Loading...
6041 SW 63 ST_EB-09-001 Part 1 C of;South i irii PLANNING DEPARTIO!IENT APPLICATION.FEES "'y J. CHECK N, NAME. AI?DRE Si P 0 MON NO 03.#1300 ERPB HEARING FEES' Applicatio o structiori m the RS and RT zoning districts ` Single un $750) Adl other a a ns for New construction($900);Renovatibn($450); Signs,fences,walls,etc ($22S) 'For each additional appearance before the Board($1500 VARIANCE 02:19161 Advertisement:and Notice Fees ...... ..... .($1500) 03:41.200 Adinin Fee....,; .... ... ($150.0). (TOTAL$3000)' EACH ADDITIONAL VARIANCE ($1:12'5) SPECIAL USE%SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS r 02:19161 t< Adertisement and No"tice Fees 01506y- V" 03,.,4,t';,20tr" AdmmFee.. .($1500) .. §� {TOTAL$3000) 02 19161 REZONINGAPPLICA VON {iess.than 10 a'cres): ,($6000) 02.19161 ,; RE7oNINGAPPLICATION.(more:than,lQacres).....($20,250). LDC TEXT AMENDMENT I(General standards,mise:.provisions) 02.19161 Advertisement and Notice Fees ($1500 7. 03.41 200 Admin`Fee .. ($1500) " (To rAL$3000 ) LDC TEXT AMENDMENT II(Change Permitted use Schedule) " 02.19161 Advertigei lent and,Notice Fees . 03.41 200:: Admin,F' ...,. . :. ($1,500) z Tor $6 COMPREHENSIVE PLAAt 'AMEND AD FEE ($22;500) 03 41 200 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADMIN FEE:.,............... n (Total$30,000) 0219161 PUDIMAJOR CHANGE LEGAL A11S($1,575) 03.41100,> PUD/MAJOR CHANGE AI).MIN FEE{$3,675) (Total 03.41 200 EW MINOII CFIANGE.A]61MN FEE($1;500) 03.41.200 WAIVER OF I'LAT,APPLICATION {$4;5.00) TOOTA F X,T6rmA&CEiPT FOAM pare I(10 8-08)doc , ©rdinaace ATo 44 n , , shire copy to Plannrng Pink<copy to Customer; Yetlow copy to Finance , CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI Excellence, Integrity, Inclusion ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW& PRESERVATION BOARD To: Chair& Members, Environmental Date: January 6, 2009 Review& Preservation Board Tuesday 8:30 a.m. Via: Sanford A. Youkilis AIC Acting Planning Director From: Lourdes Cabrera-Herna d Re: ERPB-09-001 Planner/LEED AP Applicant: Habitat for Humanity of Greater Miami, Inc. Location: 6401 SW 63 Street, South Miami Request: NEW CONSTRUCTION: Preliminary Property Survey: The on file Sketch of Survey signed and sealed by professional land surveyor Jose L. Sanfiel and dated December 4, 2007. Legal Description: Lot 87, less the South 17:50' in Block 15 and 7.5 feet of Alley lying West, Franklin Subdivision, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 5 at Page 34, of the Public Records of East,'Miami-Dade County, Florida. Existing Conditions: The property as described in the Sketch of Survey is a vacant lot. The proposal includes a one story single-family residence with a covered porch. The interior property fronts SW 63 Street, with a frontage of 57.50 feet in width, a minimum of 60 feet as per the RS-4 Zoning District requirements. Landscaping Plan: A tree removal permit will be required for the removal of a mango tree. However, the mango tree is not in the footprint of the building. The proposed landscaping plan is consistent with the requirements set forth in Section 20-4.5, Land Development Code. The plan includes a landscape legend with a table indicating the number of trees required, (trees, shrubs and groundcover), planting schedule, landscaping notes, and general landscape installation details. Pursuant to Section 20- 4.5(D)(5)(b), Land Development Code the minimum number or trees required for RS-4 zoning district,,,are 3 trees per lot. The plan indicates a total of five trees. The proposed