The URL can be used to link to this page

Res. No. 097-08-12694WHEREAS, Application No. PB -08 -020 was initiated by the Planning Department on behalf of the Community Redevelopment Agency and submitted to the Planning Board requesting approval of a variance from Section 20- 3.5(E) of the Land Development Code to allow a a new single family residence to have a rear setback of 19.1 feet where a 25 foot rear setback is required on property within an RS -4 Single Family Residential District specifically located at 6400 SW 57th Court; and WHEREAS, the approval of a variance requires a recommendation from the Planning Board and the approval of the City Commission after a public hearing; and WHEREAS, on May 13, 2008, the Planning Board, after public hearing, adopted a motion by a vote of 5 ayes 0 nays to recommend approval of the requested variance; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission desires to accept the recommendation of the Planning Board and enact the proposed variance. 11161 WN "I'M 11,11111 11 iiii 1111,1111 1'111:1 Section 1: That the subject request submitted to the Planning Board requesting approval of a variance from Section 20- 3.5(E) to allow a new single family residence to have a rear setback of 19.1 feet where a 25 foot rear setback is required, on property within an RS -4 Single Family Residential District specifically located at 6400 SW 57th Court is hereby approved. Section 2: The City Commission finds that the hardship is supportable under the variance decision criteria set forth in Section 20-6. 1 (B)(3)(h) of the Land Deve4lopment Code which states that "....a variance shall be made only when necessary to relieve particular hardships or extraordinary conditions relating to a specific property, and when the strict application of a particular regulation would result in peculiar and exceptional hardship upon the owner of such property as distinguished front reasons of convenience, profit or caprice Section 3: That this resolution shall be effective immediately upon execution. Res. No. 97-08-12694 (2) PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 2008 FANWITI "-�Y CLERK I A W.11 Vice Mayor Beasley: Commissioner Wicombe: Commissioner Palmer: Commissioner Beckman: CSI ATTORNEY XAComm Items1200816-3-08\PB-08-020 Var.6400 SW 57 Ct Resol.doc 5-0 Yea Yea Yea Yea Yea 14 Wr' CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 2001 0 INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: The Honorable Mayor Feliu and Members of the City Commission Via: Ajibola Balogun, City Manager From: Sanford A. Youkilis, Acting Planning Director Date: June 3, 2008 ITEM No. 4 SST AR's' OF REOUEST The City of South Miami is requesting approval of a variance in order to allow the construction of a single-family home at 6400 SW 57 Court. The home is located on a lot owned by the City's Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and the construction of the home is .part of the CRA's homeownership program. The property cannot be developed in accord with current plans due to a rear setback issue. In that the property is owned by the City, the Planning Department has initiated the variance request. In 2004 the South Miami Community Redevelopment Agency assigned the construction of several affordable single-family homes to the Greater Miami Neighborhoods Inc., a non-profit housing developer. After construction started the developer discovered an error made by the architect on the submitted plans. The home was being constructed with the building line 19.1 feet from the rear property line which was not consistent with the Land Development Code dimensional requirement that a rear setback must be 25 feet in the RS-4 zoning district. The outside walls of the home were already constructed. The developer should have been advised to