Hey. Heat. Heat. Please take your seats. The meeting is about to begin. Remember to speak into the microphone as this meeting is being recorded for public record. Please stand by. We are going on air in
5 4 3 2 1. Good morning and welcome to the July 8th meeting of the Historic Preservation Board of the City of Miami Beach. Um I'm welcomed. I'm excited to start this meeting as we always do with uh Debbie
Teket. Debbie. Um good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board, and members of the public. Um we have a a relatively full agenda this morning. So I'm going to hand it over um right now to Nick Colleris for the
notice regarding lobbyist registration and swear in any members of the public wishing to testify today. Thank you. Thank you Debbie and good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Today's meeting of the historic preservation board will be conducted in a hybrid format with a quorum of the
board physically present in the commission chambers and applicants staff and members of the public appearing either in person or virtually via Zoom. To participate virtually in today's meeting, the public may dial 1888-475-4499
and enter the webinar ID which is 817-48347488 pound or log into the Zoom app and enter the webinar ID which again is 817-48347488. If you're wishing to speak on an item, uh please click the raise hand icon. If
you're using the Zoom app or dial star9 if you're participating by phone, if you're appearing on behalf of a business, a corporation, or another person, you need to register as a lobbyist with the city clerk's office. If you haven't registered yet, you should register before you speak to the board. You don't have to register as a lobbyist if you're speaking only on
behalf of yourself and not any other party, or if you're testifying as an expert witness providing only scientific, technical, or other specialized information or testimony in this public meeting. or if you're appearing as a representative of a neighborhood association without any compensation or reimbursement for your
appearance to express support of or opposition to any item. Expert witnesses and representatives of neighborhood associations shall prior to appearing disclose in writing to the city clerk their name, address, and the principal on whose behalf they're communicating. If you're an architect, attorney, or
employee representing an applicant or an objector, you must register as a lobbyist. Um, lastly, Mr. Mr Chairman, I'd like to swear in any members of the public or staff who will be testifying today, please raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth, all truth and nothing but the
truth? Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Nick. Uh, Mr. Chair, our first order of business this morning is the approval of the June 17th uh meeting minutes. Uh, does anyone have any comments or edits? Okay. Do we have a second?
Second. All those in favor? I. Excellent. Thank you. Um, we do have one uh request. Uh, it's actually not a request. It's a uh notification that an application has been withdrawn on
today's agenda. And that is HPB250650. This is 1826 Collins Avenue. Um, this was for the total demolition of the existing non-contributing building. This application has been withdrawn um by the property owner. The um
demolition of this property has been determined uh no longer requires historic preservation board review and that's a result of recent uh legislation adopted by the state. So no action is required from this board.
Okay. So we can move on to our first regular application which is HPB 240641. This is 1800 Michigan Avenue. An application has been filed requesting a certificate of appropriateness for the total demolition of the existing single
family home and the construction of a new single family home. Um the existing uh two-story single family home was constructed in 1935. was designed by architects Carlos Shuffle and Arnold Southwell in the Mediterranean Revival
Art Deco transitional style of architecture. Um this particular home is part of a larger assemblage um under common ownership. It is the larger assemblage is com comprised of
four platted lots. It had it when it was combined together, it had it three existing three single family homes. Um over time within that that property of the larger aggregated site, numerous
unpermitted additions were made, numerous alterations, again unpermitted um that that had the effect of joining the properties because they were these additions were physically connecting the properties and crossing over the lot lines.
Um the current property owner did receive a lot split from the planning board um to regain these as individual platted lots and that was approved in November of 2024
um in May of 2024 as a result of an emergency demolition order um and I know we have some new board members but the board had previously reviewed 1810 and 1818 Michigan Avenue. Um, those two properties, there was a demolition
ordered by the building official. They were demolished. They did receive historic preservation board approval for the after the-act demolition and uh a certificate of appropriateness for the design of two new homes. And again, that
was for 1810 and 1818. Um, so the third and final home is 1800 Michigan. and the the applicant is currently requesting to demolish that and uh obtain approval for a the design
of a new home. Um the existing home is uh based on on staff's research is relatively intact. Um from its original design uh in 1968 the uh garage was converted into a living quarters. Um,
additionally, uh, sometime between the mid 80s and mid1 1990s, several unpermitted additions were added to the home. Um, so it has had some alterations, but the original portion of the home is is
still intact. Um, the applicant did submit a a structural engineering report um, which did indicate um, structural deficiencies. It did um also discuss the unpermitted work which would have to which is not code compliant would have
to be removed. Um but staff does not believe there's anything in the structural engineering report that would require the total demolition of this building um due to life and safety concerns. Um we certainly understand and would support
an application that would remove later additions to the home. um we would support um likely some partial demolition um as long as the uh significant character defining features of the home were able to be retained and
restored. Uh we have been working with the applicant um over the past several months um in terms of whether or not it would be feasible to elevate the home. Um, I know the applicant has done some research on that, but we have not received anything definitive whether or
not the um that that would be a a feasible idea. Um, so we would like this uh application continued in order to more um carefully evaluate whether total demolition is warranted. At this time
based on the documents that were submitted, staff does not believe that the total demolition of the home is warranted. Um, regarding the the design for the new home, um, staff is generally supportive of the of the design of the new home. if demolition was not part of
this application. Um staff does believe that it is uh in context with the Palm View Historic District. It does recall um the existing home and we do believe that the design is compatible and would have no adverse
impact on the character of the Palm View Historic District. Um finally we noted that um this property is currently um not in completely secured. Um we have noted that there have been several
property maintenance violations issued um on this home and we would strongly urge uh the property owner to cure all the existing violations prior to um any approval of a redevelopment project by this board. So that is our
recommendation. We are recommending it be continued to the September 16th meeting. Um, and I'm available for any questions that you may have. Okay. Thank you, Debbie. Are there any questions just for the about the staff report from the board? Um, I I had a
question about the if there aren't any others. Um just about you you mentioned um you said to you went that the staff recommendation was to continue this item to more carefully evaluate
um to make a more careful evaluation. What what do you what kind of what do you think might happen in the So we would like the applicant to to explore retaining portions of the home. Um, you know, we we do understand there
there have been illegal additions and um that the house currently does need significant repair. Um, but we would like to work with the applicant to explore retaining a portion of the existing structure as part of a a
redevelopment. Um, we do think this contributing home is is a very important home um to the neighborhood and we at this point in time we do believe at least portions of it could be retained and repaired.
Can I ask a follow just do you have a a portion in mind that you've been talking to them about or not really? You were kind of haven't quite I mean I think I I don't know if we've really gotten into that discussion with the applicant. Um but I would like the opportunity to do that. Got it.
Yeah, staff. Uh Debbie, you mentioned raising the home. I imagine that that is in order to meet flood plane criteria. The home as of today is designated. Uh if this wasn't in a historic
district, uh it could be demolished upon request. Uh you you also alluded to the property. there's violations which have not been cured. Uh I if this board or or if the
applicant should seek to retain the home in order for it to get a co at some point, it would need to be raised or it would not need to be raised? No. Because this is a a contributing home located within a local historic
district. Uh the building official does have the ability to issue a flood plane waiver. um for for portions of the home that will exceed the uh if they exceed the 50% uh valuation for repair.
Okay. And those spaces could be or would be habitable for correct those spaces would be allowed to stay at their existing finished floor level and flood proofing uh mechanisms could be introduced. Okay. All right.
Yes. Seeing no further questions. So good morning Mr. Chairman, board member staff Michael Larkin here representing the applicant 200 South Dix Boulevard. First welcome to the new board members, Mr. Novik and Mr. Hollingworth. Welcome. This is a great board that you all joined. You rejoined I think Mitch, maybe not, but welcome.
Um, I'm here today with our project architect Jennifer McCanni, our structure engineer Ysef Hackam, my colleagues Mickey Morero and Emily Balter, and the co-rustees of the trust that own this property, Lewis Quentana and Anthony Aseta. Mr. Chairman, I might
need some extra time because Jennifer has to go over her design for the home and then I have to talk about the deteriorated condition of the home with our engineer. Okay, but just asking you now. Okay. Okay. So every application has a story here. This is no different. Sometimes
the story is about a flamboyant colorful developer. Sometimes it's about extraordinary architect. Sometimes it's about the ensemble of buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. Here the story really focused upon Rita Star and I Rose. They were the original couple that made this assemblage in the northern
part of Palm View. I got to know them because I lived in Palm View in the late 90s, early 2000 at Sunshine Towers, which has now been renamed the Loy based on the owner Leroy Shector. I lived there and during that period of time, I happened to meet this couple. They were a colorful couple. They were funny. And
I really valued the time that I spent with them when I was there. And they have a long legacy in the city. They built their estate from nothing. and they were sadly taken advantage of by someone they thought was a trustworthy developer, a Michael Stern who has no relationship to the Michael Stern that is currently doing his business on West
Avenue, which we also represent. Um, unfortunately, this new partner had different intentions. Over time, he manipulated their assets. He misrepresented financials and siphoned funds. By the time Reed and Eore discovered this level of deception, their life's work was almost on the brink of collapse. Devastated, they
turned to the two attorneys who are sitting here. um that to recover their assets and through years of legal work, court battles, and negotiations, Rita and Eve were able to restore some of what had been lost. Over the following years, their relationship with their attorneys deepened. Unbeknownst to everyone, when
Rita When Rita and Eore passed within two years of each other, they left behind not only a carefully restored estate, but a carefully considered plan. To their great surprise, Lewis and Anthony were named as co-rustees of the trust that now owns this assemblage. The couple had no children of their own and
the end chose to leave their estate in the hands of the two people they trusted most to get the highest value for the property and provide all remaining funds to charity. This is not a a get-richquick process. These are two professionals that are charged with carrying out the last wishes of Rita and
Eore. They have been vilified to a certain extent correspondents I have seen and I think that's extremely unfortunate because they really are just doing their job here today. We're stly requesting a COA of for demolition for the demolition the complete demolition of the existing home and a new COA for a
brand new home here which is compatible with the neighborhood and resilient. Debbiey's correct. The home the existing home was built 1935 is contributing. It represents a transitional style of architecture from Med Revival to art deco. The original architects are Carlos Shop and Arnold Southwell. Uh Emily can
you pull it? All right. So this is a location slide. This shows where the property is located. the northwest corner of Michigan Avenue and 18th Street. Next slide. This is looking at it from Michigan West. Next slide. This is again same vantage point. Next slide.
This is looking north, the front elevation. Next slide. This is also the front elevation. Next slide. These are the interior conditions. The home is in really, really bad shape. Note the mold on the lefth hand slide. Next slide.
This is 1810 Michigan before demolition. Note that sometimes it just looks like it needs a paint job and that is high the high level of terrible condition that went on inside that home. Next slide. 1818. Same thing. Sometimes you look at a home and it just says, "Oh, it just needs to be painted." But that was
clearly not the case there. Next slide. Next slide. Next slide. This is the home replacement home for 1810 designed by Jennifer McConey, the same architect. Next slide. This is the replacement home for 1818 Michigan adjacent to the canal also
designed by Jennifer. Next slide. So, you know, people poo poo the idea that homes and whether they can be lift or not. I agree that they can be lifted at times. I represented Stuart Miller at 22, you know, Stuart is the chairman CEO of
LAR Corp, one of the largest home builders in the United States. And yes, he had the financial wherewithal to move the home from the extreme eastern side to the western side. The property was large enough to do that. And of course, we had the good benefit of his mother living directly to the west. She did not
mind having the home so close to her. I let Stuart handle the job of getting a letter of support from her. Next slide. This is my brother's neighborhood up in Norfol, Virginia. And again, homes can be lifted, but note
this is rather extreme because this neighborhood is even more low-lying than Palm View. But this turns the idea of compatibility really on its head. Next slide. So Palm View has experienced uh flooding for many many years now and it started
coming to a head 2019 2020 when the city commission retained a consultant to do like a 20-year master plan for for Palm View. With regard to the existing infrastructure, what they found was that it excuse me,
it showed that it has extremely low street elevations. There's insufficient drainage methods. The pvious wells are blocked with raised concrete curbs. The gravity based storm water system only has two outfalls on the Collins Canal. And last, there are no control systems such as floodgates. So, the water might
issue out of these outfalls and then come right back in during extreme flood events. Next slide. What the public works department has done is they kept track of the flooding events since 2000. We've took the last five years to show you all that the number of monthly incidents is
increasing particularly in 2024. It seems that we might have a break in 2025 but we are literally just halfway through the year. Next slide. Yousef, can you please come up? So we retained Yousef in order to analyze the home. He analyzed the current structural
systems. He provided evaluation of the structure including site observations and we sent concrete core samples out to a third party lab for testing. Yousef, good morning. How are you? Good morning. Uh Yousef Hasham, structural engineer, 99 Northwest 27th Avenue, Miami.
So Yousef, when Next slide. So in looking at the structure, what are some of the signs of distress that you saw? Well, where we saw cracking, spalling, water damage, uh termite damage, settlement and other issues.
So, how would you normally what is a remedy to to resolve these issues? Well, you have to you have to repair uh you have to repair the structure uh and u structure in this uh
this level of disrepair uh will uh will trigger a level three alteration by the Florida building code which needs that we mean to bring it up to today's code. And what would the level three alteration include? Well, uh includes gravity systems and
lateral systems. Uh you have to make sure the roof is strong enough for the wind loads. You have to tie it down to the walls of the house. Uh the wall of the house has to have lateral systems uh to resist wind and which ties the walls
to the foundations also. So when you replace all that basically at the very end of the process you essentially have a new house basically. Yes. Next slide. So please talk about your inspection of the roof. Uh well the the
roof is a wood rafter system uh that is uh sitting on the walls of the house uh doesn't have uh tie downs for for uplift and lateral resistance on the structure. And what would you need to do to bring
this roof up to code? Uh other than the damage to termite and to water rod damage, we have to replace and repair uh all the joists that we can and then after that we have to strap it down to the house.
So it almost would be a brand new roof. It would be. Okay. Next slide. So with regard to the walls and openings of the house, are they up to today's code? No. And how would you resolve that issue? Uh that has to be reinforced. There's a,
you know, you mentioned earlier that there's been a lot of uh work that was done on the house that is uh unpermitted work. Some of that was replacement of windows where they uh put in smaller windows and openings. So there's a lot
of framing that needs to go out uh and you know proper glazing be installed and reinforce the edge openings of the house. So to reinforce it, do you need to install a lateral load structural support system? Yes. And what would that entail?
Well, uh we you know that the house does not have any lateral systems. Uh you know, you have to reinforce the walls. Uh you have to open cut the masonry openings. You need to add uh vertical reinforcement rebars every so often. You have to make sure that you have the
diaphragm uh set in a place to transfer the lateral loads in the building. Okay. Next slide. So with regard to the floor, what is the structural system of the floor? It's wood joists that is fire cut as as the figure shows. It's fire cut into the
masonry wall of the house. Uh so that uh you know that was typical back then uh does not have any ledgers, does not have any strapping or any connections. So Mr. Chairman, yeah, how much I would say about 10 minutes. I'm
10 more minutes, I think. So to cover Jennifer as well, it's just very important to get Okay, we'll do it. But we'll have to Thank you. Let have that too. Um, so once you start opening the walls, reinforce them. What happens to the floors? Well, they have, you know, of course you
have to short them and you have to fix the walls and then you come back and repair the joist and replace the joists that are damaged, put a ledger on the wall and then strap them down. Okay. Uh, next slide. So what type of foundation does the home have? shallow foundations,
slab on grade. There's there's portions of the house that has slab on grades that are that actually, you know, we dug up the the slabs and it's four to five in. It's it's just a slab on grade. It's not hydrostatic. We couldn't find any
reinforcement in it. And uh interestingly enough there were actually gaps and voids under the slab due to wash out of uh supporting material. And in a flood event based upon the hydrostatic pressure is it possible that this foundation would buckle and crack?
Oh yeah. Okay. Next slide. So with regard to the site observations if you could look at the what were the some conclusions here of these three conclusions? Well, you had, you know, you had a lot of wood damage, rotting, sagging, water
intrusion. Uh, concrete spalling was uh, you know, there was a lot of spalling in the columns and beams and uh, there was a lot of water intrusion coming in from the roof and from the windows. Okay, next slide. So, talk to me about
the concrete strength. What were you able to find for the compressive strength of the concrete core samples? We did uh four core samples and the range came in between 1,00 to,300 PSI. Uh which is weak. Uh you know we
designed as a minimum due to coastal construction 5,000 PSI these days. So this is like 80% weaker. Okay. And yet some of the concrete had been repaired in the past. So what did you find with those repair areas? There there was patching work done that that
also failed again. Okay, next slide carbonation. Yeah. Okay. So but part of that testing that was done by third party was uh other than compressive testing there was also
carbonation extents which is basically uh the interaction of concrete with carbon dioxide in the air and that loses alkalinity of the of the concrete matrix that makes it easier for the rebars to rust and this shows that you know the
walls are all the way through carbonated. Is this process reversible? No. Okay. Next slide. So, could you go through your structural conclusions? Yeah. Well, there's there was a lot of stuff. There were a lot of areas of the house that were built illegally
unpermitted that needs to be taken care of. There's a lot of uh you know, in order for us to do this work, we have to do a lot of uh demolition in order for us to repair the structure. uh and also
you know talking about uh trying to lift a structure uh to to take it out of flood zone. Uh we're not confident due to the concrete weaknesses that actually that we could be able to lift the structure. Great. Thank you for your time. I
appreciate it. So this is an interesting if you look at the bottom drawing, the top drawing is existing condition, but in the bottom drawing, what I wanted to point out to you all is that when Michigan Avenue is raised, when 18th Street is raised, when the home to the north is developed, when
the home to the west is developed, you'll basically have the existing home, which use of Dallas can be lifted, so it's got to remain in place, but it'll be in a valley. It'll be surrounded on every side by raised surfaces, whether they're streets or whether it's raised
yards from the north home and the west home. Next slide. This is a view looking to the northeast. You'll see the same condition with the raised roads in pink and then the retaining walls that will be built. It's not a great condition. This is shows
what it would take to be compliant. The red dotted line is a future crowner road. That's where the yard has to be raised to. The green dotted line is BF plus 2 feet of freeboard. That's what the building department is currently enforcing. That's where the slab has to be. As you can see, it basically gobbles up the entire first floor of the
building. So, it is utterly non-compliant. And I feel in the future it would be a magnet for flood events and it would be a horrible water intrusion within this property. Next slide. I'm going to turn it over to Jennifer now. She's going to walk you through her new design. Good morning. Uh Jennifer McConey,
Studio MCG Architecture, uh 230 Northeast 97th Street in Miami Shores. Um when we were when we first started designing this residence, we looked at the historic character of the neighborhood, the program of the existing residence and studied the architect of the existing home, which
was Carlos Shop. Carlos Shopel designed many Med Revival homes in Miami Beach using different materials such as wood, iron work, and stone. And while much of those materials have been removed on this residence, we wanted to use the same types of materials that we studied on on his other residences as well as
plan the layout of the residence in a similar manner because it it it works. Um we have the garage on the on the west side kind of away from the corner and then the main living residence on the corner. Um, we started with a long simple bar plan,
simple bar plan where the main living spaces are located on the ground floor and bedrooms on the second floor. The roof is a classic gable with windows of each bedroom facing the street. We created a shorter garage and guest room structure on the west side that breaks
up the massing and on the east a small cabana bath and balcony for the master bedroom facing the pool area. The ground floor is clad in stone while the second floor is in stucco with wood shutters on the windows. The site wall along the facade also steps down creating privacy around the pool and it's more open along
the front entry in the garage. And again, our our project meets all the zoning code. There's no variance requested. Um and we are proposing to raise it. When we were designing this house, uh it the the the minimum flood uh elevation of the house was nine and
now it's 10. That just changed. So you can see in this image how the existing plan of the uh house that's on the top and the proposed plan are very similar. There were some porches that turned into enclosed areas of the house and other multiple non-permanented
additions. and we'll be obviously cleaning that up and creating a a more simple structure. This is the plan of the ground floor. The entry and stair are located off the center to the west, similar to the way it was in the existing residence. The living spaces are located together in a
long bar shape which faces the front and also the pool to the east. The garage and driveway are also located uh similar to where they are today. On the second floor, there is a guest playroom located just above the garage uh at the half level landing. And that
that way we were able to break up the long structure. So the garage because that has to be lower to have the cars um meet grade um that secondary structure is able to be lower. Um and then the three additional bedrooms uh facing the front of the property with the primary
room facing the pool. the second floor and then this is the facade facing 18th Street. Again, we have broken up the facade into three massings to break down the scale of the home. You can see here that the facade is cladded in stone on the ground floor, stucco walls and wood shutters on the second floor. And the
roof has that same angled pitch as the existing gable roof. This is the east elevation. We used a similar massing of the existing residence on the left and where we uh increased the depth of the original home. We broke up that massing with the
poke cabana structure and balcony for the bedroom above. This is the mood inspiration board for the materials that we used. We have a regular cut coral stone cladding, dark mahogany wood, white stucco, and a barrel tile roofing that has a mix of
shades of terracotta. This image describes how low the existing house sits in relationship to what is required by code now. The existing home massing on the right and the new on the left. Even though we did raise the new house to meet code, we tried to keep the size and portions of
the house similar. And this is a view along Michigan. The house on the right was designed by Schultz and Weaver and not me. Uh we're recreating it. Um, so that house has been demolished now, but um, this was approved a couple months ago in front of you. Um, so that was a Schultz Weaver
house. Uh, the house in the middle was designed by us at 1810 and then the, um, new house on the 1800 on the the corner, but I do think, uh, that this does look like it was done by three different architects. U, we, we really tried to make that happen. Um, we didn't want it
to look uh, all the same at all. And then this is the proposed site plan of how the three houses work together and I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. Great. Thank you, Jennifer. Thank you for the extra time, Mr. Chairman. That's all we have. We like to reserve some time for rebuttal.
Okay. Thank you very much. Um, now it's time for board uh questions for the applicant. So maybe Michael, you if anybody has any any questions. Rey, you look poised.
a very good presentation with all the background. I mean, one of the things that I had heard was that the original massing was put together to build a a condominium on the water and then the Palm View neighborhood became historic and they could no longer do
that. Like there is another building just up the canal from there that is a condominium. Um, so that part you didn't talk about whether that's true or not, but I you bring a very compelling reason
to to tear the building down because it is doesn't meet any building standards, but neither does any of the other homes in the Palm View neighborhood. So, you would be setting precedent for everyone in the Palm View neighborhood to come and say, "Oh, we need to tear our home down um because it it doesn't meet
current standards." and you now have set a precedent by letting this home be torn down and that puts us at at at a disadvantage. Can I respond, Mr. Chairman? No, let's just um That's all. Okay, why don't you respond? It's Yeah. Yeah, I'm more I I I'd rather have this
kind of addressed. Sure. So, you know, every home is constructed differently. Every home ages differently. Every home has had a different level of standard of care from prior owners. I know in my street on Flamingo Drive, my home was built in
1925 and it's only had four owners and this current owner, me, is keeping it in excellent shape. I know other homes that were built about the same time in the late 20s in my neighborhood look horrible and they have not had the same level of care. So, I would not say this
is a precedent. This is a factintensive inquiry. Every home's going to be different here. Just like lifting a home. lifting a home. There's not one mathematical formula that says a home can be lifted. It is also a fact intensive inquiry based upon the strength of the concrete of the home,
the economic resources of the owner. So I don't think this is a president setting exercise, right? I think each home in Palm View is very different. Thank you. That was it. Anybody else have questions for the applicants? I have a question.
Okay, go for it. Thank you. Uh has your clients taken any steps to address the violations or curing the violations such as fencing uh a tarp over the roof and uh securing the
window openings. Uh the answer is yes, Mitch. I'd like to have Mickey Morero who's been carefully representing them in front of the special master address. There's three I think violations left but good morning Mickey Morero South Boulevard. So yes, there are currently
three open violations. One of them has not been a special magistrate yet. That's a 40-year reertification. We're trying to speak to staff. We're not even sure if it applies because it's essentially a single family home that had illegal units. If it's less two units or less, it wouldn't even qualify. But also, we're this we got this
violation a couple weeks ago and even if it was valid, which we we're not sure if you go through the whole reertification process, we're we're suggest we we we've done that analysis in spades with Yousef and we're hoping obviously for demolition, which would negate the need to repair all those things and comply
with the 40-year. The other two that have been magistrate actually appeared before the magistrate just at this podium uh last Thursday. One of them they identified some things that had to be done and our client did those things but identified windows on the wrong side of the house. I think the violation said
north side, they meant southside or vice versa. So when we came to the hearing thinking it was in compliance, they said, "Oh, we we put the wrong note in the violation." So they're now addressing that. The those windows at issue have some iron bars which are not permitted, so we're going to replace them with with panels. But that will be
in compliance soon. Finally, the one you mentioned, Mitch, is the fencing. As you know, if you've driven by, the two vacant properties where we cut the prior approvals last month, do have all the soding, the landscaping, and the decorative aluminum fencing throughout. Uh we recently got a violation just a
few weeks ago for the same thing on this property because it is in fact vacant. But, you know, we told the magistrate and they did give us time because we have this hearing today and this process going. Depending on what happens with the HPB, this could turn to a construction site, which is a whole different set of standards. So for them
to now put a spend tens of thousands of dollars on fence that may come down a month later depending on this this process doesn't make a lot of sense. The magistrate agreed with that and gave us time to go through this process. So those are the three violations. They've addressed a multitude of violations not only on this but the other properties.
They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on seaw wall permitting. The amount of effort that they've put towards violations in general is is quite impressive and that's what we're left with. Thank you. Okay, Mitch. Uh, yes. Uh,
Michael, I I believe you had mentioned the uh uh the people who now control the the estate. Uh it was uh bequathed to them. Uh and the uh any profits would be
donated to charity. Uh I was uh have to state I I I was friendly. first met Rita in the late 1980s when she was uh running the Nature's Garden Bakery uh uh that had you know was really uh
interesting for its time. It had a natural a national distribution. They used organic ingredients, largely organic ingredients, and uh she was incredible. And Ivor uh uh we've been
friends and adversaries o over the years. I'm just curious. I imagine uh the uh uh any profit would be given to charity. I imagine a cancer charity.
Correct. That that was that was Rita and Eore's wish. Okay. Thanks. There's no other uh Rita's brothers no longer uh among us. They really didn't have any other relatives that they were close with.
