Loading...
2003-25378 Reso RESOLUTION NO. 2003-25378 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR DEMOLITION OF FIRE STATION #4, A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE ON AN HISTORIC SITE, LOCATED AT 6860 INDIAN CREEK DRIVE, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW THREE BAY FIRE STATION ON THE SAME SITE. WHEREAS, on July 2, 2003, the City Commission directed the City Administration to pursue the demolition of the existing historic Fire Station #4 based on the fact that the cost for the relocation of the building was significantly higher than initially estimated; and WHEREAS, demolition of the historic building requires a Certificate of Appropriateness to be granted by the City Commission; and WHEREAS, construction of a new fire station is proposed at the same location as the existing fire station, necessitating either the relocation or demolition of the historic building; and WHEREAS, the increased cost of relocation of the historic structure will adversely impact the ability of the City to construct and properly equip the new fire station on the subject site; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the City Code, Certificates of Appropriateness for such sites are granted or denied in accordance with the procedures set forth in the ordinance; and WHEREAS, the procedures for granting or denying a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of a historic structure require that the Historic Preservation Board hold a public hearing and transmit a recommendation to the City Commission, and that the City Commission then hold a hearing and vote on the request; and WHEREAS, Fire Station #4 is classified as a contributing structure on an historic site in the City's Historic Properties Data Base; and WHEREAS, on September 9, 2003 the City's Historic Preservation Board held a public hearing to consider the request, after which the Board voted to recommend that the request be granted; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, at its September 10, 2003 meeting, scheduled a Public Hearing to consider this issue, and said Public Hearing has been held; and WHEREAS, the City Commission agrees with the recommendation of the City's Historic Preservation Board that a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of the Fire Station #4 be granted as requested. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of the Fire Station #4, a contributing structure on an historic site located at 6860 Indian Creek Drive, in order to construct a new three bay fire station is eby granted. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of ,2003. ATTEST: ~r~ CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM & LANGUAGE & FOR EXECUTION T:\AGENDA\2003\oct1503\regularlFire 4 Demolition Reso.doc CITY OF"MIAMf BEACH COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY {Q Condensed Title: A resolution granting a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of Fire Station #4 in order to construct a new fire station on the same site. Issue: Should a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition to authorize the demolition of Fire Station #4 be granted? Item Summarv/Recommendation: The City Commission directed the City Administration to follow the appropriate procedures and processes to demolish Fire Station #4, a contributing structure on a historic site located at 6860 Indian Creek Drive. This direction was provided at the Commission meeting of July 2, 2003. The Project Architect, MC Harry & Associates, presented the proposed site plan for the new station at the Historic Preservation Board meeting of September 9,2003. The HPB voted to recommend to the City Commission that the historic building be demolished. The HPB further adopted the recommendations contained in the HPB Staff report as they relate to the new building, not all of which are presently funded. Pursuant to the HPB recommendation and following the HPB process for demolition of a contributing structure on a historic site, the City Commission scheduled a Public Hearing on the issue for October 15, 2003. It is necessary for the City Commission to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition in order to proceed with the present direction on this project. If the Certificate of Appropriateness is not aranted, it will be necessarv to relocate the Fire Station. Advisorv Board Recommendation: The Historic Preservation Board recommended approval at its meeting of September 9,2003. The GO Bond Oversight Committee has previously recommended approval. Financial Information: Source of Funds: Approved D Finance Dept. Ci Clerk's Office Le islative Trackin Tim Hemstreet, CIP Office AGENDA ITEM 1.1(l,. DATE /O.r/5',..tl!> CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 www.miamibeachfl.gov COMMISSION MEMORANDUM From: Mayor David Dermer and Members of the City Commission Jorge M. Gonzalez \ - ~ City Manager 0 ~ 0 Date: October 15, 2003 To: Subject: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR DEMOLITION OF FIRE STATION #4, A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE ON A HISTORIC SITE LOCATED AT 6860 INDIAN CREEK DRIVE, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW THREE BAY FIRE STATION ON THE SAME SITE. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Resolution. ANALYSIS On July 2, 2003, the City Commission directed the City Administration to pursue the demolition of the existing Fire Station #4, a contributing structure on a historic site, based on the fact that the cost for the relocation of the building was significantly higher than initially estimated. A second item that was included in this status report was that the Fire Department had requested some minor changes to the new facility in order to serve their needs better. This has resulted in an increase to the footprint of the proposed structure. Based on the information presented, the Capital Improvement Projects Office authorized the Project Architect, MC Harry & Associates, to prepare the necessary documents for submittal to the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) in order to proceed with the demolition of the building. This item was presented to the HPB at its September 9, 2003 meeting for consideration. The HPB approved a motion to recommend to the City Commission that the building be demolished. The vote on the motion was 4 members recommending demolition and 3 members against. As noted above, a related issue considered by the HPB regards the change to the proposed new building footprint of an approximate 700 square feet. The HPB also approved a motion authorizing this revision to the previously approved new building, provided that the final design addresses the recommended requirements of the Planning Department in the Historic Preservation Board Staff Report (attached) as well as certain landscaping requirements. The landscaping requirements generally include adding canopy shade trees the length ofthe project site along the Indian Creek Waterway as well as along the sidewalk along Indian Creek Drive. The HPB also directed that a five foot swale/planting strip be added between the curb and the sidewalk along Indian Creek Drive. This will require the demolition of the existing curb and gutter, which are currently City Commission Memorandum Fire Station 4 October 15, 2003 Page 2 of 3 connected to each other, and replacement with the proposed curb, swale, sidewalk configuration. Due to the cost of replacing the existing sidewalk and curb, CIP Staff is requesting HPB to reconsider this specific item at their November 12, 2003 meeting to permit the existing condition to remain and allow the canopy trees to be planted along the western edge of the sidewalk. The staff recommended items approved by the HPB, in part, include: 1. Glass fenestration shall be incorporated at the south end of the west elevation of the new fire station along the "day room" in a manner to be approved by staff. It is estimated that this will have a negligible impact to the construction cost for the project. 2. An architectural concrete "breeze block" wall shall be incorporated on the west elevation of the new fire station in a manner approved by staff. It is estimated that this will have a negligible impact to the construction cost for the project. 3. The monument to the demolished fire station shall be relocated to a prominent public location on the east side ofthe subject property (east of the existing pumping station) slightly to the south side of the fire station's original front lawn/vehicle equipment bay driveway area. This component will add an estimated $20,000 to the construction shortfall. The final amount is dependent upon further review by HPB staff. 4. The design, materials, and detailing of the historic monument shall be of museum quality; the monument shall include an historic analysis of the original 69th Street Fire Station (Fire Station #4), inclusive of (a) high quality historic photographic image(s) of the historic structure and site, and a written description of the history and evolution ofthe original building and site. The Final HPB Order, received in the CIP Office on October 2, 2003, required that the HPB approve the monument Design prior to issuance of the Building Permit for the new building. Since the proposed monument is not presently a part of MC Harry's scope, this provision may not be possible to meet without a delay to the existing schedule. Therefore, CIP Staff will request that HPB amend this requirement to have approval of the design prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy at the HPB meeting of November 12, 2003. 