Skip to main content
City of Coral Gables

File #: 12-2178    Version: 1 Name: Historic Preservation - 12-20-2012
Type: Minutes Status: Noted and Filed
File created: 1/23/2013 In control: City Commission
On agenda: 2/5/2013 Final action: 2/5/2013
Enactment date: Enactment #:
Title: Historic Preservation Board Meeting of December 20, 2012
Attachments: 1. HPB.12.20.12MinutesforCC02.5.13, 2. HPBMinutesDecember20,2012
Title
Historic Preservation Board Meeting of December 20, 2012
Body
PERSONAL APPEARANCE:

Cynthia Birdsill, Economic Sustainability Director presented proposed amendments to the Art in Public Places Ordinance.

A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the proposed revisions of the Art in Public Places Ordinance, as presented, to the City Commission. (Ayes: 9, Nays: 0)

2. LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION:

CASE FILE LHD 2012-08: Consideration of the local historic designation of the property at 5309 Alhambra Circle, legally described as Lots 34 and 35, Block 79, Coral Gables Riviera Section Part 5, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 20, Page 38, of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

A motion was made and seconded to approve local historic designation of the property at 5309 Alhambra Circle as presented. (Ayes: 9, Nays: 0)

3. SPECIAL CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS:

CASE FILE COA (SP) 2012-018: An application for the issuance of a Special Certificate of Appropriateness for the property at 2 Casuarina Concourse, a local historic landmark, legally described as Lot 32, Block A, Gables Estates No. 2, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 60, Page 37, of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The applicant requested approval for the demolition of the residence. The applicant claimed economic hardship.

A motion was made and seconded to adopt Staff’s findings and report, and to find that the Applicant has not demonstrated that the denial of Special Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of the property would cause an exceptional financial burden such that it would amount to a taking of property without just compensation under the standard outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Penn Central Transp. Corp. v. New York City. (Ayes 6, Nays: 1, Absent: 2)

A motion was made and seconded to find that the Applicant has not met the required criteria outlined in Section 3-1...

Click here for full text