Loading...
10-02-07 Item 11South Miami JUMMINCRY CITY OF I►OUTH MIAMI 11111.1 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM 2001 To: The Honorable Mayor Feliu and Members of the City Commission Via: Yvonne S. McKinley, City Manager <� ✓` From: Julian Perez, Planning Direct 4p, 2 Date: O , 2007 ITEM No. 7/0—j/ Subj ect: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA PURSUANT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20- 5.19(E)(3) REQUESTING THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 6202 MILLER ROAD WITHIN AN RS- 3(HP -OV), RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY) ZONING DISTRICT (CAMBRIDGE LAWNS HISTORIC DISTRICT) IN ORDER TO PERMIT EXTERIOR RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF SECOND FLOOR; AND PURSUANT TO SECTION 20- 4.11(D) IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A REQUEST TO: (1) GRANT A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20- 3.5(E) TO ALLOW FOR LOT COVERAGE TO BE 33% WHERE A MAXIMUM 30% IS PERMITTED; (2) GRANT A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20- 3.5(E) TO ALLOW A SIDE STREET SETBACK OF 7 FEET ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND 13 FEET ON THE SECOND FLOOR WHERE 15 FEET IS REQUIRED FOR BOTH FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Background: Pursuant to Section 20 -5.8 of the Land Development Code (LDC) the applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application requesting approval of a renovation plan for a residential single family home at 6202 Miller Rd. The property is located in the Cambridge Lawns Historic District. The applicant is proposing renovation which will upgrade the structural system, roof, windows, doors, fagade materials, porch, and includes exterior painting. In conjunction with the COA, the applicant is also requesting approval for two variances which are needed to allow the renovation work. The renovation work includes a major expansion of both the first and second floors. Applicable Leeislation All exterior renovation and remodeling involving; a designated historic site requires a recommendation from the Historic Board. In addition, the Land Development Code provides that the Historic Preservation Board will review any necessary variances which are needed in conjunction with requested COA. The review procedure (notices, ads, public hearing) for variances is the same as if the item was before the Planning Board. The Historic Board's recommendation on the COA and the variances is forwarded to the City Commission for an additional public hearing and final decision. Section 20- 4.11(D) (4), Land Development Code also provides that a variance request associated with a Certificate of Appropriateness does not require a finding of hardship. Application History The applicant's original submission to the Historic Preservation Board was on January 28, 2007, which predated the,, second story moratorium ordinance adopted by the City Commission on February 6, 2007. The initial COA application f6i the renovation work was reviewed at several meetings prior to the Board's recommendation on April 200 (2) The City Commission at its June 5, 2007 meeting conducted a public hearing on the initial COA application which was recommended by the Historic Preservation Board„ At the Commission meeting concerned was expressed by Commissioners and several speakers that the request for variances of this magnitude would have a negative impact on the historic neighborhood. The Commission advised the applicant to reduce the magnitude of the renovation work and remanded the item back to the Historic Preservation Board Applicant's Revised Plans The applicant has now revised the original application by reducing the size of both the first floor addition and the second floor expansion. The revised plans were submitted to the Historic Preservation Board. The current renovation plans the following variances: (1) The first variance would allow for an increase in the maximum permitted lot coverage (building foot - print) which in the RS -3 District is set at 30 %. The applicant is proposing to add 410 square feet to the first floor. This will result in 2420 square feet at the ground level which is 33.6 %, exceeding the 30% maximum permitted. (2) The second variance is a result of the expansion of the second floor from 517 square feet to 1242 sq. ft. This additional square footage expands the east side of the structure at both the first and second floors and results in the need for a variance. The current RS -3 side street: setback requirement is 15 feet for both the second and first floors. The applicant's current setback is 7.2 feet and the applicant is requesting that the first floor setback be approved at 7 feet and that the second story setback be approved as 13 feet. (3) The applicant's revised plans indicates that the original proposal of 4,420 square feet has been reduced to 3,662 square feet, a decrease of 752 square feet. (4) It is important to note that the applicant's revised plans will change the total building square footage from the current 2,527 square feet to 3,662 square feet, or an overall increase of 45% in building size. Historic Preservation Board Action: The Historic Preservation Board at its August 27, 2007 meeting adopted a motion by a vote of 4 ayes 0 nays recommended approval of the COA with the two variances as described above. The Board also conditioned its approval with the requirement that the applicant: (1) revise the plans to show a hipped roof line over the rear addition; (2) revise the plans to eliminate the first floor, side street bump -out (increase). The applicant agreed and has submitted revised plans which reflect the adjustments requested by the Board. Recommendation: The two requested variances are being made in conjunction with a Certificate of Appropriateness and are necessary for the renovation, remodeling and upgrading of a very visible designated historic residential site. The renovation plans appear to be sensitive to the Tudor architectural style of the structure. It is recommended that the application /plans (dated 8- 30 -07) for a Certificate of Appropriateness and the two requested variances be approved with the following condition: (1) the applicant must install in a visible location at the front of home a City provided historic plaque at the completion of the renovation work and prior to the issuance the certificate of occupancy. ON (3) Backup Documentation: Draft Resolution LDC Regulations COA Application (includes applicant's 1 -28 -07 letter) City Commission Meeting Excerpt June 5, 2007 Renovation Plans 8 -30 -07 Planning Department Staff Report 8 -27 -07 Historic Preservation Board Meeting Excerpt 8 -27 -07 Public Notices J P /SAY PAComm Items\2007 \10- 2- 07 \HPB -07 -001 COA Var CM Report.doc 2 3 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA PURSUANT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20- 5.19(E)(3) REQUESTING THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 6202 MILLER ROAD WITHIN AN RS -3(HP- OV), RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY) ZONING DISTRICT (CAMBRIDGE LAWNS HISTORIC DISTRICT) IN ORDER TO PERMIT EXTERIOR RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF SECOND FLOOR; AND PURSUANT TO SECTION 20- 4.11(D) IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A REQUEST TO: (1) GRANT A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20- 3.5(E) TO ALLOW FOR LOT COVERAGE TO BE 33% WHERE A MAXIMUM 30% IS PERMITTED; (2) GRANT A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20- 3.5(E) TO ALLOW A SIDE STREET SETBACK OF 7 FEET ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND 13 FEET ON THE SECOND FLOOR WHERE 15 FEET IS REQUIRED FOR BOTH FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, applicant Abisola Dub ey has submitted Historic Preservation Board Application No. HPB -07 -001 requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness approving a renovation plan for a residential single family home at 6202 Miller Road which property is within the Cambridge Lawns Historic District which is an "HP -OV" Historic Preservation Overlay-Zone; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20- 5 -19(E) (3) of the Land Development Code, a "Certificate of Appropriateness" is required for applications affecting the exterior (renovation, repair, painting, demolition or landscaping); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20- 4.11(D) of the Land Development Code, variances for designated historic sites which are associated with the issuance of certificates of appropriateness shall be reviewed and recommended upon by the Historic Preservation Board prior to final approval by the City Commission: and WHEREAS, Section 20- 4.11(13)(4) of the Land Development Code also provides that a variance request associated with a Certificate of Appropriateness does not require a finding of hardship; and WHEREAS, Section 20- 5.19(E)(3) of the South Miami Land Development Code requires the City Commission to conduct a public hearing on certificates of appropriateness and to approve, deny, approve in modified form, or defer a subject application; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Board, at its August 27, 2007 meeting adopted a motion by a vote of 4 ayes 0 nays recommending approval with certain design modifications and a condition of a Certificate of Appropriateness application and two variances for the renovation of a residential single family home at 6202 Miller Road; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami desire to accept the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Board. 