Historic and Environmental Preservation Board - Regular Meeting

We'll be clearing up the lot as well as registering it with the City of Miami because it is now vacant and is no longer a structure on here and it's not being occupied. A lot like this is a hazard to our neighborhood. It attracts illegal dumping, it attracts trash, stray animals, and it devalues the property values of the houses around us. As a reminder, if you so happen to own a vacant lot, it is to be registered with the City of Miami. By doing so, you can go onto our website. Under code compliance, it will provide you all the steps that are needed to take.

As technology advances, scammers have figured out multiple ways to use it against us. Scammers target consumers searching for company contact information online by purchasing fraudulent ads that look legitimate. When individuals click these ads or call the displayed numbers, they are unknowingly connected with scammers and share personal information. Victims often only realize they have been scammed weeks later. To protect yourself from online search scams, follow these tips. 1. Always use the phone number on your FPL bill instead of searching for contact information online. 2. Check the URL for misspellings or extra characters. 3. Look for the padlock icon, which indicates a secure connection.

It happens more than you would think because scams are getting more elaborate. It can be difficult to tell what is a scam. These scammers know how to confuse you and take your information.

Scammers are aggressively targeting utility company customers across Florida using sophisticated tactics to pocket quick cash. And it can happen to anyone.

At Florida Power & Light Company, we don't ever want one of our customers to become a victim of a scam. That's why it's so important that you follow these tips to best protect yourself.

If you receive a suspicious call and they say it is FPL asking you to pay something, hang up. Even if the caller ID displays FPL's phone number and name.

FPL will never call you and demand something immediately. An FPL employee will never call you and make you feel pressured to provide personal information.

FPL will never demand immediate payment through an app like Zelle or Venmo, a prepaid card or wire transfer to avoid service disconnection. FPL will never ask for personal information, such as account numbers or your social security number. FPL will never ask for personal information unless you call them, in which case we will ask questions to confirm you are the account holder.

We have heard of scammers that threaten to turn off power to your home or business within an hour if payment isn't made immediately. And they may even claim a truck is on the way. It's important to remember FPL would never do that.

FPL does have energy experts who complete home energy surveys, but FPL will never solicit a customer by phone to offer home energy surveys. Our FPL energy experts will visit your home only if you request the survey and make an appointment.

Our FPL energy experts will visit your home only if you request it and make an appointment. Our employees want to make you feel safe, not like you're being scammed.

To spot a scam, you should know the process for late payments. FPL tries to be as flexible as possible, giving customers 21 days after the bill issue date to make a payment.

If we do not receive payment past the 21 days the balance is considered late and a final notice is sent showing the amount due and a secondary due date if payment is still not received fpl will contact you by email regarding the payment.

Shutting off someone's electricity is always our last resort. FPL understands this can be difficult and doesn't want anyone to fall victim to a scam. Recently, we have been seeing an increase in scammers knocking on customers' doors claiming to be with FPL or a company that works with FPL.

Although an FPL employee or contractor may knock on your door to inform you about projects in your area, such as undergrounding power lines, they will not try to sell you a product.

always ask to see the FPL employee or contractor's photo identification badge. If you have a scheduled appointment, ask for the work request number prior to letting a worker in your home. Contact the FPL care center or law enforcement if you think you have been a victim of a scam.

It is rare that an FPL employee or contractor requires access inside your home or business. However, it's possible that an FPL employee or contractor will require access to the meter on your property without an appointment or notice. In this case, ask to see their badge and call the number on your FPL bill if you wish to confirm the appointment.

So, what do you do if you think you have been scammed?

the first thing you should do is contact your local police department to report the scam.

It is also important that you report the suspected scam or fraud to FPL. Go online to fpl.com slash protect for more information. Click the link to report a scam.

We know it can be difficult to tell when someone's trying to scam you. If you ever feel concerned, just hang up the phone or ask the person to leave. If you feel unsafe, call 911 and ask for help.

You can find more information about how to protect yourself from scams on fpl.com slash protect.

There is only one thing that will save somebody's life, and that is Naloxone nasal spray. Get 911 on the phone, get the emergency responses there on their way.

For this reason, illegal waste is a danger to communities and the environment. People who throw away illegal waste are a big threat to our communities and the environment. in the environment as a dangerous substance and a chemical product that comes out of the farm, throwing it into the ground, contaminating it and causing it to die. This pollution affects the health of the environment, affects plants, animals, and aquatic life. In addition to this, illegal parks create a breeding ground for animals and organisms that are sick, that require 8 cents per resident to live close to their site. Discarding appearances, keeping parks, will have a negative impact on our neighborhood. This will reduce the value of our property and encourage potential investors and visitors.

As technology advances, scammers have figured out multiple ways to use it against us. Scammers target consumers searching for company contact information online by purchasing fraudulent ads that look legitimate. When individuals click these ads or call the displayed numbers, they are unknowingly connected with scammers and share personal information. Victims often only realize they have been scammed weeks later. To protect yourself from online search scams, follow these tips. One, always use the phone number on your FPL bill instead of searching for contact information online. Two, check the URL for misspellings or extra characters. Three, look for the padlock icon, which indicates a secure connection. FPL will never demand immediate payment through an app like Zelle or Venmo, a prepaid card or wire transfer to avoid service disconnection. FPL will never ask for personal information, such as account numbers or your social security number. FPL will never ask for personal information unless you call them, in which case we will ask questions to confirm you are the account holder. FPL does have energy experts who complete home energy surveys, but FPL will never solicit a customer by phone to offer home energy surveys. Our FPL energy experts will visit your home only if you request the survey and make an appointment. To spot a scam, you should know the process for late payments. FPL tries to be as flexible as possible, giving customers 21 days after the bill issue date to make a payment. Shutting off someone's electricity is always our last resort. Recently, we have been seeing an increase in scammers knocking on customers' doors, claiming to be with FPL or a company that works with FPL. If you have a scheduled appointment, ask for the work request number prior to letting a worker in your home. Contact the FPL Care Center or law enforcement if you think you have been a victim of a scam. It is also important that you report the suspected scam or fraud to FPL. Go online to fpl.com slash protect for more information.

Trees are an important part of our environment, providing shade, clean air, and homes for wildlife. But sometimes, trees need to be removed due to disease, safety hazards, or other reasons. If you live in the city of Miami and need to remove a tree on your property, you must apply for a permit from the city. The permit process helps ensure that trees are only removed when necessary and that new trees are planted to replace them. Applying for a permit is easy. Just visit the Miami City website and follow the steps to complete the online application. Remember, it's important to follow the rules and regulations when it comes to tree removal in the city of Miami. Let's work together to keep our city green and beautiful.

Fasten your seat belt and make sure that the kids are also in it. Car seats and boosters provide protection for babies and children in case of a crash. Car crashes are one of the main causes of death for children between the ages of 1 to 13. The best seat is the one that fits your child's size, is installed correctly, adapts well to your car, and is used correctly every time you drive.

Don't wait until the last moment to prepare for a hurricane.

Go to Miami.gov slash hurricane and use our guide to help plan your preparations.

Every second matters in a natural disaster.

you you

Please remain standing if you intend to testify in this proceeding and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony that you will give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you. You may be seated. I'll go ahead and call board attendance.

One moment. Let me call to order the September 1st meeting of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board and ask our lobbyist to, I mean, ask our attorney to read a statement regarding lobbying.

Any person who is a lobbyist pursuant to Chapter 2, Article 6 of the City Code must register with the city clerk and apply for 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 lobbies is available in the city clerk's office or online on municode.com. The agenda for this meeting and the 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 our 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 liaison. Any person may be heard by the board through the chair and pursuant to the public's 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 item will 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.

Thanks. Now we can have a roll call, please.

Calling board attendance. That will be Chair William Hopper.

Present.

Calling Vice Chair Luis Prieto y Munoz. Calling Member Najeeb Campbell. Here. Thank you. Calling Member Christopher Cauley.

Here.

Thank you. Calling Member Julie O'Dell.

Here.

Thank you. Calling Member John Perez. Calling Member Robert Powers. Here. Calling Member Hugh Ryan.

Here.

Calling Member Jordan Trachtenberg. Thank you. We do have quorum.

Do we have any requests for absence waivers?

No requests for absence waivers.

Okay. And we have no minutes for approval.

No minutes for approval.

And how long are we going to keep the public comments open?

Are we able to close the online public comment?

Yes.

Thank you.

And so I don't believe, do we have any changes to the agenda?

So I would like, if it's amenable to the board, to have our singular discussion item, which is selecting a date for a potential special meeting in October for environmental resources addressed now, just so that we are sure that we have quorum to make that determination.

Sure.

Okay.

Calling Member John Perez. Calling Member Jordan Trachtenberg.

Present.

And calling Vice Chair Luis Prieto y Munoz. Thank you.

So what dates are we looking at?

So the board was provided with four dates, October 13th, anytime after 1 p.m., October 15th, anytime after 2 p.m., October 20th, the chambers are available at any time, and Monday, October 26th, the chambers are available at any time. I do want to note that depending on the number of appeals that we receive and our agenda for October, we may be able to cancel this meeting. So I just want everyone to bear that in mind. But at this time, I want to make sure that we have a meeting on the calendar in case it's necessary. I did get feedback from two board members about dates. At this point, the 13th looked favorable to those two members.

Do you want to have any objections to the 13th? That's after what time?

After 1 p.m. After 1 p.m. For me, it's a matter of how many there are to help make this decision, because last time I think we went very late into the evening. And if there were a lot of items, I'd prefer that it would be on the 20th or the other date, because you can start earlier. If we start at, I guess, 1 is the earliest on the 13th.

One, yeah, it would be one o'clock on the 13th.

How many items are there now?

To my knowledge, there are two. And assuming the board is able to get through all the items in September, there will be two. My concern is that there are items that may roll over.

So you're saying that there's not going to be additional ones that are appearing?

I don't know whether there are. Because there's still time for that.

There's still time for that. Just throwing that out there.

I agree with the earlier opportunity to start earlier than one, just in case.

I agree as well. Earlier is better.

Earlier is better for me, but the earliest I could do would be noon.

So that would be... On the 20th. On the 20th.

And the other option was the 25th, is that right? 26th. And on the 26th, Dr. Hopper?

So the 26th, the chambers are available all day, and the 20th, the chambers are available all day.

For the bundles of clarity, I'm available neither of those two days. I'm only available the 13th or the 15th. Let's definitely shoot for those days then. Just kidding, just kidding. If you guys, you know, if we have to have this meeting without me again, it's just going to be what it's going to be. No, we definitely should have him here this time. I appreciate you guys so much. Thank you.

Okay, so that means that brings it back to the 13th at 1. Is that right? Yes. I mean, it is what it is. All right.

Any objection to the 13th at 1? Do we need a motion? Yes. Do I hear a motion?

So moved. Right. And this is only if it is required, if we get... I'll second that.

Any discussion on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, so we're set for October 13th at 1 o'clock if we need it. Thank you. Any other changes to the agenda? There are no other changes to the agenda. No reports? I have no monthly updates at this time. Okay, then we'll move right into the agenda. When the agenda item is called by staff, the applicant will come forward to the microphone, give your name and address for the record. We'll start with a staff report, after which the applicant may provide additional information. And I would ask you to please limit your presentation to 10 minutes or less, if you want to make a presentation, that is. After which we will open it up to the public for questions. For comments, I'd ask everyone to limit your comments to two minutes or less. When everyone's had a chance to speak, we'll close the public comment section and limit discussion to the board and whoever they might direct a question or comment to. When everyone's had a chance to speak from the board, we'll have a vote and that will be the end of that item and we'll move on to the next item. So we're ready for item number one.

Thank you. Calling help item number one, file ID-19659, a resolution of the Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board pursuant to Section 23-4 of the City Code of Ordinances, approving or denying a final evaluation for the rescission of designation of the individually designated site known as the Little Havana House, located at approximately 1016 Southwest 13th Court, Miami, Florida, 33135, further incorporating the analysis in the attached staff report entitled Exhibit A with the following findings.

And the applicant is present.

Please give your name and address for the record. Good afternoon. Sassan Kimiadi. Address is 4751 North Bay Road, Miami Beach. Thank you. We'll start with the staff report.

Adriana Pinoza-Aldor, Historic Preservation Planner. Welcome, everyone. One moment. Request that the staff analysis be submitted to the record, to the board? Yes, approved. Great, thank you. So if we look to our screens, we can get a bit of a refresher after our month off. We've got the property at 1016, or the lot at 1016 Southwest 13th Court as it used to look. There it is on the map. continue on so these are the requested changes as I was able to record them as well as the sketches provided by Mr. Trachtenberg and Mr. Perez for the requests in the design we can go over them of course but if we kind of go on to the next spot here are the changes made to the design by the applicant So as you can see, the railings on the second floor and the roof deck were changed to look like the railings on the second floor of the little Havana house. A knee wall was added below the railings. The railings facing the street were changed to reflect the railing on the first floor. A masonry planter was added to the base of the front elevation on the left and the right to give the appearance of a solid masonry base. The crawlspace appearance requested, that was not necessarily included, but as you can see, the board formed concrete goes to the bottom. For number four, the center of the elevation on the second floor was pushed forward. to give the illusion of more depth. Shutters were placed in there as well. The windows at the center above the garage doors were made inset, and the shutters were suspended in the front of the plane on the second floor. And then we've got two trees that were requested, palm trees, but I believe according to the specific recommendations, it could be a palm tree or any other native plant but conceptually this is what was used. This is how it appears from the front. Staff recommend approval with conditions. for the rescission of the individually designated resource. And the condition is that within a year, the owner would have successfully proffered a covenant to construct the duplex as presented to the board today. That should read September 1st. In this case, and in the exercise of its authority pursuant to Chapter 23 and the Historic Preservation Board, we'll accept the covenant described and expressly waive and forego the application of the presumption limiting replacement structures to the same height, massing, and square footage, and any requirement to reconstruct the structure in its original historic form. In lieu of such requirements, the Board shall permit construction of the proposed duplex as presented at the September 1, 2026 final hearing, provided that the Board finds that the proposed structure is consistent with the context and character of the immediate area. The covenant shall run with the land and shall be enforceable by the city, and failure to construct the duplex in substantial accordance with the approved plans shall result in reinstatement of all applicable requirements under Chapter 23-6, including but not limited to reconstruction and development limitations set forth therein. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anything you'd like to add? No, thank you. Great. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this item? Please come forward and give your name and address for the record.

Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. I'm disappointed that we're losing a fabulous old home in that area. By this action, I don't think I can convince anyone that it should be saved at this point. However, I would ask that at least some sort of green trim be included so it's not a completely white building as an homage to what used to be there. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else from the public? Now I'll close the public hearing and I'm up to the boards for questions and comments and I'll start with Mr. Cawley.

No, I have no comments. Thanks a lot for making all the changes. Looking much better. Appreciate it very much.

Mr. Ryan?

I don't have any comments either. It's what we were talking about at the last meeting. Thank you.

Mr. Campbell?

I'll wait to hear what Member Trachtenberg and Perez, who sketched, have to say before I join.

Okay. Mr. Trachtenberg?

I think you've spent some effort to align with our comments, and thank you for that. I read some of the public comments about the height being an issue, but your access point is pretty set back, I think, from the frontage. So there's an opportunity there to only perceive two stories. I feel. When it comes to the comment about adding a little bit of a green hue, have you considered that at all?

We haven't had any discussions about that, so it never entered into my mind that we should have any green hue, although the landscaping may help the large trees that are on the left and right may provide some coverage for that coloring. I do think there's an interesting idea there, especially when it comes to the wood I'm personally not for that. I don't think it really fits the character of the house that we have in mind there. And I rather stick with the colors that everybody has seen and accepted.

What's the materiality color? I'm trying to find the material.

The material, we have some details on that. It's going to be aluminum, so it's waterproof and weatherproof.

Right, no, but the color of the aluminum. It's going to be brown.

Brown, right. Dark brown, like the renderings that we have, yes. Thank you.

Mr. Perez?

I certainly appreciate the effort that was put into this and Obviously, this could turn into an endless exercise in design, but the truth is, I think that this isn't about pleasing at least my design sensitivities. Therefore, I think the length that you've taken this, to me, is satisfactory, and it actually looks like a nice design. There's certain elements such as moldings and ways that I think that's more up to you to articulate, for example, and the pilasters that are on the second floor. I think it would simply benefit the project and maybe even make it better in the market to be able to sell it. But I think this captures, at least in my opinion, the essence of the original design. And it evokes the original design. That being said, I think that your original idea of making a plaque would still be a very nice gesture that may show the original, maybe an etching that shows the original structure and maybe explains how this is inspired by it. I think it'd be a... a very nice addition to the neighborhood.

Thank you. Mr. Perez, I'm sorry, did you mention black?

No, a plaque, like a plaque. A plaque, okay. Originally, you were thinking about doing a plaque. I think it would be a very nice feature for the neighborhood, somebody to walk by and say, oh, this used to be here.

I don't have any problem doing that. The renderings do show a plaque there, so I'll be more than happy to add that. And if the city museum is able to provide a link to a page that commemorates the historic nature of the house, we can certainly put that link on the plaque itself so people can enjoy that.

I hope your project is a success, and I hope we don't seem too complicated for developers because I'd like to encourage... responsible development, and I appreciate what you've done here.

Sure, thank you. Ms. Odell?

I agree with my colleagues. I think the plaque would be an excellent addition. And Ken, can you help with getting all the information to him for the plaque? Good job.

I'll work with Mr. Calmes and Espinoza to make that happen, no problem.

Mr. Prieto-Aminos?

Thank you. I won't opine on the aesthetic. I agree with my colleagues. I appreciate the work that you've put in to try to capture the slew of feedback that you received, and I appreciate that. I am taking a slightly procedural view, and I just want to get a few things right, considering that this is the rescission of a historic designation. I take it quite seriously, particularly because this overlaps some demolition by neglect provisions that become continuously applicable, particularly as this code was recently amended. So my questions are not for you. Don't worry about that. My questions are for our city attorney and staff. Per my reading of Section 23 of the code, 6H2A2, which is the first provision under which we would be rescinding, per my reading, there are two parameters that need to be met. The first is that the aesthetic criteria that's been discussed. But the second, and these are an and, not an or, requires that there was a satisfaction, that the board is satisfied that there was maintenance and frequent inspection of the property prior to the demolition by neglect. Am I correct in interpreting that our ability to rescind this designation hinges on whether we find that both of those parameters were met?

One second, let me take a quick look one more time.

I appreciate that you need to go through it, so no rush on my end. Maybe while you look at that, I can ask Ken the other question, which is, could you walk me through the timing of the covenant? Why a year? Why not a condition of the rescission?

So the rescission won't take place until after it's done. So the rescission doesn't become, if I'm correct, the rescission won't become effective until the covenant is actually in place. Does that make sense?

Yeah, just the way I read it?

Right, and the way things work to submit the covenant and have it go through all the processes and get everybody's signature on it, and it could be several months. And so that is...

Okay, I understand. I think the way, and maybe it's just my lay reading of the conditions, but as I understand it, the covenant... and the rescission are not currently married. There is a time condition on the rescission, sorry, that there is a trigger by our decision that the property is rescinded, that the historical designation was rescinded, and separately he is given one year to confer the covenant. So as I see those, they're divorced items, and I think they should be married. And just a point for Mr. Cruz, who came and gave public comment. The house is no longer in existence. It would burn down. So I appreciate profoundly where you're coming from, but there is no house to save at this point. We're trying to right a wrong as best we can.

And I took a look at the provision. I don't think it applies in this circumstance. When I read it again, it states that... I'll just read the whole thing. So this presumption shall also be applicable to any requests from the after-the-fact certificate of appropriateness. This presumption may be rebutted and the board may allow for the addition of more square footage where appropriate not to exceed the maximum permitted under the code if it is established to the satisfaction of the board that the following criteria have been satisfied. So I think those prongs after the fact specifically relate to the addition of a square footage. I don't think it applies in this circumstance.

Why is that?

Because you've read it. Because we are, sorry, if I may just give you why I'm coming from.

My understanding is that the foundation of this rescission is precisely to allow the applicant to build a structure that is in fact larger and more mass than the property that was there previously. And under normal terms of a demolition by neglect, he would be constrained to build a structure that is confined by those parameters. So as I understand it, we as a board need to be satisfied of those two conditions, both of them, as I'm reading the code to apply.

And I'll defer to Ken just a little bit. Under the circumstances of this particular designation, I know that traditionally demolition by neglect, the applicant has to construct something that is of the same scale, and in this instance, It's accurate to say that they're adding more to? Yes.

But the board also has the authority, again, to approve something of a larger scale, a different mass, if the board is satisfied that it's appropriate for that site, like we did in... Palm Grove a couple of months ago. We had the vacant land where the new construction was considerably larger, but the board made the determination that it was appropriate for that site.

I appreciate that, Ken. Where I'm coming from, I'm just simply reading the code, and it does seem that per the staff analysis, both thresholds are conveyed as a mechanism for the rescission. So coming to page nine of the staff analysis, As a caveat to the above, the HEP board also has within its power, as per 2362H2A, to rebut the presumption of demolition by neglect, and the board may allow for the addition, etc. And it states those two conditions, and those two conditions are unified by an and, not an or. Right. Because I understand... Sorry, go ahead.

The... The current applicant is not the property owner who allowed this to occur. Does that... I absolutely appreciate that.

And that's precisely... Sorry, not to cut you off. That's exactly why I wanted to bring this up and why I really wanted to get a full, thorough opinion because... there may be some blind spots in the code with regard to precisely this condition, where a negligent property owner allowed a historic resource to degrade to the point where it was demolished by the city because it was for whatever reason. I don't need to go into those details. He conveys the property and the new applicant, understandably and very equitably, cannot be held to the exact same level standards of care simply because they didn't own the property during that period of time. I'm concerned that this provision is blind to that and that that does create an effective loophole in the system where you can sell it and basically state, don't worry, it's not historic. There's nothing on there. How can it be historic? You buy it and then you find yourself here. Through no fault of your own. I appreciate where you're coming from. So I just want to make sure that we're getting this part right. And I don't, just from my own interpretation, and again, this is a lay interpretation, but I don't understand how we would have the authority to rescind this on the basis of that code provision without making a determination that the property owner made a reasonable effort to regularly inspect and maintain the structure. This is blind to a conveyance of the property. So I don't know how we can determine that.

Yeah, I think you make a pretty good point because I don't think the code specifically addresses circumstances like these. So I do think this falls in a bit of a gray area in the instance that we have before us where we have the now property owner who didn't create the conditions on the property and now he's coming before us. I think what I can say is that For whatever it's worth, I would say more so the spirit of the code seems to kind of put this onus on the board in circumstances where the property owner is the one who actually contributes to the demolition by neglect of the property.

Would it make a difference? This burned on a Sunday morning. This was not a neglect as much as it was a suspicious fire on Sunday morning.

Right. I'm trying to think of another example where...

I appreciate this was not an easy one.

I'm sorry to lob that at you guys. So, I mean, does it specifically fall under the demolition by neglect code because it was a suspicious fire?

Well, was it regularly inspected and in good condition prior to?

It was salvageable. It wasn't in great condition when it was designated. I mean, I remember when it was designated. Yeah, I mean, it was square and plumb and could have been fixed.

I mean, so actually, Hugh, I think that does sort of clarify this. So if you're of the opinion, you're a member of this board, and if you determine based on your knowledge of this site that it was regularly maintained or at least adequately maintained... You circumvent my concerns on this point.

Well, it wasn't adequately maintained, but it was not so far gone that it would have been demolished. It wasn't demolished until it burned.

Hugh, let me ask you this in plain terms, because I need to overcome this if I'm going to vote in the affirmative. Do you believe the property owner made reasonable efforts to inspect and maintain the structure free of structural deficiencies in compliance with the minimum maintenance statutes of the code?

No, but that wouldn't be him. That would be the last one, right? That's what I'm concerned about.

The absolution that's conveyed by this decision.

Well, I'd look at the property and say it could have been slapped with a bunch of unsafe structure things based on the condition and based on the maintenance of it. You know, suspicious fire leads to an investigation possibly into why and who and what happened. But apparently they found that it was totally legitimate. Nothing to report. Anyway, it wasn't in great shape. That's why the fire was suspicious on a Sunday morning.

My concern, just to state it clearly, we're entering a new phase. This code was recently amended with regard to demolition by neglect. It happened in the last few years. Given the development pressure within the city of Miami, I suspect we're going to be facing this frequently. I think it's very important that we get this right and that we understand... I THINK AS A BOARD AND ALSO FROM THE STAFF LEVEL, WHAT THESE GUARD RAILS ARE PROVIDED FOR BY THE CODE AND THAT WE LOOK AT THIS, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE BOARD HAS DELIBERATIVE AUTHORITY. PER MY READING, WE ARE NOT GIVEN DELIBERATIVE AUTHORITY OVER THIS ITEM, PARTICULARLY JUST THE WAY THE CODE IS WRITTEN, BUT AGAIN, IT'S NOT FOR ME TO NECESSARILY, IT'S NOT EXCLUSIVELY FOR ME, I GUESS, TO INTERPRET THIS. So that's where I'm at. I just don't understand. I can't overcome that hurdle of how I make that determination absent. I appreciate that this is not anything you can actually control at this point because obviously you're not the previous owner. So you've done everything you possibly can. I'm not trying to derail your approval. I'm just concerned about everything else that comes in front of it. And I take the move. The demolition by neglect element is very, very concerning. I just want to make sure that we get this right.

Mr. Munoz, if I may suggest something. I think the property, when it goes through the demolition by neglect, the property has to be encumbered in some way with the information being available publicly. So when people go and purchase these lots, like a vacant lot, like in this particular case, the title company is able to flag that and The interesting thing is that even on the city's records, and my attorney checked for that, he's no longer employed by me here, but he said that the city records did not include this property, was not flagged as a historic property, and there was no encumbrance on the property. The violations were all closed, so my title company that was searching for violations could not actually flag this.

This is not an encumbrance. So historic designation for many people is a... is a benefit people seek it um so i think from from a i appreciate profoundly where you're coming from i know it's a bit of a hackneyed adage to say that ignorance of the code doesn't absolve you of adhering to it i think that is very much the case here you know i think if you had gone into the city's gis portal and you had looked through the layers it would have been there not to say that everybody should do that every time they buy a property but you know your your sophisticated property developer or at least sufficiently of means to acquire investment properties and develop them. So it ultimately lands on you, not on the city in those regards. I'm sure that it would have been in the GIS layer. I find it impossible to think that it isn't as everything else is.

I will add that I did check the GIS. It was in the GIS.

