Ord No 28-10-2053ORDINANCE NO. 28-10-2053
An ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami,
Florida, to amend Section 20- 5.19(E) of the Land Development Code entitled
"Certificates of Appropriateness" in order to provide that decisions of the Historic
Preservation Board on certificates of appropriateness to be final; and providing for
an appeal of any decisions on certificates of appropriateness to be made to the City
Commission; providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and
providing an effective date.
WHEREAS, the Land Development Code requires that a "certificate of
appropriateness" (COA) be issued prior to the issuance of a building permit if there is to be
external renovation or alteration to a designated historic site; and
WHEREAS, the current procedures, set forth in Section 20- 5.19(E), specify that
the Historic Preservation Board at a public meeting shall review and recommend upon all
submitted certificates of appropriateness and that the recommendation of the Board is then
forwarded to the City Commission which conducts a public hearing and gives final
approval to a COA application; and
WHEREAS, the Acting City Manager expressed the thought that it may be a better
use of City time and resources and more expeditious for property owners if the final
decision on a permit was made by the Historic Preservation Board, with an appeal to the
City Commission which is same procedure set forth in the Code for the appeal of similar
decisions of the Environmental Review and Preservation Board; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Department has prepared an amendment to
Land Development Code Section 20 -5.19 (E) which would provide that decisions of the
Historic Preservation Board on certificates of appropriateness to be final with an appeal to
the City Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board at its .Tune 15, 2010 meeting after public hearing
and adopted a motion by a vote of 4 ayes 2 nays recommending that the proposed
amendment be denied; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Board at its July 26, 2010 meeting and
adopted a motion by a vote of 5 ayes 0 nays recommending that the proposed amendment
modified as suggested by Planning Board members be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to accept the recommendation of the
Historic Preservation Board and enact the aforesaid amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. That Section 20 -5.19 (E), entitled "Certificate of Appropriateness" is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Ord. No. 28 -10 -2053 2
Section 20 -5.19 (E)
E) Certificate ofAppropriateness.
(1) Certificate Required as Prerequisite to Alteration, Etc. Pursuant to a
recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Director of the need for an
appropriateness review, no building, structure, improvement, landscape
feature, or archeological site within the City of South Miami which is
designated pursuant to this Code shall be erected, altered, restored,
renovated, excavated, moved, or demolished until an application for a
"Certificate of Appropriateness" regarding any architectural features,
landscape features, or site improvements has been submitted to and
approved by the Historic Preservation Board or by the City
Commission upon appeal. pufstiaA to the pfoePd-14T:es in this Sec
Architectural features shall include, but not be limited to, the architectural
style, scale, massing, siting, general design, and general arrangement of the
exterior of the building or structure, including the type, style and color of
roofs, windows, doors and appurtenances. Landscape features and site
improvements shall include, but are not limited to, site regarding,
subsurface alterations, fill deposition, paving, landscaping, walls, fences,
courtyards, signs and exterior lighting.
No certificate of appropriateness shall be approved unless the architectural
plans for said construction, alteration, excavation, restoration, renovation,
or relocation ° are approved by the Historic Preservation
Board or by the City Commission upon appeal. City Commission.. A
certificate of appropriateness requesting a demolition permit for a
designated historic structure must receive approval of the City
Commission regardless of whether or not an appeal has been filed.
(2) Standards for Issuance. The Historic Preservation Board shall adopt and
may, from time to time, amend the standards by which applications for any
certificate of appropriateness may be evaluated. In adopting these
guidelines, it shall be the intent of the board to promote maintenance,
restoration, adaptive reuses appropriate to the property, and compatible
contemporary designs that are hannonious with the exterior architectural
and landscape features of neighboring buildings, sites, and streetscapes.
These guidelines may also serve as criteria for the Planning and Zoning
Director to make decisions regarding the need for an application for a
certificate.
(3) Procedures.
(a) An applicant for a certificate of appropriateness shall submit an
application to the Planning and Zoning Department Division and
accompany such application with full plans and specifications, site plan,
and samples of materials as deemed appropriate to fully describe the
Ord. No. 28 -10 -2053
proposed appearance, color, texture, or materials, and architectural
design of the building and any outbuilding, wall, courtyard, fence,
landscape feature, paving, signage, and exterior lighting.
The applicant shall provide adequate information to enable
visualization of the effect of the proposed action on the applicant's
building and its adjacent buildings and streetscapes.
If such application involves a designated archeological site, the
applicant shall provide full plans and specifications of work that
may affect the surface and subsurface of the archeological site.
(b) The Historic Preservation Board shall review
upon an application for a certificate of appropriateness affecting
designated properties at a public meeting. The Board may
approve, deny, or approve an application with conditions. in
(4) Appeals from Board decision
(a) An applicant or any interested party may appeal to the City
Commission within 15 days, a certificate of appropriateness
decision made by the Historic Preservation Board. The appeal
shall be submitted to the City Clerk on a form provided by the
City Clerk.
The City Commission may approve, deny, or approve in modified
form an application on appeal, subject to the acceptance of the
modification by the applicant, or suspend action on the application
for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days in order to seek technical
advice from outside its members or to meet further with the
applicant to revise or modify the application. Notice
of the public hearing by the City Commission shall be given to the
applicant, property owner(s) and appellant by certified mail and to
other interested parties by advertisement in a newspaper of general
circulation at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing.