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA THAT: Section 1. The Certificate of Appropriateness application and the following two variances: (1) a variance from Section 20- 3.5(e) to allow for lot coverage to be 33% where a maximum 30% is permitted; and (2) a variance from Section 20- 3.5(e) to allow a side street setback of 7 feet where 15 feet is required for the first floor and a side street setback of 13 feet where 15 feet is required for the second floor; all needed for the renovation of a residential single family home at 6202 Miller Road as shown on plans entitled Site Plans dated 8- 30 -07, are hereby approved with the following condition: (1) the applicant must install in a visible location at the front of home a City provided historic plaque at the completion of the renovation work and prior to the issuance the certificate of occupancy. Section 2. This resolution shall be effective immediately after the adoption hereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY P: \Comm Items \2007 \9- 18- 07 \COA 6202 Miller Rd Resol.doc 2 , day of , 2007 APPROVED: MAYOR COMMISSION VOTE: Mayor Feliu: Vice Mayor Wiscombe: Commissioner Palmer: Commissioner Birts: Commissioner Beckman: South Miami All- America City 2001 To: Honorable Chair & Date: August 27, 2007 Historic Board Members From: Julian Perex Planning Director Re: COA Approval and Two Variances - 6202 Miller Rd. HPB- 07- 001 (Revised) Applicant /Owner: Abisola Dubey Location: 6202 Miller Rd (Cambridge Lawns Historic District) A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA PURSUANT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20- 5.19(E)(3) REQUESTING THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 6202 MILLER ROAD WITHIN AN RS- 3(HP -OV), RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY) ZONING DISTRICT (CAMBRIDGE LAWNS HISTORIC DISTRICT) I1V ORDER TO PERMIT EXTERIOR RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF SECOND FLOOR; AND PURSUANT TO SECTION 20- 4.11(D) IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A REQUEST TO: (1) GRANT A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20- 3.5(E) TO ALLOW FOR LOT COVERAGE TO BE 33% WHERE A MAXIMUM 30% IS PERMITTED; (2) GRANT A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20- 3.5(E) TO ALLOW A SIDE STREET SETBACK OF 7 FEET ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND 13 FEET ON THE SECOND FLOOR WHERE 15 FEET IS REQUIRED FOR BOTH FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. APPLICANT'S REQUEST Pursuant to Section 20 -5.8 of the Land Development Code (LDC) the applicant has submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application requesting approval of a renovation plan for a residential single family home at 6202 Miller Rd. In conjunction with the COA, the applicant also is requesting the approval for two variances which are needed to allow the renovation work. The property is located in the Cambridge Lawns Historic District. APPLICABLE LDC REGULATIONS All exterior renovation and remodeling involving a designated historic site requires a recommendation from the Historic Board. In addition, the Land Development Code provides that the Historic Preservation Board will review any necessary variances which are needed in conjunction with requested COA. The review procedure (notices, ads, public hearing) for variances is the same as if the item was before the Planning Board. The Historic Board's recommendation on the COA and the variances will be forwarded to the City Commission for an additional public hearing and final decision. 6202 SW 56 Street COA /Variances August 20, 2007 Page 2 of 2 APPLICATION HISTORY SUMMARY_ The applicant was before the Board on several occasions during the January- March, 2007 period. The Historic Preservation Board at its April 30, 2007, meeting adopted a motion by a vote of 6 ayes 0 nays recommending approval of the COA with the variance for lot coverage at 38% and the variance for setback on the ground floor as seven feet and on the second floor a variance of 12 feet setback where 15 feet is required; with the suggestion of the hip roof covering the expanded side of the building. The City Commission at its June 5, 2007 meeting conducted a public hearing on COA application. Concerned was expressed by Commissioners and several speakers that the request for variances of this magnitude would have a negative impact on the historic neighborhood. The Commission remanded the item back to the Historic Preservation Board APPLICANT'S REVISED PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing renovation which will upgrade the structural system, roof, windows; doors, fagade materials, porch, and includes exterior painting. The renovation work includes a major expansion of both the first and second floors, which requires the approval of two related variances: (1) The first variance would allow for an in crease in the maximum permitted lot coverage (building foot- print) which in the RS -3 District is set at 30%. The applicant is proposing to add 410 square feet to the first floor. This will result in 2420 sq. ft. at the ground level which is 33.6 %, exceeding the 30% maximum permitted. This previous plans were to add 802 sq. ft. to the first floor, which resulted in a 38% lot coverage. (2) The second variance is a result of the expansion of the second floor from 517 sq. ft. to 1358 sq. ft. ( previous plans increased second floor to 1609 sq. ft.). This additional square footage expands the east side of the structure at both the first and second floors and results in the need for a variance. The current RS -3 side street setback requirement is 15 feet for both the second and first floors. The applicant's current setback is 7.2 feet and the applicant is requesting that the first floor setback be approved at 7 feet and that the second story setback be approved as 13 feet. (3) The applicant's revised plans compared to the Plans reviewed in April, indicates that there is an overall reduction in building square footage of 642 sq. ft. or 15 %. (4420 sq.ft. — 3778 sq.ft.) Attachments: COA Application Location Map Letter from Applicant 8 -14 -07 City Commission Meeting Excerpt 6 -5 -07 Site Plan / Renovation Plan JP /SAY PA\HPB Historic Bd\HPB Agendas Staff reports \2007 \8- 27- 07 \HPB -07 -001 COA Variances Report.doc City of SOuth Miami HPB -07 -001 Certificate of'Appropriateness / Variances 6202 SW 56th Street WE S 5331 -5330 5325 5330 TER N 5375 5353 h o 5353 o wo 5349 � 5432 W Q 5401 6001 ° ❑ yyN° 5421 5420 j 5411 5440 Z -- Q 5451 �^ 5445 ca 5445 5448 N �� N (n __ 5505 n ° ` N s 5500 6235 5509 N pRpp-�•�-�� 5575 U ET N o Cit of South Miami N m a m (D 6161 Boundary U " •"" • SW 56TH ST MILLER D& ■.. ■■Y� ■a.■■ mum ■w.■■�■■.:. ■. o <� �O .• .:. C° b •� y 1�4Vy O N �y o O •i.••I b .p rp + N N 5990 s 5620 h 'a 'f;: ^ �N ti SW 56TH TE .,'�•% 1 ' u �•' 6' i3 n " .".i N r X28 5625 .'.1� u N � 5650 57TH S �1 5634' sfi++ 5620 5635 n n. 5700 0 �� x�:;`f %•'�:!. j; . :r`.ti..'f� ',.?2r }:• ::!'•= '':..vt��«." :} .�:. � �r�.:.:. 5 2 5681 5660 SW 57TH DR to �s•��u`. s7D1 5709 `� 5j0 5721 5700 5730 S)S> ;Sy,iti' 1 ° \ r 5789 n 5750 5795 e 5790 SW 58TH ST p �' °»et, 518 S>9f 5780 5820 — .:Ulf . N _ tI.•s� N O N ( �•�1�� f �� •:S_ q y JJ G b N N 1 a,0,' ff F `T$J •''�' 1i 5817 H 3` ........... .1 Irk , w O H N iS N N N 1•Y N 5974 5958 N 5833 5885 / 0 SW 59TH ST i g sa : yd� °� �._ - 59TH ST a fj 5975 5959 _ <Y'•': �.__ c -i - 5901 : g?. t t 'q f � ° 5908 5901 'r•Q:o 5901 On > Q 59TH S c: +�:^ 5917 Q ! 