It does show up as a historic resource. Yes. It's the thing is your title company I don't think would find it because it's not attached to the title. It's a city's designation. It's part of its zoning, for lack of a better concept. So if you have a title search, they don't tell you that it's zoned T3R, do they? It doesn't. It just tells you whether the title is clear and you can acquire it without encumbrance. And again, I'm not trying to make this complicated for you, nor am I trying to belabor this massive agenda with a procedural point. But there's a lot of demolition yet to come on this agenda, and I know we have a lot of these types of items coming forward. So I'm very keen to get this all out there and make sure that we get it right. And I apologize to the rest of the board for the dull policy discussion. So I don't know what you guys think, or what guidance you think would be the right way to approach this. Go ahead.

Well, I appreciate the focus. What would be the fate of the property If the vote is no, whether it's this property or another one against rescinding, what would be the subsequent fate of that property?

So it would retain the designation and then any development would remain under purview of the board.

And if I'm not mistaken, it would be encumbered by the restrictions conveyed by demolition by neglect, meaning it would be restricted to the size, massing, et cetera, of the building that was once there, correct?

Unless you felt the board had the authority to go beyond that per code.

Which comes to this point, which comes to whether we believe the item meets the letter of the code. And that's the part A, which has that and between the two sub clauses. And that's what I'm struggling with.

Well, for me, in the future, it would mean that the board would be able to shift the restriction of it having to be same mass, same scale, and that would be the purview of the board. So, I have a slight uncomfortable feeling about what the point you made, Vice Chair about being able to sell a property, someone else buys it, they're not responsible and then they can build something larger, out of scale, out of mass, sometimes maybe even out of design, based on the board's purview. So the issue is, should we be strict and make it remain, you must develop according to those rules or leave it with the board to be flexible within that. So Vice Chair, which one of those scenarios are you comfortable or uncomfortable with?

May I say something here? You don't mind.

Just for clarity, I think the concern here is whether, I don't believe we necessarily, pending opinion of counsel, I don't think we have the legal authority to grant this to you. That's where I'm at with this.

Well, I just want to mention something that, It's been almost a year since I've submitted this application and I've worked with the historic staff to go through this entire process. I've been in front of the board three times, and I have modified the design multiple times at my own cost and effort. And I think that it's efforts like this that makes the time of the board and the time of the citizens worthwhile. I'm happy with the design that was produced and what I had proposed initially. So what is the purpose of all of these efforts that we put into this? I think what we have created is much better than what I had proposed before, and I think it's a good fit for that property. So having said that, I would appreciate if the board really considered all of the effort that went into this.

Let me be abundantly clear where I'm coming from. I don't disagree with you. I think you've done everything we've asked you to do. You have been a part of this process. You have come to us. You have been completely convivial with every element of this. I don't mean to say otherwise. What I'm saying, and provided we find a way to deal with this correctly, I'm perfectly on board with granting it. I agree with my colleagues. I think what you did is correct. I think the modifications are in the spirit of everything we asked you. Where I'm coming from is in rereading this application and going through everything and preparing for this meeting and in going through the code, I'm not convinced that And this is something that could have come up in the first meeting. I'll give you that, but it's still a provision of the code. I'm not convinced that we actually have the legal authority to do this, given the circumstances. So that's why I asked the question to our attorney is, explain to me the legal authority that is granted to the board to proceed with that, determining, as a provision of this, we need to determine.

Excuse me, through the chair.

Give me just one second. Sorry. I'll pause so I don't distract him.

Thank you. And just for the record, Mr. Powers is present.

Yes, thank you for your arrival, Mr. Powers. However, since he arrived late, he won't be able to vote on this item.

While they're deliberating over there, Vice Chair, a question. So the issue you're having is the idea of rescinding, right? Like taking away the historic designation of the property itself.

No, it's not. My issue is that that's what we're being asked to do, and I appreciate that, and there are provisions in our code that allow us to do that. And it is in the powers that are conferred to us by the code, which is what I was citing to counsel, which...

There's more code. There's more code. Yeah, there's more code. We're kind of hunting to see. But it says, if you write under that section that you cited, it says reconstruction of demolished contributing structures. It says the board shall determine on a case-by-case basis whether the reconstruction of an original contributing structure is warranted. It says also the requirement to be constructed in an original manner is applicable in the event that a contributing building is demolished without obtaining a certificate of appropriation from the board or is demolished pursuant to an order an unsaved structure board or whose property was determined to be an immediate threat of danger required to be demolished by the order of the building official or that is the subject of a demolition by neglect. So this particular portion of the code right under what you read does give the board the discretion under these circumstances to approve.

I appreciate that. And I see that as well. My concern, and the way I read that, and maybe I'm misinterpreting that, and that was why the question was directed to staff and not a bully pulpit, soliloquy directed at the poor applicant, was I read that to be a reconstruction, an attempt to recreate the original structure. That's how I read that provision, and I might be misinterpreting that. I'm open to hearing... The different view but that's how that part of the code read to me and I figured in this constant since it is not a reconstruction of the original structure. It is a construction of a new relatively unrelated structure with architectural cues that harken back to the demolish structure that was not applicable.

This allows you this section of code allows you to not require reconstruction which would be something that would harken back to. i.e. what he is presenting.

Right, but I don't see that as resolving the massing issue, which is addressed by the provision prior to it. And I might just have to be no vote on this and everybody else can go forward if we can't overcome it, but I just, I think it's important to be consistent and to make sure that we're understanding this because it is a little bit too gray for my taste.

Through the chair?

Yes, Mr. Powers.

So we have three properties like that in our neighborhood where the houses were destroyed and knocked down?

Get a little closer to your microphone. Can you hear me now?

A little closer.

Closer?

Nobody ever asked me to speak louder. We know, Bob. It's too close now, maybe. Thank you. So we have three properties like that in Palm Grove where the houses were either set on fire or demolitioned by neglect that have restrictions on them that they can only be built back what was originally there. There's three that I know of. There might be more. The president of the association, I think, is here. So coming before this board today are a bunch of people who want to knock down historic houses to build something new. So, you know, this is a quagmire, the whole thing and the whole conversation. Like, don't buy in historic places and buy a building that's standing if you want to rip it down in a historic neighborhood. I just don't understand why you would do such a thing, number one. Yeah. So these are the things that are coming before us. These are some of the stuff that we have going on presently, which I find kind of unfair. I also have a client of mine that bought in, I forget the neighborhood, just north of the design district, who also bought, is in the same position that this gentleman's in, bought a lot where the property had been ripped down by the previous owner and then spent, tens of thousands of dollars getting all the fines and liens and things like that taken off of the property. I think we finally reached some agreement with a historic preservation officer what can eventually be built there. So I'm not blind to this whole thing about how do we do this, like this dance that we take. And I think that you have to look at the intention, the intentionality. I also have a house on my block where the people have owned that property since 2008 who have done nothing to mitigate the complete destruction of a beautiful home that up until about 10 years ago had people living in it. and just have not mitigated maintaining that property at all, who are going to come before this board in the near future wanting to knock that property down, and have done nothing to mitigate the demolition. So to you people out there, don't buy in a neighborhood that's historic if you don't want to redo a historic property. Don't do that. And in my neighborhood, we have 17 properties that are vacant lots where you can build whatever you want. But don't come before this board and think that we're just going to give you a pass to knock down whatever it is that you want to knock down. Because that's just not going to happen. And so I'm just telling you. Please, no applause, please. So the thing here is this, is that I think we're stuck in a position where I think we almost have to take it on as a case-by-case basis and look at these things as they pertain to the intention of the person who's bringing. This man didn't burn down the house. He didn't knock it down. A couple of years went by before a new building was going to be set to be built. As you had said, because I've been here for all the times that you've come before this board. We did not flatly like the first rendering of it, and I think you understand why. And then, of course, we have agreed to what you have set forth so far, I think, this went through the board, the argument that's going on about your property is the legal position that we place ourselves in as a board when we make these decisions.

And I think that's, if I heard you correctly, is that not correct? Is that where I'm at?

No, that's exactly the concern. All right, so thank you very much. It's simply that.

I just wanted to illustrate in my own neighborhood the frustration that we have in our own neighborhood with some of these things. And I'm going to tell you something else. I've lived at my house for 25 years. I'm still renovating that house. I'm still renovating. To this day, I'm still renovating this house. So you guys who come in here with all this money, who can do all this stuff all at one time, great for you.

So if this helps solve your position, the request is to rescind the designation. And that can occur with or without reconstruction. Right? The board can grant the rescission. The request has been that they provide something that's appropriate for this property that's respective of the building that was there as a condition of the rescission.

And that was exactly what I was trying to get to, was...

So so the concern so it's not necessarily Addressing if this helps I'll say right it's not addressing the demolition by neglect It's the rescission which the board has the right to do now you could feel it's inappropriate to rescind the designation and expect that demolition by neglect to apply and That is certainly a decision you can make if that is what you're comfortable with. But the actual thing before the board is the rescission of the designation.

So this is exactly why I was asking you that question, so I could rephrase it back to you in that if we were able to just focus on the de-designation and not so much the property, the design intent that we're approving today, Would that change the way... No, no. I'm blind to the design intent. This is purely a policy item.

So in theory, we could just vote to rescind the designation. That was my question for staff. I mean, we are rescinding the designation, but as I read the report, this was determined as a demolition by neglect?

There was no determination. There was or there was not? So there was a fire. It was demolished without a COA, right? And so therefore, in this instance, it appears to apply. There was never an adjudication of demolition by neglect, right?

Okay.

And so it is presumed, right? So as opposed to something like the apartments in Lemus Park, right, that burned, they were set on fire during an incident, right? that would not be demolition by neglect. That was an unfortunate situation, right? So there's a presumption here because the House was not necessarily in great condition, and there had been question about its condition, specifically by a board member.

And that's what brings me precisely to this point, which is that we, as I understand it, and again, I do apologize for making this such a dry hearing. I'm trying... I'm just trying to understand this because this is a complex issue and I want to make sure that we're getting it right. So as I understand it, and correct me if I'm mistaken, because there is a presumptive demolition by neglect, because there is a pattern of neglect of the property, which may or may not have contributed to the fire, not for this panel to determine, that therefore these provisions of the code apply. Is that a correct interpretation? How would they apply if it was never adjudicated? I don't know. That's my question. I'm asking if they apply because they're included in our staff analysis as the basis for which we are making this determination.

I would say those provisions do apply. So I think you are correct in that the provisions apply. I think the situation right now is that it's a bit of a gray area where what the code is requesting of the property owner right now the main issue is that he isn't necessarily the property owner who created the issue. He took possession of the property when it was already in the condition it is right now. So... The code does not address that. Yeah, it doesn't address it.

So I guess maybe it's for us to make a determination on this one exemption, whether we believe this was in good faith or not. Based on the circumstances, yes. So, counsel, would you help me in crafting a... Provisio to include on our potential motion that would ensure that any subsequent properties that try to approach this from the same angle, we could validly assert our deliberative powers on having determined the intent of the applicant or the particular case. We could give that some thought, maybe. Because that is my biggest concern. If somebody two years from now comes and says, you approved this, and my circumstances are almost the same, how can we validly tell them that you're wrong? Because they can take this to higher levels of appeal, and that would be a perfectly viable basis for them to do so. So my intent is to make sure that whatever decision happens today is conscious of the ambiguity in the code, and make sure that we preempt any future attempts to deliberately circumvent that, which clearly I don't believe this applicant has done.

Mr. Chair, may I ask a question?

Yes, Mr. Kennedy, I was going to recognize you for questions and comments.

Thank you. If the resignation is not granted, would the only available development on the lot be the exact same thing that was destroyed?

No.

They would not be able to build anything?

The board, yeah, they could, you're not required to rebuild. But when you do come to rebuild, it would come before this board, and the board would make a determination as to whether they would want a reconstruction or whether they would want to limit it to the massing, height, floor area, et cetera, or whether the board felt that that could be waived based on what was being presented before them.

So if the rescinding is not granted and the property remains historically designated property without a structure on it, whoever purchased the developer of the property could purchase it and then bring a development plan to the board.

Mm-hmm.

Okay. But wouldn't the point of not rescinding to keep it historic would be to replace what was lost? What would be the point of keeping the historic designation with not the original structure there but something different?

That would be to maintain the purview of the board, simply.

And the property would no longer be historically designated a new structure and then

Well, that's much to the point of this application, right? Okay. And it's been treated by this board very much as it is a historic site and they wish something that is appropriate to be developed on the site, right? And that is where we have gotten to. Okay. At that point that that's developed, you now have a new structure on that site that Is that new structure required to come back to staff every time they change a window, every time they change the roof, every time, right? You're now dealing with a new structure. So there's a pragmaticism to that. And that's part of what this determination is for you tonight, right? Does a new development on this site then need to maintain as a historic site? Does that make sense?

It does. So the board has the power to make the developer come back. Any change, despite the rescinding of the designation, we could still require them to come back?

If you're rescinding the designation, then the property is no longer under your purview.

And if we don't rescind it and it remains historic, they must come back with an approved design and will still be tied to historic designations throughout the life of the property and the structure. Yes.

Mr. Campbell, may I say a couple of words about this? I brought this issue up at the last meeting. This is my third meeting with the board, of course. And the point I raised was that initially when I came to the board, I think that was back in April, I suggested that I would donate a plaque or so people would know what was the reason, what was on this property before, and why was it designated as a historic property, and it would go through the history of the property itself, you know, with kind of a QR code or anything like that. And then... The board decided that we would not do that for the designation, that's not sufficient, and they recommended changes and incorporation of architectural elements of the property into what was proposed, which we did. We went through a couple of iterations of that, working closely with the staff. The point I'm trying to make is that if you look at the reason that the property was initially designated as a historic property, there are three items on that. The primary two items have to do with the person that lived in that property. And his ties to the history of Miami and the fact that he owned a lumber yard that supplied most of the lumber for many of the historic properties, large historic properties in Miami, multi-story buildings. And I brought that issue up. And I think that the best way to commemorate that individual, which are the first two conditions that was designated as historic property, was to donate a plaque and have people a way to find out about that. So I think that what I'm trying to say is that I'm doing that, and I think it addresses those two reasons. And the third reason, I think the board sufficiently long enough with the board who has the power to resign the ESERC designation in order to come up with an attractive property that also keeps the spirit of the third item, which is the design of the house, in place. So I just want you to be aware of this, that I think that There's a lot that has been done here to kind of address the reason the property was designated as historic property in the first place. Just wanted to make that point.

