Historic and Environmental Preservation Board - Regular Meeting

Thank you. you Thank you. you Thank you. you Thank you.

July 7th meeting of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board. I ask everyone to please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and remain standing to be sworn in by staff.

If you intend to testify, please remain standing. Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you. You may be seated. May I start with the attendance?

Yes, please.

Calling board attendance for Chair William Hopper.

Here.

For Vice Chair Luis Prieto y Munoz. Calling Member Najeeb Campbell.

Here.

Calling Member Christopher Cauley.

Here.

Calling Member Elvis Fuentes. Calling Member Julie O'Dell. Here. Calling Member John Perez.

Here.

Calling Member Robert Powers. Here. Calling Member Hugh Ryan. Calling Member Jordan Trachtenberg. Okay, and we do have quorum. I did receive a request for Member Vice Chair Luis Prieto y Munoz. He is requesting an absence waiver.

Thank you. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries. Is there a motion to, are there any additions or corrections to the minutes of June 2nd, 2026? If not, is there a motion to approve? Thank you. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you. There's a motion and a second to approve. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. And we're on to have discussion items.

So if it pleases the board, we'll have the discussion items at the end of the agenda?

It does. How about monthly updates?

I'm sorry? It does. How about monthly updates? So a few updates, I'll try to keep things brief. Interviews are scheduled actually for tomorrow for the principal planner position. So hopefully we'll have someone in that position sooner rather than later. Site visits have been scheduled and continue to be scheduled regarding the grants program. So we are working with community development on that. I do want to let the board know that the planning department is going to be having a board and committee member training event in August. If you haven't received your invitations yet, you should receive them shortly. I think they were approved this morning. It was just in the email. Yes. So that will be August 18th at 8.30 a.m. in Jose Marti Park. It's basically a morning and afternoon meeting. There'll be some ethics training and then some breakout sessions that you can select from. So please put that on your calendar. We're looking forward to having a really good day for all the board and committee members to be there. And those are my updates at the moment.

Okay, thank you. We'll move into the public hearing part of the agenda. Staff will announce each item and then the applicant or appellant will come forward, give your name and address for the record. We'll start then with the staff report after which the applicant or appellant may respond when they have completed their presentation. I will open up to the public for questions or for comments.

I'm sorry, Dr. Hopper. We need a few announcements from the city attorney's office.

I beg your pardon. Hold that for a second. Yes, Mr. Attorney, I beg your pardon.

No worries. Any person with a lobbyist pursuant to Chapter 2, Article 6 of the City Code must register with the city clerk and apply with related city requirements for lobbyists before appearing before the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board. A person may not lobby a city official, board member, or staff member until registering. A copy of the code section about lobbyists is available in the city clerk's office or online on municode.com. The agenda for this meeting and materials for the items on the agenda were published and made available to the board in advance of the meeting. The materials are also available online at miamigov.com. please silence all cell phones and other noise-making devices. Any person with a disability requiring assistance, auxiliary aids, or services for this meeting may notify the hearing board's liaison. Any person may be heard by the board through the chair in pursuant to the published notice for not more than two minutes on any proposition before the board unless modified by the chair. When addressing the board, the member of the public must first state his or her name, Address and what I don't be spoken about when the board takes action or votes on any proposition It shall do so by a roll call vote to be recorded and included in the record.

Thank you Thank you so after the staff report and the response by the applicant or appellant members of the public will have a OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE ITEM. I WOULD ASK YOU TO KEEP YOUR COMMENTS BRIEF TO TWO MINUTES OR LESS. AFTER EVERYONE HAS HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN UP TO THE BOARD FOR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, AND WE'LL HAVE A VOTE AND PROCEED TO THE NEXT ITEM. I BELIEVE WE'RE ON TO ITEM NUMBER ONE.

CALLING HIP ITEM NUMBER ONE, FILE ID 19168, A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD pursuant to Section 23-6.2, Subsection B4 of the City Code of Ordinances, approving or denying a special certificate of appropriateness to permit the installation of an asphalt shingle roof to a contributing structure within the Palm Grove Historic District, located approximately at 536 Northeast 65th Street, Miami, Florida, 33138, further incorporating the analysis in the attached staff report entitled Exhibit A with the following findings.

I believe the applicant is present. Please give your name and address for the record.

Good afternoon, Genesis Najera, my mom Beatriz Najera, 536 North East, 65th Street, Florida 33138.

Thank you, and we'll start with the staff report.

Historic Preservation Planner, Karina Gonzalez de Mendoza. I request the staff analysis be accepted into the record. So done. So for this particular item, the house, as we see in the historic photo, and then a tax card originally had a flat tile roof. As such, we recommended that it be restored to tile. They would like to change it to... to asphalt shingle in amber as the roof has been and as it was when it was designated as a contributing structure when the district was designated as Palm Grove. So, The proposed undertaking wouldn't alter the existing structure and such. With our guidelines, we do say that it should be restored as a flat tile, although the property was designated contributing with the historic district. And it was deferred with the intention for the applicant to be able to look into the pricing of the materials. So while we recommend denial in accordance with the guidelines, we do look for the board to make their own determination. And if they were to determine as such, we do propose the standard conditions recommended were they to approve it.

Do you want to read those conditions or you just want to leave them in case?

Basically that the the conditions would be where the board choose to approve it at the site should be developed in accordance to the plan submitted as part of it that the resolution be submitted in the building permit and that Manufacturers brochure or color photograph of the materials would be submitted with it And complying with the requirements of all other departments and agencies the city of Miami Thank you Would you like to respond to the staff report?

Yes, I have some folders to pass around from the last time that we met on May. I did my due diligence of getting more quotes, and yeah, I'm going to pass it over.

Okay, be sure and give one to the lady over on the right.

Good afternoon. Thank you all for your time today. My name is Genesis Najera. I'm here on behalf of my family, my mother, Beatrina Najera, and my father, Jose Najera. Regarding our property, 536 Northeast 65th Street, Miami, Florida, 33138, following the board guidelines during our last meeting in May, I completed the requested due diligence. I gathered multiple roofing estimates from different companies, attempted to contact District 6 Commissioner's Office and comply with all supporting documents to review. I have provided each of you a folder that includes this information. Within the folder, you will find multiple quotes for both shingle and tile roofing system licensed contractor. You will also see documentation from the company where we were previously working with. Those contracts we ultimately had to cancel. This decision was made due to significantly increased costs beyond our budget, as well as concern regarding their recommendation to work on a holiday without proper permit. For these reasons, we choose to terminate our relationship with the company. Additionally, you will find an inspection report indicating that the current structure does not have the capacity to support a tile roofing system without substantial structural reforming. The cost associated with these reforming is significantly beyond what we can afford at this time. We also experienced unexpected financial burden, including the cost of canceling the prior contract and replacing air conditioning system because of the compressor failed. Required immediate replacement. These expense have further limited our ability to move forward with more costly option. Although I have made several attempts to contact District 6 Commissioner Office, I did today go in because she had a walk-in appointment, and I did speak with her. Yeah, so I did speak with her. She did recommend us to apply for... the home rehabilitation program. She said that it could take long, that it's not now that they're accepting application. I did tell her that even though it's still raining, it's still leaking the roof, and we need to try to get this resolved as soon as possible. I know that last time you guys didn't give us the permission that If there's any emergency, we have the option to repair it, but my mom already wasted $1,800 to try to get someone to repair it, and it's still leaking. We've already been in this situation since September, trying to get the approval from the city. I know that last month we had to meet with you guys in May, and then thank God we had the opportunity to meet with you guys today. It's just that it's going to make a year, and we're trying to get the solution as to get this resolved, as in to have the permission to put shingle. And yeah.

That's all I have to say. That's it.

I was trying to also get another opinion from an engineering to give us another inspection report. But unfortunately, if you can see the last two pages, one was charging us 850 and another one was charging us 1,600. So at this point, since we had the inconvenience of the AC that we had to replace and to cancel the contract with the company that was representing us, we had to pay with a credit card $5,000. Because on May, when we left here, they said, oh, since the house is already paid, just let's do it on a holiday that the city is not available, on Memorial Day, and I could help you out with the rules. So we didn't want to proceed that way, because we prefer getting permission than doing it in a way of not getting permission. And that's all I have to say for now. OK.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing and open it up for the board for questions or comments.

How are you?

Good, and you?

We'll start with Mr. Campbell. Sorry, did you want to go in another direction? No, that's okay. Okay, thank you. I remember this item. And Bob, you'll have to jump in at some time soon after I finish speaking, but Your presentation slightly confused me. I remember this agenda. I remember that the end, if I recall properly, I could make a mistake, but I'm trying to recall properly that the decision was made that there are funds available. There were some announcements made on that side of the room that the funds are available. And you'll be able to apply, I think Mr. Powers also made some kind of commitment of some sort. And that was supposed to be the solution. Your presentation, I'm not sure if it touched on that issue, and that issue failed, or it didn't work, and then what happened after. So if you don't mind, you may have mentioned this, but because you are going in different directions, I couldn't follow. exactly what you are saying based upon the end of your agenda, the very last time you were here in May. So what happened with the next stage that we all approved?

The next stage of speaking to see if we could get financial help?

There might have been multiple steps or three that we agreed to, and I'm just asking what happened next?

So we got the, we got calls from three other companies, from Shingo and Tayo.

Well, before I start to interrupt, before I get to the quotes, what happened to the solution, which was the application and the commissioner's office had some funds available? I'm starting to recollect now. What happened to that?

Okay, so meeting today with Christina King, she did say that there is a home rehabilitation program, but that's not available now, that I will have to apply and wait until next year. And she also, sorry. Okay.

No, no, yeah, go ahead.

And she also, I did tell her that today I had, like, the meeting with you guys, like, with the city. She just told me to also let her know about the results. She also did tell me, yeah, to let you guys know that since my mom, when she bought the property before Andrew, that's the last time that they repaired a roof, and it was shingle. Also, in the documents in the folder, you can see that there's other addresses.

Hold on, hold on, we're going away. I was going to keep track so I can... follow so the solution which I heard the last agenda that these funds were available they're actually not available I'm asking you that's not available to to apply for the funds at this time no I'll have to apply for next year so where were we misled at the last meeting or or what because that was a point that was made that These funds are available. We don't want anybody missing anything or missing opportunities. And we were given some kind of words that these funds are available. So when you mentioned you spoke to the commissioner, you said the words today twice. Did you literally mean you spoke to her today?

Yes, today at 8 in the morning, I did the lines to speak with her at 9. Okay, fine.

Did you speak to her prior to that?

No, because after May, I didn't have the chance to meet with her in person. So they said that today, July the 7th, at 9 to 12, she had availability to do walk-in, and then from 2 to 4, 45. Before then, I was trying to email. I emailed the Elenice Ford, the assistant of her, to try to have communication with someone. She was going to forward the email to a person named Diego, I think, and she never did. So then I ended up calling, and the representative told me that she has a walk-in that could go in today and try to speak with her about the situation.

So let me get this straight. After the May meeting, which is at the beginning of May, you did not speak with the commissioner or any of her representatives to fulfill what we agreed to until this morning.

That's not acceptable. No, I tried reaching out.

I'm not saying it's your fault, but that's not acceptable. We agreed to something, and then the first time you speak, so either there was lack of effort on your part or on their part. But we'll get to the bottom of it.