5. A significantly revised landscape plan that increases the amount and level of landscaping to the site, including requirements that exterior walkways and driveways be constructed of decorative pavers, a requirement that landscape areas abutting driveways and parking areas be defined by decorative bollards, and a requirement to landscape the 69th Street streetend. These components will add approximately $205,000 to the construction shortfall. The final number is dependent upon further review by HPB staff. City Commission Memorandum Fire Station 4 October 15, 2003 Page 3 of 3 6. Relocating the backflow valve assembly to another location on the site. It is estimated that this will add approximately $15,000 to the construction shortfall. It should be noted that the items noted above were not contemplated or consequently budgeted in the current design, so their inclusion will have an impact on the final project budget. At its meeting of September 10, 2003, the City Commission considered the HPB recommendation and approved a resolution setting a public hearing to consider granting a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition. A copy of that item is attached. This is the same process utilized by the HPB when it considers the demolition of a historic building. At this time, in order for the project to proceed as previously directed, a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition needs to be issued. If approved, the current schedule provides for the project to be bid in December/January with a proposed construction commencement in March 2004. If the Certificate of Appropriateness is not granted, then the existing Building will need to be relocated. Previous estimates for relocation indicate an additional $936,000 will be needed to relocate the facility and construct the new station. T:\AGENDA\2003\oct1503\regular\Fire 4 Demolition.doc SEP-02-2003 14:52 ~ 1 CITY MIAMI BCH PLANNING D 3056737559 P.01 , ~ erN OF MIAMI BEACH , ~ - PLANNING DEPARTMENT "'! , ';> ! t:t. HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD <.J '" E Q) '" ; c l d i ~ STAFF REPORT 0 0 D.. ... I, TO: HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD t; R ,.. .J FROM: i II) -0 " Jorge G. Gomez, Director~ ~ G ['- . Planning Department I ~:z:.1:": DATE: September 9, 2003 Meeting Ifu !: - ~ .. RE: Historic Preservation File No. 1701 ii ~ "1 ~ .. o 0 8 .c: ~ 6860 Indian Creek Drive - Fire Station No, 4 a. F Q. The applicant, the City of Miami Beach, is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolis~ an existing, historic fire station and construct a new fire station. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1 tijrough 4, Block M, Corrected Plat of Atlantic Heights, According to the Plat Thereof, as Record~ in Plat Book 9, Page 14, of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida. i HISTO~'REQUEST: On July~, 2002, a Certlflcate of Appropriateness was granted for the relocation and restoration of the e~isting, historic fire station and the construction of a new one (1) story fire station at the north enp of the subject site. , , The current request is for the complete demolition of the existing. historic fire station and construdtion of the new, fire statiDn as previously proposed. The proposed new 6.500 square foot, one (1) story fire station will house dormitories and kitchen facilities. a three (3) bay garage for fire vehicles, and other ancillary spaces. A memorial to the demolished station also is propose~. , SITe DATA: Zoning -1 Future Wand Use Designation - Lot Sizei- ExistingjFAR - Propos~ FAR- , GU (Municipal Use) PF (Public Facility - Fire, Police, Other) 35,313 S.F. 7,723 S.F.I 0.22 13,222 S.F.I 0.37 (Max FAR'" 2.0), as represented by the applicant 32 feet 1 2 stories 23.75 feet 1 1 story (27 feet to highest non-habitable projection) Fire and Police Station Fire and Police Station Existing .IHeight - ProposE$:l Height - 1 Existing iUse/Condition - Propos~ Use - SEP-02-2003 14:52 CITY MIAMI BCH PLANNING D 3056737559 P.02 ~. Page 2 of 11 HPB File No. 1701 Meeting Date: September 9, 2003 EXISTI STRUCTURES: There a. three (3) existlni structures on the site. The two (2) story fire station on the subject property,i known as the 69 Street Fire Station or Fire Station No.4, was constructed in 1937 and designated a Local Historic Site on March 20, 2002. Design by Robert Law Weed and Edwin T. Reeder, Fire Station No. 4 embodies defining characteTistics of the Neoclassical Revival period of architecture as popularized across America from about 1900 to the 1950s. The building features a classical two (2) story symmetrically massed :plan with a side-gabled roof and central chimney. Its principal faQ8de is organized about a: grand two-story curved entrance portico supported by four (4) pairs of full-height columnsl connoting simplified classical columns in the manner of a grand residence. The front entrance door and the ornamental lantern (now removed) suspended from the oval ceiling above are customary of the style and give it the feeling of the south wing of the White House. Designed by Robert and Leonard H. Glasser, an additiDn to the rear of the original structure was con~tructed in 1961 to accommodate new fire fighting equipment. The other two buildings on the s~bject site include a sewage pumping station constructed to the south of the fire station in 1937 ~nd a police substation built in 1984 at the southern end of the subject site. For a "'lore detailed description of the properties on the site and their history, refer to the attached Designation Report. , , , COMPL'ANCE WITH ZONING CODE: The ap . ication, as proposed, may be inconsistent with the street side setback requirements of the City Code; consequently, a variance may be required. Also, the proposed demolition of the existing ~tructure shall require final approval from the City Commission. , The above noted comments shall not be considered final zoning review or approval. These and all zoning matters shall require final review and verification by the Zoning Administrator prior to the issu~nce of a Building Permit. , i ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE: Additional information will be required for a complete review for compliance with the Florida Building~ Code 2001 Edition, section 11 (Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction). All accessibility matters shall require final review and verification by the Building Department prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. , , PRELI....NARY CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION: In acco~ance with Chapter 122 of the Code of the City of Miami Beach, the Transportation and Concurrency Management Division has conducted a preliminary concurrency evaluation and determi~ed that the project does not meet the City's concurrency requirements and level-of- service standards. However, the City's concurrency requirements can be achieved and satisfied: through payment of mitigation fees or by entering into an enforceable development agreement with the City. The Transportation and Concurrency Management Division will make the determination of the project's fair-share mitigation cost. A final cpncurrency determination shall be conducted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit MitigatictJ fees and concurrency administrative costs shall be paid prior to the project receiving any Buil~ing Permit. Without exception, all concurrency fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of a Te,,?porary Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Occupancy. SEP-02-2003 14:52 CITY MIAMI BCH PLANNING D 3056737559 P.03 ", ;" Page 3 of 11 HPB File No. 1701 Meeting Date: September 9, 2003 COMPLMCE WITH CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS CRITERIA: A decision on an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness shall be based upon the following: , I. ~aluation of the compatibility of the physical alteration or improvement with surrounding ~roperties and where applicable, compliance with the following criteria pursuant to $ection 116-564(a){1) of the Miami Beach Code (it is recommended that the listed criteria be found Satisfied, Not Satisfied or Not Applicable, 85 50 noted): ~ The Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings as revised from time to time. Not Applicable b. Other guidelines/policies/plans adopted or approved by Resolution or Ordinance by the City Commission. Satisfied II. In determining whether a particular application is compatible with surrounding properties. t~e Board shall consider the following criteria pursuant to Section 118-564(a)(2) of the Miami Beach Code (it is recommended that the listed criteria be found Satisfied, Not ~atisfied or Not Applicable, as so noted): a. Exterior architectural features. Satisfied b. General design, scale, massing and arrangement. Satisfied C? I Texture and material and color. Not Satisfied; see Condition No.4 and Staff Analysis Exterior'liurface color samples have not been submitted. ~. The