Loading...
6865 SW 64 ST_PB-90-011 City of South Miami PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING On Tuesday, May 29, 1990, at 7 : 30 P.M. in the City Commission Chambers, the Planning Board of the City of South Miami will conduct a Public Hearing on the following matter. PB-90-011 Applicant: Marie Valenti Request: Variance from Section 20-3 .5E to allow a 21' rear setback where 25' is required for a single family residence located within an RS-3 zoning district. Legal : Lot 9 , Block 3, Tranquility Estates, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 78 at Page 64 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Location: 6865 S.W. 64 Street i I . 4 I� f I YOU ARE HEREBY ADVISED THAT IF ANY PERSON DESIRES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING OR HEARING, SUCH PERSON WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS9 AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PRO- CEEDINGS IS MADE# WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. (F. S. 286.0105) - PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS AT THE CITY HALLS 6130 SUNSET DRIVE, SOUTH MIAMI. FLORIDA AT THE TIME AND DATE STATED ABOVE. ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ARE URGED TO ATTEND. OBJECTIONS OR EXPRESSIONS OF APPROVAL MAY BE MADE IN PERSON AT THE HEARING OR FILED IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE HEARING. THE BOARD RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COMMISSION WHATEVER THE BOARD CONSIDERS IN THE BEST INTEREST FOR THE AREA INVOLVED. THE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HEARD BY THE CITY COMMISSION AT A FUTURE DATE. INTERESTED PARTIES REQUESTING INFORMATION ARE ASKED TO CONTACT THE OFFICE OF THE ZONING DIRECTOR BY CALLING 667-5691 OR BY WRITING. REFER TO HEARING NUMBER WHEN MAKING INQUIRY. - PLANNING BOARD PSBIOO-7 BZ REV. 12-9-81 THIS IS A COURTESY NOTICE - - ZONING REVIEW SHEET DATE: Shel y® PROTECT. xerf/,p• ,4jpp,*r' ADDRESS• �G s w OWNER: 14AI21g IIAIj I TELEPHONE: S 7 [2RSIGNER: G M,`••/D e A STS✓ • DISTRICT: • ALLOWED/REOUIRED PROPOSED NET LOT AREA:_ jo C7 7 G FR0NTAGB• 75' FRONT SETBACK: REAR SET � I SSW SIDE SETBACK: 7r 13- 75 CORNER: ADJ. TO RES. : BUILDING HEIGHT• BUILDING COVERAGE: . �o IMPERVIOUS CVRG. : �® Z FAR: LANDSCAPING: PARKING TOTAL: STANDARD' COMPACT• . HANDICAP: COMMENTS REVIEWED BY: /'/ �waz� 13 ww�z9Ly 114:E NUT E S p�annnci Board Tuesday June 19, 1990 Sylva G. Martin Building 7:30 PM A. Call to order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Fla the United States of America. g of the B. Roll Call. Pr--es= se t Larry Ligammare Diana Gonzalez Manny Gutierrez John Lefley (excused) Robert Parr Sharon Jenkins C. The Minutes of May 29, 1990 were approved by unanimous v of the Board. vote D. Public Hearing. PB-90-01 Applicant: Marie Valenti Request: Variance from Section 20-3 .5E to allow a where 25 is required for a: singlel setback family :residence located within an RS-3 zoning district. Legal : Lot 91 Block 3 Tranquility Estates, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 78 at Page 64 of the Public .Records of D { ade County, Florida. Location: 6865 S.W. 64 Street Attorney Jorge de la Osa signed in representing the applicant. de la Osa submitted revised plans. Previously submitted plans had been rejectedjby the Board. Staff has not seen submitted cant. Mr. prior to this meeting as they were told they would ber submitted aat this meeting. Mr. de la Osa stated that this had been agreed upon at the last meeting and he believes the issue to be the rear terrace and the setback therefrom. He stated that he had submitted a survey from when his client had purchased the Property, along with a current survey, but the current survey did not match the plans. PB Minutes 1 6-19-90 In his opinion, the plans now match the current survey and show that the survey submitted at first was correct and that the setback is not being increased as shown by the fact that there is some construction being done in the terrace area. Mr. Parr stated that he found it is very hard to determine, based on what has transpired, whether there is a true replacement of something as opposed to a new construction I which could be an intrusion. He is concerned as to how that could be determined and that he would be more comfortable in considering something which had rotted or deteriorated and should be rep aced as opposed to speculating on whether or not there was previous construction. Mr. de la Osa believes the issue to be whether the setback will be increased to what it was and that there Iis no issue as to whether there-was an encroachment. The encroachment was there when the property was purchased. Mr. Parr noted that the Staff Report indicates that the existence of the columns and their location prior to construction cannot be proven with what is on the site at present. {What existed before