What I learned yesterday was Eore go around calling everybody his nephew. They were I was his nephew. So no. And it was bequet to a trust and they're the co-rustees. Got it. Elizabeth.
Yes. So, we were since we're talking about precedences before and there were three properties, three lots and then the other two homes have been already demolished and we have we saw the projects by Jennifer. Congratulations, Jennifer, on the design that you did
accomplish what you're setting yourself for in really recreating three different structures. Uh so I would like if you may uh talk a little bit about the difference in the architectural significance between this home and the other two that have been demolished just to refresh our memories because it's
been a while and the architectural sit uh the structural state of this home compared to the other two because some I mean a lot of the repairs that you mentioned before I have done for several clients and it's something that whenever you touch an older home they have to be
done so it's become like kind That's part of life nowadays. But so I just want to understand a little bit more how would be the difference between potentially repairing this home versus the other two that were we have allowed demolition and the architectural
significance of them. Sure. So the unpermitted additions in 1810 1818 were to the degree and the level of care was so lacking in those structures that the building department issued mercy demolition orders. Here
it's close but you know could I have gone to the building official and made my case I didn't. I I thought that was not the right thing to do. I wanted to come here and make my case to you all. My point, and Yousef can back me up after I'm done with these couple of
comments, but when you remove the roof, when you substantially demolish the walls 70 80%. When you remove the floorings, it has to be removed. When you strengthen the foundation, it's you're dealing with a brand new home. So, it would be a fiction to say that
the historic home would be saved because there's nothing left at the historic home when all the repairs would be done. And that also begs the question, once you do all of that, it's still stuck on the ground and it's still going to be a magnet for flood waters to come in. And
I just I just see a future of that home that's bleak. And this is something that you all have to grapple with from time to time. But I it's it's not I don't I think it's um being too kind to say you just have to repair it and everything
will be good because when you repair it, you're basically stripping out all the historic integrity of the home and you're basically it will be a brand new home. Um Yousef, do you want to um maybe start with a contrast between you were the engineer for 1818? Yes.
What was some contrasting elements? Uh there there contrasting elements and there were similar elements too. Uh you know all all the houses had water damage, all the houses had flood damage, had settlement issues. Uh this house was
a little bit better than the other two. Uh but it doesn't mean it was good. uh you know it you know like Michael said by the time you do all these steps of repair uh it's it's a brand new home.
Okay. Thank you. Does that answer your question Marggo? So we didn't talk about architectural significance of the other two homes versus this one. I think they are both contributing. Yeah. I apologize cuz maybe this would
give us all three of the the properties are contributing. Um, you know, as Jennifer mentioned, they were designed by different architects. They all have their unique characteristics. You know, I think um the home on the canal, which is at 1818, that's the
Shelton Weaver home, um was was probably the most significant home in Palm View um in terms of its architectural um architectural details, the location of it, I think, made it probably um one of
the most prominent and visual um indications of the Palm View Historic District. there we have postcards. It's um you know it had that Venetian quality to it in a lot of the postcards. Um but looking at this home it is highly
characteristic of the period of of time. It was well detailed including you know significant Mediterranean uh features as well as art deco features. So I I do think um this has been this particular home was altered less than the other
two. um certainly much less than 1810. 1810 had the most alterations and and additions attached to it. Um this home is is relatively intact with the exception of
um certain modifications that were done inappropriately and the small small additions that were added without permits. Great. Thank you, Haskell. Did you have a question? Thank you for your presentation. And I guess this question is for Jennifer. The
new building footprint, does it exceed the former building with the exception of the um illegal additions? We believe it's it's very similar um because most of those uh they weren't there were some additions and some there
were there were porches that were already there. So it is very similar to and I think in the package there's a I just don't have it. I'm sorry. I would have looked it up. I personally don't have it. But um when you say very similar, as long as you don't exceed
what was originally there, I would be more amanable to supporting you. But otherwise, I I heard what the gentleman said, the structural engineer. You're pretty much describing 75% of the homes on Miami Beach. Um but every individual
building is unique and I understand that. But I also know that there is an issue of economics. Any building can be retrofitted to today's standards any building. It's just a matter of cost. So to say that you don't want to,
you know, participate in those costs, I understand that. It may be cost prohibitive. I just want to know, I guess my basic question, are you within the original footprint of the original building? Pardon me. There's no variances. So they're well,
we can pull up the slide. There's a slide right now. If they can pull up the presentation. So on the top you can see what was there before. Um obviously it was right next to the property line before. You can see that the one on the top is what's there now. If you look at what we're proposing it's definitely a
smaller footprint. Absolutely. Um the one on top includes the illegal additions or the additions over the years. Correct. Yes. And some Okay. I'm talking about the original structure without the illegal additions. go to the um slide that shows it through
the years. I think I saw that on there. There we go. So, if you look at the the if you look at the 1941 aerial, this is the earliest we have. It's almost identical to what's there now. There's very few
additions that were added except that courtyard in the in the center you see that we that was enclosed. But what what that was on the back was a was an was a porch. So, it made it it made it a bigger footprint. So we there wasn't additions as in different things were
added onto it. There's a few little things but that what you see there now is 90% of what was there originally in regards to the footprint. Okay. But you can see there on 1941 it's still it's it's a very large footprint built
five feet less than five feet from the property lines. So based on what staff is recommending that they would like to work with the owner regarding the existing structure, I'll uh defer to them and uh I'll reserve my uh my uh support for you till
later. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? No. Yes. Okay. So, obviously the staff has requested a continuance to discuss um what couldn't be preserved from the existing building.
What I don't see, and I don't think it's been highlighted, but maybe I missed it. Um, other than like speaking to the language that the existing house was, is there anything that you found that you're including and incorporating in the existing design from the from the
exist incorporating into the new design from the existing building specific elements or anything like that that you can point to and talk about for us? And I I don't mean necessarily recreation. I'm talking specifically something that you're incorporating. I'm just curious. So, it's something that's we we would
take from the existing house and use. Occasionally that happens and I just want to know if there's any of that here. Uh right now, no. Um the only thing that I saw that we could would be there's a there's a fireplace that's there. I mean that we could take and and reinclude that on the inside. There's really nothing left on the outside. There's
some stone on the on the the front face which, you know, I think we'd be amimal to to doing that, but you know, once you take that down, I don't know if we can salvage that. It's very brittle. Um we're going to certainly try. Yeah, absolutely.
But I think the massing itself, I think that's a big salvage. I mean, I think the fact that we created the entry where it was, the garage where it was, we have the the long bar. I mean, to me, that's more of a homage than trying to force something um to be salvaged and put on the building.
Okay, Ray, because Okay, first off, I don't know if anybody has really said it yet. You've done an excellent job in in your presentation. The home really blends well with the neighborhood. It looks very much like the original home, but newer and updated. And for those that might not
know, the city right now has a permanent setup in the Palm View neighborhood to try and take the water and pump it out and in into the canal. And I mean, it's it's been there for for weeks and I'm sure it's going to stay there until whatever they do with raising the roads.
And so I am concerned with what you presented that if you don't raise the home, you're going to have BMS like on three sides and uh you're you're just asking to flood that property. You did a very nice job of presenting that.
All right. Um thank you, Ray. I wanted to go back to uh something that you said about the um and and kind of get to the point of I think our board's kind of with the staff as our professional guides here uh and they're recommending
more time to look at whether a piece of the a piece of the existing building not just a not just a a chimney but like a like a some portion of it. what and I didn't see this in your presentation at
all like even addressing it as like no that's not possible. Can you address this whether it's possible or not possible or um because that's where I see where we are right now in terms of what the staff is recommending in their professional opinion as being looked at.
They're not saying has to be done but they're asking it to be looked at. Is that something um what do you think of that? I mean, I we did look at I mean, from when we first started looking at this house, we did look at can we save it? Can we lift it? Um what can we do? Um
but you know, there's they specifically asked for a portion, not for the whole thing. Well, the the the main house, which is, you know, it is made up of several pieces, um obviously. So, there's that main bar. It's it's 12
feet 13 feet wide max. Um and then lifting it what it's you really got to love this house to want to do that. And and I I you know I love historic architecture. That's what I do for a living. But the the the financial feasibility of
doing that it's just it doesn't really make sense at all. I don't I don't know if anybody would ever do it. That's the the problem. and staff mentioned that it would not have to be raised in that case because they could in that you could get a special CFO without
and and would somebody want to pay the insurance on that house and who could buy it? You know, that's the that's the question. Okay. So, I mean, you didn't answer my question. Are you willing or not? Because we have to know this as a board when we kind of can talk to each other
about what's what's happening here. Are you are you interested at all in that in Are yeah just are you willing to look at that or not because that's where I we need to know where you stand I think on this right we would greatly prefer to have a brand new home within this property we
have looked at it we've talked as a team about saving different portions and I'm not I haven't addressed this with the building official or our flood plane administrator but I don't even know it says in this definition of substantial improvement which is what the 50% rule is the very bottom sentence it says that
homes are excluded from the definition so that's Great. But is a portion of a home excluded from the definition? I don't know the answer to that and I don't know what they would require because it's not the idea is to try to relieve entire homes from the burden of complying with flood plane regulations
and the 50% rule. Is a portion of a home, you know, deserve that same type of level of protection from this definition? I don't know. Um Debbie, did you want to weigh in a little bit on that? Do you have any additional information?
Um, ultimately it's the building official that would make that determination, but from my experience um with with a multitude of projects um over the past probably two decades um the building official has authorized
relief from the finished floor level um for portions of buildings that are retained and restored. Okay. I don't know this. I don't know what would happen in this case, but from my experience, that has occurred in the past. Perfect. All right. Thank you. I think we'll I think we'll take up any if
unless anybody has a more questions for the applicant, we'll kind of take that up after public comment. And thank you. Thank you very much. Great presentation. Um so next we get uh board disclosures.
No, no, no, no. Um, for the record, that used to be where uh the Stewarts lived. Where? What? Stuart Stewart and his wife Dana. Oh, really? They Yeah, they used to live in I think in the garage portion. Oh, well, thank you for sharing. Um,
thank you, Ray. And now we will open it for public hearing. Um, yes. Anyone in the audience, please come forward. If you're on Zoom and you would like to comment, please raise your hand. Hi, I'm Roger Goldblad, MDPL, 1750 James Avenue. Uh, we strongly
oppose the proposed demolition. This appears to be a case of demolition by neglect where the owners are intentionally allowing the property to deteriorate to justify the demolition. At what point do we stop rewarding this sort of behavior? Uh despite an engineer
identifying holes in a roof months ago, the owners have failed to file permits or even place a tarp to prevent further damage. The owners refuse to sell individual lots and will only sell them together as a development opportunity, revealing the true intentions. If aging
concrete and standard maintenance issues such as moisture intrusion justify demolition, then virtually every historic property in the city becomes vulnerable. This would set an extremely dangerous president. Thank you.
Thank you. Andrew Andrew Morlli, 1210 Michigan. I didn't come here to speak, you know, in in favor of this project. I came here to support John, who hasn't come up yet. But hearing this, I wanted to say that I think it's very very important that you
as board because I think every single lot, every single home in the neighborhood are considered contributing. On my block, I bought a home for my sister Sarah who now lives in Lake View that we non-historic. It was built in the 1960s. It was just situated poorly and built cheaply. We
wanted to knock it down and build a beautiful home. And it was so expensive at the time, we got a good offer, we sold it. And it's sitting there empty still for about five years since I sold it. I think it's important that the board picks the really important historic homes in this neighborhood. Like a good example would be 1301 Lennox
um be beautiful renovation that happened on the corner of 13th in Lennox. Pick 10 or 15 really beautiful homes and designate them and give everyone else the right to do what uh the this estate is going for by right. I support this project. I hope being that they're
giving this money to charity, we approve this today and let it move forward and let let people have beautiful new homes that will improve the neighborhood which we desperately need. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, on Zoom we have Paul Freeman. Good
morning, Paul. Hi, Paul. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. You have three minutes. Okay. Yeah. I'm not going to use the three minutes. I agree that first of all, I think you've got bad actors that
haven't done a lot. The uh property I live across the street and I look at what should be knocked down, which is some of the additions and they haven't been. The property is certainly uh trying to get demolition by neglect.
That all said, I don't have a problem with knocking the property down and building a new property. What I do have a problem with and no one has addressed is when you rebuild and you rebuild the current flood plane and you take a look
at at least from what I saw of the of the renderings, we're going to flood the street and everybody else is sitting at six foot of elevation. And when you put this at 10, it creates a real problem. And I haven't seen any in in the in the diagram that
was done and the presentation, I have not seen drainage that was going to retain the water on the site to keep it from going into the street. That, believe it or not, I think is more important than whether you try and reconstruct or don't reconstruct
something that looks historic. I'm happy to have it look historic, but when you when you wind up creating drainage that goes into the street from more uh
more concrete, then then you're you're creating a problem and it's not addressed. And when you own four lots, it's really easy for them to create some ponding, create something where the drainage stays on
the site. And if they do that, then I think we would probably have not not as big a problem. That's all I want to say other than you know you're whatever you do is rewarding people for being bad actors because that is an eyes sore and
we look at it every day and they haven't done anything and and that's since before Ivore and Rita died. So, this has been an ongoing we're going to do this, you know, by neglect and they've done it, but I don't really care
about that. But the drainage we do care about a lot. Thank you. Thank you. Um, next on Zoom, we have Chris Glo. Hi, Chris. Do you swear affirm the testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, nothing
but the truth? I do. Thank you. You have three minutes. Hi everyone, I'm Chris Gloy. I live at 1760 Jefferson Avenue, which is about two blocks east of this property. And as an owner of a Palm View home that's even
older than this property, I'm very experienced in significant troubles that you experience during remodel and and ownership. I can assure you that making those repairs is necessary and expensive
and a pain in the neck. I've dealt with cracking and spalling and water damage and termite damage and foundation trouble and roof trouble and window failure and doors failures and more. And I have also made some very questionable financial decisions to fix those
shortcomings. So people talk talk about the expense and say you really have to love old homes. They're right. And there are people that really love old homes and will really make those uh investments. This property is definitely a victim of strategic neglect. strategic
neglect. Residents were evicted about 18 months ago. The house went into decline. We had squatters. We had climate coming in. We had no HVAC. You see mold. You see trash. All of that is very dramatic and totally expected and very strategic.
The expensive repairs are not a reason for demolition. It's just a fact that neglecting a property will make it worth less. We talk about the financial decisions here. It's worth less because it was neglected. Ivore, love him or hate him, he neglected the property. In
the last two years, it's been neglected even more. The property and the lot are not worth a big sum of money because it was neglected. I do not believe that that proposed home will ever be built. The parties other parties have asked to purchase this property in the last
couple of years. They've been ignored, rejected, or quoted unrealistic prices. You've already seen some renderings of properties at 1810 and 1818 Michigan which are adjoining. Those are empty lots. Now, none of those lots have been listed on the MLS for sale. This is, I
believe, an attempt to assemble these properties and revelop the whole complex into a new complex outside of the historic character of the neighborhood. And I I dread coming back to you in 18 months to tell you that that's exactly
what h is happening. If you approve this application, our neighbors, Rita and Ivor, they are unfortunately dead. This isn't a story about Rita. Rita, it's not a story about Ivore. It's not a story about maximizing the value of four
adjoining properties for a charity. This is a story about the historic preservation of a neighborhood. Palm View had a lot of abandoned and vacant properties 30 years ago. We had a lot of windows with plywood covers. We are crawling out of that. We are we have
people making investments and improving their homes now. This is a story about not insenting myself and my neighbors to neglect our homes and return this neighborhood to blight so that it can be ultimately bulldozed down. I'm asking you as members of the HPB to preserve
some of the final remnants of South Beach's history and reject this application. Okay. U Mr. Chair, I see no more uh members of the public wishing to comment. All right. Um thank you very much. Then
uh is there any rebuttal that you'd like to have to some of the uh comments? Yes, Mr. uh chairman. is two uh speakers, me and Anthony. Uh Anthony will address the charges of demolition by neglect. Okay. Strategic neglect and characterization
of him as a bad actor. Um the MDPL speaker said that this will only be sold at assemblage that there's some grand strategy here. That's not correct. Evorea own homes on the east side of Michigan. Three homes. These have each been sold to individual
buyers. So that is just flat out not true. And the word president has been used a lot. But again, it's a fact intensive inquiry with regarding demolition of homes. And when you use the word president, even when an appella court uses it, the idea of president is
constrained by a set of facts. When a court issues a decision, it has a holding the holding is constrained by facts. Here we are similarly constrained by facts. So you can use the term president, but I don't think it has a far wide ranging effect that those that use that word really do believe it has.
Um, with regard to Paul's concern about flooding, just know that the public works department here, Coral Gables, Miami, all require that the storm water be retained on site. The drainage issues in South Florida are horrendous. So, that was a policy decision made by these
public works departments years and years ago. So, yes, the home will be elevated, but the public works department requires that all drainage, all storm water be retained on site. And again the last speaker again the question is not whether repairs can be made. Haskell is
right it's sometimes a question of money but once you make all these repairs and you take a get rid of the roof and you demolish advers and the walls and you get rid of the floors that what is left of the historic home what is really left I think the historic integrity has been stripped from the home and the valley
effect is very real. It's not some future fantasy that's not going to happen. Maybe it will happen. 18th Street will be raised. Michigan will be raised. The lot to the north will be developed. The lot to the west will be developed. And then because this home or even a portion thereof has to remain at
grade based upon structural infirmity of the concrete, you're going to be in a valley. And that is the last place a homeware really wants to be. So with that, I'm going turn over to Anthony and let him discuss these charges. Good morning everyone. My name is Anthony. I've been an attorney
representing Rita and Ivor since 2014. Um, very briefly, Rita and Ivor are people that love this community, have been Rita was born and raised in Miami Beach, and a gentleman said that her dad ran a bakery on Collins Avenue since the 1970s. They were very frugal people.
They never intentionally did anything to come to this board and argue, oh, we we need to knock it down because we intentionally neglected. They were frugal people and that's how they lived their life. Unfortunately, they came into contact with a Ponzi scammer by the name of Michael Stern. They spent
millions of dollars on attorneys before I even got involved. This litigation expanded from 2008 through 2019. They didn't have the luxury and the monies to sit there and make sure that people would not argue that they did this by intentional
neglect. In 2021, Rita unfortunately passed away suddenly. She was a very healthy night. She was a 70-year-old woman that ran, swam, and jock and ran marathons. Okay, it was very sudden. Mr. Caner and myself were identified as the trustees. Rep. Mr. Caner represented
them for 30 years. None of us knew that we were the trustees until Rita passed on. And I was contacted to go to the hospital to make a determination whether or not I should pull the plug. And thank God she passed away before I had to make that decision. So when people say that
Lewis and I have been intentionally neglecting this property, that's far furthest from the truth. When one of the things Rita made sure in the trust that Ivor was never to be put in a home, Ivra suffered severe dementia after she passed on. And we made sure he was not put in the home. And he lived in 1810
until it was red tagged. And we were told everyone has to go. And when I say everyone, everyone, including the tenants in 1800, we were told we hired Michael Larkin immediately. you. We were told he's the best and he is the best. We were hired the architect immediately.
We hired the engineers immediately and we trusted our professionals. If we were told, oh, you could just repair the roof and 1800 and you could keep tenants in there. We would have done that. And I believe you mentioned Stuart. He did leave in the back and we had to unfortunately with a broken heart tell him he had to move on and he did
purchase a condo and he's doing very well and we helped every one of those tenants relocate. Every one of them. And we did our best to keep Rita and Iris's dream alive. And it will go to the charity of children who suffer from cancer and their families that go
through it with them. We are here to maximize the profit of these properties to say that there's been offers that we've rejected, put them in writing. We'll sell it to the highest possible biders to maximize the value. You cannot sell properties that are being red
tagged and we have an unsafe structure and maximize the value of those properties. We just want to do the best for this community and we have to obviously meet our fiduciary obligations. We just and we have no problem working with everyone on this board and we just take the advice of our structural engineers and cost is a
problem. If you tell us we have to spend 5 million to restore the property then we're not we're not going to do it because it's just not cost effective. But then we're going to sell this property for very little monies because people are not going to want to buy a property below the flood levels that
have to spend $5 million to bring it back to code. So we believe that this is the best way to maximize the value and I really appreciate all your effort and I I do appreciate the historic society and I think Miami Beach is very happy and and grateful for all of you to give us
your time. Thank you very much. Great. Thank you very much. Okay. So, with that, we've concluded the um the uh applicant rebuttal to public uh comment. So, Michael, I think you don't need to stand up now. We're just going to have a conversation about yourself, but we'll
call on you um if we if we need because I think this is the time for a board member um board member comment. Um and I'll start with Randy to see if he'd like to uh make any comments. Just
Yeah, thank you. Um, I do agree the new design is um, very nice for a new building if you tear down the old one. Um, I'm also extremely concerned about the president this sets. Um, I renovated a house in Tampa that was probably worthy of being
torn down, but it was restored at almost every part of it was restored. I think that the fireplace was the only element that was left. But it now today it is an amazing historic house. Even though much of it's new, it still has all the character of the original house. Um, and
the um effort that you have to put into that is consistent with what you have to do in Miami Beach if you're going to buy a property um that's historic. Uh so I I think it's very dangerous to um say just because we have to replace a lot of it, we will tear the structure down. As
everyone says, that's a large majority of the um many of the of the buildings in Miami Beach. So, um I am concerned about the elevation of the new house and the elevation of the wall on the uh street. Uh it looks very tall on the sidewalk. I don't know that is there
plans to raise the street the two streets. That's a question for staff. Is there um eventually there are I don't know what um the time frame is with the with the project. However, but it could be years off considering
these are not major correct corridors. I mean, it's not an imminent um project for the city, but it is in the plan, the long-term plan. Great. Thank you. That's what all I have to say. Great. Thank you, Randy. Ray, before you presented, Michael, I was
dead set against tearing this home down and restoring it and maintaining it with the entire rest of the Palm View neighborhood. Your presentation is compelling. the um architecture of the new building. It's not a big cement box
or anything. It really blends in with the neighborhood and it's very characteristic of the original home. Um so um w with the fact of of the staff saying that they want to continue this next or till September, I don't think
that the presentation will be any different in September than it is today. So for me, we think I feel we need to make a decision today and not look to um continue it because you've made it pretty clear there's not much going to be any different than what we've saw
today. Thank you. Thank you, Ray, Pascal. I like your design quite a bit. I think it's compatible with the homes that you previously designed. I am concerned about the height, the wall height that
we're talking about on I guess it would be the south side along the U property and I do hear the concerns of the um residents in the neighborhood. Um in light of what the um
staff is recommending that you do address possibility of saving portions of the home. I enjoyed the, you know, Q&A earlier, but there are some questions that I would have for the structural engineer. In light of that, I
would um support the idea of deferring it to um to uh September and studying it a bit further to see if there are any portions of the structure that can be saved. And um I leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah,
Michael, you you mentioned the water would either be retained on the site or would that be could also mean diverted to the canal? You can you can come up if you're directly asking. I mean this is really for our comment.
Go ahead clarification. Go for it. So the assemblage is cut into four different parcels. Each parcel looked at independently and it does the city does not let you tie into their storm water system on their surface storm water on the street. You have to retain all the
storm water within your property because the street is burdened enough with all the rain water coming down on the street which will ultimately issue into the outfall. But for our purposes the storm water has to be retained within the property and that's done with uh sisterns or tanks.
Could be sisterns could be a variety of Thank you. Uh, you know, as far as precedent, uh, this, uh, the demolition of of this home would certainly not be a precedent. The
precedent was set decades ago. Uh, you know, it I'm largely torn. Uh, Jennifer, you mentioned the fireplace. Uh, uh, you know, ideally the, uh,
At minimum, the front front facade or the primary elevation could be preserved and raised, but I understand for what reason. It all has to do with cost. uh
you know I uh I'm inclined to uh the the other assemblages on the the site have been approved and those buildings were certainly demolished and as stated uh uh the their structural
condition was dire uh I I don't see why this one should be treated differently uh especially knowing that Uh it's all going to go to charity. Uh any uh anything left over at the end.
Okay. Thank you, Mitch. Yes. So, um, I, as I mentioned before, I really appreciate the design by Jennifer and the story you told, Michael, was very compelling and all the points you brought up are extremely valuable. And
I, I fully agree with them in terms of how much we renovate an old structure and what's left of the old, if it's really worth it, and if there is any meaning in preserving something that has been so changed and modified and replace parts. But before I think we go ahead
and for me for my own um peace of mind I think we should go through the study of trying to work with Debbie and identifying which part of the structure they are considering to be preserved and if it can actually be preserved but and my position would be
not to keep it existing um finished for elevation. I think whatever we preserve needs to be raised to the future elevation of the new home because I think we are just um buying a problem for the future if you keep the house the existing portion at the existing
elevation. We are just buying a problem for the future and I agree we are totally taking the value away from the property because you're renovating spending a lot of money into the new home but still would be um exposed to future rains and flooding. So I think we
should and my my my suggestion would be to go ahead and try to identify what portions Deb is talking about or if there is any portion that can actually be saved and that portion should be raised to comp to comply with the current flood of patience.