(d)fcl The decision of the City Commission on the appeal shall be issued
in writing. Evidence of approval of the appeal and the application
shall be by certificate of appropriateness issued in the form of a
resolution of the City Commission. °-a .............._ `L
Ord. No. 28 -10 -2053 4
(,e) (d) If the appeal a 8 is denied, or modification is
recommended, the City Commission shall, to the extent possible,
make specific findings as to the reasons for denial and modification,
and recommend appropriate changes, if possible.
(#)am Compliance of Work with Certificate Standards.
All work performed pursuant to the issuance of any certificate of
appropriateness shall conform to the requirements of the certificate. The
City Manager shall designate an official to perform necessary inspections
in connection with enforcement of this chapter, who shall be empowered to
issue a stop work order if performance is not in accordance with the issued
certificate.
No work shall proceed as long as a stop work order continues in effect.
Copies of inspection reports shall be furnished to the City Manager and
copies of any stop work orders shall be furnished to both the Historic
Preservation Board and the applicant. The designated official shall ensure
that work not in accordance with a certificate of appropriateness shall be
corrected to comply with the certificate of appropriateness prior to
withdrawing the stop work order.
(&) (6) Emergency, Temporary Measures.
For the purpose of remedying emergency conditions determined to be
dangerous to life, health, or property, nothing contained herein shall prevent
the making of any temporary construction, reconstruction, or other repairs
to a building or site, pursuant to an order of a government agency or a court
of competent jurisdiction.
The owner of a building damaged by fire or natural calamity shall be
permitted to stabilize the building immediately without approval and to
rehabilitate it later under the normal review procedures of this chapter.
Note: New wording shown in boldlunderlined; wording to be removed shown in k*-MP@wgV
Section 2. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section 3. If any section, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, this holding shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately after the adoption hereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21St day of September, 2010
Ord. No. 28 -10 -2053
ATTEST:
Q " Y CLERK
I" Reading - 9/7/10
2nd Reading - 9/21/10
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND SUFFWJENCY:
CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED:
MAYOR
COMMISSION VOTE: 5 -0
Mayor Stoddard: Yea
Vice Mayor Newman:
Yea
Commissioner Palmer:
Yea
Commissioner Beasley:
Yea
Commissioner Harris:
Yea
X: \Comm Items\2010 \8- 17- 10\LDC Amend COA Appeal Process Ord.doc
South Miami
AFAmerk M
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI 1 1 v
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM 2001
To: The Honorable Mayor Stoddard and Members of the City Commission
Via: Hector Mirabile, Ph.D., City Mafia ger I q-16-7,0 Ta
From: Thomas J. Vageline, Director
Planning and Zoning Department
Date: September 21, 2010 ITEM
Subject:
An ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, to amend
Section 20- 5.19(E)(3) of the Land Development Code entitled "Certificates of Appropriateness" in
order to modify subsection (3) to provide that decisions of the Historic Preservation Board on
certificates of appropriateness to be final; and providing for an appeal of any decisions on
certificates of appropriateness to be made to the City Commission; providing for severability;
providing for ordinances in conflict; and providing an effective date.
BACKGROUND
In 1996 the City Commission adopted amendments to the Land Development Code in order to establish
requirements and procedures for the review of bstoric "certificates of appropriateness" (COA) which are
required prior to the issuance of a building permit if there is to be external renovation or alteration to a
designated historic site. The current procedures, set forth in Section 20- 5.19(E), specify that the Historic
Preservation Board at its public meeting shall review and recommend upon all submitted certificates of
appropriateness. This recommendation is then forwarded to the City Commission which conducts a public
hearing and gives final approval to the COA application.
At the City Commission meeting on June 2, 2010 there were a number of COA applications on the
agenda. At that time the Acting City Manager expressed the thought that it may be a better use of City
time and resources and more expeditious for property owners if the final decision on a permit was made
by the historic Preservation Board, with an appeal, to the City Commission. Based upon that presentation
to the Commission this item is being presented to the Board.
STAFF OBSERVATIONS
(1) It is important to note that an application for a certificate of appropriateness substitutes for the review
by the Environmental Review and Preservation Board (ERPB). The applicant is not required to go before
the ERPB. The zoning review and the architectural compatibility review are done by the same staff
(Planning and Zoning Department).
(2)'.The number of certificates of appropriateness applications being submitted is increasing. This is a
result of increased activity of the Historic Preservation Board in designating historic sites. In the year
2004 there were only 3 buildings designated historic and now there are currently 40 structures (residential
and commercial) designated historic with several new designations pending.
(3) The two step process requiring a review /recommendation by the Historic Preservation Board and then
a public hearing by the City Commission on all certificates of appropriateness is a burden upon the
applicant and the Commission itself Most of the certificates of appropriateness are for small renovation
or alteration permits (signs, windows, doors, roofs, paving, etc.) and in most cases are approved at the
Historic Preservation Board level.
(4) It is recommended that the LDC regulations pertaining to the approval process be amended to allow an
applicant for a certificate of appropriateness, who is not satisfied with the Historic Preservation Board's
decision, to appeal that decision to, the City Commission. This is the same procedure set forth in the Code
for the decisions of the ERPB.