Thank you. So what we're basically being asked to do today here is to rescind the historic designation of this property with the provision that what is presented to us by the applicant will be built. Correct. As per the plans. Correct. Not limited by what may have happened to the property before. Correct. If we do not approve the rescission, then that kind of makes us have to start all over again, in a way. Correct.

Now, he could come back with the same design and say, don't, you know. I'm okay with it not being rescinded and I'm going to build this. And then you have to make that determination.

And the basis for the rescission is the house is no longer there. Correct. The resource is gone.

And if this was in a historically designated neighborhood, it would be a much different conversation.

It would be a different conversation because, again, remember, I'm going to say it again, right? A historic district is a singularity of a lot of pluralities. Just wanted to clarify. Yeah. So this in itself is the singularity. It is gone.

Through no fault of the applicant.

Yes, Mr. Gamble. Thank you. It seems as if... By the developer coming three times and changing his drawings, it's almost as if we were encouraging him towards rescission. So to come today now, to me, he was being baited for rescission and then now he may not get it. So to me, that's where I feel a little uncomfortable about that.

And I'm going to say this again, so hopefully the board is comfortable with the decision. What you're voting on tonight is the rescission of the designation. Right? And the board has put a condition on that. The board has requested that there be a condition on it, which is the design that has been provided. And the board has discussed and said... This is what we want to see in order for the rescission to happen. But what you're voting on tonight is the rescission. Now, yes, there needs to be some clarification in the code. That is what I'm hearing. But what you're actually voting on tonight is the rescission.

Okay. So, sir, are you comfortable marching forward to time this property as a historically designated property?

I'm not. You're not? I'm not. I think the application for rescission was placed a year ago, and that application has been consistent. That's why I came to the board multiple times and made design changes. So I think if it's I think I'm very satisfied with what the historic staff has proposed, which is the decision tied to the covenant that I will go ahead and create this modified design which I worked and collaborated with the board and the historic staff in order to establish. I'm on that track line going forward. And I think that's a fair, reasonable thing to do. Okay. Thank you.

If I may real quick, just to kind of break it down, how my simple mind looks at it, it's a vacant lot. We, you know, it's an individually designated, was an individually designated property building. Now it's gone. For whatever reason, that needs to be handled differently. I think this is the best that we can get, is that he does something that looks and pays tribute to the owner, to the architecture and whatever. And I think we're getting a gift compared to what could happen.

He can put whatever he wants and...

Or it could stay a vacant lot forever. So that's my way of looking at it. I think we've killed enough time, in my opinion, today on this. I understand the procedural stuff, but I think case by case, as Bob said, and I think in this case, it was not your traditional neglect. It was a suspicious fire, which, of course, I have strong opinions about, having property and living down the street.

So let me just re-ask you a question then, Hugh. So based on your interpretation, having lived on that street, would you feel that that was maybe not a neglected property?

No, but it's gone. What are you going to do? I mean, it's gone.

I mean, that's the... But it's gone for a different reason.

It was burned down on a Sunday, and I got calls from everyone with this giant five-alarm fire down the street, which is different than letting it slowly rot and not tenting it. I mean, it's similar, but it was quick and rapid. So he didn't do it. The lot's vacant.

So in your role as a member of this board, as a well-qualified member of this board, do you – and I'm asking this legitimately because I agree with everything you said. I would like to grant this approval. I think it's merited. I think you went through every hoop you need to go through. I'm stuck on a policy point of the code, which makes me believe that I don't have the legal authority to convey it based on my interpretation. But if you think – if you – look at this provision of the code, and you believe that the owner made reasonable efforts, the prior one, reasonable efforts, in your interpretation as a deliberative member of this board. If you think that was the case, I encourage you to make a motion, and I think on that basis of your findings, it could move forward.

Well, I don't think that's, in my opinion, is on a fire. It's not in our department. It's, say, the fire marshal gets in there, because there was the... one on northwest third street that burned to the ground and there are investigations and fires nothing came of that one nothing came of this one suspicion i don't like it but what are you going to do find the old owner and put them on trial i mean there's not much we can do so would you consider making a motion Yeah, I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion to rescind the designation of the individually designated sites at 1016 Southwest 13th Court. Not happy about doing it, but it makes sense.

With the conditions presented?

Yes, with all the conditions that have been spelled out.

And the plaque.

Well, the plaque, the plaque's great. I was just in Ireland, and they got plaques where James Joyce, William Butler Yeats, all these people live.

The plaques are in the rendering. We'll make sure there's a plaque.

Yeah, we need plaques.

Is there a second? I'll second that. Thank you. Any discussion on the motion?

Yes, two points of clarification. Yes, please. Okay, so the first is, could we amend the motion in the condition that clarifies that the covenant must be issued as a condition for the rescission?

I was under the impression that the covenant, this wouldn't be removed until it was built, until it was done. Is that correct?

Correct. Okay. Just can we add a bit of clarifying language to the condition that's currently written that clarifies that the covenant is a condition of the, not, so right now, as I mentioned, there are two things. One's a timeframe, one's a condition. So let's just marry those two items. And then my other point, Hugh, if you wouldn't mind adding to your motion that you're doing that on the basis that you found that the fire is the exculpatory point and that the... Yeah, yeah.

I mean, this was a suspicious fire. I call it suspicious, but it was just a fire that happened on a Sunday morning.

Okay. Najeeb, do you accept the amendments?

Yeah.

May I add one more condition? Yeah. Ken, when you... I'm still a big believer that anything that goes through the Historic Department should require the sign-off of the Historic Department when completed to ensure that the design intent has been preserved. I wanted to see if it wouldn't be too much of a burden to add in a provision that a member of your department would need to go out and inspect to be able to provide the final inspection, again, to ensure this. Would that be possible, Ken, in terms of staffing? I'd like to make that a condition.

I'll put that on the motion. I'd put that on every motion for the last 15 years.

And I will state, we already have a condition in here that says the owner shall, within one year, successfully proffer a covenant to construct a duplex. So that covenant condition is already, we already have that as a condition. Do you want to clarify in language?

With what Mr. Perez is saying, I wholeheartedly agree for years that there needs to be on-site visits to make sure. This is an experience here, seeing that one thing's approved and it's not done.

I want to clear what the vice chair is requesting. So the condition is that there will be a covenant and that the reconstruction will take place or the rescission doesn't. And so I'm trying to get clarification on specifically what language you want that would satisfy... what you're asking for.

Well, first point, let's definitely change the date from June 2nd to September 1st.

Already done. Okay, good.

And then second point, I would state that I would just be expressly redundant in that first statement. I would say the owner shall, within one year, successfully proffer a covenant to construct the duplex as presented to the Historic Preservation Board at its final evaluation hearing on September 1st, 2026. And this would be prior to the rescission taking effect or something along those lines.

Okay.

Just a little bit, maybe the prose is inelegant, but sometimes elegant prose is ambiguous.

Sounds pretty good.

Okay. Got it. Thank you. Got it. I'll take that.

And then condition two is staff shall...

I don't know if we have the ability to actually add it into the iBuild system as an actual inspection, not just a condition.

So staff shall conduct regular and final site visit to ensure compliance.

Right. That is applicable to the maker of the motion in a second?

Yes.

Okay. Can we have a roll call, please?

Calling Member Hugh Ryan. Yes. Thank you. Calling Member Najeeb Campbell. Yes. Thank you. Calling Member Christopher Cauley. Yes. Thank you. Calling Member Julie O'Dell. Yes. Calling Member John Perez. Yes. Thank you. Calling Member Jordan Trachtenberg.

Yes.

And then calling Chair William Hopper. Yes. And calling Vice Chair Luis Prieto y Munoz. Yes. And calling Member Robert Powers. Okay. My bad. Yes. Okay, so this motion passes by a vote of eight to zero. And this decision is final unless appealed to hearing board's office within 60 days.

To the members of the board, thank you very much for your time. I really appreciate everything. And I just wanted to say a couple of things here. First, I want to really thank the historic preservation staff, Mr. Kalmes and Mr. Espinoza. They worked very much with myself and my architect to be able to do the redesigns based on what the board had recommended. So that's really appreciated. And I think this is a perfect example of a citizen coming and working with the board to make changes to a historic structure that is, you know, what is extended, no longer exists, but we were able to achieve something that was much better than what was originally proposed, and I really appreciate that because I enjoyed this a lot more than that. It was worth the wait.

Okay?

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Best of luck.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you. Calling HEP item number two, file ID 19297, a resolution of the Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board pursuant to ordinance number 13114, the zoning ordinance of the city of Miami, Florida, as amended Miami 21 code, more specifically, Appendix A, Section 8.2, titled Village West Island District and Charles Avenue NCD2, recommending approval or denial to the Director of Planning of the Planning Department for new construction on Charles Avenue for a project located approximately at 3448 Charles Avenue, Miami, Florida, 33133.

Thank you, and the applicant is present. Please give your name and address for the record. Please give your name and address for the record.

I'm sorry.

Please give your name and address for the record.

Gabriel Chavarria, it's 240 Crandon Boulevard, Key Biscayne, Florida.

Thank you, and we'll start with the Stanford Board.

My name is Pino Salvador, Historic Preservation Planner. I request the staff analysis be accepted into the record. Yes. Great, so we're back with the Charles Avenue new construction at 3448 Charles Ave. So if we can continue on with the presentation there staff actually recommend will be recommending denial however we have a whole slew of conditions should you want to approve this after the presentation So as we see here, it's a new construction on Charles Avenue. They provided a landscape plan with all the tree removals on site. Here we have the revised site plan and the revised landscape plan. So I'm showing the still showing, you know, a few of the things that were requested to be removed, which is a notch on the side of the building. As we'll see later on, the rear roof has not been changed. If you look at the left plan, small. Not very wide porch has been installed in front of the home. A porch was requested previously. We go on to the elevations. We can see the planter was, this is a previous, the previous elevations. We see the planter in the front. There's no porch. Some of the shutters that were requested to be changed to the appropriate size that they actually were. IN LINE WITH WINDOWS. THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE REQUESTED TO BE CHANGED AS WELL AS THE SIDE LIGHT ON THE FRONT DOOR. AND HERE WE HAVE THE REVISED PLANS ELEVATION WITH THE RENDERING. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE APPLICANT HAS REMOVED THE SHUTTERS. THEY'VE INCLUDED A PORCH BELOW THAT. THERE ARE TWO SIDE LIGHTS NOW. NEXT TO THE FRONT DOOR. SO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE NOTICED ARE STILL THERE. THE WINDOWS ARE OF TOO LARGE A PROPORTION TO THE WALLS. WE HAVE THE ROOF LINE ON THE FIRST FLOOR GOING DOWN RATHER THAN HAVING THAT PLANTER THERE. But overall, from what we see, it looks like they've been taking elements away from what is preferred for the Village West neighborhood. So that's why we're recommending denial. Some of the conditions that we'd like to see were you to approve this. I'll start at number four as one through three are sort of boilerplate. The applicant shall reduce the overall massing and articulation of the structure to conform to the guidelines. The proposed window to wall ratio of each elevation should be revised and be compatible with the prevailing patterns and proportion characteristics of the guidelines. Specific attention shall be paid to the size, placement, function, and division patterns of the windows and doors. All windows shall be fully operable hung sash. Also, all the windows on the facade shall include functioning shutters. Those were removed. That matched the height and width of their associated windows. Eight, the treatment of the side lights adjacent to the front door shall be revisited to provide a condition consistent with the historic character and guidelines of the NCD. Nine, the applicant shall utilize a hip roof at the south elevation and the roof line and eave at the southeasterly corner shall not be truncated and be continuous across the fascia. 10, the applicant shall ensure that the front porch is functional in nature, it's not very wide and reflects a contextually appropriate depth. 11, the applicant shall remove the notch at the west elevation 12 the applicant shall study joining the second floor side balcony to the front of the house Okay anything you would like to add to the staff report I'm sorry.

Say it again, please.

Is there anything you would like to add to the staff report?

Ah, yes, I would like to start with a legal clarification because we know that this is a waiver is not approval from the board so I want to make sure that We are on the same page in terms of what can be done and not done by this board. That's the first comment I want to have. Some of the comments I see there, I mean, we can discuss this one by one. I don't have an HDMI connection. Oh, thank you. I'm not sure why it's not showing. This is duplicate, but there's no shine anywhere. It says duplicate here should be working.

There you go.

Regarding the comments in the last meeting we have here, I don't know if you want to start with the legal part. I want to make sure that we are on the same page because this is not a historic board approval. It's a recommendation to the waiver that we are planning moving.

Ultimately, it is within the board's purview to discuss. If you want a favorable recommendation from the board, you know, you still have to present and they still have to like the project. So ultimately they can recommend approval, they can recommend denial, but, you know, it is within the board's purview to, you know, they can deny it if they want to, you know, go to the planning director and then the planning director will consider their recommendation either for or against. But it is within the board's purview.