seek a variance or re-locate (move) the rear wall of the house to be consistent with the required 25 foot setback. NEW DEVELOPER Due to financial problems the developer of the project abandoned the work on the subject site in 2006. The CRA Board in March, 2008 selected a new developer, EDFM Corp. to complete the construction of the home. The new developer was required to submit updated plans because the ERPB approvals in 2005 had expired and new standards in the Florida Building Code are applicable to this project. The revised plans submitted on April 11, 2008 were reviewed by the Planning Department's current zoning review officer. The plans for the residence maintained the existing outer walls of the building. Therefore the problem with the rear setback of the partially constructed rear wall remained at 19.1 feet vs. the required 25 feet, The Department's zoning officer rejected the plans resulting in the current situation. CURRENT-OPTIONS In order for this project to proceed, there are only two alternatives: (1) Remove the existing partially built walls of the structure and redesign the residence so that it fits on the lot within the required setback. This would be a difficult situation in that the CRA has already approved a buyer who has been waiting for over 3 years for the new home. The cost of a re-design of the house would add significant cost to be absorbed by the CRA or the homeowner. (2) The granting of a rear yard variance by the City reducing the rear setback from 25 feet to 19.1 feet. (1) The . subject site is surrounded on the north by a large single family property in the unincorporated County. To the south and west are single family homes. To the east is a multi- family townhouse project. (2) The proposed project will be a one story single family residence with 3 bedrooms and two baths on a 5865 square lot. The size of the building is 1612 square feet. The submitted plans indicate that the proposed structure complies with all dimensional requirements except for the rear yard setback. (3) The placement of affordable housing units on small substandard size lots is a difficult task when considering the needs of current families. This particular site at a comer intersection is even smaller than surrounding properties due to the land area used for the comer rounding. This reduced lot size is a physical hardship only applicable to certain properties. (4) The City staff during the period 2004-2005 should have recognized the rear yard setback deficiency at that time and insisted upon either redesign or a variance procedure. (5) The abandonment of the project by the original developer did not help the situation and did create a hardship for the CRA and the potential homeowner. (6) The City's Comprehensive Plan specifically states that the construction of affordable housing is a major goal of the City. (7) The variance requested will have minimal impact on surrounding properties. The variance is also necessary to use the property to create an affordable housing opportunity. PLANNING BOARD ACTION The Planning Board at its May 13, 2008 meeting, after a public hearing, adopted a motion by a vote of 5 ayes 0 nays recommending that the proposed variance be approved. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Commission approve the requested variance for 6400 SW 57 Court. Attachments: Draft Resolution Location Map Planning Department Staff report 5-13-08 Planning Board Minutes Excerpt 5-13-08 Site Plan Copy of Public Notices SAY X:\Comm Items\2008\6-3-08\PB-08-020 Variance 6400 SW 57CT CM Report .doc City of South Miami N PB -08 -021 Variance Rear Setback 6400 SW 57th Court W- E Feet 0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500 S u°s 5978 6253 6238 6257 N o o 6255 6401 a 5840 6416 6429 6443 o o cn 6410 6442 6426 6443 6442 6273 �O1n n 6450 0 ssso f 6505 6551 6456 6461 64, 6481 0 w Q H � 6420 6440 6500 6501 6516 co � 6532 289 co ° 6265 6571 ; 6260 F- 6261 6260 w y4L 6510 6511 6510 6521 6520 6521 rn 6521 6520 6531 6530 6531 6530 6531 6530 5875 6540 5843 6540 6541 6301 fi305 26o 6280 6281 6280 = I 6301 6300 o F 6316 6317 6325 2 " 6320 � 6325 63D4 � LO SUBJECT µ 6332 W o > N 6305 6357 n F 6335 632 a 6330 6335 6330 PROPERTY 6364 X6311 a N 6345 6350 6340 6345 6340 6325 5991 —4t-��A HARDEE RD f @T- HA DR p. 5978 CL 6401 6400 6401 6401 6400 6416 6429 6443 6410 6412 6410 6442 t6429 6426 6443 6442 6445 6457 m 0 6487 o C° 6501 6518 Cn 6519 6533 5987 6450 0 ssso f 6505 6551 6456 6461 64, 6481 0 w Q H � 6420 6440 6500 6501 6516 co � 6532 6440 co ° 6500 6571 6540 ffsa7 6591 0 6401 6400 CL 6401 6400 w Q 6401 6400 6411 6410 6411 6410 6411 6410 6421 6420 6421 6420 6421 6420 6431 6430 6431 6430 6431 6430 6441 6440 IC'0- � 6441 6440 co � 6441 6440 6501 6500 6501 6500 6501 6500 6511 6510 6511 6510 6511 6510 6521 6520 6521 6520 6521 6520 6531 6530 6531 6530 6531 6530 5875 6540 5843 6540 6541 6540 6401 N IN 6411 6410 6647 o ' 6420 6421 F 6404 6431 n- 6441 Lo 6501 v> 6511 6430 6BII 6669 6440 6500 c�ri 6510 6520 6521 6504 6845 6531 6530 6541 6540 T" SW 66TH ST I 6109 SW bb ti I CK 5961 6001 m o 0 5959 r 5995 0 r- 6601 N IN o m ' rn 6600 UJ 5963 6647 o 6109 SW bb ti I CK 5961 6001 m o 0 5959 r 5995 0 r- 6601 N IN 6647 ' ' F 6BII 6669 ovvormof 5949 m m M In m tt] In 117 U] to 117 in 6701 6701 H co LO C0 5625 SW 68TH ST m 5780 5750 ss 5764 s s�o ?o ss 5927 5890 5887 °" s3� y1 sosss8 5801 \� U S��O IS- SW 70TH ST 5715 ED by City of South Miami, Engineering & Co 6601 CDO \} \� 1 ® 1578 1 I 8601 F 6BII 5907 6845 m 5780 5750 ss 5764 s s�o ?o ss 5927 5890 5887 °" s3� y1 sosss8 5801 \� U S��O IS- SW 70TH ST 5715 ED by City of South Miami, Engineering & Co 6601 CDO \} \� 1 ® 1578 1 I 8601 To: Honorable Chair & Date: May 13, 2008 Planning Board Members From: Sanford A. Youkilis Re: Variance Rear Setback Acting Director of Planni4e, 6400 SW 57 Court SUMMARY OF REQUEST The City of South Miami is requesting approval of a variance in order to allow the construction of a single - family home at 6400 SW 57 Court. The home is located on a lot owned by the City's Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and the construction of the home is part of the CRA's homeownership program. The CRA selects a builder to construct the home which is then sold to a selected buyer who qualifies as a low income homeowner. The property cannot be developed in accord with current plans due to a rear setback issue. In that the property is owned by the City, the Planning Department has initiated the variance request. BACKGROUND In 2004 the South Miami Community Redevelopment Agency assigned the construction of several affordable single-family homes to the Greater Miami Neighborhoods Inc., a non-profit housing developer. The homes were to be built on CRA properties and then sold to qualified home buyers. The final plans for construction on one of the sites at 6400 SW 57 Court was approved by the City's Environmental Review Preservation Board at its March 1, 2005 meeting. After construction started the developer discovered an error made by the architect on the submitted plans. The home was being constructed with the building line 19.1 feet from the rear property line which was not consistent with the Land Development Code dimensional requirement that a rear setback must be 25 feet in the RS-4 zoning district. The outside walls of the home were already constructed. It is believed that construction work on the site stopped. In order to correct the situation and to allow construction to continue, the developer in September of 2005 filed an Administrative Waiver request to permit a rear setback of 19.1 feet. An 2 Administrative Waiver, if