Historic & Environmental Preservation Board (HEPB)

[Music] 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 environmental preservation board. Nascar lobbyist. To I mean ask our. Attorney to read a statement regarding lobbying. Any person who's alive pursuant to chapter two, article six of the city code must register with the city clerk and comply with related city requirements for lobbyists before appearing before the historic and environmental preservation board. A person MAY not MAY not lobby a city official, board member or staff member until registering a copy of the code section about lobbyists is available in the city clerk's office or online on municode.Com. The agenda for this meeting and the materials for the items on the agenda were made public, were published and made available to the board in advance of the meeting. The materials are also available online@miamigov.Com. Please silence our cell phones and other noise making devices. Any person with a disability requirement 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 notice for not more than two minutes on any proposition before the board unless modified by the chair when addressing the board a member of the. 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 roll call please. Calling. >> board attendance. That will be chair hopper william hopper PRESIDENT Calling vice chair lewis prieto e munoz calling member. >> najeeb. >> campbell here. Thank you calling member christopher calling here thank you calling member julie odell here thank you calling member john perez calling member robert powers 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. Thank you. And so I. >> don't believe we 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 uh, 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 lewis prieto e munoz thank you. So what dates are we looking at? So the board was provided with four dates OCTOBER 13th any time after 1 P.M. OCTOBER 15th any time after 2 P.M. OCTOBER 20th uh avail the chambers are available at any time and monday OCTOBER 26th the chambers are available at any time. I do want to note. That um depending on the number of appeals that we. Receive and our agenda for. OCTOBER. >> um we MAY be able to cancel this meeting. So I just want everyone to to bear that in mind, but at this time I want to make sure that. Um we have a meeting on the calendar in case it's necessary. I did get feedback from two board members about dates. Uh, at this point ,uh, the. 13th. >> looked favorable to those two members. Does anyone 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 I 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. Um if we start at I guess one is the earliest on. >> the 13th one. Yeah would be 1:00 on the 13th. How many items are there now to my knowledge there are two um and. Assuming the board is able to get through all the items that 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 they're because there's still time for that. There is. >> still time. >> for that. Okay 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 the 20th on the 20th. And the other option. >> was was the. 2020 fifth is that right? 2626. And on the 26th the doctor hopper so that the. 26th the chambers are. >> available all day and the 20th the chambers are available all day for the. >> abundance of clarity I'm available neither of those two days I'm only. >> available 13th [Laughter]. >> to the 15th. >> well it'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, you know? >> no, we definitely should have him here. >> this time. Yeah I appreciate you guys so much. Thank you. Okay so that means that brings it back. >> to the 13th at one. Is that right? Yes. I mean that's good. All right. Any objection to 13th at one? Do. >> we need a motion? Yes. >> do I hear a motion. So. >> moved right and this. >> is this is only if it is required if we get a second that any discussion on the motion. All in favor say aye aye opposed. So we're set for OCTOBER 13th at 1:00. >> if we. >> need it. Thank you. Any other changes to the agenda? There are no other changes to the agenda. No no reports. I have no monthly updates at this time. 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 the staff report after which the applicant MAY provide additional. Information and I would ask you to please limit your presentation to ten minutes or less if you want to make a presentation that is after which we will open it up to the public for for comments I'd ask everyone to limit your comments to two minutes or less when everyone has 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 we will um 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 colin. 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. Address is. >> 4751 north. >> bay. >> road, miami beach. Thank you. We'll start with the staff report. Uh, the historic preservation planner. Uh welcome everyone. One moment. Um, request that the. >> staff analysis be. Submitted, uh, to the record to the board. Yes. Approved. Great. Thank you. Uh, so if we look to the our screens, uh, we can get a bit of a refresher after our month off. Uh, we've got the, uh, property at. 1016 or the the lot at. 1016 um southwest 13th court as it used to look. Um there it is on the map. We 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 um for the uh. Request in the. Design um we can go over them um of course but uh if we if we kind of go on to the next um spot here the uh, changes made to the design by the applicant. Um 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 new wall was added below the railings. Um the railings facing the street were changed to reflect the railing on the first floor uh 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. Um the crawl space. Appearance um requested that was not necessarily included but um as you can see the uh the board form concrete goes to the bottom um number four the center of the elevation on the second floor was pushed forward uh to give the illusion of more depth. Um shutters were were placed in there as well. Uh, 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 uh. Requested palm trees. But I believe according to the uh specific. Recommendations 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. Um staff. Recommend approval with. Conditions um for the rescission of the individually. Designated um uh. Resource um 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. Um that should read SEPTEMBER 1st, uh in this case and in the exercise of its authority to authority pursuant to chapter. 23 and the historic preservation board, uh will accept the covenant. Described um 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. Uh, in lieu of such requirements, the board shall permit. Construction of the proposed duplex as presented at the SEPTEMBER 1st. 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 would like to add? Uh 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 north east. 