trees include`four oak trees and one white Geiger tree. Site Plan (Zoning District: "RS-4" Small Lot Single-Family Residential District): The intent of this district is to provide for single-family residential development located on smaller lots and to protect and improve the character of existing development in the area. The proposed site plan, sheet Al, depicts a one story single family residence. The proposed front (25'-2"), and rear (254"), building setback, as per the Land Development Code comply with the 25-0" feet front and rear minimum setback requirement. The east and west interior side setbacks, each at (7'-8" and 7'-9"), as per the Land Development Code comply with the 7'-6" feet minimum side setback requirement. The proposed air conditioning unit complies with the requirements set forth in Section 20-4.5(D)(4) of the Land Development Code requires that all air conditioning units be shaded by shrubs. The proposed screening for the condensing unit is "Florida privet," on the north side of the property. The building dimensional requirements are guided by Section 20-3.5E, Land Development ;Code. The proposed site plan indicates that the property's total area is 6401 SW 63 Street ERPB-09-001 presented on January 6, 2009 New Construction: Residential Page 2 of 2 4,743.75 square feet. The plans indicate a proposed building coverage of 1,280 square feet or 27% of the maximum building coverage, which does not exceed the maximum building coverage (1,423 square feet or 30%) allowed by the Land Development Code. The proposed impervious coverage includes the building, walkway and driveway. The calculation provided of 37% for impervious coverage, does not exceed the 45% maximum impervious coverage allowed (2,134 square feet or 45%) by the Land Development Code. Elevations: The building height dimensions, roof pitch, building finishes and materials are noted on the elevations, sheet A3. The south elevation (front facade) illustrates a covered front porch with three columns and the front door centered facing the front. Only the three windows at the front facade include decorative wood shutters. Exterior paint colors and an elevation depicting the request will be illustrated at the ERPB meeting. Development Review Committee: On December 30, 2008, the committee met to review the proposed site plan. The Public Works representative expressed concern (see attached comments) about the right-of-way being substandard and non-compliant with city standards. The Building and Planning Department both concurred that the existing development pattern of the street right-of-way is the governing factor when determining right-of-way widths. RECOMMENDATION: Preliminary Approval with the following conditions: 1. Construction shall comply with the Florida Building Code and the City of South Miami Land Development Code; 2. Meet the requirements set forth in the adopted stormwater ordinance; and, 3. Any comments and/or suggestions from the Board. Attachments: Application, Photographs: Subject and Abutting Properties, Comments from DRC member, Property Survey (on file), Site plan, sheet. Al, Floor plan, sheet. A2, Elevations, sheet. A3, Building Section, sheet. A2, Structural Plan, sheet. S1, Mechanical, sheet. M1, Plumbing, sheet. P1, and Electrical, sheet. E-1 LCH Z:\ERPB\ERPB Agendas\2009 ERPB AGENDAS\January 6, 2009\ERPB-09-001.doc CpRp' CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING &ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PRESERVATION BOARD APPLICATION STREET ADDRESS OF JOB: 6041 S