relationship of a, b, C, above, to other structures and features of the district. Satisfied e. , The purpose for which the district was created. Satisfied , , I f.. The relationship of the size, design and siting of any new or reconstructed structure to the landscape of the district. Satisfied i g. An historic resources report, containing all available data and historic documentation regarding the building, site or feature. Satisfied h. The original architectural design or any subsequent modifications that have acquired significance. Satisfied SEP-02-2003 14:53 CITY MIAMI BCH PLANNING D 3056737559 P.04 ~" Page 4 of 11 HPB File No. 1701 Meeting Date: September 9, 2003 ! I III. The examination of architectural drawings for consistency with the criteria pursuant to Section 118-564(a)(3) of the Miami Beach Code and stated below, with regard to the aesthetics, appearances, safety, and function of any new or existing structure, public i~terior space and physical attributes of the project in relation to the site, adjacent structures and properties, and surrounding community_ The criteria referenced above are as follows (it is recommended that the listed criteria be found Satisfied, Not Satisfied or Not Applicable, as so noted): 1 ~. The location of all existing and proposed buildings, drives, parking spaces, walkways, means of ingress and egress, drainage facilities, utility services. landscaping structures, signs, and lighting and screening devices. Not Satisfied; See Staff Analysis and Condition No.2. The street end of 691h Street consists of open, barren asphalt which has an extremely negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. b' :' The dimensions of all buildings. structures, setbacks, parking spaces, floor area ratio. height, lot coverage and any other information that may be reasonably necessary to determine compliance with the requirements of the underlying zoning district, and any applicable overlays. for a particular application or project. Not Satlsfled; See Zoning Analysis ~, The color, design, surface finishes and selection of landscape materials and architectural elements of the exterior of all buildings and structures and primary public interior areas for developments requiring a building permit in areas of the city identified in section 11 8-503. Not Satlsfled: See Staff Analysis and Condition No.2. The street end of 69th Street consists of open, barren asphalt which has an extremely negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. q. The prop'osed structure, and/or additions to an existing structure is appropriate to and compatible with the environment and adjacent structures, and enhances the appearance of the surrounding properties, or the purposes for which the district was created. Satisfied e. The design and layout of the proposed site plan, as well as all new and existing buildings and public interior spaces shall be reviewed so as to provide an efficient arrangement of land uses. Particular attention shall be given to safety, crime prevention and fire protection, relationship to the surrounding neighborhood, impact on preserving historic character of the neighborhood and district, contiguous and adjacent buildings and lands, pedestrian sight lines and view corridors. Not Satisfied; See Staff Analysis and Condition No.2. The street end of 69t1l Street consists of open, barren asphalt which has an extremely negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic movement within and adjacent to the site shall be reviewed to ensure that clearly defined, segregated pedestrian access to the site and all buildings is provided for and that any driveways and parking spaces are usable, safely and conveniently arranged and have a minimal impact on f. SEP-02-2003 14:53 CITY MIAMI BCH PLANNING D 3056737559 P.05 q" Page 5 of 11 HPB File No. 1701 Meeting Date: September 9, 2003 pedestrian circulation throughout the site. Access to the site from adjacent roads shall be designed so as to interfere as little as possible with vehicular traffic flow on these roads and pedestrian movement onto and within the site, as well as permit both pedestrians and vehicles a safe ingress and egress to the site. Satisfied 9r Lighting shall be reviewed to ensure safe movement of persons and vehicles and reflection on public property for security purposes and to minimize glare and reflection on adjacent properties and consistent with a City master plan. where applicable. Satisfied . I h'. Landscape and paving materials shall be reviewed to ensure an adequate relationship with and enhancement of the overall site plan design. Not Satisfied; See Staff Analysis and Condition No.2. The street end of 69th street consists of open, barren asphalt which has an extremely negative Impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Buffering materials shall be reviewed to ensure that headlights of vehicles, noise, and light from Structures are adequately shielded from public view, adjacent properties and pedestrian areas. Satisfied i.j j.' Any proposed new structure shall have an orientation and massing which is sensitive to and compatible with the bUilding site and surrounding area and which creates or maintains important view corridor(s). Satisfied ; ~. All buildings shall have, to the greatest extent possible, space in that part of the ground floor fronting a sidewalk, street or streets which is to be occupied for residential or commercial uses; likewise, the upper floors of the pedestal portion of the proposed building fronting a sidewalk street, or streets shall have residential or commercial spaces, or shall have the appearance of being a residenti~1 or commercial space or shall have an architectural treatment which shall buffer the appearance of a parking structure from the surrounding area and is integrated with the overall appearance of the project. Satisfied Il All buildings shall have an appropriate and fully integrated rooftop architectural treatment which substantially screens all mechanical equipment, stairs and elevator towers. Satisfied , r;n. Any addition on a building site shall be designed. sited and massed in a manner which is sensitive to and compatible with the existing improvement(s). Satlsfled iii. All portions of a project fronting a street or sidewalk shall incorporate an amount of transparency at the first level necessary to achieve pedestrian compatibility. Satisfied SEP-02-2003 14:53 CITY MIAMI BCH PLANNING D 3056737559 P.06 Page 6 of 11 HPB File No. 1701 Meeting Date: September 9, 2003 O~ The location, design. screening and buffering of all required service bays, delivery bays, trash and refuse receptacles, as well as trash rooms shall be arranged so as to have a minimal impact on adjacent properties. Satisfied I , CERTIFICATE OF APP . PRIATENESS FOR DEMOLITION EVALUATION RITE RIA: Section 18-564 (f)(4) of the Land Development Regulations of the Miami Beach Code provides criteria by which the Historic Preservation Board evaluates requests for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition. The following is an analysis of the request based upon these criteria: i \ i i. Tjhe BUilding, Structure, Improvement, or Site is designated on either a national or state level as a part of an Historic Preservation District or as a Historic Architectural Landmark dr Site, or is designated pursuant to Division 4, Article X. Chapter 118 of the Miami ~ach Code as a Historic Building, Historic Structure or Historic Site, Historic I~provement, Historic Landscape Feature, historic interior or the Structure is of such Historic/architectural interest or quality that it would reasonably meet national, state or local criteria for such designation. Satisfied l/he existing structure is designated pursuant to Division 4, Article X. Chapter 118 df the Miami Beach Code as a Historic Site. 2. 1f:he Building, structure, Improvement, or Site is of such design, craftsmanship. or material that it could be reproduced only with great difficulty and/or expense. Satisfied lI'he existing structure would be difficult and inordinately expensive to reproduce. , i 3. the Building, Structure, Improvement. or Site is one of the last remaining examples of its kind in the neighborhood, the country, or the region, or is a distinctive example of an ~rchitectural or design style which contributes to the character of the district. ~atisfled 'the subject structure Is one of the last remaining examples of Its kind and Is a distinctive example of an architectural or design style. ; 4. The building, structure, improvement, or site is a contributing building, structure, itnprovement, site or landscape feature rather than a noncontributing building, structure, itnprovement, site or landscape feature in a historic district as defined in section 114-1, or is an architecturally significant feature of a public area of the interior of a historic or qontributing building. latisfied The existing structure Is designated pursuant to Division 4, Article X. Chapter 118 Of the Miami Beach Code as a Historic Site. 1 5. J!tetention of the Building, Structure, Improvement, Landscape Feature or Site promotes the general welfare of the City by providing an opportunity for study of local history, architecture, and design or by developing an understanding of the importance and value Of a particular culture and heritage. atlsfied he retention of the subject structure is critical to developing an understanding of ~n important Miami Beach architectural style. CITY MIAMI BCH PLANNING b P.07 3056737559 SEP-02-2003 14:53 6. ~, Page 7 of 11 HPB File No. 1701 Meeting Date: September 9, 2003 7. , I Ifithe proposed dlilmolition is for the purpose of constructing a parking garage, the Board s~all consider it if the parking garage is designed in a manner that is consistent with the ~cretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, U.S. Department of the Interior (1983), as amended, and/or the d~sign review guid~lines for that particular district. Not Satisfied lhe demolition proposed In the subject application Is not for the purpose of cpnstructln9 a parking garage. ljhere are definite plans for reuse of the property if the proposed demolition is carried olJt, the effect of those plans on the character of the Historic District, whether there is a ~mpelling public interest requiring the proposed demolition, and whether the Applicant is willing to bond'the completion of the proposed new construction. S.