granted, permits a small change/reduction in a dimensional requirement without using the variance process. There are no City records that the waiver process was ever completed. The Planning Director at that time should have advised the applicant that an Administrative Waiver request could not be filed. The Land Development Code does not allow administrative waivers in RS-4 Residential zones. The developer should have been advised to seek a variance or re-locate (move) the rear wall of the house to be consistent with the required 25 foot setback. Due to financial problems the developer of the project abandoned the work on the subject site in 2006. The CRA Board in March, 2008 selected a new developer, EDFM Corp. to complete the construction of the home. The original plans for the project approved by the ERPB and all of the Planning Department's record files on this site are missing and a search is continuing. The employees who were responsible for the project review are no longer employed by the City. The new developer was required to submit updated plans because the ERPB approvals had expired and new standards in the Florida Building Code are applicable to this project. The revised plans submitted on April 11, 2008 were reviewed by the Planning Department's current zoning review officer. The plans for the residence maintained the existing outer walls of the building. Therefore the problem with the rear setback of the partially constructed rear wall remained at 19.1 feet vs. the required 25 feet. The Department's zoning officer rejected the plans resulting in the current situation. CURRENT SOLUTICt1�S In order for this project to proceed, there are only two alternatives: (1) Remove the existing partially built walls of the structure and redesign the residence so that it fits on the lot within the required setback. This would be a difficult situation in that the CRA has already approved a buyer who has been waiting for over 3 years for the new home. The cost of a re-design of the house would add significant cost to be absorbed by the CRA or the homeowner. (2) The granting of a rear yard variance by the City reducing the rear setback from 25 feet to 19.1 feet. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS (SeeATTA * Land Development Code Section 20-3 S(E) Dimensional Requirements * Land Development Code Section 20-5.9 Variances Approvals STAFF OBSERVATIONS (1) The subject site is surrounded on the north. by a large single family property in the unincorporated County. To the south and west are single family homes. To the east is a multi- family townhouse project. (2) The proposed project will be a one story single family residence with 3 bedrooms and two baths on a 5865 square lot. The size of the building is 1612 square feet. The submitted plans indicate that the proposed structure complies with all dimensional requirements except for the rear yard setback. /3\ The ' of affordable housing units on small substandard size lots is u difficult task when considering the needs o[ current families. This particular site utacomer intersection is even smaller than surrounding properties due to the land area used for the comer rounding, This reduced lot size is a physical hardship only applicable to certain properties. (4\ The City ntat�during the period 2004-2005 should have recognized the rear yard setback � deficiency ot that time and insisted upon either redesign ora variance procedure. V ) The abandonment ofthe project 6vthe original developer did not help the situation and did create uhardship for the CRA and the potential homeowner. J(4)TboC�v"o(�oom�rab�oaivnPlonmy�ci�cuJly�od�uthuttbeuonatouctonofuf��rdoble&nosb�g , _ ima major AnuluftboCitv. -��\ The vm�uoueregne�edvvillhave znioioaJinup�tVoon�ouodingproyed�a. The va�uoueio - ' also necessary