W 63 ST. SOUTH MIAMI,FL PROPERTY OWNER: HAB I TAT FOR HUMANITY TEL NO 305-634-3628 ADDRESS: 3800 NW 22 AVE. MIAMI FL 33142 STRM CITY STATE ZS WHAT IS THE PRESENT USE OF THE PROPERTY? -X SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE BUSINESS OFFICE RETAIL STORE OTHER: APARTMENT OR TOWNHOUSE MEDICAL OFFICE AUTO REPAIR PLEASE,BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED: CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE (1) STORY, THREE (3) BEDROOMS, ONE BATHROOM, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. WHAT WILL THE TOTAL COST BE TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT? 115, 000 . 00 Anne E. Manning 305-634-3628 APPLICANT'S NAME: TEL NO. ADDRESS: 3800 NW 22 AVE. MIAMI FL 33142 STREET CITY STATE ZIP FAXNUMBER. 305-638-4917 AS THE APPLICANT,PLEASE,INDICATE YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THIS PROJECT X OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TENANT/LESSEE CONTRACTOR OTHER: OWNER OF THE BUSINESS ARCHITECT ENGINEER PLEASE,INDICATE CONTACT PERSON B's decision will be mailed to the contact person indicated below): PROPERTY OWNER Anne E. Manning 3800 NW 22 Ave. , Fx.-APPLICANT T Miami, FL, 33142 OTHER(provide name and address) 4 305-634-3628 l 7-10 3�AL E SIGN YOUR NAME ON THE ABOVE DATE Y.\ERPBIERPB Application Form REVISED FOR- 007-2008.doe Page 1 of 3 Youkilis, Sanford From: Kobola, Slaven Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 3:49 PM To: Cabrera, Lourdes Cc: Olivo, Jose; De la Torre, Rudy; Balogun, Ajibola; Youkilis, Sanford; Citarella, Victor Subject: DRC comments Lourdes, here is the summary of my comments for the properties observed today at the DRC meeting: 1. 6065 SW 64th Terrace 1.1. The survey appears not to show the same situation as the City's Atlas map nor as the Miami-Dade County's Property Appraiser's map, as posted on http://qisims2.miamidade.gov/myhome/propmap.asp, and 'as such, I believe that it should not be accepted. 1.2. Find that I strongly object the decision reached by Sandy and Victor, namely that the City should allow them to develop the property without dedicating the proper portion of the right-of-way (ROW), namely 20' from the centerline and to allow that the total width to be 50' feet, due to the following: 1.2.1. The resulting ROW width will automatically be substandard, namely, 45' wide, which may prevent the City to develop whatever features within it. 1.2.2. Note that the 45'-wide ROW also may be in conflict with the City of South Miami 2005 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report, February 2006, Corradino Group, page 25. Namely, the reduced width may prevent implementation of (any) `strategies to address problems related to through traffic in specific neighborhoods, including traffic noise and safety issues" which "have been recommended as a result of charrettes and specific redevelopment initiatives", as expressed*in the Note that the latest EAR is in fact a new version of the City's Comprehensive Plan! 1.2.3. In addition, I have noted numerous times that the Comprehensive Plan should take precedence to the LDC. I believe that it should be known that the LDC came out after the Comprehensive Plan, as a more detailed elaboration of the general rulings contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, as the Comprehensive Plan prescribes that the width of City's rights-of-way shall be 50', I believe that this number cannot be easily overridden by the LDC. This is even more true in regard to Sandy's and Victor's comment that the City should try to make it easier for the applicant. 