(5) The creation of an appeal process for certificates of appropriateness applications has been supported in
the past by the Zoning Task Force and the Historic Preservation Board in 2004. In November 2006 this
same amendment was recommended by the Planning Board, however, the City Commission at that time
tabled the matter.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION:
The Planning Board at its June 15, 2010 meeting, after public hearing, adopted a motion by a vote of 4
ayes 2 nays (Mr. Morton, Mr. Farfan) recommending that the proposed amendment as denied. It is
important to note that despite the denial during discussion several suggestions were made to improve the
amendment. It was suggested that-limiting the appeal to the applicant should be expanded to allow an
appeal by an interested party. In addition it was suggested that any action by the Historic Preservation
Board on a certificate of appropriateness seeking a demolition permit would automatically be reviewed by
the City Commission regardless of whether or not an appeal was filed.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD ACTION:
The Historic Preservation Board at its July 26, 2010 meeting, adopted a motion by a vote of 5 ayes 0 nays
recommending that the proposed amendment including the two suggestions made by Planning Board
members be approved.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the comments made at the Planning Board and the recommendation of the Historic .
Preservation Board the attached draft ordinance has been revised to include the two.suggestions proposed
by Board members. It is recommended that the amendment as set forth in the attached draft ordinance be
approved on first reading.
Backup Documentation:
Draft Ordinance
LDC Sec. 20-5.19($) -
Planning Board Minutes Excerpt 645 -10
Planning and Zoning Dept. Staff Report 6 -15 -10
111storle Preservation .Board Minutes Excerpt 7 -26 -10
VV/SAY
XAComm ltems\2QM8- l7- l0\LDC Amend COA Appeal Process CM Report.doc
20 -6.19 SOUTH AELAMI LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
significant degradation of a designated building, structure, improvement, or site is hereby
declared to be a violation of this Code, and is subject to the penalties and provisions set forth
under Section 20 -6.
(B) Notice Required.
(1) Governmental agencies having the aiithority to demolish unsafe structures shall
receive notice of designation of individual sites, districts, or archeological zones
pursuant to this Code fxom the Historic Preservation Board.
(2) The Historic Preservation Board shall be deemed an interested party and shall be
entitled to receive notice of any public hearings conducted by said governmental
agency and the owner relative to the feasibility of, and the public interest in,
preserving the designated property, or significant relic's and artifacts.
(C) Demolition Approval.
(1) No permit for voluntary demolition of a designated building, structure, improvement
or site shall be issued to the owner thereof until an application for approval and the
reasons therefore have been submitted and approved'by the Planning and Zoning
Division, pursuant to the procedures in this Code.
(2) The Historic Preservation Board may petition the City Commission to grant demoli-
tion approval with a delayed effective date of up to six (6) months.
(3) Grant of a demolition approval shall be evidenced by written order of the Planning and
Zoning' Division detailing the public interest which is sought to be preserved.
(4) Such written order may be appealed to the City Commission, pursuant to provisions of
this Code.
(D) Structure Preservation.
(1) During the demolition delay period, the board may take such action as it deems
necessary to preserve the structure concerned, in accordance with the purposes of this
Code.
(2) Such steps may include, but shall not be limited to:
(a) Consultation with civic groups, agencies and interested citizens;
(b) Recommendations for acquiring property by public or private bodies or agencies;
and
(c) Exploration of the possibility of moving one (1) or more structures or other
features.
(E) Certificate of Appropriateness.
(1) Ceriifacate .Required as Prerequisite to Alteration, Etc. Pursuant to a recommendation
by the Planning and Zoning Director of the need for an appropriateness review,' no
building, structure, improvement, landscape feature, or archeological site witivn the
City of South Miami which is designated pursuant to this Code shall be erected,
E=ata 12$
PROCEDURES AND APPLICATIONS 20 -5.19
altered, restored, renovated, excavated, moved, or demolished until an application for,
a "Certificate of Appropriateness" regarding any architectural features, landscape
features, or site improvements has been submitted to and approved pursuant to the
procedures in this Section.
'Architectural features shall include, but not be limited to, the architectural style,
scale, massing, siting, general design, and general arrangement of the exterior of the
building or structure, including the type, style and color of roofs, windows, doors and
appurtenances. Landscape features and site improvements shall include, but are not
limited to, site regarding, subsurface alterations, fill deposition, paving, landscaping,
walls, fences, courtyards, sins and exterior lighting.'
No certificate of appropriateness shall be approved unless the architectural plans for.
said construction, alteration, excavation, restoration, renovation, relocation or demo-
lition are approved by the City Commission.
(2) Standards for Issuance. The Historic Preservation .Board shall adopt and may, from
time to time, amend the standards by which applications for any certificate of
appropriateness may be evaluated. In adopting these guidelines, it shall be the intent
of the board to promote maintenance, restoration, adaptive reuses appropriate to the
property, and compatible contemporary designs that are harmonious with the exterior
architectural and landscape features of neighboring bin ldiags, sites, and streetscapes.
These guidelines may also serve as criteria for'the Planning and Zoning Director to
make decisions regarding the need for an applicarion for a certificate.
(3) Procedures.
(a) An applicant for a certificate of appropriateness shall submit an application to
the Planning and Zoning Division and accompany such application with fail
plans and specifications, site plan, and sanxples of materials as deemed appro-
priate to fully describe the proposed appearance, color, texture, or materials, and
architectural design of the building and any outhuilding, wall, courtyard, fence;
landscape feature, paving, signage, and exterior lighting.