anyone from the City was able to investigate is not clear and this is a problem in his mind. Mr. de la Osa point out that from the Land Development Code of the City of South Miami , Non-conforming dimensions Item B-b, " in the event of any remodeling or rebuilding, the remodeling or rebuilding shall not increase the extent of non-conformity with any dimensional requirements. " This is the point of his coming before the Board today, to determine whether the encroachment is actually being increased. or the applicant is leaving it the way she found it. Whether there is alteration or remodeling is really not relevant, in his opinion. Ms. Gonzalez asked if the survey dated May 4th is the original survey. Mr. de la Osa said that it was and the 12-27- survey was done when the applicant purchased the property. He presented a survey which was updated as of May 29th. Both surveys indicate that the encroachment is 21 . 851 . This is the original survey. The Commission requested a copy of the original which he brought today. He stated that both surveys show the setback to l be 21. 851 . Ms. Gonzalez stated that the copy she has is fated May 4th. Mr. Parr noted that the original survey showed there to be some kind of a screened terrace that does move into the setback by 2 or 3 feet or so. The December survey looks like a screened terrace. PB Minutes 2 6-19-90 s Mr. de la Osa agreed that the December 27th survey does have a screened terrace as does the May 4th survey. His contention is that on both surveys, the encroachment is exactly 21.85' which means that nothing is being done to encroach further. When the house was purchased on December 27th of 189, the original survey that the applicant received did not show that there was any encroachment. That would have showed on a survey prepared before her purchase of the property. Ms. Valenti later found this out through the City. When she purchased the property, it was in need repairs to the screened terrace, there were le"aks in the roof, etc. After making several attempts to repair that area, she was told that it was irreparable and that what she should do was to add more beams and to use some other kind of roof surface, which she did. She stated that she was not aware that she needed a permit. Mr. de la Osa reiterated that what the Board should consider in determining this issue is that the encroachment on the set back is not going to be increased one by s. Valenti'si request. The roof is leaking and something must be done to protect the inside of the house. Mr. Ligammare called for those wished to spea for or against the request. Hearing none, he called Public Meeting closed and announced an .Executive Session. He called for a Staff Report. Mr. Mackey addressed some of the issues brought up by the applicant. He noted that on the survey dated 12-27-89, the area on the north side of the house is tile. . ?. . . .feet was a flat slab. Looking at the survey dated May 4th shows that area to be enclosed now. That area was built into the setback. According to the Building Official , who went out and inspected the property, it would appear that columns were existing within that screen terrace and were removed to the edge of the roof. Mr. Ligammare noticed that this is indicated on the photographs submitted by Staff. Mr. Mackey advised the Board that the edge of the building is the exterior edge of the columns located at a certain point in the photographs. That was moved forward into theleasement and to the edge of the roof line. A roof can overhang into the easement a certain amount of inches but the columns can't be moved out to the end of that roof. This is where the encroachment occurs. Since this was done without permits for demolition or construction, the City does not have complete records of what happened prior to Ms. Valenti being red tagged. Regardless of where the columns were moved to, etc. , that area shown on the survey `that was an outdoor tiled area and is now enclosed is definitely constructed into the setback. This would require a variance. Sine it is a variance and against the zoning code, Staff recommends denial of the PB Minutes 3 6-19-90 request. Ms.Gonzalez asked whether or not the City has any way of knowing where the original screen enclosure sat on the property other than what the survey shows. Mr. Mackey said they do not. Ms. Gonzalez that if the Board believes the survey, they are to assume that the edge of the screen did come to within 21.85 feet of the rear property line. Mr.Parr suggested that, perhaps, the Board should arrive with a modified proposal to grant approval in such al way that the columns would be reconstructed where the other ones were. Mr. Lefley felt that the case history confuses the issue. It appears to be speculation about the locati.o of the site of the original setback. He noted that the architi cts plans show 251 , almost 2611 , setback to what may have been the location of the original columns. Mr. Parr noted that on the drawings, Staff has indicated that this section in the upper left hand corner was not there at all . This is a whole new item which is an increase of the building in the setback. Ms.Gonzalez felt that the Board should decide whether or not .a variance would have been granted regardless of the fact that the work was done earlier. She believes the real question is whether the Board would have granted a variance for 21.8' from 251 . To approach it that simply by separating the two issues because the fact that the work was done without a permitl is impacting on the Board's ability to make a judgement when, in fact, the real issue is, would a variance have been granted? In that case-, Staff would have to deal with the applicant on work done without a permit. Mr Ligammare agreed, asking for a motion to bI put on the floor. Ms. Gonzalez moved for approval of the variance based upon the fact that, as she sees it, the setback has always been 21 .85' and will continue to be 21 .851 , along with there being no one present to protest on the application. Sharon Jenkins seconded. Chairman Ligammare called for discussion. Mr.Parr said that he is uncomfortable with this corner. (Bill , which corner?) He feel that the City may taken advantage of. He would have had the same questions if the permit process had been followed before anything had been done. He sees no real reason why this intrusion in the setback needs to be increased. PB Minutes 4 6-19-90 Ms. Gonzalez said that she would agree with Mr. Parr if the building area was going beyond the back line of the house and the floors. Mr. Parr stated that he would be more sympathetic when someone is trying to improve their property. There are other cases where something was removed, with proper permits, land what was removed was seen and replaced with something substantial , having good eye appeal, is safe etc. Mr. Lefley noted that the setbacks vary between the northeast corner and the northwest corner of the building according to the plans. Mr. de la Osa stated his belief that the house was not built straight on the property. There's a slight iariation between one side and the other. Mr.Lefley asked Staff il� objectors are not indicated on the map. Mr. Mackey replied that, in order to make Ln application for a variance, signatures Are required from 20% of the property owners locAted within 500 of the applicant's address are the only signatures on that petition. Chairman Ligammare called the question. Vote: Approved: 3 Opposed: E ( Parr) r (Ligammare) i PB-90-013 a Applicant: Ragil Construction; Inc. Request #1 : Variance from Section 20-3. 5 E of the Land Development Code to allow a 1A of 8 , 500 square feet in area where 10,000 square feet is required in an RS-3 zoning district. Request #2: Variance from Section 20-3.5 E of the Land Development Code to allow a lot of 9 ,435 square feet in area where 10 ,000 square feet is required in an RS-3 zoning district. Legal: The North 110 feet of the West 396 feet of the North 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 , less the West 25 feet, and less'' the East 160 feet thereof, in Section 36 , Township 54 South, Range 40 PB Minutes 5 6-19-90 THE CITY OF r. S_ 0"A 4,A iam 61, 0 SUNSETiDRIVE, SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA 331%3 F� � jjfu�}��.`�jJ`!Jj' ((� -`a✓Y� A'-. ,f�^p .✓� (- PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT ZON I N PET I T' I ONrK Legal: Lot 9, Block 3, Tranquility Estates, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 78 at Page . 64 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Location: 6865 S.W. 64 Street Request : The Owners of the above property have made the following request: Applicant: Marie Valenti Request: Variance from Section 20-3 . 5E to allow a 21' rear setback where 25' is required for a single family residence located within an RS-3 zoning district. Petition: We, the undersigned property ,owners, are within 300 feet of the above property. We understand and approve the above request . NAME DATE ADDRESS -�--- - - - - -`- - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ��-3�- - - G'--; C-0 - �- - - - - r+--, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � �-�`-= - - - - - - - - 5� � - - �72 r_�4i - - - - - - - - - - /_, - - - b -_ - - - _ -- - _ - - - - - - - - - - Y SW _, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -p- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'WSO-37 (continued on page 2) Page 1 VALE07TI 02� TAX FOLIO NAM E ADDRESS % i VA L EN►I Y'I - 0 v Sit �ook b N 6f el - 33�y3 68 I o I ,ANN ��uTf fz EZ biz ('0 (P 20 N VQ 2 -7 5-t 3 317 2 cog 3o Sw Cps 33t 3 40$ 141 N s g - o i E L'E� Nom A H A?zv�E t� ISO �Tiz j T -(- 5M ("oj C"� <�' o( +o 0 k4- ►mil G P- I F F- TH 5 C� 7 02 </- oo 02`rl oo Z o ATff(s b2 � - �o3p MGM SA lZ AY< 31 Y2 p�c-p 0 C A LL,��-D� �<1 Z S V� (p Z Tom_ 3 X70 SW Co 2 33t 1 PC-5 cOct KfIZ►SAND (15 o , t- H G UT1Er� (iTP I Sw o , M+ O 5 c�T l�5� r\I �(O S W 10 5<� 3 S M. ( fe 2,o S NJ (A Z 0 1 � � tit �- M ,..a� i ►� I�c� 7 v°� S W 6l> Z-- %wlj l<cE ) V MAC 7o S VJ (nZ �e 7 SW c� 2 T 33( Y3 f5 (f±� 0170 <5 14EE oiso D�- t v ! Z TAX FOL104 NAME ADDRESS "A 2 �/ ��� o M 1�1 � OJ. Cod - �3 f 1�3 33 (Y,3 D2 - oz/a �� fM � �'U�HAF- �lv SS Sys �' ��-3 � D�° c n Z.y tl z �4 M c M ULL/� (9 � S i (� 33 �3 ozV — 0 2-So f AVA 60-760 S w c� �-�` 3 wt /3 fI /, aZy — Uz �a CTI � + ���M l.