1.2.4. I understand that (sometimes) the above may be chosen to be overridden due to the existing pattern of development in that area, as stated by Sandy. However, it is also to be noted that that the same pattern is highly irregular, which appears not to be a pattern at all. In addition, even if there would be a pattern, it would not be conforming to the LDC, at least in respect to the front setback of the properties' buildings (see picture below). As such, I do not see this decision to be sustainable. Plus, reducing the 12/30/2008 Page 3 of 3 properties or City centerlines' lines. This was confronted by Don O'Donneley, who was the Planning Director at that time, and the zoning map was being continued to rely on the information provided by the City's Atlas Map. 4.1.1. Note that in the meantime, the Miami-Dade County has developed a reliable map showing all the properties in the Miami-Dade County, some of which are not reflected in the City's Atlas map. 4.1.2. I believe that one of the Planning Department's duties to keep the Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Code and all the related materials, like zoning, land use, and any other maps, updated, as well as correct, i.e., reflecting the current situations. 4.1.3. Confronting the above is the reliance on the existing, non-updated maps, which are proven to show incorrect information. Note that I was told that the reason for the Planning Department still using the non-updated Atlas map is this map, as well as any resulting map, like Land Use map, have been approved by the City Commission at some time in history. However, that should not prevent Planning Department to update the same maps and present them to the City Commission for an adoption, based.on their up- datedness and automatic correctness to the current situation. I do not see any reason of rather continuing to rely on `adopted" maps, and especially when knowing that they do not have much resemblance to the current properties' layout in many locations! 5. Considering the transfer of the proposed developments to us for the review, we prefer that following be followed at all times: 5.1. We shall get all the documentation at the time that is sufficient to review the plans, and not less than 12 hours before the meeting. 5.2. The documentation shall be complete, and not as provided in this case, i.e., without having the surveys provided with the plans. Note that paradoxically, one of the most important documents in the submission should be the survey, both for the Planning and the Public Works' review. Slaven Kobola ;oa 0 �_J GIS Coordinator 12/30/2008 SOUTH O � � 9 U Y INCORPORATED 1927 CpRt9 January 6,2009 Re: Environmental Review&Preservation Board—Final Approval Applicant: Habitat for Humanity Project: New Construction:-Preliminary Address: 6401 SW 63 Street ERPB No.: 09-001 Meeting Date: January 6,2009 Dear: Mrs.Manning, The intent of this correspondence is to inform you that the City of South Miami Environmental Review and Preservation Board(ERPB)has approved your application. The next step in the plan review process is to submit an application for building permit. Please contact the Building Department at(305) 663-6358. The final approval from the ERPB shall lapse after six (6) months if no permit is applied for. This requirement can be found in Section 20- 5.11(L), entitled Expiration,Land Development Code. Please be advised that an appeal of an ERPB decision-or recommendation may be filed with the City