The applicant shall provide adequate information to enable visualization of the
effect of the proposed action on the applicant's building and its adjacent buildings
and streetscapes.
If such application involves a designated archeological site, the applicant shall
provide full plans and specifications of work that may affect the surface and
subsunface of the archeological site.
(b) The Historic Preservation. Board shall hold a public meeting upon an application
for a certificate of appropriateness affecting designated properties in order to
make recommendations to the City Commission.
(c) The City Commission shall act upon an application within. sixty (60) days of.
receipt of application materials adequately describing the proposed action.
The• City Commission may approve, deny, or approve in modified form an
application, subject to the acceptance of the modification by the applicant, or
Errata 129
20 -5.19 SOUTH MIAMI LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. /
suspend action on the application for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days in
order to seek technical advice from outside its members or to meet further with
the applicant to revise or modify the application. Notice and procedure of the .
public hearing by the City Commission shall be given to the property owner(s) by
certified mail and to other interested parties by advertisement in a newspaper of
general circulation at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing.
(d) The decision of the City Commission shall be issued in writing. Evidence of
approval of the application shall be by certificate of appropriateness issued in the
form of a resolution of the City Commission and, whatever the decision; notice in
writing shall be given to the applicant and to the Director of Planning and Zoning.
(e) If a set of plans is denied, or modification is recommended, the City Commission
shall, to the extent possible, make'specific findings as to the reasons for denial
and modification, and recommend appropriate changes, if possible. .
(4) Compliance of Work with. Certificate ,Standards. All work performed pursuant to the
issuance of.any certificate of appropriateness shall conform to the requirements of the
F certificate. The. City Manager shall designate an official to perform necessary mspec-
tions in connection with enforcement of this chapter, who shall be empowered to issue
a stop work order if performance is not in accordance with the issued certificate.
No work shall -proceed as long.. as a stop work order continues i-a e5det. Copies of
inspection reports shall be furnished to the City Manager and copies of any stop work —.
orders shall, be furnished to both the Historic Preservation Board and the applicant.
The designated official shall ensure that work not in accordance with- a certificate of
appropriateness shall be corrected to comply with the certificate of appropriateness
prior to withdrawing the stop work order.
(5) .Emergency, Temporary Measures. For the purpose of remedying emergency conditions
determined to be dangerous to life, health, or property, nothing contained herein shall
prevent the making of any temporaiy construction, reconstruction, or other repairs to
a building or 'site, "pursuant to an order'of a government agency bra court of competent
jurisdiction.
The owner of a building damaged by fire or natural calamity shall be permitted to
stabilize the building immediately without approval and to rehabilitate it later under
the normal review procedures of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 12- 96- 1612, § 5, 7- 30,, -96)
20 -5.20 Pfinimuni housing conditions.
(A) Described and Designated. Any dwelling shall be declared by the city to be unfit for
human habitation if it:
(1) Is so damaged, decayed, dilapidated, unsanitary, unsafe or vermin- infested, that it
creates: a serious hazard to the health or safety of the occupants or of the public;
R=ata 130
. s.
:U ar..
CITY OF SOUTH -MIAMI
PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
City Commission Chambers
7:30 P.M.
EXCERPT
Call to Birder and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Action: The meeting was called to order at 7:46 P.M.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.
H. _ Roll Call
Action: Vice Chair Morton requested a roll call.
'Board members present constituting a quorum: Mr. Morton, Ms. Young; Mr. Whitman, Mr.
Parfan Ms. Beckman and Mr. Cruz. Board members absent: Ms. Yates.
City staff present: Mr. Thomas J. Vageline (Planning &.Zoning Director), Sanford A. Youkilis
(Planning & Zoning Consultant) and Marcus Lightfoot (Permit Facilitator).
Deputy City Attorney: Mr. Mark Goldstein
if[. Planning Board Applications/Public Hearings
PB -10 -010
Applicant: City of South Miami
An ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of.the City of South Miami, Florida, to
amend Section 20-5.19(E)(3) of the Land Development Code entitled.. .. "Certificates - of
Appropriateness" in order to modify subsection (3) to provide that decisions of the Historic
Preservation Board on certificates of appropriateness to be final; and providing for an
appeal of any decisions on certificates of appropriateness to be made to the City
Planning Board Meeting
June 15, 2010
Page 2 of 3
Commission; providing for severabfHty; providing for ordinances in conflict; and
providing an effective date.
Action: Ms. Young read the item into the record.
Mr. Youkilis informed the Board that this is a technical amendment, concerning a Certificate of
Appropriateness.. It is an extra step in the permit process for any designated historic building and
any building permit for exterior renovation requires that the plans be reviewed by the Historic
Board. The Historic Board then makes a recommendation and then it goes to the City
Commission. There are a number of the small COA items and what happens is that majority of
them are routinely approved by the City Commission. The applicant has to wait for the City
Commission to approve the COA before applying for the actual permit in the Building
Department. What is being proposed tonight is that the Historic Board should follow the, same
process as the Environmental Review and Preservation Board (ERPB) which reviews permits not
related to historic sites. If an applicant disagrees with the ERPB decision they can appeal to the
City Commission. Staff is suggesting for the same thing be done for the Historic Preservation
Board. This recently came to light because there where several applications on the agenda for
the City Commission and the Acting City Manager questioned why the applications are being
presented to the City Commission,
Mrs. Young questioned if this is eliminating the final public hearing. Mr. Youkilis replied that
the Board does not hold a public hearing. The difference between a public hearing and public
meeting is that a public hearing is advertised with I ten day notice and a mailing notice. He
commented that some COA are as simple as a door or window replacement.