Right, but I want to make sure that I understand where we are standing in terms of facing and and timing. I understand in your previous meeting, in the previous meeting, you mentioned that this is not a meeting that can be deferred multiple times. There's a limit for that. I mean, we talked about that in the previous meeting. I want to make sure where we are standing with that.

Ultimately, if you don't, if you have the option to, you know, consent to defer, but if you don't want to defer the item, you know, the board can vote on it, and if they, which it looks like well, I'm not going to say what it looks like, but they can, you know, recommend denial ultimately. And if you're fine with that and you want to move forward, that's up to you.

Okay. Yeah. Just a clarification to start. The second thing I want to mention, we went over the comments of this board. We went over the record of the previous meeting, and most of the recommendations were included. Some of them, I'll put you an example of one of them that he mentioned earlier. Recently, it's about the depth of the porch at the entrance has a lot to do with the setback that the city is taking us out. The lot is losing another 10 foot because the setback of the house, the street, I'm sorry, the enlargement of the street. So the lot is smaller right now. And we try to go maximize up to the limit of the property line setbacks. So this comment was addressed in this picture. the removal of the planters also has been addressed. And there is also a recommendation of the board in the previous meeting. You mentioned that we should visit previous properties that has been approved by this board. And we see that multiple times to confirm that we are in the same line of other properties. Most of the properties are already approved by this board, has the same size of setback that we are having here, the same size of Porsche as you see in the pictures that I show, it's not something that we create for nothing. It's something that's given from the setbacks of a property. These are examples of previous properties that this board approved that goes in line with what we have. In our opinion, one of the comments were that this is not well articulated or articulated enough We have the feeling that the properties that this board already approved are more straight boxes than the one that we proposed today, so we think this is not something that we are modifying right now. The property remains in the same articulation that was pretty much before. Other than that, we address most of the comments, trying to move from sliding glass doors to similar windows on the other properties. And pretty much we keep the consistent Porsche in the side lights and the entrance. Is that it? Yeah.

Okay, thank you. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this item? Please come forward and give your name and address for the record.

Please remember to keep your comments to two minutes or less.

Good afternoon, board members. Andy Parrish, 3940 Main Highway. What this boils down to is, to me, what the heck is Bahamian style architecture? It's referred to in the neighborhood conservation district over and over that you have to follow the architectural guidelines of Bahamian style characteristics. In article four, table 12 of Miami 21 itself, it refers to the, it has to have similar massing and setbacks and everything to conform to the existing neighborhood. We all know Evangelist Street, Charles Avenue is historic. It's been studied a lot. This goes back to probably 20 years ago when the University of Miami students decided to show how a traditional shotgun could be made into a three-bedroom, two-bath house, modern house, and still retain its historic characteristics. But really comes down to, and I was surprised, because there's a lot of people in the audience today who are also saying, what the heck is Bahamian-style architecture? Did we just invent it? Is it like the old Supreme Court thing on pornography, I know it when I see it? No, because the city in its wisdom, when it put the NCD2 in the code, in the planning archives, it has These drawings and others, it also has schematics. And these refer, if you go to miami.org and you look at, let me make sure I get this right. Non-historic, non-historic architectural guidelines for Island District West, for West Grove. Meaning you're not redoing an historic house, you're building a new house that goes on an historic street. It has a whole page of how the shutters are supposed to be, how the doors are supposed to be, how the windows are supposed to be, and why in the world at this presentation today, the public can't see those diagrams that are in the Miami's own planning archives for the whole audience to see is beyond me. What this applicant is proposing has no way, it doesn't conform to Article IV, Table 12, and it certainly doesn't conform to what the city itself in its own archives says is Bahamian style. And it's not what a very distinguished zoning attorney came before you one time, oh, and said, this is Bahamian modern, which is computer BS, and thankfully you saw it. So that's all I have to say. I think it's really, Ken, I know you work hard, but those diagrams from your own archives should be there for the public to see. And it's really annoying to me that they're not. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, you want to go next?

I'll jump in. Anthony Vinceguera, 3325 Charles Avenue. I'm a board member of the organization Preserve the West Grove. I'll try to keep it to two minutes, but I'll be quick. I'm also a disciple of Andy Parrish. He's done a lot of great work for the community. We've been here many times before talking about Charles Avenue, one of the most historic streets in the state of Florida, not to mention the city of Miami, where Bahamians who helped build this city first laid their homes. It was one of the first pieces of property in the state of Florida where people of African descent could own their own properties. That's why NCD2 was created, to preserve this incomparable legacy. That's why these protections are in place, including to make sure there's appropriate infill, meaning appropriate new housing that's constructed. Exactly what we're talking about today. And that's why these guidelines Mr. Parrish was just talking about were created. I will pull them up very quickly. And these guidelines are specific. They're not general, as Mr. Parrish said. They're very specific. There's photos, there's images, there's diagrams. This is not a vague commitment the city made when asked to have these design guidelines followed. And there's still examples of this. The syrup house is still there. This is my house at 3325 Charles Avenue. Unfortunately, however, and these are modern examples of what could be built. Unfortunately, however, we all know what has been happening. Historic homes like this have been getting demolished and replaced with things like the sugar cubes. I think we all know that this is not what the law says. our friends here talked a little bit about these three other homes on Charles Avenue that were built, ones that he held up as comparables. Yes, it's true. These got by HEP, which is different than saying they were passed by HEP. These were homes, this was the first presentation of them that were shown. We spent about two years, you've seen me many times talking about it when these were presented. HEP voted 6-0 that those should not be built. When they came back, HEP had many conditions eventually. HEP eventually decided We will pass these with a bunch of conditions. And I think Mr. Campbell said the new versions that came back were like pigs with lipstick on them. They weren't great images. But HEP decided we'll approve them, but with many conditions, hoping that the planning department would really improve these homes. They didn't really barely get improved, is the truth. And Mr. Kalmus knows we spent about two years following up, trying to see the new plans, trying to get them improved, really. They were not improved. So this is what we're left on with Charles Avenue. This is what happens when HEP approves things with conditions that our planning department has to follow the letter of the law, and they're not architects. So this is what we end up with, over $4 million homes. I promise I'll wrap up quickly. essentially cubes that do not respect the law of NCD2. This is what's happening. The law is not being followed. And I have one more minute. So to this property very quickly, this is what was presented in June. HEP voted, essentially sent the developer back to have a new design. This is what we're seeing today. Very little difference. That's still not Bahamian. It's super clear. And so what should be done? This has to be voted no. The design guidelines are clear. And I feel bad for our developers. If they want to know what should be going on Charles Avenue, it's a beautiful drive down to Key West. The architecture of Key West is where the Bahamians got these styles from. The Bahamian settlers came from Key West and brought these beautiful home designs with them. There are hundreds and hundreds. I encourage our friends to go to Old Town Key West. Walk around. You'll see hundreds of different homes all abiding by these guidelines everywhere. They're gorgeous homes. And this is what the architectural guidelines for Village West say. But you don't have to go all the way to Key West. If you're on Charles Avenue, where is the star, and you just go for a little drive over to the McFarland District in Coral Gables, you see other examples of these homes where they've been preserved thanks to the way the city of Coral Gables has enforced design guidelines. So again, you don't even need to go all the way to Key West to see this. And it's my old story recently about a developer embracing that history and seeing the value in that history. That's what we're asking for. And so all I'm asking for is, please, in Key West, in Coral Gables, these designs would never end up before you all, right? In some ways, I think it's not fair to developers because they've seen other things get passed. They think, well, we might be able to squeeze this through, or maybe this would be okay. And they waste a lot of time and energy making things that would get laughed away from Key West. They would get laughed out of McFarland District. It would never get this far. So I'm asking you something I rarely would say, please help developers enforce the law and vote no. So people won't think that they can show up with these designs. So architects will know they have to design something appropriate before they waste everyone's time and energy with the designs that do not protect Village West and don't follow the law. So thank you so much. And I really encourage you not to pass this with conditions. It sends the wrong message. It doesn't work. Need to vote no. Planning director will do what they want. But if a planning director overrules HEP's decision and staff reports, then we're really in trouble. But I just want to ask you to follow the law and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. I'll be brief. Some quotes from the staff analysis. Quote, this particular design of the new construction and site improvements do not follow the guidelines and are not compatible to a vacant property with the historic architectural or aesthetic character of Charles Avenue. The current design does not sufficiently demonstrate those characteristics of the Village West Island District and Charles Avenue Neighborhood Conservation District. And, quote, the Preservation Office recommends that the board provide a recommendation of denial. I thank the HEP office for such a detailed analysis. This NCD, as you've just seen, has suffered in the past from the city's lack of enforcement of the design guidelines. So those of us who value historic preservation are grateful that this staff has taken the details of the Bahamian style of this island district seriously. Please recommend denial, and hopefully a more compatible design will be proposed. I will say that what was proposed by the gentleman is far better than the boxitecture that has decimated much of Coconut Grove. But staff is correct in that it is not congruent with the Bahamian style of Charles Avenue. Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Good afternoon, Randall Martin. I'm a vice president of Village West Homeowners and Tenants Association. I'm also the president of Grove Rights and Community Equity, Inc. I'm happy to have watchdogs like these folks that have come and spoken on behalf of my community. But I must say to you that we are not pleased with what we see. We are not pleased with what we see going on in Village West. We are a proud group of people. My family has been in the Grove area since the late 1800s. And we'd love to stay here, and we know it's not going to stay the same, but we expect that groups like this will come and help us preserve what we have established as our home. We love our community, and we'd love for you to help us protect our community so that we can continue to be proud people that came here and helped build the city of Miami. I thank you for your concern. Vote no on this proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Good evening, my name is Leilani Garrido, 2351 Southwest 23rd Street, and I'm a local developer here in Miami. As someone who builds in the city, I'm deeply appalled when other developers refuse to respect our historic neighborhoods and act bothered when asked to adhere to our local historic guidelines. When we choose to build in a historic neighborhood, it is our professional and ethical duty to respect its fabric, not fight against it. Developers who show no interest or pride in the neighborhoods they enter should not be given a pass. Regarding 344A Charles Avenue, what the applicant has proposed simply does not conform to the established NCD2 statuses. I urge the board to ensure strict recommendation that the developer be required to fully conform to the neighborhood's legal standards before receiving any approval. For proper historical context, a developer does not need to look very far. They should use the landmark Mariah Brown House right down the street for direct architectural inspiration. That home stands as the gold standard for how massing porches and scales should look on Charles Avenue. I beg this board to please uphold the statuses. Please push back against prospects that erode our city's heritage, protect the integrity of West Grove, and send a clear message that our local historic guidelines are mandatory and not optional. Thank you all so much.

Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak on this item? If not, I will allow the applicant some rebuttal time.

No, I don't have any more comments.

Okay. I will close the public hearing and open it up to the board for questions and comments, beginning with Ms. O'Dell.

I'm digesting right now. I need to kind of put this in perspective because I feel like we're You've been here. How many times have you been here? Once?

Just once? The first presentation was last month.

I've been with other projects.

Maybe you're confused with that.

I remembered you. I was trying to figure it out. There's a disconnect here, and I'm not sure. I mean, I'm looking at this, and it's definitely not Bahamian anything. It doesn't have the look and feel. There are no shutters. The roof is not right. I don't even know. I can't determine what it is that you're trying to show here because it's not Bahamian. And I know we gave you some pretty specific instructions. And you've got 12 conditions. Is it 12 that you have now? 12 conditions. There's a disconnect. I don't think I could vote in favor of this at this point because you're not on the same planet. Sorry.

Mr. Powers.

I concur with Ms. O'Dell, and I don't think that if he has 12 conditions he has to meet, then there's some work he needs to do on this. But in its present form, I'm not inclined to vote for it.

Mr. Perez.

I'm trying to sort out what the reason, is that modifications aren't being offered. And I guess I cannot but wonder, is it the owner or is it the architect that is resisting this, what I see, this beautiful opportunity to create a genuinely and authentic Bahamian design? I mean, I've said this before on this board, and I realize this may not be popular. if the owner chooses to do so, maximizing the square footage that is their right, I think this could be an incredible project if the concepts of Bahamian architecture are embraced and brought forth. So I guess my question is, what's stopping the owner or the architect from leaning into this, if you have any feedback?

I believe it's a combination of things. I mean, there are some items that are intentionally to remove it. For example, to give an example of that, this board mentioned in some point, and I agree, it's not that the entire board decide one thing. We took the comments from the board based on the records of the board and took this information as a valid information, as a feedback from you to us. One of them, for example, is the shutters. And these were mentioned that it's preferred not doing shutters if we're gonna have smaller shutters or things like that. So we intentionally do things that later on the staff understand as not following instructions of having a Bahamian. So there are some things that are a little bit in the middle. We took information from the board, maybe not understanding exactly as the same way that the staff take it. I think it's some kind of information there that could be in conflict of what we're trying to do.

I guess I just have to outright ask, in your opinion, do you think, and I realize this can be vague unless we get into a lot of the guidelines that the gentleman mentioned, for example, but do you believe this is a true representation of Bahamian architecture as currently proposed?

It's not the intention to create or recreate an exact Bahamian house. Of course, it's a house that has some elements that gets away on that, but we feel that you still have the Bahamian style in behind.

Thank you for your answer. I think what you're going to find is that you indicate that there are some elements I believe this board is going to So we're gonna request more than some elements and we're probably gonna try to steer you towards a full embrace of the Bahamian architecture that characterizes that area. And the example of going down to Key West and looking at these examples, I look at it as an interesting exercise in designing this specific style. I mean, I guess that's why I keep wondering what's holding you back other than maybe the desire to be unique. I can only speculate, but I think what we're asking for is true Bahamian, not some elements. That's my take on it.