[ � � � S w �� 3 fY� q +-M du(Npj c"2- + M ou0 a3 w3 o L20 a 3 o t M �-�(L S D AA-A-0 S W `� Af Vq �A F-F � 2-0 oWo to(-,A rs N r r /v 03 Y c o r n t �`' �`' o N © Z- 0,7 03Y - � IL� �M 5EN V- .ems• � - � � TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: '. Why is it that the resident at 6865 SW 64th St. is allowed t8- build an addition to the house that violates the 25-foot setback code? And why is that resident allowed to build a fence into a driveway in violation of a deed restriction dedicating the use of th assageway? rK APR -2 ZCD m i — I=VIEW Ct TIDY : ' y 'aZIP BED BTH HB BUILT ADJ—SQFT . $/SQFT ' AVR ' 43 3 2 0 1965 .2,547 54.96 1.15 V -P FLR CONSTRUCT ZONING LV SQFT 1 CBS—POURED 08 — RS-3 . N/A LEGAL' DESCRI .•P -TION` 26 54 40 ° ~t ~' tt TRANQUILITY ESTATES PB -78-64 G w ct H• ! fi o"< di LOT 9 BLK 3 to o ' 'LOT SIZE ., 119.000 X 122 m o 0 SESSMENT SQ/FT YEAR TAXES D TX/FT �• rr � 121,577 47.73 90 2;697.98 N 1.05 `* Q' PERMIT VALUE SALE DATE AMOUNT AND TYPE 3072 DEC. 1989 140,000 1 _ v z -o 576 JUL. 1985 121,200 1 (_0v v 3 p 401 SEP. 1983 119,000 1 _ �' a ^ �1T DATE MTG TYPE RATE LOAN NUMBER J�0 122789 CON FIXED N/A ) CLC HOMEST LP UNITS 1BD 2BDS 3BDS EFF. ;1 , O1 25000 N 1 0 0. .- .0 0 F4=TAXES F5=LEGAL co ' 8=MORE F9=GOBACK .F10=HELP F11=MENU F12= OFF 1=VIEW ISC ct )kDY --96 2/9/93 Mrs. Vasquez, We want to know when will the garden that is growing on the easement just east of the railroad tracks will be removed on Southwest 64th Street. The City had not trouble finding the garden on 63th street. The City can see what they want to see. Your attention to this matter is of utmost concern to us in this area. We await your actions about this garden and other stuff that the City should be taking care of. Concerned Citizens / 10 y` w n , VCR CASE H� ST®g2Y Folio # 09-4026-024-0300 Property Address: Legal Description: Marie D. Valenti Lot 9 , Block 3 of 6865 S.W. 64 Street Tranquility Estates South Miami, FL 33143 Plat Book 78,, Page 64 P - Photographs on file C - In Compliance DATE: ACTION/INCIDENT: 12-89 Ms. Valenti purchased the property. 1-11-90 Permit # 90-0019-08 was issued for the replacement of a wooden fence around the above referenced property. 4-2-90 B & Z received a complaint that an addition which violates the 25 foot setback was being constructed at the property. 4-3-90 Inspection revealed the following work without a permit (not a complete list) : - A hot tar roof was being finished by 3 workers - One room to the rear of the house was lengthened - Doors were sealed up and windows were installed - New dry wall, tile and siding was either put up or being put up - Electrical wiring was done 4-3-90 A Red Tag (stopwork order) was issued. All work stopped. 4-4-90 NOV #4-90-V007 was issued for doing work without permits (certified Receipt Received) . Ms. Valenti came to City Hall. She was informed that a stopwork order was placed on the entire job. Moreover, she was informed of all requirements in reference to ERPB and permits. Ms. Valenti disagreed with the CEO's determination that permits were required for the work that was done. Consequently, an appointment was made for the BO to meet Ms. Valenti at her home later that afternoon. 4-4-90 At Ms. Valenti Is request, the BO and CEO Walker went to inspect the property. Ms. Valenti was not there. However, 2 men were there working on the house. A 2nd Red Tag was issued and the men informed the BO that Ms. Valenti told them to continue working, that she would take care of the permit situation. The BO determined that major remodelling and construction had been done. Permits were definitely required and licensed contractors would have to do the work. The two men working were informed that if they continued working, the police would be called in. CEB - Code Enforcement Board CEO - Code Enforcement Officer NOV - Notice of Violation NOH - Notice of Hearing BO - Building Official Approximately, one hour later, a re-inspection revealed that the men were still working at the house. When CEO Walker showed up with a police officer, the two men packed up and left. NOV #4-90-V009 was issued to Marie Valenti for doing work without a permit (letter was returned unclaimed) . 4-6-90 Ms. Valenti contracted this office. She stated that . she did not add anything to the property, and that a copy of her survey shows this. She faxed said surely to this office. 