Mr. Morton questioned that if the applicant were to appeal to the City Commission would they
have to pay a fee. Mr. Youkilis responded no.
Mr. Morton recommended that if a big project where to be proposed to the Historic Board or a
-- demolition the final step should be the City Commission. Mr. Youkilis agreed, but stated that
there are not many new construction projects coming before the Historic Board and even fewer
demolitions.
Mrs. Beckman questioned if the application goes to the City Commission based only on appeals
and is the applicants allowed to speak. Mr. Youkilis responded yes the applicants are allowed to
speak, in fact they are encouraged.
Mr. Morton questioned if only the applicant could make an appeal. Mr. Youkilis responded yes.
Mr. Whitman suggested that the Historic Board should be like the ERPB in which a general
member of the public could appeal.
Mr. Cruz questioned why this is being passed. Mr. Youkilis replied that the Acting City Manager
directed staff to propose changing the LDC. In the past this same amendment was before the
Planning Board in November 2006. However, the City Commission did not approve it.
Planning Board Meeting
June 15, 2010
Page 3 of 3
Mrs. Young questioned the increase in numbers of Certificates of Appropriateness. Mr. Youkilis
responded that the Planning and Zoning Department assigned more staff to help the Board and
an expert in historic designations was hired to assist, thereby increasing the number, Oof
designated sites.
Mrs. Beckman questioned if the Historic Board was notified of this effort. Mr. Youkilis replied
they do not meet until August.
The Vice Chair opened the public hearing.
Speakers: ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE PROJECT
NAME
Sharon McCain 7502 SW 58 Avenue Opposed
Ms. McCain opposed the amendment and stated that the Planning Board should not go this route.
She commented that the Old Lisbon Restaurant had to put a temporary signage because the
Historic Board could not get a quorum together. Most recently a home in the Cambridge Lawns
went to the Historic Board to get the roof installed, and it was already installed: if the ERPB
r includes membership qualifications the Historic Board should include membership guidelines.
She recommended that this needs to be seen by the City Commission.
Mr. Youkilis responded that the Historic Board has a requirement of two architects. There are
forty separate buildings that have a lot of permits and there are eight commercial buildings that
have been designated. Staff was trying to avoid having an applicant or homeowner having to
wait a long time to get a very simple permit..
The Vice Chair closed the public hearing.
Mr. Whitman commented that he would like to consider amending the item so that anyone could
appeal the, application to the City Commission.
Motion: Mr. Cruz moved to deny the application. Mrs. Young seconded.
Mr. Youkilis recommended adding that the applicant or any person with standing could appeal. A
COA to demolish, however, should be seen by the City Commission.
Mr. Whitman questioned if they should defer the item or deny it leave it up to the City Commission.
Vote: 4 Ayes 2 Nays (Mr. Morton and Mr. Farfan)
,.... TJY /SAY
x:WBHistoric Bd\Hi )3Agcddas Staffse ports\2010 \7- 26- 10\PB.Minutes.Excer it COA6.15.2010.doc - s —
To: Honorable Chair and
Planning Board Members
From: Thomas J. Vageline. Director
Planning and Zoning Department
Date: June 15, 2010
Re: LDC Text Amendment
Appeal Procedure for historic
Certificates of Appropriateness
Sec. 20 -5.19 (E)
.016
Applicant: Applicant: City of South Miami
A ordinance of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida, to
n
amend Section 201- 5.1.9(E)(3) of the Land Development Code entitled "Certificates of
Appropriateness" in - order to modify subsection (3) to provide that decisions of the
Historic Preservation Board on certificates of appropriateness to be final; and providing
for an appeal of any decisions on certificates of appropriateness to be made to the City
Commission; providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict; and
providing an effective date.
BACKGROUND
In 1996 the City Commission adopted amendments to the Land Development Code in order to
establish requirements and procedures for the review of historic "certificates of appropriateness"
(COA) which are required prior to the issuance of a building permit if there is to be external
renovation or alteration to a designated historic site. The current procedures, set forth in Section
20- 5.19(E), specify that the Historic Preservation Board at its public meeting shall review and
recommend upon all submitted certificates of appropriateness. This recommendation is then
forwarded to the City Commission which conducts a public hearing and gives final approval to
the COA application. .
At the City Commission meeting on June 2, 2010 there were a number of COA applications on
the agenda. At that time the Acting City Manager expressed the thought that it may be a better
use of City time and resources and more expeditious for property owners if the final decision
on a permit was made by the Historic Preservation Board, with an appeal to the City
Commission. Based upon that presentation to the Commission this item is being presented to the
Board.
STAFF OBSERVATIONS
(1) It is important to note that an application for a certificate of appropriateness substitutes for
the review by the Environmental Review and Preservation Board (ERPB). The applicant is not
required to go before the ERPB. The zoning review and the architectural compatibility review
are done by the same staff (Planning and Zoning Department).
LDCAmendment
June 15, 2010 2
(2) The number of certificates of appropriateness applications being submitted is increasing.