to use the property to create an affordable housing opportunity. RECOMMENDATION Itiu recommended that the Board recommend approval of the requested variance for 640OSW 57 Attachm LDC Applicable Regulations, Location Map Survey Site Plan Copy ofPo6lic Notices SAY }{:\PB\PB Agendas Staff 8 Agendas Staff -13-08\PB-08-020 Variance 6480 SW 57 M ® Land Development Code Section 20-3.5(C )(1) Dimensional Requirement Tables (1) The use of land and the erection of buildings and other structures on land shall be subject to the dimensional requirements of the applicable zoning district, as reflected on the three tables labeled "Dimensional Requirements, Single-Family Districts" (Section 20-3.5E), "Dimensional Requirements, Multi family Districts" (Section 20'3.SF) and "Dimensional Requirements, Nonresidential Districts" (Section 20-3.5G). b Land Development Code Section 20-3.5(E) DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENT RS-4 Rear Setback 25 feet n 0 F P1 r, F, # � i a (,� 3 41 . - 'I, - (A) Expiration of Variance Approvals. A variance approved pursuant to Section 20-5.5 shall lapse after six (6) month if no substantial construction or change of use has taken place in accordance with the request for such variance and if the city commission has not specified a longer approval period for good cause shown. (B) Extension of Variance Approvals. Four (4) affirmative votes of the city commission may grant an extension to a previously approved variance if a proper and timely request is made by the applicant prior to the expiration of the six (6) month period. (C) Hardship Statement. All applications for a variance shall include a letter of intent indicating the specific nature of the hardship upon which the request is based. 5 (D) Property Survey Required. All applications for a variance shall i . nclude a current property survey prepared by a registered surveyor. (E) Neighborhood Concurrence. All applications for a variance shall be accompanied by a map which reflects all properties and the names of all property owners within a five hundred (500) foot radius of the subject property. The applicant shall obtain and submit the signatures of at least twenty (20) percent: of such property owners, indicating their. awareness of and concurrence with the proposed variance request. (F) Proposed Site Plan Required. A site plan shall be required showing all proposed buildings and setbacks and any other features relating to the variance request. (G) Permitted Variance Requests. Applications for variances shall be restricted to only the following: (1) Yard setbacks (2) Lo,t size (3) Lot coverage (4) Building height (5) Fences and walls (6) Impervious coverage (7) off-street parking (8) Open space (9) Signs (10) Landscaping a -RI I. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Action: The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison. H. Administration: Mr. Comendeiro was duly sworn in as a member of the Planning Board. HI. Roll Call: Chairman Morton requested a roll call. Board members present constituting a quorum: Mr. Morton, Ms. Young, Mr. Farfan, and Mi. Cruz and Mr. Comendeiro. Absent: Ms. Chael and Ms. Yates. City staff present: Sanford A. Youkilis (Acting Planning Director), Stephen David, (CRA Director), and Lluvia Resendiz (Administrative Assistant). IV. Planning Board Applications/Public Hearing Action: Mr. Cruz read the item into the record. Mr. Youkilis advised that when the project was initiated the developer, Greater Miami Neighborhoods Inc., selected by the. CRA, abandoned the project after the project plans were approved by the Environmental Review and Preservation Board (ERPB) on March 2005. Under this project a qualified buyer was selected in advance, however, the project could not be completed due to a rear setback issue. In 2005 