTLAW Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk G Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk LexisNexis• User Name: CARLOS DIAZ Date and Time: Monday, July 22, 2019 10:13:00 AM EDT Job Number: 93318955 Document (1) 1. Messett v. Cohen, 741 So. 2d 619 Client/Matter: 186341.010100 •' LexisNexis' I About LexisNexis I Privacy Policy I Terms & Conditions I Copyright © 2019 LexisNexis CARLOS DIAZ Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Page 3 of 6 Messett v HN2[A] A motion to dismiss admits all well -pleaded allegations of the pleading to which it is directed and asserts that the pleading does not state a cause of action on the grounds specified. More specifically, the test of the sufficiency of a complaint for declaratory judgment is not whether the plaintiff will succeed in obtaining such a declaratory decree of rights in accordance with his theory, but whether he is entitled to a declaration of rights at all. Real Property Law > ... > Warranty Deeds > General Warranty Deeds > Covenants of Title HN3[i] Covenants of Title See Fla. Stat. ch. 86.021 (1997). Governments > Local Governments > Ordinances & Regulations HN4[A] Ordinances & Regulations A private citizen can seek redress for a violation of a municipal ordinance where he or she proves special damages differing in kind from the damages suffered by the community as a whole. Civil Procedure > ... > Justiciability > Standing > General Overview Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Real Property Law > Zoning > Regional & State Planning HN50.1] An aggrieved or adversely affected person having standing to sue is a person who has a legally recognizable interest which is or will be affected by the action of the zoning authority in question. The interest may be one shared in common with a number of other members of the community as where an entire neighborhood is affected, but not every resident and property owner of a municipality can, as a general rule, claim such an interest. An individual having standing must have a definite interest exceeding the general interest in community good shared in common with all citizens. . Cohen Real Property Law > Zoning > General Overview HN6[�] In a zoning dispute, a claim of obstructed view does not constitute a legally recognizable interest. Counsel: Daniel J. Webster, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Douglas M. Weaver, Assistant County Attorney, Deland, for Appellee County of Volusia. Mary D. Hansen of Storch, Hansen & Morris, P.A., Daytona Beach, for Appellee Cohen. Judges: MIHOK, A.T., Associate Judge. DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur. Opinion by: A.T. MIHOK Opinion (*620] MIHOK, A.T., Associate Judge. Timothy L. Messett appeals the trial court's order dismissing his declaratory judgment action against Cynthia Cohen, Marsha Cohen, and Volusia County. The trial court dismissed Mr. Messett's amended complaint with prejudice finding that he lacked standing to maintain this declaratory judgment action. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. By way of amended complaint, Mr. Messett, a landowner at Bethune Beach, filed suit against Cynthia Cohen, Marsha Cohen, and Volusia County. The complaint explained that in 1986 Cynthia Cohen owned two adjoining pieces of property at Bethune Beach. One property was a vacant lot (Cohen lot) and the other property had been (**2] developed with a single family residence (Cohen residence). The Cohen property is apparently beachfront. Mr. Messett alleged that before he purchased his property, he investigated the ownership of the Cohen property. 1 (**3] He found that Cynthia Cohen held record title to the Cohen residence and Cohen lot and that she had paid the taxes on these properties. He also found that, in May 1992, Cynthia 1 The complaint avers that Mr. Messett owns two lots also located on Bethune Beach, but the complaint does not establish where the lots are located with regard to the Cohen lots or whether the lots are developed. Since Mr. Messett has characterized his injury as one of "obstructed view," we assume that at least a portion of the Messett property lies across the road from the Cohen property. CARLOS DIAZ Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Page 5 of 6 Messett v. Cohen have construed." City of Pinellas Park v. Matthews, 355 So. 2d 475, 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978 ). See also Bowden v. Seaboard f*6221 Air Line R. Co., 47 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 1950 ); Winters v. Alanco, Inc., 435 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983 ). Here, Mr. Messett does not claim to be a party to the Cohen deed, nor is he claiming any right under the deed. He merely claims that he possesses an interest which derives [**7] from his status as being the owner of the property which is apparently located across the road from the Cohen properties. Based upon the facts alleged in the amended complaint, the trial court properly concluded that Mr. Messett lacked standing to pursue his claim for declaratory relief against the Cohens because the complaint fails to assert a claim of any right "under the deed which he seeks to have construed." City of Pinellas Park v. Matthews, 355 So. 2d at 476. Mr. Messett's amended complaint also set forth a claim for declaratory relief against the County. The allegations of the complaint focus solely upon the County's June 25, 1997 determination that the Cohen properties do not fall within the parameters of section 600.01 of the County's land development code for purposes of development. In its prayer for relief, the complaint requests the trial court to adjudicate and declare that the County's action violated Mr. Messett's due process rights to receive notice and a hearing. The relevant issue here is whether Mr. Messett possesses the requisite standing to challenge the due process provisions of the County's land development code. Mr. Messett claims that, [**8] as a neighboring property owner, he should have been given notice and an opportunity to be heard before the County issued its opinion, in letter form, concluding that the Cohen properties do not fall within the parameters of section 600.01 of the County's development code for purposes of development. In asserting his claim, Mr. Messett defines his injury as being that, if the Cohen lot is developed, such development would "obstruct the view of the Messett property and substantially damage and irreparably harm Messett." HN4[?] "A private citizen can seek redress for a violation of a municipal ordinance where he or she proves special damages differing in kind from the damages suffered by the community as a whole." See Kagan v. West, 677 So. 2d 905, 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996 ). In explaining this "special damages" exception, our supreme court has stated: HN5[?] An aggrieved or adversely affected person having standing to sue is a person who has a legally recognizable interest which is or will be affected by the action of the zoning authority in question. The interest may be one shared in common with a number of other members of the community as where an entire neighborhood is affected, [**9] but not every resident and property owner of a municipality can, as a general rule, claim such an interest. An individual having standing must have a definite interest exceeding the general interest in community good shared in common with all citizens. Renard v. Dade County, 261 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1972 ). See also Citizens Growth Management Coalition of West Palm Beach, Inc. v. City of West Palm Beach, Inc., 450 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1984 ). Thus, in order for Mr. Messett to demonstrate that he possesses standing to pursue a declaratory judgment action against the County, he is required to articulate a legally recognizable interest which is or will be affected by the action of the zoning authority. As noted above, Mr. Messett's only asserted injury was his claim that if the Cohen lot is developed such development would "obstruct the view of the Messett property and substantially damage and irreparably harm Messett." HN6[411 However, a claim of "obstructed view" does not constitute a "legally recognizable interest." See Town of lndialantic v. Nance, 400 So. 2d 37, 41 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981 ), app'd, 419 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 1982) [**10] (holding that in the absence of some contractual or statutory obligation, a landowner has no absolute legal right to unobstructed air and light from the adjoining land.); Fontainebleau [*623] Hotel Corp. v. Forty -Five Twenty -Five, Inc., 114 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959 )(holding that even at common law, the landowner had no legal right in the absence of an easement to unobstructed light and air from the adjoining land). Accordingly, since the only injury alleged in the amended complaint was the obstruction of his view, the trial court was correct in dismissing Mr. Messett's claim against the County for lack of standing. AFFIRMED. DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur. CARLOS DIAZ Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 . City Clerk H �((r LexisNexis. User Name: CARLOS DIAZ Date and Time: Monday, July 22, 2019 10.25.00 AM EDT Job Number: 93320379 Document (1) Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 1. Buena Vista East Historic Neighborhood Ass'n v. City of Miami, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33029 Client/Matter: 186341.010100 LexisNexis' I About LexisNexis I Privacy Policy I Terms & Conditions I Copyright © 2019 LexisNexis CARLOS DIAZ Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Buena Vista East Historic Neighborhood Ass'n v. City of Miami Buena Vista was formed to help maintain the character of the Buena Vista East Historic District, an area bounded generally by N.E. 2nd Ave. to the [*3] East, N. Miami Ave. to the West, N.E. 48th Street to the North, and N.E. 42nd Street to the South. Buena Vista attempts to protect the area and its residents is by keeping tabs on new building and construction projects that they feel may affect the area, and when they feel it is warranted, opposing such projects or appealing the issuance of permits. As evidenced in the briefs and at oral argument, Plaintiffs have, on prior occasions, appealed the issuance of Class II Special Permits. What makes this situation different, according to Plaintiffs, is that they were not notified of the approval of the permits for the Gallery and Tiziano Projects, and because of the lack of notice, the time to appeal lapsed and Plaintiffs thereby lost their right to appeal. This notice issue is the heart of Plaintiffs' claim. They argue that the Defendants should be required to notify registered neighborhood or homeowners associations of the approval of Class II Special Permits. Because of the failure to notify, Plaintiffs claim that this Court should void the permits already issued, enjoin any action on the two projects, and enjoin the City Planning Director from issuing any further Class II Special Permits [*4] without providing proper notice of the approval to registered associations and abutting homeowners. The parties are in agreement that the relevant ordinances authorize the Planning Director to grant Class II Special Permits, allow for the appeal of such permits to the Zoning Board within fifteen days of the date of the final decision, but do not require the Defendants to provide notice of that decision to Plaintiffs. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing: (1) the Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the permits at issue; (2) the case is moot because one project has been withdrawn and both permits are set to expire shortly without any construction having commenced; (3) the issuance of the permits complied with due process requirements; (4) Plaintiffs failed to join indispensable parties; and, (5) that City Planning Director, Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, is entitled to qualified - immunity in her official capacity, quasi-judicial immunity in her personal capacity, and that inclusion of the official capacity claim is redundant because her employer, the City of Miami, is already a named Defendant. 1 A 1 The Court considers Defendants' first Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to be incorporated into its later Motion for Summary Judgment. See DE 59. Additionally, the withdrawal of the Gallery Project occurred after the Motion for Summary Page 3 of 7 Response and Reply were timely filed as well as the Court -ordered supplemental [*5] briefs addressing standing, construction of the ordinances, injury, and Defendants' practices and procedures regarding notice of permit approval. II. Legal Standard Summary judgment is proper when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, presents no genuine issue as to any material fact and compels judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). Only the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, as opposed to a simple factual dispute, will preclude a grant of summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). No genuine issue of material fact exists when the nonmoving party "fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. III. [*6] Analysis In essence, Plaintiffs ask this Court to write in to the zoning ordinances a requirement not even implicit in the statutory language, namely that the City or Director of Planning is required to provide notice of Class II Special Permit approvals to certain homeowners or neighborhood associations. The Court cannot reach this issue, however, because the Plaintiffs' claims are moot, and even if they were not, Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the issuance of these Class II Special Permits. A. Mootness 2 Judgment was filed, but was raised appropriately at oral argument. 2Defendants' "Suggestion of Mootness" [DE 52] verges on being a third motion for summary judgment. As such, the notice skirts the line of being an inappropriate filing where two motions for summary judgment had previously been filed and responded to, and where this Court had ordered supplemental briefing on particular issues raised in those motions and CARLOS DIAZ Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Buena Vista East Historic Neighborhood Assn v. City of Miami Plaintiffs appear to have misunderstood, or at least misapplied, the argument that representative associations have standing to [*12] challenge zoning decisions on grounds of procedural irregularities. The case relied on by Plaintiffs for this proposition, Peacock v. City of Miami, 646 So.2d 291 (1994) (per curiam), entirely fails to support their argument. Plaintiffs state that "[p]rocedural irregularity is an attack on the ground that the decision is void or invalid by reason of departure from any essential procedure preceding its enactment, in essence an attach [sic] on how the resolution was enacted, but not what was enacted, including that required notice was not given." See Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, DE 39, citing Save Brickell Avenue, Inc. v. City of Miami and Santa Maria Dev. Group, 395 So.2d 246 (1981). What Plaintiffs fail to recognize is that both Peacock and Save Brickell refer to the initial enactment of the zoning ordinance, not the approval or issuance of a special permit. The "required notice [that] was not given" has nothing to do with notice of approval for a special permit, but instead concerns adoption of the ordinance itself without proper notice of a public hearing, in violation of Florida statute. See Knowles v. Town of Kenneth City, 247 So.2d 748 (1971) [*13] (finding mandamus did not lie to compel the issuance of building permits where the zoning ordinance in question was enacted without the statutorily required notices being published prior to public hearing and adoption); Save Brickell Ave., Inc. v. City of Miami, 393 So.2d 1197, 1198 (1981) ("As a corporation purportedly devoted to safeguarding the zoning of the area, Save Brickell Avenue is an 'affected ... citizen' which has standing to attack the enactment in question on the ground, which was asserted below, that it is void or invalid because the 'required notice was not given."') (citing Renard v. Dade County, 261 So.2d 832, 838 the parking garage and condominium tower; 11) Increased traffic congestion at a critical and dangerous intersection and 1-195 on -ramp; 12) Increased traffic along North Miami Avenue, NE 1st Avenue, NW 1st Ave and NE 2nd Avenue causing increased delays to residents, increase of danger to homes, and delays in emergency response time; 13) Increased cycling of traffic through residential area, leading to loss of safety to pedestrians and children; 14) Increased air pollution from increased traffic, especially idling traffic; 15) Increased difficulty in retaining tenants in residential neighborhood during construction periods: 16) Loss of privacy 17) Shadow and blocking of southern exposure over homes and gardens, loss of ability to grow various plants; 18) Long period of construction noise; 19) Falling construction debris. Page 5of7 (1972) ("[T]he question certified deals with standing to attack a zoning ordinance which is void because not properly enacted, as where required notice was not given.") (citing Knowles, 247 So.2d 748)). Because Plaintiffs do not challenge the ordinance or its enactment, they do not have standing on "procedural irregularity" grounds. Plaintiffs' arguments that they have a legally protected property interest in the preservation of the character of their property interests, and therefore standing, also fails. First, the cases relied upon by Plaintiffs involve [*14] re -zoning actions that prompted due process protections. See, e.g., City of Miami v. Zorovich, 195 So.2d 31 (1967) (zoning classification); Everett v. City of Tallahassee, 840 F.Supp. 1528 (N.D.FIa.1992) (denial of plaintiff landowner's re -zoning petition). The issue here involves the discretionary decision of the City Planning Director to issue a Class II Special Permit, which is not a change in zoning or a zoning variance. Even if the cases cited were applicable, Florida law states: it is no longer questioned that a municipality, acting under legislative authority, may be vested with the power to enact a valid zoning ordinance and that a general attack thereon will ordinarily fail; nor is it questioned that the right of an urban owner to the free use of his property may be regulated by a legitimate exercise of the police power, and when so asserted, fairly and impartially in the interest of the public health, safety, morals or general welfare, the courts will not substitute their judgment for that of the public officials duly authorized in the premises unless it clearly appears that their action has no just foundation in reason and necessity. On the other hand, if the application [*15] of the zoning ordinance has the effect of completely depriving an owner of the beneficial use of his property by precluding all uses or the only use, to which it is reasonably adapted, an attack upon the validity of the regulation as applied to the particular property involved, will be sustained. Forde v. City of Miami Beach, 146 Fla. 676, 1 So.2d 642, 645 (1941) (citations omitted). A simple review of Plaintiffs' list of claimed potential damages, see note 4, supra, reveals that Plaintiffs do not even allege that the two projects, let alone the issuance of the Class II Special Permits, would deprive them of the beneficial use of their respective properties by precluding all uses or the only use, to which they are adapted. Accordingly, Plaintiffs do not have standing based on preservation of CARLOS DIAZ Page 7 of 7 Buena Vista East Historic Neighborhood Ass'n v. City of Miami Because the Court finds that this Case is moot, and even if it were not, Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the Class II Special Permits at issue, there is no need to reach (*20] the issues of Defendant Ana Gelabert- Sanchez's immunity or the propriety of her being a Defendant, nor is there a need to address Defendants' arguments regarding the failure to join indispensable parties. The question of whether Defendants' violated Plaintiffs' due process rights by not giving them notice of the approval has been discussed above, and it is clear to this Court that Plaintiffs' action, if one exists, is a challenge to the Constitutionality of the zoning ordinance, a challenge not brought here by Plaintiffs. 4 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED: (1) that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 38] is GRANTED; (2) all pending motions are DENIED as moot; (3) the Clerk shall CLOSE this case. DONE and ORDERED in chambers, Miami, Florida, this 22nd day of April 2008. /s/ Marcia G. Cooke MARCIA G. (*21] COOKE United States District Judge Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 41 note, however, that there is evidence that the Defendants' practices do not conform with the ordinances as -written, in that the City does notify some registered associations some of the time. There does not appear to be a consistent notification process. Because of the confusion and controversy this practice can cause, Defendants should strive to reform their practice. CARLOS DIAZ Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk I (10 LexisNexis• User Name: CARLOS DIAZ Date and Time: Monday, July 22, 2019 10:21:00 AM EDT Job Number: 93319830 Document (1) 1. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty -Five Twenty -Five, Inc.. 114 So. 2d 357 Client/Matter: 186341.010100 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk LexisNexis' 1 About LexisNexis Privacy Policy 1 Terms & Conditions 1 Copyright © 2019 LexisNexis CARLOS DIAZ Page3of5 Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty -Five Twenty -Five, Inc. Landowners > General Overview HN2[+] Easements At common law, the landowner had no legal right, in the absence of an easement or uninterrupted use and enjoyment for a period of 20 years, to unobstructed light and air from the adjoining land. And the English doctrine of "ancient lights" has been unanimously repudiated in the United States. There being, then, no legal right to the free flow of light and air from the adjoining land, it is universally held that where a structure serves a useful and beneficial purpose, it does not give rise to a cause of action, either for damages or for an injunction under the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, even though it causes injury to another by cutting off the light and air and interfering with the view that would otherwise be available over adjoining land in its natural state, regardless of the fact that the structure may have been erected partly for spite. Real Property Law > Encumbrances > Adjoining Landowners > General Overview HN3[+] "So use your own as not to injure another's property" is, indeed, a sound and salutary principle for the promotion of justice, but it may not and should not be applied so as gratuitously to confer upon an adjacent property owner incorporeal rights incidental to his ownership of land which the law does not sanction. Counsel: [**1] Sibley, Grusmark, Barkdull & King, Miami Beach, for appellants. Anderson & Nadeau, Miami, for appellee. Opinion [*358] PER CURIAM. This is an interlocutory appeal from an order temporarily enjoining the appellants from continuing with the construction of a fourteen -story addition to the Fontainebleau Hotel, owned and operated by the appellants. Appellee, plaintiff below, owns the Eden Roc Hotel, which was constructed in 1955, about a year after the Fontainebleau, and adjoins the Fontainebleau on the north. Both are luxury hotels, facing the Atlantic Ocean. The proposed addition to the Fontainebleau is being constructed twenty feet from its north property line, 130 feet from the mean high water mark of the Atlantic Ocean, and 76 feet 8 inches from the ocean bulkhead line. The 14-story tower will extend 160 feet above grade in height and is 416 feet long from east to west. During the winter months, from around two o'clock in the afternoon for the remainder of the day, the shadow of the addition will extend over the cabana, swimming pool, and sunbathing areas of the Eden Roc, which are located in the southern portion of its property. In this action, plaintiff -appellee [**2] sought to enjoin the defendants -appellants from proceeding with the construction of the addition to the Fontainebleau (it appears to have been roughly eight stories high at the time suit was filed), alleging that the construction would interfere with the light and air on the beach in front of the Eden Roc and cast a shadow of such size as to render the beach wholly unfitted for the use and enjoyment of its guests, to the irreparable injury of the plaintiff; further, that the construction of such addition on the north side of defendants' property, rather than the south side, was actuated by malice and ill will on the part of the defendants' president toward the plaintiffs president; and that the construction was in violation of a building ordinance requiring a 100-foot setback from the ocean. It was also alleged that the construction would interfere with the easements of light and air enjoyed by plaintiff and its predecessors in title for more than twenty years and "impliedly granted by virtue of the acts of the plaintiffs predecessors in title, as well as under the common law and the express recognition of such rights by virtue of Chapter 9837, Laws of Florida 1923 * * *." Some [**3] attempt was also made to allege an easement by implication in favor of the plaintiffs property, as the dominant, and against the defendants' property, as the servient, tenement. [*359] The defendants' answer denied the material allegations of the complaint, pleaded laches and estoppel by judgment. The chancellor heard considerable testimony on the issues made by the complaint and the answer and, as noted, entered a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from continuing with the construction of the addition. His reason for so doing was stated by him, in a memorandum opinion, as follows: "In granting the temporary injunction in this case the Court wishes to make several things very clear. The ruling is not based on any alleged presumptive title nor prescriptive right of the plaintiff to light and air nor is it based on any deed restrictions nor recorded plats in the title of the plaintiff nor of the defendant nor of any plat of record. It is not based on any zoning ordinance nor on CARLOS DIAZ Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Page 5 of 5 Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty -Five Twenty -Five, Inc. for the right sought to be enforced by plaintiff exists. The so-called Shadow Ordinance enacted by the City of Miami Beach at plaintiffs behest was held invalid in City of Miami Beach v. State ex rel. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp., supra. It also affirmatively appears that there is no possible basis for holding that plaintiff has an easement for light and air, either express or implied, across defendants' property, nor any prescriptive right thereto - even if it be assumed, arguendo, that the common-law right of prescription as to "ancient lights" is in effect in this state. And from what we have said heretofore in this opinion, it is perhaps superfluous to add that we have no desire to dissent from the unanimous holding in this country repudiating the English doctrine of ancient lights. The only other possible basis - and, in fact, the only one insisted upon by plaintiff r9] in its brief filed here, other than its reliance upon the law of private nuisance as expressed in the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas - for the order here reviewed is the alleged violation by defendants of the setback line prescribed by ordinance. The plaintiff argues that the ordinance applicable to the Use District in which plaintiffs and defendants' properties are located, prescribing "a front yard having a depth of not less than one hundred (100) feet, measured from the ocean, * * *," should be and has been interpreted by the City's zoning inspector as requiring a setback of 100 feet from an established ocean bulkhead line. As noted above, the addition to the Fontainebleau is set back only 76 feet 8 inches from the ocean bulkhead line, although it is 130 feet from the ocean measured from the mean high water mark. [*361] While the chancellor did not decide the question of whether the setback ordinance had been violated, it is our view that, even if there was such a violation, the plaintiff would have no cause of action against the defendants based on such violation. The application of simple mathematics to the sun studies filed in evidence by plaintiff [**10] in support of its claim demonstrates conclusively that to move the existing structure back some 23 feet from the ocean would make no appreciable difference in the problem which is the subject of this controversy. Cf. Taliaferro v. Salyer, supra. The construction of the 14-story addition is proceeding under a permit issued by the city pursuant to the mandate of this court in City of Miami Beach v. State ex rel. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp.. supra, which permit authorizes completion of the 14-story addition according to a plan showing a 76-foot setback from the ocean bulkhead line. Moreover, the plaintiffs objection to the distance of the structure from the ocean appears to have been made for the first time in the instant suit, which was filed almost a year after the beginning of the construction of the addition, at a time when it was roughly eight stories in height, representing the expenditure by defendants of several million dollars. In these circumstances, it is our view that the plaintiff has stated no cause of action for equitable relief based on the violation of the ordinance - assuming, arguendo, that there has been a violation. Since it affirmatively appears that the plaintiff ('*11] has not established a cause of action against the defendants by reason of the structure here in question, the order granting a temporary injunction should be and it is hereby reversed with directions to dismiss the complaint. Reversed with directions. HORTON, C.J., and CARROLL, CHAS., J., and CABOT, TED, Associate Judge concur. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk CARLOS DIAZ Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 2 1 ALVEY TREE Consulting Arborist Report 5965 NE 6th Avenue 2/13/2019 i i ALVEY TREE CONSULTING LLC ALEXIS ALVEY - ISA BOARD CERTIFIED MASTER ARBORIST® #NY-5539B Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Tree #5 Common Name - Gumbo limbo (neighbor's) Scientific Name - Bursera simaruba Tree #6 Common Name - Live Oak Scientific Name - Quercus virginiana ALVEY TREE CONSULTING DBH (in) - 9 Height (ft) - 20 Canopy Spread (ft) - 10 Condition - Native? - Fair Yes Disposition - Remain - 5ft radius TPZ Tree #5 is a Gumbo limbo located at the front of the western neighbor's property. This tree is in fair condition - the canopy is on the thin side as it is competing with neighboring vegetation for light. This tree is to remain since it is the neighbor's, and a 5ft radius Tree Protec- tion Zone, measured from the tree trunk to the edge of protective fencing will need to be erected prior to the beginning of construction. Fencing shall be composed of 2x4 wood framing, 4-6 feet tall, and no equipment shall enter this area during the entirety of the construction process. Proper installation of the TPZ shall be ensured by Certified Arborist. Natural grade shall be maintained within the TPZ - no grading or drainage swales are to be constructed within the TPZ. This tree, like all remaining and relocated trees, will need to be verified for viability by Certified Arborist upon project completion. DBH (in) -14 Height (ft) - 25 Canopy Spread (ft) - 20 Condition - Native? - Fair Yes Disposition - Remain - 9ft radius TPZ Tree #6 is a Live Oak located at the front of the property. It is in fair condition with an asymmetrical crown and some sucker growth. It is recommended that this tree be crown cleaned for deadwood and broken branches. This tree is to remain since and a 9ft radius Tree Protection Zone, measured from the tree trunk to the edge of protective fencing will need to be erected prior to the beginning of construction. Fencing shall be composed of 2x4 wood framing, 4-6 feet tall, and no equipment shall enter this area during the entirety of the construction process. Proper installation of the TPZ shall be ensured by Certified Arborist. Natural grade shall be main- tained within the TPZ - no grading or drainage swales are to be constructed within the TPZ. This tree, like all remaining and relocated trees, will need to be verified for viability by Certified Arborist upon project completion. 3 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk r Tree #9 Common Name - Live Oak Scientific Name - Quercus virginiana Tree #10 Common Name - Live Oak Scientific Name - Quercus virginiana DBH (in) - 22.5 Height (ft) - 35 Canopy Spread (ft) - 20 Condition - Native? - Fair Yes Disposition - Remain - 15ft radius TPZ; 11.25 radius CRZ Tree #9 is a Live Oak located at the front of the property. It is in fair condition with an asymmetrical crown and some old pruning cuts that are closing over. It is recom- mended that this tree be crown cleaned for deadwood and broken branches. This tree is to remain and a 15ft radius Tree Protection Zone, measured from the tree trunk to the edge of protective fencing will need to be erected prior to the beginning of construction. Fencing shall be composed of 2x4 wood framing, 4-6 feet tall, and no equipment shall enter this area during the entirety of the construction process. Proper installation of the TPZ shall be ensured by Certified Arborist. Natural grade shall be maintained within the TPZ - no grading or drainage swales are to be constructed within the TPZ. This tree, like all remaining and relocated trees, will need to be verified for viability by Certified Arborist upon project completion. DBH (in) -18 Height (ft) - 30 Canopy Spread (ft) - 25 Condition - Native? - Fair Yes Disposition - Remain - 12ft radius TPZ; 9ft radius CRZ Tree #10 is a Live Oak located at the front of the property. It is in fair condition - there are some large diameter pruning cuts and one main limb has broken. It is recommended that this tree be crown cleaned for deadwood and broken branches. This tree is to remain and a 12ft radius Tree Protection Zone, measured from the tree trunk to the edge of protective fencing will need to be erected prior to the beginning of construction. Fencing shall be composed of 2x4 wood framing, 4-6 feet tall, and no equipment shall enter this area during the entirety of the construction process. Proper installation of the TPZ shall be ensured by Certified Arborist. Natural grade shall be maintained within the TPZ - no grading or drainage swales are to be constructed within the TPZ. This tree, like all remaining and relocated trees, will need to be verified for viability by Certified Arborist upon project completion. ALVEY TREE CONSULTING 5 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Tree #14 Common Name - Christmas Palm Scientific Name - Adonidia merrillii Ie #15 Common Name - Coconut Palm Scientific Name - Cocos nucifera DBH (in) - 4 Height (ft) - 12 Canopy Spread (ft) - 6 Condition - Native? - Fair No Disposition - Remove Tree #14 is a Christmas Palm located towards the front of the property. It is in fair condition with some yellow spotting on the foliage. This tree is in conflict with the proposed driveway and will therefore need to be removed. DBH (in) - 8 Height (ft) - 12 Canopy Spread (ft) - 10 Condition - Native? - Good No Disposition - Remove Tree #15 is a small Coconut Palm located towards the front of the property. It is in good condition with a green canopy. This tree is in conflict with the proposed driveway and will therefore need to be removed. ALVEY TREE CONSULTING 7 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk t L Tree #18 Common Name - Strangler Fig Scientific Name - Ficus aurea Tree #19 Common Name - Slash Pine Scientific Name - Pinus elliottii var. densa DBH (in) - 39 Height (ft) - 35 Canopy Spread (ft) - 45 Condition - Native? - Good Yes Disposition - Remain - 26ft radius TPZ; 19.5ft radius CRZ Tree #18 is a large Strangler Fig located towards the front of the property. It is in good condition with a wide -spreading canopy and large buttress roots. Little deadwood is present. This tree is to remain and a 26ft radius Tree Protection Zone, measured from the tree trunk to the edge of protective fencing will need to be erected prior to the beginning of construction. Fencing shall be composed of 2x4 wood framing, 4-6 feet tall, and no equipment shall enter this area during the entirety of the construction process. Proper installation of the TPZ shall be ensured by Certified Arborist. Natural grade shall be maintained within the TPZ - no grading or drainage swales are to be constructed within the TPZ. This tree, like all remaining and relocated trees, will need to be verified for viability by Certified Arborist upon project completion. Although the driveway is within the TPZ, it is composed of gravel and is porous and will be slightly above -grade, minimizing disturbance to the root system. DBH (in) - 28.5 Height (ft) - 30 Canopy Spread (ft) - 20 Condition - Native? - Fair Yes Disposition - Remain - 19ft radius TPZ; 14.25ft radius CRZ Tree #19 is a Slash Pine located towards the front center of the property. This tree is in fair condition - large deadwood is present and the canopy is thin. Many needles have dropped and there is a layer of pine needles beneath the tree. This tree is to remain and a 19ft radius Tree Protection Zone, measured from the tree trunk to the edge of protective fencing will need to be erected prior to the beginning of construction. Fencing shall be composed of 2x4 wood framing, 4-6 feet tall, and no equipment shall enter this area during the entirety of the construction process. Proper installation of the TPZ shall be ensured by Certified Arborist. Natural grade shall be maintained within the TPZ - no grading or drainage swales are to be constructed within the TPZ. This tree, like all remaining and relocated trees, will need to be verified for viability by Certified Arborist upon project completion. 9 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Tree #22 Common Name - Pongam Scientific Name - Pongamia pinnata Tree #23 Common Name - Queen Palm Scientific Name - Syagrus romanzoffiana • DBH (in) -11 Height (ft) - 25 Canopy Spread (ft) - 20 Condition - Native? - Fair No Disposition - Remove Tree #22 is a Pongam located towards the front of the property. It is in fair condition with a full, dense canopy but poor form, including crossing branches. This tree is in direct conflict with the proposed home and will therefore need to be removed. DBH (in) -5 Height (ft) - 17 Canopy Spread (ft) - 3 Condition - Native? - Poor No Disposition - Remove Tree #23 is a Queen Palm located towards the front of the property. It is in poor condition with a small, thin canopy. It is recommended that this tree be removed. ALVEY TREE CONSULTING 11 f Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Tree #26 Common Name - Canary Island Date Palm Scientific Name - Phoenix canariensis A Tree #27 Common Name - False Tamarind Scientific Name - yr Lysiloma latisiliquum 4 DBH (in) -15.5 Height (ft) - 15 Canopy Spread (ft) - Condition - Native? - Fair No Disposition - 17 Relocate Tree #26 is a Canary Island Date Palm located towards the center of the property. It is in fair condition - some of the frond leaflets have yellowed. This tree is to be relocated. Root pruning shall occur 4-6 weeks prior to digging the palm in order to help stimulate new root pro- duction. Root pruning shall be performed or supervised by Certified Arborist. Roots shall be cleanly cut to a depth of 24 inches. Prior to transplanting, only fronds that are fully dead shall be pruned off and removed. No live foliage is to be pruned. Transplanting shall be performed or supervised by Certified Arborist. Minimum rootball measurement shall be based upon the 2015 Florida Grades & Standards for Nursery Stock and standard nursery practices. When lifting the palm, a nylon sling with adequate padding shall be used and care shall be taken to not injure or compress the trunk. Transplanting shall occur as soon as possible and no more than 24 hours after being dug for relocation. The diameter of the planting hole shall be twice the root ball diameter. The backfill soil shall be irrigated to field capacity the same day that the tree is transplanted and every day subse- quently for the next week DBH (in) -13.5 Height (ft) - 30 Canopy Spread (ft) - 30 Condition - Native? - Good Yes Disposition - Remain - 9ft radius TPZ Tree #27 is a False Tamarind located towards the center of the property. It is in good condition with a full green canopy and little deadwood. This tree is to remain and a 9ft radius Tree Protection Zone, measured from the tree trunk to the edge of protective fencing will need to be erected prior to the beginning of construction. Fencing shall be composed of 2x4 wood framing, 4-6 feet tall, and no equipment shall enter this area during the entirety of the construction process. Proper installation of the TPZ shall be ensured by Certified Arborist. Natural grade shall be maintained within the TPZ - no grading or drainage swales are to be constructed within the TPZ. This tree, like all remaining and relocated trees, will need to be verified for viability by Certified Arborist upon project completion. ALVEY TREE CONSULTING 13 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 1 1 1 1 1 r Tree #30 Common Name - Live Oak Scientific Name - DBH (in) -17 Height (ft) - 35 Canopy Spread (ft) - 35 Disposition - Quercus virginiana Remain - 11ft radius TPZ Tree #31 Common Name Banana Scientific Name - Musa spp. ALVEY TREE CONSULTING Condition - Native? - Good Yes Tree #30 is a Live Oak located on the east side of the property. It is in good condition with a dense green canopy and little deadwood. The canopy is high and spreads 15ft into the property. A crown cleaning to remove dead and broken branches is recommended. This tree is to remain and an lift radius Tree Protec- tion Zone, measured from the tree trunk to the edge of protective fencing will need to be erected prior to the beginning of construction. Fencing shall be composed of 2x4 wood framing, 4-6 feet tall, and no equipment shall enter this area during the entirety of the construction process. Proper installation of the TPZ shall be ensured by Certified Arborist. Natural grade shall be maintained within the TPZ - no grading or drainage swales are to be constructed within the TPZ. This tree, like all remaining and relocated trees, will need to be verified for viability by Certified Arborist upon project completion. DBH (in) - 3 at 4" each Height (ft) - 13 Canopy Spread (ft) - 5 Condition - Native? - Poor No Disposition - Remove Tree #31 is a Banana Plant located on the east side of the property. It is in poor condition with some of the stems dead. It is recommended that this plant be removed. 15 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 1 1 1 1 1 Tree #34 Common Name - Weeping Podocarpus Scientific Name - Podocarpus gracilior Tree #37 Common Name - Coco Plum Scientific Name - Chrysobalanus icaco DBH (in) - 7, 7 Height (ft) - 20 Canopy Spread (ft) - 15 Condition - Native? - Fair No Disposition - Remove Tree #34 is a Weeping Podocarpus located towards the front of the property. It is in fair condition - it is double trunked and has poor form with a dense canopy. This tree is in conflict with the proposed driveway and will therefore need to be removed. DBH (in) - 3 at 11.5 each Height (ft) - 25 Canopy Spread (ft) - 25 Condition - Native? - Poor Yes Disposition - Remove Tree #37 is a large triple Coco Plum located towards the center of the property. It is in poor condition with poor form and a number of large split branches. It is recommended that this plant be removed. ALVEY TREE CONSULTING Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Tree #40 Common Name - Queen Palm Scientific Name - Syagrus romanzoffiana Tree #41 Common Name - Live Oak Scientific Name - Quercus virginiana ALVEY TREE CONSULTING DBH (in) - 6 Height (ft) - 17 Canopy Spread (ft) - 10 Condition - Native? - Poor No Disposition - Remove Tree #40 is a Queen Palm located towards the western side of the property. It is in poor condition with a thin canopy and brown lower fronds. It is recommended that this tree be removed. DBH (in) -13 Height (ft) - 30 Canopy Spread (ft) - 20 Condition - Native? - Fair Yes Disposition - Remain - 8.5ft radius TPZ Tree #41 is a Live Oak located towards the western side of the property. It is in fair condition and has poor form with included bark. This tree is to remain and an 8.5ft radius Tree Protection Zone, measured from the tree trunk to the edge of protective fencing will need to be erected prior to the beginning of construction. Fencing shall be composed of 2x4 wood framing, 4-6 feet tall, and no equipment shall enter this area during the entirety of the construction process. Proper installa- tion of the TPZ shall be ensured by Certified Arborist. Natural grade shall be maintained within the TPZ - no grading or drainage swales are to be constructed within the TPZ. This tree, like all remaining and relocated trees, will need to be verified for viability by Certified Arborist upon project completion. 19 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Tree #44 Common Name - Areca Palm Scientific Name - Condition - Native? - Fair No Disposition - Dypsis lutescens Remain - 2.5ft radius TPZ Tree #45 Common Name - Areca Palm Scientific Name - Dypsis lutescens DBH (in) -4" multi Height (ft) - 15 Canopy Spread (ft) - 10 Tree #44 is an Areca Palm cluster located on the western side of the property. It is in fair condition with some brown foliage. This tree is to remain and a 2.5ft radius Tree Protection Zone, measured from the tree trunk to the edge of protective fencing will need to be erected prior to the beginning of construction. Fencing shall be composed of 2x4 wood framing, 4-6 feet tall, and no equipment shall enter this area during the entirety of the construction process. Proper installation of the TPZ shall be ensured by Certified Arborist. Natural grade shall be maintained within the TPZ - no grading or drainage swales are to be constructed within the TPZ. This tree, like all remaining and relocated trees, will need to be verified for viability by Certified Arborist upon project completion. DBH (in) - 4" multi Height (ft) - 13 Canopy Spread (ft) - 10 Condition - Native? - Fair No Disposition - Remain - 2.5ft radius TPZ Tree #45 is an Areca Palm cluster located on the western side of the property. It is in fair condition with some brown foliage. This tree is to remain and a 2.5ft radius Tree Protection Zone, measured from the tree trunk to the edge of protective fencing will need to be erected prior to the beginning of construction. Fencing shall be composed of 2x4 wood framing, 4-6 feet tall, and no equipment shall enter this area during the entirety of the construction process. Proper installation of the TPZ shall be ensured by Certified Arborist. Natural grade shall be maintained within the TPZ - no grading or drainage swales are to be constructed within the TPZ. This tree, like all remaining and relocated trees, will need to be verified for viability by Certified Arborist upon project completion. 