5941 ^`•• _ _ �0 ,�_�f 5941 592° 5917 5916 0 5917 5974 5956 S942 N it 5960 r _ cpry 4=" ham' 5960 +.S t/ 5961 m o 5933 <D ,1j — _ lG) ` 5936 5933 5932 5933 5975 5959 6000 o t 6001 ''_'•: 6000 1Jr 5952 5949 5948 SW 60TH ST ■ N u 6270 6004 � °° :•.::�. ° e roN fi013 L 6030 60TH TER m 6021 ::�:�': — 4 � �4 __ + � 6061 5 e2 -- � - .• � ,~. 6°61 1 6060 S —091 �i e I u I e 6029 .o0 5975 Made by City of South Miami Engineering &Construction, WWI GIS Dafa by Miami -Dade County 0 100 200 300 600 900 1,200 1,500 Feet 31onnw 41,41 tttp e s Arf illWct s 11Ioreno Campos Arrldtem;t.� tt�rt =tlQt lastlatl�t�.� a��d,ltli��c;l� .U1U'rrFI,TU tH • P LNNMG • 1INVE 1 011 DINIGY City of South Miami Planning Dept. RE: Dubey Residence 6202 S.W. 56TH Street Miami, Florida January 28, 2007 City of South Miami; The following statements are expanded from the application of certificate of appropriateness: Section 3: Describe the proposed work. The work that is being proposed to the existing residence includes various categories, we are proposing the repair and the improvements of the structure as it does not comply with the current wind and structural codes and it is in a very poor structural condition. We are attaching the documentation from our structural consultant stating that the structure requires repairs and replacement of key elements in the building. We proposed to perform the work with the utmost sensitivity to the original spirit of the Tudor style residence. The existing residence includes a number of additions that have been introduced into the residence thru the years; those additions do no comply with the style of the residence and had been completed in a less than professional manner. The scale and scope of the proposed design has been envisioned with regard to the scale of the property and the existing structure. Section 6: Structural System — The structural system is in very poor condition at the moment, we propose to upgrade and reconfigure the structure to current code. The structural system upgrade would include, new foundations, new c.b.s. walls. Roof and roofing - The existing roof is a compilation of ad hock additions and modifications executed in a very poor workmanship, and poor materials. We proposed to upgrade the roof system including new trusses and new finishes executed in the original spirit of the Tudor style. Windows and doors — The windows and doors will be upgrade with the same type of detail work, but with the current wind resistant protection. 7346 SABAL DRIVE. MIAMI LAKES. FLORIDA 33014 Tel/Fax: 305.512.7552 Cell Number: 786.546.3569 (Tony) moreno0lobellsouth.net 11oreno Campos Architects lorem) t".(a nip ms Architects s .u:c►►rrki, -r RE . N LNUNnc • M"M1101e nn►cIN 4' Materials — The materials expressed in the facades will be natural materials as in the original residence. The doors of the residence will be completed in wood; the entry feature will be executed in a wood post and beam traditional style. The stucco work in the facade will be implemented in the original texture finish. The main fagade will feature a natural stone finish along with continuing stone base thru out the house. Porches, porte cocheres, and steps - The entry feature will be configured in the original motif as expressed in the traditional Tudor style. The steps into the residence will be executed in natural stoner The main fagade will include a natural stone chimney element customarily used in the Tudor tradition. Painting and finishes — The painting of the house will be in accord with the approved palette of the Tudor style tradition, light colors, earth tones. Sincerely A. Moreno 7346 SABAL DRIVE. MIAMI LAKES. FLORIDA 33014 Tel/Fax: 305.512.7552 Cell Number: 786.546.3569 (Tony) moreno0l@bellsouth.net City of South Miami Planning & Zoning Department City Hall, 6130 Sunset Drive, South Miami, Florida 33143 Telephone: (305) 663 -6326; Fax: (305) 666 -4591 Application For Public Hearing Before P� & City Commission I_Owner ,_Owner's Representative c i contract to purchase I U IOpti Option purchase Tenant/Lessee N ra ncrcttsY IVIAUt: FUR THE FOLLOWING: 'LEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE ITEM: —Text Amendment to LDC +-Variance — Zoning Map Amendment — Special Use — PUD Approval — Special Exception —PUD Major.Change Other Briefly explain application and cite specific Code sections: \fAR%fNhXG APPLkC�AT�ot4 r©1`. sT2EE:T SIDE r Lai CA�IE(�AGE. Section: Subsection: Page #: Amended Date: SUBMITTED MATERIALS 'LEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY: Letter of intent Justifications for change St ship Proof of ownership or letter from owner — wei .ofattut i my . — Caffyeet4uT"ase — Current survey (1 original sealed and signed /1 reduced copy @ 11" x 17') +I15 copies of Site Plan .and Floor Plans 1 reduced copy @ 11" x 17" _ 20% Property owner signatures /0"'S020 -/Mailing labels (3 sets) and map (s) The undersigned has read this completed application and represents that the information and all submitted materials are true and correct to the best of the applicant's .knowledge and belief. 0WnIER 1200 Applicant's Signature an title Date Upon receipt, applications and all submitted materials will be reviewed for compliance with the Land Development Code and other applicable regulations. Applications found not in compliancetivill be rejected and returned to the applicant. OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Filed Date of PB Hearing Date of Commission Petition Required Petition Accepted_ Method of Pavment CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNING DEPARTMENT' BOARD 6130 Sunset Drive, South Miami, Florida 33143 305- 663 -6326 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATIO 1�� (The. Historic Preservation Board will act on completed applications only.) SECTION I J PROPERTY ADDRESS L U `� = W - rJ "� HISTORIC NAME (IF ANY) 6AM F3R I•lXl E i�. (3L OGl<P- RO VI,56D LA- 4- 800K�J l OF GR(Vj( -j j,DCLEGAL DESCRIPTION PCc t,,1> i rJ< to I �O,- 6 A,): ..Lflwrv'S. -,AO, T PJA - F 6 9, Or 1144- P,(6iJG 0 F• MjAiuf- bAfX Cctiti 1Y, FLCRiN) NO -1C O�FIG� ✓ OWNER R (3i -- 10L-t} r�) 08 F-'-{ PHONE NUMBER 0 S --316 ^2611 n� ADDRESS e�C �2 l 6 i r'cl Gl I ke-ltti E..- "# 10 6 33 13`3 APPLICANT A Q l SO—A L) Lf 6 E `i PHONE NUMBER '3 05 4ZI`( — 6- E j ADDRESS �S `� t i rc� Q QCj 1 u 10 C. C<:C C ;4, L4 r' Li ki: l E L 3_3 ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER J: • O 1Z L Wo 6A.i-{ � `, /-N04rjA. PHONE NUMBER 3 ©S — 3 l —:7 Z SECTION 2 PLEASE INDICATE THE CATEGORY WHICH BEST DESCRIBES THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED (SEE ATTACHED SHEET) type mark below type mark below type mark below MAINTENANCE/REPAIR REHABILITATION NEW CONSTRUCTION RESTORATION DEMOLITION OTHER SECTION 3 DESCRIBE THE PROPOSED WORK (A BRIEF NARRATIVE): SSG n t t qC ff /1AE U.r SECTION 4 ATTACH THE FOLLOWING SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION (IF APPLICABLE): ><" site plan floor plan elevations(s) _ photo(s) survey color sample _ material sample other (describe) (2) SECTION 5 PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING: • Applications will be accepted by the Planning Department only in completed form. • Applications will be scheduled for a Board hearing when received by 12:00 noon on the second Monday of the month. • Applicant(s) or representative(s) must attend the hearing and present the proposal to the Board. • Decisions made by the Board may be appealed to the City Commission no later than 60 days after the ruling. • If there is no appeal or City Commission action, the Historic Preservation Board's decision shall be final. • The Certificate of Appropriateness is valid for a period six months after date of approval. SECTION 6 E -� -AT T AG1- 1/ML; -f,_1 T- BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE PROJECT'S IMPACT ON THE FOLLOWING BUILDING FEATURES: Structural systems - Roofs and roofing - Windows and doors - Materials (masonry, wood, metal, etc.) - Porches, porte cocheres, and steps - Painting and finishes - PROPERTY DO HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE"FILI - - _, AS OWNER OF THE ABOVE- REFERENCED G OF THS APPLICATION ON MY BEHALF. Oct.2004 r.