As you can see, there's phone conversation that try reaching out to her. If you want me to show you from me, I can show you from me trying to have a conversation where it's just that there's no way to speak with her directly. You have to go through someone. So it's through her assistant. So until now, they're like, OK, she have availability on July the 7th. Come in early in the morning and try to see if you can speak with her. OK.

I have some questions. Yes. I've been trying to kind of process the information that was given to us.

Please make sure you have your mic.

Yes. Sorry. Okay. I have a few questions. Yes. And maybe you can confirm or correct me here. Okay. Based on the price difference of the shingle versus the concrete tile without including any reinforcement seems to be somewhere around $10,000. Am I correct? I think I reviewed a couple of quotes.

Yes, like a difference. Almost like 20,000. There was one that was 30,000, another one's like 20. Yeah. One company.

And then there was another one that was around $9,000 or $10,000, correct? Yes. Okay, I just wanted to establish that. Okay. I also see that in one of these estimates there is something There's a line item that says, reinforce existing frame trusses to support tile roof load carrying slash loading material by hands included. And it says 1,760. And then underneath that, it says engineering service. I assume... that $1,760 is related to an engineering analysis, or the cost of an engineering analysis?

So that, yes, that quote was from the representative that my mom did with BH Group that was representing us, that when we told her after what happened with main meeting, she's like, okay, give us a quote, please, how much will be with tile roof, with the structural reformation, and she gave us that quote, that it will be over either 140,000 to 160,000.

Yeah, but I'm asking about the line item that says 1,760 above, around the middle of that. There's a line item that says 1,760. Sorry, it's the one that just says estimate tile roof and structural frame reinforcement. It doesn't have a title. So I'm wondering if that is... referring to engineering services?

There's a line item underneath.

Let me ask my mom one second.

Esta parte de que Martina nos mandó el quote de cuando estábamos con ellos de cuánto iba a ser de los cientos y de 140,000 a 660,000. Pero aquí en esta sesión donde dice reform existing frame trustee to support tile roof load carrying load material como este 1760 era maybe the engineering que yo iba. Mr. Perez? Yes. Okay, okay. Am I allowed through the chair to ask him a question? Yes. Okay, so I think the distinction... Microphone.

Microphone. I got to make sure I'm hearing everybody when we play back.

Through the chair. So the thing about this is this, is that if you put on a tile roof, today they use an entirely different system than they use because I watched them take my tile roof off. Every tile on my roof was concreted down. They no longer use concrete to put those tiles down. So that's lighter, number one. The concrete that they use to put on the roof is lighter. So a lot of these engineering things go away because that's a bullshit thing that they should even talk about.

That's number one.

Not only that, those houses were built when they were built because I have a 1947 home, a block over from you, a fourplex. I know your house. I know that house because I photographed it when we became a historic district. They had tons of stuff. My house, they took off the original roof from 1947. So from 1947 until 2022, that roof stayed on that house. That's the difference about a tile roof. Your mother's now going to replace her roof twice. And she's the same. She's a little bit older than me. So the thing about it is the price difference, the $9,000 or $10,000 that you're trying to, like, say that's more expensive, that roof will last. We'll both be in the ground by the time that roof needs to be replaced. I'm just telling you. So if you put on a tile roof, and the argument that the engineers are making to Mr. I don't think is true. I think it's a baloney thing in that you have to spend $140,000 or $180,000. No. Now, if it's the picture where so much of that flat roof is gone, and you have to replace all the joists across. Is that what we're talking about?

No, no, no, no. Okay, then I'll stop talking. Thank you very much. Let me keep going. I just wanted to kind of, so I see here $1,760, and then I looked at this document, which, correct me if I'm wrong, what I understand by this is that this is another quote to evaluate the roof, which is $1,600. Am I correct?

Yes.

Okay, and then?

And then there was one of A50.

Okay, I didn't get it.

So try to get another inspection report.

And then I want to reference this one. This one, actually, I remember referencing the first time that you came here. And I'll ask the same question. This analysis by Abdiash Science, he says that they have done the necessary analysis to determine if the roof frame has the capacity to use roof tile instead of using shingle. According to the analysis, my question would be, could we see the analysis? This roof frame does not have the capacity to withstand roof tile systems. The roof frame must be reinforced to be able to withstand the additional load of the tile. So, again, what would this reinforcement be? If this engineer made the determination that this cannot hold it, then they have to have an idea of what could hold it. Or, I mean, something along the lines of this wood rafter space is 16 inches on center. If that's the determination, if they could say, well, if it was 12 inches on center, this would be fine. This is a little bit vague. for us to be able to analyze objectively. And then the other question is, yeah, if this engineer performed the necessary analysis to determine that the roof frame does not have the capacity, what would it need to be? So that's one aspect of it. And then the assertion that in order to go from this or the contractor or a contractor to say, you know what, the solution may end up being ripping off the entire roof. To be able to hold this up is, in my opinion, an exaggeration. And then let's say even if that were true, the idea that it would cost between $140,000 to $160,000 to replace an entire roof is also a gross exaggeration. Now, I understand that sometimes you know, there's some leeway in the way people like to present their case. But in my opinion, I don't think it's serving you as the applicant, because it's so far out of the realm of reality, at least in my opinion, that it's very hard for me to take it at face value. And so I would lean, I don't know if everybody else agrees here, I would lean towards, you know, requesting that you bring specific evidence of how this roof cannot hold the roof tile.

So another report, sorry to interrupt, another report from another engineering?

No, no, no. This report is very vague in saying we analyzed it. There's no backup behind this. Usually a full analysis would have backup calculations and proof of how. They claim that they did the analysis, but there's nothing really showing it. Saying It does not comply because of this specifically. And should you have to do this, this would be the approach to take. And then from there, perhaps you could have somebody provide a cost estimate of those specific instructions that the engineer would provide. It's very common on projects. I think based on that, I suspect that this $140,000 to $160,000 number would be you'd see that that's not the case, I suspect. But I think that would give us the tools to analyze this a little bit more objectively, as I mentioned. So I realize that performing this or hiring one of these engineers to provide this, I realize it's a cost and I'm sensitive to that. But we as a board are put in a position where we have to protect the neighborhood and enforce these rules of historic preservation. That could give us the tools to be able to make a real determination.

Mr. Bowers.

Yeah, good afternoon. Good afternoon. So can I, you have a picture here of the roof on the flat roof completely removed. It would, it says 216 at the top. To Martina Roofing. This one? Yeah, that picture. I can't see that far away. Hold on. Wait, wait, wait, wait. No, not that one. It's, honey, it's this one right here. It would be this photograph. Is that your house?

It's an example for another shot.

Okay. Well, no, no. I just, listen, I just wanted to know. I mean, I just wanted to know, like, if the photographs are representative of your mother's home, that's all. I didn't, because... There's a house, I think, next door to hers that has a big flat roof on the back of it. That house was built illegally, that part of it. Not your mom's house. I think it's another one. Okay, so this is not the case that's in point. Okay, so the thing about this is you started this process last year in November. Is that not correct? That's what it says on here. You have a quote.

November the 26th.

At that time, the city, the historic preservation, had grants for that, and the city commissioner had grants for that, and I think that's what I was speaking to, because I was the person who said for her to go to the city and also to apply for these grants, because most of them, they're little tiny numbers, okay, it's 2%, 3% grants, something like that. And sometimes you don't even have to repay them back, because a lot of this has to go with her income, your mother's income. I've lived in that neighborhood 25 years. Okay, so I've seen it. You've seen the change, correct? Have you not?

Yes, sir.

I mean, you go there now. That's a pretty good neighborhood now, right? Your mother's home is worth at least a million dollars now. Okay, given that it became a historic district, gave it that. Because if it was not a historic district, it would have been gone already. You do realize that, right? That whole neighborhood wouldn't exist. The only thing that's kept that neighborhood the way that it is is because it's a historic district. Do you understand that? And we did that in 2006 because we saw what they had done further south of 36th Street. They destroyed an entire neighborhood just like ours. The city absolutely destroyed it. knocked down everything to put up these massive buildings. And that's what they had slated for us. So that's what the historic designation has given you, is that her inheritors will be kind of sitting kind of pretty. Okay? Because it's not two or three hundred grand. It's going to be a million, million two. Or more, even. Now Vacant Lot is a million dollars in that neighborhood. So I think it would justify the added expense for you to really seek a remedy that would be more in line with what the city's asking you to do. I honestly believe, like, it's almost like being, what's the old saying? Penny wise and pound foolish. I think that if you spent the money to put a really beautiful roof on that house, and I don't think that you're going to have to do, I'm not the architect in the room, I'm the guy who I renovated 32 homes in my life from the ground up. So I'm that guy. Like, I know how to fix shit. And I know how to do it well. And, you know, whatever. And I've been doing it for years. So I'm just saying to you, I think that you should rethink your strategy here. And if we need to... help in any way that we can. We'll try to. But I can't approve a shingle roof in that neighborhood. I just, I can't do it. We fought too hard. We fought too hard to make that a beautiful place.

And I'll do respect. There's property in that address that have shingle and you guys have made the exception. So what is the problem of not making the exception?

And I was the one who voted no. On all of those. And I voted no on all of them. Because if you make one exception, you get placed in a really kind of crappy position. And for every exception that's made. And I don't believe in that. I don't believe in making that exception to the rule.

It's not costing you money, it's costing us money.

But that's not my job. My job is not to worry about whether it costs you money. Listen, if you watch these, I've sent millionaires, said no to their projects. So it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the integrity of a neighborhood and also the longevity of what a concrete tile roof will bring to that home.

Just for the looks? It's just really for the looks? No. No, it's not. No, it's not.

No, it's not. Young lady, it'll last 15 to 20 years longer. than a shingle roof. That's all I'm saying to you. So you'll get 15 to 20 years more out of it, and there's more protection to it. There's just more protection to the house.

Than shingle?

Than shingle, absolutely. I'll stop talking because there's three other guys here who can speak to that. May I ask a few questions?

Just a minute. I will get to you. Thank you. Ms. O'Dell.

I'm in agreement with Mr. Powers. This is about a neighborhood and the integrity and keeping the continuity of what the neighborhood is. He's talking about this, in fact, today, Palm Grove Historic District residential guidelines. I'm not sure how you, and I was here for both the other meetings, but I'm not sure how this didn't come up before. I mean, you knew you were in a historic district, correct? No.

No. I'm in agreement with Mr. Powers. No, Mr. Colley.

Yes, thank you very much, Ms. Najera. Appreciate you coming here again, and thanks for compiling all of this information. I noticed in the last pages of all these documents you prepared how many times you reached out right after our last hearing, it looks like, to inquire about the possibility if there could be grants that could help with this. And then it seems like you've contacted, this is my perspective, seems like you've contacted lots of companies to try and get additional quotes, you know, and that's very commendable from my perspective, and you've put a lot of work into this. So... I'm just going to ask a couple questions. So like now there's rain coming into your house, correct?

Every time it rains, it's leaking. And we're not going to keep on paying somebody to try to fix it for not getting the approval from the city that they're not letting us do shingle.

Okay. So you're trying to spot fix it as much as possible.

Yes, sir.

But basically you're stuck at this current moment in time. And you've been here twice testifying about this now. And if I cut through all of the stuff that we're talking about, it seems to me that there's a financial hardship here that's preventing you in what you're conveying to us from my perspective. There's a financial hardship here preventing you from being able to put a roof on your house. And then because the historic guidelines say it has to be a concrete tile roof. Now, if it was a single roof, Are there roofing companies that have said that would be able to help you and then you've worked out the finances of that or they have payment plans or in some manner you feel that that would allow things to move? That would be beneficial to you?