-atisfied l1he applicant Is proposing to use the property for the construction of a new fire s.'tation. ! 8. 1!he Dade County Unsafe Structures Board has ordered the demolition of a Structure without option. ~ot Satisfied ,,-he Dade County Unsafe Structures Board has not ordered the demolition of any part of the subj~ct building. i 9, 1'he Board determines that retention of the Building/Structure would deny the owner ~conomicany viable use of the property. !lot Satisfied T,he applicant has not submitted a financial feasibility study to determine whether ~9 new project as proposed will make the subje~ property financially viable. , STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff re~nizes that the Ci~ COmmission has made a policy decision to move forward with the demolition of the historic 69 street Fire Station (Fire Station No.4) due to the financial costs of relocati~g, structurally restoring, renovating, and adaptively reusing the building; the City Commi~sion is required by Code to make the final decision on the demolition of any City-owned prope~. Notwithstanding these relevant policy issues, staff is not supportive of the proposed demolition of the existing, historic fire station as it is a significant historic site in the North Beach area, as evidenced by its designation on March 20, 2002. Further, the proposed demolition does nqt meet the Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition Evaluation Criteria established in the CftY Code. t , In the eWent the demolition of the tire station is approved by the City Commission, staff would make tHe following recommendations with respect to the proposed project. Staff does not feel that the! currently proposed location for a monument to the historic fire station is appropriate. This va!uable piece of park-like waterfront property may be needed in the future for the sailing~yaking center that is proposed In the North Beach Strategic Plan, or for some other appropriate waterfront-dependent community use. Staff would recommend that an appropriately designed historic monument be placed in a prominent location on the east side of the site :(east of the existing pumping station) as close as possible to the footprint of the original tire sta~on. This could be accomplished by creating a suitably landscaped park.llke setting slightly to the south side of the historic fire station's front lawn area, where it WOUld also help to block vi~ws to the proposed expansion of the existing sanitary pumping station. SEP-02-2003 14:53 CITY MIAMI BCH PLANNING D 3056737559 P.08 Page 8 of 11 HPB File No. 1701 Meeting Date: September 9, 2003 , l With respect to the remainder of the proposed site and landscape plan, staff has a serious concern \With the large, barren expanse of blank asphalt proposed for the street end on 69th Street. [rhis area should be improved with a substantially enhanced paving and landscape design. ! If the project budget is an issue, at a minimum, a concept plan that could be implemented with another funding source should be provided. And as previously recommended when the project was reviewed in 2002, staff suggests that the sidewalk on the north side of the 69lh Stre~t right-of-way be expanded to the greatest extent possible. i The des~n proposed for the new fire station is generally very similar to the design approved in 2002; it~ plan has been somewhat reconfigured in the south and west areas. Staff's primary concern i with the originally proposed design was the wing wall which extended from the southea~t corner of the proposed building that encroached on the view to the relocated, historic station. jfhis should no longer be an issue, Staff dO~S have some design concerns, however, with the revised west elevation of the new fire station. 'This elevation, which directly fronts onto Indian Creek, is much less aesthetically pleasing; than the previously approved design, and lacks any design detail. Staff strongly recommends that it incorporate the successful use of glass fenestration at its south end (along the Uday, room") as did the previously approved version; the plan and use remains essentially the same. Also, staff believes that the low architectural "breeze block" wall of the previously approved west elevation design should also be reintroduced; it assists in lending some modest design "style" to the otherwise very utilitarian-looking waterfront elevation of the building. I RECOr.'tJIENDATION: In view bf the foregoing analysis, staff recommends the remainder of application be approved. subject 1;0 the following conditions: 1. Revised elevation, site plan, and detailed drawings shall be submitted to and approved by staff; at a minimum, such drawings shall incorporate the following: a. Glass fenestration shall be incorporated at the south end of the west elevation of the new fire station along the "day room" in a manner to be approved by staff. b. An architectural concrete "breeze block" wall shall be incorporated on the west elevation of the new fire station in a manner to be approved by staff. \ c. The monument to the demolished historic fire station shall be relocated to a prominent public location on the east side of the subject property (east of the eXisting pumping station) slightly to the south side of the historic fire station's original front lawnlvehicle equipment bay driveway area. d. The design, materials. and detailing of the historic monument shall be of museum quality; the monument shall include an historic analysis of the original 69th Street Fire Station (Fire Station No.4), inclusive of (a) high quality historic photographic image(s) of the historic structure and site, and a written description of the history and evolution of the original building and site. SEP-02-2003 14:53 CITY MIAMI BCH PLANNING D 3056737559 P.09 ~, Page 9 of 11 HPB File No. 1701 Meeting Date: September 9, 2003 2. The design and siting of the historic monument shall be brought back before the Historic P!l"eservation Board for final approval prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the n~w structure. 3. A revised landscape plan, prepared by a Professional Landscape Architect, registered in t~e State of Florida, and corresponding site plan, shall be submitted to and approved by staff. The species type, quantity, dimensions, spacing, location and overall height of all piant material shall be clearly delineated and subject to the review and approval of staff. ~'t a minimum. such plan shall incorporate the following: a. All exterior walkways and driveways shall consist of decorative pavers, set in sand or other equally semi-pervious material, subject to the review and approval of staff. b. All landscape areas abutting driveways and parking areas shall be defined by decorative bollards, c. A fully automatic irrigation system with 100% coverage and an automatic rain sensor in order to render the system inoperative in the event of rain. Right- of-way areas shall also be incorporated as part of the irrigation system. d. The landscape plan shall satisfy all requirements as specified in Chapter 33 of the Miami-Dade County COde. A landscape table shall be provided on final landscape plans addressing all minimum quantity and native requirements, subject to the review and approval of staff. e. The location of backflow preventor, siamese pipes Or FPL boxes, if any, and how they are screened with landscape material from the right-ot-way, shall be indicated on the plans and shall be subject to the review and approval of staff. f. The plan for the 69th Street end shall be substantially revised to include additional landscape plantings, pavers and wider sidewalks, in a manner to be reviewed and approved by staff. 2. . All building signage shall be consistent in type, composed of flush mounted, non- i plastic, non-illuminated, individual letters and shall require a separate permit. , 3. !The final exterior surface color scheme, including color samples, shall be subject to the : review and approval of staff and shall require a separate permit. 