%TJ1Dn U;. +nrin RA1IIPi2 ibiicol(`n r +ifn�+o nPannrnnrinfn nrnt.,f W f n{ A nnrnnAi f—ncc A nni lion HPB USE ONLY DATE RECEIVED: NPB MEETING: PERMIT N0. LETTER OF INTENT Abisola I. DUBEY 2829 Bird Avenue #106 Coconut Grove, FL 33133 April 11, 2007 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD HISTORICAL PRESERVATION BOARD 6130 Sunset Drive, South Miami, FL 33143 Dear Sir or Madam: Subject: Public Hearing Application For Variance on Subject property at 6202 Miller Drive I am hereby notifying the relevant authorities of the CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI of my intent to renovate the degraded property located at 6202 Miller Drive, South Miami Extensive renovations are required due to: • serious dilapidation of the structure and interior caused by years of neglect on the part of the previous owners; • multiple additions that are not compliant with city code added on over the years; and, • the desire and need to return the fagade of-the house to its original historic appearance. I am therefore requesting a street side setback variance to permit us to connect disjointed walls, which are already "grandfathered" into the site. I am additionally requesting a lot coverage variance, following the current footprint of the house, with minor. changes to allow for a more organized form and flow of the house as opposed to the current haphazard appearance of the house caused by the poorly planned additions by the previous owners. This will bring the house to current building code for the protection of the current occupants and would also have the additional benefit of protecting the truly historical portion of the building from any further devastation from intense tropical storms or hurricanes. I respectfully, request your approval of these 2 variances whose detailed descriptions are contained in the requisite application package. Faithfully, Abisola I. DUBEY JOHN & ABISOLA DUBEY To: The City of South Miami Planning Department Historic Preservation Board Date: August 14, 2007 RE: Dubey Residence 6202 S.W. 56TH Street South Miami, Florida Application for Certificate of Appropriateness; Application Variances As the direct result of a gross and cynical misrepresentation by one Maria C. CHAEL, a former member of the Historic Preservation Board, our application to the City Commission of South Miami for a Certificate of Appropriateness was remanded to the Historic Preservation Board for further consideration. This incredible action has effectively nullified 4 months of hard work and continuous consultation on the part of all concerned: family, architect, City professional staff and this Board, to say nothing of significant financial loss to our family. The simple fact of the matter is that we have been singled out for victimization by this Maria C. Chael for not firing our architect and allowing her effectively to determine the design of our private residence. What started out ostensibly as neighborly innocent discussion and a request for suggestions, at least in our view, suddenly devolved unbidden and unwanted meddling in the design process. Immediately after our first appearance before the Board, Maria C. Chael gave us her business card offering to help. We e- mailed Maria C. Chael, requesting suggestions with a copy of the e-mail to our architect, she submitted architectural designs directly to us (with a copy to Mr. Youkilis and a mailing group named `Marice Chael' which we suspect is this Board), purposely bypassing our consulting architect in an egregious breach of professional ethics. This issue will be pursued separately with the appropriate State authorities by our architect and ourselves. As a result, we are hereby submitting a revised plan to address the "problems" manufactured by Maria C. Chael in a fictitious cartoon of our actual residential plan which she was somehow empowered to distribute personally to Commission members on the dais — despite our most vocal objections. And this, after an open admission of authoring two separate emails to City Commission members on the eve of the meeting in knowing and reckless contravention of the Jennings 1 of 8 6202 Miller Drive — Owners.. John & Abisola DUBEY Rule on Quasi - Judicial hearings by an appointed City official. This also will be separately addressed with the appropriate State oversight authorities. With this latest submission to the Historic Preservation Board, we are requesting that our absolute right to a fair hearing be respected — particularly by any Board members who may seek to consult with Maria C. Chael ex parte. The Minutes of previous Historic Preservation Board deliberations on our issue clearly contain warnings by Mr. Sanford YOUKILIS regarding the inappropriateness of such actions. These are public hearings and any citizen who wishes to voice an objection or offer an opinion has the inalienable right to do so — but openly and factually. The demonstrable fact that we have obtained the virtually unanimous support of our new Cambridge Lawns neighbors for the design and dimension of our home seems to have made little impression in the wake of a one -woman crusade to deny our family's desire to finally live in peace and comfort in a house whose financial burden we have been supporting for three years. We additionally request that this Board assiduously avoid any discrimination in its application of the existing ordinance establishing the Cambridge Lawns Historical District. Specifically, we expect the same standard that was applied when examining the deliberately confusing design presented as the "Chael -Dover Cottage" be applied to the examination of our application. If the Board did not find the massing of the absurdly -named "Chael -Dover Cottage" on a 6,000 sq. ft. lot objectionable (even with its introduction of an un- historic and decidedly un -Tudor balcony looming over the adjoining rooftops), then our tasteful addition of a modestly - proportioned dormer section upon a 7,200 sq. ft. lot, carefully not exceeding the grandfathered and /or voluntarily neighbor- sensitive setbacks but allowing sufficient sleeping and closet space for a 5- persons family, should surely be deemed equally acceptable. 2 of 8 6202 Miller Drive — Owners: John & Abisola DUBEY We respectfully request that this Board eschew any attempt to enforce retroactively, the historic overlay ordinance, which was not in effect when the property was repeatedly modified by previous owners. The Chael -Dover objections appear to mimic the recent arguments under eminent domain whereby one person's private property can be expropriated for another individual's benefit. Their spurious claim is that compensation for past mistakes must be exacted upon us such that "neighborhood integrity" is maintained because our house is "on a corner lot." This convoluted reasoning is fantastic. We believe — as do apparently all but two persons in the neighborhood - that the house's corner location is the precise fact that renders our modifications completely appropriate. In virtually any neighborhood in any community in America, the largest proportioned homes are generally situated on corner lots — not wedged toweringly between modest (actual) cottages. It was never our intention to build the largest house in the neighborhood — neither is it our intention to silently acquiesce in preserving one driven neighbor's apparent need to claim that distinction to the detriment of our 5- person family - regardless of the much - vaunted "neighborhood integrity" which can somehow be conveniently overlooked for interior lots. In. point of observable fact, there is no design "integrity" whatsoever in Cambridge Lawns nor is there much proportionality. Indeed, there is little if any evidence of the whimsically designated "Tudor revival" architectural style. The houses range from ante - bellum to 5Os ranch to dilapidated cottage to "ill- conceived carbuncle" (that would be ours). The only consistency is the almost total absence of continuity — that having been sacrificed over the decades to uncountable additions constructed to adapt to changing family size, household basics, home offices, wardrobe and toilette demands, etc. This Board should be cognizant of the fact that the entire neighborhood is closely following this soap opera that our case has become. While their increasing space addition needs are likely more modest — an additional bedroom for a new baby, increased kitchen space to accommodate standard 21St century lifestyles, larger windows to lighten up these terribly, dark rooms, etc. — they are all acutely aware of the travails, both honest and dishonest, visited upon us by well- intentioned officials and one single- minded, mendacious neighbor. If it can happen to us it can surely happen to them. This may even cause some to petition to rescind the historic designation on their house. When the 6202 Miller Drive house was charitably designated "historic," it should have been obvious to the Chael -Dover team and any others clamoring to include this sad structure in the designation, that the house was indeed an "ill- conceived carbuncle" (to quote the Chael -Dover team). The victim of multiple modifications, structural additions and deletions, it was sorely and inexcusably disrespected and allowed to deteriorate structurally through years of malignant neglect, mildew assault and massive termite infestation. And now, three different decades -long residents in the immediate area cannot even agree on the exact original composition of the long- destroyed front fagade. Yet, we readily agreed to abandon our own desires and incorporate the far more expensive and space- depriving design in order to satisfy the insistence of one of these disagreeing neighbors. This Board knows full well the irreparable condition of this blighted house. This Board is fully aware that we continually consulted with City professional staff since before even closing on the property. This Board is cognizant of the original procedural and design errors we made out of simple inexperience and which we hastened to correct. This Board is fully aware of the size of our family and the reasonable space imperatives thereby occasioned. 