Yes, sir.

So, I mean, being that this is a, you know, this is an official hearing and we all took an oath here, I mean, I completely accept your testimony. It's a true financial hardship that's preventing you from being able to move forward here. You spoke with the commissioner today. It sounds like, I mean, way to keep trying and following up. And I'm sure that everybody, including the commissioner's office, I'm sure wishes there was something I could do at this time. So I just and I understand. how complicated it is, engineers and engineering, and everybody has different opinions, and engineers have fees, and roofing companies, some include engineering, some don't. I can't even imagine the complexity of that. One thing can lead to another. So I, although I agree that it's a historic neighborhood and that concrete roof tiles would be the preferred, I wish that there was a solution that we could find in this particular case to help And one thing I could think of is if there's already been contact made with the commissioner. I mean, what if we approve? My suggestion, what I would do if it was just me, is I would approve the shingle roof to stop the current issues that are created for yourself. And then ask that you speak with the commissioner when the funds are available, knowing that you're probably going to be at the front of the list. and because you've already made contact this year and then let's see what these options are. Maybe our city has grants then because you're in historic neighborhood to help remedy the scenario and do something for you like install a concrete roof. I just don't see, we have definitely in the past since I've been on the board accepted numerous testimonies based of financial hardship. I can remember many times or at least I do definitely remember some. So those are my feelings. And I just don't want to see your family suffering. And you've worked very hard to try and be here. And you're saying that you cannot afford the concrete roof no matter what at this time. So you're stuck.

Correct? Yeah, we'd rather do shingle. And we're going to finance it. If we have to take out a loan, we take out a loan. If I have to take out money for my 401 ,, I'll take out money for my 401 . But at this point, we need to get a resolution. The resolution is that we want to do shingle and just that's it. We're trying to do it with permission. There's people that is around the neighborhood that's doing it without permission. This company that was representing us said after we left, oh, the house is already paid. Let's just do it without permission. Let's do it on Memorial Day. These people don't have to know. They're not working in the city. We decided not to do it. We don't want to have no problems with the city. We know that if we do something and they go around looking, they could give us a fine. So we had to cut the contract. Cutting that contract was $5,000. That's right there that we have to swipe it on a credit card. So it's just expense after expense. The AC broke. That was unexpectedly. It lasted at least.

I understand. And I think you're doing the right thing. And that was the right thing to do to not do it on a weekend. And it could have just created additional problems for your residents in the future. And I commend you for doing everything that you can to try and rectify this situation. So I know everybody has perspectives, but I just want to find some solution that could help you, even if there's a condition to it that you follow up with the commissioner and see something's available at that time.

Until next year.

No, I mean, but I'm not saying waiting to do your roof. I'm saying, okay, you've made the contact. Maybe if these grants are available and there's something that could help, we could help you now. And then we'll see if that comes through next year. And it could be another example of the way that the city can help community members similar to the things we're going through with the environmental working with people. So those are my thoughts. And again, I accept everything you guys are saying.

Thank you. There is some public comment on this item. which I will read, which says, quote, I need to request something from the board, end quote. I'm sorry, but that's all that it said. But there was that public comment, so I just want to put that on the record. Does anyone else have any other questions or comments?

Yes, yes.

Go ahead.

So there's a couple of things about this agenda or this item that is troubling me. The item ended at the last meeting when these people were here with a declaration of funds being available from the commissioner. I believe, Bob, it seemed as if you were in direct communication with the office at the time. You were using a device. We determined that you didn't ask, you didn't request the financial burden option and didn't request grants either. We determined that at the last meeting. I may be mistaken, but there was some almost definiteness in your expression telling them, please go to the money is available. It seemed as if you're in direct communication and they received this message. It seems after the meeting, and I've heard this before from others, getting through to the commissioner became extremely difficult or non-existent. And at the end of the meeting, I do believe there was a shepherding of the item that maybe you offered to do to walk them through in contact with the commissioner to make sure this happened. I don't like that it didn't happen. I don't like on the dice telling the public something. based upon the solution of an agenda and then it just discombobulates and has no strength. And then they come back and we're repeating the same issues. It's obvious that the concrete tail roof is better. We don't need to tell them that again. So I would prefer, in the future, we be very careful what we tell citizens, what is not available, and then the availability of our public commissioners or their assistance to speak with people that we say, yes, this can happen, and then it doesn't happen. That's very disturbing.

Mr. Campbell, could you address the...

The second issue now is that, with that said, with that said, the issue is... I agree with Mr. Perez to remove any doubt from us to get a report from an engineer saying, yes, this roof cannot support concrete tile. It can only support asphalt shingle at this time. So that will create a double layer of a yes vote because your roof can't support it and also you can't afford it. So I am in agreement with Mr. Perez's solution to get an actual report, not just someone saying it can't be done, but with calculations, photographs, and drawings that stipulate exactly why the size of members of the roof are two by four and they should be two by six in order to support this, like a concrete report, and then we can make an easy decision whether you can afford it or not, or we have to give a financial hardship approval and you go under the asphalt shingles as Mr. Collier said has happened a few times.

Are you willing to put that in the form of a motion? Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead.

Okay, so all of your roofing things came in in June. So when was the last time you came before this board? In May.

That's it, only May and then now. All right. Yeah.

My mom submitted the application with the company that was representing us in September, and then they put it in in November. September of last year. September of last year, and we're going to make a year again. The way I'm seeing how everything is going.

Okay. So, you know, I don't disagree with you that this is a labor-intensive thing when My roof needed to be replaced. I hired a company that wrapped it in plastic until all of the approvals could take place. I'm just going to tell you, madam, I sit on this board, and I got that neighborhood historically designated. I waited six months because I didn't get involved with the, it was not this director, it was another director. to wait for them to approve my roof. So my roof had to be, they tarp, they didn't tarp it. A company comes in that wraps it in plastic so it will not leak anymore. And I had leaks in two locations on that property. My suggestion to you is to get the thing, because I'm not gonna vote for it. I don't, the financial hardship and all the rest of that's, you're talking about a $10,000 difference? If you got a loan for that, you're talking $155 difference in a month, a month in payment for $10,000. So I'm just saying to you that your argument, if it was a $30,000 or $40,000 difference, that's a huge difference. The other thing also is that my home was built in 1947. You can go up into your attic and you can look at what's there. They're all two-by-sixes. They're 2x6s or 2x10s or 2x12s, depending upon the size. And is it a duplex or a fourplex?

It's a duplex.

It's a duplex. So it's an income-producing house. So all I'm saying to you is that, you know, and all of this work was done in the last month. So you're not showing me anything from September of last year. You're not showing me anything.

Because September last year, sorry to interrupt you, sir. September last year, we was with the company that was representing us. So we stayed with that company. Yes, Ms. Karina had presented us the opportunity to apply for a grant, but we already had a company that we already signed a contract with that we were going to work with them. So then to what?

Were they going to put the roof on and then you're going to pay monthly?

Yes, sir, we were going to finance it.

Okay, so you're going to finance it. Listen, her home will be worth more money if she puts the better roof on it.

I understand, sir, but we're not planning to sell any time soon.

I'm not talking about now. I'm talking about in the future. OK, I'm just saying. So the thing here is this, is that to me, the argument being a ten thousand or nine thousand dollar difference is so minimal that why not put on the better roof? But to tell you to get to the point where, listen, my insurance company paid for it. I mean, does she have insurance on the house or no?

Yes, we have insurance on the house. But the quotes that you see is the quotes that we just asked for a company to give us a quote. Once they see that the roof is not sustaining, that it's too heavy and it's not even able to sustain tile, we have to do a whole information. The prices will vary. That's just a quote right now.

All I'm telling you right now is from an engineering standpoint, that roof isn't too heavy. There are plenty of homes just, it's not. Okay, so don't make that argument. It's a ridiculous argument. The bottom line is that the house had a cement tile roof on it for many years.

Your house, but the property that we live in never had cement.

Yes, it did. Because we have the building. When the house was built, it had a cement tile roof on it. That's all I'm saying to you.

You have to put back the roof.

We make people stick to the window pattern because of what the photograph. So it's not going to be any different for the roof. I'm sorry to tell you. May I ask another question, Mr.

Chair?

Yes, and then Mr. Perez.

But as you mentioned this morning, the commissioner also mentioned, please tell the board it didn't have a tile roof when the neighborhood was made historic. Isn't that what you mentioned to us?

Yes, but why are you making excuses? I'm not making excuses. Two wrongs never made it right. That's a fact.

That's what she said, correct? So, you know.

If when we bought the property, it has shingle, then why we can't replace it with shingle?

Well, there's a philosophy behind this, and I understand both sides, but in your particular case, I'm trying to point out that that was another thing that was mentioned, and that has a lot to do with why I think that in this case, I really think wish we could find a solution to help your family.

So the principle that the board has always gone through is if what exists in the time of designation is not required to be changed until it, back to the original, until such time as it has to be repaired or replaced, then it does go back and follow the original guidelines, whether it's windows or roofs. Mr. Perez.

Let me give you a potential... shortcut to what we're asking for, like an analysis. One approach that I would take, for example, is maybe you have this already or not, you could request all of the original plans of the property at the City of Miami Records Department, and that usually has the original drawings of the structure, which would indicate if it's a 2x4, 2x6.

It's on the screen.

No, this is the tax card, which definitely has relevant information, but the actual original permit drawings. That's usually the way when previously I would work on a renovation, one of the first things that I would do when I was advising a client is I would get this information and I would do some research Because undoubtedly, just so you know, most people that have a one-story house, everybody wants to put a two-story house and everybody's wondering why they can't just put another story. And usually you have to explain because the footing is of a certain size. And even if it complied at the time, nowadays it wouldn't comply even for a one-story house. So the standards now are X. So the answer could very well be found. I mean, if the information is there, it could be found there. And an engineer would be able to see this, see the spacing, see the dimensions, see the way the truss is actually built, and specifically either say the way it's designed would comply. That's option number one. The way it's designed and most likely was built based on the original drawings wouldn't necessarily comply with the addition of these specific straps or this additional reinforcement that's minimal. It could work or certainly the requirements of current code are this size and this spacing, and for this reason, this is not compliant. So this can be potentially obtained just through having the original drawings and obviously with the assistance of an engineer, which may bypass the need for exploratory demolition to be able to look at all the trusses. So just trying to help you to get the answer that I think would help us.

Anybody else?

Well, just to reiterate what John said. So basically, whether it's drawings or by site exploration, the engineering report is what you are standing on, what you would like to see. And I agree with that approach. So Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion.

Yes, sir.

I make a motion to defer this item. in the most reasonable time, whether it's the next meeting in September or the next, to defer this item based upon an engineering report, an official engineering report by a signed and sealed by an engineer about the capacity and ability of the roof and the structure to be able to handle a concrete tile roof or its need to have to have an asphalt shingle roof. And at that time, and in that time also, if the applicants have financial hardship to apply and declare financial hardship to the historic office. And by that time, between your financial hardship and the engineering report, we'll be able to put this item to bed. So that's my motion for item number, what is the item number? One. Item number one.

Is there a second? Second. The motion is second. Any discussion on the motion?