Great. Thank you Lindsay. So I think my hesitation I guess on both sides is is multiffold. Um, but before I get there, I will say I agree. I I think the new design is beautiful, but that actually leads into my hesitation. Right. So, one of the
reasons, you know, in order to get this demolition permit in the historic district, you have to bring forth, unless it's an active fact from area, you have to bring forth a design that you're planning on um incorporating in order for us to approve it. Um, and so, correct me if I'm wrong, though. Um, the
estate, the assets of the estate are the land that exists, right? So the plan is not necessarily I mean as evidenced by the fact that the other two lots have not yet been developed even though their plans approved I believe or not plans approved but through us um the plan is
to sell this with approvals and then have someone else would then build the structure. Is that the plan? Right. And so that so that brings me to like another step of my hesitation is that we go through all this process. we allow you as the owner, the existing
owner, right? Um the trust to demolish this building because we understand or you know we accept Mr. Hasham's explanation that the building itself is not salvageable for the purposes intended, right? And we've got this
beautiful structure that I I agree. I think it's, you know, the plan design is wonderful. And then the new owner comes in and says, "Yeah, I have no desire to do this. I'll leave it a vacant lot and I'll just wait you out." And so those are the things that that I struggle with a little bit. Um and so at least to to
that extent to me I lean more towards having a further discussion with staff on where we are. Um and you know I know that's not ideal. I understand you know time is of the essence for you guys. Um, but you know, and and I I don't know if there's
something that can be done as far as um deed restrictions or anything like that um when the property is transferred. I don't know if you have any desire to do that, but something that would give me comfort or this board comfort that what's being proposed is actually what's going to be constructed. I I I'm kind of
I'm I'm, you know, I'm grasping right now, but I'm I'm trying to, you know, that's those are the strengths that I'm struggling with. Anyways, so th those are the things that I'm struggling with. Um, and so for all of those things combined, um, and given, you know, the professional advice that we do get from
staff and as mentioned, you know, every building, you know, if if I look at it hard enough, I can say, okay, well, you know, I had spalling, I mean, my building, for example, we did multi-million dollars worth of renovation. I mean, we took it down to the rebar and replaced, I mean, in order
to preserve the building. um you know and it's not individually designated historic. It is my you know my building is contributing. So um you know those are the things that are are weighing on me when I look at this. Um and and I was going to say I did I can't remember if
anybody else did but I did go with Mickey and look at 1810 and 18 well 1818 prior to the um the demolition where they came for the after the fact when they came to us. So, um, to the demolition by neglect statements,
could it have been better if preserved? Yes. Could there probably have been some remedial work or some, you know, some intervention um, in these buildings? Not necessarily 1810 and 1818 because I mean, they were about to fall into the canal. Um, I didn't see 1800. Um but you
know given this the state of the other two um and the fact that there was a demotion permit directed by the building department as opposed to um where we stand with 1800 um you know I'd have to imagine it's in slightly better shape.
Okay. Thank you very much Lindsay and um thank you guys for great presentation really um a model presentation of the context and a beautiful uh design for uh being proposed um I you know I kind of I
believe that there's um that as a historic preservation board we deal with time is our is part of our currency. We deal with buildings that have been around for a long time and we build deal with districts that were created kind of to com to bring together buildings um
and uh bring together kind of historic contexts which are related to time. And so I think the staff is asking for us to give them give more time and that more time could be to determine whether or not some to could
could apply to a number of things. And I think we we owe it to buildings when we have the possibility to give them more time. There could be um for example, somebody who comes in and says, "I want this and I want this historic building because they're one of those people who
really wants to take that on and wants to have that." And if we go through this today quickly and just say, "Okay, we're going to punt this because it's like all the others." I think we have an opportunity. I don't know whether it's going to save the building or not. Um but I think we have an opportunity and
we kind of owe it to ourselves and the integrity of this board to give it that bit more time. We're talking about till September. Um this will also show um the integrity you know of the the site and things you know the all the things that
um that Mickey was talking about and um I mean that um and uh that so I would I would be inclined to go with staff recommendation to give this project
a bit more time to be a possible a possibly historically preserved building. Um, and or a portion of it being possibly historic preserved. But that's but so that's where I am because I I I completely agree with all of you
all of what you guys say. I mean, it's all true and the only thing we can do is we can say, "Okay, tear it down today or let's wait to decide in in September." And that's that's kind of where I stand. Um any we can have a conversation now. I
mean it doesn't have so if anybody wants to jump in what staff no I think that's been that what what just to make sure Oh yeah we can do a straw poll. Yeah
sure sure. Um we can do a straw poll but if anybody wanted to say anything before what does staff think we can save on the building or facade just so we have an idea. Ideally, it would be I think Jennifer described as the bar portion. So, you know, I I don't think the garage
the garage has been converted and that whole um side I you know, ideally I would think that bar portion um would be what staff would, you know, be consider a significant amount of
preservation and restoration. Um, so there's, you know, there's like a front porch, um, that I don't, if that's been altered, I don't think that's necessary. And then everything to the, um, west of
the bar, I think, you know, would be appropriate to to demolish. Um, so, Jennifer, is that something you're willing to work on between now and September? Wait, wait, wait, Ray. before you we're not we're not we're having our conversation. We've closed the applicant
portion. I know you so taken over. Um I was all I was going to say is because I have the benefit of looking at Debbiey's scribbles over here. So the bar portion is the entirety of the main house absent the porches and the um
garage which if I wasn't sitting her caner scribbles I might not know what that meant. So I just wanted to share that with the board. Okay. Um, Randy, your mic is on, so I'm Is that not an indication? Okay, that's usually an indication, at least from Ry. If the if he's lit up red, he's ready to
say something. Anybody else have any other any other comments? Um, we can take a straw poll and then we can and then we can go back to a conversation. Um, so just a a straw poll of where you stand. Um,
a yes uh would be a yes would be to to go with the recommendation of staff and a no would be to not go with the recommendation of staff and to kind of approve the the recommendation of staff
is to is to um continue to September and if you want to do it today then I think uh then a no vote. So yeah. So just yes or no. Uh, where are you thinking now? Yes. Right. No.
Okay. Okay. Yes. Is waiting. Yes. Is doing what staff suggest. I can't hear. Oh, they are. Oh, because they're not. Their mics aren't on. So, we're four. Four. Yes. To one. No. Well, what I was trying
to ask you about the applicant is one of the things in my commentary I had asked for the applicant to weigh in, although I don't know that it matters because if we're four already um on on any sort of like restrictions that can be in place and we didn't get that answer. No, no, no. We will we'll go back to
we'll go back after the straw poll after we see where we are. Well, I mean to to me that weighs on my decision on the straw poll. That's what I'm saying. All right. Michael, can you answer Lindsay's uh I don't know. What's your question? I have I have more to say but I'll respectful you I'll
answer just for a question is that the historic preservation board order is recorded in the public records you know it is there so it has the functional equivalent of a covenant and when it's in what's in the public records your property is bound by the development program set forth in the order so if you
wanted to change it you use the phrase wait you out this board will be here for eternity so there'll be no waiting out this board if you want to change the design and come back with something radically different you have to go meet with Debbie first go through a whole four or six month long process and appear before the board. So it acts as
like a a protection like what is presented here must be built or it comes back to this board for a change. Thank you. Thank you very much. So yes to straw. Well and then I'm going to ask
or you don't want to you don't have to. Okay. I I just wanted to ask Debbie and maybe Nick what so how many votes do we need since for for a continuence you you only need four
um to approve the application you would need five because it includes demolition demolition. Got it. If I could just maybe clarify something. So, while the request is for total demolition and a a new building, uh I
think one of the important things to point out is our land development regulations, the historic preservation regulations would not permit the existing building to be demolished until a building permit. I think this
goes back to kind of Lindsay's concern. Until a building permit has been submitted for the approved project, reviewed and approved by planning and all fees associated with that permit have been paid. So, you know, that I
think is is somewhat of a concern for for staff only due to the fact that the existing property from what I have seen with the code compliance violations and, you know, discussions with the neighbors and actually going out there myself on
several occasions to to look at the property, you know, it is currently somewhat of a nuisance for the neighborhood. I think um you know I don't know what the timing is but from my from my experience you're probably
you know if once this project is approved realistically 12 to 18 months from getting a a permit submitted and and through the entire process. Um and so that would really be the timeline for
demolition. Um, not once this board approves it, staff can approve a demolition permit, clear the lot, get the fences up, and make it, you know, a nice park-like uh environment for the neighborhood. Um, this, you know, would not be a a quick
process considering that there there needs to be a sale. The new owner needs to buy into the project that was approved and not want to come back to this board to modify um the design. Um, so I think that's just another consideration here that
makes it a little bit more complicated than um than typical projects because there's there's kind of a multi-step um scenario that has to occur before anything can really happen on this. Now, notwithstanding everything that I said
in our regulations, if the city's building official issues a demolition order, then it can come down then it would come back to us. then it would come down. It would right it would be we would authorize the demolition if this became
an an emergency demolition order um as authorized by the billing official. It would not necessarily need to come back to you because that that the trigger for coming back to you would if you had already approved the demolition. Say you approved the demolition today.
If an emergency demolition order is issued, it can come down. It would not need to come back to this board. um it would need to come back for to this board for an after the fact if the board had not previously authorized the demolition.
Do you have a question here? Yeah, sure. Uh so Deb Debbie in other words you're stating uh if we don't assuming we don't approve demolition the applicant will need to cure their violations shore up and stabilize the
structure until a permit uh whether that be demolition or uh construction of the new uh project should should be Yeah. And and I think that's an
important point because there's nothing stopping the applicant from going ahead and trying to pull some repair permits now considering we know it's likely going to be 18 months before anything happens on this site. Um, you know, certainly the pro the property
maintenance um violations that have been received and the vacant property fencing um should be addressed, you know, at a minimum or an engineering report uh stating that
the structure is an imminent threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. would be that would go through the building officials uh review process. Yeah. I'd just like to add um just that I
think it's also um it will be potentially helpful for this board to see what a a talented architect like Jennifer would do with a conversation, you know, with the planning with the
with with Debbie and her team about the possibilities. And so we'd at least get to hear how those conversations because this what's so interesting and kind of sad and exhilarating at the same time about this project is that it is so
related to almost every historic so many pieces of this relate to other historic projects that we've seen and it's often been I mean each of you have kind of said that in a different way but um okay so Michael did you have something you wanted just to add briefly? Yes, just a couple of points based on everything
I've heard. Um, with regard to the code violations, I think the resertification will fall out because it's not a multif family building. It's a single family home. So, I think we able to persuade the building department to resend that violation. With regard to the bars and the windows, it's also an easy fix. We can do that. The fence is a extreme, you
know, it's a large expenditure to these picket fences, believe it or not, are not cheap to get the engineering and install them. So, it's not like an easy thing. uh something we'll we'll definitely look at prior to the next hearing. But just in terms of retaining the home, I don't think it's an option to keep the home at grade. I think the
flooding is real, especially in Palm View. And I think it's going to be exacerbated. I don't think the raising of the streets is going to be 40 years in the future. I think it's probably going to be in our conversation public wars probably in the late 2020s when they're going to raise Michigan and 18th Street. It's not going to be 40 years.
So these homes have to be raised. And if you look at it, it doesn't have a crawl space. So you have to dig underneath the home or to try to raise it. And then the way you do it, the way I remember from 22 star, you have to dig in through the windows, which are not reinforced. And
the concrete is brittle. So if I would have to be forced to do this, I wouldn't even look at the bar part of the building because that is that represents a greater risk. And as an attorney, you calculate risk. And if the concrete is so weak, why would you try to lift up the biggest portion of the home? I think I would focus on the garage if our
client even wants to do that. Okay. Where? Yeah, we've heard those. Thank you though. Thank Yes. U wait uh Haskell had his hand on the button. I just had a quick question. You took four samples, concrete samples, right? One of them was essentially an anomaly.
It was a a th00and PSI. The rest of them were closer to 4,000. Is that not correct? And where did you take those? By the way, where did you take those? Were those in the um in the new editions or in the original structure? They were in both in the original and
the new, but they were not 4,000. They were in the 1,000s. That was one of them, right? If I remember correctly, and the rest were in the 3 to 4,000, maybe I'm wrong, but no. Uh all of them were under 1400. 1,400 PSI.
I' I've we've seen we've seen 900 975 in some in some buildings. Thank you. No, they're all they're all below 1400. Thank you. It doesn't change my view on uh giving this an additional
opportunity. I mean, after all, we are a historic preservation board and that's what we're trying to do. And I think giving st an additional opportunity to work with Jennifer who's I think is a very talented architect. I think there are possibilities that we
may be able to save uh the structure. So, okay, I'll leave it with that. Thank you. Thank you, Haskell Ray. I think one thing that this board has to realize is that these four properties take up an entire block of the city. So, if you've raised three out of the four,
you're setting this up for doom if you don't raise this one or allow it to be um torn down. I mean, it's it's unfortunate, but that's just the way it is. Thank you. All right. Um, so with that,
it sounds like um we might be nearing a vote and uh um so I think we'd first need a motion and um of course you know where I stand. I would recommend a motion to support
staff recommendation knowing Rey exact that you're not wrong. Um, but I would like to give this another chance. Um, since it's still a standing contributing home. Um, but anyway, is
would anybody like to offer a motion? I'd like to make a motion to continue this case to the uh, I believe September. I don't know the date, the staff's recommendation to continue it for further study.
September September 16th. Thank you. I'll second that motion. Okay. All those in favor of the continuence. All right. Do you want to do a roll call? I think
is anyone opposed? One opposed. Right. Oh, and Lindsay. Okay. Okay. So, that passes. So, the application has been continued to the September 16th meeting. Thank you.
Thank you. Okay. Um, Mr. Chair, the next application is HPB 24 0632. This is 1730 Jefferson Avenue. An application has been filed requesting a certificate of appropriateness for the
partial demolition and renovation of the existing home and accessory buildings, including the construction of attached additions and variances from the required setbacks, lot coverage, unit size, and open space requirements. And I turn it over to Jake to present our
recommendation. Thank you, Debbie. The subject home was constructed in 1938 and designed by Alexander Lewis in the art deco style of architecture. This application was last heard by the board at the April meeting. Since that time, revised plans have been
submitted that include revisions to the front facade of the home to be more consistent with the historical design, modifications to the rear rooftop addition, including an additional setback from the rear to comply with the required 15t rear setback, and the
elimination of three variance requests. Staff has no objection to the design of the additions which will not be visible from the street but continues to recommend that the primary facade be retained and fully restored consistent with available historic documentation. Additionally, the applicant is
requesting several variances. Variances one and two are to exceed the maximum lock coverage of 30% by 5% and to exceed the maximum unit size of 50% by 2.9%. Staff would note that if the existing residents were located outside of a
historic district, the retention of the existing home would allow for a lot coverage up to 40% and a unit size up to 60% as incentives to retain the home. Variances three and four are to maintain the existing non-conforming side setbacks of the main home to construct
an attached addition elevated terrace and pool deck. The existing setbacks are 4.83 feet along the south side and 4.85 85 ft along the north side where 7'6 in is required. The remaining variances are related to the proposed rear rooftop
addition. Variances five and seven are to maintain the existing side setbacks in order to construct a rooftop addition with the same setbacks. The existing setbacks are 7.03 ft on the north side and 7.97 ft on the south side where 10
ft is required. Finally, the plans have been revised to comply with the required rear yard setback, rear yard lot coverage, and rear yard open space, which were previously requested variances 68 and 9, which have been withdrawn. Due to the unique site
conditions, including non-conforming setbacks for both buildings, and the difficulties associated with the retention of the contributing home, staff is supportive of the requested variances and recommends approval of the application. Thank you, Jake. um if the board has any
questions for us. If not, we can turn it over to the applicant. Okay. Thank you. Hi, good morning. Um Edwin Hera with DJ Architecture, the architect of the the project. Um I don't see I don't see my
own presentation here for some reason. Do we have the presentation for 1730 Jefferson? Edwin, do you did you send one in? Yeah, they confirmed it um yesterday. Okay, I think it was Herrera Miriam that confirmed Miam.
Just give us one second. It should be showing up on your screen shortly. Thank you, PJ. It's the last one. Those are plans. So, we we're going to go ahead and bring up those plans for you. Okay. One moment here.
Thank you. Um as mentioned right we when we came back on April originally it was completely a different design. Um we took all the input given not only by you guys also by the neighbors and by planning department to make the house feel more to its original state. It's no
longer looking modern but rather you know fitting with that modern style that the house had originally. That's what you see on the cover page. Um these already have been explained by the staff. And as mentioned, you know, in the picture to the left and to the right,
you can see the the original style of the home, you can't see the stuckle bands, but they are there from kind of grayish along the windows along the front. Pardon me, just this is the state of the home as of today. Um, something that I I just want
to make sure that it's known, when we got hired for this project, the the clients had originally wanted to repair for spalling. Um, and the original team, engineering and architecture, architects, excuse me, they didn't file for permits and they began to do repair work for the spalling and and what ended
up happening is they made it worse and then they abandoned the client and that's when we came in last year and that's how we arrived to be in front of you guys today. And that's the guest house on on the end, you know, the pool and the apartment complex to to the right of the
house and the context. And you'll see this is probably the only home with that style as as explained. Um this is the existing zoning diagrams and everything that's been explained by Jake. Um this is the proposed where you know we're the rear yard is no longer
being you know a setback that we're requesting. Um only the unit coverage and the size and the lock coverage is where we need that extra percentage. Um this is just that continued. Um this is the house as it sits today. Um the
owners they they just want to repair it and add some you know some space for their children for their family. They're you know they're in their 60s and want to have a space for everybody to come together. And you'll see that mainly is on the side and on the rear that where the spalling is is where the addition is
actually happening. And there you can kind of see how the house expands to the rear and to the right. Um the flat roof remains you know that this is the the guest house in the rear where As they have mentioned, we were trying to do a second story addition.
Um, originally we were requesting a setback because of the staircase being on the setback and because the second floor was encroaching on the rear and we we adjusted that based on your input. Um, and here you can see it's it's jog
bathroom number one that that used to be where and we re redesigned so that we no longer were encroaching on that setback here. We're just trying to show you where the demolition is happening. As you can see along the front, um, it's
not really much. It's just redesigning the eyebrow. Along the rear is, you know, where the expansion is happening. That's why it's dashed in red. And that's how the house would look after the redesign. Um, originally we were trying to make the eyebrows be much
higher, but we we brought them down. And the main reason for the eyebrows being demoed and redone is because they're made out of wood. So when the when the sping occurred, it came from the eyebrows because they were so close to the window. And that's what happened in the rear. And then it also happened
along the front. They they had fixed that already when they moved in, but that was the original issues with spalling. Um on the side again it's because the expansion is to the side and then over here it's because the windows are being blocked up to the to the left. And there you can see that we again keeping that
band where it's visible. They they really they agree with you guys if we're going to do a remodel it needs to be cohesive architectural language with the the band. Um again the guest house is being substantially remodeled. you know there almost mostly all the windows and doors are being blocked up and some
windows and doors are being added in different locations and then the flat roof is being completely demoed and then we we wanted to continue the the architectural language also to the guest house in the rear. That's the reason for the stuckle bands as well.
This is a you know an aerial view a little skewed so you can see how they they talk to each other. Um, again going back to the front, we we we agree that we needed that language to be, you know, restored. So we we we did the the mutton
to the windows as the house originally had them. We brought down the the color again. We we used this the stuckle bands. Um, and then we just shifted the eyebrows six inches up so that they're not on the window themselves, trying to meet halfway.
This is a little bit of side perspective. Um, as you can see, the band turns now, whereas of right now it's just along the front, continuing the language towards the guest house. There's the rear view. And then we we continue the band just because we figured that is a nice motif, a nice
continuation. And then so are the windows with the mutants and the divisions throughout the house. Now, more of a um, how do you say art deco look? And then the guest house, you know, mainly facing the the pool and the same langage. continue there as well.
And then all new landscape is being done. You know, all the the drain water is going to be retained with trenches and it's we're going to try to make it look as the house was when the they originally purchased it 5 years ago. And that's it for me.
Okay. Um, thank you very much. Um, are there any questions from the board for the applicant? Yeah. Uh, go ahead. You raised the eyebrow six inches from
where it is existing, and I imagine there's a tie beam there. Are you Is it Are you replacing it with a uh masonry eyebrow? No, with a metal one. And right now it's a wood eyebrow. And it's a wood eyebrow.
Yeah, it's a wood eyebrow. Yeah, that's what it's of course. It's going to leak. Uh, but originally, was it wood? Yeah, it was what just wrapped in stuckle. And what ended up happening is when when I originally walked it, um they had replaced all the windows and doors when
they first purchased the house and they they did a poor job in one of the front ones and it caused a major leak and it stemmed from from the eyebrow and the connection to the window and we figured that if they're going to be spending their money on this, make it a little bit at least try to piece that that
issue from occurring again. So, you're you're you're telling me that this wooden eyebrow has survived since 1938? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I never heard of such a thing. Me neither. I I had never I had never seen that until this home being wrapped
in that in that stuckle. And is it just framed out and covered with L? Yeah. Nothing. Nothing. It's crazy. That's strange. Okay. And then Oh, sorry. So, the All right. So, it'll be a similar
appearance of what it is today. And I wanted to I I didn't get a chance to bring some pictures because I know there's a couple neighbors with with privacy or these are pictures when they bought the home originally and we want to make sure that the landscape is going to be similar to that providing privacy not only for themselves but to their
neighbor be to the rear to the left and to the maybe you can hold them up. Sometimes the camera can uh catch it. Yes, this is the rear. The public can see it too. Um, and then this is facing the house. Just hold it still for a sec. And again, we want to have the same landscaping,
full privacy. Those are renderings. I didn't No, no, these are pictures when they bought the house 5 years ago. Um, and then this is the view from the second floor. And as you can see, you couldn't see their neighbors and they they they want to keep that privacy, right? And I can give that to you guys as well.
Okay. Sure. Um, Randy, do you had a Yeah. Um, I'm trying to understand the renderings and your perspectives. Um, the area over the carport will not be a a deck.
Correct. Accessible deck. No, that's But there is a deck extending back of that around the back of the house. Correct. Yeah. Right behind the carport is where the new addition deck is. And there's is there an accessible level there now? There there is. Yeah. One of those pictures shows the accessible roof area
behind the the the house. So there will be a wall behind the carport on the deck so people can't walk from the rear portion to the front portion. Correct. Because that's going to remain a roof, but that's there now. That is there now. It's a It's a wall. It's a parapit wall.
Okay. Thank you. I couldn't tell what was new and what was existing. I apologize. What time is dinner? Huh? What time is dinner? Oh, yeah. I mean, as you can see, they they just want to have that back. you know, they've they've yeah, they've they have not been able to enjoy their house to the fullest because of the spalling
and everything that occurred. And, you know, we're just trying to get a repair. Another question on the rear accessory building is there is one there now that you're adding a second story to or there's not you're tearing it down and I'm confused on the Got it. behind the pool. No, no problem. So, there's a one-story
guest house at the moment and we want to add a second story to it. So, you have to rebuild it or just adding just a roof. So, we're just going to demo the roof cuz it's wood and then support it substantially so that it can hold the second floor. Okay. I I guess I'm concerned about making it look like a mini house when
it's sort of all new. And we're putting the same banding on the accessory structure that the main house has, which is sort of like a little house behind the big house. I I don't know. I just know how the board feels about making a brand new building look like the old building just by copying it. So, that's
my concern. Understood. I I like the striping on the front. I just You think it's too much to the back? Got it. We were just trying to continue the language to be honest. I understand why you did it. I just don't know whether that's the way we would prefer to do it on new structure.
Understood. Thank you. Yes, we it came from down there. We saw it. Yes. Yes. R Yeah, Randy saw it. Bas could take us through variance number three on your plan view. Show us where
that is. Three, four, and five, please. Um, sorry, I forgot which one three, four, and five are. I out of memory. Um, I'm I'm just going to the beginning. Sorry. Hand off it. Um,
for setbacks from the north and four in the south and the leader. Okay. So, if we go to the site plan this way, um the the house on the Can you use your can you use your cursor to um to
Yes. Sorry about that. Um yes. So, this is the north side and since we're trying to maintain this this setback of the carport when we added behind the carport, that's one of the variances we're requesting the addition behind the carport. Where is the Sorry to interrupt you, but where's the original house on
this plan? It's original set. It's it's go the drawing before you can see it. There you go. So the the carper is right here, you know, and we're doing the addition right here. So that's the reason for requesting that setback because we're doing the addition on the north side
here. And then the the same goes for this side because we're doing the addition of the terrace behind it. But the carport is open, partially open. It will remain open. What you're what you're proposing your addition is is an enclosed space behind
and you're bringing it within less than 5 ft of the property line is what you're doing essentially. Correct. Correct. Yeah. Because it's it's 411 is less than 5T. So that's number that was correct. Which variance? Number three. Number three. And then okay and then number four is the south side.
Same same thing when when we did the addition of this little covered area it it encroaches on this portion right here. So again that that is going to be a twotory essentially structure within five feet less than 5t of the property line.
Correct. Yeah. Which which exists now. Right. because this this is where the one of the pictures that I showed you or which is a little confusing that you're standing on the second floor facing you know the rear right and and then the last one is number five or does that occur?
Um sorry I forgot what number five was pardon me again the guest house. That's the guest house. Um so since it's the same thing on the north side we we need that that side
step back to to be m maintained and since we are not meeting it by the by what we're adding that's the reason for the number five. Okay. Show me please the uh existing current right now.
This is the existing as you can see it's a it's a flat roof. Um and then this is the wall of the existing guest house which remains where it is. Um but it doesn't meet you know the the minimum.
Thank you Mr. Meyer. I just wanted to clarify the addition to the existing home on the front of the property is just one story and it has a roof deck on top of it. So it's not two stories. Repeat. Repeat that again. The addition to the
front house is only one story and it has a roof deck on top of it. So, it's not two stories. It's just a walkable roof. Sorry, I I he still No, you are not digest. Okay, you're in digest.
Yeah. And you'd like to ask a question? Uh some of the public concern was the uh curvature the existing curvature of the eyebrows uh being changed to something rectal linear. Yeah, I don't think if I may, sorry to
cut you off. I don't think you can see it. I mean, you would have to be standing. Well, I can see it on the original photos, the existing photos. Uh uh also the uh height uh or in terms of the uh
the depth and height has that changed? No, we brought them down to 8 in again. Originally they were thicker. Yeah, I mean the thickness. Yeah, they're the same thickness. Okay. They're just not curved and it's tubular steel. Gotcha.
All right. Okay. All right. Um any other questions for the applicant? No. Seeing seeing none, uh then we will go to um board disclosures.
Anybody have disclosures to make regarding to this application. Now open public hearing. Okay. Any anyone on Zoom please raise your hand? Anyone in the audience please come forward. Oh. Um, please have a seat and then
we'll have the public hearing and then we'll ask you back. All right. Uh, just just to give you a little bit of background, my name is Dave Atel. This is Laura as my wife. Hi. We live in 1733 Michigan A, the house directly to the back of this proposal.