There are some elements that makes it difficult to recreate what some of the neighbors said. For example, the volume of the house, it's clearly some issue there because, I mean, one floor house creates a completely different environment when you look at the house from the street. So that's something that we know that is not going to be possible to recreate. Other things like the fences in front of the porch we don't feel feasible because it's going to create a too small space in front. So that's why these kind of things make intentionally out of the game to be able to use this space in front of the house. Others, other elements that we believe are in part of what we create is a Bahamian style is the type of roof that we create. It's something that we see in other projects. Maybe the examples that the neighbors put in front has different gables and different configuration of roof, but this roof is also part of that. I mean, the style of the railings, the style of the windows, the proportion of the windows, the porch, the slope front porch, all those are elements that we believe are part of this intention. I mean, again, we are not trying to copy exactly an existing house of Bahamian style here. The intention is to create a modern house, but with a Bahamian style that matches the environment and the neighborhood. That was the design intent of this project.

I think, and I'll try not to take much more time, A lot of the examples that were shown in Key West are two stories. So I don't I mean, I understand that there may be people here that would like, let's say, a simple one story shotgun house or a variation of it. And I respect the people that have that position. But I think it's possible to create a two story house and really embrace it. And maybe you mentioning the desire to create a modern house with Bahamian elements. This feels like it's something where you're trying to offer some nods or some gestures like that evoke. some Bahamian elements, but it doesn't feel, to me, Bahamian. It would take me a lot longer to be able to break it down and give you specific comments, but when I see this, I don't think, oh my God, I'm in the historic Bahamian neighborhood of Coconut Grove. What a great example of what this neighborhood represents to the city. That's just my take on it as an architect.

Mr. Trachtenberg?

The concern for me is not that it's supposed to imitate historical vernacular of any kind. It's the lack of scale, the porch, the massing, fenestration, climatic elements. that should derive from that vernacular. You know, looking at what I see here, the current proposal does not listen to anything that we spent, I think, quite a bit amount of time last time talking to you about. The 12 items that are part of the conditions if we were to approve today are, in addition to many others, Just checking back at some of my notes, I mentioned a few just a couple seconds ago, but, you know, the simplified massing, the meaningful with porch, the connection of the side balcony, these are all elements that kind of bring back a suggestion of that vernacular. Again, it's not about imitating, but it's about creating a language. And you've heard from your neighbors today that they don't see that language. They live there, and they had some pretty strong references to support that. By the way you came in and the way you opened up your presentation today, we're just giving you suggestions, and it's your decision to choose them. So I think that's the way in which we should approach this. I think you decided to not Listen to our suggestions, so I think for me that says that we don't agree with each other so in the end I guess it'll be a denial It seems like it's leaning that way, but I would like to say from a procedural standpoint and to answer a little bit about what you were suggesting about the conditions and not denying it not giving conditions is what happens is when we deny it then and we don't give conditions and we're not giving the tools to the city to listen to. If we just flat out deny it, I think we can deny it with maybe some cause, right?

So you should deny with cause. You should always deny with findings or cause. Again, it's a recommendation to the planning director. I think part of... Your conditions are not concrete, right? Because you're just making a recommendation. And this, I think, is one of the issues that we had with those three properties. Again, that was the first time I think the board was seeing these because it used to be UDRB who saw these, right? And so the board did what they normally did. where this isn't what we normally do. And so the planning director took that recommendation with those conditions and forwarded that, which were then recommendations, because they're recommendations to the recommendation, and then forward that to zoning. And that's when Anna and I had to start going through and going, OK, now we have to make this work, right? And so that's, you know, definitely they wound up much better. Could they have been even better?

Certainly.

I want to caution the board about sort of getting us into that loop again. And sort of, again, sort of saying we'll recommend approval, but these recommendations should apply. And then...

So at what point in our recommendations versus denial are we... more or less powerless so you're making a recommendation one way or the other you're making a recommendation for the planning director to approve it or you're making a recommendation for the planning director to deny it but if we deny it you can just outright say like we have found this does not right right does that get lost the the let's say we use the same conditions for the reason why we deny it does that get lost in the part of his product because like we say we're not he can still proceed

He can still proceed.

Does our power become lessened when we deny versus when we approve with conditions?

If we deny with findings?

I'm going to say the power you have is under... What's the word I'm looking for? I'm having trouble with the words today. It's really... delegated to the planning director, right? So you're just making a recommendation. You're making a recommendation to approve, you're making a recommendation to deny, and you can make a recommendation to approve with recommendations, right? Whether that happens or not, based on the previous examples, The planning director, and again, the planning director is making a recommendation to the zoning director. It's a series of recommendations that occur. And so it was then approved by zoning with those conditions included in it. And so it fell back on staff to interpret those conditions and come to that point. No, you could do that again. And again, I don't know how those would be interpreted or incorporated within the waiver. It's really up to the board.

So, and by the way, I think this is where the time should be spent, not so much on convincing him of our ideals, because it's not going to happen. What I think is that more when we're making these sort of decisions where we find the best way to advance our objective, which is to create an outcome that is in line with what the neighborhood needs. And if we were to... to deny it, from what I'm understanding, if we were to deny it, then we don't have any, you don't have the ability at that point to give your opinions as it proceeds through the process, correct? If we approve it with conditions, you have the ability to give opinions as it proceeds through the process.

One would think so. I'm going to put it there. Because again, it becomes a recommendation for a recommendation for recommendations.

So if we know, again,

The planning director can take it and make that recommendation and include your recommendations as conditions, and then the zoning director has the ability to say yes or no, they have to make it work, or the planning director could say, I'm going to just recommend it, or I'm going to say, the planning director could say I'm going to deny it because of these findings. I can't see into that, unfortunately.

Okay, I'm going to stop here, but I just want to make it noted, it's not about this item. It's about the other items that are going to come, because last time it didn't work. So just something to contemplate.

Thank you. Mr. Prieto-Aminos. Thank you. I'll be super brief. And if the members to my right don't want to get super bogged down into this either, I might propose a motion. if you guys would be willing to kind of move off of this 50-minute item that we spent a ton of time on a few months ago. I agree with you, Jordan. I think this is the most germane element of this item, determining what the most effective way of safeguarding the architectural guidelines that are very expressly stated for Charles Avenue is the most germane element of this discussion. And I think we previously acted on the advice of the prior or two city attorneys ago who sat at this board who suggested precisely what you articulated, which is by approving with conditions we can burden that approval with our guidance and clearly it didn't go anywhere because it is exactly that it's a discretionary process so i'm profoundly of the opinion that if we don't believe something rises to the occasion that's specified in the ncd we should just simply deny it on the basis that it falls short and i think that's the strongest position for our board to take we can establish a really good pattern of consistency and it's not like ken doesn't have the ability to talk to the planning director and convey the thoughts that we Ken can explain to the director why we denied it. And I think Ken is probably the best place to explain it because it's very well articulated in the staff report. We spent numerous hours on this last time. I appreciate where you're coming from. You have your mandate. We have ours. This falls, in my opinion, woefully short of preserving the intention of the NCD. So I would see no other avenue but to deny this forthwith. And if no one to my right wishes to add anything further to that, I would be happy to make that motion.

Someone to your left. How about someone to your left?

To my right?

To your left.

Oh, to my left?

Yes.

Oh, sorry, Dr. Hopper. If you wish to.

Yes, I would. Sorry. That's all right. So like you. I know I'm going to say something in the room. Let me wait on that. Mr. Campbell, you can go next.

I agree with the Vice Chair. I think the problem is you. You are very resistive. You were resistive in the last meeting. When you came here, your first sentence was, I want to determine what we can do versus what you can do. So you started off combative. So I agree with the Vice Chair.

Mr. Ryan.

Mr. Colley.

Yes.

Yeah, thank you very much. I do have just a quick question. You were here last month, right? Was it last month or two ago? Yes, I think it was. All right. So, and I remember you mentioned that this was a, you're not a developer. Wasn't this a residence for a family? I'm mistaken.

Yes, the family owners are here.

Yeah. So, I'm just looking at the drawings. I'll be really brief here. So, the residence doesn't seem very large. Yeah? How many square feet is it under air conditioning? Like the whole lot's 4,500 square feet. So the residence can't be very big. Like 1,700, I think, if I'm reading this zoning chart correctly.

The area of the residence, let me go here. First floor, 1,500, the first floor. The second floor is... Let's see if I have the address there.

Well, it's okay. I mean, my point is it's not a very large... It's not a very large residence. It doesn't look like to me. And so... Just... It sounds like, based on the feedback that you're hearing tonight, that the project's not going to get approved. And so... If you just... these guidelines that have been provided with these massings and these front porches and these, et cetera, et cetera, is there just a reason why, without just being very brief, why you couldn't achieve the same square footage for the family and be a little bit more consistent with those zoning guidelines? Like, could it be a client thing or a time thing? You didn't have enough time?

No, mostly it's because, I mean, we have restrictions from zoning as well. the setbacks on the back. This is a small lot in terms of the setback that we have right now. As I mentioned, the city is taking out another 10 foot from a small property. And we have trees around. There are some limitations for the area. So we need to compact a little bit the house up to the front of the lot. That means we can have big porches. And it's not only me. I mean, you see other properties that has been developed has the same issue. They can't grow. I mean, I love the porches that the neighbor shows in other Bahamian properties. It's not possible here unless you make a very, very, very small house.

Thank you. So those houses that were shown for Key West that has the front volume coming all the way up to the setback, it looks like, or with the two-story porches, that stuff's not. doable here from a zoning point of view?

Well, somehow it's doable, but you need to reduce substantially the square footage of the house because you need to set back more and reduce the square footage of the house itself. That's a limitation, yes. That's a big limitation, and I think there's a combination of how to apply and, sorry, comply with the zoning requirements and also to the style requirements. And sometimes it gets a little bit tricky because these zoning requirements has additional setbacks on the sides, has a little bit more of setbacks, including a setbacks to prevent the house to be a square box because They ask certain amount, certain distance to be set back. Right.

So a simple rectangular house is not doable.

It's not doable because there's zoning requirements. You can't do a straight line unless you go very, very back, 30-foot setback. That's the setback that they require. You can do less than 30. So in other words, this home has a 40 setback from the property line that the owners purchase.

Yeah. that's a lot for a small lot right so i just i think it's from my point of view i think that those are serious you know i understand that that there's the guidelines and the bahamian style of architecture and those things but uh i'm sure that you're doing your best based on your clients feedback and the zoning requirements and everything else so Thank you for the feedback.

Can I reclaim a little bit of a question or two, Mr. Chair? Sure. Okay. I have a question about, well, I guess along Mr. Cawley's point as far as with the zoning rules that you just quoted, and I'm not a big fan of variances, but have you worked with the neighborhood to see if this is a flaw in zoning code for this street because of unnecessary or, you know, setbacks that cause tiny little houses and you want to have a full family house there. Is that something to get involved in? And also, I saw this last time and I don't know if the setbacks or zoning rules have anything to do with it, but the east and west elevation, to me, looks silly. You got the gable then, and you got the hip roof. And it looks like the house was cut off just from the straight view. That's not really out of line. It almost looks like it was incomplete. Is there a setback rule that keeps you from having a hip roof on both sides?

No, there is no.

That's just a design thing.

It's a design feature. Well, I mean, that's what we're here for.

And design issue, to me, that doesn't look like a house at any time period that's ever been built.

Can I ask one more very quick question? I'm sorry. If this is for a waiver, then could they come back and ask for a variance to make a Bahamian-style residence and skip that zoning rule?

Chris, they're already asking for a waiver for something else, so they didn't even think about asking for a waiver to make this more compliant.

To your point, I want to point it out that we're trying to maximize things that we believe are restrictive. And we apply to certain conditions. I mean, when we have a zoning restrictions like the setback, additional setback for the street as we have, you have the right to ask for a 10% in certain things. And we did apply for that. The lot coverage, for example, in the first floor, we apply for that. No, I'm sorry, in the second floor. We apply for a 10% additional in the second floor. We apply for a setback in the back because the backyard is very small. And we apply for a side setback for the pool because really the setback is small. That's all. The rest, we comply with everything. And again, we have a 40-foot setback from the property that they purchase. I mean, that's a lot.

Okay. So as we approach a motion, I think we need to take into account that we need to have some findings to back up our decision. So the maker of the motion should, for my preference, include some of the aspects of the plan that do not meet the guidelines, because I think our recommendation will be that this application does not meet the applicable guidelines and should then be denied.

I think I have a motion to that effect, Dr. Hopper. Please go ahead. Yes. So I would move to recommend denial on the proposed new construction site improvements and associated waiver on the basis that the design remains inconsistent with the scale, massing, porch form, fenestration, roof form, and character-defining features contemplated by the Charles Avenue and Village West District Guidelines. and on the basis that the applicant did not substantially address the board's prior direction, and because the change is necessary to compatibly constitute a fundamental redesign that should return to the board for review rather than delegate it to staff.

I can do it myself. Thank you very much. Is there any further discussion on the motion?

I would just like to add to the architect. be very careful because you're failing your clients and you're failing the neighborhood that you want to build in simply by being combative you need to just relax and serve your client and serve the conservation district it's not just a historic neighborhood conservation district they want to conserve so you're design responsibility is to go deeper and you refuse to do so.

Thank you for your advice.

I have a comment. I'd like to add in, if it's possible, to the condition that staff take the items that were recommended the last time and have them itemized as part of the conditions in a way that it's very clear as to why. I understand that you read off in paragraph form some elements, but specifics that we had said the last time in a nice bullet point fashion.