21 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Tree #48 Common Name - Royal Palm Scientific Name - Roystonea regia Tree #49 Common Name - Gumbo limbo Scientific Name - Bursera simaruba DBH (in) - 6 Height (ft) - 13 Canopy Spread (ft) - 15 Condition - Native? - Poor Yes Disposition - Remove Tree #48 is a small Royal Palm located on the western side of the property. It is in poor condition with a thin canopy of frizzled foliage. It is recommended that this tree be removed. DBH (in) -14 Height (ft) - 25 Canopy Spread (ft) - 15 Condition - Native? - Fair Yes Disposition - Remain - 9ft radius TPZ Tree #49 is a Gumbo limbo located towards the western side of the property. It is in fair condition - it has poor form and a cavity with decay that has nearly closed over. This tree is to remain and a 9ft radius Tree Protection Zone, measured from the tree trunk to the edge of protective fencing will need to be erected prior to the beginning of construction. Fencing shall be composed of 2x4 wood framing, 4-6 feet tall, and no equipment shall enter this area during the entirety of the construction process. Proper installation of the TPZ shall be ensured by Certified Arborist. Natural grade shall be maintained within the TPZ - no grading or drainage swales are to be constructed within the TPZ. This tree, like all remaining and relocated trees, will need to be verified for viability by Certified Arborist upon project completion. ALVEY TREE CONSULTING 23 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Tree #52 Common Name - Norfolk Island Pine Scientific Name - Araucaria heterophylla Tree #53 Common Name - Queen Palm Scientific Name - Syagrus romanzoffiana DBH (in) -16 Height (ft) - 30 Canopy Spread (ft) - 15 Condition - Native? - Fair No Disposition - Remove Tree #52 is a Norfolk Island Pine located towards the western side of the property. It is in fair condition with a second smaller trunk emanating from the base. This tree has not been incorporated into the landscape plan and will therefore need to be removed. DBH (in) - 6 Height (ft) - 10 Canopy Spread (ft) - 6 Condition - Native? - Fair No Disposition - Remove Tree #53 is a Queen Palm located on the western side of the property. It is in fair condition with a thin canopy. This tree has not been incorporated into the landscape plan and will therefore be removed. ALVEY TREE CONSULTING 25 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Tree #56 Common Name - Mango Scientific Name - Mangifera indica Tree #57 Common Name - Areca Palm Scientific Name - DBH (in) - 20 Height (ft) - 30 Canopy Spread (ft) - 20 Condition - Native? - Hazardous No Disposition - Remove Tree #56 is a Mango located towards the western side of the property. It is in poor condition - half of the tree is dead with extensive decay. 0ne of the main buttress roots has lifted and the tree is now leaning. This tree will need to be removed. DBH (in) -4" multi Height (ft) - 12 Canopy Spread (ft) - 8 Condition - Native? - Good No Disposition - Dypsis lutescens Remain - 2.5ft radius TPZ Tree #57 is an Areca Palm located on the western side of the property. It is in good condition with a full green canopy. This tree is to remain and a 2.5ft radius Tree Protection Zone, measured from the tree trunk to the edge of protective fencing will need to be erected prior to the beginning of con- struction. Fencing shall be composed of 2x4 wood framing, 4-6 feet tall, and no equipment shall enter this area during the entirety of the construction process. Proper installation of the TPZ shall be ensured by Certified Arborist. Natural grade shall be maintained within the TPZ - no grading or drainage swales are to be constructed within the TPZ. This tree, like all remaining and relocated trees, will need to be verified for viability by Certified Arborist upon project completion. ALVEY TREE CONSULTING 27 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Tree #60 Common Name Firebush Scientific Name Hamelia patens Tree #61 Common Name - Areca Palm Scientific Name - Dypsis lutescens DBH (in) - 4.5 Height (ft) - 12 Canopy Spread (ft) - 12 Condition - Native? - Fair Yes Disposition - Remove Tree #60 is a Firebush shrub located towards the western side of the property. It is in fair condition with leaf spot on the foliage. This plant has not been incorporated into the landscape plan and will therefore be removed. DBH (in) - 4" multi Height (ft) - 12 Canopy Spread (ft) - 10 Condition - Native? - Good No Disposition - Remain - 2.5ft radius TPZ Tree #61 is an Areca Palm located on the western side of the property. It is in good condition with a full green canopy. This tree is to remain and a 2.5ft radius Tree Protection Zone, measured from the tree trunk to the edge of protective fencing will need to be erected prior to the beginning of con- struction. Fencing shall be composed of 2x4 wood framing, 4-6 feet tall, and no equipment shall enter this area during the entirety of the construction process. Proper installation of the TPZ shall be ensured by Certified Arborist. Natural grade shall be maintained within the TPZ - no grading or drainage swales are to be constructed within the TPZ. This tree, like all remaining and relocated trees, will need to be verified for viability by Certified Arborist upon project completion. ALVEY TREE CONSULTING 29 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk c 1 Tree #64 Common Name - Orange Geiger Scientific Name - Cordia sebestena II -Tree #65 Common Name Areca Palm Scientific Name Dypsis lutescens DBH (in) - 5 Height (ft) - 15 Canopy Spread (ft) - 7 Condition - Native? - Poor Yes Disposition - Remove Tree #64 is an Orange Geiger located at the center of the property. This tree is in poor condition with a relatively large wound to the trunk. It is recommended that this tree be removed. DBH (in) - 4" multi Height (ft) - 15 Canopy Spread (ft) - 10 Condition - Native? - Fair No Disposition - Relocate Tree #65 is an Areca Palm located at the center of the property. It is in fair condition with some yellowing of the fronds. This tree is to be relocated. Root pruning shall occur 4-6 weeks prior to digging the palm in order to help stimulate new root production. Root pruning shall be performed or supervised by Certified Arborist. Roots shall be cleanly cut to a depth of 24 inches. Prior to transplanting, only fronds that are fully dead shall be pruned off and removed. No live foliage is to be pruned. Transplanting shall be performed or super- vised by Certified Arborist. Minimum rootball measurement shall be based upon the 2015 Florida Grades & Standards for Nursery Stock and standard nursery practices. When lifting the palm, a nylon sling with adequate padding shall be used and care shall be taken to not injure or compress the trunk. Transplanting shall occur as soon as possible and no more than 24 hours after being dug for relocation. The diameter of the planting hole shall be twice the root ball diameter. The backfill soil shall be irrigated to field capacity the same day that the tree is transplanted and every day subsequently for the next week. ALVEY TREE 31 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Tree #68 Common Name - Live Oak Scientific Name - Quercus virginiana Tree #69 Common Name - Alexander Palm Scientific Name - Ptychosperma elegans DBH (in) - 6 Height (ft) - 25 Canopy Spread (ft) - 15 Condition - Native? - Fair Yes Disposition - Remain - 5ft radius TPZ Tree #68 is a Live Oak located towards the rear of the property. It is in fair condition with a green canopy. This tree is to remain and a 5ft radius Tree Protection Zone, measured from the tree trunk to the edge of protective fencing will need to be erected prior to the beginning of construction. Fencing shall be composed of 2x4 wood framing, 4-6 feet tall, and no equipment shall enter this area during the entirety of the construction process. Proper installation of the TPZ shall be ensured by Certified Arborist. Natural grade shall be maintained within the TPZ - no grading or drainage swales are to be constructed within the TPZ. This tree, like all remaining and relocated trees, will need to be verified for viability by Certified Arborist upon project completion. DBH (in) - 3 Height (ft) - 15 Canopy Spread (ft) - 6 Condition - Native? - Fair No Disposition - Relocate Tree #69 is an Alexander Palm located towards the rear of the property. It is in fair condition with a green canopy and no major trunk injuries. This tree is to be relocated. Root pruning shall occur 4-6 weeks prior to digging the palm in order to help stimulate new root production. Root pruning shall be performed or supervised by Certified Arborist. Roots shall be cleanly cut to a depth of 24 inches. Prior to transplant- ing, only fronds that are fully dead shall be pruned off and removed. No live foliage is to be pruned. Transplanting shall be performed or supervised by Certified Arborist. Minimum rootball measurement shall be based upon the 2015 Florida Grades & Standards for Nursery Stock and standard nursery practices. When lifting the palm, a nylon sling with adequate padding shall be used and care shall be taken to not injure or compress the trunk. Transplanting shall occur as soon as possible and no more than 24 hours after being dug for relo- cation. The diameter of the planting hole shall be twice the root ball diameter. The backfill soil shall be irrigated to field capacity the same day that the tree is transplanted and every day subsequently for the next week. ALVEY TREE CONSULINC 33 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Tree #72 Common Name - Live Oak Scientific Name - Quercus virginiana Tree #73 Common Name - Avocado Scientific Name - Persea americana DBH (in) - 5 Height (ft) - 15 Canopy Spread (ft) - 10 Condition - Native? - Fair Yes Disposition - Remove Tree #72 is a Live Oak located towards the rear of the property. It is in fair condition with an asymmetrical crown as it is competing for light with nearby vegetation. This tree has not been incorporated into the landscape plan and will therefore be removed. DBH (in) - 21 Height (ft) - 20 Canopy Spread (ft) - 20 Condition - Native? - Poor No Disposition - Remove Tree #73 is an Avocado located towards the rear of the property. It is in poor condition - the canopy consists of mostly poorly attached shoot growth. A large diameter cut with decay is present. There is also a large cavity in the main trunk with decay (circled in red). This tree will need to be removed. ALVEY TREE CONSULTING Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Tree #76 Common Name Bamboo Scientific Name Bambusa spp. Common Name - Coconut Palm Scientific Name - Cocos nucifera DBH (in) - 2" multi Height (ft) - 15 Canopy Spread (ft) - 15 Condition - Native? - Fair No Disposition - Remain Tree #76 is a cluster of Bamboo located at the rear of the property. It is in fair condition. This plant is to remain. No tree protection is needed as it is not a tree. DBH (in) - Height (ft) - 30 Canopy Spread (ft) - 20 Condition - Native? - Good No Disposition - Relocate Tree #77 is a Coconut Palm located at the rear of the property. It is in good condition with a full, dense green canopy and no major trunk injuries observed. This tree is to be relocated. Root pruning shall occur 4-6 weeks prior to digging the palm in order to help stimulate new root production. Root pruning shall be performed or supervised by Certified Arborist. Roots shall be cleanly cut to a depth of 24 inches. Prior to trans- planting, only fronds that are fully dead shall be pruned off and removed. No live foliage is to be pruned. Transplant- ing shall be performed or supervised by Certified Arborist. Minimum rootball measurement shall be based upon the 2015 Florida Grades & Standards for Nursery Stock and standard nursery practices. When lifting the palm, a nylon sling with adequate padding shall be used and care shall be taken to not injure or compress the trunk. Transplanting shall occur as soon as possible and no more than 24 hours after being dug for relocation. The diameter of the planting hole shall be twice the root ball diameter. The backfill soil shall be irrigated to field capacity the same day that the tree is trans- planted and every day subsequently for the next week. 37 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Tree #80 Common Name - Royal Palm Scientific Name - Roystonea regia Tree #81 Common Name - Surinam Cherry Scientific Name - Eugenia uniflora DBH (in) -15 Height (ft) - 15 Canopy Spread (ft) - 0 Condition - Native? - Dead Yes Disposition - Remove Tree #80 is a dead Royal Palm located at the rear of the property. This tree will need to be removed. DBH (in) - 5 Height (ft) - 12 Canopy Spread (ft) - 12 Condition - Native? - Fair Invasive Disposition - Remove Tree #81 is a Surinam Cherry located at the rear of the property next to the chainlink fence. Overhead wires are above. This tree is in fair condition with a dense canopy. This species is invasive and will therefore need to be removed. ALVEY TREE CONSULTING 39 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Trees #84-86 Common Name - Travelers Palm Scientific Name - Ravenala madagascariensis Tree #87 Common Name Areca Palm Scientific Name Dypsis lutescens DBH (in) -11, 9, 6 Height (ft) - 30 Canopy Spread (ft) - 25 Condition - Native? - Fair No Disposition - Relocate Trees #84-86 are a cluster of Travelers Palms. They are in fair condition with some lower dead fronds and some fronds tattered. This tree is to be relocated. Root pruning shall occur 4-6 weeks prior to digging the palm in order to help stimulate new root production. Root pruning shall be performed or supervised by Certified Arborist. Roots shall be cleanly cut to a depth of 24 inches. Prior to trans- planting, only fronds that are fully dead shall be pruned off and removed. No live foliage is to be pruned. Trans- planting shall be performed or supervised by Certified Arborist. Minimum rootball measurement shall be based upon the 2015 Florida Grades & Standards for Nursery Stock and standard nursery practices. When lifting the palm, a nylon sling with adequate padding shall be used and care shall be taken to not injure or compress the trunk. Transplanting shall occur as soon as possible and no more than 24 hours after being dug for relocation. The diameter of the planting hole shall be twice the root ball diameter. The backfill soil shall be irrigated to field capacity the same day that the tree is transplanted and every day subsequently for the next week. DBH (in) - 4" multi Height (ft) - 15 Canopy Spread (ft) - 10 Condition - Native? - Fair No Disposition - Relocate Tree #87 is an Areca Palm located on the eastern side of the property. It is in fair condition with some foliage browning. This tree is to be relocated. Root pruning shall occur 4-6 weeks prior to digging the palm in order to help stimulate new root production. Root pruning shall be performed or supervised by Certified Arborist. Roots shall be cleanly cut to a depth of 24 inches. Prior to transplanting, only fronds that are fully dead shall be pruned off and removed. No live foliage is to be pruned. Transplanting shall be performed or super- vised by Certified Arborist. Minimum rootball measurement shall be based upon the 2015 Florida Grades & Standards for Nursery Stock and standard nursery practices. When lifting the palm, a nylon sling with adequate padding shall be used and care shall be taken to not injure or compress the trunk. Transplanting shall occur as soon as possible and no more than 24 hours after being dug for relocation. The diameter of the planting hole shall be twice the root ball diameter. The backfill soil shall be irrigated to field capacity the same day that the tree is transplanted and every day subsequently for the next week. ALVEY TREE CONSULTING 41 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Tree #90 Common Name - Areca Palm Scientific Name - Dypsis lutescens DBH (in) - 4" multi Height (ft) - 18 Canopy Spread (ft) - 10 Condition - Native? - Fair No Disposition - Relocate Tree #90 is an Areca Palm located on the eastern side of the property. It is in fair condition with some foliage browning. This tree is to be relocated. Root pruning shall occur 4-6 weeks prior to digging the palm in order to help stimulate new root production. Root pruning shall be performed or supervised by Certified Arborist. Roots shall be cleanly cut to a depth of 24 inches. Prior to trans- planting, only fronds that are fully dead shall be pruned off and removed. No live foliage is to be pruned. Trans- planting shall be performed or supervised by Certified Arborist. Minimum rootball measurement shall be based upon the 2015 Florida Grades & Standards for Nursery Stock and standard nursery practices. When lifting the palm, a nylon sling with adequate padding shall be used and care shall be taken to not injure or compress the trunk. Transplanting shall occur as soon as possible and no more than 24 hours after being dug for relocation. The diameter of the planting hole shall be twice the root ball diameter. The backfill soil shall be irrigated to field capacity the same day that the tree is transplanted and every day subsequently for the next week. ALVEY TREE CONSULTING 43 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk r A v Notes - Tree and Palm Relocation (Contd.) 21. Trees and palms shall be planted so that the top of the rootball is flush with the existing grade. Ensure that deep planting does not occur. The tree and palm shall be centrally positioned in the planting hole and set straight, plumb or normal to the growth pattern prior to transplanting. 22. Transplanted trees and palms shall be backfield with a uniform mix of 25% fully decomposed compost and 75% existing site soil cleaned free of weeds and rocks. 23. Trees and palms shall be watered to eliminate air pockets in the backfill mix prior to mulching. 24. A 4" soil berm shall be created around the edge of the planting hole to hold water, or as per the Landscape Archi- tect's Planting Details. 25. Install tree and palm bracing as per the Landscape Architect's Planting Details, to ensure stability of trees and palms. 26. After transplanting trees and palms, the Landscape Contractor shall be responsible for watering to maintain soil moisture during the guarantee period. The following schedule is suggested: First month - Daily; Second month - 3 times per week; Third and Fourth month - 2 times per week; Last Eight months - 1 time per week. For trees over 4" in caliper at the time of planting, the suggested schedule is: First 6 weeks - Daily; from 1.5 months to 6 months - 3 times per week, last 6 months 1 time per week. ALVEY TREE CONSULTING 45 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 3 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk City of Miami Planning Department k, �' Historic Preservation Office ANALYSIS FOR A SPECIAL CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICANT: Andrew Aquart FILE ID: PZ-19-2005 PROJECT ADDRESS:5965 NE 6 Ave ZIP: 33137 NET OFFICE: Upper Eastside HEARING DATE: 4/2/2019 COMMISSION DISTRICT: District 2 (Ken Russell) STATUS: Contributing TDRs: No A. GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Pursuant to Section 23-6.2(b)(4) of the City Code of Ordinances, as amended, the Applicant is requesting a Special Certificate of Appropriateness to allow for the new construction of a single-family, residential structure located on a parcel zoned T3-R "Sub -Urban Transect Zone". The subject property is located within the Morningside Historic District, Bayshore Subdivision and the Upper Eastside Net Area. The site is approximately the third parcel located on the Southeast quadrant of NE 60th Street, NE 6th Avenue, and Biscayne Boulevard. (Complete legal description is on file with Hearing Boards) Folio: 0132180340080 Lot Size: Approximately 15,321 sq. ft. B. BACKGROUND: On January 22nd, 1924, the Clerk of the Circuit Court, filed the Bayshore Subdivision, Revised, in Section 18, Township 53, Range 42 in the City of Miami establishing lot 8 and 9 of Block 6 also known as 5965 Northeast 6th Avenue. C. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The subject property is a vacant lot located within the Morningside 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. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk BM E. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: ZONING Subject Property T3-R Sub -Urban Transect Zone Restricted (Morningside Historic District) Surrounding Properties NORTH: T3-R; Single Family Transect Zone (Morningside Historic District) SOUTH: T3-R; Single Family Transect Zone (Morningside Historic District) EAST: T3-R; Single Family Transect Zone (Morningside Historic District) WEST: T4-0: General Urban Transect Zone (MiMo/BiBo Historic District) F. ANALYSIS: FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION Single Family Residential Maximum of 9 D.U. per acre Single Family Residential Maximum of 9 D.U. per acre Single Family Residential Maximum of 9 D.U. per acre Single Family Residential Maximum of 9 D.U. per acre Medium Density, Restricted Commercial Maximum of 36 D.U. per acre The following is a review of the request pursuant to 23-6.2(b)(4) of the City Code of Ordinances, the Preservation Office Historic Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Analysis: The existing vacant parcel is located at NE 6th Avenue in the Morningside Historic District. The applicant is requesting the construction of a new single-family residence. The applicant has submitted plans for a two-story single-family residence of modern/contemporary design. The lot is currently a heavily wooded vacant lot. The proposed residence will face the Southwest with one and two-story building segments connected by elevated walkways and hallways. The front of the structure will contain a two- story garage connected to a single -story living space connected by a hallway to a two-story living space in the rear. Another hallway connects this space to a further living space that runs parallel to the front property line. The position of the structure creates a courtyard/garden in the center of the lot. The separation of the construction spaces is meant to reduce the impact of the new construction on the neighborhood's character and emphasize the green space. All spaces overlook the central green space through fixed glass windows. The front building segment at the southernmost corner of the property and the rear building segment to the north have glass facades that lead to porches with tropical wood shutters. The inclusion of porches throughout the property pays homage to the front porches found on Miami's historic properties. Inclusion of wood shutters along the walkways and porches camouflages the Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 1 1 0 1 To come into compliance with the facade covered parking requirements the Applicant should add a semi -permeable screen wall facing the street along the front covered walkway. Plans depict a narrow pool to the rear of the property and not visible from the right-of-way. Findings: Consistent G. NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES: Code Compliance No Objection Building Required NET No Objection Environmental Resources Approval with conditions pursuant to Attachment "A" Art in Public Places No Objection Zoning No Objection H. CONCLUSION: The application has demonstrated compliance with Chapter 23 entitled "Historic Preservation" of the City of Miami Code of Ordinances and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Staff finds the request complies with all applicable criteria and finds that the request for a Special Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations does not adversely affect the historic, architectural, or aesthetic character of the subject structure or the aesthetic interest or value of the historic district subject to the following conditions as stipulated in subjection "I" entitled "Recommendation" as listed below. I. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Section 23-6.2(b)(4) of the City of Miami Code of Ordinances, as amended, and the Secretary of Interior Standards, the Preservation Office recommends Approval with Conditions of the Special Certificate of Appropriateness. 1. The site shall be developed pursuant to the plans as prepared by Brillhart Architecture, consisting of eighty-six (86) sheets submitted under PZ-19-2005. The plans are deemed as being incorporated by reference herein. 2. All glass shall be clear with the option of Low-E. 3. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the_Miami 21 Code, Chapter 17 and Chapter 23 of the City of Miami Code of Ordinances, as amended. 4. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of all applicable departments/agencies as part of the City of Miami building permit submittal process. 5. This Resolution shall be included in the master permit set. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Attachment "A" Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 4 1 1 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 it 15 1 1 1 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IN RE: MIAMI HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD HEPB ITEM: 5 FILE ID: 5659 HEPB BOARD MEETING APRIL 2, 2019 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 1 .211 1 1 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Thereupon:) THE CLERK: The next item is HEP Item No. 5, File ID 5659, a resolution of the Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board pursuant to Section 23-6.24 of the city code of ordinances approving or denying a special certificate of appropriateness for the new construction of a two-story, single-family structure to a noncontributing property located at approximately 5965 Northeast 6th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33137 within the Morningside Historic District, further incorporating the findings in the staff analysis attached herein as Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: Is the applicant present or the applicant's attorney? Please give your name and address for the record. MR. STOHNER: Theodore Stohner, 118 Northwest 44th Street, Miami 331267. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: Thank you, and we'll start with the staff report. MS. SCZECHOWICZ: Wendy Sczechowicz, historic preservation planner. Request: U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 1 1 1 t t 1 1 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 two-story building segments connected by elevated walkways and hallways. The front of the structure will contain a two-story garage connected to a single -story living space connected by a hallway to a two-story living space in the rear. Another hallway connects the space to further living space that runs parallel to the front property line. The position of the structure creates a courtyard garden in the center of the lot. The separation of the construction spaces is meant to reduce the impact of the new construction on the neighborhood's character and emphasize the green space. All spaces overlook the central green space through fixed glass windows. The front building segment at the southern most corner of the property and the rear building segment to the north have glass facades that lead to porches with tropical wood shutters. The inclusion of porches throughout the property pays homage to the front porches found on Miami's U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 1 1 1 1 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Environmental resources staff has expressed concern for the critical root zone of nearby trees. They have made the following recommendation and/or comments: No. 1, foundation plan will be necessary to view any impacts to critical root zones. No. 2, certified arborists should be on site to monitor construction activities. No. 2, tree protection plan is required for the protection of all trees on site. Tree protection should be depicted into scale around existing trees both on site and in the right-of-way. Dimension should be determined by a certified arborist when applicable to ANSI-A300 Part 5, managing trees during construction standards. Detail fencing material should be in accordance with the Miami -Dade County landscape manual, section Landscape Details, Tree Protection, and Support, and superimposed on the plans set for final approval. Section 17-7, City of Miami, tree protection depiction on site should be depicted in accordance with the Miami -Dade U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk i i i i 1 1 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would create too much of a visual distraction from the street. Zoning staff at the City of Miami has reviewed the plans and have identified an issue with regards to compliance of Article 5, Section 5.3.4(c) of Miami 21 zoning code, covered parking and garages and at least 50 percent of required parking shall be located within the second and third layers as shown in Article 4, Table 8 in T3R and T3L, the maximum 30 percent of the width of the facade may be covered parking. To come into compliance with the facade covered parking requirements, the applicant should add a semipermeable screen wall facing the street along the front covered walkway. Plans depict a narrow pool to the rear of the property and not visible from the right-of-way. Pursuant to Section 23-6.2(b)(4) of the City of Miami Code of Ordinances as amended and a Secretary of Interior standards, the preservation office recommends approval with conditions of a U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 1 1 1 1 1 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 requirements." No. 7, the applicant shall comply with the conditions as stipulated in the memo from environmental resources attached hereto as Attachment A entitled "Interoffice Memorandum." Please know that staff from environmental resources is present to discuss their concerns on Tree No. 19. Finally, staff received an email of objection from the neighbor at 5955 Northeast 6th Avenue which I will be providing. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: Is that it? Okay. Yes, sir. MR. STOHNER: May I -- CHAIRMAN HOPPER: You okay? MR. STOHNER: May I begin? CHAIRMAN HOPPER: Yes. MR. STOHNER: This used to be my family home. There were two other land plots for sale in Morningside. I bought this one because of the trees. CITY ATTY: Okay. Please I'm sorry, please start with your name and U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 1 t Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 garden. We placed landscape at the heart of this project, and if you allow us, my family will live in that green space so beloved by the developer, Morningside, and the architecture will reseed quietly into the trees. I'm grateful for the positive recommendation of historical preservation, and I accept all of their comments. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: That's it? MR. STOHNER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: Okay. Thank you. Anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item, please come forward and give your name and address for the record. MR. CRUZ: Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. This house might be fine in a modern district, but this is a historic district. I've handed out a section of Miami city code, Chapter 23 and the highlighted portions about new construction. The proposed work shall not adversely affect the historic architectural all or aesthetic character, relationship, and congruity between the neighboring Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 1 1 1 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 other houses on this street have a fence except one which was grandfathered in from 1984, but this plan proposes a six-foot fence across the front. Materials: The plan proposes wood siding and exposed steel beams. There are none of these in the district. They're not allowed under the original deed restrictions. These materials are incongruous. The rhythm pattern of window and door openings: There is no visible front door. It doesn't face the street. There are no visible windows because of wooden shutters. Even if the shutters are open, they're floor -to -ceiling windows with no muttons, which are incongruous. In closing, this house might be fine in a modern district, but this is an historic district. It is incongruous, and therefore in violation of the city code. Please deny this application. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: Anybody else? MS. MERRILL: Hi. My name is Brenda Merrill. I live at 5929 Northeast 6th Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Northeast 6th Avenue, immediately south of the subject project. My wife and I moved from Kendall 19 years ago because we liked the period styling of the architecture, the curving streets, the mature tree canopy, the general level of upkeep and apparent pride of ownership that the neighborhood presented. We live in a contributing historic home in the historic district and do our best to maintain its authenticity. We have replaced the barrel roof and restuccoed the exterior at significant expense in order to maintain the original appearance. We also replaced the previously replaced awning windows with casement style that honors the original street -- steel casement windows that remain on the front facade. My wife is strenuously opposed to the proposed style and layout. She's unable to be at this meeting because she's attending to her ailing mother in Detroit. I believe that the letter that you got is from her. My comments on the proposed subject U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 1 e 1 1 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 central positioning of the majority of Morningside homes. The massing is also disjointed with two-story portions at opposite corners. The massing will result in a structure nearly 100 feet long along the southern property line with two-story, dark gray, nearly blank aspect facing the adjacent backyard pool area. There's a photo for that. The front setback of all the homes on Northeast 6th Avenue is 30 feet or greater. The proposed front setback is 20 feet, which is 15 feet ahead of the adjacent house to the south and at least 10 feet ahead of the house to the north. The setback should not be significantly less than the house next door as previously noted. Few, if any, of the homes in the Morningside neighborhood have wood cladding as proposed for this project. The historic guidelines call for materials used in the surrounding neighborhood, so this would be noncompliant. U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Okay. I was going to go to some sites -- well, each of the preceding issues is significant, when -- but when combined, they show a lack of forethought in this first COA attempt and indicate a thoughtful redesign is needed. I've included a couple of sites, one which Elvis has already stated, and in summary, the proposed home is a foliage considerate design that is unfortunately incompatible with the Morningside Historic District. It needs to be modified so as to be compliment rather than diminish the district's ambiance and its existing homes. The design fails to consider the surrounding structures and adjacent activity areas. The design celebrates the existing flora, but shuns the adjoining homes and neighborhood. While 8 feet is the maximum fence height allowed, this design will effectively place a much higher wall over 100 feet in length along only seven feet away from the southern property line. I would like you to consider these questions. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on _ 07/25/2019 , City Clerk U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 23 2 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 front facade. Our horizontal shutters are an homage to that project. The orientation which is so controversial to my would-be neighbors has been predicated by our desire to save as many trees as possible on this site, which is what is beautiful about this site. Were we to build a conventional, front -facing, single-family home on this Morningside, it would be a house. It would result in of far more trees. Our choice of orientation, I tried to explain in my opening double lot in much larger the destruction as remarks, was derived from the placement of the trees and keeping as many of them as possible. We have tried to be as sensitive as we could possibly be in designing this project, both with taking inspiration from the neighborhood but also from protecting what is beautiful about this site and what the original developer's plan intended for Morningside, that being a neighborhood of abundant green space. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: Thank you. I will U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07(25/2019 , City Clerk Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 25 2 3 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 oriented and based, not to the exclusion of architecture, but it is -- it -- it is -- you've repeatedly said it's differential to the vegetation and to the trees which are so wonderful. MR. STOHNER: I -- I would say that we love the architecture that's been produced. I -- MS. LEWIS: I didn't say that you didn't like the architecture. I'm sorry, go ahead. MR. STOHNER: I think we've given equal weight to both. MS. LEWIS: Okay. MR. STOHNER: I think that on this particular site, which is Park Lake, that that is appropriate. Perhaps on a more conventional site, you would think architecture first and landscape second. MS. LEWIS: I -- I understand. MR. STOHNER: May I introduce Jacob Brillhart, the architect who -- CHAIRMAN HOPPER: I'm sorry, unless -- not unless there's a specific question from a board member, because the U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/2512019 , City Clerk 1 1 1 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 counterbalance or at least in -- in -- in -- in past hearings that has been a counterbalance to negative comments from other property owners. But again, you don't have to do anything. So if I can distill it, we've heard opposition, because you don't have a street -forward orientation. Why not? Or are they incorrect or if they're correct, why not? MR. STOHNER: It's because of the placement of the trees. Were we to knock down the trees, we could have a forward -facing orientation, but if you look at the first picture a top the screen there, that would be, in my opinion, to ruin the site. We walked the site after I purchased the land plot, and it became clear that the house needed to be along the south side of the land plot, otherwise we would have to lose great quantities of trees, and that is why the garage faces front, the guest bedroom faces front, it just so happens that the front door faces north. U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 1 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 neighborhood association two weeks ago, but we -- we haven't heard anything from them. MS. LEWIS: Okay. Fine. Go ahead, Mr. Architect, why can't the front door face 6th Avenue? MR. BRILLHART: Jacob Brillhart, Brillhart Architecture. I live at 937 Northwest North River Drive in Spring Garden, another historic district where we built our own home, so I'm totally listening to everybody here. So what was your question? MS. LEWIS: Why can't the front door face 6th Avenue? MR. BRILLHART: Well, the first -- to answer that directly is we wanted the front -- the front door does face the street. The front door -- the front door -- the front door, the actual door does not, but the front door architecturally, in my eyes, faces the street, which is the open -- it's the bridge the courtyard. And the reason why you can't put the front door right in the middle of the lot U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 center like we would on a lot of the other houses on the street. We had to either make the decision, do we put the house on the left where the garage is or do we put the house on the right. That decision was made by the fact that we thought we can tear down a bunch of trees on the left or fewer on the right. It was that simple. So the other decision we made was to not -- and to one of the comments that was made is the house is long and skinny. It is, but we took the chance to break the house into two buildings, spanned by a little bridge so you don't get a long obstructive wall between the neighboring home. We also developed a strategy where the front building is lower that's closer to the street and the back building is two stories, therefore, when you're on the street, the building seems to be smaller, which is it, one story, all the way back to about 75 feet, which then the building goes to two stories, which we felt would keep the scale of Morningside. U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that. MR. BRILLHART: If you look on -- in terms of the front door comment, I want to circle back to that comment. If you look on packet Page 426, it says, "Prominent Entry, the Incorporation of a Front Porch," and you can see there's many homes in Morningside with sort of a different approach to a front entry. There's the courtyard entry, which is the open court entry that you see there. There's the screened entry court, which is the second one. And what we're trying to do as architects, we're trying to establish some conditions that exist in the neighborhood, front porches, entry courts, incredible landscape, breaking up the building so it doesn't appear to be as big. Our goal was -- we're allowed to do almost, I think it was 12,000 square feet of house on this lot. We're proffering up four -- less than four. So our idea was to keep it smaller than your typical house getting built in these neighborhoods. Those were the elements that we were U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 1 t Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and 40s are frequently Art Deco. Morningside also features a large number of masonry vernacular buildings that frequently utilize elements of several styles, unusual Tudor revival style house. So there I'm talking about the eclecticism, that's directly from the Morningside document itself, and it is within this historical framework we envision this house. We believe that without copying or re -- reenacting or recreating a historic style, the house respects the spirit and direction of the architectural design in which the neighborhood was conceived, especially in terms of size, the square footage of the house falls within all the old houses, in terms of scale, the height of the house, the height isn't even the maximum height we could build. Everyone's doing 10, 12 foot ceilings. We're not doing that. The setbacks, the setbacks, of course, if we could -- if we could move the building back, we would, but again, I would U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we brought expertise and care to the neighborhood, and it's raised the value of everyone's property. It hasn't hurt it. That's all. So I know that's a long answer to why do you have the front door where you have it, but -- CHAIRMAN HOPPER: I'm looking for a shorter answer. MR. BRILLHART: Okay. I promise. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: It's not clear to me looking at the Landscape Plan L-102. MR. BRILLHART: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: How does one get to the front door if one is coming from the sidewalk? MR. BRILLHART: Okay. So if you go to sheet -- well, on L-103. MS. LEWIS: 2. MR. BRILLHART: L-103, do you have that drawing? MS. LEWIS: Here. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: Yes. MR. BRILLHART: You would either walk right in the driveway or through a man gate, which would be right next to the U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 error. That is my fault. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: Thank you for that short answer. MR. BRILLHART: Yeah, sorry. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: Any other? MR. CAMPBELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: (Inaudible), go ahead. MR. CAMPBELL: There's -- there's a fence has been mentioned. I don't see a fence -- CHAIRMAN HOPPER: Thank you. MR. CAMPBELL: -- in any -- rendered in any way. What -- what is the fence going to look like? With the addition of the fence -- CHAIRMAN HOPPER: And where is it going to be. MR. CAMPBELL: Well, the rendering of the front elevation has no fence, and it looks MR. BRILLHART: Right. MR. CAMPBELL: I don't know, it's displaying the -- the volumes and the trees very nicely, but with the addition of the U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 CITY ATTY: So if you submit it into evidence and it can be circulated to the board, that's fine, otherwise, you can't be saying, per this, you know -- MR. BRILLHART: No, right, and we're happy to share it with the neighbors and everybody, absolutely. CITY ATTY: Right, well then -- then introduce them into evidence, and it will be passed out to the board. Thanks. MR. BRILLHART: I'd like to submit these into evidence. CITY ATTY: All right. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: You'll need to use the microphone. There's a portable one. CITY ATTY: Well, all right. Just when you're done, pass them down here so they can be marked in evidence, please. MR. BRILLHART: Right CITY ATTY: When your done. MR. BRILLHART: Right now the end of 6th Avenue has a city fence that closes off the street, and that city fence is at this angle, and it T's into the owner's property. So at first we did not want to U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 I 23 24 25 six feet back, landscape all in front of it so you don't see it, and as you can see on the landscape plans, it's extensive, it would hide the fence, it would provide the security that they need from Biscayne; we'd get rid of the chain link and therefore the fence, and the fence would be a metal picket fence painted a dark color so you don't see it. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: While I think that might be a solution, I'm not sure that what has been provided is enough for us to make a decision on that. MR. BRILLHART: And if -- and if the fence is, you know, an issue, we're happy to work with staff on the fence and figure out a solution. We just -- you know, we realized in the process with that city fence T'ing right into our fence now, if we took our fence down, people from Biscayne could walk in. So then we thought, okay, we need a fence, and we know Morningside's regulations don't want us to have a fence, so we talked to HP, and we said, what U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 1 t 1 1 c Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it just hasn't loaded yet. MR. CAMPBELL: A-101 (inaudible.) CHAIRMAN HOPPER: It's taking a while. MR. BRILLHART: And again, the fence is tricky due to the fact that there's all the green -- the trees there, right, so, you know, we were thinking, oh, well, worse case scenario, we just keep the fence that we already have, but again, that fence is not looking great, so we're trying to make it look nicer. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: Okay. MR. CAMPBELL: And the -- the new one would be what kind of design. MR. BRILLHART: It would be a black metal picket fence with about a four -inch gap in between each picket and it would be painted black and heavily landscaped. As you can see by the landscape plans, at the end of the day, you're not even going to see the fence, and that's the design intent. MR. CAMPBELL: Oh, but the width of each picket? U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/Z5/2019 , City Clerk 1 1 1 1 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. CAMPBELL: All right. MR. BRILLHART: The project will be quality. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: So I'm very familiar with the -- the work in Spring Garden, and it was -- and I remember its approval, and it was very good, but this is not Spring Garden. Spring Garden has wooden houses and a lot of varied architect, and there's -- architecture, but there's no wooden house in -- in Morningside. There's everything is masonry, and I -- it's the Alfred Browning Parker house notwithstanding, there's not a lot of -- of wood involved. I have a problem with that. I have a problem with the fence, because I don't know where it is. I understand the connection between the city fence and keeping people off of Biscayne, but I'm not sure that should extend across the complete front of the property. And I have a question about the advisability of a gravel drive when U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT •• 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the board is being misled by testimony. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: In what respect? MR. CRUZ: The city fence that the architect is referring to has a swing gate in it that is not allowed to be locked. It is open 24/7. The idea that somebody's going to go around it, they don't need to, they can walk right through it. I have done so many times, including today. MR. BRILLHART: I'm sorry, I'm not -- I wasn't saying that it's locked. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: I think it's the -- the other mic. MR. BRILLHART: I wasn't implying that the city gate is locked. There is a fence there. All I'm saying is the city fence T's into our -- into Theodore's fence. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: A little closer to the mic -- MR. BRILLHART: If -- if -- CHAIRMAN HOPPER: A little -- a little closer to the mic. MR. BRILLHART: If Theodore's fence comes down, the city fence wouldn't keep U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 21 22 23 24 25 we think is a thoughtful fence solution, hidden, recessed, more attractive, we will keep the grandfathered chain link fence, we just think it's -- it's disappointing. It's aesthetically the -- the less favorable. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: So you're trying to blackmail us with the -- MR. BRILLHART: No, no, no. MR. STOHNER: Certainly not, no. MR. BRILLHART: No, the intent was just to build a nicer fence, that's all, honestly. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: Thank you for that clarification. Somebody else must have a question. Ms. Luis, I think I interrupted you. MS. LEWIS: Huh? CHAIRMAN HOPPER: I think I interrupted you a long time ago. MS. LEWIS: Oh, no, you didn't, you didn't. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: (Inaudible.) MR. CAMPBELL: I would like to comment on the -- the situation where U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 53 1 I -- can I expand on that? The one notion 2 that it's a wooden house, I want to make 3 clear that we chose -- it's a steel 4 structure. The house isn't made of -- the 5 structure -- the bones of it that keep 6 it up are steel, allowing the building to 7 float and allowing the space underneath 8 to -- to touch the ground -- ground 9 lightly. A masonry structure we can't do 10 that because the walls are simply too 11 heavy. 12 So you're exactly right when you're 13 saying the architecture of the building is 14 directly relating to and responding to the 15 trees and the roots and the way it is. 16 That's right. 17 Now, if there was a huge issue with 18 the cladding of the wood on the sides of 19 the walls and if we went to a stucco 20 in -fill or something, we'd be happy to work 21 at staff level with that. I'm not saying 22 that's a no-go zone. 23 What I am saying is to get the house 24 to be light weight and cantilever all 25 around these specimen trees, the steel U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 1 1 1 1 1 t r Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a hearing that it did not have a pitched roof, so the -- a group of the neighbors had that objection, and that was put in after there was an objection to a flat roof. They made concessions to change some of the original plans to that house to -- to appease the neighbors on the street. MR. PRIETO Y MUNOZ: So it wasn't this board that dictated that requirement, it was a concession made to the neighbors who had raised objections? MS. MERRILL: I believe that was it, because I was one that objected to the flat roof. MR. PRIETO Y MUNOZ: Okay. Thank you very much. That was it. MR. STOHNER: There are many houses in the Morningside Historic District with flat roofs. I'm sure you're aware of that. MR. PRIETO Y MUNOZ: Yeah, that was my concern. I was just trying to understand the administrative side of it. That's all. MS. MERRILL: May I say one more thing. He keeps referencing about Biscayne U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 1 t Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. LEWIS: A -- a -- insertion of a masonry skin in certain places. I'm a lawyer, I don't use the right word, sir. MR. BRILLHART: No, but I follow you. MS. LEWIS: Okay. MR. BRILLHART: And -- and if we can achieve that, we would discuss it. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: Wait until she's finished. MS. LEWIS: I would appreciate I think I even understand your point about a floating foundation to preserve -- to -- to enhance the viability of the vegetation. MR. BRILLHART: Absolutely. That's it, yeah. MS. LEWIS: Okay. Okay. Can -- can you conceive of a design that might include some of the many roofs having a pitch. MR. BRILLHART: We could, but the reason why I'm hesitant to go down that road is due to the fact that Theodore, and he can speak for himself after this, wants to put the house on solar when the time is right, and a pitched roof is going to allow U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk t 1 1 1 a Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 mitigate instead of the entire neighborhood driving by and seeing those solar panels, it would only have to be the neighbors. MS. LEWIS: Okay. Can you move the pool equipment away from the abutting neighbor's house, can you put the pool equipment some place else? MR. BRILLHART: We can put the pool equipment -- well, we have -- MS. LEWIS: You don't have to tell me where, just -- MR. BRILLHART: We'd be happy to work with them and find a -- and work out a spot for the pool equipment. MS. LEWIS: Okay. It -- it MR. BRILLHART: Yes. MS. LEWIS: It sounds to me, and I appreciate your design expertise, I'm now going to look to the owner. You've got some opposition. You have -- I think you've heard from various people on the board that they like your design, you've also heard -- or your architect's design. I think you've also heard from some members of the board that U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I think the driveway is something that we should -- MS. LEWIS: The driveway is a throwaway, come on. MR. BRILLHART: But I want to talk -- I'm trying to talk -- MS. LEWIS: Come on, it's a throwaway. MR. STOHNER: Let me have my (Inaudible.) MS. LEWIS: Let's talk about -- let's talk about some stucco, not a fake Mediterranean or fake neocolonial house, no one is asking for that, but -- but -- MR. BRILLHART: I think we can talk -- we can work -- I'm happy to work with -- with -- I'm happy to work with environmental and the HEP board in that, but I don't -- are you -- I don't -- I guess I need more specifics in terms of -- I want to help, I'm here to help. MS. LEWIS: Okay. It's the driveway -- the composition of the driveway. It is the objection that you've heard from both objectors and persons on U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The wood is going to be a better product. It's going -- the product we're going to deliver, it's not going to be stucco that's going to spall and have to be painted and patched every four to eight years. That's what we don't want to do. The quality of stucco that's getting put up now is just not what we want. We want a better building, that's why it's a steel frame building with concrete -- I mean, it's -- the corrugated metal with the floating slab, I mean, this is going to be quality. So we want to clad this thing in something that looks great. That's why we chose that direction and not the stucco. That's all. That decision was about quality, not about -- why stucco was chosen so many times is it's about economy. It's the cheapest siding you can put up in South Florida. That's why it's out there. It's not because it's always good. So we were trying to just crank up the quality. That's all. MR. CAMPBELL: In terms of the last U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a 1 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PRIETO Y MUNOZ: A comment was made earlier about the total potential buildable square footage of the property versus what is being proposed. Could you repeat that. I believe it was 12,000 could be built and 4,000 is being offered? MR. BRILLHART: Yes, sorry, I'll repeat it again. On sheet -- MS. LEWIS: Who is this guy. MR. BRILLHART: On Sheet A-101 in the general data chart, you can read it (Inaudible.) The allowed on the first floor square footage is 7,660. We're providing 4,036. MR. PRIETO Y MUNOZ: That's the footprint of the ground floor? MR. BRILLHART: Correct, then -- and then the second floor allowable is 4,596, oh, I'm getting -- and we're providing -- we're allowed -- we're allowed to put 4,500 on the second floor, and we're offering up 1,400. Much less than half what we could be doing. MR. PRIETO Y MUNOZ: And I do think that's something of significance given the U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk a t t f t Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 environmental resource specialist for the City. I just wanted to double back and, if I may, clarify environmental resources standpoint on the gravel driveway if that would be appropriate? CHAIRMAN HOPPER: Yes, please. MR. MELVIN: We would be in support of the gravel driveway as opposed to other more conventional driveway constructions just given, as Mr. Campbell has stated before, the lack of excavation that would be required in order to install that gravel driveway, just given the proximity to several specimen trees adjacent to the proposed driveway. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: As opposed to (Inaudible.) MR. MELVIN: As opposed to a conventional asphalt driveway or some kind of paver on grade. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: Including permeable pavers. MR. MELVIN: Permeable pavers. That still requires compaction underneath which could potentially damage the roots U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 69 2 4 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proximity to the covered walkway. There's also some concrete steps as well as the garage and part of the one-story residence on the eastern side. I guess there was a lack of clarity on my end as to what the proposed structural plan is for that, what kind of foundation is going to be installed within those areas and maybe what measures and precautions have been taken to ensure that any critical roots within that area are not affected. MR. BRILLHART: Sure. And having learned this concern within the past, I don't know, 36 hours, we have in the office gone back and made a foundation plan which we will submit as evidence now to everybody. If you can hand that out, Andrew. And what we propose is to work with you and your staff as we do the foundations, and what you'll see here is a series of stem walls and the condition brakes where we get near the slash pine, and what we would propose is spread U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 condition within the -- the resolution referencing exploratory digging within the critical root zones of Tree No. 19 as-- as supervised by an ISA certified arborist? MR. STOHNER: Absolutely, that's acceptable. MR. MELVIN: That's all I have for this. I also had a concern, too, with the same tree, I noticed there were -- there was proposed sod within the root zone of that tree, and I know that this particular species, the slash pine has a very high sensitivity to any kind of disturbance including irrigation, so I was hoping for a design change to minimize the amount of landscape material brought into the critical root zone of that tree, including irrigation. LUCIA: Lucia from Christopher Cawley Landscape Architecture, 4200 Riviera Drive, and absolutely we can keep all landscape, lawn, irrigation away from the critical root zone of Slash Pine No. 19. MR. MELVIN: As well as grade changes -- as well as any changes in grade. U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 They don't meet that requirement, so zoning said that there's a myriad of ways that they can meet that requirement as long as 51 percent of the walkway is -- has floor to ceiling fixed -- either you can do sort of themes, you can do wood slats, you could do floor to ceiling shutters that -- a louver, they can do a glass wall. The purpose is just to meet the facade requirements for zoning. MR. CAMPBELL: Okay. And the architect, Mr. Brillhart, you understand Condition No. 6 yourself? MR. BRILLHART: We are we were made aware of this condition a couple of days ago, and we're happy to work with staff, and we've already talked to Wendy and said we're going to work with them and work it out. We have no problem doing this. MR. CAMPBELL: Okay. MS. SCZECHOWICZ: His zoning explanation is also included in the analysis portion of the staff analysis. MR. CAMPBELL: Okay. For me last Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BRILLHART: But he's saying you have a fence here, then it hits the city fence right here so people walking down here and out in here couldn't walk on your property, but they could go through the gate like these guys were saying, because it's open, and then they could walk into your property. MR. CAMPBELL: What I'm saying is work out with your architect how to solve that security issue without running the fence all along the front facade or the front edge of your property which is one of the major concerns of your neighbors. MR. BRILLHART: We thought we couldn't figure out a better solution than what we've put forward, and it's not a perfect one, and it's true, the house is not on Biscayne, but it's on Biscayne enough where the city felt like that's where the security line needed to be drawn, which is why they put their fence there. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: No. MR. BRILLHART: And -- and that to me is -- Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 1 1 1 1 1 1 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 I 23 24 1 25 location for that second story. The fact that they've come up with a design is fine, but it's a design. It's a drawing on a piece of paper. You can draw different stuff on a different piece of paper. I wish you would consider that, please. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: Okay. MS. LEWIS: Mr. Architect. You -- you heard -- you -- you heard the neighbor suggest that there might be a -- that there could be -- MR. BRILLHART: There is an alternative, and the alternative is to move the building to the other side of the -- to the northern side of the lot away from the said property, but that would require the elimination, we felt, of more trees removed, more mitigation involved, and then the other neighbor would have a two-story house next to them. Again, it's not -- we're not offering -- and then if we move it to the back of the property, there's a house that is in the back. So it's not a perfect scenario, but it was the best -- I felt Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 mei Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 79 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. CAMPBELL: In the motion describe why the design is appropriate? MR. ADAMS: Well, I'm not sure what motion you're going to make. You're either going to be in favor of it or against it. MR. CAMPBELL: Okay. MR. ADAMS: But within the motion, can you please explain why. MR. CAMPBELL: Is that necessary, because that -- CITY ATTY: It is -- it is -- it is not legally required, no, it is not, but I actually have to, you know, tell you that -- that I suggested that, because really there's been references to, you know, the surroundings, the neighboring structures, spacing, height, yards, materials, color, as to the U.S. secretary of interior standards for rehabilitations and guidelines for rehabilitating historic districts. So in that word it is not required, but it's suggested, at least in a generalized sense of the board, when there's something that is very debated, Submitted into the public record for items) PZ.7 on 97/25/2019 , City Clerk U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 No. 4, the applicant shall comply with the requirements of all applicable departments/agencies as part of the City of Miami building permits submittal process. No. 5, this resolution shall be included in the master permit set. No. 6, the applicant shall add semipermeable -- a semipermeable screen facing the street along the front covered walkway. No. 7, the applicant shall comply with the condition that's stipulated in the memo from environmental resources attached hereto as Attachment A entitled, "Interoffice Memorandum." This motion is made in the spirit of the project being for the preservation of landscape on the lot. The property being located at the end of 6th Avenue close to the Biscayne Boulevard border, making the property unobtrusive to the majority of eyes that view the Morningside -- Morningside Historic District. So in those cases and for the fact that the secretary of interior standards require that new projects not copy what Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MELVIN: Thank you. MR. CAMPBELL: So this exploration by the arborist shall be done prior to the issuance of -- MR. MELVIN: Of the building permit. MR. CAMPBELL: -- of the building permit. MR. MELVIN: Right. MR. CAMPBELL: Condition No. 9, the architect, Brillhart Architecture, will work with staff to figure out the proper extent of the boundary fence along Northeast 6th Avenue and the security issue at Biscayne Boulevard west edge. MS. LEWIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HOPPER: Any discussion -- sorry, is there any discussion on the motion? Okay. Have a roll call, please. THE CLERK: Roll call, Mr. Campbell? MR. CAMPBELL: Yes. THE CLERK: Vice Chair Lewis? MS. LEWIS: Yes. THE CLERK: Ms. Galvez Turros? MS. GALVEZ TURROS: Yes. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ' 19 1 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFICATE I, Matthew J. Haas, Court Reporter and Transcriptionist, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did listen to and stenographically transcribe the foregoing recorded proceedings and that the transcript is a true record to the best of my professional ability. Dated this 25th day of June, 2019. MATTHEW J. HAAS Court reporter Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 2 67:14 76:22 adjoining 21:18 administrative 55:22 advance 24:8 adversely 13:23 advertised 44:25 advisability 47:25 aesthetic 13:24 aesthetically 51:5 aesthetics 66:8 affect 13:23 affected 69:12 afraid 76:16 after 27:18 55:4 57:23 78:1 afternoon 16:24 again 27:5 35:25 44:2 45:5,10 65:8 76:3 77:21 against 26:14 50:25 79:5 ago 17:3 29:1 51:20 73:16 ahead 12:5 19:14,16 25:11 29:3 39:8 54:5 68:15,20 ailing 17:22 Alfred 22:23 24:19,21 34:6 47:14 62:9 all 12:12 13:8,24 18:5 19:11 20:1, 14,21 30:13, 18 31:22 32:18 35:17 36:15 37:4 41:13,16 43:1 45:6 47:1 48:3 49:16 51:12 53:24 54:2 55:23 58:1 63:16,24 71:7,21 74:3, 22,25 75:12 76:16 80:20, 22 allow 13:2 48:14 57:25 80:8 allowable 65:18 allowed 14:24 15:8 21:20 33:19 49:5 65:12,20 allowing 53:6,7 almost 33:20 along 18:24 19:6 20:11 21:22 27:20 50:14,16 70:9 74:11,12 75:12 already 12:3 21:8 45:10 48:8 73:17 also 17:14 18:18 19:2 22:9 23:20 31:17 35:2 56:5 58:3,17 59:23,24 64:11 66:24 69:2 71:8 73:23 76:11 alter 20:5 alternative 77:13 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk always 63:22 78:2 am 53:23 64:17 ambiance 21:14 amended 80:25 amongst 52:1 amount 36:1 52:4 66:11 71:15 analysis 73:24 analyze 34:12 and 11:25 12:15 13:2,4, 8,13,14,19,25 14:1,3,4,5,6, 16 15:6,11,20 16:18 17:2,6, 10,12,20 18:3,23 19:15 20:5 21:5,8, 14,16,19 22:5,9,21 23:16,21 24:1,12,15,16 25:1,4,19 26:4,10,15, 18,23 27:19, 22 28:13 29:24 30:6,7, 24 31:10,12, 19 32:3,4,5, 6,8,20 33:7, 13 34:13,15, 18 35:1,8,13 36:3,5,9,10, 14,21,24,25 37:1,2 38:1, 2,4,25 39:17, 20,24 40:5 41:2,5,6,9, 23,24 42:3,7, 13,22 43:2,6, 7,14,16,23,25 44:1,2,3 45:5,14,18, 19,22 46:5, 17,20,24 47:6,7,9,10, 14,20,24 48:4,5,16 50:5,17 52:4, 5,8,18,19,20 53:7,14,15, 19,24 54:1 55:3 56:3,7, 18,21 57:7, 22,25 58:12, 16 59:2,13,17 60:4,8,18,20 61:18,25 62:7,15,18,22 63:4,15 64:3, 5,9,11,19 65:6,17,19, 21,24 66:5,9, 13,16,23 67:2 68:4,6,7,15, 17,20,22,23, 25 69:3,9,13, 16,20,21,22, 23,25 70:3,5, 13,14,17,22 71:11,21 72:15,18 73:11,16,17, 18 74:5,20 75:4,7,17,18, 24 76:6,8,17, 18 77:13,18, 22 78:2,3,11, 12,24 79:20 80:23 Andrew 69:19 angle 41:24 another 24:21 29:9 36:12 76:11,25 answer 29:16 37:4,8 39:3 any 14:21 19:20 36:16 39:5,13,14 44:7 48:1 62:13 69:11 71:13,25 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 4 69:16 77:23, 24 backyard 76:22 balls barrel 19:9 64:19 17:12 based 25:1 34:13 basically 68:21 Bayshore 22:24 beams 15:6 beautiful 23:7,21 30:21 beauty 12:14 became 27:19 78:4,5 because 11:23 12:7 15:14 17:3,21 20:8 24:11 25:25 27:7,11 30:21 32:17 34:4,9 36:8,25 47:18 48:15 53:10 55:13 58:8 63:22 64:18 70:20 75:6 76:7 79:10,14 bedroom 27:24 been 23:5 25:7 26:16 27:2 39:10 43:12 48:2,3 69:10 79:15 before 26:11 67:11 begin 11:18 beginning 36:24 being 16:20 23:23 40:5 49:1 65:4,6 66:1 80:18 believe 17:23 28:21 35:11 55:12 65:5 68:18 belonging 18:16 beloved 13:4 benefit 64:10 best 17:11 77:25 better 63:1,9 64:13 75:16 between 13:25 24:13 31:16 36:2 45:18 47:19 big 33:18 66:22 Biscayne 42:3,7,13 43:5,21 47:21 50:15,17 55:25 56:2,6, 7,11,13 74:2, 8,9 75:19 black 45:16, 19 blackmail 51:8 blank 19:8 blends 48:7 block 20:12 50:5 board 22:7 24:2,20 25:25 26:19 28:14, 19 40:20 41:3,10 49:1 54:12,18 55:9 59:22,25 61:18 62:1 79:24 board's 14:22 bones 53:5 border 20:11 both 23:19 25:13 50:16 58:8 61:25 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk bought 11:22 12:6 Boulevard 42:3 50:15,17 56:1,2,13 boxy 14:6 brakes 69:24 break 31:14 breaking 33:17 Brenda 15:24 bridge 24:13 29:23 31:15 Brillhart 25:22 29:6,7, 15 32:16,22 33:2 37:9,12, 16,19,23 38:8,11,15, 19,25 39:4,22 40:3,7,13,16, 18,21,24 41:5,11,19,21 43:14 44:9, 14,21 45:5,16 46:1,9,12,20, 24 47:2 48:9, 12,21 49:10, 14,21,24 51:9,11 52:25 56:25 57:4,7, 15,20 58:7, 11,19,21 59:8,12,16 60:22,25 61:5,15 62:21 65:7,10,17 69:13 73:12, 14 74:18 75:1,15,24 76:3,13 77:12 78:8 80:15 bring 34:1 36:10,18 68:9 74:19 brought 37:1 71:16 Browning 22:23 24:19, 22 34:7 47:14 62:10 build 12:9 23:8 30:11 35:20 51:12 buildable 65:3 building 14:4 31:18,19,21, 23 33:18 35:25 36:4,7 52:13 53:6,13 58:5 60:14 62:25 63:9,10 66:13 76:21, 23 77:14 78:3 buildings 12:17 22:8 31:14 34:23 35:3 52:3 58:8,24 built 16:20 20:5 29:10 33:24 54:10 65:6 66:2,21 bunch 31:7 but 13:17 14:1,15 15:3, 19 20:14 21:3,18 23:20 24:18 25:2 27:5,14 28:7, 14 29:1,20 31:13 34:17 35:25 36:7 37:6 39:25 45:10,24 46:5 47:7,10,21 52:3 56:13,19 57:4,20 58:2, 25 60:13 61:5,14,19 66:10,21 75:1,5,19 76:8,10 77:3, 16,25 79:7, 12,23 80:3 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 0 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 6 combined 21:3 come 13:13 26:12 36:5 61:4,7 77:2 comes 49:25 comfortable 60:15 70:11 coming 37:14 56:11 72:17 74:1 commend 24:10 comment 3 3 : 3 , 4 51:25 54:8 65:1 66:15 comments 13:8 17:25 24:2 27:3 31:11 44:3 commitment 70:19 compacted 68:1 compaction 67:24 compelling 66:18 complain 66:24 complete 47:22 completely 14:8 complex 56:4, 5 complicated 76:8 compliment 21:13 comply 11:2 80:21 composition 56:22 61:23 conceive 57:18 conceived 35:15 concern 55:21 69:14 70:16 71:8 concerned 18:5 concerns 11:9 66:8 75:14 concerted 66:5 concession 36:8 55:10 concessions 55:5 concluded 28:14 conclusions 18:2 concrete 63:11 69:2 condense 68:22 condition 50:7 69:23 71:1 72:4,7 73:13,15 conditions 11:3 26:22 33:15 42:2 70:25 80:13 condo 56:3 conflict 16:13 68:23 congruity 13:25 connect 72:24 connection 47:19 connects 72:12 consider 18:22 21:15, 24 77:6 considerate 21:10 consisting 80:16 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk constructed 18:12 34:21 constructing 52:6 construction 13:21 16:5 80:9 constructions 67:9 contain 42:4 context 18:15 64:23 contiguous 12:9 contrary 18:8 contrast 22:4 contributing 16:12 17:9 18:18 controversial 23:4 conventional 12:9 23:8 25:18 67:9,19 conversation 14:23 Conway 18:17 copy 20:24 34:5,6 copying 34:3 35:11 corners 19:4 correct 27:9 50:21 65:17 72:14 corridor 72:12 corrugated 63:11 cottages 62:2 could 23:18 26:6,8 27:13 35:20,24 42:21 43:21 54:24 57:20 60:22 65:4,5, 22 67:25 73:7 75:5,7 76:7 77:11 78:4 couldn't 75:4,16 counterbalance 27:1,3 couple 21:7 73:15 course 35:23 court 22:20 33:11,12 38:3 courts 33:16 courtyard 18:9 29:23 33:10 covered 69:1 72:9 crank 63:23 cream 24:14 creating 52:10 credit 66:3, 11 critical 69:11 71:3, 17,23 76:4 Cruz 13:15 48:25 49:3 50:2 curb 30:24 Currently 72:23 curving 17:5 cut 30:24 34:19 damage 67:25 dark 19:7 43:8 46:10,16 data 65:11 day 45:21 days 73:16 dead 50:25 debate 28:5 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 1 1 1 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 8 61:1,3,23,24 64:17,20,22 67:4,8,9,13, 15,19 driveways 64:20 driving 59:2 due 45:6 57:22 66:3,12 during 68:5, 24 each 21:2 45:18,25 68:17 earlier 14:23 34:23 65:2 east 20:10 eastern 69:4 eclectic 32:7 eclecticism 34:22 35:7 economy 63:19 edge 42:12 44:5 74:8,9 75:13 edges 66:22 effectively 21:21 effort 66:5 70:18 eight 63:5 either 14:21 31:2 37:23 64:8,24 73:5 78:22 79:4 elements 33:25 34:3 35:4 elevation 39:20 elimination 77:17 else 15:23 22:13 51:16 56:24 59:7 Elvis 13:15 21:8 email 11:10 emails 26:23 end 41:21 42:13 45:21 52:20 69:6 70:22 engage 60:7 enhance 18:13 22:2 36:21 57:14 enough 26:17 43:12 75:20 ensure 69:10 entire 14:13 20:18 50:9 59:1 70:17 74:16 entitled 11:5 entrance 18:11,14 30:22 entry 22:20 33:6,9,10,11, 12,16 38:3 environment 30:2 environmental 11:4,8 61:18 67:1,3 68:7 envision 35:10 equal 25:13 equipment 59:5,7,9,14 78:13 error 39:1 eschewing 66:14 especially 14:9,22 35:16 establish 33:14 even 15:15 35:19 45:21 ai. Submitted into the public record for item(s) P2.