3 of S 6202 Miller Drive — Owners: John & Abisola DUBEY This Board is most of all cognizant of our good -faith efforts to incorporate every single expensive modification, roof angle, appointments addition, etc., requested over the course of various meetings by the individual members. We do not understand how this Board's long- studied and unanimously approved recommendation, supported by professional staff, unobjectionable to the overwhelming majority of our neighbors, could be disregarded by City Commission as a result of an onslaught by a one -woman wrecking crew. We therefore request that in deliberating over this new design you keep in mind the Section A of the preamble to the Charter of the City of South Miami as adopted from the Dade County Charter... SOUTH MIAMI CITY CHARTER AMENDED 2/8/00 PREAMBLE TO THE CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI MIAMI -DADE COUNTY'S CITIZENS' BILL OF RIGHTS (A) This government has been created to protect the governed, not the governing. In order to provide the public with full and accurate information, to promote efficient administrative management, to make government more accountable, and to insure to all persons fair and equitable treatment, the following rights are guaranteed: 1. Convenient access. 2. Truth in government. No County or municipal official or employee shall knowingly furnish false information on any public matter, nor knowingly omit significant facts when giving requested information to members of the public. 3. Public records. 4. Minutes and ordinance register. 5. Right to be heard. 6. Right to notice. 7. No unreasonable postponements. 8. Right of public hearing. 9. Notice of action and reasons. 10. Managers' and attorneys' reports. 11. Budgeting. 12. Quarterly budget comparisons. 13. Adequate audits.. 14. Regional offices.. 15. Financial disclosure. 16. Representation of public.. 17. Commission on Ethics and Public Trust. Respectfully, John & Abisola DUBEY 4 of 8 6202 Miller Drive — Owners: John & Abisola DUBEY Proposed Work The work that is being proposed to the existing residence necessarily covers virtually every construction category. Basically, the rehabilitation and improvements of salvageable part of the historic structure and a dormer addition in the rear. The existing residence includes a number of additions introduced into the structure through the years and all of them, unfortunately completed in a less than professional manner. The scale and scope of the proposed design has been developed with the original design of the structure in mind. Based on feedback provided during previous Board meetings and after searching all available archives, Dade Heritage Trust, Miami -Dade County files, etc. and we're still unable to obtain any photo or archived floor plan showing us what the house may actually have looked like in 1928, we used the current floor plan of the house and the 1948 plan in the files of the City of South Miami as our starting point. (Archived floor plan, which is a single sheet of paper in the almost 59 -year file is shown below) This allows us to understand what is truly original and what has been changed. Based on the layout in the 1948 floor plan, the current kitchen was a garage, the south bedroom did not exist and the 1948 garage addition later became part of the south bedroom. The current garage and the entire West wall were added sometime later, with no record on file in the City of South Miami archives. We also found that the gabled wall in the center front of the house is the only part of the house that truly its original. The flat roof front of the house was replaced after a hurricane years ago. The roof, and all the other walls are not original. The front door is also not original. We also found that: 1. The arches of the flat roof section had been closed (as shown in the picture below). We will restore the arches and fit new hurricane- resistant windows to them. 5 of 8 6202 Miller Drive — Owners: John & Abisola DUBEY 2 We will also restore the chimney that was unfortunately destroyed. We will replace chimney and the fireplace exactly as they were originally. There is a clear demarcation in the house showing where the fireplace /chimney used to be. We will use the measurement of the existing chimney at 6142 Miller Drive as our model. In short, when working with the historical section of the house, we will restore whatever was original to the very best of our ability while building to current code, re -using whatever materials can be salvaged and replace unsalvageable materials. We are submitting the following items: • A.copy of the 1948 floor plan found in the City of South Miami archives • Existing and proposed front elevation - the proposed front fagade restores the . arches of the flat roof section and replaces the missing chimney • Existing and proposed east side elevation, which restores the east side arches the flat roof section. • Existing and proposed ground floor plan • Existing and proposed second floor plan • A site plan showing: 1. total percentage ground coverage of proposed versus existing; 2. total a/c area of the proposed versus existing; 3. the front, rear, east and west side setbacks of the proposed versus the existing (please note that the proposed east setback on the ground floor is in three stage; the setback of the front part is 7' -2" (or 7.1667') exactly as it currently stands, the middle setback back is 15 ft also as it currently stands and the back portion of the east setback is 13 ft. Compared to the current setback, we've actually moved the setback farther west away from 62nd avenue which is an improvement over the already grandfathered setback. The Front facade The front fagade is a replica of the current house, updated to meet all County safety and building codes. The only changes to the appearance involve restoring the chimney and the arches of the flat roof portion. The front facade also shows second floor addition, which is barely visible from the street. The Eat Side facade The ground floor fagade on the East side of the house is exactly the same as the current structure with the exception of the restored arches and an improved setback of the section where the garage currently sits. The shape of the ground floor windows is 6 of 8 6202 Miller Drive — Owners: John & Abisola DUBEY only designed to complement to the restored arches. We can make the windows rectangular if the board wishes. The second floor expansion, following the suggestions from all previous meetings, breaks down the volume into three stages thus creating a more uniform look. The addition blends the historic structure in front into the first stage of the second floor expansion in the back and to further breakdown the volume we blended in an east -west structure similar to the one approved by this board in the so- called "Chael -Dover Cottage" renovation (see next page). This "east- west" version of historic gabled front will "maintain the character of the neighborhood' we are making all our changes in the non- historical back of the house while following the current footprint of the house and straightening out the indentations on south and west sections of the house which are not visible from the street. �w 62 Avenne I ............ Ij g Existing footprint a� Q Pro footprint Structural System — The structural system is presently in very_.poor condition. We propose to upgrade and reconfigure the structure to current code. The structural system upgrade would include new foundations and new c.b.s. walls. 