Include those as findings.

Yes.

Okay.

Is that okay? Absolutely. I accept the amendments to my motion.

Who was the seconder?

Second. I don't know who was the seconder.

I think it was a tie between me and Najeeb. He can have it. I don't care.

Mr. Campbell, do you accept that modification?

Okay.

Roll call, please.

Thank you. Calling Vice Chair Luis Prieto y Munoz. Yes. Thank you. Calling Member Najeeb Campbell. Yes. Thank you. Calling Member Christopher Cauley.

Yes.

Thank you. Calling Member Julie O'Dell.

Yes.

Thank you. Calling Member John S. Perez.

Yes.

Thank you. Calling Member Robert Powers. Yes. Thank you. Calling Member Hugh Ryan.

Yes.

Calling Member Jordan Trachtenberg.

Yes.

Okay. This passes by a vote of nine to zero.

Excuse me.

I'm sorry, I do apologize. Calling Chair, Dr. William Hopper. Yes. Thank you, my apologies. This passes by a vote of nine to zero. Calling HEP item number three, file ID 19025, a resolution of the Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board pursuant to section 23-6, Point two, subsection B4 of the City Code of Ordinances approving or denying a special certificate of appropriateness to permit a new construction of a single family structure on a vacant lot within the Bayside Historic District located approximately at 765 Northeast 70th Street, Miami, Florida, 33138, further incorporating the analysis in the attached staff report entitled Exhibit A with the following findings.

So. An applicant is present.

Please give your name. We're finished. We're finished with your item.

I'm sorry.

The board voted on your item.

Isn't he the next item? You're finished.

Oh. Okay. Sorry.

I was like, wait.

Could you again? Sorry about that.

This time they were very friendly to put me together, so I don't need to move from here.

Just for the record, could you give your name and address for the record again, please?

Gabriel Chavarria. I'm the architect of record. 240 Crandon Boulevard, suite 234, Key Biscayne.

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

Thank you, Adriano Pino Salvador, Historic Preservation Planner. I request the staff analysis be accepted into the record. Yes.

Great.

So for this latest addition of the property at 765 Northeast 70th Street, The application was deferred twice, and the last time when it was deferred to today's meeting, the applicant was requested to incorporate more oolitic limestone into the facade, create a horizontal band across the entire facade between the two floors. There should have been a planter on there as well. The lytic limestone was requested to work to the ground. Sorry, was requested to work to ground the facades and massing. They also, you all also requested a clear story window to go on the second floor.

Adrian, can I stop you one second? Can I get my court back just so I can present for Adrian? Sorry.

I can present here. Oh, you use yours first?

Yeah, yeah. And then you can use yours. Thank you. I need the adapter. And the adapter.

Nothing better for item number three out of ten.

Also the board requested to restudy the materiality of the building so it was more contextual to the neighborhood. And you all also requested a full landscape plan to delineate existing trees and those to be removed. So we're just gonna wait a moment so we can get the presentation on. See what the news and eye is like.

Hopefully in the back they know I need this. Okay, thank you. There we go. Thank you for your patience.

So on your screens here, we've got the location. As you may remember, to the right, we've got the current landscape plan where trees are. Here's the materials page. You can see that they've changed. I think before they had brick, red brick. This is the lytic limestone brick that will go in the front of the property. And then everything else has mostly stayed the same. To the right of that, here we have what was presented at June. And then to the right of that, we have the current design. So they've incorporated that horizontal band across the center of the property, or the front elevation, sorry. You've also got the planter on there. The roofline has stayed the same. That didn't change, even though that was a recommendation after June, or before June, rather, when it was deferred to June. So there's a rendering of the final design. Staff recommend approval with conditions. And some of these conditions are, I think, important to what the final design should look like. So let's see. The first site shall be developed in accordance with the plans as prepared by the Forma Studios as part of the application, PZ2519434. The westmost Ullitic limestone vertical accent shall be extended through the roofline behind the fascia, so it'll look as if it's almost like a chimney. The applicant shall explore the introduction of a gabled roof into the front of the structure south of the open patio. So this won't be a gabled roof the entire length of the home, but just on that front area. All glass shall be clear or low E. And then at the time of permitting, applicant shall require all manufacturer's brochures for the chosen materials. The resolution shall be included in the master permit set. And seven, the applicant shall comply with the requirements of all department's agencies as part of the City of Miami building permit submittal process. So again, the most important ones are number two and three, which slightly change the final design

So you are changing your recommendation?

Sorry, no, I'm just highlighting that we're approving the conditions, but I want you to look at two and three.

Adrian, this says recommend denial. We're recommending approval of conditions.

Yes, we are changing the recommendation. Okay, thank you. And by fascia, do you mean facade? No. No.

The actual fascia of the roof line. So the intent is for the ulytic stone wall to continue at the same plane. So the fascia of the roof will not be broken. The ulytic limestone will rise behind that.

Okay.

The fascia will run the length of the shed if the board wishes an asymmetrical gable. That was the other condition to explore that. So the fascia itself won't get broken.

Can an image be put up so that we can understand what you're referring to specifically? Sure. May I?

So the dark fascia will remain unbroken. The olytic limestone will rise at the same plane it is, just through the roof.

In vertical, he's talking. But not continue across the... No, just that narrow plane.

Okay.

It's to mimic other architecture in the neighborhood where fireplaces went through because there was a lot of houses built that way in that district, and the fireplaces come up through. Okay, anything you would like to add to the staff report?

Is there anything you would like to add to the staff report?

Yes. No, I want to mention that thank you for the recommendations. I think most of them are feasible and and not complicated to implement. Thank you for the recommendation to re-approve. Nothing else so far, thank you.

Okay, thank you. Are there members of the public who wish to speak on this item? Please come forward and give your name and address for the record.

He just did.

Would you adjust the microphone for her?

My name is Nora Shafer. I used to sit on this board. I think there were only seven at the time. And there were certainly more women. I'm talking about a different neighborhood than I usually did, which was Morningside. And the neighborhood became the first historic district in the city of Miami. I moved to another historic district. So with the help of Shane, we got that neighborhood Bayside made historic. It kind of was not exactly a historic district. It had a historic street. And the house that you're putting on that street now had 10 1925 two-story houses. They're on the street as you go along. The street seems as if it's more like a lane. It comes up from the bay. You have to curve around to get onto it, and you can hardly pass another car. It is so small. and so unusual. Coming up from the bay, you can imagine people just coming up from a swim because it's right by the bay. It's only a few steps away. It has an aura that I don't think I have seen it anywhere else in Miami. I've been around in Miami for 70 years, and I don't think I've ever seen anything like this street. I took some pictures, but I'm not sure we can get them on. If you can imagine, 10, 1925, two-story houses. on a little lane. And there hasn't been anything until you all approved two boxes that you put oversized houses in two lots. Now there's another lot that you want to do that too. You want this one to come up without even thinking about what this street tells you. This street tells you that in 1925, they built pretty fancy houses. It was before even the boulevard. It came up to something that was like Fourth Court or something. Biscayne Boulevard was built and knocked down a couple of them, from what I understand, to get the boulevard to come up from downtown. And the boulevard came up, because somebody wanted to build Miami Shores. So all the buildings then went zipped up to the north. But what I'm telling you is that there might have been a guideline for those 10, like this gentleman was talking about. up here, that they had guidelines for the designs. There might be a guideline for those because they're so unusual and they're in such a place. When I was on the board, it had a much easier time, I think. We hadn't gotten a hold of houses like this as the usual. So this, we were preserving a different feel. And as far as this is concerned, I would ask if the person who is building the house looked at those houses because when I was on the board, I was told that if you had a feeling about how the architecture was for a certain, it would fall over into anything that was done new. Obviously, by the time, this house is built, I'm probably not going to be able to see it. But I'm hoping I get to come back and look at it. And I'm hoping that it won't be a house like this where it's being put.

Thank you. Mrs. Schaffer, would you give us your address for the record, please?

Oh, my address is 755. Oh, the house number that's next door. I also own that house. And that's 755 Northeast 70th Street. Thank you. Thank you.

Yes, sir.

All right, hopefully you can patch me in.

Give us your name and address for the record one more time, please.

Me?

Okay, here we go. Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. Thank you, Nora Schaefer. In case you didn't completely understand what she was saying, she was one of the original pioneers who established the Morningside Historic District, December 20th, 1984. She was one of the driving forces behind the historic preservation movement in the city of Miami. And so we're all very indebted to her.

It's your fault that we're here today.

Okay, so she's very upset about what has been happening vis-a-vis a historic district, in this case Bayside, and they allow new construction that is completely incompatible and incongruent with the vast majority of the old houses on the street. And it's rather coincidental or ironic that this conversation is taking place after the previous item where there was great attention paid to the Bahamian style and that it be congruent and that it match in the staff report. So here's some pictures. Unfortunately, they're pretty small, but these are all 1920s era houses. There's 12 of them on her street. She took these photographs. She will not be hired by National Geographic next week. but she did her best to show photographically all these 1920s houses in the Bayside Historic District on her street. And so I get it. I completely agree with her. So many times I've been up here saying, why are we allowing new construction that simply does not match the predominant styles of the neighborhood? Baffling to me. And sometimes... Like Charles Avenue, you do a great job asking for it to match. And then other times, I don't get it. So please, thank you, Nora, for bringing this up. I agree with her. See what you can do, folks. Thank you. Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Shane Graver, 1001 Northeast 72nd Street. I'm on the Bayside Residents Association Board. I just have to take one second to clarify a few things. First of all, I love and appreciate my neighbors, but a couple things. What makes Bayside unique, this is not my opinion, it is in the city's own historic documents, is that we have several types of architecture. Framed vernacular, early bungalow, Mediterranean Revival or Spanish Med, Mission Style, Art Deco, Streamline Modern, and Florida Ranch Mid-Century Modern or MIMO. MIMO is so prevalent that a previous administration did a second iteration of the historic district within Bayside to bring in all of the mid-century modern homes. And to be clear, there may be 10 or 12 Spanish-made homes on this street, but there are also 10 or 12 1930s, 10 or 12 mid-century homes, some 1960s and 70s homes, and some recently built homes. The reason I'm here, the applicant chose, which is part of the guidelines, to do a mid-century modern style home. We were here at the last meeting very concerned about the initial design submitted by the applicant. I think the term box of texture, which I've never heard before, would have best described what was first presented and also describes what Ms. Schaffer was speaking about in terms of two other homes that a previous neighborhood board had lied complacent with and that were built on the street. We're trying to improve the design that is here. That said, we appreciate where the applicant has come in terms of evolving their design and listening to this board's comments. from the last meeting. We're most concerned with having a boxy look in the house. So we definitely support staff's recommendations when it comes to, for us, either cantilevering the roof more, bringing that top roof forward more so that it doesn't seem as boxy. We also agree with, you know, anything with the window patterns on the second floors. And with the limestone. But the big thing for us is, given the standards of the neighborhood, is how to minimize the box of texture effect. And if we're going to embrace the mid-century element of the neighborhood, that we have that horizontality. As much as that roof can extend out and up to cantilever and to minimize the impact of the house on the street.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak on this item? Not? Would you like a few minutes to rebuttal?

No, just comments. Thank you for the comments. I agree. We choose in this particular district, there is many options of specific historic styles, and we choose this modern design from the mid-century modern design. So we try to follow that criteria. We work with the neighbors to get some things that they like as well, they be happy with. And I think we follow the recommendations of the board as much as we can. Thank you. Thank you.

We'll close the public hearing and open it up to the board for questions or comments. Start with Mr. Strachtenberg this time.

All right. Well, thank you for taking some of our comments in, in your evolution from last time. I mean, it's a, it's, it's, it's a much more in line to a conversation than you had the last time. Last time it was a very awkward, fragmented, kind of heavy, top heavy piece of architecture. I feel like it's a bit more grounded now. I definitely find the, use of the limestone to be more applicable and more true. I'm still trying to understand the kind of geometry and shape of the roof line. It feels a bit forced. I think last time we talked a bit about creating a gable or secondary pitch to study that. Did you take a look at that at all?

Well, it is possible, but the client wants to still use, has a use on the roof side, and they have limited space to do that. I mean, we can try to explore that for the final design.

But this is for the front, right? The part where your client is accessing the roof is in the back, no?

No, I'm sorry, can you put the picture in?

If IT can put my presentation back up.

I'm sorry, say it again. Your question, if we have another slope in the other direction?

Yeah, right. And you had mentioned that the reason being is that there's a balcony or a roof condition, but that's on the- The original discussion was to extend the roof to make a bigger plane.

in one direction and include the portion on the very right. We explore the option to have another slope, but we believe it's a lot more in line of the modern architecture that we have doing like that. I mean, it's a design intent.

But you didn't study it, right?

This wasn't something that was- We try and we didn't like how it looks, so we go back to this. We don't have those drawings here.

Right, because I think that would have been helpful to help at least the board understand why that decision wasn't proceeded with. But in general, I don't have much to say about the ground floor in terms of its horizontality, the porosity of the frontage. It feels nice in terms of its engagement with the street, setting it back from the frontage line. But again, that sort of... straight angle, it comes across as being.

If you look at these books of history of the good examples of modern architecture, this is a feature that you see often in some projects. I mean, the horizontal lines, the long roofs, the slopes that are very gently on one side only. It's examples that we see very often here. And that's why we took that example. I agree. You have examples of what you said. in different conditions and maybe also part of the architecture or modern architecture. But I mean, in this case, we took that and we believe it's in line with the design.