Clerk at any time before a building permit is issued. Appeals may be submitted by the applicant, interested citizens, or the city administration [Section 20-6.2 (A), City Land Development Code]. If you have any questions regarding this application, please contact Mrs. Lourdes Cabrera- Hernandez at the Planning Department, between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday at 305-663-6347. Sincerel , ford Youkilis,AICP Acting Planning Director Planning Department Y:IERPB\ERPB Letters\2009 Letters\ERPB FINAL AS PRESENTED.doc 04 SOU7, • INCORPORATED • 1927 Q C0 R-1 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW & PRESERVATION BOARD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Tuesday,January 6,2009 8:30 AM I. CALL TO ORDER Action: Mr. Trautman(Chair), called the meeting to order at 8:30 A.M. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Action: The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison. III. ROLL CALL Action: Mr. Trautman performed roll call. Board members present constituting a quorum: Mr. Trautman, Mrs. Mark, Mr. Bedell, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Jude, Mr. Balli, Mr. Rivera, Mr. Fernandez and Mrs. Morales- Fernandez. Board members absent:None City Staff present: Mrs. Lourdes Cabrera-Hernandez (Planner), Mr. Marcus Lightfoot (Permit Facilitator) and Ms. Alerik Barrios (Assistant) Staff absent: -Mr. Sanford Youkilis (Acting Planning Director) IV.REQUESTS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1) [ERPB-09-001] Applicant: Habitat for Humanity Location: 6401 SW 63 Street Request: New Construction:Preliminary Applicants Present: Mr. Bass Mrs. Cabrera- Hernandez read the item into the record. Mr. Chandler questioned if another layer of bricks could be added to the eight foot ceiling so that the overall height could be increased. The applicant responded that it would not be difficult, but in order to increase the height there would have to be a change to the architecture and engineering plans. ERPB Mins 01-06-2009 Pg 1 of 7 Mr. Chandler questioned if the sink in the vanity could be shifted over. The applicant replied, yes. . Mrs. Mark questioned the color of the house. The applicant responded that the trim, shutters, columns, fascia and the roof are white. Mr. Bedell commented that he did not have any comments regarding the landscape. Mr. Rivera questioned what staff thought of the DRC comments. Mrs. Cabrera- Hernandez responded that the DRC comments were concerns from a staff member. She then commented that the acting planning director as per the code does have the authority to make that ruling and all other members agreed that the adjacent existing character of the street is indeed the governing factor. Mr. Chandler questioned if the applicant had considered using insta-hot water heater instead of a tank. The applicant replied that the recovery rate of the hot,water does not help the family and does not last long enough. Mr. Trautman commented that there was no recovery rate with an insta-hot since it is a constant stream of hot water. The applicant replied that the process of the water going through the pipes to get to the home is not fast enough. Mrs. Morales- Fernandez commented that she's heard that from many people. Mr. Chandler questioned if the air handler in the bedroom could be shifted. The applicant replied yes, but he has not received any complaints or problems from where it has been placed. Mr. Bedell recommended switching from one closet to another so that the air condition closet will