This is a result of increased activity of the Historic Preservation Board in designating historic
sites. In the year 2004 there were only 3 buildings designated historic and now there are
currently 40 structures (residential and commercial) designated historic with several new
designations pending.
(3) The two step process requiring a review /recommendation by the Historic Preservation Board
and then a public hearing by the City Commission on all certificates of appropriateness is a
burden upon the applicant-and the Commission itself. Most of the certificates appropriateness e d n
are for small renovation or alteration permits (signs, windows, doors, roofs, paving,
most cases are approved at the Historic Preservation Board level.
(4) It is recommended that the LDC regulations pertaining to the approval, process be amended
to allow an applicant for a certificate of appropriateness, who is not satisfied with the Historic
Preservation Board's decision, to appeal that decision to the City Commission. This is the same
procedure set forth in the Code for the decisions of the BRPB.
(5) The creation of an appeal process for certificates of appropriateness applications has been
supported in the past by the Zoning Task Force and the Historic Preservation Board in 2004. In
November 2006 this same amendment was recommended by the Planning Board, however the
City Commission at that time tabled the matter.
12ECOMMENDA.TiON
Attached is LDC section 20 -5.19 which currently sets forth the procedure for review and
approval of certificates of appropriateness applications. The amendedis ordi n ng is shod in bold
underlined and language removed is sliown by sue*= the
proposed amendment be approved.
Attachments:
Proposed amendment pp 3 -5
Public notices
xN /sAx
X:\PB\PB Agendas Staff Reports\2010 Agendas Staff Reports \6- 15- 1OV'B -SO -010 LAC Amend COA Report. oe
LDC Amendment
June 15, 2010
3
LDC PROPOSED AMENDMENT
It is proposed that subparagraph Section 20 -5.19 (E) be amended to read as follows: (new wording
underlined wording to be removed shown with strikethrough) -
Section 20 -5.19 (E)
E) Certificate of Appropriateness,
(1) Certificate Required as Prerequisite .to Alteration, Etc. 'Pursuant to a
recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Director of the need for an
appropriateness review, no building, structure, improvement, landscape feature,
or archeological site within the City of South Miami which is designated
Pursuant to this Code shall be erected, altered, restored, renovated, excavated,
moved, or demolished until an application for a "Certificate of Appropriateness"
regarding any architectural features, landscape features, or site improvements has
been submitted to and approved by the Historic Preservation Board or by the
this Seel � .
City Commission upon appeal. pursuarite the gfe
Architectural features shall include, but not be Iirnited to, the architectural style,
scale, massing, siting, general design, and general arrangement of the exterior of
the building or structure, including the type, style and color of roofs, windows,
doors and appurtenances. Landscape 'features and site improvements shall
include, but are not limited to, site regarding, subsurface alterations, fill
deposition, paving, landscaping, walls, fences, courtyards, signs and exterior
lighting.
No certificate of appropriateness shall be approved unless the architectural plans
for said construction,. alteration, excavation, restoration, renovation, relocation or
demolition are approved by the Historic Preservation Board or by the CiiV
Commission upon appeal. C- ity-Gen>arissierr.
(2) Standards for Issuance. The Historic Preservation Board shall adopt and may,
from time to time, amend the standards by which applications for any certificate
of appropriateness may be evaluated. In adopting these guidelines; it shall be the
intent of the board to promote maintenance, restoration, adaptive reuses
appropriate to the property, and compatible contemporary designs that are
harmonious with the exterior architectural and landscape features of neighboring
buildings, sites, and streetscapes. These guidelines may also serve as criteria for
the Planning and Zoning Director to make decisions regarding the need for an
application for a certificate.
LDC Amendment
June 15, 2010
CI
(3) Procedures.
(a) An applicant for a certificate of appropriateness shall submit an
application to the Planning and Zoning Department Divisisrz and
accompany such application with full plans and specifications, site plan,
and samples of materials as deemed appropriate to fully describe the
proposed appearance, color, texture, or materials, and architectural design
of the building and any outbuilding, wall, courtyard, fence, landscape
feature, paving, signage, and exterior lighting.
The applicant shall provide adequate information to enable visualization
of the effect of the proposed action on the applicant's building and its
adjacent buildings and streetseapes.
If such application involves a designated archeological site, the applicant
shall provide full plans and specifications of work that may affect the
surface and subsurface of the archeological site.
(b) The Historic Preservation Board shall review hWP a on
an application for a certificate of appropriateness affecting designated
properties at a public meeting. The Board may approve deny, or
approve an application with conditions.
(4) Appeals from Board decision
( pplie lion vvitk sixt3i3 s
Of-r �e
astien
� An applicant may appeal to the City Commission within 15 days, a
certificate of appropriateness decision made by f the Historic
The City Commission may approve, deny, or approve in modified form an
application on appeal, subject to the acceptance of the modification by
the applicant, or suspend action on the application for a period not to
exceed thirty (30) days in order to seek technical advice from outside its
members or to meet further with the applicant to revise or modify the
application. Notice aR4-T"� of the public hearing by the City
Commission shall be given to the property owner(s) by certified mail and
to other interested parties by advertisement in a newspaper of general
circulation at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing.