4. ;A traffic mitigation plan, which addresses all roadway Level of Service (LOS) : deficiencies relative to the concurrency requirements of the City Code, jf required, shall : be submitted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit and the final building plans shall , meet all other requirements of the Land Development Regulations of the City Code. I 5. : Manufacturers drawings and Dade County product approval numbers for all new iwindows, doors and glass shall be required. crior to the issuance ot a building permit. SEP-02-2003 14:54 CITY MIAMI BCH PLANNING D 3056737559 P.10 Page 10 of 11 HPB File No. 1701 Meeting Date: September 9, 2003 , 6. ;A!I roof-top fixtures, air-conditioning units and mechanical devices shall be clearly ~ noted on a reVised roof plan and shall be screened from view, in a manner to be : approved by staff. . 7. :AII new and altered elements, spaces and areas shall meet the requirements of the : Florida Accessibility Code (FAC). I . , 6. i The project shall comply with any landscaping or other sidewalk/street improvement : standards as may be prescribed by a relevant Urban Design Master Plan approved ; prior to the completion of the project and the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 9. iThe applicant may be required to submit a separate analysis for water and sewer : requirements, at the discretion of the Public Works Director, or designee. Based on a : preliminary review of the proposed project, the following may be required by the Public ;Works Department: a. Remove/replace sidewalks, curbs and gutters on all street frontages, if applicable. b. MiIIlresurface asphalt in rear alley along property, if applicable. c. Provide underground utility service connections and on-site transformer location, if necessary. d. Provide back-flow prevention devices on all water services. e. Provide on-site, self-contained storm water drainage for the proposed development. f. Meet water/sewer concurrency requirements including a hydraulic water model analysis and gravity sewer system capacity analysis as determined by the Department and the required upgrades to water and sewer mains selVicing this project. g. Payment of City utility impact fees for water meterslselVices. h. Provide flood barrier ramps to underground parking or minimum slab elevation to be at highest adjacent crown road elevation plus 8". i. Right.of-way permit must be obtained from Public Works. j. All right-of-way encroachments must be removed. k. All plantingllandscaping in the public right-of-way must be approved by the Public Works and Parks Departments. , 10. iA drawn plan and written procedure for the proposed demolition shall be prepared and iSUbmitted by a Professional Structural Engineer, registered in the State of Florida, ;which fully ensures the protection of the public safety, as well as the protection of the iexisting structure on the subject site and all existing structures adjacent to the subject ;site during the course of demolition. SEP-02-2003 14:54 CITY MIAMI BCH PLANNING D 3056737559 % P.l1 Page 11 of11 HPB File No. 1701 Meeting Date: September 9, 2003 11. ,The Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition shall only remain in effect for the 1 period of time that there is an active Certificate of Appropriateness for the associated ,new construction On the subject property. 12. ; The Final Order is not severable, and if any provision or condition hereof is held void : or unconstitutional in a final decision by a court of competent jurisdiction, the order ! shall be returned to the Board for reconsideration as to whether the order meets the : criteria for approval absent the stricken provision or condition, and/or it is appropriate ! to modify the remaining conditions or impose new conditions. i JGG:TRM:iloo F:\PLAN\$tiPB\03HPB\SepHPB03\1701.sep.doc , SEP-02-2003 14:54 CITY MIAMI BCH PLANNING D 3056737559 P.12 ~. / , CI1v Q'F iMIAMI BEACH PL~NNING DePARTMENT lQ - HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD AGENDA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 9:00 A.M. CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS l. ATTENDANCE I II. ~TATUS REPORTS III. ~EQUESTS FOR CONTINUANCES I I IV. REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME ~. HPB File No. 1294, Various locations in the public right-of-way, city-wide. The applicant, Clear Channel Adshel,lnc, is requesting a one (1) year Extension of Time to obtain a Building Permit for a previously issued Certificate of Appropriateness fDr the installation of new bus shelters and other miscellaneous street fixtures and furniture In various locations throughout the city. I ~. HPB File No. 1307, 927-929 Meridian Avenue. The applicant, Ira D. Giller, is requesting a one (1) year Extension of Time to obtain a Building Permit for a previously issued Certifioate of Appropriateness in order to construct a three (3) story addition to an existing two (2) story apartment building. V. ~EaUESTS FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS 1. Previously Continued Projects a. HPB File No. 1500.7300 Ooean Terrace - Olsen Hotel. The applicant, Olsen Hotel Condominium Association, Inc., is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for the exterior renovation of an existing three (3) story condominIum building, inclusive of the replacement of existing wall-mounted air conditioning units with new wall-mounted units. SEP-02-2003 14:54 CITY MIRMI BCH PLRNNING D 3056737559 P.13 ~. Page 2 of 3 Historic Preservation Board Agenda Meeting Date: September 9, 2003 b. HPB File No. 1552,4360 Collins Avenue, The applicant. 4360 Collins, LLC, is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a new eight (8) story residential building on a vacant lot. ~. New Projects a, HPB File No. 1698, 1n6 Michigan Avenue. The applicant, Alan C. Freeman and Paul H, Freeman, Trust, is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct an addition to an existing single-family home. b. HPB File No. 1699,532 Michigan Avenue - The Aimee. The applicant, Miami Beach Community Development Corp., is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to partially demolish, alter and modify an existing two (2) story apartment building by enclosing a portion at the rear of the structure, restoring the front elevation and altering the window configuration on the side and rear elevations. C. HPB File No. 1700, 1100 14th Street. Olhaber Residence. The applicant, Elmer Olhaber, is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to partially demolish, alter and modify an existing single-family home by replacing two (2) windows with French doors and constructing a new concrete landing and a site wall around a portion of the yard. d. HPB File No. 1701, 6860 Indian Creek Drive - Fire Station No.4. The applicant. the City of Miami Beach, is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish an existing, historic fire.station and construct a new fire station. VI. IllEQUESTS FOR PRELIMINARY EVALUATIONS I VII. ~EW BUSINESS 1. HPB File No. 1697, Discussion Item. Emergency Demolition Order for 245 Washington Avenue. *. DiscussIon: Potential designation of 4812 Pine Tree Dive. VIII. NEXT MEETING DATE REMINDER: Tuesday, October 7. 2003 , , IX. ADJOURNMENT All persons are invited to attend this meeting or be represented by an agent. or to express their views in writing addressed to the Design Review Board c/o the Planning Department. 1700 Convention Center Drive, 2nd Floor, Miami Beach, Florida 3S1 39. The applications for the above projects are available for public inspection during nOrmal business hours at the Planning Department, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 2nd Floor, Miami Beach, F;lorida 33139. Inquiries may be directed to the Department at (305) 673-7550. SEP-02-2003 14:54 CITY MIAMI BCH PLANNING D 3056737559 P.14 ,:, Page 3 of 3 Historic Preservation Board Agenda Meeting Date: September 9, 2003 , Any of th. above items may be continued and, under such circumstances, additional legal notice would not be provided; Any person may contact the Department at (305) 673-7550 for information as to the status of these items as B result of the Board's meeting. l Pursuantto Section 286.0105, Fla. Stat., the City hereby advises the public that If a person decides to appeal any deciSion made by this Board with respect to any matter considered at its meeting or hearing, such person will needito ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evid~nce upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice does not constitute consent by the City for the introquction Dr admission of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence, nor does it authorize challenges or appeaJs not otherwise allowed by law. 1 In accordance with the Ame~icallS with Disabilities Act of 1990, persons needing special accommodation to participate in this proceeding should contact the Boards' Administrator at (305) 673-7550 for assistance, no later thalli four (4) days prlor to the proceeding. If hearing impaired, telephone the Florida Relay SeNice numberS, (800) 955-8771 (TOD) or (800) 955.8770 (Voice), for assistance. Persons! requiring sign language interpreters should contact the Board's Administrator five (5) days in advance, when possible. For information on access for persons with disabilities, or to request material in accessible format, please call (:305) 673-7550 (VOICE); hearing impaired persons, please call (305) 673-7219 (TOO). 