remain in an open area and not inside the bedroom. Mr. Bedell questioned if it vented to the living room. The applicant replied, yes. Mrs. Cabrera-Hernandez commented that the applicant would like to receive final approval since the engineering work is completed. Motion: Mr. Bedell moved to grant final approval to the application. Mr. Jude seconded. Vote: 9 Approved 0 Opposed 2) [ERPB-09-002] Applicant: Habitat for Humanity Location: 6065 SW 64 Terrance Request: New Construction: Preliminary Applicants Present: Mr. Bass Mrs. Cabrera-Hernandez read the item into the record. Mrs. Mark commented that there was some confusion with the included map on the prior application and that the designation of the house is incorrect. She then questioned what the color of the house was. The applicant replied light blue; the roof along with the trim will be white. ERPB Mins 01-06-2009 Pg 2 of 7 Part 1 City of South iami PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FEES DATE: CHEC N NA ME• ADDRE S: P O NO: -30j- 63V_ Z A. 03.41.300 ERPB HEARING FEES �� of 1) Applicatir($750)' o struction in the RS and RT zoning districts .> Singleun 2 All other a ns for: �g New construction($900);Renovation($450); Signs,fences,walls, etc. ($225) For each additional appearance before the Board($150) VARIANCE 02.19.161 Advertisement and Notice Fees ............................($1500) 03.41.200 Admin Fee.......................................................($1500) (TOTAL$3000) EACH ADDITIONAL VARIANCE............................($1125) SPECIAL USE/SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 02.19.161 Advertisement and Notice Fees............................($1500) 03.41.200 Admin Fee.......................................................($1500) (TOTAL$3000) 62.19.161 REZONING APPLICATION (less than 10 acres).........($6000) 02.19.161 REZONING APPLICATION (more than 10 acres).....($20,250) LDC TEXT AMENDMENT I(General standards,misc..provisions) 02.19.161 Advertisement and Notice Fees................................. ($1500) 03.41.200 Admin Fee............... .......................................... ($1500) (TOTAL$3000) LDC TEXT AMENDMENT II(Change Permitted use Schedule) 02.19.161 Advertisement and Notice Fees................................. ($4,500) 03.41.200 Admin Fee............... .......................................... ($1,500) TOTAL($6000) 02.19.161 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMEND AD FEE......... ($22,500) 03.41.200 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADMIN FEE..................($7,500) (Total$30,000) 02.19.161 PUD/MAJOR CHANGE LEGAL ADS($1,575) 03.41.200 PUD/MAJOR CHANGE ADMIN FEE($3,675) (Total $5,250) 03.41.200 PUD MINOR CHANGE ADMIN FEE($1,500) 03.41.200 WAIVER-OF-PLAT APPLICATION ($4,500) TOTA X:\Forms\RECEIPT FORM Part I(10-8-08).doc Ordinance No.44-08-1979,adopted 10-7-08 White copy to Planning;Pink copy to Customer; Yellow copy to Finance T 82.50 25.0- E3 25U55 25, 5B 25-4-F5B 251-21 P5 I2-1 BD.1I.1111 UP PON Z tY Fj 2 21 Ha- 4M Na - ----------------- 2\5 5; 82.50' —71 4t�L q q no 10' i�P E 0 < If ,L > A n .......... 