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? Not to close the public hearing of up to the board for questions and. >> comments and I'll start with MR. Cauley. 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 um member burke. >> and perez who have to say before I join. Okay MR. Trachtenberg. Okay. >> um, I think you've, uh, spent some effort to align with our comments and I thank you for that. Um, there's I read some of the public comments about the height, um, being being an issue, but your access point is pretty set back I think from the frontage. Um so there's an opportunity there to um only perceive two stories I feel um when it comes to this the comment about adding a little. >> bit of a green hue. Um have you considered that at all. Um we haven't had any discussions about that so it never entered into my mind that they should have any green hue although the landscaping. MAY help the large trees that are on the left and right. MAY MAY provide some coverage for that coloring. Um I do think there's an interesting. >> idea there especially when it comes to the the wood. Um 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. Remind me when 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 is. >> going to be brown brown right. More like the renderings. >> that we have. Yes yeah thank you. >> MR. Perez. Um. >> I. >> certainly appreciate the effort that was put into this and um 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. I therefore I think the length that you've that you've taken this to me is satisfactory and it actually looks like a nice design. Um there's certain elements such as. Moldings and ways that I think that's more up to you to 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 a better in the market to be able to sell it. But I think this this. Captures at least in my opinion the essence of the original design. Um, and there's 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. >> you know, maybe an etching that shows the original structure and maybe explains how this is. >> inspired by it. I think it would be a. Very nice addition to the neighborhood. Thank you, MR. Perez. I'm sorry, did. >> you. >> mention black? No plaque like a plaque a plaque originally you were thinking about doing a plaque. I think it'd be a very nice it'd be a. >> nice feature for the neighborhood somebody to walk by and say, oh, this used to be I don't have any problem doing that and 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, uh, we can certainly put that link in the. >> on the plaque itself so we can people can enjoy that. I hope your project is a success and I hope we we don't seem too. Complicated for developers because I like to. Encourage. Responsible. Development and. >> and I appreciate what you've done here. Thank you, MISS Odell. Um, I agree with my colleagues. Um 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.. >> espinosa to make that happen. No problem, MR. Munoz. Thank you. Um, I won't opine on the esthetic. I agree with my colleagues. It's, uh. 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. Um 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. Um 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. Um the first is that the um you know the esthetic criteria that's been discussed but the second and these are an and not an or. Requires um that there was a. Satisfaction to the that the board is. Satisfied that the 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. Let me take a quick look one more time. I appreciate that that you need to go through it so don't rush on my end. Maybe while you look at that I can ask ken the other question which is um could you walk me through the timing of the of the of the covenant why why a year why not a condition of the of the rescission. So the rescission won't take place until. After it's done so the rescission doesn't become necessary. If I'm correct the rescission won't become. Effective until the covenant is actually in place. Does that make sense? Yeah and so the way I read it right and the 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 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 it the. Provision I don't think it applies in in in this circumstance when I read it again it states that um I just read the whole thing. It said this presumption shall also be applicable to any request from the after effect certificate appropriateness. This presumption MAY be rebutted in the board MAY allow for the addition of more square footage um 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. Um so I think those um prongs after the fact specifically relate to the. Addition of um. Uh. >> square footage. I don't I don't think it applies in this in this circumstance. >> why is that? Um because if you read it because we are sorry if I MAY just give you one coming from um 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 um and I'll defer to ken just a little bit. Um under the. Circumstances of this particular. Designation I know that traditionally demolition by neglect um the applicant has to um construct something that is of the same scale. Um and in this instance is it it's accurate to say that they're adding more to so but the board the board also has the authority again to approve. Something of a larger. Scale. >> uh a different mass if the board is satisfied that it's appropriate for the gotcha for for that site like we did in um, palm grove a couple of months ago, we had the the vacant land um where the new. Construction was considerably. Larger but. >> the board determined made the determination that it was appropriate for that site. I appreciate that ken I where I'm coming from I'm just simply reading the code and it does seem that per the staff. Analysis um both thresholds are conveyed as a mechanism for the rescission. So coming to page nine of the staff analysis um as a caveat to the above the 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. Et cetera. And it states those two. Conditions and those two conditions are unified by. >> an and not. >> an or. Right so I understand I'm sorry go ahead. Um the the current. Applicant is. >> not the property. Owner who allowed this to occur. I does that I absolutely appreciate that and that's precisely. Sorry not 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 the the 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 um 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 um 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 I don't understand how we would have the authority to rescind this on the basis of that code provision. With out making a. Determination that the property owner made a reasonable effort to regularly inspect and maintain the structure. Um whether this is blind to a. Conveyance of the property. Yeah. So I don't know how we can determine that. Yeah. Can I yeah I think I think and I think you make a make a pretty good point because I don't think the code. Specifically addresses. Circumstances like these. Um. So I do think this falls in a bit of a gray area in the instance that we have before us where we have a the now property owner who didn't create the conditions on the property and now he's coming before us. Um 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 contribute 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. So so that would so. I'm trying to think of another example. >> where I appreciate this was not an easy one. I'm sorry a lot of that so so I mean the does does it specifically fall under the demolition by. >> neglect code because it was a suspicious fire? What 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 there was. >> you know it was square and plumb and and could have been fixed but I mean so actually 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. >> um you circumvent my concerns on this. 