7of8 6202 Miller Drive — Owners: John & Abisola DUBEY Roof and roofing - The existing roof is a compilation of ad hoc additions and modifications executed with very poor workmanship and poor materials. We propose to upgrade the roof system including new trusses and new finishes executed in the original spirit of the "Tudor' style. Windows and doors — The windows and doors will be upgraded with the same attention to detail but with current wind resistant protection. 8 of 8 6202 Miller Drive — Owners: John & Abisola DUBEY 2 City of South Miami 3 Regular City Commission Minutes 4 June 5, 2007 5 6 CALL TO ORDER: 7 8 The City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida met 9 in regular session on Tuesday, June 5, 2007, beginning at 7:11 10 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers, 6130 Sunset Drive. 11 12 A. Roll Call: 13 The following members of the City Commission were present: 14 Mayor Horace G. Feliu, Vice Mayor Randy G. Wiscombe, and, 15 Commissioners Velma Palmer, Marie Birts and Jay Beckman. 16 17 Also in attendance. were: City Attorney Luis Figueredo, City 18 Clerk Maria M. Menendez and City Manager Yvonne Soler - McKinley. 19 20 B. Invocation: The invocation was delivered by Mayor Feliu. 21 22 C. Pledge of Allegiance: 23 The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison. 24 25 D. Presentations(s) 26 27 Officer of the Month for April, 2007: Officer Jesus Aguiar 28 29 There was no presentation. Officer Aguiar was absent. 30 31 CAA presentation regarding new agency in town. (Presentation 32 postponed) 33 34 Recognizing sponsors of Public Works Week 35 36 Presented by Public Works Director and Assistant City 37 Manager, Ajibola Balogun. 38 39 40 ITEMS (S) FOR THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION: 41 42 43 At this time Commissioner Palmer indicated her wish to 44 reconsider her vote on item no. 16 on the agenda of May 15, 2007. REGULAR CITY COMMISSION 1 MINUTES - June 5, 2007 1 Moved by Mayor Feliu, seconded by Commissioner Beckman to 2 amend Section S. subsection (2), line 49 on page 2 by deleting 3 "either the SW 59 Court or" in the language. The motion to 4 approve the amendment passed b;y a 5 -0 vote: 5 6 Commissioner Palmer: Yea 7 Yea Commissioner Birts: Yea 8 Commissioner Beckman: Yea 9 Vice Mayor Wiscombe: Yea 10 Mayor Feliu: Yea 11 12 Regarding a question on the advantages of having a 13 development agreement, Mr. Perez explained that they run for ten 14 years; however, both the City and the applicant have the right to 15 look at the agreement and if there is a need to extend it beyond 16 the ten years they can do that. Mr. Perez further explained that 17 in his professional opinion, a development agreement that is well 18 crafted and addresses the key issues could be very beneficial to 19 the City because you can go back and evaluate the progress on an 20 annual basis. In addition, after the fifth year the report not 21 only comes before the City Commission, but it also goes to the 22 Florida Department of Community Affairs to ensure that the 23 agreement is enforced based upon the conditions set forth. 24 25 Counsel Figueredo, regarding the need for an agreement said 26 that it is a good idea in the sense that it delineates people's 27 responsibilities providing better chance for compliance. 28 29 With no further comments from the Commission, the motion to 30 approve this item as amended passed by a 5 -0 vote: 31 32 Commissioner Palmer: Yea 33 Yea Commissioner Birts: Yea 34 Commissioner Beckman: Yea 35 Vice Mayor Wiscombe: Yea 36 Mayor Feliu: Yea 37 38 39 20. A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE 40 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA PURSUANT TO LAND 41 DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20- 5.19(E) (3) REQUESTING THE 42 ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR 43 A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 6202 MILLER ROAD 44 WITHIN AN RS- 3(HP -OV), RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 45 (HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY) ZONING DISTRICT 46 (CAMBRIDGE LAWNS HISTORIC DISTRICT) IN ORDER TO PERMIT 47 EXTERIOR RENOVATION AND EXPANSION OF SECOND FLOOR; AND 48 PURSUANT TO SECTION 20- 4.11(D) IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE 49 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A REQUEST TO: (1) GRANT A REGULAR CITY COMMISSION 18 MINUTES - June 5, 2007 1 VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20- 3.5(E) TO ALLOW FOR LOT 2 COVERAGE TO BE 38% WHERE A MAXIMUM 300 IS PERMITTED; 3 (2) GRANT A VARIANCE FROM: SECTION 20- 3.5(E) TO ALLOW A 4 SIDE STREET SETBACK OF 7 FOR THE FIRST FLOOR AND 12 FEET 5 FOR THE SECOND FLOOR WHERE 15 FEET IS REQUIRED FOR BOTH 6 FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.4 /5 7 (City Manager) 8 9 Moved by Commissioner Palmer, seconded by Vice Mayor 10 Wiscombe to approve this item. 11 12 Mr. Youkilis presented this item, clarifying that the 13 application for this request was submitted prior to the McMansion 14 moratorium went into effect.. 15 16 Counsel Figueredo, as it is with all quasi.- judicial 17 hearings, asked the Commission as to whether anyone had received 18 any communication, either verbal or written relating to this item 19 that might have any influence on their decision. Some of them 20 received emails; however, the answer was that there has been 21 nothing that would influence on their decision with regard to 22 this item. 23 24 Moved by Mayor Feliu, seconded by Commissioner Palmer, the 25 motion to extend the meeting until the conclusion of the business 26 on the agenda passed by a 5 -0 vote: 27 28 Commissioner Palmer: Yea 29 Yea Commissioner Birts: Yea 30 Commissioner Beckman: Yea 31 Vice Mayor Wiscombe: Yea 32 Mayor Feliu: Yea 33 34 The Commission expressed concern in general with the request 35 for variance, finding that the type of renovation that is being 36 proposed, which calls for an extensive increase in the square 37 footage of the house, will negatively impact the character of the 38 historic designated neighborhood. Another question raised was 39 whether the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) has the authority 40 to grant variances of this nature. It was explained by Mr. 41 Youkilis that the City Code was amended a couple of years ago to 42 allow the HPB to approve variances on setbacks, and that they do 43 not have to prove hardship. 44 45 At this time the Mayor announced a recess. 46 47 As the meeting reconvened, the public :hearing was opened and 48 speakers were sworn in. 49 REGULAR CITY COMMISSION 1 9 MINUTES - June S, 2007 1 The applicant's architect was unable to address the 2 Commission because he had not registered with the City Clerk. 3 Counselor Figueredo referred to the City's lobbyist ordinance, 4 which specifically says that an owner of a property or an 5 applicant speaking on their own behalf does not have to register 6 as a lobbyist. But once you retain someone as a lobbyist, you now 7 have to register as a lobbyist as well. 8 9 The applicants addressed the Commission explaining in detail 10 the need that their family has to make the proposed additions to 11 the house. 12 13 Jose Suarez said that the proposed addition changes the 14 character of the whole block consisting of small homes. 15 16 Sharon McCain said that the proposal calls for approximately 17 a 4,000 sq. ft. house which is excessive for the neighborhood. 18 She said that this would not be consistent with a historic 19 designated neighborhood. 20 21 Marice Chael, a resident of Cambridge Lawns and a member of 22 the Planning Board said that the average house in Cambridge Lawns 23 is from 1000 -1500 square feet. She said that she is presently 24 making additions to her house and the total square footage when 25 finished will be about 2,000 square feet. 26 27 Pat Shields, a long -time resident of Cambridge Lawns said to 28 be very familiar with the subject house, giving some background 29 information. She spoke in support of the applicant, and said that 30 everyone that she talked to was in favor of the renovation. 31 32 Commissioner Palmer said that based on what the applicant 33 has stated, and because they have followed the direction given to 34 them by the board, that instead of denying the request, the fair 35 thing to do would be to defer the item so that it could go back 36 for reclassification. 37 38 For clarification, Mr. Youkilis explained that if this 39 request is denied, the applicant then would have to wait a year 40 in order to reapply. 