Uh, we've been, of course, before the board a couple times on this. Uh the original proposal had a guest house that was two stories. We actually sent I apologize. I don't think I have Mitch's uh email address on the list, but we did send in a picture of what this proposal
would essentially look like from our backyard, which is uh right now it's one story and then it would be two stories, which would directly look down upon our pool. Uh it would be a significant uh detriment to the value of our property and to our experience living in our in our house. essentially my kids play in
that pool. Um, and we also think that the current plan, although it does have a wall at at the required 15 ft, has a habitable balcony out all the way to 7 1/2 ft, which is through the required
variance. It seems very weird that the city uh approved this without requiring a variance. Uh but regardless, we think that, you know, obviously having a second story there uh looking directly down on our pool is a little uh intrusive and we don't really find a fus
uh and it can be hard to grow fus in that area, right? Like the it can be a little thinned out. Uh we don't really find a a privacy fus detriment to that to that modification, if that makes any sense. I just agree am surprised that this
wasn't flagged that that this is against this house is very very close to our backyard and it was grandfathered in which is which is fine. We have grown as much foliage as we can, but a second story, I don't understand how it wouldn't require variance to be that
close to peer into our into our house, into our like it would it would be very damaging to our experience and and the renovations we poured into our house um like Chris mentioned. So, we we hope
that you can look more closely at this diagram because it is misleading. I I know that the architect did acknowledge that the bathroom labels were placed in a misleading fashion, but I believe those are sliding doors that lead out onto a habitable balcony, which we think
would be require a variance, but at the very least, we hope you can consider that this would be really negative impact on us. And so can I ask you a question? Did you have a chance to talk to the applicant in the
intervening weeks? Uh they did they did send us an email um saying that they they would put some plants up. Um but currently we are the only ones who have plants up and we don't find that an acceptable solution because there's first of all no guarantee but also a
second story you would have to have like prohibitively high I mean this is very close to our yard. So you're the west you're you're directly directly behind west correct. Yeah. Okay. And I think we did send a picture in. I mean you can see right into their into
their that unit right there. So Yeah, a question for them. Uh, more so to staff. C, can you clarify? Does this fall within the setback? Is that the issue? Um, so there the existing one-story
building. Um, is a non-conforming rear setback for if it was going to be a new accessory building. the two in the second story to be set back. Um and that was one change from the
back. Um the second story 15 complies with the current regulations for accessory buildings by by on top of the existing roof of the one-story building. as long as that that surface
exceed the maximum allowable height for one story accessory without requiring any variances. Um and we have confirmed that allowable height for a one-story um accessory building. And so even adding
the second story, it's well below the allowable height of 20 ft measure from base flood elevation plus freeboard um than what is allowed. So but the side setback is the only setback that they need, not not the rear anymore. So let's just put you could you could
sit a chair out on this deck and stare literally directly down onto our pool and into our into our house, not just the pool. All right, that's our comment essentially.
No, I understand. Thank Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. Well, a chair may be less obtrusive than a window. I mean, they also have a window. Well, I think they're also proposing a covering of this. So, it's essentially
blocking or is there a covered balcony? I don't know if it's a covered balcony. So, it's essentially to us the exact same impact as having a second story. So, I think we're just very confused as to what's I'm going to suggest that we go through public hearing, but we come back um and
ask the architect because there is a drawing of it to kind of take walk the the board through it so we can see your Thank you so much. Thank you. Is there any more public? Um on Zoom, we have uh Chris Glo.
Hi, Chris. You remain under oath. Um, I'm setting a timer for three minutes. Thank you. Uh, this is Chris Glo again. I am another neighbor on this time. This house is three block or three lots to the south of my property. You can see
that there's a lot of activity in Palm View these days. I would like to mention that this house was built at about the same time as 1800 Michigan, which you just reviewed, but this house was maintained over the years, and I do appreciate that the latest owners are continuing to invest and maintain it for
the future. My comments are limited just to the facade. So, you heard some of my neighbors speaking about the rear of the property. I'd like to speak just about the front of the property. I believe this is one of about five real art deco homes in South Beach, South Beach
proper, but I'm concerned that the proposed facade changes, while there have been alterations in their totality, they still don't preserve the design integrity of the home. It's in historic district. I believe that the rules are you have to maintain that facade and I'm asking you all to give it special
scrutiny. The changes that I've see have been mentioned. Mitch mentioned some of it. We talked about elevating the eyebrows. I hope that that that those eyebrows can be maintained at their current location. They don't have to be wood, but maintained in a new structurally sound format in the exact
same location. That is the eyebrow standard in South Beach. You go around looking at the properties, it's everybody's got it directly above the windows. I'm concerned about squaring the rounded edges. I can see that they're rounded when I walk by this house. and I walk by it probably four
times a day. And so that's the change that I don't think is necessary and and alters the facade. Uh I believe that extending the eyebrows around the corner of the property, it's still viewable from the street and that that should not be permitted. I'm especially concerned
about replacing what are today's Stuckco eyebrows with what I believe in the renderings look like metal maybe aluminum eyebrows aluminum plates and then adding exterior can lights in those plates and I'm guessing that's why there
the material change is being suggested or requested again in totality I believe all of this significantly alters the facade and detracts destroys its art deco inte integrity. Thank you. Is that it?
Okay. Well, um now, uh we've closed public hearing. If you if you wouldn't mind coming back up and just, um walking us through the um first the the back facade. You have an
ele You have um it's one of the last ones. Yeah. You have Yeah. the ex I've mentioned guest home new elevations that drawing 35 this this is the existing wall I hope you can see my cursor
anyway um if you look at the last okay if you look at the last page um can be can you can you show us a drawing of it on guest home new elevations and you've got guest home. I don't know if you have existing. Yeah, you have guest home existing and guest home new. To show us exactly what you're
doing. Yeah. So, this is the the wall at the 7 foot6, you know, rear of of their property. Um once once you turn it, it gets maintained, but what happens is since it's a flat roof, it jogs in to
meet the 15t setback for the second floor. They're correct. You can walk on it because it's a flat roof, but the point can be made that you can walk on it right now. And in fact, it has a a spiral staircase to service that roof. Um, believe me, we as they're concerned to to have their privacy, so are the
owners. That's that's why I brought the pictures to you. Um, it is possible to grow landscaping 15t tall. We're also adding a 7ft wall in the rear to control the water, you know, so I don't I don't think we'll be able to see their property, frankly. Um, and that's the
main goal for for the residents here. And to the north, we also have an apartment complex of two stories that all have visibility towards this property. So, believe me, the owners are really interested in having their privacy to the north, to the south, and
to the west. Okay. Is there any other board comment about that? No. Okay. Then, can you walk us through the um the eyebrow in the front? Yes. And the rounded and the what you're
doing actually in the eyebrow. To the gentleman's comment, I think he he doesn't want us to connect these two eyebrows. Um, and that that's what we did, right? We continued the eyebrow and then we wrapped it to to the side of the house. So, go back to the original again.
The eyebrows originally are only in the front window. There is no eyebrow over this window. And then this eyebrow is on the turn on on this portion of the of the of the house. And the same happens on the opposite wall where they're partially over two windows. So what we
wanted to do is just continue the gesture, you know, and then connect it and wrap it together. And that that's what you see here, you know, and and you see it here that it wraps to to the house basically. And you can you go back to the original
um facade drawing? Yeah. And then you know they're only over this window and over this window and on the opposite side the same. Let's just look at the front at the front of the house. Go to the original front. So, the original front,
it has a front door. It also has a lower front door. Um, I don't want to call it an eyebrow. It's more of an overhang, a flat overhang that that has some sort of curving into it. Um, I think it's better if we look at the picture. Um
this so you as you can see a little bit here that it it's it's curved and then it curves out and then it curves back in. So th this is the eyebrow I was I was mentioning that it's only over here and we're trying to wrap it and then meet with the other eyebrow here at be beyond.
Mhm. And I believe that was the other gentleman's on Zoom's comment. Um, and then on the guest house, as I mentioned, it has that flat roof overhang of three feet as it is. Um, and we're just trying to keep, you know, this line. And we we
heard the the commentary and we joged the house in. Okay. Yeah. Can you just show again what's the proposed overhang in the front of the house where there is the currently the jog out for the front door? Yes,
sorry, we passed it. So, this is the lower the lower um overhang and this is an actual eyebrow, I would say, for for use. Um, we're not adjusting this eyebrow at all. Just redoing it in the same place cuz, as you can see, it's
it's not really sitting on the window. This one below. The one above is. And you can kind of see a little bit better here that you can see the trim of the window and a little bit above, you know, the the other window. So there, this one's not sitting on the window. This one is. And that's what we wanted to
just shift it six inches up and connect the gesture to the other eyebrow beyond here. The lower canal lever, that's masonry or is that also? No, that's also that's also wood. Yeah, it's crazy. Um and and I believe that's the reason why you see those
stains because the the the carport is the scuppers are shooting to that front window and then it created some sort of you know um water intrusion and that's why you see the stains on on the stuckle. There was no original uh architectural
plans at the city. All I could find was when they did like the new driveway. Okay. Nothing from Okay. And are you amendable to the curve to creating curve? I I believe so. I believe so.
Okay. Your client would be and um I don't know. Does anybody have any ideas to uh for the neighbors in the back to kind of help? No, I have a question for Debbie. They
are they are creating an overhang above on the back of the guest house where there is the current one story roof and they're putting the overhang. Can that overhang encroach into the setback of the second floor? It can up to 25%.
And I I believe they're they're fine. I think they're 3 feet something for that overhang. We kept the same overhang that the house has as of today. So the same footprint that you see for the overhang remains above just obviously jogged in you know so
that's what I was so you keeping your overhang within the 25% of the setback that you're allowed to encroach. Correct. Correct. It doesn't cover the whole um terrace. So there absolutely is no variance on the back of the property.
No. That's why we did that to to the second story. Randy, what's the um railing on the rear of the accessory building in the back? Um looks like glass, is it? Yeah, but we're malleable. It doesn't need to be glass. And we're And also to your comment where you said with the
band, I believe they'll be malleable to not having a band on the guest house as well. Um it was just continuation of the materiality and the language on both structures. No, I I was just wondering if it were solid or something that the people behind wouldn't be someone sitting on a chair looks right through the glass,
right through their property. Uh, I think to alleviate that a little bit would be a sol I'm not big on solid walls around balconies, but it is the rear. There is an issue of privacy on the adjacent property. Um, because glass allows them to basically look out at the ground level right out to the backyard.
I believe there'll be understanding. It could be a frosted glass. It It could be too. That's That's true, too. Just they can't see right through it. We We could do that. So, was the was there a request from the owner to have that balcony on the rear
of the gas? Originally, no. We we had that's why I was mentioning that we had bathrooms in the back just with two little windows. But in the redesign, the bathrooms ended up being the front in between them. So, right when before they were here, you know, the closet the closet was here and then the bathroom
was here. In the redesign, they ended up being in the middle, right? But you still have like an outdoor seating area on the let's say the good side of the gas house, right? Because correct. Who wants to sit in the back of the gas house overlooking the neighbor's yard?
Understood. Yeah. So I would say maybe one nice way to compromise with your neighbor and I understand that everything you're doing is by code and we have no rights to take that away from you but it could be a nice gesture for the back the rear
neighbor if you just replace that just don't have an access an doors whatever you need for the light towards I mean, that is the intention, right? Um, it was just something that the owner saw as an opportunity to
a glass sliding door is going to bring in more more light than a window, right? I I I truly believe they're not going to be going out in the balcony often. Um, quite frankly, I the as I understand this use is really for their children. They want to give them a space where they can hang out with them and at night
just go to sleep away from them, you know, that way they can have their privacy. And really this is the use solely is for um for sleeping. So they don't foresee anybody being here full-time. It's only during holidays where the family can congregate. That is
the true use. Sorry to answer your question. I would have to ask them if they would want to change the right. No, I understand because I was just think like if it's not going to be used, then you're just creating um bad blood between them and the back for no reason potentially.
No, I know. Um again, I I still feel that even if you're standing up here and with the new landscaping, with the new block wall, you will not be able to see their their their yard truly. You you could another option might be to use that terrace. Those are very narrow
terraces. use them as uh for planters to help kind of um you know give more vegetation view ve you know views of vegetation into those bedrooms. At the same time it would mean they would have less privacy. They would have more privacy at
that second floor level. I think they'll be open to having a planter handrail. Yeah. Like a planter. It could be just along the front of the Yeah. the terrace. Okay. I I I don't see a problem. I think they'll be open to doing that. and solid
and the solid balcony railing. If there's a rail, it would be a planter. It would be all planter. All right. Is um well, anyway, let's we closed public hearing. So, we're going to assume um we are ready to
uh move on and um we have board member comment or let's anybody want to propose a motion um to move forward um more more questions comments. How how do
we all feel about the uh secondstory primary facade can lever being elongated? Is is that an issue for anybody? The the wooden eyebrow at the Okay, so we're talking about the eyebrow. I was I was like I think you're talking about the eyebrow, but that is
not the language that you use. So I just want to make sure it's okay. I was like can't leave her. I mean, yeah, I guess a lot of architects technically, yes. Um, the elongation of it, um, I I don't necessarily have an issue with the elongation. I was asking,
um, my my bigger concern about it was the materiality. Um, that was my concern. Um, it being metal versus stuckle or stuckle clad.
Okay. I I would prefer I would I would prefer not to stop, not go over the bathroom and continue. I do I would prefer that the front at least holds the line of the uh of the historic building.
Do you agree with that too? Yeah. Which would just mean it stops. It doesn't go over the bathroom, which is really kind of Yes. just to ask, would it be okay to to begin at the carport on the turn to always um I'm sorry, you have Can you pull up the drawing to show us what you're talking about?
So, basically, rather than both connecting, would it be okay that it be where the cardboard port ends? Oh, on on the front. Oh, sorry. Yeah, the front. Yeah, I'm only talking about the front. Okay. So, eliminate, you know, this this this piece. Yes, correct.
So that it mimics what's there now. Exactly. and have it and have it curve rather than square. rather than squared. I think that's okay. So, but then can we talk about the side? Because you want to have a cover above the carport, right? No. Then you just keep the existing eyebrow
on the side. I was saying that rather than um the the eyebrow connecting to each other that it begun where the carport ends because this is this unaccessible. We can't walk on top of the carport. Correct. So, there won't be any there's no need for the eyebrow anymore.
Perfect. Okay. And then in your front rendering, you show like the underside of the eyebrow is being gray and the edge white. Can you clarify? Just looking at the rendering part. Yeah. On the very front of Yes. Can you talk about a little bit of what you're
seeing there? I think it's it's just the rendering. Um the the shadow up above up above all this. Oh, sorry. But yeah, that dark thing on the corner. So, originally they wanted to add some lights, but I believe now that if if we're going to make this adjustment, it
should just be white now. And since there's going to be a break, there's no need to do to do that anymore. Okay, sounds good. All right, so does anybody um have a motion that kind of contains all those
uh all those uh suggestions? Okay. So, just just to clarify in staff's uh recommended conditions, um we are recommending that the east or the front of the building be restored um to its historic configuration.
Um and we didn't have any more specificity than that because you know the existing building actually is intact on the front um in terms of the eyebrows and the architectural features. Um, so we didn't have any additional specificity, but the
board could certainly add some, but I just want to let you know that's already in the draft recommendation for the east facade. And is that okay with you? I would I would agree with the curves with the same proportions. Okay. Is is there an issue with raising the
eyebrow on the second floor so that it gets off the window? Well, that's not our recommendation. Our recommendation is to maintain it in its maintain the same the same relationship between the eyebrow and the um window frame. Yes. Thank you.
Which is more or less what you've done. I think you've raised it 6 in as long as the material can be different and look like like it used to. I think there's no issue. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. And that so the motion that we'd be looking for would be basically the
staff's recommendations for the front which kind of get get us back to the historic facade with the curved and then I think the only change on the rear would be to um include a planter on the west side of the auxiliary auxiliary
building to a height of you know and is that on that that because I don't know be eliminated or into a solid um planter ele oriented towards the backyard. not an
option and therefore there would be a setback on the upper level. So the view even from the windows would be cut because the building is set back from the ground floor but don't make that little patio which is really focusing on someone's backyard accessible from
inside and and they could convert the rear of those units to the bathroom closets like they'd originally had presented which I don't I don't see that. So I don't So I think the board could um not allow an accessible roof,
right? Um I'd be careful about the interiors because the interior of these properties are not under the jurisdiction of this board. Um so yeah, but if you took the railing off and didn't make it accessible, it would solve the problem of direct access
looking down into the neighbors from the second floor. Is that something you'd be willing to I mean, we know what the re we know the result we're trying to achieve. Whether it whether they're allowed to be out there or not. We want them to be blocked from the neighbors having somebody
sitting there looking at them. Um just go with the frosted glass. That's the simplest way. Are we willing Thank you, Ray. Are we willing to let that um are are you are you willing to kind of deal with that? staff did not have any objection to the
the proposal um because it does comply with all the the regulations. So, I'm more than happy to work with um Edwin to modify the design of the railings, right? Or you know, whatever this board's direction is, I I'm more than happy to
to work. That's a relatively simple item. Yeah, I I think that would I think we should give you some flexibility knowing the goal is to is to prevent that from being just completely correct open and to and to um What about Go ahead. Go ahead.
offsetting it five feet uh with uh obscured glass. Is that a possibility? Is it a uh walkound? Uh no. Is is so how about just setting it in? Uh I'm not sure what you mean exactly. uh
as opposed to having the rail along the parapit of the uh onestory structure just uh have the return 5t from that uh that wall. So no rail at all.
You have a rail but uh just five feet uh from the uh parapit of that one story structure. How deep is that? It's only four feet. It's only four feet. So you'd be you don't even 4 balcony 4 foot deep balcony. That's what that's what.
Yeah, I wish. Okay. I would say if it's possible, can it be a combination? I don't I don't disagree with a frosted glass and maybe a parapit handrail that's a planter. And I think there you solved the issue. Not only do you have a frosted glass parapit and
then you have a wall and landscaping. I think Yeah, they they Okay. I think Lindsay has well I mean I think I think the recommend or the suggestion from the board that they work with staff kind of knowing I mean that's what you said John knowing what the objective is and working with staff I mean I'm a little
hesitant to put a condition on it when they're allowed to do this and we have we had we did previously ask them to come back with something that didn't require the variance right so we so we we we exactly they did that we insisted upon it they they complied with that and and so I think working with staff I
think is, you know, a good route to go here. Um, knowing what the objective is. Okay. Um, and it may turn out that they do exactly what you say, Ray. They may do that. Uh, so, um, do I have a motion?
Um, I'll give it a try. So I make a motion to approve HPB24-0632 with all the staff conditions plus the amendment to work with staff to create more privacy from the second story guest
house towards the back the rear neighbor include everything. I think that's complete. Uh I'll second that. Okay. Okay. Let me call the role. Um, Mr. Meyer,
yes. Miss Levelvel, yes. Mr. Braslin, yes. Mr. Hollingworth, yes. Uh, Miss Carargo, yes. Mr. Novik, yes. Mr. Stewart, yes. Congratulations. Thank you, guys. Thank you. That's for the certificate of
appropriateness. Now, for the variances, we're going to need a separate motion. Thank you, Jake. Separate motion for the variances. Anyone have a motion? I I'll make that motion. Okay, we have a second. Second. Okay, let me call the role. Uh, Mr.
Braslin, yes. Mr. Hollingworth, yes. Mr. Meyer, Miss Carargo, yes. Uh, Ms. Levelville, yes. Mr. Novik, yes. And Mr. Stewart, yes. Right. So, that's six to one.
Okay. Now, you're done. Have a nice day. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you. Looking forward to continue working with you. Okay, I think we can probably get through uh the next couple applications before lunch. All right. Um I'm going to read the next
two applications together. They are for the same property. Um, we have HPB file 25 0647 1020 Pennsylvania Avenue. The an application has been filed requesting a modification to a previously issued
certificate of appropriateness for the after-act demolition of the previously existing buildings on the site. Specifically, the applicant is requesting the deletion of condition C1 of the final order. Uh the next application is HPB 240618.
Again, this is 1020 Pennsylvania Avenue. An application has been filed requesting a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a multifamily residential building on a vacant lot including one or more waivers. With that, I'm going to turn it over to Jake
for our staff uh recommendation. Thank you, Debbie. These applications were last heard at the April meeting. The first application is to modify a condition of the final order for the after-the-act demolition of the previously existing buildings granted in
2014. The condition states any future development on the site shall not exceed the total square footage of the previous structures which was about 4530 ft. A new owner of the property has submitted a separate application to redevelop the site with a new multif
family building which exceeds the previous square footage by about 4,100 square ft. Staff has evaluated the new building and finds that it is appropriately scaled and masked in a manner consistent with the neighboring two and three-story buildings and the surrounding historic district. If if the
condition remains, it may not be economically feasible to redevelop the site as any new structure would be limited to approximately 50% of the square footage permitted by code. In light of the fact that the slot has rem remained vacant for over 10 years and has had an increasingly adverse impact
on the surrounding historic district, staff has no objection to the deletion of this condition. The second application is for the construction of a new three-story six-unit multif family residential building on the vacant site. Staff is supportive of the building design which
has been developed in a manner that appropriately responds to the architecture of the historic district and is consistent with the height, scale, and massing of the surrounding neighborhood. In response to staff's comments, the projecting overhang at the third level facing facing the street has
been reduced by 2 feet in depth. However, staff continues to recommend that the overhang not project into the required 20 foot front setback in order to reduce the perceived mass of the building. Finally, the applicant is seeking approval of a waiver related to the height of the covered parking area
at the ground level. The RM1 zoning district requires a minimum height of 12 ft above base flood elevation plus 1 ft freeboard when parking is located below the first habitable habitable level. However, the board may wave this requirement by up to 2 feet in
accordance with the certificate of appropriateness criteria. Staff is supportive of the two-foot height waiver request as this minor reduction in height helps to ensure greater compatibility with the adjacent low-scale contributing structures of the Flamingo Park Historic District. And with that, staff recommends approval of
both applications. Thank you very much. Um, are there any questions for staff about this project, about this application? I want to state when I uh first served
on this board back in uh 2001 to 2007, uh the building still existed and uh it was demolished soon thereafter. So, uh, this is, uh, been a blight on
the community for quite some time. Thank you. All right. Um, with that, please. Um, good afternoon. Welcome. My name is Alfredo Gonzalez. I'm an attorney with Gunster with offices at um, 901 Pon Leon. Um my
pleasure to be here representing the owners of the property and Octavio Realdi who's the um um owner of the entity itself is here with us as is Octavio as is Jose Sanche is our ar architect with practis
architecture and design and my partner Bobby Bhart who'll be helping me today. So, as staff summarized, we have three requests. The first request has to do with the um after the fact order and the fact that we have to modify that one
restriction that limits what you can build. Excuse me. Can we get the presentation uh put up on the screen? Thank you. Secondly, we're asking for a uh certificate of appropriateness to construct a sixunit project um to
together with six parking spaces um and 12 ft for the the I'll tackle was literally sinking properly constructed. So,
um fact permit at the time we had nothing to do with that. We have worked since extensively with staff to bring a great project we think before you. Hope you give it uh your
positive consideration. So in regards to the modification of the order, the order has a restriction that you can only build what was there before. That was about 4500 square ft. 4530 I believe. Uh that is less
at around 50% of what the code allows you to build in the area. Um so we we're hoping you can take that into account. also the F u of 125 we're building at less than that. These restrictions literally have
kept this property vacant for 10 years. I think your staff agrees with that fact. Uh it's also affected the general area. Um and and in a way it's unfair in that um a a lot of developments
developments in the area um have been approved at the higher floor area. Um so we would ask for your consideration of that that uh and to follow your staff's recommendation. Secondly, um we have a
certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the story. Our architect would will elaborate on that. Just a few points on that. First of all, it's recommended by your professional staff and it complies with your master plan with your zoning code. there are no
variances that we're asking. Um, further our request is compatible with the surrounding properties and our architect's drawings will show that. At that last hearing, a concern was voiced about the size of the uh units. Well,
our architect will address this. We've done a study and the size of our units are either the same or greater than units that have been built around us. your staff um recommends approval of this application but indicated some
concerns with the overhang. Now the overhang uh that your code allows six feet of overhang uh overhang. We're we're just asking for two feet and that's after a lot of uh negotiations and and study with staff on this issue.
We're hopeful that you'll agree that uh and this the architect would address this that those two feet are appropriate and make the property uh look better. Uh we're also asking for a waiver which you're entitled to grant us should you
choose to under section 7.1.2 of your uh code. And essentially our garage is going to set have a height of 10 feet instead of 12 feet. Well, that will make it more compatible with all of the properties that are around us. Uh we
hope you you will support that. Um we would request that you approve this application uh um under staff's recommendation with the provisional that we get those two feet on the overhang and the waiver on uh as well. Before I
close, however, I'd like to have our architect address you on some of the finer points of the architecture of the project and some issues. in general adjacent properties and the neighborhood most of them a two-story in the around the 50s primarily
style contemporary with um elements of but in most cases is true to the style. It's just in two story multi
cups um and with size of most of the units it's ranges between 500 and 600 square f feet. It's single roof room occupancy studio apartments. So that's what we have in the in the neighborhood. And we have um that exhibit at at the end if we need to
see it. Um so it's a very cohesive doll and and uh we would like to maintain the the character of the of the area. Um here uh as and I would like to address the size uh of the units. Uh first we
are proposing units at approximately 1,200 square f feet without counting the stairs which is uh larger than most of the existing units and it's I think it's um consistent with most of the multif family either apartments or or small townhouse
units being built today. Uh the the configuration is a a townhouse configuration over over parking with a a common ground floor, two bedrooms in the second floor which is a main bedroom and a a kids bedroom that's 9 by1 11 and we
think it's also consistent with a size of u bedrooms for um multif family products except for uh luxury units and uh a flex uh space in the upper level for studio. studio, I mean for office or
TV room extra. But the the real benefit was to create the roof terrace which could provide something else to the um residents and uh and it's basically their their garden. So we feel that uh
the units even they are if they are not uh huge or ample they are livable and they will contribute to the housing mix in the area. So that's the uh those are the floor plans in in general and we can see in more detail
later and this is um the exterior of the property with the uh initial uh canopy projecting on the left side and as it's proposed on the right side. Would you would you mind just using the cursor uh on so you can just point out exactly what you're talking about?
Sure. Yeah. There you go. Yeah. This is the canopy that that was reduced. it was much larger and currently um
the lights an interesting profile to the property and some character. We wanted to um blend with the neighborhood but also to to have some character. So at as it is proposed, I think it works well
with the with the project and the neighborhood. We have a composition of horizontal elements and the at the balconies and at the lower level canopy um in um following the the art deco
elements and and guidelines and I think it's um um it provides more character to the project. But if the board warrants that it to it needs to be further reduced, we are open to that conversation of course. And uh that's um
the the exterior of the project. I will not get into more details as this uh was presented previously in in in detail. Um that's uh basically the the essence of the project. That concludes this
overview and I'll be happy to answer any feedback on the design intent or or the character. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much for the presentation. Uh does that conclude the your presentation? Concludes our presentation. All right then. Um now we have board
questions for the applicants. Any questions for the applicants? Question. Okay. Go ahead. So why do you need to reduce the ground floor uh ceiling floor to ceiling height from the required 12
to 10? Uh it's to have a better scale for the building. I think the regulation applies more for larger properties. This a very narrow property the narrowest available and it it's just it feels too
high being narrow. the entrance to the uh garage, it can feel more like a firehouse effect. So, it's just for better proportions. Um it's a small um apartment with six units. So, that's why
it it's also more compatible with other buildings in the area. Yes. The existing buildings that have very uh low floortofloor height. That's Mitch. Yeah. The overhang on the roof. So staff would like to see it reduced further.