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 you let me ask you this in plain in plain terms because I need to overcome this if I'm going to vote in the affirmative um the property 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. It would be the last one, right? That's what I'm concerned yeah. No no the solution that's conveyed by this decision well I 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 um apparently they found that it was totally legitimate nothing reported anyway, I it wasn't in great. >> shape and that's why this fire was suspicious on a sunday morning. My concern just to to state it clearly um we're entering a new phase. This code was recently amended with regard to demolition by neglect. It happened in the last few years um 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 from the staff level what these guardrails are provided for by the code and that we we look at this you know, obviously the board has deliberative deliberative authority from my reading we are not given deliberative authority over this item, um particularly just the way the code is written. But again, um it's not for me to. Necessarily it's not exclusively for me to interpret this. So um that's that's that's where I'm at. I just I just don't understand I can't overcome that hurdle of how um ,how I make that. Determination um, absent. I mean, I appreciate that this is not anything you can actually control at this point because obviously you're not the previous owner so it's not 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 the demolition. >> by neglect element is very, very concerning. I just want to make sure that we get this right. 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 out 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 uh 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 this isn't this is not an encumbrance. So historic. Designation for many people is a is a is a benefit people seek it. 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, you're you're 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 it is I'm sure that it would have been in the in the. >> gis layer. I find it impossible to think that it isn't as everything else is. >> I will. I. >> will. >> add that I did check the gis it was in the gis. It does show the 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 it's it's part of its zoning if 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. So and again I'm not trying to make this complicated for you and 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 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, but so I don't know um I don't know what you guys. >> think or what guidance you think would be the right way to approach this but well, um, I. Appreciate the 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 fate the subsequent fate of that property so it would. Retain the designation. Um 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 etc. Of the property that was 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 the letter of the code and that's the this part a which has that and. >> between the two. Subclauses and that's what I'm struggling with. Well for me in the in the future. It would mean that the board would be able to lift the restrict or shift the. Restriction of um it having to be same mass same scale and that would be the purview of the board. Um. So are you comfortable? I'm I'm I have a slight. Uncomfortable feeling about what the point you made um 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. And um so vice chair are you which one of. >> those scenarios are you. Comfortable or. Uncomfortable with? Yeah. >> MAY I say something here? Um you don't mind do you? So just for clarity I think the concern here is whether I don't believe we necessarily as pending opinion of council 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 uh ,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 than 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 it if the board really consider 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 um you've been. Completely convivial with every element of this. I don't mean to say otherwise what I'm saying and I'm provided we find a way to deal with this. Correctly I'm perfectly on board with 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. >> or. As. >> a provision of this we need to determine through the chair. Give. >> me just one second. Sorry. I'll pause so I don't distract them. Thank you. >> and just for the record, MR. Powers is present. Yes. Thank you for your arrival, MR. Powers. I ever since he arrived late he won't be able to vote on this item. While while they're deliberating over there. Um, vice chair question so the 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 the what I was. >> citing. >> to council. Which is more code, there's more code, it is more code we're kind of hunting to see. Um but it says if you write under that section that you cited it says reconstruction of demolished contributing structures as the board shall. Determine on a case by case basis whether the reconstruction of an original contributing structure is warranted. Um it says also the requirement to construct the requirement to be constructed in an original manner is an event that a contributing building is demolished without obtaining a certificate of approval from the board or was demolished pursuant to an order of an unsafe 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 the discretion under this under. >> these circumstances to approve. Um 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, you know, bully pulpit soliloquy directed at the poor applicant. Um it 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 instance, 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 demolished. Structure that was not applicable. Well, 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 a 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 a. >> little closer. >> to your microphone. Can you hear me now? 