I think you're going to put an undue burden on her to get an engineering report. No, no, no, but I'm just... No, no, I don't disagree with... Listen, guys, I do not disagree with the end result, meaning that we will have something that we know one way or the other. I can tell you right now, I know the House... That has two by tens in that attic.

Did you go up there?

I'll go to her house and look tomorrow if I need to.

That's the problem, Bob. If we go up on what you think is there because you know ten of them.

It's going to cost her $5,000 to get an engineering report. Yes, it will.

I disagree.

Well, then, how much?

Well, there's quotes here. One was $850. One was $1,600. I'm not saying that it's money. It's an amount. A true engineering report, though, is going to cost $1,760. Those are the reports. I mean, this is based on the information they provided.

I still think that she can find a roofer that will finance her roof, and it won't be a burden anymore. I think that, guys, I'm telling you right now, I'm not trying to cost her money. I can't do anything about the commissioner. She doesn't return my phone calls. And she doesn't return yours either. And we both live in her district. So don't make this about you and me. This is about a district that's non-responsive to the needs of its people. repeatedly.

My point, Bob, is that we can't make assumptions and send people away with assumptions. We have to make determinations. Last time, we sent them away with an assumption. This time, we want a determination. All right, very good. That's just my point.

Oh, no, thank you for the discourse. It was great.

Gentlemen, we need to ask the applicant if he would agree to a continuance of this item until September 1st.

Did we receive a second? Because I know it was an active motion. We received a second. Okay, okay. Seconded by Mr. Perez. Okay.

Yes.

Okay, okay.

In order to get an engineering report on which we can make a valid decision.

Say that again, sir, one more time.

Do you agree to continue this item until September to get an engineering report that we can use to make a valid decision? That's the motion we have. Because you have a right to an up or down vote today.

And also to represent financial hardship to the historic office. Yes. But it's a two part.

So to be clear, Or to clarify for Mr. Campbell, right? So the motion is defer to the September 1st, I believe?

Yes.

So date certain September 1st. Or October 5th. At which time you would provide both an engineering report, a full report that illustrates the structure and its capabilities. and a complete application for economic hardship pursuant to chapter 23. Yes. So that includes additional economic information regarding income and finances to be presented before the board. Or you can ask the board for an up or down vote or a, yeah, so.

So your choice. And I would like to add to that that in the code, it's pretty detailed as far as what the applicant has to provide for the economic hardship. So I just kind of want to throw it out there that it's not just going to be a piece of paper saying, you know, we're suffering economic hardship. I want to throw it out there so the applicant's aware of it and everyone's aware of it as well. And if anyone has questions, you can just ask me. I'll go through some of the information that needs to be included.

May I ask a couple quick questions to the staff and our attorney and even our board members? So I know... About the motion? Yes, or about the suggestions in the motion. Just clarifications that could help the applicants. Okay. So, basically... They could try and find the plans on the city's website of the original plans. That could be super helpful. And then you had a couple quotes in there that seem relatively reasonable to get an engineer to also provide the calculations for the roof, right, that everybody's requesting. That sounds reasonable. And then my question for the attorney is, So were you just saying that there's quite a bit of paperwork that somebody has to file if they're trying to claim economic hardship or something?

Yes. Yes, I could go through some of them, some of the criteria, the amount paid for the property, assessed value of the property, appraisal of the property, so it's not just going to be, you know, very... easy to just, you know, draft up saying, hey, you know, I'm suffering economic hardship. I want to throw it out there just so the expectation is clear.

But remember, that's exactly what they're saying. They're saying they're having economic hardship.

So you have to file the paperwork.

So file the paperwork.

I'm just trying to say maybe find the plans, get the engineering report, file the paperwork. Sounds like that's what the board's being asked to do. We don't have a meeting in August, so the first one will be September. But is filing all that paperwork, just from my own knowledge, is that code mandated? I mean, the last time we accepted one of these, did that happen?

Yes, it is.

Okay.

To officially request an economic hardship for this board to make a determination is pursuant to a section of Chapter 23 specifically for an economic hardship. And it does require an appraisal. It does require to sign affidavits. It is... Okay. I will say it is somewhat intrusive. What's your decision?

Rain is intrusive. Defer or up or down vote?

I also want to be clear that any decision made by this board tonight can be appealed to commission within 15 days.

All right. Having once waived the 60-day requirement, do we have to do that again? They have already.

Okay.

Okay. Yes. Even if we come back on September, bring the information as in bringing another inspection and another engineering to look over the roof, having the drawing and everything, what is the percentage that you guys are going to say yes? If that is going to keep on delaying the process, there's more money that we're wasting.

No, we would make a decision based on your engineering report and your application for economic hardship. You would have a decision that day. I'll give you a 95%.

Okay, so to spend $1,600 to get an engineering report and then apply for hardship, and then from there you guys will make the decision either yes or no.

That's correct.

Okay, it's expensive.

We already wasted over $10,000, first to cancel the contract, then because of the AC, which I know you guys don't care about the AC. That's, you know, something natural.

Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, ma'am. We just need an answer. Do you want to go with the deferral or do you want an up or down vote today?

Do you want to go with the deferral

Thank you for everything.

We need to know what your decision is.

Yeah, my mom said it's just more money that we're wasting and time. So if the second option is for you guys to make the decision, which I know everyone is going to say no, then just say no. We'll figure out what we're going to do next.

Mr. Campbell, do you want to withdraw your motion? Do you want to up or down vote today?

Mr. Chair, I make a move, a motion to not approve the asphalt shingler.

You have to withdraw your first motion.

Okay, sorry. I withdraw the previous motion for the engineering report and the economic hardship. I reintroduce a new motion. Wait, wait, wait.

I have to ask Mr. Perez if he agrees. I agree. Okay, now Mr. Campbell.

I will introduce a new motion to deny the special certificate of appropriateness to install an asphalt shingler roof.

Is there a second? Mr. Powers? Mr. Powers is the first to second. Any discussion on that motion? Can we have a roll call, please?

Calling Member Najeeb Campbell.

Yes.

Calling Member Robert Powers. Yes. Calling Member Christopher Cauley.

No.

Calling Member Julie Odell. Yes. Calling Member John Perez.

Yes.

Calling Chair Dr. Hopper.

Yes.

Okay. This passes by a vote of two, I'm sorry, two to four.

Can I mention something briefly?

I wanted to provide the... Do you want to make an announcement about the appealing?

No.

Not you.

Melanie. I'm sorry. Appeal rights.

I'm sorry. Appeal rights. I'm sorry. This decision is final unless appealed to the hearing board's office within 15 days.

No, Mr. Perez. Thank you. Have a good day. I wanted to give you the address in case you're interested to request the plans. It's buildingrecordsatmiamigov.com. That's the email address. Just in case. I would recommend any homeowner to have the original plans. They're home for whatever reason. Buildingrecordsatmiamigov.com. Hopefully that helps.

Buildingrecordsatmiamigov. Say that one more time, sir. Sorry.

Yeah, no problem. Building records at miamigov.com.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Item number two.

Okay. calling HEP item number two, file ID 19296, a resolution of the Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board pursuant to section 23-4 of the City of Miami Code of Ordinances, approving or denying the preliminary evaluation of local designation as an historic resource for the property located approximately at 3901 Berganza Avenue, Miami, Florida, 33133. Further incorporating the findings in the analysis attached, hearing is Exhibit A.

Is the applicant present? Please give your name and address for the record.

My name's Barbara Lang, and you already know where I live.

But tell us anyway, for the record. Tell you anyway?

Yes. 3901 Braganza Avenue, Coconut Grove.

Thank you, and we'll start with the staff report.

Good afternoon, City of Miami, Gabriel Villares, planning technician.

Gabriel, hold on just one second, please.

I need to recuse myself on this as I wrote the report.

Okay.

Thank you.

You'll need to step out of the- Ms. O'Dell, I believe you have to step out of the... Hello. Get out of here, Judy O'Dell. Okay, we're ready for the staff report.

All right. Good afternoon. City of Miami, Gabriel Villares, planning technician. I request that the staff analysis be accepted into the records.

Approved.

The request is pursuant to Section 33-4, City of Miami Code Ordinance. The applicant is requesting a preliminary evaluation for the designation of a single resident located at 3909 Braganza Avenue. The property is constructed in 1925. is a well-preserved example of 1920 masonry vernacular with two exterior, Mediterranean revival and mission revival styles. The property is eligible for designation under the following criteria, section 23-4, exemplify the historical, cultural, and political, economic, and social trends of the community, portray the environment in an era of historic, characterized by one or more distinctive architectural styles. embodies those distinguished characteristics, architectural style, period, method, and construction, and contains elements of design, detailed materials, of outstanding quality, which represent a significant innovation and adaptation to the South Florida environment. Our recommendation is to approve this preliminary designation for the property . Thank you. Thank you. Anything you want to add?

I didn't understand what you said.

Sorry?

I didn't understand what you said.

Am I supposed to respond? Only if you want to.

So if you wish to speak to the board about your property and the designation, you can do so now.

I'm here in case anybody has any questions.

Please speak directly into the microphone so we can all hear you.

I'm here in case anyone has any questions for me. Okay. About why I want to designate it or nobody has any questions.

I think we'll go with the staff report.

Pardon?

We'll just, we got it from the staff report. We got it from the staff report. Yes. So I need to ask, is there anyone in the public who wishes to speak on this item? Seeing no one, we'll open it up to the board for questions or comments. Starting with Mr. Powers.

Julie did a beautiful job.

Yeah, she did a beautiful job. And I'm glad that you're seeking this. Me too. I really am. I'm glad that you're seeking it. This is definitely a treasure to save here in the city of Miami when we've lost so many.

Right.

So by you stepping forward, I hope that people watch this and go, you know what, we really should do this because every family that does this codifies a little corner of Miami as being someplace to come look and see what we all remember and romanticized about as children growing up. Like, one day I'm going to live in that house. You know, like that. And slowly but surely, they're all disappearing. And it's really rather tragic. But thank you very much for doing this.

That's why I'm doing it. I'm afraid. I've seen so many houses torn down and trees cut down in my neighborhood I wanted to preserve.

And hopefully you'll set the standard. Hopefully you'll set the standard. Because we see the rich and famous come in here all the time with absolutely not a piece of good intention in front of them. And they should set the standard. And they don't. It's remarkable. I'm actually, I can't believe it. But then I see what's being built. And then I said, oh, there you go. So thank you. Thank you very much.

Mr. Perez.

Yeah, I'm curious. What drove you to seek this? I'm always curious about.

The houses being torn down in my neighborhood. One was actually historic. It was a designated historic. And I remember thinking how horrible that was. And then... And there's more houses. There's houses that I never expected to be torn down just this year. And I thought I'd like to make sure when I'm dead and gone that my house is still there.

I think it's a beautiful gift that you're giving to the city of Miami. And it's great that you have the ability to do this and leave this as part of your legacy. So I congratulate you.

Thank you. Mr. Campbell.

I approve.

Thank you.

Mr. Colley.

Yes, I have just a quick question. So how has the, congratulations on having such a beautiful property.

Pardon me?

I said congratulations on your beautiful property. How has the process been to do what you're doing now?

At first I thought I could do it myself, and I went down to the county, I went to the records department, I think it's the county records, the property records, and it was pretty difficult. And then I went to the library and tried to look up any articles. That was even more difficult. And then I went to Julie and I said, I need help. And I said, please. In fact, I think I begged her to help me because I wanted to have this done. And then she said she would.