Uh I I forgot you indicated it's coming out five feet and it still has the uh openings. The the code allows six feet. Uh we're proposing two feet. Uh two two foot reduction. Well,
no, no. Two two feet in in total. And it Oh, no. I'm sorry. Three feet in total. Two feet reduction. I'm sorry. So, I I'm a little confused by your current rendering. It looks marked much larger. The openings within that
overhang, what what are those dimensions? It it should be 3 ft in depth total. And and it has with those openings. Yes. With those openings. Can you pull the image up just so we can pull that image back up? It was Yeah, that one. Perfect. So, what's two what's
two feet and what's three feet? This is this is 3 feet. Here it was to be more. It it appears much wider than three feet or the depth is greater than 3 ft, but that's what it is.
I mean, in in I'm not sure, you know, about the rendering, but it's I think what we have in the floor plan is 3 ft and that's what we intend to do. Steph, do you have any comment, Debbie? I mean, I definitely think it's an
improvement over the five feet. Um I I the rendering I'm not sure I'm not sure how accurate it is either because if you look at the floor plan that shows the three feet, it's slightly different than what's shown in the rendering.
Regardless, um, you know, I think I'm happy to work with the applicant to adjust it, but I I do think cutting it back, even though they just cut it back two feet, we are recommending it be cut back um five feet is, you know, is an is an improvement.
This project has come a long way. I think that the team has done really good. Their their architect has done a great job of listening to staff. Um, we've worked with you. I mean, it's been months we've been going back and forth, and I think we're we're in a really good place now, even with the three feet.
That was more than staff wanted, but I I think it's an improvement. We're flexible and then we'll work with staff on it. All right. Uh you have any cons is the the openings are just to create shadow is that uh yes to create sha shadow and
interest, but it could be solid as well. Is it also functional to No. Well, the explain if somebody should be standing. Not that much. It's for the shadows really, but it could it could be solid. It's
Yeah. Okay. If it's considered a better option. Uh Ray, just my favorite question. Is this going to be for apartments or condos? It's going to be uh apartments, not condominiums. Not condominiums from what I understand.
And Airbnb or no? Um, I don't know. It has never been discussed. It's not allowed in this area. It's not allowed, right? Yeah. We have never discussed that with the owner. Um, okay. Lindsay, did you have
something? No. All right. Um, and I didn't I didn't have any other questions, I think. Um, now we'll go to So, thank you. I think we'll have some public comment and then uh we will have
uh first though a board disclosures. Are there any disclosures related to this application? No, no, no. No. See, that seems like a no. Um, then let's open it to public. Uh, okay. Uh, anyone on Zoom, please raise
your hand. Anyone in the audience, please come forward. Hi, Roger Goldblat, uh, Miami Design Preservation League. Um, we have concern about the proposed design for the new building. The boxed down windows and roof design don't seem
to be compatible with this Flamingo Park neighborhood uh, and the character. The overall design should better reflect the architectural context of the surrounding area. Uh we we also had something about the um demolition by neglect and
changing the square footage, but personally I understand the situation and uh I'm not going to read that part. Thank you. Keep it in mind. Okay. I believe I'm sorry, John. Yeah. Go
through the chair. I believe the structure has been vacant since uh 2005. Is is that the correct according to your knowledge? I know it was demolished a little later, but this this came to us uh way back
then uh with issues. All right. Is there any more public comment? Anybody online? No. Okay. Um I I just wanted to ask another question just for my own uh curiosity. Um can you come up Mr. Gonzalez? Yeah,
just to ask you. You you said um in your in your state opening statement that um that we know the lot has been ret has been has remained vacant because of the requirement that it only has 41,000
square feet um sorry 4,100 uh square feet built on it. What what data do you have to support that statement? Like how do you know? Well, we've tried different people have tried to develop the property. It just
economically it didn't make sense. Did they say that in public? Did they Is it Is it somewhere? Um, can I find that in writing? I don't think so. Okay. So, you didn't have You didn't have any kind of facts behind that statement. You were Except your staff does agree with that.
No, I I understand the anecdotal possibility of it, but I think it's very important that um we we figure out what you know, I mean, we know what data is, what what what actually somebody said, I can't buy this. They tried this process, for example, and it didn't work. And
they said, I'm forget it. I'm not going to go through. I don't know if that's happened or not. That's what I was asking you. I know it's happened with our client that he basically looking at it and saying, well, economically doesn't. Yeah. But one a one data point is not a is not we know that in the past. Okay,
Mr. Chair, if you would like, I can express staff's personal experience talking to different people about this property for the past 10 years. I think that'd be great because that's I I kind of think that that's um a really important um uh issue that we we run across a lot
and and maybe we Yeah, maybe I don't know if he's coming back. Did nothing reported? Well, we tried. The numbers just didn't figure uh in and Okay, perfect. That's why we're here. Thank you. Uh Debbie, did you Yeah. So, since basically 2014 2015,
I've spoken with um and I think the property has changed hands a few times during that time period um to several people. Um at one point we did have a project that was submitted very similar. it had the request to
remove the restriction and to do a new building. The that project never moved forward. Um I think the applicant sold the property and and didn't want to to move forward with it. Um then I've I've actually spoken with at least two people
looking to purchase the lot, not removing the restriction. Um they were looking at developing a single family home here. um that those projects did not move forward because they couldn't justify the price
uh the sale sales price um for that. So, you know, I I've been very hopeful that something was going to happen here and we I've probably talked to a dozen people um over the years and I certainly
have emails from a lot of people um that it just nothing everything fell through. And I think, you know, one of the concerns from a lot of people other than the two that were looking at this first single family home property was that they couldn't make it, you know, make
anything work in terms of the number of units they would need with the with the restriction. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. Okay. Um now with that, we will close the public comment and we'll have um any board member comment that we'd
that you'd like to have. Um, Randy, did you have anything you'd like to add? No. Ray, going up the line. Not. No. Haskell. Nothing. Okay. Elizabeth.
Okay. Lindsay, I you know, I was just going to say I know they've been before us a couple of times, so I just want to thank you for the efforts for working on this and working through a lot of the commentary that we've provided in the past. Mhm. No, I'd say the same thing. Thank you.
Thank you for um the presentation and uh all your work with staff. It has it has really come a long way. Okay. So, with that, um can I get a a motion? I'll make a motion to approve this as per staff's recommendations. Do I have a second?
So, the the canopy depth is that they'll work with staff to Okay, that's a that's an amendment or recommendation. I apologize. I didn't mean to cut you off. Um, if it was already part of your If you're okay with being more flexible than staff's condition, we could we
could modify condition A to say that the overhang shall not project more than three feet into the required setback and shall be further developed with staff. Sure, we accept.
Um yeah, we do have two applications. Um one is to modify the after the-act demolition and the other is the certificate of appropriateness for the new construction. I would recommend doing the modification first. Okay. Okay. I'll make that motion to
modify the uh the original condition. Okay. And that just to clarify that's HPB250647. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, let me call the role. Mr. Meyer, yes. Mr. Hollingworth, yes.
Mr. Braslin, yes. Miss Levelvel, yes. Miss Carargo, yes. Um, who did I Mr. Novik? Yes. Mr. Stewart? Yes. Okay, that passes. And do we have a motion for the certificate of
appropriateness? Yes. With the modified condition A. Okay. So, do we have a second to that motion? Second. Okay. I'll call the role. Miss Levelvel. Yes. Mr. Hollingworth? Yes.
Mr. M. Yes. Mr. Braslin? Yes. Uh, Mr. Novik? Yes. Mr. Stewart? Yes. Thank you. Um would you like to take a brief breaker
after? Okay, we'll be back at and restart the meeting. Please take your seats. The meeting is about to begin. Remember to speak into the microphone as this meeting is being recorded for public record. Please stand by. We are going on air in
5 4 3 2 1. Okay, welcome back everyone um to the Historic Preservation Board meeting at of July 8th. Um I think we're going to move right into our next application which is HPB25651
7305 Collins Avenue. An application has been filed requesting a certificate of appropriateness for exterior modifications including but not limited a new shade structure and
and a variance to bar counter. The current applicant is a restaurant oper and after the fact exterior of the property front uh as well as the very
counter the outdoor areas did function a uh operation Um, the most notable change, and you can you can see on the photographs, the one one good thing about after the-act applications is that we can actually see
exactly what what has been done and what they're requesting approval for. And um, it's actually a cheeky style structure. Um, we we initially met with the applicant who uh advised us that they
had reached out to the I believe it was the Mkasuki tribe. um who do have special consideration under the building code in terms of being able to construct these types of facilities um as long as they have their certifications without required building
permits. So the owner advised us or the the tenant advised us that they were under the impression due to this exemption from the Florida building code um that they did not need to go through zoning review process or um the building
department process. Um after additional exploration of the structure, we realized that it does indeed have electricity and plumbing as part of the improvements. um that does trigger a building uh permit requirement. So they
are they submitted for a building permit um regardless of the standing of the um Native uh American tribes to regulations which includes uh historic preservation board review, design
review. So um that's why they are before you today. um primarily for this cheeky uh style structure. Additionally, significant modifications have been made um to the exterior including wood
cladding on the building walls, the introduction of a mural, electrical equipment including fans and lighting. Uh further televisions and speakers have been installed. Um staff would note that the current property does not have a
conditional use approval. So all of these devices would be required to to play at levels that do not exceed ambient uh conversation level. Uh finally, the applicant installed an outdoor bar counter within the western portion of the dining area. Um the de
the land development regulations require that the um that there not be visibility from the public right ofway to the bar counter. Um that is a zoning requirement. So um as part of our recommendation we are asking that
additional screening be added because currently I believe it is visible. Um staff has no major objections to this. It is somewhat of a you know somewhat temporary in nature these types of structures. It is a operating business. They have um seen a
significant challenge with the construction of the Ocean Terrace Park. Um a lot of these streets have been closed off. Um to our knowledge the restaurant is in good standing with the neighborhood and with the city. Um and we do not believe that these structures
are going to have a sign have a adverse impact. I mean they have been up there quite some time. Um finally we did have um some recommended conditions uh specific to speakers and televisions and where they're
appropriate to be placed. um we don't want them facing out toward the right of way that they should be facing internal um to reduce uh sound impacts on the right of way and um visibility issues. So with that uh we're recommending
approval of the certificate of appropriateness. The variance they're requesting is to ex exceed the allowable hours for the accessory outdoor bar counter until 12:00 a.m. um through uh Sunday through Thursday
and 1:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. The allowable hours for an outdoor bar counter are um if you are adjacent to a property with residential units is 8:00 p.m. So the the land development
regulations require that outdoor bar counter not service from the inside but the counter itself to be closed at 8:00 p.m. In this instance, they are immediately to the east. There's a residential building. So, they are
required to close by 8:00 p.m. every night. Um, however, they are asking for a variance to exceed that um those hours. Again, that would be to 12:00 a.m. midnight uh sat Sunday through Thursday and 1:00 a.m. Saturday and
Friday and Saturday. Um staff uh has evaluated their request. We do not believe that there's any uh hardship or practical difficulty to warrant granting the request as they're
still able to serve patrons alcohol past 8:00 p.m. just not from the outdoor bar counter. Um therefore we are recommending that this particular variance be denied. Um due to the fact that we were not able to determine any
hardships. Um, again, the restaurant itself would not need to close. Service would not need to end. It would just be the outdoor bar facility. So, with that, I'm available for any questions. Are there any questions
for Debbie? Yes. Uh, you referenced speakers and televisions. Uh would are those required to be turned off at 8:00 p.m. as well on the exterior? No,
they are required currently without a a conditional use permit for the property. They're required to be played at ambient levels only, not to exceed a normal conversation volume. And have they received any violations
for noise? Not that I'm aware of. No. Okay. Yeah. Ray, I've eaten at this restaurant several times. Anytime I go to the band shell, I go to this restaurant. It's very wellrun. The service is great, the food
is great, and the pricing is amazing. And I've eaten out in this area not realizing it wasn't legal at the at the time. And it's it's quiet. It it it's it's not objectionable. And when you talk about a resident uh to the east, I
believe that's a um a condo hotel. So it's I don't think it's actually 100% residents. And I don't I I never saw any noise going out beyond that I thought would be offensive to anyone. And and
the bar inside um actually people sit at that bar and eat when they come by themselves. It's not really a bar that you're going to go there and and drink. It it it's really just a a counter um for people to actually eat while they're drinking. And
I don't I don't I really don't find a problem with that variance. Okay. Thank you, Ray. So now, please welcome and um thank you chairman, members of the board. My name is Ian Buch with Acreman
Law Office, 98 Southeast 7th Street. here on behalf of the business owner. Um, and thank you Debbie for the uh explanation and uh of everything that you had previously discussed with my client. Um, just so you're aware, my client did this entire application
himself. He went into the city. He met with Debbie. Debbie gave him a sample application that was done for Sushi Beachi, which is in the ground floor of the Sanrope condo, which is the condo that's causing the 8:00 p.m. limit on the outdoor bar counter. They applied
for these exact same hours. That's where he got the idea for it. And so there's precedent there. It was approved for them uh and were seeking simply the same hours that they have dealing with the same neighbors that we have just from the other side. Um, there was mention of
televisions and speakers. Those televisions are kept volume off. It's two TVs behind the bar counter. Um, as far as I know, the speakers, they don't even use them. If they do, they keep it low volume. We're not seeking any sort of cup or any entertainment. This is a
bonafide Cuban restaurant. It's beloved by the neighborhood. Part of our application included a petition that was signed by 92 uh Miami Beach residents, including several from the adjacent property. Um and um as a matter of fact,
that bar counter at Sushi Beachi is much larger than our bar counter, which only has four seats on it. And it's been there being used as um a a service counter before they started seating people there. Uh which has stopped while we're pending getting this approval. Um,
and uh, so we did get our BTR with that counter there, but not as a bar counter, as a as like a as like a service area where they're wrapping uh, uh, utensils and and keeping the dishes uh, for for the service outside.
Um it's important for them and it is a hardship to be able to get these extended hours and that variance because um that bar counter would be used to to make drinks for the service to that outdoor area. To have after 8:00 p.m. to lose four seats and to lose the ability
to use that bar to make the drinks for the outside area, having to bring them from inside does create a little bit of an operational hardship for the restaurant. So every little bit helps and that's really the reason for that request. As for the the chicky hut, uh
as Debbie explained, um it it was manufactured and installed by uh Mkasuki Native American artisan that those chicky huts are exempt for building code. Uh my client was unaware that it still needed a permit for zoning approval for HPB approval, but
immediately when he got that violation and found out, he applied for it. The permit is in process. It's being held up by the need for an HPB approval. At this time, we're agreeable with all the conditions on the recommendation of approval for that chicky hut. And um I I
prepared a presentation. Um if we can switch over to it. Thank you. Um for those who haven't been there, it's up in North Beach. It's in the Ocean Terrace block on on 73rd Street on the on the Harding Avenue corner of 73rd,
immediately across from the band shell. It's important to note that the band shell has concerts immediately adjacent that go to the same hours that we're seeking. That's where the loud noise comes from in that area. Nobody complains about that either. Again, we're not seeking to make any sort of
noise at all. It's just a matter of having four seats where people can sit and eat after 8:00 p.m. Otherwise, they lose that space in that business, which would be unfortunate. Here are some pictures um of exactly what it looks like today. Uh along the
wall um is that mural that was referenced um the bar counter um as it was being used at the time. Um just I I honestly I think it came out beautifully. Um it it looks beautiful
just as staff mentioned. They don't have any objections to it and it's great that you can actually see what you're approving uh should you approve it. Um it is a historic structure. The structure itself has not been modified at all. Here's a historic postcard of
the restaurant. It used to be uh Parhams uh gosh 70 years ago. Um the here's the the site plan itself. That brown area is the outdoor area. Uh the building immediately to the right is uh Aventtonita. It's for selling Cuban
coffee just right out the window for people who want to walk up and not actually go into the restaurant. Um here's the existing floor plan. Um again, the outdoor seating area is a a major part of the restaurant seating. Um
the elevation currently from the south and the west. Um, so that outdoor seating area does have like a concrete wall that's short with the the metal grates above it and uh there was landscaping there previously. They added some tables on on the outside portion of
that wall. Uh, but absolutely no issue adding the screening to make sure we meet code so that bar counter isn't visible. Um, here it is with the the chicky hut there showing uh how it turned out after the fact.
Um, and just so you can kind of get an idea of seeing that section there of of uh the elevation, how it looks without looking at the the wall in the front and looking straight at the bar counter from uh east to west.
And here's the seating layout showing uh with the bar counter and tables and chairs uh interior and exterior. Um as it's approved under existing BTR um some sample finishes there added as
well. Just again you saw the pictures. Um the lighting there is electrical for the lighting under the tiki tiki hut which is part of the building permit that's in process. um just a section of the outdoor bar counter. Um they have a coffee machine
there, a glass washer, and then if they can use it for alcohol service, the alcohol would be in the back beneath the the TVs that are installed along the wall. Um again, the wall shows where the TVs are. Just two TVs. They play with no
volume on um a section of the canopy area from above. um the flooring which hasn't been touched. It's a tile floor in the patio area and uh just uh for reference, elevation of the fence that currently partially
blocks the view uh of the outdoor dining area. Um with um some landscaping into the metal area would probably completely block out the view of the bar. Um but we'll work through that with staff if this is approved. And um that's it. If you have any questions, I'm happy to
answer. Thank you very much. Great. Thank you. Thank you for that presentation. Are there any board uh member questions for the applicant about either the um I have an observation. This building was
constructed in 1948 by architect Carlos Shapel who we dealt with on our first item. uh a similar structure or another structure by the same architect uh built 10 years prior.
Excellent. Thank you. Thanks. I've been working on that all weekend. Those are great. Great response. Um any anybody else have a any Yes, Lindsay. Um I had a couple questions. Um, one can
uh is there access to this outdoor seating area from the sidewalk or is it you go through the restaurant to get there? Um, you you have access there's there's a gate where you can walk in that way, but the hostess stand is in the interior. So, people walk into the
interior to the hostess stand and then be walked through the restaurant to the outside to be seated. There's no hostess on the exterior. Okay. But it's open. Like if somebody wanted to walk in, they they could walk through the gate. Yes. Okay. And can you on your presentation, can you go back to the photos of the
interior? And they may be in our packet. I'm sorry. And so there is I think you said four seats at the bar top. Is that right? Looks like more than that. Yeah, I think there's six showing there on our plan. Um on the floor plan, we have four actually four seats there on
the plan. Okay. And then approx. And then that's okay. Perfect. And then approximately how many other seating? How how much other seating is there in there? 2 4 8 10 12 14 16 20
plus the bar seats. That's on the exterior. Yeah, I believe in just the exterior. I'm just trying to get I think it's about 61 seats in total currently licensed for the restaurant. Okay. So 20 exterior and another 40 inside, give or take. Give or take. Okay.
And while you have that plan up, can you just can you point out where the interior bar is that would serve there on the plan? You can use the cursor to uh Yeah. So there there isn't actually an interior bar. It's a service bar. So
they they make the drinks and there's uh there's a counter where they would serve them across, but there's no bar seating on the interior. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. Can you go back to your very last slide where you show the the wall? Oh, the wall.
Yeah. And there is no height on that wall. And I think since you're talking about screening, if you could tell us how high is the wall and the fence, the pick fence above the wall. I think was your last slide. That that one.
Yeah. Um, I'm not sure how high the fence is. Let me see if it's on the elevation slide. I apologize. Here we are. Um, 3T 6 in um is the existing wall and
grade. It's um it's here. Oh. I think it's 3T 6 in and then I'm assuming your bar counter would be 42 in high as well, right? Uh yes. Yes. So we would need screening
further to completely block the bar. Thanks. Ray, did you have just that, you know, I never knew that back area existed. I used to go to the restaurant, eat inside, and one time we got there and they said, "Oh, we only have seats outside." and I felt like I was eating
in somebody's garage. And then and it's improved so much over the years that now I actually asked to see outside. So I I think you've done a really great job uh myself and this is before it ever came before me. So when I saw this, wow. Um
and and it, as I said before, it's a very well-run neighborhood restaurant. I don't look at it as being a destination restaurant. I mean, I go there if I'm going to go to to uh the band shell, but I wouldn't like say, "Oh, let's let's go up to say zones for for dinner tonight."
Um, and I I think it's it's well run and and the neighborhood loves it. And I don't think there's ever been any any uh uh violations, so I think it's great. Thank you. I I would I would mention the restaurant tour, the owner also runs
George's restaurant on 71st Street as well as the Burgers and Shakes restaurant just a block to the north. That's a counter service Burgers and Shakes. Yeah. Can I um can I ask you to um kind of dive a little deeper into
your um understanding of the ex of the practical difficulty and hardship and how you're meeting this and why exactly beachy sushi beachy is uh is something we don't something we should look at like how did and when they got their v
variance approved and yes um their their variance was actually um handled by my partner niece and kasen um when they applied um they they essentially had the same hardship as us. It's a matter of the location, the ability to have
sufficiency to actually do sufficient business. When was that? Um I would defer to Debbie on the exact dates. It wasn't that long ago. Um probably was 2018, I want to say. 2019 2020. Okay. 2020. 2020.
To my knowledge, they've never had any noise violations either. uh they're also a client. Um that the hardship is essentially the same. It's the ability to do sufficient business to make it in that area, especially with all of the development going on that they're not a nightclub, they're
not a tavern, an entertainment venue, they're just a bonafide restaurant trying to make it. Right. And uh Debbie, just on that topic, is the is the um the their request is uh 12 am um Sunday through
Thursday and 1:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. Is that is that a um a common variance request like those hours? It it is the same request as sushi bichi that was approved by this board. So um you know the
I think it's not unreasonable those hours um for certain um it's just that we have these technical code requirements and and variance criteria which are are very strict in terms of how we interpret them and u make our
recommendations. It's the same recommendation as we issued for Suchi Beach. Okay. In terms of staff's recommendation, the staff recommendation was the same in the board over over correct. Go ahead. Has are you aware of perfectly acceptable? That's why we have
a board. Are are you aware if there has been any violations for the neighbor uh operating she place? I'm not I haven't heard of any violations. Um,
and I guess question to the attorney, any residents in the neighboring building opposed to this variance? Uh, I have heard I've heard no objections, only support. Okay. Thanks. So, if a variance like that is approved,
is there a limit time or it's once approved is approved forever? It's approved. And if they get violations, is there like after three year out or there is no correlation? violations and the the variance. Um, currently there would it would they
would just have to to deal with the violation through the process through co-compliance process and potentially the special magistrate process. Um I think in the past Nick we have included provisions where um they can they were
required to come back as a progress report. Um to see if there's any violations at which time the board could amend the variance. Um I think that's appropriate to add
into the to the board's order if they wanted to. Yeah. This is an unusual situation. one of the rare situations where um the the board gets into an operational issue. Um but but Debbie is correct. We have the
board has included conditions in the past requiring a a progress report after a set period of time. Whatever whatever you would recommend, Debbie, we Ray wanted to say something then. Let's see. Oh, just on. Wouldn't that normally be
through the planning board? Yes, but I I don't think this applicant is doing anything that would require conditional use approval. So, um So, what I would say, um it's a definitely a family oriented restaurant.
They're not selling $48 cocktails. Um and and and I think that they've been running these hours right along and we haven't heard anything. Now they're coming back because they have to, you know, say, "Oh, we got a hand slap. We need to get our approvals to do this."
And I don't see um not allowing them to do it since they've been doing it and there's been no problems. And as I said, it's a very neighborhood oriented family restaurant. So your current hours, wait, Lindsay, Lindsay had a question then and you Elizabeth.
And so this is largely for Nick. um the variance should we agree to it tied to the property or tied to the operator because you said it's operational so that's why I'm wondering yeah I mean generally it is tied to the
variances are tied to the property right okay this one so what are your current powers I I believe the current hours including alcohol sales are until 2 a.m. per their existing business tax receipt. Uh it's just from the bar counter. That's what
the variance is needed for to be able to serve alcohol or to even utilize that bar counter at all after 8:00 p.m. I understand. But so currently you utilize that until 2 p.m. Um sorry. Yeah. Based on demand, some days they close earlier, but their license allows
till 2 a.m. Okay. Um thank you. Thank you very much for those questions. Um any uh Yeah. Oh, go ahead. Another for the applicant. Go for it. Not not necessarily. When I arrived here in the late 80s,
there were these cheeky style structures along the beach and I can vaguely remember on two nights seeing them ablaze and shortly after that they were all removed. I'm wondering if fire uh I
guess they will be looking at this and are are there any code restrictions that you're aware of which may hinder this? Yes. So um structure the chicky huts are exempt under statute from the Florida building code but not
from fire life safety zoning. So, the fire department does make sure it's fire retardant as part of its inspections the same as they would any other venue on the beach. Are there sprinklers currently in that space? Are there sorry fire uh
sprinklers? Um I don't know if there are sprinklers. Um that I that I don't know. I'm not sure that sprinklers would be a requirement, but I I do believe they have extinguishers. Have the what? Uh fire extinguishers. Okay. All right. Yeah. If if um if a sprinkler system is
required, that would come up during the building permitting process which we're in. And if it it would be based on the occupancy and the size. Yeah. I I can't imagine how to make these things fireproof. They're tinder essentially. Okay.
Okay. So, thank you. Uh with that, um we have board disclosures. We've already had raised disclosures. Number a tried and true patron. Anybody else? No. Okay. All right. Um then uh public hearing um
um anyone on Zoom please raise your hand. Anyone in the audience please come forward. Okay. Seeing none. All right. Then um do I have a motion for first? Let's do the um for the
certificate of brokenness. The after the fact certificate of brokenness. I would make a motion to approve it as as done. Okay. And uh I'll I'll second that. All right.
Okay. Let me call the role. Um Mr. Meyer, yes. Miss Carargo, yes. Miss Levelvel, yes. Miss, uh Mr. Novik, yes. Mr. Braslin, yes. Mr. Stewart, yep. Mr. Haulingworth, yes.