after the project was granted approval by the ERPB the architect discovered that the walls were erected at 19 feet rear setback as opposed to the required 25 feet. Construction work was stopped and the applicant was advised by staff that an administrative waiver could be applied for. The process however was ceased because the contractor, at that time, abandoned the property. The CRA since has awarded the project to EDFM Corporation. The current zoning review officer discovered that the rear setback problemhad not Planning Board Meeting May 13, 2008 Page 2 of 2 been corrected. The property has had an owner waiting for the home for over three years. The shape of the lot the lot looses square footage at the corner resulting in a lot being below the minimum requirement of 6,000 in an RS -4 zoning district thus creating a hardship. The City staff during the period 2004 -2005 should have recognized the rear yard setback deficiency at that time and insisted upon either redesign or a variance procedure. The abandonment of the project by the original developer did not help the situation and did create a hardship for the CRA and the potential homeowner. The City's Comprehensive Plan specifically states that the construction of affordable housing is a major goal of the City. The variance requested will have minimal impact on surrounding properties. The variance is also necessary to use the property to create an affordable housing opportunity. It is recommended that the Board recommend approval of the requested variance for 6400 SW 57 Court. Mr. Morton recommended that the City, if not doing so now, should require a foundation survey in order to avoid the current situation. The CRA shall be looking into a payment performance bond as well. Mr. Cruz questioned if the property will have the ability to obtain an administrative waiver even after the variance is approved. Mr. Youkilis advised that an administrative waiver could not be used in an RS -4 zoning district. Mr. Youkilis speculated that in the RS -4 and RS -5 districts lots are smaller and when the administrative waiver process was created it was expressed that such process could have a larger impact on the property due to its size. More than one variance can be asked for. Mr. Youkilis advised that administrative waiver themselves are not an easy process because the neighbors must approve. Staff has not received any protests from the neighbors within the 500 feet radius used for public notice mail -out. Mr. Stephen David, .CRA Director, advised that Greater Miami was a reputable developer at that time and since they have filed for bankruptcy. It took some effort to clear title on the property because of the liens the property incurred against it and the CRA will return title to the homeowner. Mr. David also advised that the CRA now requires a performance bond. Ms. Young requested that staff research the background as to why the RS -4 zoning district is excluded from the administrative waiver process. Motion: Mr. Cruz moved to approve the variance request to allow a rear setback of 19.1 feet and Ms. Young seconded. Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays XACOMM ITEMS\2008 \6- 3- 08\PB- MIN- 05 -13 -08 EXCERPT VARIANCE.DOC 5.5' CONIC. 51 21.69' 8.00' 14.70' Ci m L Z6 0 Z 0 =5 5' CHAIN LINK -S. W*. 57th. GO U T 26' ASPHALT PAM 'S0' TOTAL t1W it W-F.2--sP.1 A.-;2 0 @ a 0 N 0 91> 0 C m (D a Z r 1. A. F. Q IT z mo m M T, all m , p z -� - . - ` - 4 1 1 ":z:- ;a 0 z Jo > A z Z ;..j Mm Z:F 0 KPA I z R to 0 CD 0 2L 3 0 on — CD > u CL CD CD 14 D, r- 0 2 00 0- wo 0 Z d) qNS-1 o :pTn tU Iv sr ORR, C> = f 0 0 F r- z U� C) ;-j M Ln -It Ci (A cS n Z z ci C7 F- M Ln cl Z: Z C, M c, 0- 4' CHAIN LINK p 35.00' Pm om I pc= dy je4. 5.5' CONIC. 51 21.69' 8.00' 14.70' Ci m L Z6 0 Z 0 =5 5' CHAIN LINK -S. W*. 