Awesome. And so then our board member, Miss Odell, wrote a report for you documenting the historicism or the aspects of your house that are historic. And then that comes to our staff. Awesome staff members, I guess. And then this is the preliminary hearing, right?

Correct.

Okay. Well, congratulations and thank you for sharing that.

Thank you.

Great job, Mr. Odell.

And I will add my congratulations as well. Any other comments or are we ready for a motion?

I'd like to move to accept this report. I shall second that.

There's a motion and a second to approve the preliminary report. Any discussion on the motion? Roll call, please.

Calling member Robert Powers.

Yes.

Calling member Najeeb Campbell. Yes. Calling member Christopher Cauley. Yes. Calling member John Perez. Yes. Calling chair Dr. Hopper. Yes. Okay, this passes by a vote of five to zero. This decision is final unless appealed to the hearing board's office within 60 days.

Thank you very much. Thank you. And we're on to item number three.

Item number three, file ID 19295, a resolution of the Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board pursuant to section 23-6.2, subsection B4 of the City Code of Ordinances, approving or denying a special certificate of appropriateness to permit partial demolition addition and site improvements to a contributing structure within the Morningside Historic District, located approximately at 634 Northeast 56th Street, Miami, Florida, 33137, further incorporating the analysis in the attached staff report entitled Exhibit A with the following findings.

Thank you. Is the applicant present? Please give your name and address for the record.

Carly Koeschel, Burkow, offices at 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, on behalf of the applicant.

Thank you, and we'll start with the staff report.

Karina Gonzalez de Mendoza, Historic Preservation Planner. I request that the staff analysis be accepted into the record.

Approved.

Okay. So this particular property is in the Morningside District. It is an extra large lot with most of the property being set aside to one side. We see the historic photo of the property. The majority of the mass is one story with a second story mass set to the side. As we go to the next photo, we see the existing photo, so while it is not At the same exact angle, we do see that the house has been very well maintained with the addition of a wall in front. And we also see the proposed of what they are proposing to do as an addition to this house. So with this addition, it is set at the rear of the property, delineating the new construction from the historic construction. There you go. The next of the elevations, so. So as said before, the historic house, the majority of the mass is a one-story structure with the two-story volume next to it. The proposed addition would be at the very back, so set apart where it's not quite as visible. It would be, the fenestration pattern is kind of matching what is existing while also introducing a new fenestration pattern of wooden louvers, which kind of separate the historic from the new. This is the rear elevation where it is again with the wooden louvers there with the rear terrace. This would not be visible from the public right of way, but does show kind of how they are, some of the design intent.

with it as we go to the next.

We do have the east elevation. They are adjusting the fenestration pattern on the existing just a little bit to straighten it out. With the new addition at the rear, they are bringing in a new fenestration pattern and a new cladding on the lower floor. This is intended to separate the historic from the new construction. With the west elevation, similarly designed, the cladding is bringing in a new material that is fitting to the neighborhood. This section has also been modified previously in the past, so while they are arranging the Penetration pattern on the lower floor. It is something that wasn't original to the house previously And then the spiral staircase and the terrace at the back would not be visible from the public right-of-way as it is at the rear so the materials with the colors and the materiality of what they are proposing is matching with the historic property as well as a historic district at large and And with that, staff recommends approval with conditions, those conditions being the same set that we typically recommend of developing in accordance with the plans that were submitted at time of permitting to submit brochures and photographs of proposed design elements, all glass to be clear. that the resolution be included within the master permit set, and that the applicant to comply with zoning review, HEP review, as well as the requirements of all other departments and agencies within the city of Miami.

Thank you. Anything you'd like to add to the staff report?

We agree with staff's conditions. We're happy to make a presentation. We have a presentation prepared for you if you'd like to see it.

If you want to see their presentation, I have to give her my cable.

But please be brief.

Absolutely, I will be as brief as possible. So with me today is Robert Etri, the owner of the property. He lives in the house and This redesign is specifically to accommodate his family. And the purpose of the rear addition, which is before you today, is specifically to accommodate his family, his growing family. He purchased the property in 2024 and is looking to make these accommodations so that he can continue to comfortably live in the home. The property is in the Morningside Historic District, and it is a contributing structure to that district. It was built in approximately 1926. There have been modifications to the home over time. And what's before you today in this special certificate of appropriateness is a two-story addition at the rear of the home, replacing the windows and the doors, which are non-original to the structure, reorganizing the interior of the home, and demolishing a detached structure within the rear setback. What is going to happen as a result of that is that the rear of the home is going to expand toward the rear setback, but at the same height as the two-story volume that is historic to the home. It will not exceed the height of the historic volume that exists on the right side of the home. What's also important to understand is that the garage structure does currently exist at the rear of the home. And once we remove that structure, there will be no encroachments into the rear setback. The elevations, as staff mentioned, have been designed purposely to distinguish the new architecture from the old historic architecture. And that's true across all elevations. The compatibility with Chapter 23 and the Standard 9 of the Secretary of Interior Standards are satisfied, and your professional staff recommends approval. The proposed home, just so we're clear, it is at the rear of the property, which means it is barely visible from the right-of-way. And just in terms of letters of support, we've submitted letters of support into the record from the abutting property owners. Particularly, please note that it's on the sides where the addition will be located. So the neighbors that could feasibly be impacted by the proposed addition have provided letters of support. This has also gone to the Morningside Architectural Design Review Board. In January, they provided feedback. We have incorporated that feedback, and we look forward to answering any questions you might have.

Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing and open it up to the board for questions or comments, starting with Mr. Cawley.

Thank you. I just want to say thanks, Carly, and beautiful package, beautiful drawings. To me, it just looks wonderful and commend you on such a great job. So I have no comments and wish you the best of luck.

Mr. Campbell.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I like the project very much. When I first saw the building, I was wondering, it's such a perfect Mediterranean jewel, why mess with it? But when I saw the intervention and the louvers and all that, I was like, okay, this is a Caribbeanization or a Balanization of the Mediterranean. And then I started to fall in love with the design. So I approve. I do have one little nitpicking issue. Small, very small. I want to mention it on the proposed west elevation. On the second story, there are three windows. To the left on the upper story, you have the semicircular openings or the transoms above. One is missing a window. And I'm not sure if that was a mistake or you intend to do that. I'd just like you to look at that. You know, the missing window underneath the semicircular transom. And then at the lower story, the very left side again, there seems to be a tailpiece of stucco wall coming down next to the double French doors, which seem to be clad in keystone. And I'm wondering if it would be better to just have the lower story just in keystone without that little sliver of stucco wall coming down and just have it as keystone. Just a suggestion, but otherwise, beautiful project.

Would you like to speak to that? Would you like to speak to those suggestions?

I think we're happy to study them further.

Okay. Mr. Perez?

I think it's a wild thought through design. Clearly, time and effort was put into studying biometrics, and I always appreciate that, so I think it's beautiful. I'm all for it.

Ms. O'Dell?

It looks like a really, actually I agree with Najeeb on this because I see the Caribbeanization, is that the word you used? It really blends both of them very harmoniously and I like it a lot.

Mr. Bowers?

Yes, can we go back to that west exposure? So the only thing that took my eye away, that's why I wanted to look at it. was the fact that you have those cutouts above every window except for the window that juts out. And I'm just saying, I'm reiterating it. And I don't understand why the other one, I think that's a typo. I think the architect just didn't, the other one next to it doesn't have a window. That's the only thing. I think you did a beautiful job, and I gotta commend you for wanting to use the louvers, because my house had those. Unfortunately, I had to take them off. because they weren't historically correct to that period of time. They were put on for hurricanes, originally, over what was a screened-in porch, which is what that upstairs room kind of reminds me of. It's a big Florida room, correct? Or playroom, or whatever. And the other thing that you did really well is that you guys didn't mess up the roof line, because that destroys more of these historic homes than anything. It's when people try to go above it or whatever. You did a really great job with that.

That is a nod to your staff. We initially came in with a taller roof. Yeah, don't do that. And staff requested that we lower the roof.

For the other ones you buy in the neighborhood, don't do that. You ruin those homes when you do that, when you change that. That's everything. And I also like the outside staircase that comes down. I hope the only thing I would say to you is please don't do the stupid single spindle thing. Do something really kind of... I don't know what you have there now but please come up with a better idea for that balustrade it should really be a beautiful balustrade made out of wrought iron that comes down you know what I'm saying like I just watch people build really expensive stuff and then don't do the attention to detail that needs to be done that really signals like all these old houses had they all had this like Even these little, like the two-bedroom ones in my neighborhood have the wrought iron over the window into the, like with the, that makes the whole house, you know, or the tiled pattern floor in the entryway or something to that. In our case, it was all the leftovers from all the rich and famous that they built. That's what they used in my neighborhood was all the leftover stuff. But you walked into some of those houses, your mouth will fall open. I kid you not because you'll just go, oh, my God. So at any rate, but going back to your home, beautiful job. That's the only consequence I see. Could you go back to east and west exposures, or north and south exposures, please? And that's wood, and then you also have the limestone done in a different pattern all the way across the back. Is that not correct?

Correct. For the record, my name is... On the first floor. Yes. For the record, my name is Joshua Sprediti-Figueroa. I'm the principal of Urbanum, 10 Southwest South River Drive, Miami, Florida, 33130. Thank you. Thank you. That's correct. It's a limestone. Are you using real wood on the second floor that comes down in the center part, or are you going to do a... Yes, correct. That's the intention.

The intention is like teak or cypress or something to that effect?

A hardwood.

Yeah. Yeah. Cypress would have been the thing to use because, you know, it doesn't get the termites. And it's easy to clean.

Our initial thinking at this time is an Ipe or a Sepel.

Oh, okay. Well, if you can afford that, knock yourself out. I'm just... But even in the really great houses, all the windows and everything were made out of cypress wood. All of them were. They didn't make them out of mahogany. They didn't make them out of teak, even though it was available in the 20s. They made it out of cypress wood because it didn't get affected by the weather. And the windows are almost floor-to-ceilings.

Did you want to address the window issue? Thank you very much. Did you want to address the window issue?

The only thing I wanted to make a comment on was the question related to the window on the west elevation where we have the vent that the window's missing. That is a result, unfortunately, of a floor plan reconfiguration where the window simply does not work with the floor plan.

Can you get closer to your microphone?

He can't hear you.

Oh, I'm sorry. I said, unfortunately, that's a consequence of the reconfiguration of the floor plan where that window simply does not work with the floor plan that we have. Okay.

But again, that's something that we will work with staff to see if we can... And how about putting the vents above the window? Because that's the only window with no vents above it. The one in the part that pops out.

The one in the middle.

That currently doesn't have anything there. Okay. Never mind.

I think it was a very good addition to this house. My only question would be, this would be a great opportunity to remove the wall that's in front of the house and keep the one on the side, but that's not part of your application.

But we were just discussing as we study this further, we may find a way to have the pattern of windows and vents better coordinated, and that's something that we're happy to study moving forward.

While you're studying, you might study taking the wall away from right in front of the house so you can see it from the street, because it's a beautiful house that you would want to see. Now, the side yard could be all the way to the sidewalk, like the front, but the guidelines for the neighborhood include no walls in front of the house. except ones that are already there. So that's grandfathered, but that'd be something to study.

Any other questions?