4-9-90 At Ms. Valenti's request, a 2nd inspection of her property was made by the BO. He explained to Ms. Valenti what was in violation, and what she needed to do to bring it into compliance. CEB - Code Enforcement Board CEO - Code Enforcement Officer NOV - Notice of Violation NOH - Notice of Hearing BO - Building Official STAFF 14111 EFDOFZT PB-90-011 May 29, 1990 Applicant: Marie Valenti Request: Variance from Section 20-3 .5E to allow a 21' rear setback where 25' is required for a single family residence located within an RS=3 zoning district. Legal: Lot 9 , Block 3 , Tranquility Estates, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 78 at Page 64 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Location: 6865 S.W. 64 Street ANALYSIS The applicant seeks approval of a variance to allow the construction of columns and walls within the setback. The applicant claims that there were previously columns along the edge of the roofline. However, after demolition of that structure (without permits) , any new improvements in the setback area are not allowed. Any such pre-existing columns and structures is only a claim by the applicant and cannot be substantiated by staff. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends denial of the request. Note: Site plan and floor plan will be presented at the night of the meeting. City of South Miami Marie Valenti 6130 Sunset Drive 6865 S.W. 64 Street South Miami , Florida 33143 South Miami Florida 33143 Subject: 6865 S.W. 64 Street April 16, 1990 Dear Sirs: Attached please find applications for the Planning Board and Environmental Review and Preservation Board. I am requesting approval to complete repairs that were needed on the above subject property. I purchased this property on December 28,1990, after receiving an inspection report by a licensed company, Inspector Services. The various defects and needed repairs were noted and a cost estimate was noted for those repaiAr. With the assistance of friends and relatives I have been doing the work myself, being on & lidi ted budget and self supporting. I did not realize that since I was not building anything, that a permit was needed. I have attached a copy of the inspection report where the patio roof damage "was noted. I hired a company,Pro Maintenance, that was recommended to me by a realtor.After much expense, they were unable to do a satisfactory job. I cannot afford to give my hard earned money away and not get what I pay for. Y The patio roof was a combination of wood and fiberglass, completely enclosed with screening in the f.,ront and one door..;In order to make the repairs I tore down the screen and posts that were rotted, and replaced these with new posts and reinforcing beams.We then replaced the rotted sections with new wood and scraped off the top gravel and hot tarred the patio roof to seal the leaks. At this time the work is incomplete,and the roof must be finished. Due to the recent rains the property is deteriotating rapidly. I need to proceed quickly to secure my possessions from further damage, therefore I am requesting your consideration in this matter to secure the necessary approvals to proceed with the repairs. In reference to any alteration to the premises that is visible fro�►►. � the street; I removed a side entry door that was used as a main entrance. Thiso eated confusion as the legal addresss of the house is S.W.64 Street , notS.W.68Ct. I closed up this entrance to correct the problem, and it has enhanced the property. I would appreciate your consideration in allowing me the needed permits, variance, etc. to bring my property up to code and retain its value. Yours truly, q C ; CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI ` A(l- APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE PLANNING BOARD (FILE IN DUPLICATE) THIS APPLICATION MUST BE COMPLETED AND RETURNED, WITH ALL REQUIRED SUPPORTING DATA TO THE OFFICE OF THE ZONING DIRECTOR BEFORE PROCEEDINGS MAY BE STARTED FOR PUBLIC HEARING. APP (CANT w ` AS (OWNERS TENANTS AGENTS ETC. SPECIFY) ADDRESS OFAPPLICANT � � �vr �Y TATE ZIP PHONE JF` .9�-• --3f .1 S7� 7ya OWNERr DATE OW Eize P OF PROPERTY OBTAINED ; ADDRESS OF OWNER CITY STATE ZIP PHONE IS PROPERTY OPTION OR CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE? MORTGAGEE I//S/��//NAME AND ADDRE S �j�I� (/���}/� fj/�" /� /� YES N O N i'i r� 04�I 3l �'+l�r,`!"'