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 57:12 64:17 74:8 eventually 58:24 every 12:25 63:5 everybody 29:11 41:7 69:18 everyone's 35:21 37:3 everything 47:13 66:1 eves 14:7 evidence 40:23 41:2,9, 12,18 69:17 70:15 exact 32:22 66:2 exactly 53:12 58:19 72:18 example 62:5 excavation 67:11 except 15:2 exception 62:9 exclusion 25:1 execute 70:12 executing 70:20 exhaustive 30:13 exist 33:15 34:4 existing 21:14,18 22:8 42:19,21 66:6 68:6,13,14 expand 53:1 expect 62:19, 20 expense 17:13 expensive 46:21 experience 26:10 30:6 expertise 37:1 59:18 explain 23:14 40:9 79:8 explanation 73:23 exploratory 71:2 exposed 15:6 extend 47:22 extensive 43:3 68:16 exterior 17:13 extremely 30:12 34:13 76:21 eyes 29:21 facade 17:18 23:1 72:22 73:9 75:12 facades 14:4 face 15:13 18:10 28:6 29:5,14,17 74:16 faces 27:23, 24,25 28:4 29:21 facing 16:15 18:9 19:8 20:13 72:9 fact 31:6 45:6 52:19 57:22 77:1 fails 18:15 21:15 fake 61:12,13 falls 34:9 35:17 42:12 familiar 24:21 36:16 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 10 fully 20:2 G gap 45:18 garage 27:23 28:3 31:4 46:6,10 69:3 72:12 garages 28:6 garden 13:1 29:9 36:23 38:4 47:6,8 62:4,5,6 gate 37:25 49:4,15 50:11 75:6 gave 12:2 general 17:6 64:11 65:11 generalized 79:24 get 28:8 31:15 37:13 43:6 53:23 58:17 64:14 69:24 70:23 76:8 getting 33:24 63:7 65:19 girth 52:15 give 13:13 32:20 44:12 given 25:12 65:25 67:10, 13 glass 73:8 80:20 go 12:5 21:1 25:11 29:3 30:25 32:4,8 37:16 39:7 49:7 54:5 57:21 66:22 74:16 75:5 goal 33:19 goes 31:23 72:11 going 21:1 32:16 36:21 39:15,18 40:19 45:21 46:7,9,15 49:7 56:18,19 57:25 58:22 59:19 63:1,2, 3,4,13 69:8 70:20 73:18 74:22 76:23 79:4,5 gone 69:16 good 16:24 24:12 26:25 42:24 47:7 48:5,6 63:22 64:21 78:14 got 17:23 59:20 grade 67:20 71:24,25 72:1 grandfathered 15:2 50:8,18 51:3 grateful 13:6 gravel 47:25 48:1,10,12 56:23 64:17 67:4,8,12 gray 19:8 great 27:22 45:11 62:5 63:14 greater 19:13 green 12:21 13:3 23:24 45:7 46:16 58:3,17 ground 53:8 65:16 grounds 20:17 group 55:2 Grove 24:22, 23 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk guess 61:20 69:5 guest 27:23 guidelines 14:25 19:23 56:21 79:20 guy 65:9 guys 32:10 70:22 75:6 H hasn't 45:1 hate 24:16 have 12:10,11 15:1 17:11 18:6,19 19:21 20:2,12,14,24 had 31:2 54:20 55:3,11 58:13 71:8 half 65:22 hall 72:11 hand 32:16 69:18 handed 13:18 happens 27:24 happier 48:17 happy 41:6 43:15 44:2 48:21 53:20 59:12 61:16, 17 73:16 hard 32:18 has 14:7,18, 20 18:8 20:9, 15 21:8 22:19,24 23:4 27:2 28:1 39:10,20 41:22 42:4 43:12 47:8 49:4 50:3,4,8 52:10 60:4 64:4 67:10 71:12 73:4 37:3 haven't 29:2 having 57:19 69:13 he 12:2,4 50:12 55:25 56:8,12 57:23 he's 75:1 hear 24:25 heard 27:7 29:2 59:21, 23,25 60:9 61:25 62:7 66:23 77:9 hearing 24:1 26:1 55:1 56:16 hearings 27:2 heart 13:1 heavily 45:19 heavy 53:11 height 21:20 35:18,19,20 79:17 22:14 23:17 24:3,5 27:5, 7,13,21 30:5, 11 32:9,11 34:8 37:5,6, 19 40:22 42:5,15 43:24 45:10 47:16, 17,24 48:1,2, 3,23 49:8 50:20 51:16 52:14,17 54:6,11,14 55:1 58:4 59:3,9,10,21 60:8,19 61:9 62:8,11,12,17 63:4 66:5,20 69:10,15 70:21 71:7 72:6 73:19 74:3,5,16 75:2 76:23 77:19 79:13 26:16 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 12 impact 36:19 implying 49:14 improper 22:5 in 11:3,22 12:7,13,20 13:3,16 14:22 15:2,7,18,19, 21 16:2,3,11, 13,16 17:9, 10,13,22 18:1,25 19:5, 20,23 20:5,6 21:4,8,22 22:4,16,19 23:9,11,14,18 24:8,20,22 26:11,16,24 27:1,2,16 28:13 29:8, 21,25 30:2, 19,24,25 32:8,9,24 33:2,7,15,24 34:1,3,18,20, 21,22,24,25 35:14,16,18 36:16,22,23 37:24 38:19 39:13,14 40:15,22 41:18 42:1,6, 10,14,16,19 43:1,18,21 44:6,7,10,14, 24 45:18 46:17 47:5,11 48:1,8,15 49:2,5 52:6, 12,17,20,22 54:2,3,8,10 55:3,18 57:2 58:12,16,23 61:18,20 62:2,3,4 63:14,20,25 64:2,4,11,15 65:10 66:9, 19,21 67:7,12 68:13 69:15 70:4,11,21 71:25 73:23 75:4 77:24 78:6,13,24 79:1,5,22,23 80:11 in -fill 53:20 inappropriate 78:23 inaudible 38:16 39:7 44:22 45:2 51:23 54:22 61:10 64:4 65:12 67:17 74:24,25 76:9 inch 46:2,5 inches 30:19 include 18:15 20:6 28:12 57:18 included 21:7 44:6,10 73:23 includes 20:3 including 14:1 49:9 67:21 71:14, 17 incompatible 21:11 22:1 incongruous 14:8,18 15:10,17,20 18:3 incorporated 80:18 Incorporation 33:6 incorrect 27:9 incredible 33:17 48:16 indicate 21:5 informal 68:24 insertion Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 57:1 inspiration 23:19 install 67:12 installed 69:8 instead 12:15 52:12 56:20 59:1 74:21 insular 18:9 integral 64:15 integrity 64:3 intended 23:22 intent 45:23 51:11 interested 34:2 60:16 interesting 52:9 interior 79:19 interject 60:22 Interoffice 11:6 interrupted 51:17,20 into 13:5 28:8 31:14 34:9 38:3,5 41:1,9,12,24 42:7 43:19 49:17 56:11 71:16 75:7 introduce 25:21 41:9 involved 47:16 77:18 irrigation 71:14,18,22 is 11:8,14 12:22 13:17 14:5,8,11,12 15 15:12,19, 20,24 16:13, 14,15,16,17, 19,25 17:19, 23 18:3,5,11, 17,25 19:2, 12,13,14 20:18 21:2,6, 9,10,19 22:7 23:3,7,21 24:20,25 25:2,16,17 26:10,11 27:22 28:3,5, 14 29:16,22 30:1,4,15,23 31:4,11,13, 18,19,22 33:11,12 34:8,11,19,20 35:8 36:7,8, 17,24 37:14 38:6,9,11,12, 14,15,23,25 39:1,14,17 40:5,6 41:23 42:3,11,23 43:12,15 44:10,24 45:6,10 46:6, 7,8 47:7,13, 18 48:7 49:1, 4,5,6,15,16 50:8,10,12 51:1 52:19 53:13,15,23 56:5,7,12,22 57:22,24,25 61:1,3,14,24 62:5,14 63:1, 7,13,19 64:3, 9,10,15,20,23 65:4.6,9,13, 18 66:1,3,12, 17 68:11,13 69:7,8,20,22, 25 70:4,15 72:22 73:4,9, 23 74:1,19,21 75:9,13,18, U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 14 let's 61:11, 12 64:16 letter 17:23 20:25 letters 26:23 level 12:23 17:6 36:18 53:21 70:23 LEWIS 24:3,6, 10 25:9,14,20 26:2,15,18 28:5,20,23 29:3,13 32:14 37:18,21 51:18,21 54:5 56:15 57:1,6, 11,17 58:5, 10,16,20 59:4,10,15,17 61:3,7,11,22 65:9 77:8 78:16 light 14:22 53:24 lightly 53:9 lights 20:14 like 12:18,22 21:24 24:14 25:10 28:1,2, 3 31:1 32:9 39:15 40:1 41:11 42:23 51:24 52:11, 15 59:22 68:4 75:6,20 liked 17:3 likes 34:10 limited 14:2 line 18:25 19:7 21:24 30:17 44:18 70:9 75:21 link 20:18 42:18,21 43:6 50:9,18 51:3 listen 44:3 listening 29:11 literally 52:10 little 31:15 38:2 49:19, 22,23 52:11 live 13:3 15:25 16:3, 11,25 17:9 29:7 48:15 lived 16:2 loaded 45:1 locate 70:3 located 20:10 80:10 location 77:1 locked 49:5, 11,15 loggia 22:20 long 19:6 26:17 31:11, 15 34:20 37:4 51:20 73:3 look 27:14 30:3,9,15 33:2,4 39:15 42:19,24 45:12 58:4, 13,17 59:19 looking 37:7, 11 38:13 45:11 70:14 looks 12:25 39:21 63:14 lose 27:22 lot 12:11 14:15 20:9 23:9 29:25 31:1 33:21 47:9,15 52:12,14 66:2,23 76:8 77:15 lots 14:15 louver 73:8 louvered 46:8 love 25:7 36:25 76:5 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk loved 12:12 36:24 low 80:21 lower 31:18 36:12 58:7,8 Lucia 71:19 72:1 Luis 51:17 M made 24:18 31:6,10,11 32:11 36:8 40:4 53:4 55:5,10 65:2 69:16 73:15 magic 30:4 34:14 main 18:14 maintain 17:11,14 maintaining 22:8,9 major 52:21 75:14 76:12 majority 19:1 52:2 make 31:3 34:12 43:12 45:11 48:10 53:2 60:15 68:22 78:16, 19,20,21 79:4 80:7 makes 52:22 making 66:5 78:25 man 37:24 many 16:20 22:18 23:6,16 33:7 49:9 52:7 55:17 57:19 63:18 marked 41:18 mashed 64:12 masonry 35:3 47:13 52:2,3, 6,13 53:9 57:2 64:20, 21,22 66:20, 21 massing 18:24 19:2,5 22:5 76:17,18 match 36:6 material 71:16 materials 14:2 15:5,9 19:23 22:21 79:18 Matthew 66:25 mature 17:5 20:9 maximum 21:20 35:20 may 11:16,18 25:21 48:9 54:5 55:24 62:3 67:3 68:4 maybe 44:25 60:25 69:9 me 24:24 28:8,11 34:19 37:11 40:7 44:12 52:22 59:11,17 61:9 62:20 64:8, 23,24 73:25 75:25 mean 54:15 60:17 63:11, 12 66:7 72:10 meaning 52:15 meant 60:19 measures 69:9 Mediterranean 34:5,24 60:14 61:13 meet 73:1,3,9 74:20 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 16 muntins 20:15 must 51:16 muttons 15:17 my 11:20 13:2 15:24 16:24 17:2,19,25 23:4,14 26:9 27:16 28:10 29:21 34:11 36:22,24 39:1 48:3 55:21 60:15 61:9 66:15 69:6 70:13 76:22 78:9 myriad 73:2 N name 11:25 13:14 15:24 16:25 natural 12:13 22:21 near 69:24 nearly 19:6,8 necessary 79:9 need 20:19,20 38:17 41:14 43:5,22 49:7 61:20 needed 21:6 27:20 75:21 needs 21:12 negative 27:3 negatively 36:19 neighbor 11:11 14:21 77:9,19 neighbor's 36:6 59:6 neighborhood 12:21 17:7 19:21,24 21:19 23:20, 23 24:20 26:6,25 29:1 33:16 34:15 35:15 36:22 37:2 42:5 56:21 59:1 64:14 neighborhoods 18:4 33:24 neighboring 13:25 31:16 58:24 79:16 neighbors 23:4 24:15 26:2,3,11,24 36:24 41:6 55:2,7,10 58:4,11 59:3 60:10,15 75:14 neocolonial 61:13 new 13:20 16:5,9 32:24 44:16 45:14 80:9 next 19:18 30:8 37:25 76:24 77:20 nice 32:2 42:25 46:25 54:4 66:16,21 nicely 39:25 nicer 45:12 51:12 no 11:2,9 14:7 15:12, 14,16 18:17 20:12,15 39:20 40:13, 24 41:5 47:11 50:3,4 51:9, 10,11,21 57:4 60:15 61:13 62:16 68:12 71:3,23 72:7 73:13,19 74:4 75:23 79:12 Submitted into the public record for item(s) P2.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk no-go 53:22 noncompliant 19:25 none 14:25 15:7 normal 28:2, 3,6 north 14:18 16:17 18:16, 23 19:16 20:2,18 22:24 27:25 28:4 29:8 50:3 56:3,4,14 Northeast 11:12 13:15 15:25 16:6 17:1 18:6,12 19:12 20:1 52:20 80:12 northern 77:15 Northwest 29:8 not 12:7 13:22 14:2, 21,24 15:7 16:14 18:10, 11,22 19:17 20:11 24:5,17 25:1,24 27:8, 10 28:8 29:20 31:10 35:22 37:10 38:6 40:16 41:25 43:11 44:6 45:11,21 46:5 47:8,15,21 48:6 49:5,11 51:10 52:20 53:21 54:3,16 55:1 56:1,7, 13,14,18 58:15 60:16 61:12 62:2,13 63:3,8,15,17, 22 64:17,23, 25 69:11 70:11 74:2 75:17,19 76:1 77:21,24 78:11,13,15 79:3,12,22 80:1 noted 19:19 nothing 32:24 noticed 71:9 notion 53:1 notwithstandin g 47:15 50:11 now 16:3 20:17 24:1 30:9,23,24 32:1 36:4,24 41:21 42:17 43:19 44:2 50:3 53:17 58:2 59:18 63:7 68:9,11 69:17 70:14 now -a -days 66:1 number 35:2 44:13 78:2 0 oaks 30:17 32:2 48:15 objected 55:13 objection 11:11 54:25 55:3,4 61:24 objections 55:11 60:4,9, 12 objectors 61:25 62:8 obstructive 31:16 obvious 18:11 of 11:10,23 12:7,11,14, 15,17,21,23 13:2,7,8,18 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 18 70:11 74:3 75:12 79:5 order 17:13 20:6 48:24 67:12 ordinances 80:6,24 organically 12:16 orientation 18:7,22 23:3, 13 27:8,14 oriented 25:1 original 12:19 15:8 17:14,17 23:22 55:6 other 11:21 15:1 27:4 31:1,9 39:5 48:20 49:13 54:2 67:8 77:14,19 78:8,9 otherwise 27:21 41:3 our 12:22 17:10 23:1,5, 13 29:10 32:6,9 33:19, 22 34:11 36:15,16 38:25 43:19, 20 48:13 49:17 50:25 68:19,20 70:5,16,19 out 12:25 13:18 18:3 22:16 28:24 41:10 43:17 46:14 48:25 50:1,3 59:13 63:21 69:18 73:19 75:4, 10,16 over 21:22 30:19 48:4 overhanging 14:7 oversee 54:17 own 29:10 owner 56:16 59:19 62:14 26:20 owner's 41:24 owners 27:4 ownership 17:7 packet 32:9, 17,23,24 33:5 42:20 packets 32:11 44:15 Page 33:5 34:17 pages 32:8 paint 46:9, 13,15 painted 43:8 45:19 63:4 panels 20:10 58:1,23,25 59:2 paper 77:4,5 parameters 52:4 parcel 80:10 Pardon 46:1 Park 25:16 Parker 22:23 24:19,22 34:7 47:14 62:10 parking 72:22 part 40:11 69:3 70:24 partially 20:3 particular 25:16 54:17 68:8 71:11 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk pass 41:17 passed 41:10 past 27:2 38:1 69:14 70:4 patched 63:5 pattern 14:3 15:11 paved 48:4 paver 67:20 pavers 67:22, 23 people 16:11 42:6,15 43:20 47:20 56:11 58:23 59:22 75:3 per 14:25 41:4 percent 72:21 73:4 perception 66:9 perfect 75:18 77:24 Perhaps 25:17 period 17:4 permeable 48:20 67:22, 23 permit 50:20 person 30:6 persons 24:13 61:25 pervious 48:14 Peter 16:25 photo 18:19 19:10 photographs 42:20 picket 43:8 44:17 45:17, 18,25 46:2 picture 27:15 50:8 piece 77:4,5 pieces 12:18 pile 70:3,7,9 piles 70:2 pin 70:2,3,7, 9 pine 30:1,6, 10 68:14,25 69:24 71:12, 23 pitch 14:7 57:19 pitched 20:3, 6 54:11,15,20 55:1 57:25 58:14 64:5 place 12:13 21:21 30:24 59:7 placed 13:1 72:19 placement 12:15 23:15 27:12 places 57:2 placing 52:16 plan 12:19 15:3,5 23:22 30:4,16 37:11 44:7 69:7,16 plans 28:25 43:3 44:7,10 45:20 55:6 80:15,17 please 11:7, 24,25 13:13 15:22 41:18 60:24 67:6 77:6 78:21 79:8 plot 27:19,21 plots 11:22 point 28:24 36:2 48:24,25 57:12 68:5 76:4,16 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 20 raised 37:2 55:11 rather 21:13 read 20:25 62:7,25 65:11 ready 78:16 real 60:23 realized 43:18 really 34:1 36:17 48:6 54:3 78:14 79:15 reason 29:24 30:14,15 36:7 57:21 reasonably 24:21 rebuttal 22:14 received 11:10 54:9 recently 18:11 recessed 51:2 recommend 26:22 72:3 recommendation 13:7 22:17 48:13,18 recommended 60:21 recommending 26:21 record 13:14 40:12 recreating 35:12 redesign 21:6 reenacting 35:12 reference 24:18 80:18 references 54:9 79:15 referencing 55:25 71:2 referred 24:8 referring 38:10 49:4 50:12 reflect 34:22 reflected 60:5 regarding 14:5 66:8 regulations 43:24 rehabilitating 79:20 rehabilitation s 79:19 relating 53:14 relationship 13:24 remain 17:18 remarks 23:14 remember 47:6 removed 77:18 rendered 39:13 rendering 39:19 repeat 65:5,8 repeatedly 25:3 replace 50:20 replaced 17:12,15 report 68:17 require 52:7 54:18 77:16 required 12:10 18:13 20:5 54:11,14 67:12 79:12, 22 80:1 requirement 54:12,13,19 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 55:9 73:1,3 requirements 11:1 73:10 80:22 requires 67:24 72:21 reseed 13:5 residence 69:3 residential 80:10 residents 64:11 66:23 resistance 36:23 resolution 26:19 71:1 resource 67:1 resource's 68:7 resources 11:4,8 67:3 respect 49:2 respects 35:13 respond 28:16 responding 53:14 response 48:10 restrictions 15:9 restuccoed 17:12 result 19:5 23:11 78:5 review 68:20, 25 reviewed 68:20 revival 34:25 35:5 rhythm 14:3 15:11 rid 43:6 right 20:21 26:7 29:25 30:2,8 31:5,8 36:6 37:24,25 38:1,5 39:22 41:5,8,13,16, 19,21 42:3,6, 7,12,14,15,17 43:19 44:23 45:7 46:14 47:1 49:8 53:12,16 57:3,25 58:1 64:24 68:13 70:8 75:3 76:23 River 29:8 Riviera 71:20 road 57:22 roll -up 46:18,19,20 roof 14:7 16:8 17:12 20:6 54:11, 15,20 55:2,5, 14 57:25 58:2,14,18 64:5 roof -mounted 20:9 roofs 20:3,7 55:19 57:19 58:9 room 12:25 root 48:16 64:18 70:7 71:3,10,17,23 roots 53:15 67:25 69:11 ruin 27:17 rules 16:9 running 34:19 75:11 safety 74:6 said 25:3 42:11,17 43:25 62:8,12 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 !! Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 22 23 40:17 41:1,17,25 42:5,9,17 43:2,9,22,25 45:7,11 46:15 47:4 49:9 50:5,10 51:7 53:12 54:2,17 55:2,8 56:9 58:3,11,21 62:7,18 63:13,18,22 64:8,24 66:15,24 71:14 73:1 75:3 76:14 77:24 78:13, 18 79:22 sod 71:10 solar 20:10 57:24 58:1, 22,25 59:2 solid 46:7 solution 43:11,17 51:1 54:1 75:16 solutions 48:20 solve 75:10 solved 74:11, 14 some 21:1 22:14 26:2 28:5 33:15 36:1,23 55:5 56:17 57:19 59:7,20,25 60:5,8 61:12 62:8,12,13 64:6 66:7,20 67:19 68:5 69:2 72:23 Somebody 51:16 somebody's 49:6 something 40:20 53:20 56:24 61:1 63:14 65:25 79:25 sometimes 32:18 sorry 11:25 25:10,23 26:1 38:12 39:4 44:21 49:10 54:23,24 65:7 sort 33:8 73:6 sounds 59:17 south 14:19 16:18 17:1 18:23 19:15 24:22 27:20 50:4 63:20 southern 18:24 19:7 20:11 21:23 space 12:21 13:3 23:24 53:7 spacing 79:17 spall 63:4 spanned 31:14 speak 13:12 57:23 SPEAKER 32:14 76:20 special 80:7 specialist 67:1 species 71:12 specific 25:24 specificity 56:22 specifics 61:20 specimen 30:1,17 36:3 53:25 67:14 68:6,21 spirit 35:13 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk spite 12:7 spot 59:14 spread 69:25 Spring 29:8 36:22 47:5,8 62:4,6 square 33:20 35:16 65:3,13 staff 11:7,10 32:21 42:10 43:16 53:21 54:7,13,19 69:21 70:23 72:7 73:17,24 stage 70:18 stainless 46:21 stance 68:7 standard 14:14 16:10 standards 56:20 79:19 standpoint 67:4 start 11:25 stated 21:8 67:10 steel 15:6 17:17 46:21 53:3,6,25 63:10 stem 69:23 steps 38:2,22 69:2 still 67:24 74:11 stipulated 11:3 STOHNER 11:16,18,20 12:6 13:10 22:15 24:5,7 25:6,12,15,21 26:9 27:11 28:10 50:6, 16,21,24 51:10 55:17 60:11 61:9 62:17 71:5 74:4,13 stop 34:18 stories 31:20,24 32:4 36:11 story 31:22 36:9 58:12,17 77:1 strategy 31:17 street 13:16 14:10 15:1,13 16:15 17:17 18:10,13 20:2,4,13 29:18,22 31:2,19,21 41:23 52:21 55:7 street along 72:9 street -forward 18:7 27:8 streets 17:5 strenuously 17:19 striking 22:4 strongly 80:4 structural 69:7 structure 18:5,21,24 19:6 53:4,5,9 54:1 80:10 structures 14:1 21:16 34:25 52:11 64:19 79:17 stucco 53:19 61:12 62:13, 14,22,23 63:3,7,16,18 64:6 stuff 32:19 77:5 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 24 64:7 65:17,18 70:12 74:21 75:2,7 77:18, 22 Theodore 42:23 57:22 Theodore's 49:17,24 theory 56:10 there 11:21 15:6,12,13 20:25 27:16 28:5 33:11 35:6 38:20,23 40:5 44:23 45:7 48:19 49:15,16 53:17 55:4,17 62:1,2,8,10 63:21 64:6,16 66:12 68:13, 18 69:5 71:9 75:22 76:2,25 77:10,12 there's 19:9 25:24 30:1,16 32:23 33:7, 10,12 36:2 39:9 41:15 42:17,20 45:6 47:10,11,13, 15 50:17 54:7 56:2,3 68:12 69:1 73:2 76:24 77:23 79:15,25 therefore 15:21 18:10 30:25 31:20 42:9 43:7 these 15:7,9 21:24 30:14 33:24 40:8 41:12 53:25 58:1 75:6 they 21:4 24:11 27:9 36:25 40:13, 14,16 41:18 42:11 43:5 46:14 48:17 49:7,8 55:5 58:12,13 59:22 62:3 73:1,3,8 75:5,7,22 76:2 they're 15:7, 16 27:9 30:21 36:5 66:22 they've 77:2 thing 55:25 62:21 63:14 64:24 76:24 78:9 things 16:20 think 12:22 16:9 25:12, 15,18 30:3,21 32:4 33:20 34:8 36:19 43:10 48:19 49:12 51:1,4, 17,19 57:12 59:21,24 61:1,15 65:24 66:2,11,16,17 70:18,19 74:18 thinking 42:22 45:8 this 11:20,23 12:6,10 13:2, 13,16,17 14:5,8,9,15, 20,22 15:1,3, 18,19,22 16:5,12,13 17:21 19:22, 24 20:3, 7, 12, 14,25 21:4,20 22:17 23:6,7, 9,18,21 24:20 25:15 26:10, 19 32:24 33:21 34:13, 19 35:9,10 38:9 41:4,23 Submitted into the public record for item(s) P2.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk • 42:4,11 47:7 52:15 54:12 55:9 56:1,3, 4,7 57:23 62:1,5,25 63:12,14 64:9,10,16, 22,23 65:9 68:5 69:14 70:14,15,18, 19,20 71:8,11 73:15,20 76:4 78:3,15 those 26:13 33:25 38:2,21 40:11 48:2 52:17 58:25 59:2 66:24 69:9 though 74:9 thought 31:7 43:22 48:4,5 62:11 75:15 thoughtful 21:5 51:1 three 30:17 46:1,4 52:11 through 32:18 37:24 49:8 75:5 throughout 22:25 throwaway 61:4,8 time 16:12 20:23 22:14 26:8 51:20 57:24 66:11 68:11 times 49:9 63:19 to 11:8,20 12:8,10,20,22 13:12 14:2, 14,16 16:4,7, 8,10,17,18,19 17:11,13,19, 21,22 18:1, 13,15,17,18, 23,25 19:15, 16 20:5,6,19, 20,25 21:1, 12,15,24 23:2,4,5,8, 14,17 24:2,8, 11,18,19,24 25:1,3,4,13 26:4,5,12,19, 22,23 27:3,5, 12,16,20,21 28:4,6,17,18, 25 29:11,16 30:5,8,11,13, 19,20,22 31:2,10,13, 19,21,22,24 32:3,8,16,18, 21 33:3,4,9, 13,14,18,19, 22 34:1,8 36:8,9,17,21 37:1,5,10,14, 17,25 38:10, 17,21 39:15, 18 40:1,8,9, 19,20,22 41:2,6,10,11, 14,25 42:4,9, 10,23 43:12, 16,24,25 44:2,3 45:6, 11,21 46:7,9, 15 48:3,10, 14,21,25 49:4,5,7,19, 23 50:3,4,12, 20 51:8,12,24 53:2,6,8,14, 19,20,23,24 54:11,14,19 55:4,5,6,7, 10,13,21 56:2,4,11,17, 18,19,20 57:13,14,21, 22,24,25 58:1,4,13,17, U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 26 16:24,25 20:21,24 76:15 Wait 57:9 walk 30:6 37:24 38:1 42:6,7,15 43:21 49:8 75:4, 7 walked 27:18 walking 38:19 75:3 walkway 38:21,24 69:1 72:10,25 73:4 wall 21:22 31:16 72:8, 16,24 73:8 walls 53:10, 19 69:23 want 24:16 30:19,20 32:3,11,12 33:3 36:17 40:7 41:25 42:23 43:24 48:25 53:2 61:5,21 62:16 63:6,8,9,13 64:12 70:22 72:19 74:11 76:9 wanted 29:16 30:5 62:24 67:2 wants 28:15 56:12 57:23 was 15:2 18:13 20:4 21:1 23:15 24:8 26:1 29:12 31:6,9, 10,11 32:5,7 33:19,20,22 34:11,16 35:15 36:12 44:6,25 47:6, 7 48:4,5,6, 12,18 51:11 53:17 54:1,4, 10,11,12,16, 18,25 55:3,4, 10,12,13,16, 20,21 60:20 63:17,18 65:1,5 66:15 68:24,25 69:5 70:13 71:10, 14 74:10 77:25 wasn't 49:11, 14 55:8 waste 26:8 way 31:22 32:5 39:14 48:17 53:15 64:5 66:22 70:23 74:22 ways 73:2 we 12:12,21 13:1 17:3,9, 11,14 23:8, 17,18 24:16 25:7 27:12, 13,18,21 29:2,10,16 30:5,11,20,21 31:1,2,3,4,7, 10,13,17,24 32:1,2,3,9 33:25 34:2,5, 6,14 35:10, 11,20,24,25 36:8,10,13,17 37:1 40:22 41:25 42:5,9, 10,17,21,22, 25 43:17,18, 20,22,23,25 44:1,2,3 45:8,9,10 46:21 48:1 50:13,24 51:1,2,4 52:1 53:3,9,19 54:9 56:15 57:7,8,20 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 58:21 59:8,9 60:19 61:2, 15,16 62:24 63:6,8,9,13, 15,22 64:8,9, 24 65:22 67:7 69:15,17,20, 21,24,25 70:1,2,3,4,6, 7,8,10,12,15, 21,22 71:21 73:14,19 74:19 75:15, 16 76:6 77:17,22 78:4,14 we'd 43:6 48:21 53:20 59:12 we're 30:22 33:13,14,19, 21 35:22 41:5 43:15 44:2 45:11 46:9,15 58:2 63:2 65:13,19,20, 21 70:20 73:16,18 77:21 78:11, 12 we've 25:12 27:6 36:15 54:2 70:4 73:17 75:17 weeks 29:1 weighing 78:1 weight 25:13 53:24 well 20:24 21:2 29:15 37:17 39:19 41:8,16 45:8 58:23 59:9 64:16 69:2 71:24,25 72:1,4 79:3 Wendy 73:17 went 32:1 53:19 68:15, 20 were 11:21 23:7 26:18, 22,23 27:12 28:25 33:25 34:2 38:10 40:11,14,16 42:22 45:8 50:24,25 58:12,21 60:19 63:22 68:18 71:9 73:14 75:6 weren't 40:13 western 20:8 what 12:12 23:7,21 24:24 28:9 29:12 30:10 33:13 34:10 39:14 40:2,4 43:11, 25 44:3 45:15 46:6,8 48:7 49:2 50:25 53:23 54:1,15 60:17,19,20 62:19,22 63:6,8 65:4, 22 69:6,7,9, 20,22,25 74:10,18,21 75:9,17 79:3 what's 46:8 66:6 when 21:3 31:20 41:17, 20 42:9,10 46:13 47:25 53:12 54:14 57:24 66:1 70:1,2 78:20 79:24 where 29:9 30:23 31:4,17 37:5 38:3 39:17 44:1,7, 8 47:18 51:25 59:11 66:12 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Miami Environmental and Historic Preservation Board Board Meeting April 02, 2019 28 34:2 37:5,16, 19,23 38:3,4, 10,17 39:2,12 41:1,3,4 42:14,19,22 43:2,9,15,17 44:7,8 45:8, 20 46:13,14 48:23 50:7, 19,25 51:14, 17,20,21 52:23 54:24 55:16 57:5,18 58:17 59:4,6, 10,20 60:7,17 61:19 62:11, 15,18,19,24 63:20 64:12, 13,14,19 65:4,11 66:4 68:2 69:18,21 70:5,13,16,22 72:5,10,19 73:5,6,12 74:2,3,11 75:1 76:16 77:4,6,8,9 78:20,21,22, 24,25 79:8, 13,15 you'd 38:1,19 you'll 41:14 69:22 you're 20:22 26:7 31:20 36:16 40:19 45:21 53:12 58:22 62:23 70:11 38:13 41:17 51:7 55:19 60:13 66:3,14 74:21 78:25 79:4 you've 25:3 59:20,21,23, 24 60:9 61:24 62:7 your 11:25 13:14 24:17, 25 26:2,3,4,5 28:13 29:12 33:23 40:15 41:20 42:16 44:15 56:16 57:12 58:16 59:18,22,23 60:4,7 62:4 69:21 70:5 74:9 75:4,8, 10,13,14 76:10 yourself 73:13 yourselves 64:12 zone 53:22 71:10,17,23 zoned 80:11 zones 71:3 zoning 72:20 73:2,10,22 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 5 * iiiii11111T1i * 11 11 R City of Miami HEPB Resolution Enactment Number: HEPB-R-19-018 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com File Number: 5659 Final Action Date:4/2/2019 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD, PURSUANT TO SEC. 23-6.2(4) OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS A SPECIAL CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY SINGLE- FAMILY STRUCTURE TO A NON-CONTRIBUTING PROPERTY, LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 5965 NORTHEAST 6 AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, 33137, WITHIN THE MORNINGSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT; FURTHER, INCORPORATING THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS ATTACHED HEREIN AS EXHIBIT "A". The approval, as amended with the following conditions, is based on the project preserving the landscape at the lot, the property being located at the end of 6th avenue, close to the Biscayne Boulevard border, making the property unobtrusive to the majority of eyes that view the Morningside Historic District, and fact that the Secretary of Interior Standards require that new projects not copy what exists but be inspired by them : 1. The site shall be developed pursuant to the plans as prepared by Brillhart Architecture, consisting of eighty-six (86) sheets submitted under PZ-19-2005. The plans are deemed as being incorporated by reference herein. 