Are we ready for a motion?

I'll make a motion, Mr. Chair, to approve. I'll second it.

Approve. Do you want to include the conditions? Yes.

I think between staff and the architects, they can work out, well, yes, at a condition to work out with staff, between the designers and staff, the window and vent display on the west facade. With all other conditions by staff also.

How about the stone on the first floor of the west elevation?

You were concerned about the stone.

The stone.

No, I'm not overly concerned about that. I think he's wise enough to check it out and do something good.

And my only thing is that you do a beautiful wrought iron for this spiral staircase. It really is. I mean, I just think that you should do that. That's all.

Was there a second? Mr. Powers has seconded.

Thank you, Bob. Any discussion on the motion?

So I need clarification as to whether Mr. Powers' recommendation is a condition or a recommendation.

Mr. Campbell, is there a motion?

May I?

Mr. Campbell's motion.

What was your issue, Bob?

My issue was that the wrought iron balustrade, it should be a classic thing. It shouldn't just be spindles going all the way down. It should be more... Ornate. Ornate, thank you. That was the word I was looking for.

Mr. Designer, do you have an issue with what Mr. Powell just said?

I don't want a straight picket. It should either be something like this. Mr.

Designer, please.

I think it's... Given that it's at the rear of the home...

He doesn't want to speak?

The... The intention for the spiral staircase is to be a perforated metal system that makes this stair sculptural, feel sculptural.

A little closer.

And the reason for it being also in this tone of color is to kind of disappear in the landscape. But it's intentionally meant to be something perforated, a rose that kind of disappears. Okay.

So not spindles.

No spindles. That was my only request.

So that's good. Thank you. Not a condition. Not a condition.

No need to modify your motion. Now can we have a roll call, please?

Yes. Calling member Najeeb Campbell. Yes. Calling member Robert Powers. Yes. Thank you. Calling member Christopher Cauley. Yes. Thank you. Calling member Julie O'Dell. Yes. Thank you. Calling member John Perez. Yes. Thank you. And calling chair Dr. Hopper. Yes. Thank you. This passes by a vote of six to zero. This decision is final unless appealed to the hearing board's office within 15 days. Thank you all very much. Thank you.

I should mention for the record that there was no public comment.

Dr. Harper, may we close the online public comment?

Yes.

Thank you.

And welcome to 56th Street.

Thank you. Calling HEP item number four, file ID 19430, a resolution of the Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board. pursuant to Section 23-6.2, Subsection B4 of the City Code of Ordinances, approving or denying a special certificate of appropriateness to permit alterations to a contributing structure within the Bayside Historic District, located approximately at 770 Northeast 70th Street, Miami, Florida, 33138, further incorporating the analysis in the attached staff report entitled Exhibit A with the following findings.

And the applicant is present?

Yes.

Please give your name and address for the record.

Rich Pedranti, 129 Sawkill Avenue, Milford, Pennsylvania, 18337.

Thank you, and we'll start with the staff report.

Karina Gonzalez de Mendoza, preservation planner. I would like to submit the stop analysis for the record.

Approved.

So this particular property is located, is a contributing structure, the Bayside Historic District. It's located between two streets. So it technically has two public right-of-ways, although the rear public right-of-way is blocked by a large concrete wall. We have the historic photo of what the house looked like during the period of significance. We see the open garage. The proposed work would be to enclose the garage and add a window to basically mimic the same shape of the original driveway opening. So still maintaining kind of that facade but having a window instead. They also propose adjusting the windows to match the original arched windows that had been present as seen in the historic photo. The other work is basically happened in the rear elevation where they would be installing, they would be constructing a rear porch. So this rear porch, it would not be visible from the public right-of-way due to the concrete wall at the back, but it does maintain similar design elements as to the front of the house. So this is the elevation. We see they would be adjusting the shape of the windows, which would better match the original window shapes from as seen in the historic photo, as well as adjusting the window, the opening of the garage door to input a window. So mimicking that shape of putting in the glass. The south at the rear, we have the porch using those ROUNDED OPENINGS WITHIN THE PORCH TO TIE IN THE DESIGN ELEMENTS OF THE HOUSE ON BOTH SIDES. AND THEN THE EAST AND THE WEST, WE SEE THOSE CHANGES FROM THE SIDES. THEY WON'T BE VERY VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, BUT THAT'S STILL THE CHANGES So the materials that are proposed in color and in materiality are appropriate to the historic property as well as to the historic district. So with that, staff recommends approval with conditions, and those conditions are the usual set of developing in accordance with the plans as they were submitted and at the time of permitting, submitting necessary brochures and photos. All glass should be clear with the option of low E, the resolution to be included in the master permit set, and that the applicant shall comply with all requirements, all applicable requirements, and comply with the other departments of the City of Miami.

Thank you. Anything you would like to add to the staff report?

Yes. Hi. So I'm the architect working with the owner who's here with me today, Victoria Sabatino.

Could you come and give your name and address for the record, please?

Victoria Sabatino, 770 Northeast 70th Street, Miami, Florida, 33138. Thank you.

Yes, so Victoria and I agree with the staff analysis in its entirety and the conditions. So I have a few renderings that were included in the application that I'd like to share with you to add to the staff analysis. Sorry about the... It's not sticking. Any recommendations about fixing that?

No.

Well, I'm going to show you quickly So this is our front rendering, there it goes. And then there's our back rendering, and there it goes. And so I can speak to that a little bit. So the project is really three main components, and that is enclosing the garage, restoring four windows on the home that we were able to see from the historic photo. And then the last part is adding a rear porch that's consistent with the front porch architecture. So in closing the garage, it's now a window with a panel below. And there are two windows on either side of the front porch. which were previously arched windows. Now they have a square top, so we're replacing those with the arched top windows. And then two windows on the side of the garage, which are also currently rectangular, we're replacing those with arched top windows as well. And in the rear porch, it's... The geometry is formed by the same kind of shed extension of the main roof to cover the back porch. We've included arches in those openings and also the decorative wing walls that you see on the front porch and on the front elevation of the building as well.

Okay. Okay, is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing and open it up to the board for questions, comments. Starting with Ms. O'Dell. Ms.

I'd like to look at it for a few minutes, if you can come back to me.

Okay, Mr. Powers.

My only concern is that the new windows that you're putting in in the front, that were one square that you're now going to make back in, do they match completely as to what was there historically? Yes. Because I just don't see that. That's the reason why I'm asking that question. Yeah. Okay. So this is the old photograph.

Yeah, that's correct. Yeah, we're...

Our intention is to match the historic photo as much as we can. That's the most important. To me, that's the most important issue. Agreed. Because it alters the whole, like that 3-4 type cadence that they used to have back in those days when they built those homes. Are you saving all the tile on the front steps as you go up, or are you replacing it? I'm just asking.

The tile that's currently there was put in very cheaply by the previous owners, so we'd like to redo it in a more consistent way.

Okay, do you have tile like that in the back, or is there anything that tells you what used to be there, or is it completely gone? Completely gone, unfortunately. Okay. Because it was a, they call it Cuban tile, I don't call it that, but, because when I think of Cuban tile, I think of a oriental rug. That, to me, is Cuban tile. You know, because every room was different in a Cuban home. It was all tiled entirely different. So, which I always thought was so beautiful. Puerto Rico, too. But, at any rate, if you could do that, I'd appreciate it. I'm not going to make it a condition of this, but it's really important for the windows to follow the thing. What about your lighting? Do we have pictures of your lighting fixtures that you're going to do? Because that's another thing that destroys the front of these houses. It's horrible, horrible lighting from a Home Depot. Don't do that. No, I'm not kidding you. I'm not kidding you. They spend $250,000 redoing their house, and then they plop on a Home Depot front window. And you go, what were they thinking? At any rate, go ahead.

I believe in the conditions we're accepting that we're going to provide.

Because believe it or not, really great copper lighting and stuff like that is not that expensive. And it doesn't need to be massive either, because it shouldn't be. Because the lighting on the front of these homes was always rather small. And most of it was painted black, but it was all made out of copper. um okay well because i just don't i don't all right and what's this black fixture here it is the lighting that's not going to go over with me just come up with something more original please closer to the closer to the age of the house if you wouldn't wouldn't mind i know do the modern on the back On the front, please try to stay as close to, because you have to match the neighborhood, the street. That's all. Thank you. Those are my only two things. Thank you very much.

Mr. Perez.

Three things. I think it's a straightforward design. It's actually bringing it back to its historical nature, so it's well thought through. I like the new back patio, so I'm for yes.

Good. Mr. Campbell.

Mr. Pedranti, you're from Pennsylvania. Is that where you practice?

Yes.

Okay. I'm very surprised and pleased because I've seen many local architects totally screw these old houses up. And you have done a very tasteful job. So congratulations and to your... to your client also who approved of your sensitivity. So congratulations. Thank you.

Mr. Cohen.

Yes, I'd just like to reiterate what everyone has said. Great job. This is definitely super consistent with that neighborhood, and I think it's going to look awesome. And just congratulations, and it's going to be wonderful for the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you.

I echo what everyone else is saying. It's really, really perfect for the neighborhood. It really fits in quite well. Good job. Thank you.

And could you go back to the historic picture? I don't see a light fixture there. Yeah. Oh, in the porch.

Okay. Right, okay, gotcha.

And it does look like the, wait, come back. Expand again, please. It does look like there are patterned tiles there on the steps. You see what I'm talking about?

Yeah.

So that might be something for you to explore.

Well, if I may. Yes. Yes. Also the, because originally that was a screened-in front porch, correct? Or do you not know that? And it probably had probably wrought iron on the, you can't see it here, okay, so I'm not saying that. Those aren't, the size of that is not changing, is that correct? Correct. Doctor? Oh, okay.

Okay. Anybody else ready for a motion?

Yes.

Go ahead.

I'd like to make a motion to approve with all the conditions. Do I have to make any of that stuff I said to you a condition or no? Do I? Just tell me because I'll go by and look at it. I will. I live in that neighborhood. I'll go by and look at it. And so I'd like to move that forward with a second from one of you guys. I second it.

Mr. Perez, I second it. Any discussion on the motion? Can we have a roll call, please?

Yes.

Calling Member Robert Powers. Yes. Thank you. Calling Member John Perez. Yes. Thank you. Calling Member Najeeb Campbell. Yes. Calling Member Christopher Cauley.

Yes.

Thank you. Calling member John, I'm sorry, Julie O'Dell. Yes. Thank you. And calling chair Dr. Hopper. Yes. Thank you. This passes by a vote of six to zero. This decision is final unless appealed to the hearing board's office within 15 days.

Thank you very much. Nice job.

Calling HEP item number five, file ID 19433, a resolution of the Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board pursuant to section 23-6.2, subsection B. of the City Code of Ordinances, approving or denying a special certificate of appropriateness to permit complete demolition of a contributing structure, partial demolition of a contributing structure, renovation, new construction, and site improvements to a contributing property within the Buena Vista East Historic District, located approximately at 4505 North Miami Avenue. Miami, Florida, 33127, further incorporating the analysis in the attached staff report entitled Exhibit A with the following findings.

The applicant is present. Please give your name and address for the record.

Eli Mimun, 4505 North Miami Avenue. Our address is 418 South Dixie Highway, Hollandale, Florida, 33009.

Thank you. We'll start with the staff report. Adrian Espinosa, Historic Preservation Planner. I request the staff analysis be accepted into the record.