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. Demolition by. Neglect that need 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 becoming 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 I don't. Understand why you would do such a thing number one. 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 um I forget the. Neighborhood uh just north of the design. District who also bought is in the same position that this gentleman is 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 uh some agreement with the historic preservation officer what can eventually be built there. But you know, so I'm not I'm not blind to this whole thing about how do we do this like this dance that we we take. And I think that you have to look at the. Intention. >> the intentionality. Um, 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 just. Destruction of a beautiful home that up until about ten 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 the demolition by. 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 um, so I'm just telling you so know, so the thing 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 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 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 are 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 that is that not correct? Is that where I am? No, that's exactly. >> the concern. All right. So thank you very much. And it's simply that I mean I just wanted to illustrate my own neighborhood the frustration that we have in our own. Neighborhood with some of these things. And I got to tell you 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 all at one time if I threw the chair you threw the chair. 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 apply. 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 it wasn't if we were able to just focus on the d. Designation and not so much the. Property, the design intent that we're approving today, would that change the way? No, no. It's I'm blind to the design intent. This is purely a policy item. >> so in theory we could just vote to rescind the designation I that was my question for staff. I mean we are rescinding the. Designation but as I as I read the report. This is this was determined as. >> a demolition by neglect. There was no determination. There was there was or there was not. So there was a fire it was demolished without a coa right and so. Therefore it in this instance it appears to apply there was never a there was never um. Uh what's the word I'm looking for? There was never an. Adjudication of. >> demolition by neglect. Right. Okay. And so so it is. Presumed right. So as opposed to something like the the apartments in loomis 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 so in this instance there's a there's a presumption here because the house was not. Necessarily in great. Condition. >> and there had been question about his condition specifically by and board member and that's what brings me precisely to this point, which is that we. >> as I. Understand it, the. And again I do apologize for. No that's fine 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? But 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 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 you know, of the the the the property owner right now the the main issues that he isn't necessarily the property owner who created the issue. He took possession of the property when it was already um. >> 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 right. >> on this one. >> exemption whether we believe this was in good faith or not based on the circumstances. So counsel would you help me in. Crafting a. Provision to include on our potential. Motion that would ensure that any subsequent properties that try to approach this from the same angle? Um we could. Validly assert our. Deliberative powers on having determined the intent of the applicant or the 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 tell them that you're wrong? Because they can take this to a 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 right. MR. CHAIRMAN, I ask a question. Yes, I was going to recognize you for questions and comments. Thank you. Um if the designation is not if the. Rescinding is not granted would the only. Available development. On the lot. >> be the exact same thing that was destroyed? No there would not be able to build. Anything the the board. >> yeah they. >> could. >> you're not required to to rebuild so when but when you do come to rebuild it would 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. Etc. Or whether the board felt that that that. >> could be waived based on what was being. >> presented before them. So sorry. Go ahead to if the rescinding is not granted and the property. Remains a historically designated property without a structure on it, the the whoever purchased the developer of the property could purchase it and then bring a development plan to the board. Mhm. Okay. So basically what 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 and the the property would. >> no longer be historically. >> designated a new. >> structure and then well that's that's that's much to the point of this application. Right. So 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. 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. Pragmatism 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 you. Could you make the developer come back in ten any change. Despite the. Rescinding of the. Designation we could still. Require them to come back. If. >> you're rescinding the. designation they're free then they're yep. The property is. >> the property is no longer under your purview and nor 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 designation throughout the life. >> of the property and the structure. Yes, sir. If I MAY, um 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 um initially when I came to the board I think that was back in APRIL, I suggested that I would donate a plaque for so people would know what was the. Reason was 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 a kind of a qr code or anything like that. And then um the board decided that we would not do that for the designation that's not sufficient and they recommended changes and incorporation of uh architectural elements of the property into what was proposed, which we did. We went through a couple of iterations of that working closely with 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 many of the 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 and have people evade to find out about that. So I think that what I'm trying to say is that I'm doing that and and I think it addresses those two reasons. And the third reason I think we've worked. Sufficiently long enough with the board who has the power to resign the historic. 