(d)(C The decision of the City Commission on the appeal shall be issued in
writing. Evidence of approval of the appeal and the application shall be
by certificate of appropriateness issued in the form of a resolution of the
City Commission. ,
b
LDC rtmendment
June 15, 2010
N
(} (d) if the appeal a=sgt-of� is denied, or modification is recommended,
the City Commission shall, to the extent possible, make specific findings
as to the reasons for denial and modification, and recommend appropriate
changes, if possible.
(4)fQ Compliance of Work with Certificate Standards.
All work performed pursuant to the issuance of any certificate of appropriateness
shall conform to the requirements of the certificate. The City Manager shall
designate an official to perform necessary inspections in connection with
enforcement of this chapter, who shall be empowered to issue a stop work order
if performance is not in accordance with the issued certificate.
No work shall proceed as long as a stop work order continues in effect. Copies of
inspection reports shall be furnished to the City Manager and, copies of any stop
work orders shall be furnished to both the Historic Preservation Board and the
applicant. The designated official shall ensure that work not in accordance with a
certificate of appropriateness shall be corrected to comply with the certificate of
appropriateness prior to withdrawing the stop work order.
(= Emergency, Temporary Measures.
For the purpose of remedying emergency conditions determined to be dangerous .
to life, liealLr , or property, nothing contained herein shall prevent the, making of
any temporary construction, reconstruction, or other repairs to a building or site,
pursuant to an order of a government agency or a court of competent jurisdiction.
The owner of a building damaged by fare or natural calamity shall be permitted
to stabilize the building immediately without approval and to rehabilitate it later
under the normal review procedures of this chapter.
TJV /SAX
x:V'B\PB Agendas StaffRepOTW2010 Agendas StaffReportsl6- 15- 10\PB -10 -0l0 LDC Amend COA Reportdnc
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
REGULAR. MEE'T'ING
SUMMARY MINU'T'ES
MONDAY, July 26, 20X0
City Commission Chamber
7:30 P.M.
EXCERPT
I. Call to order: Ms. Clyatt called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
II. Roll Call: Roll call was performed. Board members present constituting a quorum.: Ms.
Shelley, Mr. Hochstim, Ms. Clyatt, and Mr. Kurtzman and Ms. Lahiff.
Board members absent: Ms. Dison, Mr. La Monica, and Mr. Ruiz de Castilla.
City staff present: Thomas J: Vageline (Planning & Zoning Director), Lourdes Cabrera -
Hernandez (Principal Planner), Sanford Youkilis (Consultant) and Alerik Barrios (Secretary):
VII .NEWOLD BUSINESS
(3) Historic Preservation Board recommendation on proposed ordinance amending the
Land Development Code to provide that the Board's recommendation on a Certificate
of Approprlateness does not automatically go the City Commission for final approval
but can go to the City Commission only if there is an appeal filed.
Mr. Youkilis commented that staff recommends that the process be changed to follow what is
being done for the Environmental Review and Preservation Board: The current regulations -
read that the Historic Preservation Board makes a recommendation for the Certificate of
Appropriateness, and then the COA has to wait to be placed on the City Commission agenda.
A public hearing then takes place, The present Acting City Manager questioned why the City
Commission has to decide on such minor items as windows or signs. He directed staff to
pursue a change in the procedure so that a decision from the Historic Preservation Board
would be considered final.
Mr. Youkilis informed the Board of the previous attempts on having the final approval of a
COA approved by the Historic Preservation Board. He commented that the meeting excerpts
that have been passed out show a positive recommendation from both Boards. However, in
2006 the City Commission considered this same recommendation but tabled the matter.
Ms. Shelly commented that the Planning Board recommended denial of the LDC
amendment. While watching the meeting of the Planning Board it was not clear what the
objections were. There was a lot of guessing on what the Historic Preservation Board is
Page 2 of 2
capable of doing, and that the Historic Preservation Board did not have any standards to
follow and that the Board does not have an architect on the Board. She stated that the Board
has two designated registered architect positions and members on the Board do have years of
experience in preservation. The Planning Board meeting seemed more like .second guessing
what the qualifications of the Historic Preservation Board were, and not on what was being
proposed.
Mr. Youkilis commented that Planning Board member Whitman felt comfortable with the
amendment if an appeal could also be made by someone with standing not just by the
applicant, which is allowed by the E12PB. He also felt that a demolition request is so
important and they should go to the City Commission.
Mr. Youkilis commented that the Planning Board members questioned if the Historic
Preservation Board had given a recommendation on the proposed amendment. Staff
explained that the Board did not meet in June so that a recommendation had to wait for this
meeting.
Motion: Mr. Kurtzman moved and Ms. Shelly seconded to recommend that the City
Commission approve The proposed amendment with the same stipulation specified by a
Planning Board member that any one having standing would be able to appeal the Board's
COA decisions and demolitions of buildings need to go before the City Commission.
Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays
Motion passed _
Mr. Kurtzman commented that he would like to respond to certain allegations made by one
of the public speakers who spoke on this issue at the Planning Board meeting. He explained
that the applicant who came before the Historic Preservation Board for a COA to allow a new
roof installation that was already installed was allowed to do so because the Planning and
Zoning Department in an effort to save the historic building went ahead and approved just
the roof which was necessary to save the building. On the topic of the temporary sign, the
Old Lisbon restaurant signage was placed Ilegally and had to be replaced with a temporary
sign before it was approved for the signage.
XAComm Itemst20IM- 17- 10\14istoric.Minutes.07.26.2010 Excerpt COA Appeal.doc
$
)!