Approved.

Thank you. So the purpose, if we can just go back one really quick, please. Thank you. Just really quick, the applicant is requesting SCOA for the demolition of one structure and the partial demolition of a second structure on a contributing property within the Buena Vista East Historic District at 4505 North Miami Avenue. Here's the location of the property. It's got two frontages along North Miami Avenue and Northeast 45th Street. On the historic photo side, on the top photo is the corner property or the corner structure. And below that is the northern property, which I guess they should have been switched. But we can continue on. Actually, just as a reminder, can we go back just one, please? So the property on the bottom is being requested for a complete demolition, and the property on the top, they're looking to have a partial demolition at the north end, or the left, the far left, if you look at the historic photo. Here's the existing site plan. You can sort of see the outline of the house on the left in blue, or the home of the house, single family structure, and then also to the right of that. And so the proposed site plan is looking to put in three duplexes, and then suppose another duplex on the far right, that would be the south end of the property. And if you notice, they are keeping the corner structure there, except for a small sliver to the left or to the north that is being proposed for removal.

I just wanna clarify, the scope before the board today does not include the northern parcel, correct?

Yes, so actually you'll see those three duplexes are actually, do fit within that one property. So I did like a quick measurement and yeah, it's 150 across and that's just that one lot. Yeah, originally we thought it was the north one, but yes, thank you.

Could you repeat that, please?

Okay, so this is unrelated to what's at the board, but I think, can you believe there was a...

I need to clarify this image, right? So... The parcel to the far left in the proposed site plan is not before the board at this time.

That's the side of the building that is the commercial side.

On the corner. The site plan illustrates three lots.

I think that's the subdivided... Is it the separate lot?

I thought I did the...

I see that.

Okay. Yes. Yes, you're right. Okay. So what is before the board today is the structure, the proposed structure to the right. the one adjacent to it to the left, and the one adjacent to that to the left. The far left structure is not part of this application at this time.

Oh, so the existing site plan has three lots and the proposed site plan has four. So we're to disregard the furthest one to the left because that's not where the house is.

So the applicant owns that parcel. That parcel is not before the board at this time.

But the house is on... We want it to be, so if there's a way to combine it... You'll have a chance.

Let me finish. Just for clarification, the existing house is on the...

The existing house... Second lot from the right. It's on the second lot from the left. I'm sorry, the left. The second lot from the left has the existing house. The lot all the way to the right has the small bodega structure.

Right.

Excuse the oversight. I believed it was. It's fine.

I just want to make sure that we're clear. Thank you very much. Go ahead. Okay.

Here are the existing conditions. To the left here, top left, you can see the corner structure. And then below that is the house that's on the north end. We believe that during the time that the North Miami Avenue road was expanded, there may have been some substantial changes to the structure. So if you include that. Well, anyways, the east facade there seems to have been moved substantially from its original position. And also, it's been significantly altered as well. You don't have those parapet features or the columns. There aren't the same amount of columns on the exterior of the structure. We could jump back to the historic photo really quickly so you could see.

So let me just interject again. So to clarify, right, if you look at the historic image and you look at the geometry of the corner, and we look at the existing condition, it's more than likely when, and I cannot swear to this, the research has not been completed, but at the time of the widening of Miami Avenue, it is likely that they lolloped the facade of this building off and pushed the facade back. That geometry would lead me to believe that. I just want the board to have that history before them.

OK. And so again, the proposed construction is on the right. So disregard the far left of the top proposed image. That's not part of this application. And then on the bottom there, we have one example of what the applicant is looking to accomplish. So I just want to do a quick reminder. Decisions to the board to issue, deny demolitions should be based on the following criteria. The degree to which the structure contributes to the historic and or architectural integrity of the historic site or district. Whether the loss of the structure would adversely affect the historic and or architectural integrity of the site. or district. The third criteria is whether architectural plans have been presented to the board for the reuse of the property if the proposed demolition were to be carried out and the appropriateness of those plans to the character of the historic site or district. Number four, whether the historic structure poses an imminent threat to public health or safety. Number five, whether the applicant has demonstrated that retention of the structure would create an unreasonable or undue economic hardship as per the Miami Code of Ordinances 2362H5B. And whether there is a compelling public interest requiring the demolition. And so that's all of them, of the criteria. Just kind of quickly to our conclusions, we believe that demolition of these structures represents an irretrievable loss to the architectural integrity and will adversely affect the special character of the historic district. The proposed demolition of the two structures at 4505 North Miami Avenue does not comply with the criteria that I've just listed. In conclusion, the application failed to demonstrate compliance with Chapter 23, historic preservation. We believe the request does not comply with all applicable criteria, and the proposed demolitions and the conceptual redevelopment plans will adversely affect the historic, architectural, and aesthetic character of the subject properties and the historic district, so we recommend denial.

You would like to respond to the staff report? Yes, please. Yes, sir.

If possible, I'd like to divide this to two things. One, the store or whatever's left of it, and then the home. Sure. With regard to the store, if you go back to the plan that he put up, we're basically looking to actually restore it to its past glory, I'll use the words, and not leave it like this. There are a set of plans that I forwarded to the staff. I don't know if you can put it up so they can see it.

So I don't have... because we can only have what's before us here, right? But we have been working with the applicant, and again, given the alteration of the geometry of that structure, restoring it is not necessarily an option, right? So it becomes a rehabilitation, so to speak. So we have been working with the applicant on a plan to rehabilitate the structure, not incorporating a residential addition to it. It would basically be something that we could approve at staff level. It would require a partial demolition, but that would be a demolition of an addition to the northern end of that property. So if we go back to... Yeah, right there. So if we look at the proposed plan, you can see where that structure crosses the historic lot line. That's actually an addition, which again likely occurred at about the time the facade was removed. staff doesn't object to removal of that addition in order to rehabilitate the structure in an appropriate manner. The plans that have been submitted do attempt to recreate the arched parapets, do attempt to recreate a more historic storefront. So that is a feasible option that we have been working with the applicant on. I just want the board to be aware of that.

Okay, go ahead.

So based on that, I would like maybe if the board could actually accept that piece of the retail part of it or the commercial side of it, that we will rehabilitate it as much as possible to what it used to be based on the geography of today. I am working with the staff on that. I thought, I mean, you would be able to see it if they were able to bring it in. I apologize. I thought it wouldn't be available for now. So for that, I would like your approval to move forward with that and fix that. Because as you can see now, every week I'm sending people to go clean up the graffiti and people are basically trying to break into this all the time and to the other homes. But it's an eyesore basically right now. more than anything, so if we get your approval to do that, we'd be able to start working on rehabilitating it to its past as close as possible, as you saw from the historical picture. So that was my first part. I don't know if I'm supposed to talk about the other part now or... Yes. With regard to the other part, I want to clarify a couple of things that staff maybe missed. Originally this parcel, today this parcel is, I'm also adding the north for one second, is two parcels, one large parcel, one small parcel. Originally in the 30s, it actually was four separate parcels of 5,000 feet each. And based on the code and the historical code, 5,000 was for per duplex. That's how they built it at the time. And we're just basically trying to mimic that. Originally, we had more modern design, of course, but after speaking to neighbors and speaking with staff and at the building department, we came up with this plan, which is much closer to the existing texture, I guess, of what the homes in the area are with the arches and with the... And we think it's a good plan. I'm more than happy to work with staff in finding they want to add more elements. I mean, we added two elements from the old existing homes that we would want to demolish, which are the chimneys that are made out of the shells. I forgot the name. Thank you. The coral rock. which we want to incorporate that into the new structures, of course. And like I said, we're open to working with staff, but keeping the two homes that are literally unsafe right now being broken into all the time. I have engineering reports and I have proposals from GC showing that It is more than the economic burden. Even if we do rehabilitate or bring it back, the homes, because they're made out of wood trusses, which are completely basically deteriorated and destroyed in the inside, we would have to literally replace everything anyway. And it just makes it... When staff was saying I didn't prove economic burden, it's about three times the cost of what it would cost me to build a duplex. relative to purchasing the whole lot for about $2 million, a one duplex or rehabilitating one home would be close to the $2 million. I think that shows enough significance of economic impact on us.

Okay, thank you. Is there anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item? If there is, come forward and give your name and address.

Adrian, can you?

Forgive me, I have a handicap, so can you bear with me? Absolutely. If this is a developer, please not- Stacy?

Yeah.

speak into the mic. Give us your name and address first. I'm Stacy Richmond. I live next door to this property. For the last 10 years, I've renovated my home with permission. Before that, I've been in the historical Buena Vista since 2000. I developed the Art Deco building that you see on 44th Street near the mandolin when it housed 33 migrants. I worked for CBS Network News for 35 years. I've been attacked when we were gentrifying the neighborhood when we started the Buena Vista. I'm no longer involved. I'm too old. I've been attacked. I had Xavier Suarez, the mayor, giving me permission for police protection when I would come in after midnight from overseas or whatever. I was relocated here from London. But let me just rephrase.

He's never...

He didn't talk to the community. I'm next door. I've never gotten a notice until I got that pamphlet. He sent me an email when I learned of this that you cannot destroy it. Here's his response. We have no intention in destroying this gem of a store. We agree with you and are working with HIP to renovate and to avoid its demolition. I sent you a very harsh message when Keith was very generous because I don't have any more patience with the historical board, and I'll give you the reason why. It's very short. 4505 North Miami Avenue cannot be destroyed as the last remaining jewel in the Buena Vista historical neighborhood. It's a 1924 structure. You've seen it from the pictures. I am familiar with the property for over ten years when I moved next door. It's a structure once served as a convenience store when I was in fact there, it was a convenience store. And then they were given so many violations that it's been flipped and bought about three times in eight years. And they consolidated the other structures that you have in their single family homes. Basically, HEP does not have the funds to hire engineers to investigate a wealthy client who claims to be biased against a particular structure. I have been a resident owner in Buena Vista since 2000. I have once been a member of the association to gentrify the community. My neighbors and I are particularly exhausted from all of the construction congestion that we have suffered for three years on our little block of northeast. 45th Street between North Miami Avenue and Northeast First Avenue. There are three homes, six days a week. And in the interest of this prominent realtor, and who will basically get to do what he would like to do with your blessing and with changes, we are going to suffer another three years of congestion, because this is a big project. And it begins at 7.30 in the morning, because the Miami ordinance has allowed that for a residential area. Construction companies and developers and government agencies have negligible concern for our residents and our community and our neighborhood and our block. Their decisions have sometimes been capricious. In our particular instance, it's hard to maneuver home each day when an entire neighborhood block has been overwhelmed with trucks, workers, dirt, filth. There is oversight in the permitting, but not oversight in the well-being of the community that has brought back the historical Buena Vista area. I bought my Art Deco building when Craig Robbins was buying developments, because we've met, when he was buying that whole area of the design system, which were warehouses. And the reason he did it is because it was a historical neighborhood, and he knew that historical neighborhoods attract. I have to, as Keith told me, have to deal with another agency, because if we do get the construction, it's going to be unbearable. Because we have three homes right now under construction. You've given people the right to renovate, some of them demolished, which I'll go into, that you shouldn't have. But this is another one that we can't maneuver, that the historical nature of a neighborhood is the fact that you keep the neighborhood intact to the best of your ability, not to do major construction. My father was a very famous developer in New York City, with you know, it's called Goldman, who developed here, Wynwood. My father and he, 30, 40 years ago, developed Soho, the fish market. They maintained the historical property. They maintained it. These are billionaires. They maintained it. And these guys want to demolish the last remaining. Really, it's a beautiful building. I've been inside it up until maybe three years ago when I had a fight with one of the owners who was flipping it because he let it. He let the single-family homes next to it, which have to be demolished. One is from 1926. I don't know the other one was a crack house. I think that's the crack house. But the one on the far end is a 1926 structure. They just wanted it to be, just fall apart by itself. Okay? And that's what happens. And then they go before the board and they... do whatever they want to do because it's structurally not sound. This building is structurally sound. I was in it three and a half years ago. And they were basically, okay, never mind. I'm just giving you facts because I'm really upset what he told you. Okay. I mentioned that it's been flipped eight times, three times in eight years. He finally bought it in a few several months ago. The one thing about the capriciousness of the board, and it was probably before yours, is when I stopped getting involved. 101 Northeast 45th Street, the guy basically did a beautiful job on renovating his, it's a million dollar home. I mean, it's like $3 million. The historical board, because he asked me to go, this was many years ago, they said, you know, you could do this, but you can't get your garage. Through the chair.