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 that I think that um there's a lot that has been done here to kind of to address the reason the property was designated as a. >> historic property in. >> the first place. Just wanted to make that point. Thank you for your consideration. So what we're basically being asked to do today here is to rescind the designation of historic designation of this property with a. 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. >> 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 decision is the house is no longer there. Correct. >> the resource is gone. And if this was in a historic 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 plurality. Just wanted to clarify. Yeah. >> so this in itself is the singularity. It is gone. Um through no fault of the applicant. Yes MR. Campbell. Thank you. >> it seems as if um. 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 so to me that's where I feel a little uncomfortable about that. And here 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 okay, this is what we want to see in order for the rescission to happen. Right. But what you're voting on tonight is rescission. Okay. >> now. >> yes. Well I would. There needs to be some clarification in the code right. That that is what I'm hearing. Um but what you're actually voting on tonight is rescission okay. So sir um are you comfortable marching forward through time with this property as a historically designated property? I'm not. You're not I'm not. I think uh the rescission was the application of rescission was placed a year ago and that application has been consistent. And that's why I came to the board multiple times and made design changes. Um so I think if it's you know, I think I'm very satisfied with what the historic staff has proposed, which is the rescission 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. So we are on that track line going forward and I think that's that's a fair reasonable thing to do. Okay. >> thank you. If I 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 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 to the architecture and whatever. And I think we're getting a gift compared to what could happen. You could put whatever he wants and um or it could stay a vacant lot forever. So that's my way of looking at it. I think um we've killed enough time in my opinion today on this. Um I understand the procedural stuff but I think it case by case as bob said um 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 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 but it's gone for different reasons. It was burned down on a sunday and I got uh you know, calls from everyone with this giant five alarm fire down the street. I which is different than letting it slowly right and not tenting it. I mean, you know, similar but it was quick and rapid so he didn't do it. The lots vacant. So in your 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, I agree with everything you said. I would like to grant this approval. I think it's 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 it on that basis of your findings it could move forward. Well, I don't think that's in my opinion is in a fire. It's not our it's not in our department. It's the state fire marshal gets in there because there was the um the one on northwest third street that burned to the ground and their 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 him 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 um rescind the designation of the individually designated sites at 1016 southwest 13th court. Um not happy about doing it but it makes sense. With the conditions presented. Yes with all the conditions that have been um spelled out. >> and the plaque. Or the plaque the plaque is great. I was just in ireland and they got plaques for james joyce, william butler yeats all these people live. The 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 and the condition that clarifies that the covenant must be issued as a condition for the rescission. I was under the impression that the covenant just this wouldn't be removed until it was built until it was done. Is that correct? Correct. Yeah. >> okay. Just can we add a bit of clarifying language to the condition as currently written that clarifies that the covenant is a condition of the not so right now as I mentioned there are two things. One is a time frame 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 it was. Yeah, yeah. I mean this was suspicious fire I call it suspicious but it was just a fire that happened on a sunday morning. So okay. Did you do you accept the amendment? Yeah. >> MAY I add one more condition? Yeah. Um ken when you. I 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. So I wanted to see if it wouldn't be too much of a burden to add in a provision that, uh, 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 I'll put that on the motion. I'd put that on every motion for the last. >> I agree. And I will state um we already have a condition in here. It says the owner shall within one year successfully proffer a covenant to construct a duplex so that covenant um conditions already um we are have that as a condition. Do you want to. Well there. Needs to be clarify language. >> or with what MR. PRESIDENT saying I wholeheartedly agree for years that there needs to be on site visits to make sure this is a experience here seeing that so one thing is approved and it's not done. I want to I want to clear um what the vice chair is requesting that that's so the condition is that there will be a covenant and that the reconstruction will take place or the rescission doesn't. Yeah. >> yeah I'm asking. >> for and so I'm I'm trying to get clarification on specifically what language you want that would satisfy what you're asking for. >> okay. Well first point, um, let's definitely change the date from JUNE 2nd to SEPTEMBER 1st. Already already done. Okay good. And then second point I would state um that I would just be expressly redundant in that first statement I would say the owner shall within one year successfully proffer 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 just a little bit. Um 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. Oops. >> is staff shall. I don't know if we have the ability to actually add it into the I build system as a an actual inspection not just condition okay. So staff shall conduct regular and final site visit to ensure compliance right. Acceptable to the maker of the motion and a second yes okay we have a roll call please. Calling member hugh ryan. Yes. Thank you. Calling member najeeb campbell yes. Thank you. Calling member christopher calling yes. Thank you. Calling member julie. Yes. >> calling member john perez. Yes thank you. Calling member jordan trachtenberg yes. And then calling chair william hop