1 F:\P~H PB\03HPB\SepHPB03\hpballenda03.sep.doc ! TOTAL P.14 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~ HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD AFTER ACTION REPORT FOR MEETING HELD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME 1. HPB File No. 1294, Various locations in the public right-ol-way, city-wide. The applicant, Clear Channel Adshel, Inc, is requesting a one (1) year Extension of Time to obtain a Building Permit for a previously issued Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of new bus shelters and other miscellaneous street fixtures and fumiture in various locations throughout the city . APPROVED 2. HPB File No. 1307, 927-929 Meridian Avenue. The applicant, Ira D. Giller, is requesting a one (1) year Extension of Time to obtain a Building Permit for a previously issued Certificate of Appropriateness in order to construct a three (3) story addition to an existing two (2) story apartment building. APPROVED l REQUESTS FOR CER1lFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS 1. Previously Continued Projects a. HPB Rle No. 1500, 7300 Ocean Terrace - Olsen Hotel. The applicmt, Olsen Hotel Condominium Association, Inc., is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for the exterior renovation of an existing three (3) story condominium building, inclusive of the replacement of existing wall-mounted air conditioning units with new wall-mounted units. APPROVED b. HPB RIe No. 1552, 4360 Collins Avenue. The applicant, 4360 Collins, LLC, is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a new eight (6) story residential building on a vacant lot. Continued to the October 7,2003 meeting '" Page 2 of 2 Historic Preservation Board Agenda Meeting Date: September 9, 2003 2. New Projects a. HPB Fde No. 1698, 1776 Michigan Avenue. The applicant, Alan C. Freeman and Paul H. Freeman, Trust is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct an addition to an existing single-lamily home. APPROVED b. HPB Ria No. 1699, 532 Michigan Avenue - The Aimee. The applicant, MaTi BeOO1 Community Development Corp., is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to partially demolish, alter and modify an existing two (2) story apartment building by enclosing a portion at the rear of the structure, restoring the front elevation and altering the window configuration on the side and rear elevations. APPROVED c. HPB File No. 1700, 1100 14th Street - Olhaber Residence. The applicant, Elmer Olhaber, is requesting a Certificate 01 Appropriateness to partially demolish, alter and modify an existing single-family home by replacing two (2) windows with French doors and constructing a new concrete landing and a site wall around a portion ofthe yard. APPROVED d. HPB File No. 1701, 6860 Indian Creek Drive - Fire Station No.4. The applicant, t-e City of Miami Beach, is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish an existing, historic fire station and construct a new fire station. APPROVED IR. NEW BUSINESS 1. HPB File Nl. 1697, Discussion Item. Emergency Demolition Order lor 245 Washington Avenue. Continued to the November 11, 2003 meeting. The City's Buildin9 Official has given 90 days from August 16, 2003 to secure or to demolish the building. 2. Discussion: Potential designation of 4812 Pine Tree Dive. Item discussed... IV. NEXT MEETING DATE REMINDER: Tuesday, October 7, 2003 F :IPLANI$HPBI03HPBISepHPB03Ihpbafte,-acI03.sep.doc RESOLUTION NO. 2003-25336 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING, PURSUANT TO MIAMI BEACH CITY CODE SECTION 118-563, TO GRANT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR DEMOLITION OF FIRE STATION #4, A DESIGNATED HISTORIC SITE LOCATED AT 6860 INDIAN CREEK DRIVE, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW THREE BAY FIRE STATION ON THE SAME SITE. WHEREAS, on July 2,2003, the City Commission directed the City Administration to pursue the demolition of the existing Fire Station #4 based on the fact that the cost for the relocation of the building was significantly higher than initially estimated; and WHEREAS, Fire Station #4 is classified as an historic site in the City's Historic Properties Data Base; and WHEREAS, demolition of City-owned buildings located within local historic districts and sites require a Certificate of Appropriateness to be granted by the City Commission; and WHEREAS, construction of a new fire station is proposed at the same location as the existing structure, necessitating either its relocation or demolition, and relocation has been ruled out based on financial reasons; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the City Code, Certificates of Appropriateness for such sites are granted or denied in accordance with the procedures set forth within the ordinance; and WHEREAS, the procedures for granting or denying a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of a building on an historic site require that the Historic Preservation Board hold a public hearing and transmit a recommendation to the City Commission, and it is appropriate that the City Commission then hold a hearing and vote on the request; and WHEREAS, on September 9, 2003 the City's Historic Preservation Board held a public hearing to consider the request, after which the Board voted 4-3 to recommend that the request be granted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission hereby set a time certain of 11: 15 a.m.on October 15, 2003 to consider a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of Fire Station #4, a designated historic site located at 6860 Indian Creek Drive, in order to construct a new three bay fire station. ------ Resolution setting public hearing to consider issuance of certificate of appropriateness for demolition of Fire Station #4 PASSED and ADOPTED this 10th day of September ,2003. ATTEST: n;(\\Mr ~~~ CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2003-25336 APPROVED AS TO FORM & LANGUAGE & FOR EXECUTION ~~ Vrce -M OR ' 6-")-Q; ate T:IAGENOA\2003\sepl003\regularIFS4 public hearing Reso.doc 2 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 www.ci.mlami-beach.fl.us COMMISSION MEMORANDUM From: Date: September 10, 2003 To: Subject: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AN COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, SETTIN A PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO MIAMI BEACH CITY CODE SECTION 118-563 TO GRANT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR DEMOLITION OF FIRE STATION #4, A DESIGNATED HISTORIC SITE LOCATED AT 6860 INDIAN CREEK DRIVE, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 3 BAY FIRE STATION LOCATED ON THE SAME SITE. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Resolution. ANALYSIS On July 2, 2003, the City Commission directed the City Administration to pursue the demolition of the existing historic Fire Station #4 based on the fact that the cost for the relocation of the building was significantly higher than initially estimated. A second item that was included in this status report was that the Fire Department had requested some minor changes to the new facility in orderto serve their needs better. This has resulted in an increase to the footprint of the proposed structure. A copy of the July 2, 2003 Status Report on Fire Station #4 is attached for reference. Based on the information presented, and as noted above, the Capital Improvement Projects Office authorized the Project Architect, MC Harry & Associates, to prepare the necessary documents for submittal to the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) in order to proceed with the demolition of the historic building. This item was presented to the HPB at its September 9,2003 meeting for consideration. The HPB approved a motion to recommend to the City Commission that the historic building be demolished. The vote on the motion was 4 members recommending demolition and 3 members against. As also noted above, a related issue considered by the HPB regards the change to the proposed new building footprint of an approximate 700 square feet. The HPB also approved a motion authorizing this revision to the previously approved new building, provided that the final design addresses the recommended requirements ofthe Planning Department in the Historic Preservation Board Staff Report (also attached) as well as certain landscaping requirements. The landscaping requirements generally include adding canopy shade trees the length of the project site along the Indian Creek Commission Memorandum Fire Station #4 Public Hearing September 10, 2003 Page 2 of 2 Waterway as well as along the sidewalk along Indian Creek Drive. The HPB also directed that a five foot swale/planting strip be added between the curb and the sidewalk along Indian Creek Drive. The staff recommended items approved by the HPB, in part, include: 1. Glass fenestration shall be incorporated at the south end of the west elevation of the new fire station along the "day room" in a manner to be approved by staff. 2. An architectural concrete "breeze block" wall shall be incorporated on the west elevation of the new fire station in a manner approved by staff. 