•/�r+ �` IF APPLICANT IS NOT OWNER, IS LETTER OF AUTHORITY FROM OWNER ATTACHED? YES NO LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY COVERED BY APPLICATION LOT(S) BLOCK SUBDIVISION �/9w/ ,� � Fs PBl METES AND BOUNDS -_(/j-�� SIZE OF AREA COVERED BY APPLICATION NAMES AND OFFICIAL WIDTHS OF ABUTTING R/WIS ADDITIONAL DEDICATIONS PROPOSED STRUCTURES LOCATED ON PROPERTY APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING: / CHANGE OF ZONING EXCEPTION OTHER (SPECIFY) VARIANCE AMEND SECTION OF CODE PRE:5ENT ZONE CLASSIFICATION CHANGE OF ZONING REQUESTED EXPLANATION OF ABOVE THE FOLLOWING SUPPORTING DATA REQUIRED IS SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION. (ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE PART OF APPLICATION. ) / CERTIFIED SURVEY SITE PLAN PHOTOGRAPHS STATErIENT OF REASONS OR CONDITIONS JUSTIFYING CHANGE REQUESTED PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN HEARING FEE (CASH OR CHECK) OTHER THE UNDERSIGNED HAS READ THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION AND R PRESENTS THE 1 R TION AND ALL SUPPORTING DATA FURNISHED IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF HIS KNO AND BELT SIC. RE FOR OFFICE USE ONLY DATE OF HEARING _ _ HEARING NO. P8e100-?l REV. 3-12-" DATE FILED LAW FIRM OF JORGE L. DE LA OsA, P.A. 4960 S.W. 72 AVENUE SUITE 403 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33155 JORGE L. DE LA OSA TEL: 305) 662-9343 RICHARD F. KONDLA 1 Ynt M 44 V t'li March 1 , 1991 MAR Mr . David Walker B Z C D Code Enforcement Officer South Miami City Commission 6130 Sunset Drive S. Miami , F1 33143 RE: Request For Appeal Of Code Enforcement Board' s Decision At Hearing Of February 14, 1991/Marie Valenti/Section 301 , South Florida Building Code/Building Without A Permit . Subject Property: 6865 SW 64th Street , Lot 9, Block 3 , TRANQUILITY ESTATES , according to the Plat thereof recorded Plat Book 78 , at Page 64 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida Dear Mr . Walker : Marie Valenti hereby appeals the Code Enforcement Board ' s decision assessing penalties against her for alleged violation of • Section 301 of the South Florida Building Code (building"Without a permit) . The City is without authority under both City Code and State Law to assess a running penalty against Ms . Valenti while at the same time wrongfully denying her issuance of a building permit. Ms . Valenti ' s remodeling of the above-referenced property constitutes a permissible nonconformity under the Land Development Code of South Miami . She diligently sought a building permit , but the City denied same without any basis . The City is without justification to assess a running penalty against Ms . Valenti for not having a building permit while at the same time preventing her from obtaining same. Ms. Valenti will submit record of the February 14, 1991 hearing as soon as the minutes of that hearing receive approval by the Board and become accessible. VWly rs , R ms , Jr . Law Firm Of : Mr . David Walker Page 2 Jorge L. De La Osa, P.A. Attorneys for Marie Valenti RJA/JM WALKER.LTR cc: Marie Valenti Sonia Lamas Martin D. Berg, Esq. should the sign re-appear, Code Enforcement and the Board will view the matter very seriously and dealt with accordingly. Seconded by Ms.Larkin. Vote: Approved: 5 Opposed: 0 7. CB-90-7 Violation: Section 301, South Florida Building Code Construction w/o a permit Location: 6865 SW 64 Street Owner: Marie D. Valenti w Richard Adams , Co-counsel for Ms. Valenti signed in. Mr. Artigas reviewed the case history, stating that this violation has been running since April 2 , 1990 without compliance e. Ms. Valenti was denied a variance by the City Commission on July 30, 1990 to keep the addition which she had built into the setback and without a permit, in violation of the South Florida Building and South Miami Zoning Codes. Later, her attorney contacted the City stating that Ms. Valenti wanted to reach an accommodation with the City. Nothing has been done to reach compliance, so the property is still in violation as of this date. Ms. Valenti and her representatives presented the same information which had been submitted to the City at different times, none of which had been accepted as justification for not complying with City Code. Mr. Adams stated that, in his opinion, Ms. Valenti's appearance before this Board is premature inasmuch as there has not been proper notification. Ms. Valenti was denied a variance by the Commission and had requested an appeal. Mr. Adams stated that Ms. Valenti has received no answer to her request from the City. He, further, cited City Code which, in his opinion, allows all pending action against Ms. Valenti to stop until her appeal is heard. Mr. Basu stated that this hearing is to address the red tag and has nothing to do with the variance request. City Attorney Berg disagreed with Mr. Adams in his stated interpretation of City Code dealing with appeals. Mr. Berg stated that this variance request was heard by the Commission which does not sit to review its own decisions. In effect, the appearance before the Commission was an appeal because a variance, prior to coming to the City Commission goes to Planning. Planning makes a recommendation to approve or deny and then that decision goes to the City Commission. The