Okay. Thank you. All right. Um, so that was for the certificate of appropriateness and now we have the variance. The variance and on the variance I would just suggest including a a condition that uh that refers to the HPB's authority in our
code to take enforcement action if there are violations of the variance. So, if violations arose, we could bring uh the applicant back before you for a modification or revocation. I I would make a motion to accept the
variance and if there's any violations, it comes back to us. But I'd also add one more caveat that if the um management were to change, they need to come back to us as well. So, if there's a change, maybe change of the owner or operator, we could we could
uh we could Okay. I'll second it. Okay, let me call the role. Miss Carargo, yes. Mr. Hollingworth, yes. Miss Levelvel, yes. Mr. Novik, yes. Mr. Braslin, yes. Mr. Meyer, yes. Mr. Stewart,
Yep. Okay. Very good. Right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Um, let me see. Where's the agenda? The next two applications,
um, I'm going to read them both together. They're for the same property. We have HPV250659. This is 3193 Royal Palm Avenue. An application has been filed requesting a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of an attached addition to an individually
designated historic single family home including setback variances. Second application is HPB25655. Again, this is for 3193 Royal Palm Avenue. An application has been filed requesting historic preservation board's recommendation
for a single family adorum tax exemption for an addition to a renovated and restored individually single individually designated single family home. Um this is a this is a very great I really love this application. Um the
property uh was constructed in 1934 designed by El Murray Dixon. It's it's one of my favorite single family home properties in the city. Um it's been beautifully maintained. It's been beautifully restored. Um the the I had the privilege recently to meet the new
owners, um Austin and his wife, Alex. Um they love the home and they came to me because they have a very recent addition to their family. Um uh Alex just had a a baby girl who's absolutely beautiful. um
probably what two months now. Yes. Um and so they came to us to try to explore options to do small expansions um to keep up with their growing family. Um so staff is is very supportive of these extremely modest additions. Um the
um the additions have been cited in a way which are away from the primary front of the of the property. It is on a corner, so it has two straight frontages, but the location um of the addition on the west side of the home um
we think is is an appropriate location, probably the most appropriate um location. It requires extremely limited demolition. So, it's a very minor intervention. Um however the addition of these um new
um expanded areas of their home do require some setback variances which again are relatively minor. Um they are asking to reduce by 9t 6 in the minimum required front setback of 20 ft um in
order to construct an attached one-story addition at 10 and 1/2 ft from the west property line. Second variance is to uh reduce by approximately 11 and a half inches. So less than a foot the minimum required interior side setback for the
construction of a um addition uh approximately 5' 7 in um from the property line um excuse me four 4.7 feet from the property line. Um again we
think these these um variances are very minor. The uh condition of the existing home and the existing home on the site where its location is and the architectural features of the home really do create practical difficulties for finding the most appropriate
location for these additions. Um and staff does believe that this satisfies the practical difficulty and hardship criteria and we are highly supportive of the application and are recommending approval of the certificate of appropriateness and variances. Um the
second application the um property owner has filed an application for the advorum tax exemption program. The city currently has this program limited only to single family home properties. So
ultimately the mayor and city commission will if uh will hear this application and we'll vote whether to approve um the request or not. But basically what it means is the Miami date county property appraiser has an assessed building value
currently. After their additions are constructed and the work is completed, the property appraiser will reassess the property and will likely increase the building value because there's more square footage. That increase in building value could
potentially be frozen on their taxes. So, they would not be taxed on the increase in building value for a period of 10 years. And that would be from the city of Miami Beach's portion of the taxes. Miami date county has this has a similar program which this property is
eligible for and they have gone through that initial process of meeting with with the county chief of historic preservation and I believe they have filed an application with the county um for the county's portion of the taxes again um the actual savings um is is
minor uh and we're highly supportive of of the uh advant tax exemption for this property as well. And we recommend that this board issue a favorable recommendation to the mayor and city commission. Deborah, is is the exemption just for
the Miami Beach portion or would that also encumber the date county portion as well? So this particular application is only for the Miami Beach portion of the taxes. They have filed concurrently a separate application with Miami date county to exempt the Miami date county
portion of the taxes for the increase in building value. And while there are almost the identical applications, the county has to approve the county's portion. The city has to approve the city's portion. Got it. Are there any other questions for
Debbie? Well, this is in the Beayshore neighborhood and I didn't realize that that was part of a historic district. It is not. In 2010, the previous owner of the home uh designated their house as an individual historic property.
That explains it. Any other questions for staff before we I assume you'll be talking to us? Yes. Okay, perfect. Well, welcome. Thank you so much. Please introduce yourself and Yes. My name is Austin Krydden. It's my wife, Alex Kryen. um and Javier who's
our our architect um who helped with the beautiful drawing that you'll see. Um thank you Debbie and you know you and Jake it's been really a pleasure working with the both of you. Sad to hear through the conversation you'll be moving on soon. Um but you know it's amazing having folks like you working in
the city and and supporting residents. I'm born and raised in Miami, Florida. I grew up in Coral Gables and so when my wife and I moved back here from um California in 2020, the opportunity to to purchase a home in the city that I grew up in um was incredibly exciting
and it's really a privilege to own a home that I think is, you know, a piece of its history. Uh Marie Dixon has built or was the architect that constructed so much of Collins Avenue. And when we found the home on the market, we fell in love immediately. Um, unfortunately, we
didn't think about the future of what life would be like when we had children. Um, the home as it sits only has three bedrooms, um, and two bathrooms. Uh, we now, as as Debbie mentioned, have two children, a 2-year-old who turned two on July 5th on Saturday. Um, and a
two-month-old. Uh, and we hope to have more children. Um, and so, uh, God willing. Um, and so ultimately we are trying to get the variance to be able to extend the home to add two more bedrooms and two and a half or two bathrooms um
to the home and then sort of make a larger area for the laundry room/pantry to be able to accommodate everything. Um, you know, ultimately, um, the the way that we're doing the addition to the home is in the effort to one preserve
the most sort of architecturally and just the view like what the home looks like, right? Um, you know, you could potentially add to the second floor, not requiring a variance, but that would really change the elevations and what the home looks like from the outside. Um, and you know, not to use a bad word,
but it would definitely be uglier than than what we've presented. um and and more intrusive on the the beautiful design of the home. Um additionally, um just structurally wise, we have no idea what would end up happening if we tried to do that to the home. Um because the
area where it would be done actually was originally a garage. Um and so as we've had structural engineers look at it, um you know, it's unclear what would happen once they needed to to reinforce that and do that all. Um, and so we we came to Debbie with a question of would it be
po and Jake, would it be possible if we could get a variance to extend into um, you know, the area that we're not allowed currently to build on. Um, and because of the historic nature of the home, the fact that it is a Murray Dixon home and this would then make it a now a five- bedroomedroom home. You know, we
we plan to be here for a very very long time, but I think this would also supplant it as a home that no one would ever want to sort of tear down. um you know, a five-bedroom home in this area um is is something that you really need in this day and age with families and such. And so um I think this really
would would preserve it for the long run if we were ever to to no longer be there. But that's not really our plan. That's why we want to really invest into building this out. Um and and ultimately the the way that we've designed it is is so it honors the the home. Obviously, as
you can see, it almost looks like it's has always been there, but there's, you know, slight differences in terms of the the way that the band goes throughout the house to distinguish that it's not obviously the same in an original. Um, the last thing I'd mention is is sort of the the back side, which which Debbie was referring to where that's that
additional request. You know, the way that the home actually is already I the way the survey is, it's kind of over the allowable property line. I guess it was grandfathered in. And so we're simply just adding a little extra to the back. And we want to make it align with the
existing um exterior wall of the home versus having it be indented by like, you know, three or four inches. Um and so, you know, hopefully all that together is is okay. Uh we really appreciate everyone's time and and effort here and it's great to be in
front of you all. Thank you. Thank you. Um, do you have a is there an architectural presentation like slides to take us through? I didn't. It's my first time. I I didn't know how to ask for it to come up. Oh, okay. Because maybe with the pointer on my my screen. I didn't notice it wasn't up there. Apologies.
Oh, it was on your screen. It's on this thing. You were clicking. Okay. Yeah. If you could just like particularly point out I mean, you did a great job with the first round, so I'm not maybe not the whole thing. Maybe just point out the the the additions the the way you're changing modifying the system. Absolutely. So if you look on this image
here um to your guys right of the you can use the you can use the cursor on the computer and there you go. Yeah. So this is the addition. Um so right now the home ends right here. Um and so this is the addition where we'll be adding two bedrooms. Um
and so yeah. So this is I think this is helpful. Oh man, the closed captioning is right in the way. Um, what's that? Oh, perfect. Yeah. So, if you look right here, oh, I see over there. Yeah, if you look right here, um, that's that's the addition. It's going to be
You can you can use your cursories. Just look at the other screen. Lindy, learning on the fly here. Um, so yeah. So, it's going to be two bedrooms, like one bedroom right here, one bedroom right here, and this will be a bathroom that comes in the back. Um we're going to continue the the planter that is on on this side so it'll match.
Um and then this is that area in the back where um we'll be adding the extra pantry space. Um and so the the variance there is just so that it can continue with the existing um you know wall or
pro you know building line. Um there's the the sort of layout of it all. Um, can you go back? Can you go back to the layout to sec because I'm trying to find that that plan in my set. Yeah, this is different than what we had
sent. Okay. Yeah, we we had sent a truncated version. This was the actual final submitt that we had made which is longer presentation. Um, but it it's what we had sent was just more high level. Um, but yeah, this was part of the final submission. Got
it. Thank you. So I think I can Yeah, there we go. There's the side view that I was looking for. So this is the front and then this would be the side view of it and I can go through anything else if you have any specific questions.
Uh can you come back to the first floor plan, please? This one. Yes. Okay. Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant?
The other minor thing, it's not actually really permitting, but I think it's cool. Um, and something we talked about with Debbie, is is you can see here, um, we're going to actually in the previous renovation, which Adam Greenberg did, was the previous owner who made historically designated, and he did an
incredible job. Um, and he left so much of this information to us, which is how we even knew about the adorum tax exemption because he had left that for us. Um, we're actually taking this space back to the original form, which he had converted this into a bedroom. And so, right now there's a wall here and you
access through here. Um, we're going to be rec-losing that up and then opening it up to the dining and living room um, as it was originally done before, which we're really excited about. Great.
Are there turazzo flaws throughout the Absolutely. Yeah. So, that's actually why we're doing that. Um, is that the Terzo, Unfortunately, prior to Adam, one of the owners ripped out the Terzo starting right here going through the rest of the home. Um, which he replaced
with a a Terzo like um set of I don't know what the technical term is, but they're larger than tile. They're pretty big. Um, but going all the way here, here, and then into this room. It's this incredible Terzo, you know, one of the the main reasons we wanted to purchase
the home. And so now by opening this up, you'll you'll get to enjoy all of that Turzo in one contiguous space and the flooring and the additions. So, we plan for the the hallway area to
to hopefully continue that and then the bedrooms will be the same. Yeah, I think we're gonna try to do it's our one spurge. Yeah. Yeah, we want to continue the I gota check with my wife. Good to uh but yeah, that's the that's the
intention is to to camera. Can you see us? This is the the Terzo and the home. That's the existing That's the existing. So, we've found a specialist who's worked on all of the
hotels and and such in Miami Beach who can hopefully replicate it in the new addition um so we can continue it. Great. Nice. Okay, Ray. And so your only your only parking then is
is going to be right there where are the concrete areas? That's the existing only parking. So, weirdly that's considered the front of the home. Um, even though the entryway and the front doorway, everything is on 34th Street. Um, so you're not looking to add anything?
Not looking to add any parking. No, it'll be exactly the same. Randy, do you have a photo of the existing house on the entryway side with the curved piece and the planter? Yes, if you want to. Okay.
So, the planter runs down that wall as well. Yeah. So, this the Exactly. And so, if you look in the We're going to continue that in the new but on the existing wall past the curve, the planter runs down the wall.
Continues running down the wall. I can see in the It's hard to see. It stops. No, if you look in this image right here. Oh, I see. Okay. Yeah. It stops right there. And so that's actually where the addition is is is pretty much starting. Okay.
Yeah. And so we we'll be mimicking that existing planter in with the addition. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Of course. Any other anything else? Yeah. Go ahead, Mitch. Go for it. No one
else has the two. I guess one's a maid maid's quarters and the other one a bedroom. They're separated by Is that a pocket door? A pocket door. The um the way it's going to work is you're going to come into this little foyer area. Yeah. And if you turn left, you'll open the door into the the
bedroom. Now, that that's a slide. That's a pocket door. It won't be a pocket door. Yeah. It's not a pocket door. Showing is a pocket door. We'll have to make could make an archway. Have it an open
bedroom. Yeah, it might look like one, but yeah, this is supposed to be a regular door. And then this is supposed to be a regular door. Got it. Yeah. Okay. Uh Huscoll and then Oh, I I think the addition is beautiful. I have a couple of questions regarding the
western elevation. The current house has this octagonal, if you will, window, but you're not showing it in the new renderings, right? on the western elevation there's it's and why why aren't you
replicating that window? Would that not be part of the original design? So we Oh, please please either step to the mic and introduce yourself again. I'm in charge of the design. There you go. Okay. Um, so we love that window and that was probably one of the
saddest things we were getting rid of. But the truth is like that's going to be our daughter's room and she just needs a dark space and so the concern was it's going to go like it's going to be right over her bed and to put like a blind it's just going to look awkward and so
we felt like we'd probably have to just put in a regular window for her room. But if you in the living room we still have like a really cool circular window there. So we still felt like The house still has these unique features elsewhere. So, we thought it
was okay to get rid of that one. But to your point, it is a sad window to get rid of. I I passed by that house many times and I see that window and it's always very striking. It's a unique component of the house component of the house. I know. We could definitely consider, we would be open to considering putting it
back, but maybe just putting it in the other room if we if we felt like we had to. But, um, the reason we got rid of it was really just to have like, you know, we have blinds throughout the house and we want the same blinds in the bedroom and you just couldn't do it with that shape.
I understand you may not be owning the house for the next you may be owning it for many years hopefully grow into it, but the next owner, right? And the state of the house currently and as it's going to look should should remain the
same in my opinion. Uh, one more question. You're expanding to the west. If you drive along Royal Palm, most of the homes are really set back. There's a tremendous relief for those homes from the street. How far are you extending beyond the
existing homes that are on Royal Palm? I can't. It's it's 9 ft extension for us. I can't speak to the extension of the other homes. Um I did we do have a support letter from our neighbor who is the immediate neighbor where like
they're right next to us. The one that's looming over you. Yeah, exactly. The big home, Greg Davis. Um you might know him. He he's a contractor in Miami Beach. Um and he he wrote a support letter um for us um and you know ultimately doesn't feel like it it interferes with with his home or
property at all. Um, and you know, ultimately allows the home to to sort of um, really the only thing that I'd like to see is maintaining that window if possible. If it doesn't cost a hard show for you, that octagonal, if you will,
window on the west side, if there's a way to incorporate it, that would be great. Yeah, we definitely we we love that window, too. Um, we do love that window. But we can we can definitely explore that. We can put that there and then
realistically that'll turn to All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um, Lindsay, do you have a anything you want to add? Question. I no I was I was trying to look at the plans and where
you know if they were to replace that octag oct o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o octctagonal window where it would fall. Um because I know that right now it's kind of set um in line with the hallway that kind of runs through. And so if you look down that hallway, you see right out
the octagonal window. Um I'm I I totally appreciate that you've got young kids and you want to keep that dark for now, but you know, maybe later on she she'll like her octagonal window. So I um you know, she'll be like, "Check out my cool window, guys." Yeah. Um so, you know, if there was a way to
incorporate it and you guys are willing to do that, I think that would I I I would like to see that too, just to kind of replicate it. But that's um but I I think I mean this is I'm I'm with Debbie. This is one of my favorite houses um on the beach. I actually live in an Elmary Dixon building as building
as well. So Oh, amazing. Yeah. Yeah. So um so um not a house sadly, just a condo building, but um but you know, I I really appreciate his work and so I'm really happy to see you guys um you know, maintaining it as is and then improving upon it. So
and I started life in Miami Beach 30 some years ago in an Elmary Dixon building. So very also very appreciative of his work and um but and but I'm not so I I I I think um I'm kind of on the other side of the fence on that
octagonal window. I just think the new it's a new addition to the building and I'm I'm not sure that putting an octagonal window which is a signature of of a much earlier period would really help people to distinguish between the old and new. Um so that's probably the
where I fall on that. I also think the historic documentation would allow anybody to put an octagonal window in at any time that they want in the future. Um, probably anywhere they want. But, uh, I I just in terms of the way we kind of structure our arguments on this
board, I I wouldn't say that it's a requirement from my perspective. Um, but I really appreciate the um all the work that you're doing to to preserve the to preserve this house and even to add Terzo to it uh inside. I think that's going to be amazing. And um no, I I and
I appreciate that you came here yourself to do this as you're a fast learner. You quickly conquered the it. So uh I'm I'm sure you can do a have a family of five or more children. Uh no problem between the two of you. So thank you. And no, look, we we've been
very fortunate to be able to to get a lot of assistance from Debbie and Jake. you know, ultimately um you know, they they spent a lot of time with us on this and you know, we're we're obviously here to do this for ourselves. There's no other motivation. Um and you know, this
means a lot to us and we we've invested a lot of time ourselves. Um and it will cost a bunch of money, but you know, it's worth it. And um we we feel very fortunate to have such a great home. We, you know, it's funny. When we we purchased the home, the previous owners didn't even realize, but in what Adam
had left behind, there's actually like a postcard from the 1930s of the original home. Um, and so if you notice, it's green now. When we purchased it, it actually had a gray stripe. Um, and we restored it to the original green that was in the postcard. Um,
there was some some pink on the uh the top of what's that term, the parapit. um I got outvoted on restoring it fully to that. Um but um letting your design team, but uh ultimately we we really do love the home and are are super appreciative of of the
chance to be able to hopefully get this done so we can you know have the growing family there. No, great. And I would I would just uh uh double down uh or double click on the Debbie and Jake uh team that you know um
their expertise is something we count on and we the historic preservation board has counted on for years. I know at least the many years that I've been on this and um and it's uh it's no it's really wonderful to see when
the many many different types of uh projects that they're able to help applicants uh work towards solutions that are um that help forward our city. But in particular, you know, it's nice when they when they kind of connect with you on a personal basis. you're you're
not coming with a highowered lawyer or anybody who's saying you're just kind of coming yourself. So really congratulations and thank you. Yeah, honestly the whole team even Gabriella like you know Gabrielle when we when we made our our our submission she sat with us for like three hours because we didn't know we had to
organize it all in order and staple it. Um because we went we because we had spent the previous three hours at Staples in Sunset Harbor printing. Um I mean that was a lot of paper. Um, and so, uh, ultimately it's just really been a team effort from you guys and you know, we appreciate it. Like we've put
in the effort because it matters to us and like you said, we didn't hire a whole bunch of folks because it didn't really seem necessary. Great. All right. Well, thank you very much for the presentation. I think um, if there are no more questions for the I just want to reiterate about the octagonal window. I think you did the
right decision not to have one there because it served a very specific purpose in the original house to be the focus point of that hallway that comes that you mentioned and all of a sudden that focal point disappear because you had the addition and in the original house it was center between the two end
windows and now that center the symmetry is gone so doesn't make sense to it so I don't want you to feel guilty for getting rid thank you that means a lot no Yeah. And also like appreciate the fact that the house doesn't look like a
pasteup job. The the addition looks like it was there forever. So I really congratulate you and your architect on the decision design. Okay. Any thing I'd like for listening to my colleagues with distinguished
architectural background, I uh take back my uh suggestion of the window and bring it up to current. You don't have current standards. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. We do appreciate diversity of
opinions, so please never hesitate. And I think you live right across the street from our former uh George Gonzalez, uh former city manager. Oh, he Yes. I didn't realize he was the former city manager. Yeah, he's I Every time I leave the beach, I drive
by your house. Only way to get from my house out without going down 41st Street. I love that. Yeah. No, we we we we certainly are. And um I didn't realize that he he' done that. We we talked, you know, here and there, but we hadn't we hadn't gotten that information from him.
Okay. And let's Yeah. Okay. Board disclosures. Are there any? No. No. No. Any board disclosures at this end? Seeing none, um open public to public hear. Okay. Anyone from the public? Uh please
raise your hand or come forward or both. Oh yeah, if you you please take a seat and just just It's okay. Hi. Uh Roger Goldblad, MDPL, the 1750 James Avenue. Uh breaking the superition that
uh we always come and criticize. I am really appreciative of being here. Uh we wish we could use your your home as as a model. Uh we support your thoughtful addition to this individually designed El Duri El Murray Dixon home
from 1934. The project demonstrates how additions can complement rather than compete with original architecture. Design integrates well with existing structure. We commend the owners for the voluntary historic designation and well
the previous owners and encourage other property owners to follow this example. We really do. Uh and then on the second part, we support the ad valorum tax exemption for this addition. Project serves as a good model
for encouraging historic designation and thoughtful preservation. We hope this encourages other property owners to designate their homes. We also would appreciate one little criticism. Would you consider trimming your your hedges so others
uh to a level where the neighborhood can appreciate the beautiful example of art deco art deco residential architecture especially given the public investment through the uh tax exemption and also like come back with uh the setback too
would make uh bud a little bit better but it's a wonderful job and we commend you. Thank you. All right. Hey, I see no other um uh members of the public wishing to comment. Okay. Excellent. So, um can I take it
that we we'll do two votes, but um and we'll take the first uh vote on the um well, assuming Wait, we didn't even go through board conver I feel like we've had a lot of board conversation. So, if I think I think we're all done. We're done. We're pretty talked out.
Okay. So let's if I have a motion for the um for um 0659 what no uh 0659 you said yeah 0659 the first so there'll be two motions for that one for the certificate of appropri and then
one for the variance and then the third yeah okay so I will um make a motion we can do the COA first so I'll make a motion um for the certificate of appropriateness um with conditions as um described in staff report.
Second. Okay, let me call the role. Miss Carargo, yes. Mr. Haulingworth, yes. Mr. Meyer, yes. Mr. Novik, Mr. Braslin, yes. Miss Levelvel, yes. Mr. Stewart, Yep. Okay. And now the
the variances. Yeah. The next one is the variance. So I I'll make the motion that we approve the variances again with the conditions as outlined in the staff report. The variances. We just did the certificate of appropriat for the first. Okay, I'll call the role. Mr. Brlin,
yes. Mr. Hollingworth, yes. Mr. Meyer, yes. Mr. Novik, yes. Miss Carargo, yes. Miss Levelvel, yes. Mr. Stewart, yes. Okay. And then we have a recommendation to transmit to the mayor and city
commission regarding the advorum tax exemption. I will make a motion that we transmit um a favorable recommendation um for the adorum tax exemption for the historic single family home. A second. Okay. All those in favor?
I. Any opposed? Okay. Good job. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you so much everyone. Thank you. Have a great day. Okay. The next application on the
agenda, my glasses, is HPB 25646. Um, this is 1300 Lennox Avenue. An application has been filed requesting modifications to a previously issued certificate of appropriateness for the partial demolition, renovation, and
restoration of the existing single family home, including the construction of an attached and detached additions and variances from the required setbacks, open space, lot coverage, and retaining wall regulations. Um, specifically, the applicant um is
requesting design modifications. Uh previously when the board reviewed this um project um at the May meeting of this year, uh the applicant was requesting uh design modifications
um to the existing building, design modifications to the accessory building that was previously approved, and modifications to the previously approved variances. Since the May meeting, um the applicant has submitted revised plans
and these revised plans include the following modifications. Um they have removed the rear accessory building as from the scope of this modification. So they are not they are no longer uh proposing the modifications to the
previously approved um accessory building or the previously approved variances. So they have um they are no longer requesting any changes to that portion of the project. Um the modifications
um for the existing home that they are that is part of the scope of this application. So this is the contributing structure. Um they have included a new overhang. That overhang is proposed to be introduced at the front porch. Um that was something that we had discussed
at the previous meeting. Uh the windows proposed along the eastern side of the home have been reduced in height and a new swing door has been introduced to access the pool. Um staff still um has some concerns re relative to the window
openings along the eastern portion of the home. Um although they have been reduced in height, they still extend beyond past the horizontal banding. Um, as such, staff continues to recommend that the windows not extend past the horizontal banding, which would be
consistent with the original historic design. Um, however, staff has no objection to the introduction of the overhang of the front porch or the new door um introduction along the eastern side of the home. Uh, we feel both of these
items are consistent with the character um of the existing of the historic residence. Um and again there there are no requested modifications to the rear accessory structure. So with that um staff is recommending that this
modification be approved subject to the conditions um outlined in our draft order. Right. All right. Are there any questions um for staff about this?
Can you elaborate further on the front porch? I see the 1948 photo which references that it's the non-original porch. Uh, correct. The original design of the building.
What are we being asked here? Is this a reintroduction of that? not reintroducing asking for an overhang um a simple overhang which staff has no object I I had also okay now I see I think the is the
applicant on I see the owner we do have someone on Zoom I think this Sam I I don't know if that that may not be the the applicant. Is the applicant um is your architect here? Do you know?
Uh you had mentioned 2:00. He's going to be here at 2 o'clock. He's going to be a little late. Okay. It is 1:30. So, is he going to be on Zoom or is he going to be uh He was going to be here in person. Maybe I can answer questions. I mean,
just we could table this. Yeah, just do this a little later and then um and go because we do have one additional we have additional we have an additional application. Yes, that would be great. Thank you. Okay.
Okay. So, we're going to table HPB 25646 and we're going to move on to HPB 246 um 39. This is 833
6 street. A possible designation of a historic site. Um, this is a preliminary evaluation and recommendation report relative to the possible designation of the Southshore Community Center located at 8336 Street as a local historic site.