3. The monument to the demolished historic fire station shall be relocated to a prominent public location on the east side of the subject property (east of the existing pumping station) slightly to the south side of the historic fire station's original front lawn/vehicle equipment bay driveway area. 4. The design, materials, and detailing ofthe historic monument shall be of museum quality; the monument shall include an historic analysis of the original 69th Street Fire Station (Fire Station #4), inclusive of (a) high quality historic photographic image(s) ofthe historic structure and site, and a written description of the history and evolution of the original building and site. 5. A significantly revised landscape plan that increases the amount and level of landscaping to the site, including requirements that exterior walkways and driveways be constructed of decorative pavers, a requirement that landscape areas abutting driveways and parking areas be defined by decorative bollards, and a requirement to landscape the 6911i Street streetend. It should be noted that the five items noted above were not contemplated or consequently budgeted in the current design, so their inclusion, while relatively minor, will have an impact on the final project budget. At this time, in order for the project to proceed as previously directed, it is necessary for the City Commission to schedule a Public Hearing to consider the need to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition. If approved, the current schedule provides for the project to be bid in December/January with a proposed construction commencement in March 2004. It should be noted that the City Code does not require the City Commission to schedule a public hearing in considering the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition, however, this is the same process followed by the Historic Preservation Board. In order to protect the City from potential challenge, it is recommended that the Commission follow the same process. Following this process does not affect the construction schedule for the new fire station. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CITY HAll. 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 www.mlam1beachfl._ov COMMISSION MEMORANDUM Subject: Mayor David Dermer and Date: July 2, 2003 Members of the City Commission Jorge M. Gonzalez .d City Manage~ . DISCUSSION REGARDING THE STA REPORT OF THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FUNDED PROJECT FOR THE REHABILITATION OF FIRE STATION NO.4. To: From: Previous Status Reports discussed the steps taken by the Administration to obtain construction permit approval from the City and County regulatory agencies in order to relocate the historic Fire Station No.4 building to a southwesterly position on the site (Phase I), as well as the developments of the design effort for the new Fire Station building (Phase II). While plans and construction efforts have advanced as anticipated, new information has been developed that warrants a full City Commission review and discussion. Phase I UDdate The Job Order Contract (JOC) contractor to whom construction documents were submitted sent its initial cost proposal on June 18, 2003 (Attachment 1) for relocation of the existing historic Fire Station No.4. The contractor proposes to furnish most of the necessary workmanship, equipment and engineering services for the relocation of the building for the amount of $664,943.05. This estimate is much higher than the previous projection. In addition to the costs of relocating the building, as noted below, some level of additional work will be necessary to structurally shore the building once it is moved. Unfortunately, the level of work needed cannot be known until the building is fully relocated because this work, in part, will be needed in order to address existing deficiencies as well as any that occur incidental to the relocation effort. The complete scope will be identified through a series of destructive tests, evaluation by the engineer, permitting by the Building Official, and then work by the contractor. MC Harry and Associates has previously estimated the amount of this effort to be $125,000. Additionally, the current cost proposal may be modified when all comments from the permitting agencies are complete and a new set of revised documents including those comments are resubmitted to the contractor. There are also additional costs that are not factored into the number above that must also be considered as the City is likely to incur a substantial portion, if not all, of them. All costs are outlined in the table below. Agenda Item Date fife. 7-;J-tJ3 City Commission Memorandum July 2, 2003 Fire Station #4 Status Report Page 2 of 5 1. Building Relocation Costs $ 2. Proposed 2% contingency for additional changes required by $ permitting agencies changes or comments 3. Anticipated Structural Repairs (estimate, to be confirmed after $ exploratory tests are performed after building relocation) 4. Special Inspector required by Building Department $ 5. 10% Construction Contingency $ 6. 4% Professional Fees for The Gordian Group (JOC consulting firm) $ Total Estimated Costs for Relocations $ 664,943 13,299 125.000 9,828 80,324 35.775 929,169 Since Phase 1 costs were previously estimated to be $504,596, this presents an additional shortfall in the range of $425,000 to $450,000. The difference between the original cost estimate by the Architect and the actual cost of the Contractor are primarily due to the refinement and development of information and plans at this point in the process. The added items comprise generally the construction of a temporary road that would allow the heavy duty moving equipment (with the building) to transit safely from the building's current location to the specified southwesterly position on the site. In addition, the water table level in the immediate vicinity of the building would require the contractor to provide a stabilizing soil base in order to provide a solid maneuvering platform support for the cranes and jacks used to lift the building. These two elements were not anticipated in the original cost estimate. As indicated in previous Project Status Reports, the renovation of the building's interior is not funded. As a result, it is not included in the current scope of the Project. The current scope of the Project only relocates the building and provides structural improvements to stabilize it. The building will not be habitable until further renovations, outside this project, are completed. The following analysis is an illustration of the process that will be followed in the event the City Commission, on July 2,2003, issues a directive to the Administration to either pursue additional funding sources to cover the projected deficit or the demolition of the existing building: A. Scenario 1: Additional fundina is authorized for the Project (see Table 1). On July 2, 2003, if additional funding is authorized by the Mayor and City Commission to cover the projected deficit for the Project, those funds would need to be appropriated by the City Commission during the meeting of July 30, 2003. Consequently, the Phase 1 timeline for construction would be modified as follows: . July 30, 2003: Presentation of a Resolution to the Mayor and City Commission for the appropriation of the additional funds_ City Commission Memorandum July 2, 2003 Fire Station #4 Status Report Page 3 of 5 . August 2003: Issuance of a Notice to Proceed to the contractor to commence with the Work. . December 2003: Anticipated Substantial Completion . January 2004: Anticipated Project close-out B. Scenario 2: Additional fundina is not available for the Proiect. In the event no additional funding is identified for the Project, the Administration, for illustration, is offering the following options: ODtion 1 (see Table 2): On July 2, 2003, the Mayor and City CommIssion may direct the Administration to put the Project on hold until additional funding sources are identified and further appropriation is made to cover the projected deficit. If Phase 1 was put on hold, the timeline for Phase 2, consisting of the construction of the new Fire Station would also be directly affected since the new building is planned to be constructed in the same location as the historic building. ODtion 2 (see Tables 3 and 4): If, on July 2, 2003, the Mayor and City Commission directs the Administration to pursue the demolition of the existing building, then the project would need to be presented to the Historic Preservation Board for a recommendation in the HPB meeting of September 9, 2003: a) The HP Board may revise their initial order to relocate the building and may concur with the City Commission's decision to demolish the existing Fire Station. In that event, the impact on the project timeline would be minimal since both phases of the project would merge and the demolition of the historic Station would be bid as an integral part of the whole package. The cost for demolition of the entire historic structure is estimated to be $100,000. b) On September 9,2003, the HP Board's vote may be contrary to the City Commission's decision to demolish the building. In that event, the Project would be brought back to the City Commission on September 10,2003 or October 15, 2003 for a final decision on the fate of the building. The cost for demolition of the entire historic structure is estimated to be $100,000. If the City Commission decides to override the HP Board's decision, the remaining project, including demolition, could be issued for bids in