reason Ms. Valenti received no reply to her request for appeal is there is no basis upon which the City Commission can sit to review itself. The only recourse at this point would be court. The City CEB Agenda 4 1-10-91 V Commission does not re-hear its own decisions. Today Is matter deals only with the violation, if, in fact there is a violation in the opinion of this Board. No fines have been paid as of this date. No effort has been made to comply with Code to this date either. Rev. Orjuna made a motion to find this case to be in violation of encroachment and imposes a fine self executing of $75.00 per day beginning 02-15-91, running until compliance is met. Seconded by Ms. Glover. Vote: Approved: 5 Opposed: 0 8. CB-90-8 Violation: Section 301, South Florida Building Code Construction w/o a permit Location: 6761 SW 78 Terrace Owner: David & Toril Farrar Mr. Farrar signed in. Mr. Artigas reviewed the case history. ERPB approval has been received. The permit has been prepared and is ready to be picked up. No lines have been paid. He does not want to pay the administrative fee and does not recognize the violation so believes there should be no fine. Mr. Basu made a motion that the violation be corrected by 02-22-91 or a self executing fine of $15.00 per day will be imposed beginning on 02-23-91, running until compliance is met. Second by Ms. Glover. Vote: Approved: 5 Opposed: 0 9. CB-90-060 Violation: Section 20-3.1, South Miami Code of Ordinances, Renting rooms in a single family residential district. Location: 6845 SW 64 Street Owner: Arlyne Bookbinder This item is now in compliance. 10. CB-90-10 CEB Agenda 5 1-10-91 Marie Valenti Arlyne Bookbinder M. Gutierrez,Jr. 6865 SW 64 St 6845 SW 64 St 6790 SW 65 St S Miami, F1 33143 S Miami , Fl 33143 S Miami, Fl 33143 Larry Ashley M & M Hoskins Eleanor Amos 6830 SW 65 St 6505 SW 69 Ave 6890 Hardee Dr S Miami , Fl 33143 S Miami , Fl 33143 S Miami, Fl 33143 H Stratt/E Smith M & M Griffiths M & M Fogarty 6800 SW 64 St 6776 SW 64 St 492 NW 98 Ct S Miami, F1 33143 S Miami, F1 33143 Miami, Fl 33172 P R Shaw L Kathis Jr M & M Bilar 6905 SW 64 St 6340 SW 69 AVE 6300 SW 69 Ave S- Miami ,. F1 33143 S Miami , Fl 33143 S Miami , Fl 33143 M & M Fleischer M & M Bethards M & M Gallardo 6250 SW 69 Ave 6845 SW 62 Terr 6825 SW 62 Terr S Miami , Fl 33143 S Miami, Fl 33143 S Miami, F1 33143 M & M O'Keefe M & M Snipes M & M Kirtland 6785 SW 62 Terr 6771 SW 62 Terr 6765 SW 62 Terr S Miami, Fl 33143 S Miami , Fl 33143 S Miami, Fl 33143 M & M Gutierrez M & M Santiesteban M & M Smith 6761 SW 62 Terr 6840 SW 62 Terr 6820 SW 62 Terr S Miami , F1 33143 S Miami, F1 33143 S Miami, F1 33143 M & M Minison M & M Kleinman M & M Weintraub 6780 SW 62 Terr 6770 SW 62 Terr 6760 SW 62 Terr S Miami , Fl 33143 S Miami, F1 33143 S Miami, F1 33143 M & M Bosshardt M & M Hughes D & V Sheets 6771 SW 63 St 6781 SW 63 St 6791 SW 63 St S Miami, Fl 33143 S Miami, Fl 33143 S Miami, F1 33143 M & M Diaz Corso\Ellison - M & M McNamara 6815 SW 63 St 6835 SW 63 St 6855 SW 63 St S Miami , Fl 33143 S Miami, F1 33143 S Miami, Fl 33143 M & M Taft Garces/Megna M & M McMullan 6860 SW 63 St 6800 SW 63 St 6790 SW 63 St S Miami, Fl 33143 S Miami , Fl 33143 S Miami, Fl 33143 1'' M & M Deravakian Bethea/Coleman M & M Quinn 6780 SW 63 St 6770 SW 63 St 6765 SW 64 St S Miami , F1 33143 S Miami , F1 33143 S Miami , Fl 33143 G Barthel M & M Young M & M Gressman 6775 SW 64 St 6825 SW 64 St 6355 SW 69 Ave S Miami , Fl 33143 S Miami, F1 33143 S Miami, F1 33143 M & M Gressman M & M Booth M & M Van Hoff 6325 SW 69 Ave 6275 SW 69 Ave 6280 SW 68 Ct S Miami , Fl 33143 S Miami, F1 33143 S Miami, Fl 33143 M & M Bonner M & M Buzzi Enriquez Family 6310 SW 68 Ct 6875 Hardee Dr 6899 SW 62 Terr S Miami, F1 33143 S Miami, F1 33143 S Miami , F1 33143 Planning Director M & M Munoz Medina/Montero Metro Dade Planning 6245 SW 69 Ave 6225 SW 69 Ave 111 NW 1st St #1220 S Miami, F1 33143 S Miami, F1 33143 Miami , F1 33128 M & M Rosenthal M & M Shuffield 6220 SW 69 Ave 6240 SW 69 Ave S Miami , F1 33143 S Miami , Fl 33143 IR10-001 CITY OF SOUTH MIEi11I FOLIO NUMBER: 09-4026-024-0300 BD BT HB BUILT ADJ SQFTG SALE\SQFT AVR 6865 SW 64 ST 3 2 0 1965 2,547 54.96 ' . 35 OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS W G V FLR CONSTRUCT ZONING CLUC LV SQFT MI TT Tr1T TT 1 /� /1 TT 11 1 n1 � r1A IE D VHLENTI i CBS-POURED G1 - RS-3 vi N H 6865 SW 64 ST L E G A L D E S C R I P T 1 G N MIAMI FL 26 54 40 33143 TRANQUILITY ESTATES PB 78-64 SIZE LOT TYPE /VIII n 1"fT rr 'I LOT ���� AND Lv� 1xPE Lv� ti 119 X 122 FT LOT SIZE 119 . 000 X 122 TT r1t T TTT TTT /I LAND T SSESD MLEIT T PER P.QFT1 YEAR TAXES S V Fr T srlHiC B�J1LL1131i LAi�D HJJLIJJPlrlrjt rrlR air-t sr,AR -1HAE.7 D T� r 1 . 3 2 n 1 28 nn 1 r 0 j ltiai oa ,00G J9 ,6GG iG3 ,Ga4 ay 41114. 