So we generally allow two minutes of public comment, and we've reached that point.

Basically, the other building is 44 Northeast 45th Street. It's a 1926 home. The board will let it be demolished. I don't know why they let it keep four columns, four coral columns, if you recall. There's four coral columns, but you let the building, the structure, the single-family home, this is two houses from me in the historical area, get demolished. It's owned by Rice Mediterranean Restaurant chain, the owner. I didn't know about this because I wasn't in Miami at the time because I had to travel. demolished. But the concession was you let him have four columns to keep. Keep these four columns, but destroy the building and build something. And that's what he's doing. That's it. I'm basically saying that I beg you not to let that, it's the last remaining structure in the Buena Vista Historical Area. It's only four blocks. It's North 32nd to North Miami, from 42nd to 46th. That's all it is. Everyone wants to be a historical district, but that's all it really is. I'm sorry. I'm all done.

Thank you. And Mr. Richmond also has provided a lengthy letter in the public comments section published online. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item before I give you a chance to speak?

Again, there's another letter. I'd like to respond, if I may. I said I will let you after I read this. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

Mr. Richmond. There's another letter from the public comment, rather lengthy. I will read you the beginning of it. And that is from John Bennett. Concerning the Buena Vista East Design something committee.

They're the design review committee.

Oh, that is it. Design Advisory Committee. There we go. He writes that we write in agreement with HEPP staff's recommendation that the special certificate of appropriateness for 4505 North Miami Avenue be denied as presented for the July 7th, 2026 HEPP meeting. The property owner and architect previously asked the Buena Vista East Design Advisory Committee to review the proposed design in February 26th. At that time, we submitted comments identifying concerns with tree mitigation, treatment of existing contributing structures, demolition and rehabilitation analysis, increased massing, and the lack of sufficient contextual support for the proposed new design. We attach that letter for the board's reference, and I will not read that part, but it's there if you want to read it. The current submittal for the July 7, 2026 meeting does not appear to meaningfully address the issues BVEDAC previously raised. The proposal has not developed in a way that resolves our preservation, design, massing, landscape, or contextual concerns. For that reason, we agreed with staff that the application should be denied. We also note an apparent inconsistency regarding 4543 North Miami Avenue, the adjacent building owned by the same developer. In the February materials, that building appeared to be included in the demolition scope. In the current materials, it appears to be removed from the formal... Demolition request yet appears in several drawings. The applicant should clarify what is actually proposed for that property. Finally, the architect's letter of intent appears to characterize existing buildings as non-contributing. Our understanding is that the relevant structures were identified as contributing in the 2016 survey, and HEP staff appears to recognize them as contributing. This should be corrected or clarified before any board action. The committee supports thoughtful improvement of these properties, but not without a more complete preservation analysis, and has a design response that better respects the historic district. And we respectively support staff's recommendation and ask the board to deny the special certificate of appropriateness as presented. And they have attached their committee. That concludes the public comment from the internet. Now, sir, you have a chance to respond to both.

Thank you. Thank you.

So, I beg to...

Back to Stacey Richmond's comment that I didn't approach any of the neighbors. You have the letter from the Buena Vista committee, I guess, that I did approach them and I did work with them and I did send them items. I told them that I'm working with HEP on this matter as well. So once all of our plans are finalized with HEP, then of course we would share them with the historical board committee who sent you that letter. So it was not accurate by saying that I didn't approach them. I did. Number one. Number two, he said that it was in the store three years ago. The first demolition, I guess, writ that the city sent out was done in May 2020, which is over six years ago. So I don't think he was there three years ago. That's for the accuracy of his statements. And number three, if you can see from the historical picture to the existing picture, they don't even resemble one another. So if anything, what I'm doing, I'm going to be helping to bring it back to what it is. So from you opposing me doing that, it doesn't make sense. Because you'd rather see it flat like this, four walls and graffiti? or see it back to the historical picture. So these inaccuracies don't work well. So I again go back to my proposal for you to accept the retail portion of it or the store portion of it to be able to demolish that sliver so we can actually work with the staff on bringing that back rehabilitated as much as possible to conform with the plans. Regarding the two homes, which actually one home now because for some reason the other one wasn't in this application so i apologize for that that's i guess i missed from my architect regarding the one home that we want to demolish i reiterate again we have a structural engineer electrical engineer who gave reports saying they cannot be saved and we have a gc saying basically to try and save it would cost close to $2 million just for the one home. So again, I want to reiterate that to the board before they make a decision on that. And finally, going back to Mr. Rickman, he didn't mention that he responded to my response to him, basically, where he said, I will be in attendance in July 7 hearing. I will hold him accountable to making certain decisions that the convenience store is not compromised greatly, understanding that they have to retrofit it, and that the other two homes will understandably be demolished, quote-unquote. That's what he wrote. So even, I understand, I think his biggest peeve is the fact that he was in a construction zone for three years more than anything else. So I'd like the board to take that into consideration as well.

Okay. I forgot to ask if there was anyone else from the public who wishes to speak on this item. Oh, I will close the public hearing and I'll award for questions or comments and I'll start this time. So now you're proposing something different than what is before us today?

No, no, I'm just asking to bifurcate what I sent, what was proposed to you for today, which we can defer the second part for the homes if the staff wants more clarification, and I'll work with staff more on regarding the home, because I guess they said that I was missing and I didn't prove the economic hardship, which I thought I did, so... I'm willing to discuss that with you if you have questions about that. But I would want to basically have your approval to at least move forward with the retail component in the store.

Okay. Let's start with Mr. Cawley.

Thanks. because of the site plan issue that was up on the screen a little while ago and everything else, would you mind just putting into, on the screen right now, the survey on the left and a site plan on the right? The site plan, I just need some clarification, right? Because I looked through what's online, I don't see like a full set of architecture drawings or anything like that. Maybe I missed them. So here on the right, drawing on the right is the building that we're talking about the building on the corner with the hatching on it the grayish no color yeah and then if you go all the way to the left are those the existing houses that we saw pictures of or yes if you look at the middle new townhouse there's a house over there in gray you can see it that overlaps it um and the last one to the left we don't consider not because it's not part of this it's the other lot okay so Starting at the building on the corner, you go over one, two structure type things, and that's what we're talking about, right? Okay. So then, what is it, and then I see that you had some conceptual renderings. So, in these renderings here, then what I think I'm understanding is, existing is the building that's hatched on the corner. We all go up and down that street frequently. I think the bottom picture probably is not something we're supposed to be talking about today. Is that right? Or it is? The bottom picture is the house. And we're not talking about that?

I'm more than happy to discuss it. So there is the commercial structure on the corner. There's a vacant. Vacant lot next to it. This is the house on the third lot. This is within what is before you today. Okay. The house on the fourth lot is not being brought before you today. Okay. Does that clarify?

Thank you, Mr. Combs. Okay, so then on the proposed renderings, so what is it exactly in just plain...

uh language that you're here for today i would like to get the permission to take what the existing store looks like take off that sliver of seven or eight feet on the north side of it which was in crouching onto the next lot and then rehabilitated as much as possible to what the historical picture looked like we do have plans that we submitted i really i feel Like I'm misleading you because this is not this. Okay.

So you want to get permission to start rectifying or fixing up that historic structure. And I'm sorry if I'm asking a lot of questions. It's just things can get confusing, right? So the structure that the gentleman in the audience is referencing doesn't want to be removed. You're not proposing to remove it. Correct, which is what I wrote to him. You're wanting to renovate it.

Correct.

And then is there a reason why we don't have those plan sets? Or maybe I missed it.

Because that was not part of this request. It's something that we've been working with separately with the applicant.

Okay. Which goes to my original point that this proposal is not in any of our materials.

I'm sorry? What he's proposing regarding the corner store, if we can call it that, is not represented in the board materials. Correct. Okay. Initially, this came in as a full demolition and redevelopment. No, no, not the store. I'm sorry.

The store was never full demolition.

So they were going to add two units onto the store structure. That is the application that came in, okay?

Okay.

While working with the applicant, they, and while we were moving this forward to get it before the board, the discussion turned to what could be approved at staff level regarding that structure. Again, we go back to the fact that that geometry has been so substantially changed, it cannot be restored, right? We can't use that terminology it can be rehabilitated. We can make attempts to bring it back to something representative of what it was, but there's no way that corner is ever going to be the same, right? And so we've been working with the applicant to find a path forward administratively to do that. That would also require the removal of a small addition to the north end of it so that it's no longer crossing the property line so that he can get clear... property lines to develop, right? So we can bifurcate, if the board is fine, we can bifurcate that portion of this out and we can move forward with that at staff level. Or the board can look at this and say, no, we think there should be a two unit project attached to it because that is what is before you today. Or you could say, None of that, right? So I... What? Nothing's been denied. It is recommended denial. It's a recommendation of denial, right? So...

Okay, so may I?

No, we're still with Mr. Collins.

Well, thanks.

Sorry.

I was almost finished. And so if the board is amenable to not including that portion in their decision, they can exclude that portion from their decision and focus solely on the demolition of the single family structure and the redevelopment of the two parcels that would then be there. Again, that fourth parcel is not part of this application.

So I have one final question then. Thanks, Ken. So how did you end up here? We don't have a decision on what you're here for. like where would be a set of plans that we can all reference, right? Like from what it sounds like, it seems like you could either, we either could ask to demo a little piece of the building on the corner. But even if we did that, obviously we'd want to see what you're planning to do with the building on the corner.

Which I'm trying to find because they have it. The staff have it. But it's not.

I guess for whatever reason it didn't make it to the level of getting to us today. Because regardless, I understand you're trying to find a path forward. I'm sure everybody's trying to be helpful. I'm just saying that the pictures that we're looking at here I don't think are a faithful representation of something that would be cool to rehabilitate that building. But as you say yourself, that's not what you're proposing. So I think that's all I'm trying to figure out. Thanks.

Again, the attempt for rehabilitation has been something we have been trying to address at staff level, administratively, not before the board.

Is that because you're trying to be helpful? I'm sorry? Is that because you're trying to be helpful? Yes.

Yeah, I mean. Right. Okay. So the board can be amenable to that, bifurcate that portion out of this decision, and focus on the proposed demolition and redevelopment of the other property.

But there are no drawings for that.