Um, the board had previously reviewed this request um on several occasions. The last um discussion of the board was at the um let's see did we discuss it at the April
um April 2025 meeting. Um it has since been continued due to a lack of a full board. So we are back before you with the same recommendation that we had previously issued. Um we do believe that
the um Southshore Community Center does satisfy uh the criteria to be designated. Uh the building is somewhat of an anomaly in terms of um its style and its date of construction for the
Flamingo Park Historic District. Um it was actually built in 1970. It was later added to in terms of the auditorium wing in 1975. Although it is clear that the
Lapidus had initially envisioned constructing this altogether, it was for budgetary reasons we believe um constructed uh several years apart from each other. Um there have been alterations and modifications made to the building over time. Um we do note
them. Uh most notably the uh the uh exposed board form concrete which is very characteristic of a a brutalist style which this would be considered has been kind of covered up and painted over over the years. Um we also note that the
second floor Loia which is um originally designed as an open Loia space has been enclosed. Um but the general building remains intact with its original design. Um and we would be hopeful that some of these elements uh in the future uh could
potentially be restored. So we do believe that the the subject designation satisfies criteria A which is association with events that have made a significant contribution to the history of the city, the county, state
or nation. Um the construction of the Southshore Community Center is related to the urban renewal policies resulting in the housing act of 1949. Um, this was a a um a project that was
funded by a federal grant through that program. Um, and uh was funded primarily as a community center for uh the senior um the lower income senior population in the city at the time. And it's it it
still has functioned over over the years as a community center not only for for seniors but also it currently occupies uh daycare currently occupies um which services residents local residents. Um C
we believe it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a historical period architectural or design styler method. Um, the Southshore Community Center does embody the distinctive characteristics of the brutalist style. Uh, one of the interesting things about this building,
unlike a lot of, um, brutalist buildings throughout the country, is it it breaks down into more of a human scale building. A lot of government buildings that were designed in the brutalist style are are very massive and um, not as connected to the public realm. And so
we thought that was a unique feature of this particular building. Um we do believe it possess possesses high artistic values. Um and it does represent the a work of a master serve as an outstanding or
representative work of a master designer architect or builder who contributed to our historical and architectural heritage. The community center was designed by Morris Lapidis. Um it was one of his later buildings. um and he certainly uh has contributed a
significant amount um to the city's history. Um so with that, we are supportive of the of the request. Um we did review the the um proposed or the requested uh
designation in accordance with um the resiliency review criteria. We have noted um that this particular area of the city is extremely lowly line. Uh this is one of the most vulnerable uh areas to flooding from the impacts of
sea level rise. And we have just made a note that it's likely that modifications will will be needed um to this building over time to address that. Um but again that's not extremely unique or different
from a lot of our historic properties. Um so again we are recommending that the board uh accept this preliminary evaluation and direct the planning department to prepare a formal historic designation report which would come back
to you at a later date. And u just for thank you for that and just for the process um there will be questions to you then there won't be another you're essentially the presenting on behalf of the applicant
the city right the city is the applicant I am not the applicant I mean it's it's yeah it's a tricky situation but I'm professional historic preservation officer for the city so this is our form recommendation.
Um, this initial request came from the mayor and city city commission. So, I am I am just evaluating that request based on the the city as the applicant and we will have a public a period of public um comment and yes
move forward from there. Okay. So, I guess are there any questions? Yes. You mentioned this is one of the most flood prone areas. I don't necessarily agree with that. I manage a building
across the street on Jefferson Avenue. I've rarely in my 30 plus years of uh managing that structure have have seen uh significant or flooding. Except uh
one time during a rain event, a fl a storm drain got clogged and the water uh rose up. a couple of feet. One of one of the things we noted is and I and I don't know the flood history of
this particular site. I do know um that is one of the most vulnerable areas for future flooding that there on Sixth Street you have a an elevation up to 2.8 and GBD which is one of the lowest land elevations in the city. So just by
nature of the very low land elevations, it makes it vulnerable in the future. If it hasn't, you know, seen flooding, that's that's great. And I think we should Well, on the Sixth Street side, that's a different story, but the Jefferson Avenue, Jefferson Avenue is slightly higher. Yeah.
Yeah. And Meridian I may also be higher. Uh Meridian is slightly higher. We have a 3.12 NGVD. And And what did you say? Uh Sixth Street was 2.8. eight. Got it. Yeah.
Yeah. Uh I'll I I'll say this. I I grew up in a later Mars Lapidus building. My family had purchased a uh winter summer home in Aventura in the early 70s. Uh, Lapidus was the uh
town planner of uh what was that swamp land in northeast Dade that the sofas won a bidding war with against the muses back in the day. They got that what was thought to believed undevelopable land
for $6 million. Uh I believe it was 1967. Uh my mom would often say she loved that uh that condominium apartment. Uh there was closets adjoining closets uh
compared to uh the family home on Long Island. Uh also that development in Aventura Villa Dorado, the small brown and white buildings that are uh still there today that'll probably be there for a long
time. This building was uh you could if you could just pick up this building and put it down there, it would fit right in. Uh uh in my eyes, this is a classic late later uh uh generation lapidous
structure. And uh I agree with staff. This is a structure worthy of designation. And I believe it was the uh mayor and commission by unanimous vote that sent this back here because it was
on the uh chopping block uh to become the home of the firehouse. Uh and since uh the first time this issue came up, whatever it was almost a decade ago, I opposed its uh its demise. So I think
this is an opportunity. We have a city asset that exists uh we need to retain it and uh in this case uh preserve it for future generations.
Thank you for that all that insight. Appreciate it. Um, sure. Right. Well, I happen to have been on the board when um this particular site was approved for the fire station and uh
then a couple of commissioners decided, oh no, we need to save this building and that's the reason it's now going up for uh uh historic pres uh preservation or or uh whatever. But yet we have buildings like the Bass Museum that are
not um what about city hall? I mean they're going for this building to make sure that the firehouse can't come back. And I'm sorry until a shovel goes in the ground and a new firehouse is built. I
could not possibly vote to make this historic when there was millions of dollars already spent by the city to put the firehouse there, raise the elevation if if it's in a floodprone area, and actually have a firehouse that is closer
to south of Fifth where all of those residents weren't there when one built on on 11th Street. So until then, I I it's already got protections from the from the uh district that it's in, the
Flamingo Park district, just like other properties do that are in historic districts. And I don't feel that it needs an additional uh uh any additional help until we know for sure we have a firehouse someplace else because we already voted originally to have the
firehouse there. Okay. Thank you, Ray. Um, let's just let everybody have a speak and then you you come in. Jump in, Lindsay. Oh, I thought we we were kind of just doing the um board questions for the
applicants but in a very kind of loose definition of question and um we can just probably continue and then go and then open definitely open it to the public. Um uh why don't you go and then Haskell and then Lindsay. Am I next?
Yes. Okay. There's a debate here about placing the uh new fire station at the end of u the flamingo track. All this came about because I believe from what my understanding is that the current fire
station is not in the best of shape and needs to be updated and proximity to south of fifth buildings that have gone up since that fire station came into service. Unfortunately, uh Mr. is not here to back me up on this. I had
the good fortune of working with him and I can tell you that this was his least desirable building that he's ever worked on. Uh if we designate this historic, that means that we're pushing that fire station to the end of Flamingo Park. No
track in the world, no viable running track in the world can have a building five feet from the track that's 20, 30 feet tall. And the reason is because when you're running one side of the track and you're running the opposite side of the track,
you're trying to gain plus or minus wind direction. We're going to destroy that track which is used by thousands of people on a weekly basis. Kids come out, work on their running techniques. Adults come
out throughout the week and work on their running techniques. People use that track. It's a great amenity for the city. And if we're going to go ahead and designate that building as a historic on Sixth Street and prevent the fire station
from going there, shame on us for taking that amenity away from the public. It's been around for a long time. A lot of great runners around the world have come to that track to run. We have other opportunities to do things
with that site on Sixth Street. One of them not designated this as historic putting the fire station there. It seems like there are powers to be that are pushing this agenda. I don't know what the reason is primarily, but um if we lose this opportunity,
we're going to destroy a great amenity that this city has had for 50 years, 50 plus years. And I will never support this idea of designating this site as historic to prevent, you know, to allow a fire station going on the west side of the truck. Doesn't work. And we don't
need to spend any more money on studies. Studies have been done. We paid a lot of money. Staff has other things to work on besides putting their time and effort to study this any further. It just doesn't work on the west side of the track and we don't need to designate it as historic 63 site.
Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Haskell Lindsay. Um, so, so one thing and I don't know if I need I don't know put this into the record. Um, but just to note this, so we discussed this last time about the level
um of Jefferson and um later raising of the streets and the flooding issues there and where it exists now, the fact that the building is higher than that at at where it sits now. Um, but since Mitch brought it up, I will say that I mean I have video here from March 23rd, 2024 where I was leaving yoga on the
corner of Meridian and 6th and that entire intersection on a Jefferson like you can see the waves and that's just on a sudden downpour day other than you know just completely like inundated. It flooded all the buildings around there.
Now, at that point, Sash Community Center didn't flood, but I just point out that yeah, it is really low right there on on um on Sixth Street. Um you know, as we know, um kind of beyond that, um I go back to and some of that is here. Um but the
testimony that was given in 2019, um you know, the loss of, you know, the the design elements that were key to this were the open breezeways, the LOAS, the light wells. Um but as a result of the programmatic needs of the um that necessitated the closure of the second floor, you lost a lot of that. There's
security apparatus. There's gates that have been dropped um that you know have removed a lot of the defining characteristics of the building that what does it say here? Um alterations occurred over time um that uh let's see
the exposed concrete related finishes have been compromised and may be beyond repair and restoration. Um, you know, when we had this discussion last time, I was hoping that by the time it came before us this time around, that not a full report, but we'd have some more information. And I just
I'm I don't know. I'm I'm not convinced um that this building is the one that we designate. I mean, setting aside everything else that we're discussing and I mean um I just that's kind of where I stand.
Thank you. Any anybody else who hasn't spoken yet? I know. Wait, who hasn't spoken yet? Because I'd like to get everybody's Elizabeth, you Oh, you went. Okay, go ahead. Just one more thing. Sorry. Um, and again, the 2019 testimony um was also that it was not feasible to retain the
entire building for a new municipal use. Okay, Elizabeth, one quick question, Debbie. Um, what additional protections the building will have if it's designated historic because it's already protected as part of the neighborhood. And then I don't and
clarify for me if it was already protected as a contributing structure, how could it have been um assigned for the demolition for the firehouse if it's already part of Okay. Um great questions. So the
existing building is classified as a non-contributing building within the Flamingo Park Historic District. However, um that classification on its own does not lessen its protection under the historic
preservation ordinance. Any building whether contributing or non-contributing or or not classified um within a district does require the review and approval of this historic preservation board for demolition. In this unique
instance, however, the property is owned by the city. In our um land development regulations um limit this board's ability to approve or deny demolition
for city-owned properties and give that authority to the mayor and city commission. So, previously the board um I think it was it back in 2019 um the board
recommended approval of the fire station and recommended approval of a certificate of appropriateness for demolition to the mayor and city commission. And then subsequent to that, the mayor and city commission did approve a certificate of appropriateness for demolition. Um, part
of that original approval also required um certain elements of the existing building like those canopies to be reinccorporated back retained and reinccorporated back into the fire station. Um, but it's its protection whether it's contributing,
non-contributing, or an individual historic site essentially technically is the same. So it it it doesn't really change the level of protection um for the building
because it has the same review process required regardless if it's individually designated contributing or non-contributing. The same process is required to be followed. Okay. Randy, did you want to add
anything? No, you're okay. I I was only going to add I was only going to add here that um you know I think that I as I think I mentioned last time I lived in Cabinet Plaza in Brooklyn and it was exactly the same year as this that Lapidus was working in New York and here and there are many many similarities to
what he was doing there and here and you know I I also had the pleasure of uh working with Mr. Lapidus on occasion and interviewing him and um I know his his best projects were always his next project. Uh that was when he was um I
was trying to save some things on Lincoln Road and uh they were being uh he was he was supporting them being taken some of his own designs being taken out for this for the new project he was going to have on Lincoln Road. So I with this with that context I still think that Lapidus is one of the most
important and interesting and complex architects whose um uh who's worked in Miami Beach if you compare him to Elmary Dixon for example who had a who had a very a kind of a a style a brand that that varied and it was nuanced and
beautiful but didn't very didn't kind of reflect the times um like Lapis does. And I um so in that sense I think this building is significant as a as a kind of part of the conversation that starts with a phantom blow and um or perhaps
even earlier with other projects. Um but I also think that this building is um remarkable for the way in I think it helps us to understand sea level rise and historic projects. If you notice the building has planters in the front.
These are planters are things that city guidelines have proposed, but we've never tried really in this in in the way that this building has them for um trees that are able to withstand floods. You know, some of the oldest palm trees probably, you know, still alive today
are in these planters in this very lowlying part of the city. Um so I I think that and it's also the the first finished floor of this building is raised up quite a bit. It also shows that um that aspect of um how a building
might respond to a low-lying condition. The last thing I'll say is that I think it's this board's opportunity when uh presented by the city commission a a unanimous is that true? It was a unanimous vote um by everybody on the
commission to understand more about our historic fabric and our historic buildings and that the more we know about the buildings through a designation report like this um which may or may not save this building uh it may become a fire station. I don't know
what the future of this building um holds for it, but it um I still think that the um that the under the learning and the kind of um using the professional um skills um that our staff
has will really help us to understand the broader context of our historic city and that this that's what this board is really intended to do. So I would kind of separate I personally separate out um the criteria uh the the criteria which I
think are very important from the this broader um kind of uh uh the broader let's say context that this is that we're that we're discussing this in. So, um, I am I'm I'm very supportive of the
staff's recommendation on this. And go ahead. If this is designated as historic, that means it cannot be used for the firehouse. Correct. That wouldn't preclude the city from
design. Well, because they would have to tear it down and save certain pieces like like it was once you once it's historic, you can't you can't you have to keep that building. you can't turn around and tear it down. I mean, that I I disagree with that. Um
although, you know, ultimately, you know, we don't want to see historic buildings be tore down and that that rests with the mayor and city commission. So just as they can um you know not permit a you know building they own to be demolished if it's
contributing they they could say and they have the commission reversed the demolition for a non-contributing building. So, it it doesn't restrict the this board or the city commission's ability to approve demolition or to
require retention. Um, regardless if it's non non-contributing, contributing, or a historic site, it it doesn't restrict the the ability to make, you know, any decision that is appropriate.
Mr. Mr. Chairman, would you like to open to the Yes, please. Thank you. Hi, Roger Goa at MDPL, 1750 James Avenue. John, you couldn't have been more eloquent. Uh, that's pretty much how we feel at MDPL, too. And uh you
wouldn't believe all the letters and email mostly emails not letters so much these days and texts and phone calls that we get concerning this this matter. So we enthus enthusiastically support the designation designation of
of the uh Southshore Community Center is historic. This significant structure designed by the renowned architect Mars Lapidis has long served as a community gem. It really has. We have worked collaboratively with stakeholders
over the years to preserve this building and are pleased to see it finally having the possibility of formal recognition of it historic significance within our district. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. On Zoom, I see Bruce
Carter. Oh, he put his hand down. So, we have next is Yan Johan Moore. Historic Preservation Board, um Johan Moore, 717 Jefferson Avenue on behalf of Meridian
Court community. Uh since the conversation seemingly has veered into municipal infrastructure territory, uh also seemingly in contravention to uh
staff's previous admonitions uh as to the criteria that board members may consider uh when deciding whether to support or oppose uh a an item requesting designation. Um, I will point
out that when it was supposed to become a fire station, it was as a part of the overall funding for that intended to get an injection well. Now, concerns with injection wells aside, the point is that
it was always intended to address the flooding at those two intersections, Meridian, Jefferson, and Sixth Street. Uh and once the funding can be found for that injection well or a comparable
solution uh also in light of the fact that the west drain of that parking lot to the east northeast of the community center seemingly regularly floods once those issues have been addressed. Sea level rise of course is a separate
question but the immediate flooding question will go away. I would simply leave you with the thought that occurs to me most strongly as I hear Debbie Tacket and the chair uh uh muse on
various aspects of this as well as our neighbor Lindsey Levelvel uh in Flamingo Park. uh is not the commission essentially asking you to impose an additional inhibition upon the
commission as an abstract entity irrespective of its current composition. Is it not asking you to impose an additional inhibition upon the commission, however constituted, uh, to suggest that it is not a hasty
decision to be taken to consider taking out the muchloved and historic community center. And so we would simply ask that you respect the request of the neighborhood, the very eloquent previous
statements by Dr. McKini as to the value of this building and the request of the commission uh to save this building. Will you not please simply exceed to those multiple requests? Thank you very much.
Okay, our next speaker is David McKini. David, you can unmute yourself. Uh there am I unmuted? Yes, we can hear you. Okay. Uh there. Do I need to be sworn in or no? Uh no, you do not.
Okay. I'm David McKenna and I live at 1020 Meridian Avenue, Miami Beach. I am a architectural historian and have been involved in the preservation of this building for almost now 10 years. I I
their applaud uh their the staff recommendation and remind you that this building is in terms of sea level uh rise and historic building probably the best situated that I know of in South
Beach in that it is raised on a platform. Uh they're substantially above the uh curve level. uh invacted uh there uh for that. I I would also remind you that this building is uh has been
recognized not just locally but nationally by the Society of Architectural Historians there by the state by the Florida Trust for Historic Preservation. This building is recognized outside of Miami Beach uh for
its uh architectural integrity which I will say exist now. And I will say in terms of my experience that uh their coats of paint on um on concrete do not
u represent a any u their detriment to the building or its architectural their integrity. I won't go into my argument again and
again, but I would just ask you to uh if you do disagree with the public policy of where the fire station should go that you address that with the commission uh who has already taken it to the the
voters and have approved a site of which you may disagree with, but the voters of both the city and the neighborhood and the county have under approved a site at Alton and 11th Street uh to address that completely and then to look
at the criteria as Miss Tacket has outlined that it meets fully the the uh criteria for historic designation and uh there go ahead and let her uh or the staff complete a report and then look at
it. um and and and evaluated according to that report. Thank you very much for your time. Okay, I see no other uh members of the public wish to comment, Lindsay. So I I mean to one of the comments that
said that the commission has asked us to do this to designate it. The commission asked us to review it and decide whether or not we suggest that it a report be generated so that we could or could not designate it. And so, you know, asking us to exceed to that request, I don't I don't think that's what it was. Um, and
I think you if you ask the commissioners who voted for it, they said, "We have no problem sending this historic preservation board to see what they have to say about it." And just like any other applicant that comes before us, I mean, that's the way it works that it comes to us. That would be the number one. Um, and then, um, yeah, I think
that's all. All right. Thank you very much, Haskell. I would just like to add that if we're going to do any further studies, we would do a study about rehabbing the um current fire station at its current location
because if the basic premise was to be in proximity to the south of Fifth for the new fire station, what difference does it make having it on 11 Street and Jefferson or 11th Street on Alton Road? Not much to me. But if we do move it to
the Flamingo Park, we are destroying a great amenity that the city has. That's what I want to say. Yeah. I just wanted to add uh the commission made it clear that the new fire station, which the voters
overwhelmingly approved for this site along Olton Road, not encroach onto the track. Uh is that correct Debbie to the consultant designers to not have it encroach?
So there is no encroachment and this building uh is an amenity to to the to the community and it's viable and it's already built. we're not going to be uh you know spending money to de demolish
this asset in order to create a new one. It just that's mindboggling in my mind. The the plan that I saw contemplates a building that is about 30 feet tall 5 feet
west of the track. Uh so that is encroaching on the track because it definitely uh causes wind um deflection in various directions and it doesn't provide for a good smooth
running track. Can I respond? Yeah, I think maybe we're kind of going beyond where staff can I mean and our own expertise uh can um Yeah. And I I would just caution the board members. Um we do anticipate an
application coming before you regarding a the fire station and the at the Flamingo Park site. That is not before us today. That has not been officially submitted yet. And I think commenting too much on what we know is going to be a potential application in front of us
is not this is not the appropriate time to do that. Uh R. Yes. I just want to remind everybody that there was a community center on Washington Avenue and 21st Street, very similar to this one that got torn down so that the convention
center could have their ballroom and an extension and whatnot. And all those services got reallocated and people are happy where they're at. And the same thing was happening with the uh community center on 6th. All of
those services were going to be reappropriated. The city has already spent over well over a million dollars on the plans to put the fire station there and everything was approved through historic preservation and all of a sudden one or two commissioners said,
"Oh no, we have to save it and we have to we have to build it someplace else." Well, right now, yes, the voters approved where it's going, but the Flamingo Road or the Flamingo Park association is dead set against it. So, I mean, you've got all this to look at.
And personally, I can't vote on anything to do with this center until the shovel goes in the ground for the fire station someplace. Okay. All right. Um well, we've heard from almost everybody, so I think we're
um ready to Are we ready to uh take a straw poll, Lindsay? What would you say? I don't know. Yeah. I mean, let's see. We have We need four votes. Um, so do you should we we can do it ourselves to see if we have enough.
This is the request to request staff preparing. I'm just seeing if we evaluation if we have any chance of requesting it or should we just take the or should we just take the vote because we're really not. Maybe before we take the vote, can you
restate what we're voting for? There's a little confusion on that. Go ahead. Uh, so we would be voting um I guess do we have to do a motion? The the vote would be on whether to direct staff to
to uh to prepare a formal designation report. The designation report, not the designation, just a report. Well, that is the next step to advance the designation, right? But we're not voting on that next step. That's all I wanted to say. We're only voting on the designation
report to come back before us and which would include of course uh the history the the relevance of this uh site and structure it comes back to us or goes to the planning board.
Okay. So the process is rather lengthy. Um, if if you direct staff today to prepare the designation report, we have a a 12-month maximum time frame where we would bring back the historic designation report to this board. At that meeting, the board would issue a
recommendation whether to approve the designation or not. And after that recommendation is made by the board, then it would be transmitted to the planning board. The planning board re would review the designation
request would also issue a recommendation to the mayor and city commission whether or not to designate. Then it would travel with both the historic preservation board and the planning board's recommendation to the mayor and city commission and it would be two readings in front of the
commission whether or not to designate. What's the time frame for all that after the first 12 months? Um it was it's probably at least another you know six months four to six months Deborah somewhere uh at least according
to what you stated somewhere that changed to one year which I believe was initially 90 days or was it 30 days uh once we request a uh uh staff to prep prepare a preliminary evaluation report
it it's been 12 months as long as I recall Really? Yeah. I I don't I don't recall that. I mean, it we have to do a notice. So, it's at least a four month. I mean, we we with our noticing requirements, we wouldn't be able to do it in 30 days or
90 days. I mean, we we do do a lot of research, which is time consuming. Um, you know, I don't think it would take 12 months to bring back to you. Nick, do you want to chime in? You you may be thinking he may be thinking of the the period when the interim procedures for demolition requests would
apply and I think that's is that four months or six months moratorum kick in I mean it could be indefinite that's what he's I think he's talking yeah in this case I mean the the whether or not the building is demolished is is a decision of the city commission so
this it's all advisory when correct advisory when it comes to city assets there would be zoning in progress that it would be a historic site, but effectively all that would do was would put it under the jurisdiction of this
board to review, which it already is because it's located within a historic district. So, the zoning in progress caveat that we, you know, we have for privately owned properties outside of historic districts, it has a very different impact here. It has almost no impact here because it's
already located within a historic district. Um, and can I add, do don't you already have a an evaluation report that you did back in 2018, 2019? We have this current report. This is the
most extensive report that we have for the Southshore. Would do you believe that would change? Uh, no. I think what we like to do is we like to dive into the research a little bit more, of course. Um, and again, this would
require the full noticing period and additional staff work. So, it's I mean, the earliest we could bring this back would probably be I mean, why could the end of the year, November, December. Okay. But it could also be much sooner
than noticing. None of this is uh is new to anybody. Uh, I mean, it was noticed today. And if we should uh vote to direct you to move forward, why couldn't you be
back here in a month from now? Well, because it does require it does require a mail notice, a posting. Okay. And two months. I mean, it it would it would take us more than two months. I mean, we do have strict deadlines. Okay. you know, as part of our process.
And I mean, the earliest we could get it back to you at this point would be the November meeting. Fair enough. I I also just want to say that I think that there are number of other buildings in this city that have um that have similar characteristics that are built with concrete. They were built around
this time. It was also it was a period of um of really of of some growth in the city um even though it's not often recognized. And I think that the especially if this report focuses part of its efforts on the on the resiliency
requirements of historic buildings, this may help this research may help others um who have um you know similar buildings whether they're condominiums or individual homes. So but the reality is is we don't have to send them for a designation report in
order to get that information. We could ask them as a discussion item to get the information without the necessity to prepare a formal report. But we have we have a moment in order to we have a moment in order we have a moment in which we can do this and ex I think
expeditiously and also help us understand uh you know one of the city assets which is not always what we what we can do but anyway that so I just wanted to add that because it it I think the research for of this building I
think this is an underresarched type of building underresarched materiality of building under research arched period of building that could help us to understand our our city better. But um so with that, I guess we're just going to take a vote on um whether to request
staff to um to uh create this uh this historic designation report for us or not. So uh do I have a motion to do that? Can I make a motion to have the staff proceed with the detailed
study for the potential opportunity of designating the site as a historic site, the South Center Community Center? Southshore Community Center. I'm not sure the full name. Southshore Community Center. Okay, let me call the role. Um,
Miss Carargo, yes. Miss Levelvel, no. Mr. Meyer, no. Mr. Mr. Novik, yes. Mr. Brazlin, no. Mr. Haulingworth, yes. Mr. Stewart, yes.
Okay. So, that's four to pass. So, we will um prepare a formal designation report and bring that back to you. Thank you. All right. The moment you've open, but that's okay. we can resume.
Reintroduce or just resume or I I'll just briefly um reintroduce the items. Um it's we're going back to HPB25646. Um this is 1300 Lennox Avenue. Uh, an application has been filed requesting modifications to the previously issued
certificate of appropriateness for partial demolition, renovation, and restoration of the existing single family home, including the construction of an of attached and detached additions and variances from the required setbacks, open space, lot coverage, and retaining wall regulations. Um
specifically, the applicant is currently requesting um a reduced scope of work um from what the board had previously reviewed. Um and it is limited to the modifications to the contributing building.