29 < qo O� '0 m,m 27: 885 R j- �,i i 2��, pmp o n REM migUng m Ing HUR d �Nx e 018 9�!3, -88 2�?"1! IT qgg All Rq Mw16MP9H�, > A 823 ;,,- - H 'M-M-1 6 S 9 VUNA Hog HE{ 9 06, 0 1 0 lager H--0 OH A F SA2 F; HR i pig zu '0 :4 c A HA gF ➢ -cp Af > 0 < 0 c , '.x g- -, -, C�) > o 79 2 (J) U U, 151 > > G� 4WD aq- > > > 0 On' U) ­6 7- S7 0 0 In '16 7-- 1C) > 0 1 - U) M8 70 C) + , As 0 J-- 0>0 > > > Z? zi a 03 E3 -17 zs:w C) C, 0 o 7. -nn 6 cn)6 OS rp G) Y. > C)Q 0 0 70 0 27! T Sf z E 0 CD + Hs A, > Fj 0 6 -< - 7 > 0; PC, Ln > > U, > 0- loci 3 6, F 9 > -0 V, 1.2 > > < m 0 31 RR (!!)luR, > > 25V 25'-(Y'55 CD 25'-4'P55 ZR N 10 I Nml ---------- --------- 32-0 7 M N 2 n-5 0 0 IL aL C, SL ur 01 X 2-1,11 Efi R all OR 0 9, -2 GO gg 99 c.R A s 0 nN A> ME Ec 'F- 0 E09 mm, Pod. A, 2F, m o 0 2 R. > > -<G, > -si 0 A A A A U) > 8 O C) c C) > C-)17)0, C' ,1 9� I F 0 > > > O u 0 > g g; 1 P,M4 g CL fp 0 0" < ADO rn < 0 0 rn s 0 > < 0 F, =0 0 v> > U) 4 ID S < > + —<- C) 9 IN g > 0 -0 B G3 0 rn > C3 n x 13 U I I F,A 0 1-<9 > > = ' cn 3 OD DO O C) NO 0 LL, U-1 = > > > 0 ➢ C:, 'Ell OFY { T-V 25'-0' 5'O` B' s 3 �_ YP,-. RS' sF g s ; 2 44 o �F W 44 y 6, 00 nu -6'MR 1.5PI10E 3zo m fob �° ;3 a °o(Q M a�� 91. a-2TYP -;6° g�� J7� .� �s g oV 4' a' 4'® 8' 3'-2" 3'-2' 3'-0' 4-B' I.8 3'-4• 4'-10" 4'-10' yi+ agm g rnF; Nm=n�R F�i°l F�Ao �dd1 T74 O =g'�' 96 gs CD HIP �\/ N _ !7 Nil S-�42- p i T= s= <� _ a y m N a r 2 � ® � o o- <N��G� � �4goiG�,z�ao 4• a• or CR �m F o` 8' 6'4' 8b I/2' T-9112' B' c�i�,�,SN E2 �=otI M. 2i o�=p3'��" u`n,� `" 9 $=m =s p s rnD�SK�OR? F_° �c>i�� �E � N',�=fl-2 �T 8�=m u-`- �i gs" ,°„$,��"i+°n��,'7°�rnzo°� c=mo�� M � s � rn°o rn =$ � °��5 �$ aSS 3° °o a�o�= o € o==rn = _ N $ 8= boo N� g3^^° �� � 6 f? -a��m�o Ab'a�n° � �'£ ��� ">;6 WsK z= � mN gA ��g�g- � r EF � y Q op - a U8 �o�oG o�R Rog Ng� SCC ®6 g2 rn "s 52 °ooz a o- _ ao i4zi=oT� �m>Nrn��Fia zp° fmpp N a°S 12.0 `"�g� � L. 3� °° �m�"- � v _ a or DRUMM gym = --all-MB go. Se N� s��55j�j 3a; ;�5 =g °s,- 55j�55��55�� t9 cN G 7zg➢Q 7'7"F< $ rn ��z rn�"<tiS'�� O cF cF FcFc FFc � �ti (_� Ado �° .a o3;rn� rn �rn a���ANS$��N g ,�• � i �� ��, �°���°���N`�s7 S'>H �°7Ta��F,,, 53 o�i�',o=o���F rno='°'6���a�'Q m�y�i���$➢=zN >°=T °s�4m =pRg >:+ `i °� ���ozmA$���m���� �6� ��^"g� �`• m ��_�� �y��� ��rn o����= �Ng��aa ��8 �� � z7--- <�� mg fi3.^ �x'rz Na�z N� arn� gzb ° Z° �^°rn f 5 j., `�` �➢�° Na°xTaFn �N SNyr� $ L 5o F. m �o oDya boo^Farm NnF 2 €' > i m m m s N= m M. OC m _ �¢g ¢° ENS I16-OX {III' y 11 p ® Gl` less av"56• F RE-BLOCKIYG NOf REQUIRED Ova p� S CC \ o\ rw C MEW ROB JN N4 . Ap 99A C2 co F-71 ca "C) � 19 Rod F go 7-01 25'-Q' 5-3' 3'-21 6-61 3'-2- 31451 2'-C` 2.0' .I1LO.-VIERlfy,dtc .0.VOI vIto --------- .......... ................ 77,7 'a 51LOPE:1/5-117 F 1 q z ZC (1)NET PUF,- sA Ill 9 ........ F k a 8 L TIOM TIP. m4- -AA 2-PLY GROEFTRU55 F,.......... 4 4 tl -iE mp 4 Rd --- --- /A-9 F-I q, :a 0 R .0 § Hplfluu 5, Ng r�HWgga, 4°98; R, -- 1 as 8-9(WB0TGhO.1D55I H'-'-HMg CI N T77 GsN & PO R V-3- .3�2'r� 0 ............ a 3 ii II II -------- JFC ab WI III h EII q Q R, 0 . .... . 2-FLYGRDI 0 COMNATE FAD%J GT LOCATION TI ;Z1 21 0 MCI- ........... K P I I 1!1111 Q I I T I I Ill F9 It -2- 2'-4' M.0-VtAFYdM� 151 FR ma 2-0, 0�u 32--0 UP i-,Ti Pgifle- P5 MtV 0804 OR iaMulo 23 HE 2� Rip T p flit c, 12, -7� 1> CEO 0 > I> 0- Mt OF �o 3' Iwo U F 0 9 q -.Qj X5 -P o H� ai ;as WRH9H 1 7 W;tg6��=,�URPM . g2i" g 4 V y gT1- ML 0.-,i r co > > �i�> MDO _5 cl Q o 7--7N6 -",D-ZA 6MS!�5 U, �p g q 9 z x�, > -ip-�-q� g�1 F A, J-Pi R H f 5 'HM.9 OU 1�6$N �V;p 'PIN �qlhsm-o Y 91U� 30 F R 0.6 qI2q. HH, og Nt UHig E 6 > =ors Fc $ PHI gp� AH pp. > R s R g R P Z Ho >0' ry M 5-H Fa > 5 i NNW Hgg R�wu�, A �61 ?'R�153E 0 M2!1E MO. 0� ��F' Im— -c 9-5 9�,,� ��5! PQ A F9 ir� AH 8 , g�p A > > 0 Z g R a MIR So P809,4� z —0 moo AN AA,0 0 NATE F4 0 9 m 15, -8i 0 i - A 6) ca 4� Z5 zi R SN EM oc)cjmz 0 MID 74 A m _ e ? � i SL VAM 0 i 2a ----------- -- H°" Vo AN N = =91 6666 ` 2 0-2 �-=- .. ° _ Ra R� !_........ ❑ N z°= '�" H XX ° XX ego s° moY c its >a" x> :. \; =°1 c=Z ...o.... S r� �o I \ H xi 3 or PF I m = I, a —1 8 amNgT�� o 2 5 _ NP _, ��_ �---�� � 4 �z•: � �; ��� MEN F ca s1, N-pA�� e. ��tSg m o o y __1 O s � $ � Ati $ ��� o m ® a or HEN RIP n>A °� e 0 EAU o go ed+i -=via =,3 9' eg m� nw 00° age _ rw11 21 21 33, c 3 _ ul"a o a $_ � ° g mg a °> e �, _ - . •. 3� 7;��� �'o�o o � ��5 i ��i � oN � `��n3a� � m Fn'� o m� i �cn o� °� "'�o" ono `� M, :!0 N _ J� A" N° ,:. �^ m mS =N 02� � o Si'm fi � 7 ��€ =rn i ��o, o U 'f �aK o N F, 43 H8 °o1X o 0oo g gm w ng o03mEmo � ° N o ° A R= oo� > eQ swab < H ood F =oo go so o ® o aoNO o �Q �R9aa oi Ja ®gym s o g;i q �7 0 H gO� �no �n n89 � �, R °= R oF� �c 8� � N goo a� > gai -'�i� H- _ gg N N SF I _ CL 94 CD Ri ME no G h 8aao- C 9R o� ;i a i' . i� err u w mom= g� �A 59 m r^ °A N 0 Z D N T E m e p 3 ; N O ID 3�1q�O ommmmmml @ �m oil e I m ti 00 m € v � ' p YR Coo - z ----- ...._ " _ " t m � � --_ _— _ oo — — o �� .•g �_ � o� g--Kg o�m 59n09K5 oo��o= Ng g °_ ♦ _ FR♦� �� ,�„� -oFg poi ,^ �'S E ° m Am " ° - - - - g g 8 ° � A gas g o O $4 ,4 F. �oo4 � oao °a -E IWO Co A r W 9 6 N d L060-£ VIA t :-at-J" r✓�� fi4t M r .�t � w if•` ;. a sue. +a c„ _: r, �.`y !4y/•_ 1'1�':.:, •+ oq � � r I {� A r- h �q R joillillillll P PIT �. 1 X 0 0 0♦ I i f♦ �If�,. T 1 f O 1 O ♦0 0� �1� 1 t f O� ♦��f 1 f♦• f♦ j} w , �v� .an „a Md' Rtt` e w `1.~e � 41`� 3T ti Property to the right of 6041 SW 63 Street. ��''� , " � E � .� y,a� ; ", i � � � Page 2 of 3 width of the ROW would just make it even more obvious in regard to the perceived shorter front setback of the buildings on subject properties (on north side of SW 64th Terrace). _ S a � HAROEEDu INARpF�RD. 6TH STat1AROEE DR 1' rr 6"4"T TER N � x m i Digital Orthophotography-200T 0 50 ft This map was created on 1230.2008 11:29:14 AM far reference purposes only Web Site 9 2002 Miami-Dade County.All rights reserved. 2. 6041 SW 63rd Street 2.1. The Architectural Site Plan shows the sidewalk that is detached from the property line, which is not common. I would advise that this be also reviewed by Jose. 2.2. I believe that if there is an existing sidewalk, which it has to be continued through the full width of the property, which is not the case here. 2.3. The sidewalk has to be homogeneous throughout the whole width of the property and not overlaid by driveway. Note that due to the problem noted in 2.2. above, this may automatically be eliminated with the proper implementation of the sidewalk. However, this has not been done on the submitted documents. 3. Resulting from the above two cases, I believe that these plans should even not been reviewed by the DRC, and especially because as some of the problems and their corrections may completely change the character of the proposed developments. 4. As we have resorted to trying to find the information on the City's Atlas map, I have noted that this map is more than outdated, and as such should not been used. This has been submitted to the Planning numerous times, but the Planning chooses to ignore this objection. 4.1. One of my previous objections was concerning the City's Zoning Map, which does not reflect the wording in the LDC, namely, that the zone lines should follow the 12/30/2008 P t iG�"vlF,,r. �• ,.rry'r1'1"t:!r r i r'�' � �a'�k 'Y vy �( a& �: .t —•.way._ 9! ,2� >�� .�,� t/�` ;S r7 �, ...--5('.�f „r�4'•, � r� y�f�' .h. i. �.f •'t �,� n � i%f� �. ... ' ,e f' fir' xlv r u w�= `w, "h R " t oil -. Property to the right of 6041 SW 63 Street. e ,4 ti Property to the left of 6041 SW 63 Street.