Fall 2003, and a Notice to Proceed could be issued in early 2004. Phase II UDdate Concurrent with the Phase I developments noted above, and as indicated in the Project Status Report of June 11, 2003, 75% construction documents were submitted for the City's review by MC Harry and Associates. This review is ongoing. City Commission Memorandum July 2, 2003 Fire Station #4 Status Report Page 4 of 5 During the months of May and June 2003, a series of meetings with Fire Department personnel were held to review the construction documents for the new building as well as telecommunications and Fumiture, Fixtures and Equipment (FF&E) issues. The latest of such meetings was held on June 23, 2003, with Fire Department Senior Staff who expressed legitimate operational concems regarding the current design limitations caused by the Project's budgetary constraints and the space constraints of the site. The areas of immediate concern are the Kitchen and Dormitory areas. In order to address the Fire Department's issues, CIP Staff will revisit SpecifIC design issues with MC Harry and Associates, the City's consultant. It must be noted that possible solutions may include extending the current building footprint to the South and to the West. Additional services fees for the consultant to do these changes are anticipated. The addition of more usable space to the Project would also augment the current deficit. If funding were made available to implement any changes in the design, a schedule adjustment of sixty (60) to ninety (90) days is anticipated. It should be noted that this project has been proceeding in an expedited fashion since final approval from the Historic Preservation Board was achieved in July 2002. Progress on the project has been focused on completing design and getting into construction as quickly as possible, with interior space layouts and ergonomic items taking a secondary priority to speed. At this point in time, the space, while functional, needs to be "tweaked" by the end user, the Fire Department, in order to ensure their operational concurrence. Although this may present an additional 60 to 90 days of time to the current project schedule, this is a normal adjustment, and an appropriate measure, to do this project right. If modifications are made to the current design, CIP staff estimates bidding of Phase II will move from the current projection of September/October 2003 to December 2003/January 2004, with a project construction commencement date moving from January 2004 to March 2004. At this time, Fire Department personnel, assisted by CIP staff, will prepare a comprehensive list of FF&E that are presently unfunded. At the commencement of the project, a decision was made to only include building related construction costs in the capital budget. As a result, there was no allocation made in the capital budget for FF&E During recent G.O. Bond OVersight Committee meetings and City Commission meetings, several expressions of interest have been made by members to Include the FF&E amounts in the discussion of the overall funding for Fire Station NO.4. For Fire Station No.2, an allocation of $165,000 was set aside for FF&E, suggesting that the respective budgets for the two stations were treated differently. As an FF&E budget has not yet been established for Fire Station No.4 and because the FF&E amount for Fire Station No. 2 may not be adequate (the final number will be determined through future sessions with the Fire Station No.2 team), staff is recommending a planning number of $200,000 be used at this time. As reported in the last Status Report, the current estimate from MC Harry for Phase 2 of the project (Attachment 2) is $2,250,873. Total construction funding for Phase 2 is $1,939,686, which leaves a current shortfall for Phase 2 at approximately $311 ,187. As noted above, for City Commission Memorandum July 2, 2003 Fire Station #4 Status Report Page 5 of 5 planning purposes, staff estimates FF&E for the Fire Station No.4 facility to be in the area of $200,000. This amount is presently being evaluated by staff and is subject to change as the list is developed. For Phase 1 and Phase 2, the project is short an estimated $736,187 to $761.187, plus the amount estimated for FF&E of $200,000, for a total estimated shortfall of $936,000 to $961,187. The Administration will continue informing the Mayor and City Commission on the important events of the Project. CONCLUSION Essentially, the current situation represents the convergence of two highly important and emotional issues: historic preservation and fire safety, respectively. The City has, and continues to, vigorously support both areas through funding commitments, ordinances, and policies. In fact, with this project, we have attempted to satisfy both of these policy goals by trying to preserve a cultural and historic icon that is clearly obsolete as a Fire Station, and by trying to design a state-of-the-art Fire Station that will serve the North Beach community for the next 30 to 50 years. We have, however, reached a crossroads, where it has become c\earthat the present pot of funding, $1,939,686, is sufficient to accomplish only one of these two policy goals. We can choose to add almost $1 million to this project to address both of these policy goals, or we can decide to revisit the previous discussions on the cultural significance of the historic building. Please keep in mind that the historic building requires an estimated $770,000 in additional funds, over and above the $1 million noted above, to make it a useable facility. With this situation, the Administration can provide the factual and detailed information needed by the Commission to assist in making such a decision. However, the decision is one that represents the community's cultural and historic values. While staff can determine whether or not a building is architecturally significant, whether or not a building reflects the historic nature of the area, or whether or not the building is a final remaining example of an architect's work, staff is not in the best position to determine if a building has an intrinsic value to the community that rises to a level of spending $1.8 million of taxpayer dollars to preserve. In considering your decision, please be aware that this highly visible and important project is "on hold" until a decision is made. The City may be able to allocate sufficient funds from various reserves, such as the Capital Reserve Fund, to fund both projects. Depending upon the source of funds, various other issues may arise on our financial rating, operations or other capital projects. If the Commission wishes to fund these added costs the Administration will make every effort to work through any of the issues that may arise for a designated funding source. JMG/RCMfTHIMM T:\AGENOA\2003~uID203\regul8r\ST4STATU 7-D2-03.doc CITY OF MIAMI BEACH ro NOTICE TO THE PUBUC -.r The Miami Bea::h City Commission wiD hold a pubic helmg at1heir 5scheciJed meeting on WedI-.Iay, Octllber 15, 2IlO3, at 11:15 am., i"l1he . ission Ch!mbers, City Hall, 1700 ConventIon Center Drive, Third Floor, Milrni , Florida 33139. At1tismeeti1g, 1heCommlssion wiD review the foIIowi1g: 88flO IrllIBl CI88k DIM . Flnl Slallon No. 4. The appIicanI, the City 01 Miami Bea::h. is ~ a Cer1ilicate 01 Appropriateness to demolish an existing, hIstorfc lie station. All perllOI1S lie invited to appear at this meeli1g (X be repl8SElI iled by an agent, (X to express 1heir views i"I 'Miti1g addnlssed to 1he City of Miani BeacI1 City Commission c/o 1he City Clerk, 1700 ConventIon Center Drive, City Hall, Miami BeacI1, F10rida 33139. The fie for the aboYe project is avaIabIe lor public i"Ispection during namaJ business hours at the PIlrri'YJ 0epar1ment, 1700 ConventIon Center Drive, 2nd Floor, Mia"ni BeacI1, Florida 33139. The above item be lXlI1tIooed and, troer such cictJ'nstances, additional JegaI notial woUd not be~. Mt person may oontact the City CIetk at 305-673-7411 lor information as 10 the status 01 this item as a Ill5UIt 01 the City Corrvnission meeling. Pursuant to SectIon 286.0105, Ra S1aI., the City hereby adYises the pltlic thal: W a person decides to appeal any decision made by City Commission wi1h I9Sp8Cl to any mailer considered at1heir meeting (X heari'g, such person must enst.re 1hat a YIlIbalin IIlCOId 01 the pl~1ngs is made. \\t1ich IIlCOId i"IcIudes the Illstimony and 6'Iiderce upon which 1he appeal is 10 be based. This notial does not constiluIe consent by the City for the i1ln:lducIion (X aOO1Ission 01 otherwise i"ladmissible (X imlkMlnl 8\ridence, 00: does l authorize chaIIerges (X appeals not otherwise allowed by law. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities />d of 1900, persons MOOIl1ll special accommodation to ~ i"I tIis proceeding, or to request i1famaIion on ImlSS lor persons with disabilities, orto request this pl.tlIication in a::cessibIe format, (X1o IeqIJ8I\ sigllanguage i1terpfelers, should COI""Illd the City Cler1<'s olIice at (:lO5) 673-7411, no IatlIr than four days poor to the proceeding. W heari1g mpairlld, oontact the City Clerk's ollice via the Florida Relay SeMce runbers, (!KJO) 965-8171 (TTV) or (!KJO) 965-8no (VOICE). MIaMi: IIeMh , 200) Ad #0209 21 M 0 0 '" 06 '" IX W In 1: w Ii: w Ul ~ 0 Ul IX ::J :I: ~ , - Ii :I: w :I: ~ E 0 .'1 "0 ~ H I ~ I I~ I ~, <~.