41 42 Mr. Dubey said that he has been working with professionals 43 for the passed two years; the HPB approved their request with the 44 only condition that at the end they would place a historical 45 plaque. In addition, Mr. Dubay said that when they started the 46 process they went to every single house in the neighborhood and 47 that there was only one neighbor against it. He said that they 48 have been trying very hard to comply with everything that has 49 been asked from them. 50 REGULAR CITY COMMISSION 2 0 MINUTES - June 5, 2007 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Charlotte Dison, a member of the HPB, addressed the Commission. She said that those homes could be rebuilt to be comparable with the rest of the neighborhood. Ms. Dubey also addressed the Commission; she said that they would go back to the HPB and try again. With no further speakers the public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Palmer, seconded by Vice Mayor Wiscombe, the motion to send this item back to the Historic Preservation Board to be reworked passed by a 5 -0 vote: Commissioner Palmer: Yea Yea Commissioner Birts: Yea Commissioner Beckman: Yea Vice Mayor Wiscombe: Yea Mayor Feliu: Yea ORDINANCE (S) FIRST READING PUBLIC HEARING S) (NONE) ORDINANCE (S) FIRST READING (NONE) COMMISSION REMARKS The Commission was afforded to make comments. There being no further business to come before this Body, the meeting adjourned at 1:09 a.m. Attest Maria M. Menendez City Clerk REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MINUTES - June 5, 2007 21 Approved Horace G. Feliu Mayor CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES Monday, August 27, 2007 City Commission Chambers 3:30 PM EXCERPT I. Call to order Action: Ms. Clyatt, Chair called the meeting to order at 3:37 p.m. II. Roll Call Roll call was performed. Board members present constituting a quorum: Ms. Clyatt, Ms. Lahiff, Ms. Dison, and Mr. Kurtzman. Board mernbers absent: Ms. Shelley, Mr. Charles Ruiz de Castilla, and Mr. LaMonica. City staff present: Julian Perez (Planning Director), Sanford A. Youkilis (Consultant), Lluvia Resendiz (Administrative Assistant), and Ellen Uguccioni (Preservation Consultant) V. Certificate of Appropriateness Applications / Public Hearings HPB -07 -001 Applicant/ Owner: Abisola Dubey Location: 6202 Miller Road (Cambridge Lawns Historic District) Request: COA and Two variances Mr. Youkilis advised the item was revised after it was remanded back to the HPB by the City Commission. There are two variances involved with the renovation work. They relate to lot coverage, previously it was 38 percent above the maximum 30 percent and now it is 33.6 percent. The proposal, which triggered the second variance, expands the east side of the structure needed for the side -yard setback. The variance requested is for 7 feet on the first floor and 13 foot on the second floor. The reduction is 642 square feet. Action: Ms. Dubey stated she did not come back to the HPB because immediately after the item was remanded, the HPB regular meeting was held and simultaneously the project architect was out of the country therefore not allowing her arnple time to resubmit the project on time. It was understood that there was an issue with the design and the scale of the house and those issues have been addressed. The setback variance requested is for what is already in existence. There is a seven foot section which is historic and it cannot be moved. The second -story setback was HPB Minutes August 27, 2007 Page 2 of 4 moved further back from 9 feet to 13 feet. The sections being covered'are the sections which are not visible from either the east or the north side. Ms. Clyatt questioned if the plans were constructed by the same architect and whether the plans must be signed and sealed by the architect. Ms. Dubey responded with a negative and added that she redesigned the plans herself with an architectural computer program. She added that, to her knowledge, the plans must be sealed only before the construction initiates. She will submit her final plans signed and seal by the architect before she starts building. Mr. Kurtzman stated he has concerns with the southern elevations and the middle part of the second floor on the southern elevation. Ms. Clyatt questioned staff if the Board may arrive to a decision if the plans were not designed by a registered architect. Mr. Youkilis advised that the plans do not have to be sealed and/or certified when coming before the HPB. But after they get approved by the City Commission they have to go to the Building Department for a permit and at that time they must be signed and sealed. Mr. Perez added that there are many applications in final construction and inspections where a minor change has been made and the applicant was asked to return before the Environmental Review and Preservation Board for review. He added that he will not accept any changes to previously approved plans. Mr. Kurtzman questioned whether the end gable over the garage could be a hipped roof. He stated it would look better and provide the same volume that the applicant is looking for but would reduce massive the impact. Ms. Dubey stated whatever roof is approved would work. She added that she read the minutes and Mr. Kurtzman stated she should replicate the front gable on the side and she followed his recommendation. Mr. Kurtzman stated he was referring to replication of the hipped roof on the side. What he suggested was to reduce the area and that the gable over the garage is hipped on the fagade which is over the existing original part of the house. Ms. Dison commended Ms. Dubey for her perseverance and desire to keep the historic look however she stated it was incumbent for the Board to agree so that the Dubey's can proceed with their project. Mr. Kurtzman and Ms. Lahiff disagreed. Ms. Lahiff added that it must be a design which fits the appearance of the historic district and does not feel that the proposed design is the best it could be. Mr. Youkilis advised that Mr. Whitman, a neighbor, mailed a letter to the department expressing his concerns. He read the letter into the record. The Chair Person opened the public hearing. Speakers: NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE Pat Shields 6218 SW 56 Street Support HPB Minutes August 27, 2007 Page 3 of 4 Ms. Shields stated she is bothered with the amount of time it has taken for the Dubey's to get this application approved because the house is very visible. The applicants have been trying to get their plans approved for months making numerous appearances before the Historic Board and one before the City Commission. She stated she is in favor of the addition and the proposed changes. The approval of this work to the house can only better the neighborhood. There are residents, Commission, and Board members who have previously spoken stating that if the owner wanted a large home they should have bought one somewhere else. She feels those remarks are uncalled for in a public atmosphere and does not know what the alternative would be for the Dubey's if the request is not approved. Regarding Mr. Whitman's letter, Ms. Shields replied indicating that an addition was made to his home before he lived there therefore, he would have no need for further additions. Because of current ongoing remodeling of the house on 57 Street, she asked that the Dubey's, if approved, keep the noise to a minimum especially during the weekends. She requested that adjoining homeowners be notified in advanced of any extremely noisy work such as demolition, roofing, foundation digging or any major noise issues prior to the work being done. Annick Stepnberg 6243 SW 57 Street Neutral Ms. Stepnberg stated she appreciated the fact that pictures have been offered for her to see what the project would look like. However, she wondered about the trees and the landscaping around the house. She questioned how the house: and the landscape would fit together. The Chair Person closed the public hearing. Ms. Dubey stated she will have trees into her landscaping plan. There are plenty of trees that do not have extensive roots that are native to Florida and grow very tall. With regards to noise it will always be present. She stated she already spoke to Mr. Whitman on the issue. She understands his concern and for that matter they will work Monday through Friday and work only on the weekends if necessary. She added that should there be a need to work on weekends, the neighbors will be notified. Mr. Dubey stated that Mr. Whitman has a problem with the property across the street