57th. GO U T 26' ASPHALT PAM 'S0' TOTAL t1W it W-F.2--sP.1 A.-;2 0 @ a 0 N 0 91> 0 C m (D a Z r 1. A. F. Q IT z mo m M T, all m , p z -� - . - ` - 4 1 1 ":z:- ;a 0 z Jo > A z Z ;..j Mm Z:F 0 KPA I z R to 0 CD 0 2L 3 0 on — CD > u CL CD CD 14 D, r- 0 2 00 0- wo 0 Z d) qNS-1 o :pTn tU Iv sr ORR, C> = f 0 0 F r- z U� ;-j M Ln -It Ci (A cS n Z z ci C7 F- M Ln Z: 5.5' CONIC. 51 21.69' 8.00' 14.70' Ci m L Z6 0 Z 0 =5 5' CHAIN LINK -S. W*. 57th. GO U T 26' ASPHALT PAM 'S0' TOTAL t1W it W-F.2--sP.1 A.-;2 0 @ a 0 N 0 91> 0 C m (D a Z r 1. A. F. Q IT z mo m M T, all m , p z -� - . - ` - 4 1 1 ":z:- ;a 0 z Jo > A z Z ;..j Mm Z:F 0 KPA I z R to 0 CD 0 2L 3 0 on — CD > u CL CD CD 14 D, r- 0 2 00 0- wo 0 Z d) qNS-1 o :pTn tU Iv sr ORR, r.. N j NCN It {jj i 0 z z w u i 7- Ln 0 1 L LTl E ,o E ra Ln C9 0. T TI 0 ST My -FLORIDA On Tuesday, June 3 2008, beginning at 7 30 p m In'the Clty `Commission Chambers, 6130 Sunset Drive; the City Commission wili:bbId Pubitc Hearings, to consider the following items A:`RE$OLUTION RELATING TO AN APPEAL OF A ,DECISION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW . AND, PRESERVATION BOARD • :Tb DENY PROPOSED;TAKE OUT;ORDER SIGNAGEFOR CARRABBAS ITAC(AN GRILL '. AND OUTBACK: STEAKHOUSE RESTAURANT LOCATED AC 5829:`SW 73 STREET (SOUTH MIAMI MUNICIPAL PARKING.GARA6E) A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE<1SSUANGEOFP CERTIFICATE 0 5 t9 E3OFTOHAPPROPRIATENESS_PURSUANTT6 SECTION;2 FE LAND ;DEVELOPMENT CODEFOR THE'EXTERIOR'RENOVAT!ON PAINTING AND 51GNAGE, ON DESIGNATED HISTORIC GOMMER.GIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 5904 SUNSET DRIVE (AMSTEq BUILDINGS) A RESOLUTION RELATING TO A REQUEST PURSUANT TO SECTION 20 3:4(13)(4)(b) QFTHE LAND. DEVELOPMENT CODE,FOR A SPECIAL USE . APPROVALTO LOCATE A GENERAL RESTAURANT.LOCATED AT. 5734 SW " "72nd STREET- wrrHINTHE SR;(HD OV) SPECIALTY; REiAIL(HOMETOWN DISTRICT OVERLAY} ZONING DISTRICT A RESOLUTION RELATIN TO A.REQUEST.FOR AVARIANCE FROM SECTION ' 20 3.5(E):OP THE -LAND ;D EVELOPMENT,CODE'T4:ALLOW FOR }A'NEW: _SINGLE FAMILY HOME TD HAVE A REAk.:':SETBACK OF. 9.1 FEET WHERE A MINIMUM 25 FOOT REAR SETBACK IS REQUIRED; ALL ON A PROPERTY WITHIN AN_ "RS C SINGLE FAMiLY-RESIDENTIAL USE DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 640Q SW 57TH COURT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING .CHAPTER 7 OF THE SOUTH MIAMI.CODE OF ORDINANCES BY ;CREATING, SECTION 7216 "PRE;CONSTRUGTION AND CONSTRUCTION" STANDARDS- FOR SITES;" REQUIRING CONSTRUCTION SITES TO BE KEPT IN A CLEAN AND ORDERLY CONDITION; REQUIRING THE INSTALLATION OF CHAINiINK:FENCE PRIORTO CONSTRUCTION ALONG THE BORDERS OF.THE. SITE; AND_ TO ;PROVIDE DETAILED..PROCEOURES . I. FOR OBTAINING FENCE PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ` AN, ORDINANCE AMENDING, ..CHAPTER 7 :OF THE SOUTH MIAMI CODE OF ORDINANCES,, BY, _ MODIFYING, ,SECTION, ':'7-15.2:-,"DEMOLITION REQUIREMENT, STANDARDS "_TO .PROVIDE: ADDITIONAL CLARITY AS TO PROCEDURES FOR `OBTAININ6`FENCE,•PERMIT; PRIOR.;TO ,DEMOLITION - ..'. AND CONSTRUCTION SAN ORDINANCE RELATING TO.7 AMENDING THE '.CITY S' i CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAP,.TER 2 `_ARTICLE 1 ;SECTION ;2 -21; ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FDA" PUBLIC COMMENTS IN ORDER TO FACILITATE AN ORDERLY PROCESS IN NIANACING PUBLIC.GOMMENTS j. . r AN ORDINANCE RELATINGTOAREQUESTTO AMEND ,LAND DEVELOPMENT ; CODE';SECTION 20 -5.9 ENTITLED. °VARIANCE: APPROVALS- IWORDER „ T.,,O, Abb4SUBSECTION (H) , PROVIDING CRIiERWFOR'.REVIEW AND APPROVING VARIANCE APPLICATIONS;. AMENDING SECTION 20- ,.