2. All glass shall be clear with the option of Low-E. 3. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Miami 21 Code, Chapter 17 and Chapter 23 of the City of Miami Code of Ordinances, as amended. 4. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of all applicable departments/agencies as part of the City of Miami building permit submittal process. 5. This Resolution shall be included in the master permit set. 6. The Applicant shall add a semi -permeable screen facing the street along the front covered walkway. 7. The Applicant shall comply with the conditions, as stipulated in the memo from Environmental Resources, attached hereto as Attachment "A" entitled, Inter -Office Memorandum. 8. Prior to the issuance of the Building permit, exploratory and root conditions of Tree #19 be observed by a certified arborist to ensure that irrigation and extra intrusive landscape not intrude upon Tree #19. 9. Brillhart Architecture will work with staff to figure out the proper extent of the boundary fence along Northeast 6 Avenue and the security issue at the Biscayne Boulevard west edge. THIS DECISION IS FINAL UNLESS APPEALED IN THE HEARING BOARDS DIVISION WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS. Preservation Officer Date City of Miami Page 1 of 2 File ID: 5659 (Revision:) Printed On: 4/3✓2019 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk City of Miami Planning Department Historic Preservation Office ANALYSIS FOR A SPECIAL CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICANT: Andrew Aquart PROJECT ADDRESS:5965 NE 6 Ave NET OFFICE: Upper Eastside COMMISSION DISTRICT: District 2 (Ken Russell) STATUS: Contributing FILE ID: PZ-19-2005 ZIP: 33137 HEARING DATE: 4/2/2019 TDRs: No A. GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Pursuant to Section 23-6.2(b)(4) of the City Code of Ordinances, as amended, the Applicant is requesting a Special Certificate of Appropriateness to allow for the new construction of a single-family, residential structure located on a parcel zoned T3-R "Sub -Urban Transect Zone". The subject property is located within the Morningside Historic District, Bayshore Subdivision and the Upper Eastside Net Area. The site is approximately the third parcel located on the Southeast quadrant of NE 60th Street, NE 6th Avenue, and Biscayne Boulevard. (Complete legal description is on file with Hearing Boards) Folio: 0132180340080 Lot Size: Approximately 15,321 sq. ft. B. BACKGROUND: On January 22nd, 1924, the Clerk of the Circuit Court, filed the Bayshore Subdivision, Revised, in Section 18, Township 53, Range 42 in the City of Miami establishing lot 8 and 9 of Block 6 also known as 5965 Northeast 6th Avenue. C. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The subject property is a vacant lot located within the Momingside 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. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk E. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: ZONING Subject Property T3-R Sub -Urban Transect Zone Restricted (Morningside Historic District) Surrounding Properties NORTH: T3-R; Single Family Transect Zone (Morningside Historic District) SOUTH: T3-R; Single Family Transect Zone (Morningside Historic District) EAST: T3-R; Single Family Transect Zone (Morningside Historic District) WEST: T4-0: General Urban Transect Zone (MiMo/BiBo Historic District) F. ANALYSIS: FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION Single Family Residential Maximum of 9 D.U. per acre Single Family Residential Maximum of 9 D.U. per acre Single Family Residential Maximum of 9 D.U. per acre Single Family Residential Maximum of 9 D.U. per acre Medium Density, Restricted Commercial Maximum of 36 D.U. per acre The following is a review of the request pursuant to 23-6.2(b)(4) of the City Code of Ordinances, the Preservation Office Historic Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Analysis: The existing vacant parcel is located at NE 6th Avenue in the Morningside Historic District. The applicant is requesting the construction of a new single-family residence. The applicant has submitted plans for a two-story single-family residence of modern/contemporary design. The lot is currently a heavily wooded vacant lot. The proposed residence will face the Southwest with one and two-story building segments connected by elevated walkways and hallways. The front of the structure will contain a two- story garage connected to a single -story living space connected by a hallway to a two-story living space in the rear. Another hallway connects this space to a further living space that runs parallel to the front property line. The position of the structure creates a courtyard/garden in the center of the lot. The separation of the construction spaces is meant to reduce the impact of the new construction on the neighborhood's character and emphasize the green space. All spaces overlook the central green space through fixed glass windows. The front building segment at the southemmost comer of the property and the rear building segment to the north have glass facades that lead to porches with tropical wood shutters. The inclusion of porches throughout the property pays homage to the front porches found on Miami's historic properties. Inclusion of wood shutters along the walkways and porches camouflages the Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk To come into compliance with the facade covered parking requirements the Applicant should add a semi -permeable screen wall facing the street along the front covered walkway. Plans depict a narrow pool to the rear of the property and not visible from the right-of-way. Findings: Consistent G. NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES: Code Compliance No Objection Building Required NET No Objection Environmental Resources Approval with conditions pursuant to Attachment "A" Art in Public Places No Objection Zoning No Objection H. CONCLUSION: The application has demonstrated compliance with Chapter 23 entitled "Historic Preservation" of the City of Miami Code of Ordinances and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Staff finds the request complies with all applicable criteria and finds that the request for a Special Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations does not adversely affect the historic, architectural, or aesthetic character of the subject structure or the aesthetic interest or value of the historic district subject to the following conditions as stipulated in subjection 'I" entitled 'Recommendation" as listed below. I. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Section 23-6.2(b)(4) of the City of Miami Code of Ordinances, as amended, and the Secretary of Interior Standards, the Preservation Office recommends Approval with Conditions of the Special Certificate of Appropriateness. 1. The site shall be developed pursuant to the plans as prepared by Brillhart Architecture, consisting of eighty-six (86) sheets submitted under PZ-19-2005. The plans are deemed as being incorporated by reference herein. 2. All glass shall be clear with the option of Low-E. 3. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the_Miami 21 Code, Chapter 17 and Chapter 23 of the City of Miami Code of Ordinances, as amended. 4. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of all applicable departments/agencies as part of the City of Miami building permit submittal process. 5. This Resolution shall be included in the master permit set. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Attachment "A" Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 6 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk NM INr . . 1111.= AM r MI a Mali - MU IIMB �, Morningside Civic Associatior --01.111001110 Architectural Review Committee David Holtzman Robert Graboski Naomi Burt Elvis Cruz Ligia Labrada Monday, June 24, 2019 Subject: Appeal of New Construction - 5965 NE 6th Avenue (Morningside Historic District) Dear Mr. Adams, The Morningside Civic Association's Architectural Review Committee (MCA ARC) has met on site with Mr. & Mrs. Stohner owners of 5965 NE 6th Avenue ("Applicants"), Mr. Jacob Brillhart, architect, Carlos Lago, Attorney and Landscape Architect on behalf of the Applicants. Present were also Mr. & Mrs. Wagoner abutting 5955 NE 6th Avenue property owners (Appellants"). The MCA ARC understands the HEPB did not have the benefit of our committee's comments during the March Agenda. Notwithstanding, the MCA ARC has reviewed and discussed extensively the scope and constraints of the subject property and supports the HEP Board's approval of this COA, but subject to the following seven conditions that allow this new home to be more consistent with the Morningside Historic Guidelines: 1. Allow the Applicant to install a new 5' metal picket fence along the property frontage to replace the chain link fence, running 17'+/- from the north west property line to the Morningside Perimeter Fence ("the area outside of the Morningside Perimeter Fence"). The new picket fence should be installed at the back of the sidewalk in the same location of the existing chain link fence, not 6' inward of the property as proposed, so existing tree root systems are not unnecessarily disturbed. 2. Do not allow a fence along the property frontage from the Morningside Perimeter Fence to the south west property line (the area inside the Morningside Perimeter Fence"), in accordance with the Morningside Historic Guidelines. 3. Set_back the South property line perimeter fence and side gate to align with the frontmost building wall of the abutting 5955 NE 6th Ave. property, in accordance with the Morningside Design Guidelines. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 7 i Curriculum Vitae 1 JACOB BRILLHART 1. Date: June 1, 2018 PERSONAL 2. Name: Jacob Brillhart, AIA, LEED AP 3. Home Phone: 786.280.7769 4. Office Phone: 786.280.7769 5. Home Address: 937 NW North River Drive, Miami, FL 33136 6. Current Academic Rank: Associate Professor 7. Primary Department: University of Miami School of Architecture 8. Secondary/Joint Appointment: N/A 9. Citizenship: U.S. 10. Visa Type (if non -US Citizen): N/A HIGHER EDUCATION Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 11. Institutional: Columbia University, Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and May 2004 Preservation, Master of Science in Advanced Architectural Design Tulane University School of Architecture May 1999 Bachelor of Architecture 12. Non Institutional Training: The Art Students League of New York, Life Drawing and Painting 2000-2001 New Orleans Academy of Fine Arts — Life Drawing f & II 2002-2003 13. Certification, Licensure: Registered Architect, License # AR93501 2006-present State of Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture and Interior Design LEED Accredited Professional, Leadership in Energy and 2008-present Environmental Design PUBLICATIONS 17. Books and Monographs 17a. Books and Monographs Published Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Voyage Le Corbusier: Drawing on the Road -- (National/International Distribution) A book about Le Corbusier's Travel Drawings - 191 pgs Published in 2015 by WW Norton & Co. Principal Author: Jacob Brillhart Foreword: Jean Louis Cohen On the Waterfront: Miami's 15 Mile Promenade -- (Local and State Distribution) Publisher: University of Miami School of Architecture, 2012 Principal Author: Jacob Brillhart 17b. Books and Monographs In -Progress Architect's Toolkit: Old Models for Future Buildings Working on a new book featuring new drawings of Tropical Modern buildings from the 1950s/60s, to illustrate how these construction methodologies can be applied today using new materials and technologies. Seeking publisher during 2016-2017 Academic Year Principal Author: Jacob Brillhart Jacob Brillhart: Travel Drawings and Sketches A portfolio highlighting a self-taught education in drawing. Features hundreds of sketchbooks and paintings by Jacob Brillhart - made while following Le Corbusier through dozens of cities around the world as well as other travels across the US. Seeking publisher during 2016-2017 Academic Year Principal Author: Jacob Brillhart 18. Juried or Refereed Journal Papers and Exhibitions 18a. Refereed Papers: "Living in the Tropical Landscape: A Visual Toolkit: Old Models For Future Buildings ACSA Annual (National) Meeting in Toronto, Canada 42% Acceptance Rate "Drawing Towards a More Creative Architecture, Mediating between the Digital and the Analog" ACSA Annual (National) Meeting in Montreal, Canada 34% Acceptance Rate 18b. Refereed Posters: "A Machine for the Infinite City" ACSA Fall Conference in Halifax, CA - 60% Acceptance Rate "Living in the Landscape, Emergent Technologies + Old Models " ACSA Annual (National) Meeting in Miami Beach, Florida - 43% Acceptance Rate Dec 2015 2012 March 2015 March 2011 October 2014 March 2014 3 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk t Art by Architects, AIA A juried (local AIA Miami Chapter) group exhibition of artwork by architects during the AIA National Convention in Miami. Awarded Top Five Most Distinguished Works of Art. 19. Other Works, Publications and Abstracts 19a. Solely Authored Articles: "A Visual Toolkit: Old Models for Future Buildings" - CLOG Miami Published by CLOG New York, NY; pgs 48-49 "Miami's Urban Waterfront" - CLOG Miami Published by CLOG New York, NY; pgs 52 - 53 "Architectural Drawing in the Digital Age," - The Classicist No. 9 Published by the Institute of Classical Architecture & Classical America, New York, NY: pgs 114-121 Art Basel newspaper 19b. Architectural Projects published in Scholarly Periodicals and Journals: "The Miami Seaplane Terminal" - ZAPP Urbanism Published article about Miami Seaplane Terminal design by Jacob Brillhart "Brillhart's Drawings and Small Buildings;" - Manhattan Studio News Published by the Institute, New York, NY: pgs 34 -42 "Road Drawing" - ZAPP Urbanism: Not Not Architecture Published by the Institute, New York, NY: Pg 10 "A Drawing Contribution" - Zapp Published by Zapp Urbanism, Issue 4, New York, NY: pg 25-35 Summer 2010 February 2014 February 2014 January 2012 December 2010 January 2011 Fall 2009 Summer 2009 2005 19b(1). Architectural Projects published in Peer -Reviewed Television Programs: BBC / Netflix Production: World's Most Extraordinary Homes - Season 2 - USA April 2018 Brillhart House is 1 of 4 featured homes NBC Open House Production: Jacob Brillhart // Brillhart House featured (forthcoming) June -July 2018 19c(1). Architectural Projects Published or Reviewed in Newspapers and Magazines: Architectural Digest -"This Modern Concrete Home Blends Right Into Its Island Surroundings" - online June 2017 House and Gardens UK July 2016 Daily Business Review- "UM, Developer Foster MicroHousing Designs" Text by Carla Vianna - online March 2016 5 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 1 The New York Times - "MoMA PS 1 Names Winner of Summer Architecture Competition" - online February 2015 Architect's Newspaper -"Best of Design Awards - Single Family House: Brillhart House" printed / online January 2015 The New York Times - "DIY is in their DNA' By Elaine Louie, Printed section D7 / online December 2014 The Architect's Newspaper -"5 Finalists Named for 2015 MoMA PS1 Program" - online November 2014 Architectural Digest - "MoMA Young Architects Finalists Are Announced" - online November 2014 Metropolis Magazine - "First Look: Getting to Know the Finalists of the 2015 MoMA November 2014 PS 1 Young Architects Program'; Text by Zackary Edelson - online Wall Street Journal - "Automation Makes Us Dumb" Text by Nicholas Carr November 2014 Quote from past paper "Drawing in the Digital Age" - cited as one of 4 quotes - online The Miami Herald- "Meetinghouse collective brings together Miami artists, their work" November 2014 Text by Ricardo Mor - online Architect Magazine - "MoMA Announces Five Finalists to Apply in 2015 YAP Program"- online November 2014 Architect's Newspaper - "Miami Turns Up the Design Heat" An Exhibition Review Feb 2014 Text by Alexandra Pucciarelli - online Biscayne Times "It's Time to Walk the Walk" Text by Christian Cipriani - printed July 2013 Miami Herald - "Waterfront Ideas Pour In" Text by Andres Viglucci 2012 Design Bureau - "The Vertebrae Chair" - online June 2011 Wallpaper Magazine - "Miami's Urban Renaissance" Exhibition Review of March 2011 "The Architecture of Drawing" text by Dominic Mckenzie - online The Miami Herald - "By Hand" Exhibition Review of "The Architecture of Drawing" Text by Beth Dunlop - printed New York Times - "In Miami, a Contest for Best Lifeguard Roost" Competition Award announcement with Photo By Linda Lee of Brillhart designed Lifeguard Tower - printed The Miami Herald - "Lifeguard Tower, Beauty and the Beach" Design Review by Architectural critic Beth Dunlop - printed 19c(2): Architectural Projects Published or Reviewed in Blogs Dezeen - "Top 5 Houses in Florida" one of the most popular and influential architecture and design magazines, with: 1.75M unique monthly visitors, 611K Facebook followers; 700K Instagram followers; 15K Twitter Followers March 2011 December 2004 November 2004 June 2017 Dezeen (dezeen.com) - "Brillhart House" Summer 2016 ArchDaily (archdaily.com) "Drawing on the Road: The Story of a Young Le Corbusier's June 2016 Travels through Europe" 7 The Real Deal (realdeal.com) - "Miami River House Wins Architect's Newspaper Award" January 2015 ArchDaily (archdaily.com) - "2015 YAP PS1 Shortlist" November 2014 Architizer (architizer.com) - "Something to Yap About: The 2015 Finalists for MoMA PS1 Competition" November 2014 DesignBoom (designboom.com) - "Shortlist Announced for 2015 YAP Installation at MoMA PS1 November 2014 Bustler (bustler.com) - "Dawntown Design/Build Competition Winner on View in Miami" April 2014 ArchDaily - "Dawntown Design/Build Competition Winner / Brillhart and Clavel January 2013 Archinect (archinect.com) - "Dawntown Miami Unveils Winner of its First Design Build Competition" January 2013 19d. Invited Exhibitions: Meetinghouse - Page + Form Theme was Books and Documentations - Brillhart's travel sketchbook included Held at Meetinghouse Exhibit Space - Downtown Miami Meetinghouse - Inaugural Exhibit Conceptual Model of Brillhart House was featured alongside other works that touched on the idea of making. Held at Meetinghouse Exhibit Space - Downtown Miami Furniture by Architects The Vertebrae Chair was among furniture projects on display from 9 different architects and firms. Curated by Nikolay Nedev, Instructor FIU SOA. Held at Florida International University's Miami Beach Urban Studios (MBUS) Gallery, Miami Beach, FL. Inventory Series 3, Experience of a City, during Art Basel 2012 A series of three Wall Cabinets (which I designed and fabricated) was on exhibit with other design objects from renowned and emerging designers with connections to four cities— Miami, Brooklyn, Sao Paulo, and Caracas— which considered explorations into the relationship between urbanity and humanity. Curated by Thais Fontenelle. The exhibition can be viewed at www.collectiveinventory.com Inventory Archive The Vertebrae Chair, which I designed and fabricated, was featured among other selected objects featured in Inventory Series 1 and 2. March 2015 November 2014 October 2013 December 2012 October 2012 Inventory Series 2, Soul Does Matter, during Art Basel 2011 December 2011 The Vertebrae Chair was on exhibit with other design objects that explored the interplay of materials and intangible personality. Curated by Thais Fontenelle. The exhibition can be viewed at wwwcollectiveinventory.com Dawntown November 2011 A group exhibition selected out of over 500 entries of the first four years of architectural ideas presented in the Dawntown Architectural Competitions, exhibited at the University of Miami School of Architecture, Coral Gables, FL Art By Architects February 2011 An AIA sponsored group exhibition of paintings and sketchbooks hosted by JSK Architectural Group, Coral Gables FL. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 9 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk PROFESSIONAL 21. Funded Research Performed MANA Development: Sponsored Upper Level Studio - Raised $15,000 to study micro -housing with Architecture and MRED students. I also secured a temporary studio space in Downtown Miami for the Spring 2016 Semester. Miami Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO): Provided grant funding of $25,000 for publication of book: "On the Waterfront, Miami's 15 Mile Waterfront Promenade" (I was Principal Investigator) Spring 2016 2010-2012 University of Miami Provost Award (2012): Awarded a $9,500 grant to purchase the rights 2012 from the Artist Rights Society to use 150 images of Le Corbusier's early watercolor drawings. These drawings are to be included in the book, Voyage Le Corbusier, which I have authored and which was published by W.W.Norton, Inc. 22. Editorial Responsibilities: Curator or Co -Curator of Public Exhibitions Coral Gables Museum - "Underline" Exhibition (Coordinator) Featured Student Work of the Underline project, completed in Spring 2015. MCAD Inaugural Exhibit - "Drawn From Miami" Exhibition of hand -drawings by architects, urban designers and landscape architects who have shaped Miami's multi -dimensional urban fabric. Materials were drawn from a variety of sources, including museum archives, academic institutions, private collectors and most importantly, the personal collections of individual architects. Held at the Miami Center for Architecture and Design (MCAD), Downtown Miami, FL. Curators: Jacob Brillhart; Nick Gelpi; Jean -Francois LeJeune; Terry Riley; Allan Shulman Curator of Public Exhibitions - University of Miami School of Architecture Visual Thinking in the Digital Age Sketchbooks and paintings of Jacob Brillhart and Errol Barron Held at the University of Miami School of Architecture Child of the Sun, Frank Lloyd Wright's Florida Southern College Exhibition of Robin Hill's photographs of the Florida Southern College. Held at the University of Miami School of Architecture On the Waterfront Exhibiting over 200 student design projects for seven miles of the underdeveloped Miami waterfront. Held at the Freedom Tower, Downtown Miami Spring 2015 December 2013 Spring 2009 Fall 2009 Fall 2008 23. Professional and Honorary Organizations: Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture Member (ACSA) 2010-present American Institute of Architects (AIA) 2009- present DOCOMOMO, US. (DOcumentation and COnservation of 2009 - 2011 buildings, sites and neighborhoods of the MOdern Movement) 11 Urban Environment League - Orchid Award Honored for contribution to planning and preserving the waterfront Other honorees included: Hon. Miami -Dade Commissioner Audrey Edmonson; Avra Jain; Dr. Willie Logan, Linda Carroll, Esq.; Bruce Matheson; Hon. City Of Miami Commisioner Keon Hardemon, Frank And Audrey Peterman; Eric Tullberg; And Hon. City Of Miami Mayor Tomas P. Regalado Dawntown Design Build Competition Winner Selected from 110 teams worldwide to create a temporary installation on the "Evolution of Miami" (Collaboration with Manuel Clavel-Rojo (Murcia, Spain). Jury: Terry Riley - DawnTown Board Member / Principal Keenan Riley (former director of MOMA and Miami Art Museum); Joachim Perez - Executive Director, DawnTown; Matthew Anders - Deputy Director, DawnTown; Jean Francois Lejeune - DawnTown Board Member / Dir. Graduate Program - University of Miami; Eric Ranking - DawnTown Board Member / Dir. Architecture Program at DASH (Design & Architecture Senior High); Andrew Frey - DawnTown Board Chair/Founder 2012 AIA Miami - Un-built Design Excellence Award - Grass Box 2010 National Jury: Boston American Institute of Architects Ken Roberts (KROB) Delineation Finalist For a mixed media drawing - hand drawing and digital media. Jury: Dan Wood, AIA, LEED AP, Co -Founder and Partner of WORK Architecture Company; Gary M. Cunningham, FAIA, Founder and President of Cunningham Architects; and Namanand Henderson, Editor of www.Archinect.com Rome Prize Finalist in Architecture - Awarded by American Academy in Rome Chosen as one of two finalists out of 74 national applicants. Jury: Guy Nordenson, Richard Barnes, Anite de la Rosa Berrizbeitia, Harry Cobb, and Calvin Tsao 2010 2010 AIA Miami - Un-built Design Award - Mechanical House Project 2008 Jury: National jury of New York AIA Members AIA Florida - Cottage Design Competition Finalist 2008 Gabriel Prize Finalist Awarded by The Western European Architecture Foundation. Chosen as one of two finalists out of over 40 applicants. Jury: Patrick J. Fleming,Amy E. Gardner, Raymond L. Gindroz, Jean-Louis Nouvian, Patrick L. Pinnell, and Harold Roth 2006 & 2007 Rieger Graham Prize Runner -Up 2007 Awarded by the Institute of Classical Architecture and Classical America, New York, NY Winner of Miami Beach Lifeguard Stand Design Competition, Miami Beach, FL Fall 2006 Design Excellence Award for Thesis Spring 1999 Tulane School of Architecture, New Orleans, LA 25. Post -Doctoral Fellowships: N/A 26. Other Professional Activities Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 13 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07125 2019 , City Clerk Dillworth Residence - Miami, FL Deuble Pavilion — Hartville, Ohio Gombinski building painting project, Miami, FL Medical Offices for Dr. Wentworth Jarrett, Miami, FL Architectural Design projects by Brillhart Architecture that did not require City, State, and local design review or Florida Building Code guidelines: Complete 2010 Complete 2008 Complete 2008 Complete 2008 Van de Put Residence - Harbor Island, Bahamas (New Construction, Single Family Home) In Design Cabinet Loggia - Eleuthera, Bahamas (New Construction, Single Family Home) In Construction Ingraham Retreat - Eleuthera, Bahamas (New Construction, Single Family Home) Built Thatch House - Eleuthera, Bahamas (New Construction, Single Family Home) Built Chica Residence - Miami, FL (New Construction, Single Family Home) Permitting Alexander Medical Building - La Jolla, CA (Renovation - Medical Building) In Construction 5x5 Participatory Provocations Model Complete 2016 2015 MoMA PS1 Young Architects Program- Drones' Beach Complete 2015 (Proposal for Summer Installation in 11,000 sf Courtyard) 2013 Dawntown Design Build Installation Winner - "Infinite City" (History Miami Museum) Complete 2013 Vertebrae Chair — Furniture Design Complete 2011 Wall Cabinet — Furniture Design Complete 2010 Case Study House — Residential Design Complete 2009 Mechanical House — Residential Design Complete 2008 Miami Beach Lifeguard Tower Complete 2004 26b. Invited Lectures/Juries Invited Lectures University of South Florida Lecture Series: Brillhart Architecture AIRS - South Quad Conference: Keynote Speaker, Brillhart Architecture FIU Lecture Series: Brillhart Architecture FAU Lecture Series: Brillhart Architecture 1 of 4 presenters selected to present in the Spring 2016 semester Lecture Series. Other firms included Alan Shulman + Associates; Brooks and Scarpa; Lake Flato AIA Florida - Emerging Professionals Speaker Annual Convention 2015 - State of Florida AIA 1 of 2 firms selected in the State of Florida to present at State Conference on Emerging Practice National Young Arts Foundation - Young Arts Design Masters Class Class/Lecture taught on Material and Structural Assemblies at the National Young Arts Foundation in Miami East-West Dialogues Symposium @ University of Miami - Presented the "Toolkit for the Florida Modern Architect" which explored the material selection and the systematic (architectonic) assembly of residential architecture in South Florida's postwar period. Miami Dade College's A+A3 Architecture Series Design/Build Panelist- Presented on the "Design and Construction Process of the Brillhart House" Fall 2017 Spring 2017 Spring 2017 Spring 2016 August 2015 February 2014 November 2012 October 2012 15 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk Pre -Thesis (Required seminar of all Graduate Students) 2014 ARC 581-681 The Young Architect's Toolkit (3 credit seminar) 2015, 16 Drawing and Visualization ARC 111, Mechanical Drawing 2007, 08 ARC 112, Freehand Drawing 2009 ARC 512 / 548 Advanced Visual Analysis 2009, 08, 06, 13 Rome Graduate and Undergrad Program 2006, 08, 09 Explorations Program 2006, 07, 08 Courses taught at Tulane University School of Architecture DSGN 2200, Design Studio II 2010 DSGN 5200, Thesis Design Studio 2010 AVSM 1200, Visual Media II 2010 29. Thesis and Dissertation Advising/Post-doctoral student supervision "Emergency Relief Housing Design," New Orleans, LA, By Joachim Perez, M.Arch. SERVICE 30. University Committee & Administrative Responsibilities: 30a. University of Miami School of Architecture Gallery Curator The following exhibits have been coordinated and built under my leadership: School of Architecture Commencement Exhibition University of Miami Student Work (Fall & Spring Semesters) Florida Modern, The Architecture of Mark Hampton An exhibition outlining the career of the modern architect and his residential projects Luigi Moretti: Tutte Le Ville (1931 — 1973) Drawings, photographs and models featuring the Italian architect Luigi Moretti and his work on the single family dwelling The Three Romes Over 100 drawings and other media representing 16 years of student and faculty work in Italy Hosted Exhibitions- @ UM School of Architecture - installation of traveling exhibitions Art Deco, Miami Beach / Shanghai An exhibition of over 60 photographs of the Art Deco architecture in Miami Beach and Shanghai Arquitectum: Miami Beach Pier -Museum An exhibition of an international design competition exploring the conceptual possibilities of museum and pier architecture in Miami Beach Drawing on Palladio: Contemporary Examples of a Living Tradition Over 50 drawings and paintings organized by the Institute of Classical Architecture and Classical America Tradition and Sustainability: Architecture and Urbanism as if the Future Matters. 50 drawings and photographs produced by The Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment, loth Anniversary Touring Exhibit 2008 2007 — 2011 2007 - 2011 Fall 2010 Summer 2008 Fall 2007 Spring 2010 Spring 2009 Fall 2008 Fall 2008 17 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 8 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF MARK STEPHAN IN SUPPORT OF PIM INVESTMENT&_LLC BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Mark Stephan, who first being dulysworn, deposes and states: 1. My name is Mark Stephan, I am over the age of eighteen (18) years old, and I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Affidavit. 2. I have been a Real Estate Advisor. at Engel .8a V81kers since 2009 where I specialize in the residential real estate market. 3. I have sold multiple homes in the .historic Momingside neighborhood and the Upper East Side area of the City of Miami. 4. I am familiar with home values in this area. 5. I have reviewed the proposed plans approved by the City of Miami's Historic and Environmental Preservation Board for the construction of a new,single-family home designed by 13rillhart Architecture at the vacant property located 'at 5965 NE 6 Avenue, Miami, Florida. 6. I have also reviewed and analyzed the immediately surrounding homes and other homes located within the Momingside Historic District. 7. After reviewing and analyzing the plans for the proposed home and the neighborhood context, based on my professional, experience, it is my opinion that the proposed home will positively contribute to ,property values within' the Morningslde historic district including the value of the adjacent home located at 5955 NE 6 Avenue, Miami, Florida (the "5955 Property"). 8. The proposed home has been designed by renowned local architect Jacob Brillhart and his firm Brillhart Architecture. 9. Mr. Brillhart's work is well known and respected across South Florida. His•work has also been featured in the New' York Times, Wallpaper, Architectural Record, Architectural Digest, Dwell, The Wall Street Journal, Architect,. and Architectural Review, among other publications. 10. I understand that the proposed home was designed to be non -intrusive and to protect the existing trees and vegetation on the' site. As such, the proposed home did not maximize the permitted building floor area. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk ABOUT WORK & LIFE EXPERIENCE Mark -A. Stephan Address: 300 Altara Avenue Suite 1415 Coral Gables FL 33146 Phone: 786 543 1006 Email: Andrejko.Stephan@evusa.com Andrejko is a native of Hamburg, Germany who has lived in Miami since 1990 and has developed a keen sense of the local real estate market. He has joined Engel & Volkers Miami in 2009 and been consistently a Top Producer, with sales in excess of $100M. Over the years, Andrejko has cemented his success as a high - end property specialist with superior knowledge of the market. Because of his sales performance, he has been awarded Ruby Status at Engel & Volker's Elite Awards Club. The majority of Andrejko's sales take place in Miami Beach and the Upper East Side of Miami. Andrejko represents Sellers and Buyers, who can rely on his insight and vast network of contacts in the real estate market to facilitate a successful transaction. His direct contacts to Engel & Volkers offices in Europe have helped him to work with clients from Germany, Switzerland, Austria, England, France, Italy, Monte Carlo, and Spain. Because of his reputation, Andrejko has been featured in three German TV shows: "Die Geissens", "Die Auswanderer", and "Rockin Miami". 2009 - present Engel & Volkers Miami • Work as Sales Associate specializing in foreign clients and premium real estate transactions 2001 - 2009 Travel and Real Estate • Traveled with family across US and Europe • Worked as advisor for Impress Printing in Miami Beach (2001 - 2006) • Became licensed Realtor (2005) • Worked as a Sales Associate for HomeWorks Realty (2006 - 2009) 1991 - 2001 Owner of Print Business "Lazerland" in Miami Beach • Started business and grew it to 11 employees • Sold business in 2001 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 9 M— r r r all r-- r— —— 1— EN 1 1 WEST (FRONT) ELEVATION RENDERED VIEW Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk brillhart architecture JACOB BRILLHART ARCHITECT, P A. LICENSE AR23531 127. NW za, STREET CHRISTOPHER CAWLEV LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LLC 7.0 NE MTH STREET SURE 1 ere n cnmsTO 5327 oPFIERCAWEE, COM AVENUE NESODENCE EEmaT SET I vl,n, A-901 all 111111 1111ii Ind 11111 MIN 11111 — MINI INN Mil Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 5966 NE 6TH AVENUE 201-0" FRONT SETBACK e-Cr FRONT SETBACK brillhart architecture JACOB BRILLHART ARCHITECT. P A LICENSE AASSO013. JAWS BRILLNART LCENSE. APSOSOI 1.278 NW 29T,ISTREFI MIAMI FLORIDA 3.31.12 PHONE 703 77ela CHRISTOPHER CAWLEY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LLC CHRISTOPHER CAW., HU FLORIDA LODEN. LS 06007.5 "ITgltrA7.373:U" CHINSWRIS"T'OVIITRCAWLEY OOM WI* NE 6711 AVENUE IMMINENCE 10.111.11 201,-0101 PERMIT SFr Mill 1101 Ell NMI 11111 SU 111111 111111 Ilk k k 5975 N BAYSHORE DRIVE CHAIN LINK FENCE AT STREET FRONT Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk brillhart architecture JACOB BRILLHART ARCHITECT, PA. LCENSE 4.323031342 230013 SPILLHART LICENSE ARGaS01 1270 NVV 291, STREET miA131, GL02404 33142 WON E se 2 30 Tee CHRISTOPHER CAWLEV LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LLC cliPISTCPMEP GIMLET P. FLORIDA LCENSE calscps Tea NE SPTH STREET SUPE 11 ce spasm GLORD4 33133 PRONE 7P3 S34 3327 CRRTSSORINSTOPMESCAWLEY COSI HE 6711 AVEHUE RESODENCE JOB WNW/ 2019-601 PEP1NFT 9E2 MI M---- M- I r S ® i M NO M-- NM Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk brillhart architecture JACOB BRILLHART ARCHITECT, P A uCErr[ raxmo�v0 LICENSE ARIOSO/ 1278 NW 29,11 STREET CHRISTOPHER CAWLEV LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LLC CC.CH TmsoPXERCAWLEV Donn MI5 NCB GM AVENUE NESSODDC NCC PERMIT SET GIN 1— all i M a ® ® 1. —IMO EXISTING CONDITION: Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk . EXISTING GATE AND CHAIN LINK FENCE brillhart architecture JACOB BRILLHART ARCHITECT, P.A. CHRISTOPHER CAWLEY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LLC M¢CXR6TOM CMERCLWLEV COxi NAW HE 6411 AVEHNJE REEDDENCE 102 1111.42111 MS.001 PEWIT SET 11111 NMI 11111 111111 EN /II MINI SE 1111 MN 11111 1 UM 111111 MIN MN 11111 EXISTING VIEW COMING FROM THE BISCAYNE BLVD. SIDE OF THE EXISTING MORNINGSIDE BARRIER EXISTING VIEW COMING FROM THE BISCAYNE BLVD. SIDE OF THE EXISTING MORNINGSIDE BARRIER EXISTING VIEW COMING FROM THE BISCAYNE BLVD. SIDE OF THE EXISTING MORNINGSIDE BARRIER EXISTING VIEW COMING FROM THE BISCAYNE BLVD. SIDE OF THE EXISTING MORNINGSIDE BARRIER Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk brillhart architecture JACOB BRILLHART ARCHITECT, P A LICENSE A.A2110,1110 JACOB SRILLHACIT LioENsE 1278 NW 29TH STREET MIAMI FLORIDA 13142 PHONE RN 200 "SS CHRISTOPHER CAWLEY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LLC CHROTOPRER CAWLEY R, FLORIDA ODENSE LA MOMS no HE 60111 STREET SUITE 1105 war,. .Flomok 3.1135 vroNE 7ge 5.1. 5327 OXPISVOHRISTORXERCAWL EV COI, mt.17 Ecm &VENUE NESODENCE .10B 11.0111. 2019.g. PERN. SE, r— In MN N NM M 1--111111— — 11 NM I N RIM 589 NE o7TH STREET 589 NE 57TH STREET Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 598 NE 58TH STREET EXISTING PROPERTY WITH GRAVEL DRIVEWAY brillhart architecture JACOB BRILLHART ARCHITECT, PA, LCENSE JACOS eRLM�'�LCENSE 12/S NW 20111 STREET MIAMI FLORIDA In. CHRISTOPHER CAW LEY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LLC FLOP., LICENSE LA. 6608,00 dHRIS6,CHRISTOMERCAWLEY COM :54+17.:4 UV LS 9411 PERMIT SET NMI EN all 11111 I ---- r71 I OM On MI NE NM MI Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk brillhart architecture JACOB BRILLHART ARCHITECT Pa ASSEC01.0 JACOB EIRILLRART LICENSE ARMS, 12713 2OTX STREET MIAMI FLORIDA WIRE PRONE ?SS MO 7762 CHRISTOPHER CAWLEY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE L LC CRRISTOPRER CAWLEY RLA FLORIDA LICENSE LE SESSMS na NE MTN STREET SUITE / ICS PARSE FLORIDA 3313e PRONE MP SRI &IV CHRISSCHRISTORIERCAWLET COSI 411MI HE OTH AVEHHE HEOODEHCE JO. 'Ca -001 PERMIT fer 1 0 1 0 In I — 0 0 0 S I I I S — NM I NB HISTORIC MORNINGSIDE PROPERTIES WITH 20'-0" OR LESS FRONT SETBACK POST-MIAMI 21 (CONFIRMED WITH CITY OF MIAMI MICROFILM DEPARTMENT) 5966 NE 6 AVE 460 NE 56 ST PRE-MIAMI 21 (CONFIRMED WITH CITY OF MIAMI MICROFILM DEPARTMENT) 510 NE 56 ST PRE-MIAMI 21 (UNCONFIRMED OR NO RECORD AT CITY OF MIAMI MICROFILM DEPARTMENT) 550NE56ST 580 NE 560 oie 634NE56QT C NE 58 ST 5980 N BAYSHORE DR Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk brillhart architecture JACOB BRILLHART ARCHITECT, P A LICENSE 61610301 ICS NW 2511,1 STREET PRECE PER VC HMS CHRISTOPHER CAW LEY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LLC CHRISTOPHER CAW., PIA Fw• NCB 6411 AVENUE RC SS�DDENCC 101 NUM, )E9-EOI PERMIT SET In MINI ISM MIN It-1/1 I 41=1 MD 1111111 12:11 111=1 11E1 NM MIN MIN Mlle NMI ALFRED BROWNING PARKER HOUSE (5555 N BAYSHORE DRIVE) WOOD CLADDING Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk • brillhart architecture JACCB BRILLHART ARCHITECT, P A, LICENSE .213201340 1270 WV 212.1 STREET PHONE 'se 200 7780 CHRISTOPHER CAWLEV LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LLC CMRSTOPRER GASP/ RA HE GM AWL IMESODEPOE PERMS SET I M IIIIIII l MINI MINI M MN M I Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk ?�t16kC HiI) ICI L 0W]IftheWITI. ,.. '.0 •.:.+ rick. \ 6' mmr' !� il'MilalUth F ,f VM VAA 1+M VM VM eRT!� nl, acme.rel TOLL +N7W3 env Pfl w..n -IIIIfl t e.•area WTR s14«pua .uee manor M IVACI IoaIING SIDE ELEVATION/PLAN EXISTING AND PROPOSED PRIVACY SCREEN brillhart architecture JACOB BRILLHART ARCHITECT, P.A. LCENSE IV, NW 29114 STREET CHRISTOPHER CAWLEV LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LLC FLORIDA LICENSE IA 0155E,IS r.'XOIJmsEec 08 FOPHERCAWLEY mM ss NCB 6711 AVEHUE REMENCE 1019.001 PERMIT SFr 1 NNE NIS BIN 111111 111111 MN We Nil Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk 500 NE 58TH STREET PROPERTY BISECTED BY SECURITY GATE SURROUNDED BY CHAIN LINK FENCE brillhart architecture JACOB BRILLHART ARCHITECT, P.A. LCENSE AA2.2013,50 JACOB SPILLNART LICENSE AMMO, ITAL'ILTRIP:"}E3 ',ACNE 700 no MOS CHRISTOPHER CAWLEY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LLC OLIFSSTOPNER CAWLEY RLA FLORIDA LCENSE LA ASSAM CHRIS'A2X*R1S"T.40;',12E'FICAWLEY COM HE STI1 AVENUE RESODEHCE 101ININAIR 201,001 PERMIT SET MN N 111111 ® a —111111 — — NE In DBH (in) - 39 HEIGHT (ft) - 35 CANOPY SPREAD (ft) - 45 ILIVE OAK f]BH iir'1 - 14 HEIGHT (ft) - 25 CANOPY SPREAD (ft) - 20 SPECIMEN TREES DBH (in) - 22.5 HEIGHT (ft) - 35 CANOPY SPREAD (ft) - 20 ROYAL PALM aC3b i r.r.•; 12 HEIGHT (ft) - 35 CANOPY SPREAD (ft) - 12 LIVE OAK I DBH (inl - 20 HEIGHT (ft) - 30 CANOPY SPREAD (ft) - 25 IlR H On) - I LI.5 HEIGHT (ft) - 30 CANOPY SPREAD (ft) - 30 SLASH PINE J DBH (in) - 28.5 HEIGHT (ft) - 30 CANOPY SPREAD (ft) - 20 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk LIVE OAK DBH (in) - 24 HEIGHT (ft) - 30 CANOPY SPREAD (ft) - 35 LIVE OAK I DBH (in) - 18 HEIGHT (ft) - 30 CANOPY SPREAD (ft) - 25 brillhart architecture JACOB BRILLHART ARCHITECT. P A LICENSE 44.10031360 LICENSE AR61501 1270 NW 29TH STREET. CHRISTCPHER CAWLEY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LLC 7,0160/, LICENSE LA MOMS CMmS6CNRISTOPNERCAWLEY CCM GEC Lob AVENUE NESODENCE 101 HUNK HERMIT SET 1111111 NMI 11111 MIN MN 111111 MINI r - mu a • --mit ons 111111 111111 MN NM SUN STUDY - PROPOSED Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk brillhart architecture JACOB BRILLHART ARCHITECT, P A. LCENSE raW2ECC1.1.0 JAcoe BRILLKART LICENSE ARS3501 17-78 NW 20TH STREET MIAMI RORIDA 131.2 PHONE ?SS 210 77150 CHRISTOPHER CAWLEV LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LLC 0.1181-Cf.,,,t CAWLEY RLA FLORES. LICENSE LA WORM 7ao NE OWN STREET sunv 1,oe MANI, FLORID* 3.3133 P.O. 7.534 .5„3,1 CHRIS.CHRYSTORIERCAWLEV COM en AVENUE NESODENCE JO. NM. 2015•0101 REF/MIT SET I 1 NM NM N NM NMI NM NM MN O In N N 1 I 12' MASTER DRele711,R,, V STEEL COL CPC VAR ATTAC.40 TO ONIX CI Walt( a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 O •Q coic 12'.1 DOOR Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk STEPS PANTED STEPS b 15' S' nvH Naga 9 EKED E531HE. PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCA, 31I5...1 0' brillhart architecture JACOB BRILLHART ARCHITECT, P.A. CHRISTOPHER CAWLEV LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LLC FLORIDA LCENSE LA 11080710 PHONE HOCRISSCrTPHESr2aCAWIEV COM WA&'HELM AVENUE NESODENCE :mn-mm1 PERMIT SET A-102 UN EN r NM 1 N M NM ®111111 S 1 1 UN IMP NEW LOCATION OF RELOCATED ALEXANDER PALMS MS29 NEW LOCATOR OF RELOCATED TRAVELERS PALM 44441 -0EIwwn0N cr2L.n,T • ARR AL.1A OMC.L I , I )NL9X1 GROUNDCOVERS NEW LOCATION OF RELOCATED LIVE OAK MS NEW LOCATION OF RELOCATED PONOAM TREE MA WESTERN PL SCREENING: EXISTING, RELOCATED • NEW ARECA PALMS PROVIDE PRIVACY SCREENING NEW LOCATION OF RELOCATED ALEXANDER PALM M9 NEW LOCATION OF RELOCATED ARECA PALM MS RED LNfE INDICATES CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) OF TREES I PALMS TO REMAN OR BE RELOCATED EXISTING PALMS+ TREES TO REMAIN • BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION (TYP.) SPECIMEN FICUS AUREATO REMAIN ♦ BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION (TYP.) Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk riE Sth AVENUE NEW LOCATION OF RELOCATED ARECA PALMS MODS 1 LE+IS'POEOCIM•10STMTM CWRAETZNIUIU S H F19SIL PAWLL PRLM E �.11r:NS:, PRfrdrT SOEi9NA4 FOR POOL EASTERN PL SCREENING: TALL MONTGOMERY PALMS, NATIVE CLUSIA ROSEA TREES • NATIVE CRABWOOD SHRUBS PROVIDE PRIVACY SCREENING NP.11 4SWVMs. IACPIF.o IINIHPAH.IIm-Am sA .1c4NER w2ML+ NIL EXISTING SPECIMEN LIVE OARS M0,11.10 TO REMAIN • BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION (TYP.) MASTER PLAN RENDERING brillhart architecture JACOB BRILLHART ARCHITECT. P.A. CHRISTOPHER CAWLEY CC 19D0CAPE LRCHITECTULf ILL ILA CHRISTOPHER °ASSAF.' ALA FLORIDA LICENSE LA ceSVES PHONE 7EleSs..S.127 ASD CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. FERNANDO SEGUE PRONE OM aSI JEW ENERGY SCIENCES INC. THEODD Oo RCS STOHHER SOSS NE NCH AI/ENSIS 0010-001 NEPS SET 02/18/19 L-102 s---- NM- 11 N- MI I Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.7 . on 07/25/2019 , City Clerk brillhart architecture JACCB BRILLHART ARCHITECT, P A CHRISTOPHER CAW LEY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LLC 0KROSTOPYIERGWVEf Hu FLORIDA LICENSE u moves CHm6ACMm5TORrtMCAW LEY COM O: NE S4a AVENUE RESODENCE 205-001 PERMIT SET S-101