which has turned into a "McMansion." He also has a problem with the noise however he had no answer with regards to Mr. Whitman's concern with the noise level. He reiterated that construction during the weekend will take place only if necessary. Mr. Perez advised that the Board has three options; • Must make a motion and vote on that motion with conditions. • Defer the item until the Board has an architect as a member of the Board. • Deny the variance. If option one is taken staff will forward the decision to the City Commission with the Board's conditions. Ms. Lahiff stated that precedence would be set and does not believe that making a sympathetic decision would be good enough. She added that Mr. Kurtzman is very involved in that HPB Minutes August 27, 2007 Page 4 of 4 neighborhood and has the best input to make suggestions on additional ideas. She feels that the east plan looses the original look of the house although it is falling apart. Mr. Kurtzman stated he was also concerned •with the bump -out and suggested shifting the roof gable. The same roof line should follow the roof on both the east and west side with a double front gable. Ms. Dison stated that the commission remanded the item back to the HPB for two considerations; to reduce the lot coverage and reduce the setbacks on the east fagade. The applicant has met both requirements. Mr. Kurtzman replied that the second - story- setback has not been met. Ms. Dubey agreed with the Board's recommendations. (1) Motion: Mr. Kurtzman moved to approve the first variance pertaining to the lot coverage as submitted. Ms. Dison seconded. Vote: 4 Ayes 0 Nays (2) Motion: Mr. Kurtzman moved to approve the setback variance with the following conditions: • The roofing structure over the rear addition shall be hipped on both sides. • The second floor bump -out on the east fagade shall be eliminated and the current roofline applied as it exists. • As a suggestion shift the gable copying some examples of homes in the Cambridge Lawns district. Ms. Lahiff seconded. Vote: 4 Ayes 0 Nays 2 .-- S MEWS CD N j... .- Uj i- w! irts Center on the Univer- opment . of Richmond w ' ity Park Campus, 11200 SW Heights. N jth Si:., at 8 ;p.m. For more- information, call a 7• - I There is no ticket required 305- 232 -6611. ZOr the concert, conducted by V) i Carlos RiaZUel. MIAMI -DADE o SCHOOL DISTRICT . RICHMOND HEIGHTS SEEKS ONLINE FEEDBACK W ARANASH HOSTS <_ GRAND OPENING Miami -Dade County Pub- a .' I lic 'Schools has created an The Richmond a 69his online survey from to get feedback r=W Community Development" the community. The — 1 Corporation (RHCDC) -is survey As-meant to garner o i proud to announce the grand input from the ;public to s 3 opening of its newly refur- ensure tha# the district is on pished Richmond Heights the right path and #o identify, I Z , Car Wash, 14598'' Carver' 'those areas:`that require addi- o Drive. tional attention a Car washes will be offered Information gathered j for half price the entire day -l' from responses to the 30- of the grand opening Satur-- : question, 10- minute survey ' day from 8 a.m. to 6 pan The will provide valuable data, car wash is owned by the' and all response "s`will remain LL ; RHCDC and revenue derived confidential. Y from its - operation 'directly 'The survey is _ online at benefits the,, Richmond www.dadeschools.net in the Heights community.'' "News 8& Events" section or ? -The RHCDC is a nonprofit at http: / /surveys.dade 3 organization created 'to schools.net and isavailable in expand the economic devel- English, Spanish and Creole. i CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS j NOTICE 1S HEREBY given that the City Commission of the City of South. ; I Miami, Florida will conduct a Public Hearing during its regular City° ? Commission meeting on Tuesday, October 2, 2007;' beginning at 7:30 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers, 6130 Sunset Drive, to consider: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE i CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDAT PURSUANT 40 LAN DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20- 5.19(E)(3) REQUESTING THE i. ISSUANCE OF A - CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 6202 MILLER ROAD i WITHIN AN RS- 3(HP -OV); RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (HISTORIC I PRESERVATION, OVERLAY) ZONING DISTRICT (CAMBRIDGE LAWNS HISTORIC DISTRICT) IN ORDER TO PERMIT EXTERIOR RENOVATION ' AND EXPANSION OF SECOND FLOOR; AND PURSUANT TO SECTION 20- 4.11(D) IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A REQUEST TO: (1) GRANT A VARIANCE FROM i I SECTION 20- 3.5(E) TO ALLOW FOR LOT COVERAGE TO BE 33% WHERE A MAXIMUM 30% IS PERMITTED ; -(2) GRANT -A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20- 3.5(E) TO ALLOW A SIDE STREET SETBACK OF 7 FEET ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND 13 FEET ON THE SECOND �- FLOOR WHERE 15 FEET IS REQUIRED FOR BOTH FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. - Inquiries concerning thisitem should be directed to the Planning and Zoning Department Office at 305- 663 - 6326. ALL interested parties are_invited to attend and will be heard. I , Maria M. Menendez, CMC City Clerk City of South Miami , Pursuant to Florida Statutes 286.0105, the City hereby advises the public that if a I person decides to appeal any decision made by this Board, Agency or Commission with respect to any matter considered at its meeting or hearing, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and that for such purpose, affected person may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which record t includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. j t a m_ r O---1 -n oo DO Cn O Mw 0 0 O w ;7 N 0r 0O N r �O 0 ; O ON �� O DC CD --i IN m y GDj - o C- m r- NO 00 D =O v� m0 xy a; <O c- m� 90 v N c m 0 00 XD 0 in W O ;u TI � �G) Dm Z >z oz m nD 00 c0 z0 �o -n z r0 0 --j _O v--j D= m Onn,�d ra >p O tTl 7� az °o dorm m NviNNrrJ 0 N N O O b Wd O bd r l 1 y a N �P Miller 'Drive (SW 56 Street) a a w *c� o3(uD)o=r 'aogo6Z o(D �'��a -0C: 0(Dcnc rnmr- 'ncDn° m Dm NZr =N mm0m0 Ca v, CL 0) � -Ia 3 o ? Cp cD a o CD m m --1 -1 o W Z 3N�CnC"p�� (ACDM0= cnCo0 -� D>cn vN�CD�°-- w��Q =� Cn n CD CD rn m rnmm m oomX0mm�� .. CD QO Q� o En n CD(D o o .. M Z.. D.. 00- moo- „���ao3�- rn m� rn m --1 --4 =r C)- y 0o D U D CD ==r v c E > y -1 o - CD CD CD X N = y j CD 07 C1 * o N (C] 0 0 .� .. CSC or 3 w ?N O CD 0_ w o t J C b D ~ N v W X N (D 0CL xoXcno�moCAn� v �''N tj cn NCJ7 �` O U7 o Cn N c Cn o -�, o n CD k CD min_`° = mo o � 0 6cn 0 = o X W O m Qin'3 Cr'Z CD __ < a v CD .i ;- CD y C) o (A i� n C � O o v< O o CQ r Sw X�CU 9 .�.Cn NCC CD = CD �. CD =- Cn � - Cn c N , Z CD = n �00o��o=Q:•.�ao•. b O �'�. w m Y) m =r r) oy.'° m °N o Z r m = �� 3� ° N -' ID =o `m Gi v a,—,6 Q .+ N � oti N b m Z N CD .j"�, CD n CD 3 CAD CJ, Cn riJ m CD CD c=$ CD Lo 5 - = - Cr _� cn iV 0 CD � �« T CD O V V N 0 a A7 C C CD 1, v� M-3 x A 00 r O O b r z I c r r H x n y O O H x n x m ol 0 M 0 w e a� c: M a a cr. 0 n G) OD �r 0� m� 0 z -o °D r0 D0 �R 0o w Oo O °o � N wr 00 N W G) O mn N N OX �' m �< mCl) �m cb WD -q O MO M -n O0 O0 0)(0) 000 rj0 N r O D DD �N 0K <0 m� m� of v z r Z O Cl) XD C7 D0 0 z O O 2 m r D 2 m X m O n D H F—I z O d O O b r Z b b O G� d O z d r O O b r z I 00 OD Xr o-0 m� 0 zaj T 0 r0 O M w O° 0 °D N Wr 00 N m0 rn � N N OX'rI �m mCl) �m C0 WT rD > O �0 �. m n 3 000 O 00 Ny ch C/) N 0 90 F N r- 9° �a yD XN b Z m m� 0 v o� _ Z Cr r-z O cn ;oD 50 D0 X 0 z 0 0 m m r D m m 0 m D cn t5' I'l 1 141. {l1 ' J l J Vl y z n z d r b z b b C d n O z d r O 0 b r z ;ur nG) OD x 0-0 m� 0 z� �W r0 DO --i ;N 07 Ca O° 000 � N wr °O N W G) O m0 rnx N N OX�I �m x< mCO mm c0 CC)� rD O �O rn n Op m vo Ny Cl) 0 F. O D yD �N 09 <0 M my 00 v OG _ zrn r rrn- Z OU) ;uD On D0 X 0 z O O x m D x m M m O m D G7 y Z G� O Z yl r I'� C CD CD CD � � d � � b CD ° O � O CD M �• CD d CD O oCD � r CD C 0 CD � CD O CD °CDz �UP CD CD nC) r p-0 m� p z� "0 w r0 DO �I w L' o 000 � N Wr 00 N w 00 m0 rn� N N OX �m _< mCl) _0 m cp w-0 rD -� O m0 m 0p CD p0 Ny �ct)_ NO 90 3 O N r 90 ZO �> yD �N cr pK CO m� m� 0 v z c -<D r-z 0� n D0 p z G) --i O m m D m X m O m D U) �i O y r y °z cn �• o o' CD CD rD C r C o � `r � ° O o � d C Io Q. y o C d CL CD r � y P Z 0> =E O-0 m\ O z® -o D ro 0 u Co O /0 w �G _ G) PO km am <_ m/ �m _ 9/ Qa M mk ?_ § 00 C/) C/)_ k0 / 90 F� © r go >k XD > > ;u 0 <o m2 mg O // Cr CD > kf ;Q> D0 _ 2 2 G a O a I m � \ w a I m M m ; O > « b O � O q d ITI # � M � H � / k 0 E §/ /E2 » # o \ §\ ■ ; M ±9a O . b eD 7 \ }\ eD 0 _ °■ 7 \�§ � � \\ � \ §� 7 X22 q \/E �I\ 9 7 �3 k / 2 f k