Um the modifications to the previously approved variance variances and design of the accessory building have been withdrawn from this current request. have some concerns with regard
and recommended approval draft order. And with that, we can I guess turn it over to the applicant now. Okay. My name is John Rosenlat. Uh I uh I live in uh South South Beach uh
South Fifth and uh I saw an opportunity to uh do some significant renovations to a beautiful building and that's why I purchased it and uh I purchased it with approved plans that is to say historic
pro approved plans. Uh and uh the only the significant uh variation that we're asking uh for is that uh basically we don't rip apart the building. We just keep it the way it is and uh basically
uh uh go ahead and and uh you know renovate the inside obviously. Uh there is a uh Florida room existing Florida room which we believe historically did not exist. That's why we're planning to take it down and just have a small
overhang uh over the front. And uh that's basically it. There's some we don't need to uh you know destroy the window openings. Uh I'll turn it over to my architect John
for technical advice. Um yes. Hi. Um I'm John Vardy. I'm the architect for the project. So in this case we are going back to the original approve uh for the accessory building and for the main house. So reducing the
scope of work. It's not raising the house up. So um I think that we are keeping uh the um the existing conditions of the house. Uh can you project the uh Okay. So
uh 1300 Lenox. So this is a a picture an old picture historic picture that it has the um the enclosure and as you see uh it's today uh the same uh enclosure at the front of the house
but we are not uh uh keeping the same structure because originally was approved without it. So the let me go back to the um to the approved one. So this is the area the footprint
that it was originally approved and we are not modifying this. So we are not changing the uh the areas. So we are not asking to modify the uh the approved variances. So if you see here so exactly um same
conditions. So that's the um permeability. the zoning diagrams the area which is matches the original approved one. So this is the existing conditions. This is the original that it was
submitted. So um accessory building again is not being modified. The garage which is already being approved is not being modified. So, but in here you see that the enclosure is um Can you can you use the cursor to uh
Yeah, you can probably Okay, there you go. Okay. So, here is the accessory building. So, the accessory building we are not modifying it from the original approval. Same as the garage. So, the garage we are keeping exactly the same footprint. And in this case also the
only modification we are doing is the uh canopy the uh covered portion of it. uh the original approved was without any kind of roof. So this is the one that it was presented originally.
And actually if you notice we are removing this uh deck. So we are making it uh less intrusive. So we are not adding that deck. That's interior demolition. That's the interior demolition that it was proposed
originally. So now here uh the roof all of this roof uh remains um existing. This is the one that is going to be demolished the enclosure the enclosure and this portion is going to be demolished to um adapt the addition of
the uh garage. So the original this is the previously approved that it was showing the entire roof being uh ripped up. The interior is uh um different layout
but I know that interior is like not uh significant for this the this window and this window were um originally approved with conditions. So we are going back to the recommendation
of the board. Okay. Here is the you can see the canopy that we are trying to um to do for enclosure. Okay. Um we have the existing east elevation. Uh this is what uh David was
referring the u smaller windows because on the uh previously uh approval was uh all the way to the floor but it was approved with uh conditions. But now the idea this is existing. So
the idea is to um adjust that. So we are um raising the window seal of those two windows and we are creating only a single door to access the uh pool. So this is uh the uh two windows that
that it was all the way down to the floor on the original uh approval accessory building. No modification and that's the housing context. So the other request that we are doing is not
raising the house. So we are actually keeping the entire structure of the house. Any questions? I I'll just start by just asking the staff was talking about the eastern they have some concerns relative to the window openings along the eastern portion of the home. Can you go over
that in particular? Um yes where east. Okay. This is this is the one that it was uh submitted originally for the previous approval. So the previous architect requested to have those two windows all the way to the floor
but um it was approved with conditions. So the condition says that those two windows cannot be all the way to the floor. So in our drawing we are adjusting that. So we are making it uh higher. So we are correcting the uh the
conditions but they mentioned that it's extending beyond the existing horizontal banding where where correct. So here that's the banding. The banding's up there. Yeah. The the white little stripes and in your drawing where where's the
banding? My drawing the the banding is right there. So it's now it's now aligned with it. It's now it's in line with the banding. So we are like taking it back to the original uh opening administration.
Okay. All right. Um sorry, anything else? Go ahead. Staff's recommending approval uh with you guys uh modifying your plan uh as per their recommendations. Are you
in agreement with that? Uh the recommendation that you mean the windows uh the entire project? Yes, we agree. Absolutely. Got it. And I'm a little confused. You said you're not raising the structure.
Okay. One one of the variances or one of the approvals or um the original design was to raise the house because of the floor. I mean the plans show that. Yeah. The previous one. But now we don't want to do that. We don't want to because it's not uh I mean it's we have to tear the house down to be able to do
that. So we are not uh doing that. So we're actually keeping the proportions of the house. Okay. Staff. Yes. Ray, go ahead. So you don't have any
flooding issues in this. I mean, everybody else is talking about how there's homes in this neighborhood that are totally empty and vacant because they flood all the time and you're going to spend this money and you're not raising the h house at all. I I don't understand.
I've never seen a problem there. Changes, but yeah, different areas. You know, we're higher up than the house. The house is actually uh two feet higher than the uh than the street. So, it has some elevation. It's not up to the uh flood level, but it has two
feet. It's not like slap and ra. Are there not plans to raise the streets in that area? We have not heard anything there. Um, is the staff recommend that the design of the new twocar garage be further refined and manner more consistent with the original design? Can
you show us what you did with the two-car garage and how it's consistent with the original? Uh, hold on. Okay. Well, at some point we plan to do
two doors, but uh we are keeping it to let me see if I have a render here. Yeah, we are like keeping it in two separate doors because uh one idea was to have uh all combined but uh we into
was already approved. So we are not. So the new well thatated order the consolidated order is um now, right? As opposed to the correct
the underlined conditions would be the new. Anybody else have questions for the applicant? No. No. No. Okay. Um, with seeing no questions for the applicant, uh, is there is there any
disclosure? No. No. All right. Open it for public comment. Okay. On on Zoom, I see uh Bruce Carter. Bruce. Yes, I'm here.
Hi, Bruce. Do you swear or affirm this testimony you'll give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do indeed. Thank you. You have three minutes. Great. Um, thank you for your time and for listening. Just a couple of thoughts here. Um, you know, for me, this
project, of course, I'm the one next to it is is, you know, the accessory structure that was, you know, pre-approved, I guess, in the back. There was a lot of problems here in the fact that there was no continuation asked for for the permit. Um, first off,
I could tell from the previous meeting that this I'm not sure what staff was thinking when this large central structure back, but it's so out of scale. And Deborah, I was so moved with the other family when you talked about their need and how they're helping
children and what they're asking for is so small. And then with this house, we have a developer who has literally homeless people living there right now. And I had yesterday to kick a homeless person out of my yard from their yards. So they're not looking after it. It's a developer who's literally just trying to
get every square inch. And this example of what's being presented here, they're asking for height, you know, width, scale, setbacks. There is literally no rule that the city has made to protect
historic that they are not breaking or not asking for an exception. And it's gross. And I'm not sure what to do because I'm just a resident and I'm not a lawyer. And um but this is for a resident that lives next door. It was an exceptional
moment. And I just asked for the board, you know, help from the board. Like, you know, I'm going to have essentially what is a large scale footing within two stories built next to me, which is absolutely gross and insane. You know, I don't care about the garage. Sure, he
needs a car. Let's give him a garage. Um, I'm not a terrible person, but this developer has not reached out to me, which the board ad reached out to me, ask for solutions. I don't care if he built a onestory structure in the back. It's 3,000 square feet. He can do 100%
lock as far as I'm concerned, but to build something so tall next to me is disturbing. And the amount that the city is allowing him to do is frankly just it's wrong. And I mean, I'm not sure what can be done about it. And I ask for your professional help and uh and
helping direct it. Okay. Thank Thank you, Bruce. Is there are there other um I see no one else on Zoom. No on Zoom. So um towards Bruce's uh comments are what can you just can you describe the
where we are and what we can do to help him and Sure. So the the addition the accessory building along with the garage was and the variances were previously approved by this board. Um, the board
approved the project subject. Can you tell me what date that is? Um, they approved the project. Let's see. On I'm sorry. Sorry, Ray. I'll find it here.
Um, on I think it's March 8th, 2022. Okay. So, that has been approved. That order is still active and valid. They can build that. They can, you know, then
submit for permit and Boulder. They've already tried to submit for some permits. The owner I've I've spoken with does want to construct this as soon as possible. He's been he's been working with staff to try and get a permit with the changes that were proposed. Um, you
know, we had determined that that exceeded staff's ability to review administratively and that would require going back to the board. Um, and we've been working with them back and forth. They have now decided not to make changes to the accessory building to and the garage to continue with that, but
they still want to make some changes to the contributing building than was previously approved. Um, this particular the previously approved project did contemplate and was approved to raise the floor. That required a significant
amount of demolition. Um, and so they came back to us to to um propose not to raise the floor to limit the amount of demolition. Um, and and staff has no objection to that. So, um, because last time when they came before us, we asked
that they talk to Bruce specifically about the, uh, the accessory building, and that's what they've taken out of our out of this package essentially. Correct. That's not part of the request anymore.
Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Uh, no. Go. Please, please, please, please. Yeah, that's all right. It's been a long day. It has been a long day. Thank you for understanding. Um, my name is Tucker Gibbs with law offices at 3835 Utopia Court in Coconut
Grove. Um, I was here last month and I made a lengthy presentation. Um, I don't want to repeat it. However, there are two new members of this board and I don't know any way that I can make a
nonpresentation without creating a problem for the decision whatever decision it is you're going to make. And so I apologize. I will go very fast. And um how much time do you think you need? It's the same app. I don't remember last time you asked for an extension, but uh
I asked for several extensions and and and what I'm going to do is I'm going to read the whole dog on thing and I'm going to do it very very fast so we can have a transcript made or whatever because I don't know what else we can do. Five. I want to be able to say everything I
said before. So, but you'll Okay, see how your reading skills are with my Yeah, with my apologies. Um, again, I represent Bruce Carter, who you just heard from, who owns and lives at 31 1310 Lennox Avenue, immediately to the north of the applicant's property. I
have two concerns with the posture of this application. The application cannot be considered as a modification of the historic preservation board order approved on March 8th, 2022. Uh, because the applicant failed to retain a full building permit within the
required 18 months of that date. Um, the applicant also requested an extension that was erroneously based on the June 24th 2021 governor's emergency order on the Champagne the Champagne condominium collapse that did not authorize an
extension of time for permits other than authorizations. Um because also the governor did not reference in his order Florida statute 252.363 which authorizes the grants of extensions of time for development
permits authorizations like the 2022 HPB order. Um, excuse me. And because 2552.5 656, excuse me, 363 specifically applies to a natural
emergency in the 2021 emergency order by the governor addressed the Champagne collapse. Florida statute 252348 defines a natural emergency as caused by a natural event including but not limited to limited storm hurricane storm
flood severe wave action drought or earthquake. Because the collapse is not a natural emergency, the applicant cannot take advantage of section 252.363 to extend the 2022 HPB order.
Furthermore, the HPB order is null and void pursuant to code section 2.13.2 DI because the applicant failed to obtain or a full or any kind of building permit within 18 months after the HPB order was
approved. The only building permit that was issued was issued on August 2nd, 2024, which is BR249597, erroneously based on the governor's executive order in 2021. This renders any city approval approval
of the building as null and void. The second concern considers the practical difficulty variance according to the zoning code. If the variance if the practical difficulty variance is not permitted is not permitted as listed in
section 2.8.3b the applicant must meet the eight criteria for a hardship variance. But section 8.2.2.3b has no list of criteria. There's nothing there that has a review list.
It is blank for practical difficulties variance. So you have no standards in your code for a uh practical difficulty determination. Um and let's see the applicant it's not permitted is listed in eight is section in section 2.8.3b.
The applicant must meet eight criteria for a hardship variance. Um but section 2.8.3b has no such list of oh criteria. Um it's blank except for the word reserved. There's no definition of practical
difficulty in the city code or in the related special acts. Nor is there any definition in Florida statutes or Florida case law. This provides no guidance to the HPB when it decides whether to approve a practical difficulties variance. There is no basis for any such decision without standards
or criteria. This leaves you with the criteria required for the hardship variance. None of the proposed variances meet the following criteria. The applicant does not meet the hardship requirement in criteria four where it failed to show that each of the setback
lot size and required sideyard var uh setbacks are commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district and where it is virtually impossible to use the land for the purpose or in the manner in which it is zoned. uh
hemispheric hemisphere epis um equity versus keep property taxpayers Dade County versus Brennan and are the citations for that. None of the variances are the minimum variances that would allow the reasonable use of the land building structure as required in criteria five where Florida case law
holds that as long as the applicant can develop or build or use the land, building or structure in compliance with the zoning code, the applicant has no need for a variance. Herrera versus city of Miami 1992. Any claim that sea level rise is a special condition which is
peculiar to the land, structures or building on the property and are not shared with other properties in the R4 zoning district fails where such claims are shared by virtually every residential property owner on Miami Beach. Variance requests will give the
I'm going as fast as how many more minutes? Like three. Uh, I'm probably going to have about Oh, yeah. I'm almost over. Yes. Three minutes. Perfect. Uh, the variance request will give the applicant a special privilege not shared by shared with other properties within the RS4
zoning district. This application applicant's variance requests are unique to the property and gives no rights to its neighbors to obtain similar benefits. These eight variances are based these variances are based not on necessity but on the applicant's choice
to build this particular design. The code and case law are clear. If you can build a code compliant project, even a smaller one, you are not entitled to a variance. That's Florida law. Here, the applicant can build a code compliant
project on its property without the need for a variance. Therefore, the variance request should be denied. And finally, the applicant's pro proposal and presentation failed to present any competent substantial evidence that it meets the code requirements for a certificate of appropriateness.
It does not meet standard nine of the secretary of interior standards where the overall design of the site is not compatible with the massing and scale of its neighbor. The applicant and staff report have not shown consistency regarding aesthetics, appearance, physical attributes of the project in
relation to the site, adjacent structures and properties in the surrounding community as required in criterion four. The proposed layout and design of the site given the variance request overbuilds the lot and pays little if any attention to its neighbors contrary to criterion five. For all
these reasons, I urge you to deny the application and direct the applicant to come back with a project that better fits within the unique within this unique single family historic neighborhood and I thank you very much. All right.
Thank you very much for that. Um, can I ask if there are any public uh any any uh board disclosures related to this? Okay. Seeing none. Uh Lindsay, any disclosures related to this? No.
Okay. So, um yes, please. I Andrew Morelli from 1210 Michigan. Um before I read the letter I prepared, I wanted to just say a couple things. Um, John contacted me when someone had
broken into 1300 Linux and I met him there with a bouncer from a nightclub that I knew who like stayed there and he paid him by the hour until he was able to secure the property properly. So, some comments that he let homeless live there I think is inaccurate. Um, in regard to the flooding, I'm very
familiar because I just prepared for 1210 Michigan. Lennox literally goes down about 3 feet from between 13th Street and 12th Street. And also when you're heading from Alton Road down towards Michigan Avenue, it also goes down a couple area.
Um, dear Miami here to convey my at 1300 Lennox Avenue. always been impressed with John's and proactive and contributing to our community both as an accomplished real
estate developer and as a local resident. John is currently a board member at the Yach Club of Portino Condo where together we own four large units including the penthouse where John lives. For 40 years, John has been involved in historic preservation first in Pro Providence, Rhode Island and more
recently here in Miami Beach. The issue at hand today is extremely minor and simply provides the property at 1300 with it the muchneeded facelift that our neighborhood should welcome and incentivize. The exterior of the property will remain the same with only slight modifications, returning the
south facade to its original historic appearance by removing a small piece of the Florida room. A small garage is added, but otherwise the facade maintains its original Mediterranean revival look almost identical to the property right across the street in appearance. I've met with John several times who has expressed a much welcome
love for our Flamingo Park West neighborhood. I bumped into John at its annual meeting several months ago where he was vocal in a strong commitment to improve the neighborhood by investing the requisite capital both of his time and checkbook to further the desperately needed property improvements required to
combat the very serious challenges and problems that have recently plagued our residents. family blight due to residents moving out of their homes and becoming victims to homeless squatters ironically broke into the very property in question today as John encountered unfortunate delays in attempting to gain
this board's approval. Please approve 1300 Linux today so John may pull the required building permit and prove our community at his earliest convenience. Thank you for your consideration. All right. Uh thank you very much. And are there any other
any other Nobody else on Zoom? Nobody else here. All right. With that, we'll close public comment and um start with board member comment. Ray, my question might be to Nick. Um if in fact the um project was approved back in
March of 21, I believe, or whatever. Um and they didn't get their building permit within the 18month period of time. Does that is that true that it now has to go back and be represented to us because I personally can't imagine any previous board accepting the auxiliary
building as I see it here but if it was you know is there what are our what are our options right now? So, um, the general rule is that an applicant is required to obtain a build a full building permit within 18 months of the
decision of the board to approve a project. Um, under state law, the declaration of a state of emergency by the governor tolls the period that uh that an applicant has to exercise
uh his or her rights under a development order for a specific period of time and also provides for additional extensions. Um, so assuming that the that the that the original
uh HPP approval is is still active, the applicant could still build based on that um on that approval, but the applicant's before you today to make uh certain changes to the 2022 HPB order.
Now I do want to make one note for the record which is uh that the applicant has has withdrawn any requests to modify uh the variances that were granted. So uh so your your decision today would be limited to the modifications to the
certificate of appropriateness. Okay. Then one further question. what was approved back in March of 21 or whatever. Also, part of that was raising the existing building and now they're
not want. So, because they're making that change to the uh what was approved back in in 2021, doesn't that negate the entire thing? either we let them build what they were approved back then but if they want to make a change they have to
put it they have to put everything in front of us for a change. I mean I think if you have based you know depending on where the board lands um you have authority to impose conditions on your approvals right so I
think um if you you know I with some guidance from from Debbie you you have you know you have discretion to condition your approval on uh on you know on other design changes. I would I would advi I would advise the board, you
know, to stay as close to the to the requested modifications as as you can, but you can um you know, as always, you have authority to impose conditions. So So if we deny the request for modification right now, they would have to raise the building
pursuant to the 2022 approval. Yes. Okay. And just following up on that, so Debbie, your your re your recommendation though is not to is to you in some sense
find this to be a more appropriate um result than the raising the building. It certainly preserves a lot more of the building which is consistent with our review criteria. Um, you know, the amount of demolition required for the
raising was substantial. Um, this is a much lower intervention project. Um, and we're supportive of it. Uh, and then right just one comment because I think when
the um accessory structure was approved was approved next to a much higher home. Now the home is remaining at the lower level and I think the scale between the two structures got lost in the process and I'm not sure how we can rectify that
if there is a legal process to do there. Um, Ray, did you want to Well, just you know, like personally, I don't if anybody else feels, but when I saw that auxiliary building, it's so out of scale, out of context, anything with
with with the neighborhood. I would like to go back to them and however we do this and say, "Okay, if you no longer want to raise the building and spend all of that money to raise the building and you want to keep it where it is now, come back to us with the redesign for
the auxiliary building and and uh and we can talk about it. I don't know how else to do that." Is that is that an option? I mean I I think I don't know if that's proport that type of condition is
proportional to the request. That would be my concern that um you know there's not a a proportionality with that condition to what is being requested. What is being requested is essentially relatively minor modification.
Um, and I think to say that it needs a complete redesign of everything is, you know, from my perspective is is not proportional. Is that is that concept of proportionality a legal concept?
Yes. And without, you know, going too far astray, the board may some some of you may recall the the mangoes um cafe case where the board imposed a design condition uh related to the
awnings that was um uh that was, you know, a little broader than the portion of the awning that was specifically before the board. Um and and in that case the you know staff did uh uh an analysis articulating why the the
staff's recommendation um even though it it might have appeared to the applicant to exceed the scope of what the applicant was initially seeking um why it you know why that condition was was um was would be appropriate. So I think
um in this case, you know, when I say that the board has authority to impose conditions, I what I and I I should have been clear um I'm referring to, you know, as to what's before you, right? What's before you is a is a is a narrow request to modify the 2022 order.
Well, you say it's a modest request. We're changing from raising the building and and all of the changes would have gone in expense for that to putting it back to where it is now. That that's not exactly minor in in you know with in accordance with
our review criteria. It's actually satisfies more of them because we're we're preserving a lot more of the building as currently presented and not requiring substantial demolition of the building. So from a
purely historic preservation perspective, it is more consistent now with our review criteria because more of the contributing significant amount more of the contributing building is being retained and restored. Can I ask for a straw poll? How many on
this board right now are not happy with the auxiliary building that they saw in the plan today? Well, can I just modify your struggle, but just because with our happiness with that building may we may feel it's not
it's not that relevant to the criteria against which we are obliged to evaluate the application. that that that's why that's for denying the application. I might force them to come back. I wasn't on the board when that when that happened and neither were you, I
guess. Um I don't know who was but um yeah, it's but so it's kind of weird like it's just a cuz there in some sense that that auxiliary you're you're helping us think about it as a kind of an existing condition in this context.
So if we went to the site today, we would see the the existing building with no auxiliary um with no auxiliary building at all. So in a sense, it's both an it's like shred it's like Shreddinger's cat. It's like both dead and alive is both existing an existing
condition and not not existing yet. So it's um which makes it which makes it kind of uh difficult kind of as a as a to think about because on the one hand it's a project that hasn't been built and we could should be able to put a condition
on it to say okay bring it down to scale to the scale of the of the project that you're currently proposing because you're saving a lot of money you're preserving the building we like you like that we like that and so now maybe the exist maybe the this new this auxiliary
building should be to that scale as well. Um but uh but you're arguing that that's not really the case that the the way we should be thinking about it. We should be thinking about it as the kind of the approved auxiliary building
structure being kind of existing. Is that correct? Right. Because it's it's a it's a modification to that order. Right. Yeah. Right. Right. Um just wait. We're just doing the board uh board stuff, but if you'd like to if you'd like to come, you can't say it from the chair because nobody will hear
you, but um um anybody else have any comments about this? I want I want to explain something. The image you see is not what the building's going to look like. It's a 500 square footprint. It's tiny. Unfortunately, the way these the some of
these uh drawings turn out, they look massive. It's got to be It's got to start at 8 feet, right? It's a new construction. Obviously, we'd rather have it lower, but we can't. So, yes, it's two stories,
but it's not big. And it's surrounded by huge amount of hedges. We're going to have to put up 12 to 15 foot trees. No one's going to be able to see it. Basically, it's on an alley. All right. It's on on Lennox Alley. It is not going
to be imposed. Thank you. Because it looks huge in in the renovation in the in the in the packet here. It looks like No, it's it's not. It's 500 square feet. Okay. It's It's 10 feet wide. It's It's from here to there for God's sakes.
I Anyway. All right. Um Thank you. So, um any uh any guidance? Um so um the the previous approval was raising
the home approximately 3 ft. If you look at the approved accessory building, it it does have about a 36 inch parapit above the roof. Um, so to Elizabeth's
point, if the board wanted to retain the the proportions of the existing building versus the new building, I think it would be appropriate maybe to require lowering the parapit
for the for the building, which would then retain the approved kind of relationship in terms of height between the two buildings. I don't know if we can get down to a zero parapit, but I don't think it needs to be,
you know, 36 inches necessarily. And there might be there might be a mechanical equipment on there poss Yeah, they're they're in the set the the previously approved roof plan.
I mean there there is room on the site to relocate mechanical equipment to the ground level. Okay. that I mean that that just off the top of my head um you know to to just responding to Elizabeth's you know
comment that would really bring everything back down proportionally to how it was originally approved because because the existing home would come down and the accessory building would come down and that would be within our
it would not be out of proportion Yeah, you got to help us here. Just let's see what he said. Let's see what these guys say. I think that they're based on um on staff's analysis. I think that um that there you know that that that that would
be a reasonable condition to impose on the applications before you um within your your review criteria. I think it would uh improve the the compatibility of the two structures. So I mean but to
bring it down to one story would not would be disproportionate. Okay. Yeah, I think that was Yes. Okay, go ahead. You had something you want to add? Yeah. No, I just want to clarify the parapit because uh the previous architect proposed actually a generator
up there. So obviously with a generator, mechanical equipment, we have to have uh parapits but lowering the house to the existing conditions like u as Deb said 3T then without not having any equipment. So we can lower the parapit down to zero uh which is 3 ft. So in
proportion is going to be exactly the same because reducing 3 ft on board buildings is going to match the original approval. Okay. And you'll find another location for the generator. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Elizabeth, that seemed like a thought.
No, I was looking at the plans and in some plans they show a circular stair on the accessory structure and in others a square stair. I was just curious to know which kind of stair you're having there. Do you want John? Do you want to come back and just address the stair and the
auxiliary building? Yeah, it's because um it's a difference between the original proposal from the previous architect and our proposal. So the previous uh proposed a a rectangular staircase and we are uh proposing a circular but it's going to be in the
interior. So it's not going to affect the exterior. All right. What is the actual height of the auxiliary building? Oh, that I have uh 31 um well 31.67 ft NGVD. So
yeah. Okay, that's the height and so it's but to the roof it's 28.67 NGVD. So that's three feet exactly three feet from the roof to the top of the parapit. So then there was no variance when that was originally approved for height.
Right. There there was no height variance required. Correct. Correct. And as it is right now there are no variances either as Nick pointed out. Correct. Got it. Okay. I think we've um had a lot of time to look at this and think about this.
Um, is anybody prepared to put a mo put forward a motion? Has the applicant agreed to lower the height of the ex? Yes. Everybody's frozen. Frozen solid. Is the applicant actively working on
construction documents for that? Wait, if if you answer, please come to the please come to the uh podium. Yes, we are. How far along are you? Uh for the accessory building, uh we
have it like uh 80%. 80% 80% and for 80 80%. But we haven't we haven't presented yet for permits. But for the main house, we are like 90% or 95% of the main house. Got okay.
We are on the uh third cycle of comment. So it is the final. Okay. Um anybody wish to set forth the motion? I will. For the record, I do not support
the accessory structure at all in any way, but I will make a motion for the primary structure um that it um be approved as shown in our the drawings as per staff recommendations. Thank you. Okay.
Um, is anybody do you um just since before anybody seconds that were you thinking also about the reduction in the height of the I assumed he agreed that he would reduce the parapit to put that in the motion. I'm sorry. And added to that is the
reduction of the parapit height on the accessory structure and to relocate your utilities somewhere on site hidden screened per code. Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second that.
Okay, let me call the role. Miss Cargo. Yep. Yes. I mix it up. So, okay. Miss Levelvel. Yes. Mr. Meyer? No. Mr. Braslin? Yes.
Mr. Novik? Yes. Mr. Hollingworth? Yes. Mr. Stewart? Yes. Okay, that passes. Okay, Mr. Chair, um that concludes our agenda for this uh this afternoon. Um
unless the board has anything else, we can make a motion to adjourn. I hope you enjoy your August and we'll see you in September. There's no meeting in August.