Yeah, but I think it goes to a disservice to you to not have educated us from that standpoint. Because last time, I mean, there are a couple architects on this board that can envision what you're discussing. There are others that can't. And I think it's helpful when We ask to do certain things to work through it and present why, because it looks like you're just saying, I don't want to do it. But with that said, again, not talking about the ground floor, but the second floor, I agree that there's something odd about the way in which the limestone is stopping at the window line.

Yeah, I agree, too.

Yeah, and whether it goes up to the roof line or it goes past the roof line, I think that needs to be studied. I do have a problem faking it, like a fake chimney. Something feels a bit off to me like that. I mean, if you're talking about an edge wall or a wall that's kind of like a razor wall, Those usually go in ground plane, not vertical. So a blade wall is what I'm referring to. But in theory, it could be interesting. Maybe that breaks that plane of that roof, and maybe that's where the angle changes. The other idea is that, actually, excuse me, the other question I have is that the limestone, I'm seeing in the rendering, and maybe it's a mistake, but on the, above the car port

Oh yeah, it's a mistake, yes.

We fixed it. I mean, we have a render here that fixed that. I don't have the connection. But anyway, it's a mistake on the renderist that forgot to modify that.

That's a stuccoed or plastered wall that's painted. And so the option that I would look at, basically, is to extend that stone wall vertically, at least to the roof line. And if you don't do that, to just stop the wall short of the window on that floor to a knee-high point, and then create an actual band of, I don't know, some kind of darker paint that accentuates the window that wraps all the way around to the other side where the window is, right? Because you have indented it, but it disappears, right?

There are many details that are still, you know, we have one month to complete everything and bring it back, so we try to put as much as possible, but we still have to refine for the final project those details that I agree are visible once we have the renders done.

So I'm going to stop there, and I'm going to let everybody else continue, and based on the discussion, I may add or reinforce what I just said.

Thank you. Mr. Perez. Thank you. First of all, I want to thank Ms. Schaefer for taking the time to come out and presenting to us. I appreciate it very much. I'm looking at the packet, and am I mistaken that I don't see the first floor plan on the revised drawings, and I don't see one set of elevations?

I don't know if you can see if those are included in the...

And the only reason I guess I looked for the elevations in the floor plans is because of the note that's on the renderings. It says it's an artist representation and to refer to the... So do you mean the original floor plans that were... No, like for example, if we go to the...

The floor plan were not resubmitted because it didn't change. I mean, it's very, very minimum change on the planters.

Because if I look at the revised plans, item three, h 1902, five revised plans at 901 2026. I go there. I'm trying to kind of process the new information. I don't see any of the biscuits missing. It's blank sheet. I think it's a 14. If A12 and A14 are missing from this, I guess I'd have a little bit of a concern there. I have it here if you wanna, I can connect and show you. Okay, based on the renderings, I guess I'll comment.

You want to see the second floor?

Sure. I'd like to see the elevations. That one. Some of the things that stand out are, and maybe these are just typos, for example, on the right-hand side where it says GL1 and GL1 on the front elevation, the legend says that GL1 has windows and doors, but in the rendering, I see pretty nice-looking jalousies, so I don't know which one applies. Is it glass? Is it jalousy? I'm assuming it's both. You follow what I'm saying?

I'm sorry, I don't follow you.

The wood pattern on the right-hand side? Yes. That's not expressly indicated in the elevations.

Well, it's indicated the glass on the window type. The window is behind this grill. Yes.

But given that, should we, let's say, proceed to prove or anything like that, then specifically because these say that the renderings are artist representation and to refer to the elevations, Essentially, this wood pattern, which is making this elevation look pleasant, would not be required to be included in the design. Am I correct? Are you talking about just next to the windows? In the center of the first and second floor? Well, actually both. The louvered wood segments in the middle, and then also on the right-hand side along the stairwell, you've got that mesh sort of pattern. That's being presented as part of the design, but in the elevations, it's not indicated.

Well, the drawing is there. So the drawing shows a square shape there, right?

I just don't know in the end how it's interesting.

I mean, if you want to clarify what, the reason because we put this, it's those renders are representation, is because there are some items that are not exactly real. If I put the trees in front, you don't see the house. So those are some example of things that are not exactly as the style of the house is. But if you see the elevations and the renders, much in the design and the concepts of each. But yes, the square is part of the design as well.

Okay. I guess that's just something that there may be a little gap there to bridge.

I included that in the staff analysis report as having observed it. And so it did play a part in our final recommendation of approval with conditions.

Okay. That being said, I think it's improving, I mean, the design. In the rendering, I see the, yeah, that one. There's an element in the horizontal band that's on, basically, it's the second floor. there's a return, and then there's a small black element, or black color element, I don't know if that's a mistake in the rendering, that doesn't provide continuity to the band that's going.

Are you talking in the left side?

Yes.

Yeah, that's something that it's, the thing is we have a planter there, and of course the slab with the planter gets this weird collection, but this could be flat, I mean, Again, a lot of small things that we're going to need to refine during the construction documents process.

The

Mr. Powers.

My concern is the cantilever to the west. Once again, we don't really, can you show me a western elevation, please? The cantilever off the front, there's no support there. And you know what? It just bothers me that it's that long of a cantilever. How long is that?

I don't have the exact dimensions, but the structure engineer didn't finish the design. This is a concept design. But yes, I agree that it's a challenging structure.

Well, it's just that you're off the bay. And when storms come off the bay, I mean, when we get, eventually we're going to get a hurricane. And I mean, when you have a cantilever like that, where it's not, where there's not some type of a dense design element that comes down and goes to the ground. It leaves me worried that it'd take the roof right off the house. You actually, because like there's this, and there's also a design element of having, you know, three, four, three, four, three, four type thing. where the design of, even in modern design, the fact that it's so overbearing to one side of that cantilever, I think that if you took another coral rock type, you know, it's a concrete, just a, you're talking about just a one foot, you know, what do they call that? Cement block type thing, and then wrapping it in coral rock, and starting it from the bottom, from the ground up, and going up and tying that roof into that thing, I think would also pull the whole design together a little bit. And I appreciate you taking my suggestion about having the windows go all the way across the front on the second floor. I also agree that if you're going to, it's going to not be easy to find, but the fact that you've got to put in louvers, those louvers are phenomenal. I mean, I don't know why they stopped manufacturing or putting them on houses in Florida. Number one, because they're great. And I'm not talking about, like, jealousy windows. But you know what I'm talking about. Because if you go to Mexico, if you go anywhere in South America, even in Italy and France and Germany, they all have shutters that come down that open up to cool the properties down or to keep the sun out. You know what I'm saying? I don't care what you put on windows. When light comes through, heat. It heats up the buildings. So I like that design concept, and I think that you need to put that into the design concept of the thing so that that is eventually what goes on there. And I also appreciate what Mr. Trachtenberg said about, or Jordan said, about that wood that does your staircase.

Yeah, same person.

I think that you need to put that into your design thing because that is such an important design To this. So I'm just saying to you, if we're going to be approving this, you need to put that in writing that that is indeed going to be part of the design. The only reason why I'm bringing it up, sir, is that I created the historic district of Palm Grove back in 2003. It took us three years to create that thing. I also said on the MIMO Biscayne Association, you have no idea how many architects came, presented things to this board, and then just built what they wanted to build and didn't do anything that they had come before this board and said. So that's one of the reasons why there's a little bit of a setback with us. When guys come and say, oh, well, we're going to do that. Well, then you need to put it in writing that you're going to do that because I'll believe it when I see it. And I'm not talking, and it's not you. I'm not saying it's you. It's just once we step over this stuff, we end up like people going, like, what were you guys like this woman? I've known Mrs. Schaefer for 25 years. I know precisely what she's talking about. And I voted against those two houses because I didn't think they fit the design guidelines of the neighborhood at all. If I can interrupt for just one second. So let me finish. So all I'm saying to you is that... Yes, I mean, I don't think that this is out of proportion with the neighborhood, to tell you the truth. I just think that there's some design elements that could be made to make that a little bit better to fit into the surrounding area, that's all.

If, through the chair, if I may, we still have about eight or nine more items, so I'm gonna remind the board to be specific in their questions, comments, and concerns, and make sure that everyone is keeping their discussion germane to the subject at hand. There are, in fact, some applicants here who have small children, both here and at home, and I wanna be considerate of all of them, too, okay? Thank you for that. Thank you. Ms. O'Dell.

Direct question for Adrian. Explain to me what you're asking for the applicant to do to shall explore the introduction of a gable roof into the front of the structure south of the patio. How is that going to work with this cantilevered rooftop?

I'm not a structural engineer or anything like that, but I guess just visually, sort of tie in.

The roof would come to a peak and then come back down. So it would no longer be a shed, it would be a gable, but it would be an asymmetrical gable. And that it would happen in front of that roof deck area, right?

So you would have that behind it.

We're not saying the whole roof should be a gable. That was a recommendation that we asked to get explored, and it's something that we still wish to be explored.

I mean, I think it definitely could work in the neighborhood, right? And it's not huge compared to some of the other things we see. I think it's appealing. What about the limestone? Is that supposed to go all the way up as well to the rooftop? You mean horizontally?

No, just that single pillar. So it almost shoots up like a chimney.

Because here in your recommendation it says the west most ulytic limestone vertical accent shall be extended through the roof line behind the fascia.

Yes. Yes. So that's the west most. There isn't one on the far west, but

Okay, thanks.

Mr. Cawley.

Yes, thanks a lot. Quick question. You're getting a lot of architectural comments tonight. I mean, from all kinds of places. You mentioned you're coming back. You said we have a month to work on the design. Do you mean before submitting for permit?

No, last meeting was, I think, a month and something ago. Oh, so you said you've had a month. I need to submit this a month in advance. That's why we have limited time to put together things. Right.

Okay, cool. Got it. You've had a month to work on it. Well, I'll try and be brief. Okay. I'm looking at some of the examples. I mean, look, it's clearly understandable what you're trying to do, right? Like I'm looking at the examples in your package. There's no question. There's a variety of architectural styles in this neighborhood. Some are better than others, of course, but there definitely are like some that are kind of between styles, I would say, and just a general suburban modern way. of the examples you provided, but then some of them are really cool. And the ones that have these horizontal roofs like you're showing are definitely the better ones, but they're not two stories, right? So again, this is the challenge here. It's like, you know, that I see that's happening, which I'm guessing, again, is amassing and a client needs a certain amount of space and the lots are relatively small and you're trying to figure out how to Navigate that bridge right? Um, and so my 1, like, I guess. Overriding comment on this that you have here on the screen is that, um. There definitely seems to be a lot. I don't want to start being like, oh, what if you do this? Or what if you do that? Or you could do this or you could do that. But there's a lot of elements. There's a lot of moving pieces on this. Right, there's stone that goes halfway up one area, then there's roof under the eave of the cantilever, you know, the top volume. And I just, my take is I think it would be more successful if it was less maybe moving pieces. Even if you, like just for my takeaway, even if you left it just like it was and you use some, like I see in some of these examples you've provided here of these cool houses. Some have brick, some have stone. There's a variety of materials, but they're pretty subtle blended together, right? And I think that the way this rendering comes across, it's kind of like, I don't mean this in any way negative, I think it's just the rendering style that makes it look like there's a lot of different materials going on. So I think that with just, and that's probably just an aspect of the rendering. So I think from a massing point of view, it looks cool to me. My suggestion would be to try and simplify it a little bit, and I think you have the flexibility to do that if I'm not mistaken. The one thing that I think is kind of an issue or problematic, not an issue, well, I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet. But there is, and I was trying to hint at this the last time you were here, if you look at the survey, and you look at the site plan there's kind of a big tree in the front and i think it could stay i think it could stay there it's over on the left side where you have your permeable paver driveway it looks like a big avocado tree and you know everybody's got opinions okay there are fruit trees in the county this means that this means the other thing But I bet if you had come in here and you had said, we're preserving this one cool tree in the front and we set the building back a little bit, I bet you wouldn't have had all of these comments and your house would blend into the neighborhood better. And so the thing that that makes me wonder I mean, usually when you do these plans, I mean, and for our awesome city staff too, Mr. Kalmas and everybody else, you know, usually what you want to do is overlay the trees from the survey on the site plan, right? Like we're not seeing that here and it's leading to a lot of the confusion I think that we have about some of the tree issues. So like here, I think that that tree is number one, If you zoom in here and you look over there in the bottom of the screen, I think it's number one. And no one can read these surveys. The shapes are bizarre. But if you look at that tree, I think it's in the front yard and I think it's over close to the left. And if I'm not mistaken, you don't have to raise your grade here a lot and do things like that. So I bet you, you could try and keep that tree. And I bet you it would be a huge benefit potentially. The thing that, but you know, That's a suggestion because I think you're gonna hear about that at some point anyhow. Somebody's gonna say something. Because if you look at the street view, it's kind of pretty. So I don't wanna see you run into that roadblock or have that issue if it's a relatively, a thing that you could analyze. So if we start getting these existing trees on these properties set onto the site plan, it's gonna go a long way towards us being able to discuss these things in a what is really happening point of view. that driveway is like a permeable paver driveway right there. So like if the tree is in it, I mean, you could have just a gravel driveway. I mean, there's so many things that you could do. And then my final kind of thinking on that, and I hate to say this, but like, I mean, in theory, I don't see why you couldn't, like if it was a big oak tree, for example, and everybody was like, oh, this is so important to the property. I mean, there's just, you would have no choice but to scoot the house back a little bit or something like that to try and make that thing. So I think a concession like that with a little simplification would go a long way towards helping your property blend into the neighborhood. I know you're in a tough position having to come to these hearings, get all these comments.