(h) IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE E)CISTING GUIDELINE If you have.any'lriquiries on the above items please contact the. Planning and Zoning: Departments office at. 305- 663 -6326. - ALL interested parties are invited to attend and will be heard; "Mena M. Menendez; CMC C'Ry Clerk: Pursuant to Flontla Sfaartes P66 Ot 05, the City hereby. advises fhe.putihc that if a.person decides to appeal any decision made by -this Board, Agency or Commission with respect to any, matter: consideredatds meeting orbearing; he or she will need..a,reeord of;the proceedings, and that for:. ^.Such pur[iose; affected person may:need to ensure:that.a verbAm:record of the proceedings) made which record;includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be :based,,, ; , . . .. ....... .ZomDoozzwL---,j z0 (D z 9ZUUZ,gogzz.�� 2 ?=,W) Ir R 2 ;; ". I.Ocrlz 1025 WOO ,Z= . . T.ZWW,5;z ;�W206<,:,O�mv, 2" wo ,22spww<,11�w 2 j5m wo:y- 0-�O�l wzzwi 0., Er z < OZ o W-<zo WC, M, U<Ooz ;z- 1 E5,oturt-=O<z C9Z., 0OW05000, - .,z. & P7260 z Ow<zW-, i-<�-UWOTzma—z - <�Oawzt;... -m5 z t�wlrf�: 0-<.i>ooz =OOOZ<WZTw==�Z FMOw,r-w j.wg, p i0o=:w 8 Z m w � ow,- o w MO :30:5 Q Qw iw IVOOH-mo,82 fZ,!,oLl--O,,, 'or <,.W2.< < z wo :Z OKOOZ�d <E5� >- a . z- - 0� M, 0 low.w 06� l Wow 0,,Mwmw�CZRI�M. M,Eo 12 ow.0 <Uzza OH90 :0 ¢2 1-0,,�Lu < SE U) CD UJ z D M y-;2 jj o< LL Wo O z No , L) oc�,-Fowz., OfIt *R<-W.� i K ff ' 12 E n. w >0¢w U m.E'z ' 0 Z 40 (9 ;�5: Z- 0 cc It C), 2 'w Ej.c) � CD 0 h0�0 Koh O O�Lovo` zfo�,% a-w<tq<. -,Rmw- E� LL. m WOWN <Y.Z.-Luo— �bzw -0�, mt? Ouio5w:w.jt2,-,::Ew, R 12 5A 5:2 ZU Z61-1< woo' a O�wzi -wlt)l<- Qw. irwEM5 m6 Zjj M==, "t)n WMZOW� 1, OE5ma-� z < a w a rrZ:E > z o 7i r- A -OA —, En,Wmw 6.2 —01: RM .w zo,)� mEaN y�ur¢9(.ZW oz.,ocl3:— zF-o..,w. Z�Wtz owz.-w.-.ib ozzo :,,000!. 5!� <x,wzl wzccw F. 5 z T k x• Q E20 , oo Tq.Fq-� o Q� -Es, MP 5!0)LL ZWwo�wN <Z., o gw Ic wa o< m<. > D- a <<Rmw�'o,<7 >,:,2czcl, oozoz Fr 6> F la F: w 0 � < -Iluo-EE(D Gj;a=,d6,z9 azu�p:<<§j Ej Qo,. .�:o- a o . �! w Fn a o a: >0 P: � 0 . . z�� -(DE < z<-��.Pwo�> z - <_�zu; ow -5�<- Q ll!fQRw 0 'a< w�-T 0 7wz�o� 12 u ):iiL-- =W �-C) PC t: Omzo 9�C .0 >-<zl- o:sp:o,zo;z. >-26 w < I,— 3F o § 2 oz zo <z. 01, ¢¢_"'¢ _N¢ ��!�,WLLo :s p <<- w< m,-, . ox w - z <<Iw)<(r t, L% 00 E '0 WOF,<- -0 �8�2'o-' I:E!3 . =�:> oo<mibo wO. a� o cD owaltoO o � o ::*z, o cr o<w o� �DF)n.m, oomt&�3:.rcc zoz,� a: z� owwoo 2, 'M m�.,Us 6,52,z�r,< o,omwzz;4,, Zo�-zz�:, zo—�— -w -�z b�-, *Ya j a: o zz.2< E - -6 - z p �-:5 w z < m,5 u : w m5 z< - 0 < c, < V: w- dwwnoz .>clo[2<. w . > :E��: , w�,rl< pw w �-A -E 11 wz.x;c M m .=MwRc mL,>o m 'a w. P E E�- <o<5�-T- w <OrZOa o, sj_ T y;,-S E"6 - ''omm2i rD E CZ-6 o o E. mir 9a:.2 m a 3 � ,di w W Z D < 0 Sc X z w LL 00 D o x �- X , X m x . 9 3: E d-� E E -o 2- E� o A- > U L p E` E O w w W LL .2 Fn (9 -rA 1- 0 o r.-W � �- �D 0 0 - 0 * 0 zm,w U RZ -�Zmo-, O'..&OU.: F- 3 3; C CC) 400¢'=m � -a � �o !, RM .w zo,)� mEaN y�ur¢9(.ZW oz.,ocl3:— zF-o..,w. Z�Wtz owz.-w.-.ib ozzo :,,000!. 5!� <x,wzl wzccw F. 5 z T k x• Q E20 , oo Tq.Fq-� o Q� -Es, MP 5!0)LL ZWwo�wN <Z., o gw Ic wa o< m<. > D- a <<Rmw�'o,<7 >,:,2czcl, oozoz Fr 6> F la F: w 0 � < -Iluo-EE(D Gj;a=,d6,z9 azu�p:<<§j Ej Qo,. .�:o- a o . �! w Fn a o a: >0 P: � 0 . . z�� -(DE < z<-��.Pwo�> z - <_�zu; ow -5�<- Q ll!fQRw 0 'a< w�-T 0 7wz�o� 12 u ):iiL-- =W �-C) PC t: Omzo 9�C .0 >-<zl- o:sp:o,zo;z. >-26 w < I,— 3F o § 2 oz zo <z. 01, ¢¢_"'¢ _N¢ ��!�,WLLo :s p <<- w< m,-, . ox w - z <<Iw)<(r t, L% 00 E '0 WOF,<- -0 �8�2'o-' I:E!3 . =�:> oo<mibo wO. a� o cD owaltoO o � o ::*z, o cr o<w o� �DF)n.m, oomt&�3:.rcc zoz,� a: z� owwoo 2, 'M m�.,Us 6,52,z�r,< o,omwzz;4,, Zo�-zz�:, zo—�— -w -�z b�-, *Ya j a: o zz.2< E - -6 - z p �-:5 w z < m,5 u : w m5 z< - 0 < c, < V: w- dwwnoz .>clo[2<. w . > :E��: , w�,rl< pw w �-A -E 11 wz.x;c M m .=MwRc mL,>o m 'a w. P E E�- <o<5�-T- w <OrZOa o, sj_ T y;,-S E"6 - ''omm2i rD E CZ-6 o o E. mir 9a:.2 m a 3 � ,di w W Z D < 0 Sc X z w LL 00 D o x �- X , X m x . 9 3: E d-� E E -o 2- E� o A- > U L p E` E O w w W LL .2