..b
\ a� /1\
:
)
\�
§�
�
\
k�
\
\
(\
))`)\
®
[!
!§
}/
)\ \
(§ !) \
)!
)
\�
\
/
\
(\
II rp a;n yyyvc m T %0 a AX 0
Q II NNACC'> >O yS m@ -TDEvc �s4 $':
a/y I saaoy -. m�ya -'C
�„ �� - =Oao c vm@'a :@N rm.n::x a..sfi`'mg`Fy:° .s_ mc .p a'l �'c �m a coT c,aT 'V o wa O�aTv.'dO �. °v c Lo`'dp _ M -H`�•- v - f z
>OY0 ol c"=E, m° fu rn Wi wn @"@ 1 U -q W u #n„°c
urn
.15 moc g -;, O
On3 �`Ymc
rn
.� V
t�' { �'c ms 4m._y.v..c= c@..s a.c'Ep EmoW CEE nE��6tir �o "� 02
,z N?C jOro'Ov 0001 VyNL >VVVr �...0 NN -Cad a�!pM OV U ml°O
♦S(I.P m+�r 6p Ep,M AMU r�G
w
V
O
a
ppr �c m5a¢ mom- 3Na E C
6ry w E O
�p 1j rs
%WW
I C39rns z�'wz 4S.1 AN
�KOC am'a wFso Gtr - S8o�.� Q 'O o
LU _-g
Bra i� my� �zo >c. r3 and `s. E»°.am..oS -2
>. i m;:. 'a °o°¢ =� into �2 a4§ -`.SS � m gym" .aa
F- _j _aa E°z�o E s »TIAN° t ,c cmi E roe -
'� (� m zmgt`! na 'd v�o9n `s 0 rn o w A'"
c ro
a � off' -x°w sFy, S bG (,� c a ao c r m
d16. "$,c zw °: ° U. � � �y
o. ss o acs °� ¢ E ° ,°�.. °"' s .. 5
W I� mM�'O @ �.''-G[W.aw . °.E. E �v- t V m F. FN -U
ilk [+o N°il �2W p , -P c�'.L`C, o AC5 �' '7 ry ro
pnyt ( a U m Mp 2' aE py ( V } U
__leg
mwr. O yy `k tg .`°- E
CI C) pq Q �w TA tL'ZQW'Z °aid E 4 «mrA aCem
EV � '`K rnm E o °zw'1 a 1 5-- Via. I O aci
E.R..�.E��....
of
CM
r Pm\ 6bq 6o4 ua-a"�0
w mtmmv Vsi m E o o. F
3 ° m.
1 Ed=r 9JO.sue 5� M2
Per E EZ-H Em, �
�E & ^° - so a8'm w-o r-E'o'� $m g Eo Sqc vs A6$
�6� E - m $
N `O QE ta�EC wi gTBQ dVE -tSE mcR - °'og�S.°'c6 cu �pE
Iu$M tlQ EQ6 $'m m Eiy _r ._.N mvo pu
p I AEgv 4mo2 v'�' Doan_ = � >i'�v m�212 -° ',��.- no.u5 ' Rk � -4%i e,��Eg
nn zso Pa. ° =`o'c a'€ na', °'� °3a °' 'O o a.E =a��+�+-Ug-2 s3�' e�
:i.ygp- e10 J=ya �yE-r "1 �' �E� dq °yY �k�`o yyM
v KfW.t SEiS.°, pO a'o9c 6`mq�{$mae ay ^sn -'r°o 2`L YRIE oil; o -z
p� p I �Fo-g o_'cgSi .�_ oc�9ki o9° u cis 5���_ = ray• -�cw 3a p2Yd
c 6} /�1= -� E ^o �,g #. or ^cci, gay�a HRI jS.a 0smug- :;aroy sk ca�u
/dY41i1?1 VY d. N w�08 u og.,110` Ea� §a°.r f EyE 1 =$a
Od) .a @Ny E i €rs°' a °a s'..
MOM: _o 12Ua �$
_finEa N n.. 3+mLT�h 'g %E,-Ec .a$
c ]: ::."ur .- c vSi its �'s € °`
qao Q ,�$ 6..
9 . -gw- ---OS z = -%l_ �E���g
i ITV �E EE2' Dal ag gmbjgPmaE ESC'- E,txa if v -�E e2'g'r.^Z'-a -`m NOW Z9 R
V rn�aV �v 133i x�go no3 d- °Pa�'E v'C °a'i m Wm'E �33`+ae°...•�'bc t?E'�2$
11 �_ gg6s5seZ-�� <.�g= gA,
'id's
�y @uoa.cup osmmntlw�pllyltlxe Rrm doc ui- �o•apom aMRnpop Olean tou Fvw nopp %ea(AU(e6vCpve alepeyl up plmaH WviW Vyl uipwevtlEe pv aypcyt vauopNp onlsnpupa sc popinoaE S1 (y }lveyg3 cryl
:uogduosoo M'89 adA11O100
epealZ£35A$e34inoS8HeN :eu07/a6edju0poeS 0 -SXZ :cps
iwviw H1nos:jo Ain U0pVaAPV 10Z096£5£ .rsgwnN uOlyasui
WWeN.}u*!ID 10ZOS6£se .JagwnN PH
0MR3160 .a;eo uai;eoilgnd
Qj'aaaamew alb