21 IL G.a� Fa T TT 'E S !ITT T T T TTT a TTT T T F E Im 1 u R L a JHLLI LATr, AMGUa t tia u l s Pn 002 CENT 'm/ TRACT DEC. 1989 '4^0,000 1 034 C-L FENCE 4 FT. JUL. 1985 121,200 ' 135 WALL ORNjBLK SEP. 1983 ''9,000 ' MGR1GAGE CGiirtill I AMGLri31 DATE F /T7 j C TYPE RA'V'E LGAPv idLfiiBER NCNB MORTGAGE CGRPORAT `,90 ,GGi- '22789 CON FIXED IT/I SELLERS 23AiiE SLUG -HOMESTEAD PHGi3E UNITS 1BD 2BDS 3BDS EFF. JOSEPH GONZALEZ &W LISANDR 01 25,0000 — 1 0 0 0 ^0 ENT=NEXT F2=111^ O F4=TAXES F5=LEGAL F7=BLDG DIMENSIGNS F6 = COMPS MENU F8=FEATURES\RATES F9=BACK F'G=HELP IR'0 RECENT DEED/MTG PRESENT - F1=VIEW ISC READY IR'n0-092 I S C N E T D E E D i i3 F O R M A T I O N _ FOLIO NUMBER 09 — 40026 — 024 — 03000 ADDRESS 6865 SW 64 ST RECORDING RECORDING CLERK'S FILE RECORDING DEED DEED BOOK PAGE YR NUMBER DATE DATE TYPE 14376 2995 89 R 471508 122889 122789 W_ Li U Y E R I N F G R M A T I G N HSBAND'S FIRST Mi LAST WIFES 'ST ru U CORPORATE NAME 'ST MARIE M D LAST VALENTI 'ST M LAST 'ST M LAST 1ST LASri1� 1ST M LAST 1ST ii LA51 S E L L E R i iv r O R M A T I v i3 '. JOSEPH GONZALEZ &TiN' LISA ivDRA 2. 3 . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. DOC. STAMPS SALE AMOUNT 770. 000 i.4n0 ,00G L A W Y E R R E M A R K S IT Tn - TTTVT / T TTT - TTTT T - MAIN MEN T1 �I - -I-IT --- EIvTERjr 9 - aZA.L�RrTUxiv F1G - rirlLP r 1' - riAIIti i�iEiVO r 1G - 0 Iun urr IR10 ISC READY IR10-0072 I S C N E T 04%004/900 ROOM DILMENSIG114 r GR ESTiMATiG1J Gr LIVING V IIMU SQUARE FvGTAGE i yr i rOLI^v NUMBER: 009-4026-024-0300 ADDRESS: 6865 SW 64 ST TTTT TT1 T (1lT T 1 T1 T.l TT.I T / F ' CT m`.T l'. fTG BU1LLING RATE -1GTAL AREA AREA 1 AREA 2 FA�tl rACTZ rA.�t3 tiuu D Q -1u Oi 001 2,547 10 .00 254 .70 1 .000 i .00 1 .00 2,547 / T P. !1 T.l /� /> PDT S T. G 2 A'9 TS1'1'7 S) G T / uicGSD StQr TG N�ri Ift u D Qr Tv ,5 i Za 1 LIVING �QFTu ivy A iR10 ALL BUILDING DIi�fEiti'D-L D DISPLAYED - r9 = EliIT ISC READY 2 z 1 1.� 1- , - E _ Il, r'Li II, cFI_, � Eh;GlPti��7 r. i;`: ti F' "i .l t MARTIN DAVID BERG, P .A. Attorney At Law 19 nest Flayler street Suite 802, Biscayne Bldg . Miami, Florida 33130 ( 305) 371-1631 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION i PLEahSE CALL ( 305 ) 371 ° 1631 IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE THE FOLLOWING. TRANSMISSION IN ITS ENTIRETY OR IF YOU WISH TO SEND A TRANSMISSION . Date March 12, 1991. To Sonia Lama Director, Bldg. Zoning City of South Miami Pax number called ( 305 ) 663 6353 Pages ( including this cover sheet ) a two Reference Marie Valenti - Code Enforceme nt Board Instructions/Cowmente Attached is a proposed response regarding the captioned matter . Please review and advise if any changes are needed/desireable . 1 8 9 1-0; - -,�';: C'2 r' '1 C� L- ...- i i_�� ;;r�r, r n _ 1 c _ L F'_ __ i 4 v 1 i_. ri F, 0 i:;4 P(j'c March 12, 1991 Richard J . Adams, Jr , , Esquire Jorge L . De La Osa, P .A. 4960 S .W. 72 Avenue Suite 403 Miami , Florida 33155 Re : Marie Valenti - Code Enforcement Board) Dear Mr . Adams : Code Enforcement officer. David Walker has forwarded me your 'letter dated March 1, 1991, received March 11, 1991 by the Buiid?ng, Zoning and Community Development Department of City of South MU' mi , regarding the captioned appearance on February 14 , 1991 , The code Enforcement, Board doe- riot agree that the building permit was wrongfully denied or that It is without authority to acceus a Penalty for not having obtained a permit . . A permit is available upon the same terms as it is to all other citizens . It is not available to any citizen when the requested construction would be in violation of city Building ordinances , Thee are no appeals of the Code Enforcement Board 's decision before the Code Enforcement Board . As indicated at that meeting, any further action would be through the Court :-,ystem. Very truly yours, MARTIN DAVID BERG MDB/vlz cc : Building, Zoning and Community Development 3 Jo us i _- 14 i L IT ILE -�A 2 E - (6o I) SSUTH MIA M/ FIELD I 4 �_� � • SYV (o/sl cos wos �S S �8 9'( 10 4" ,1w 6Z 3' S 3 4 3 RD 1 12 2 -- (,3 Tce 2 3 14 2 ? 8 3 ' ' Au TRACT 13 TRACT 14 TRA T IS Z 6 fls\h s qs e 3 -` -s 2 TRACT 12 TRACT II TRAC T I T R A C T 9 1 rce TR_N\AC T $ TRACT 6� TRACT 7 I TRA C T 8 V O MAILIN (P Armp, APPLICANT: >• VAS. e W 1 OWNER: s MAP REFERENCE : & S(OC S. v ST Compass COMENTS : V>AR AN CC Fe-AX Se r" SAC14- Sca le �s shown. . Date5 lo.- Gld. . Drn .W M . .Chk . . . . . CITY Y O1: MU u MIAMI PLANNING BOA RD Hearing No.%. !0*01 t 7 I� � •- •. :,r •4t••i'r •'� •j �#•`� N.:.i''•�7`1\ �� t �f�•��r�^Zy r sTti L .T�. wy � ,� .�J a�. �'' �,.•• ice .1.•91 __.. "'"?' '"'" ��`� .�; �'' +'�'` �I A` E �> tat h �� *s } a i l► ► L 1 Y 1 ;' t; fit' = n• 11 1 //���[} � • • ,.. Y z" It i Af lY •� ri ".r.r 1 1r.,�/,j • ' ,.. •.�I• r,1, �..• t•,C ♦ *° :"lj` Q ='�` �t '' •,•; - s f �_3T �4`� 't n� �ryl� � ' , I I' ! �• �,. � •' � tl l�'"•�r� ~� ; � ... .'SI N fir• 1 �•I _.. • +•. ( I i .�_... Nt.' Kew ' I i I ' t t l t r h • , Otis s•r 41" ~� ' 66 46 —. - r ` t 1 r + COW l F. ►i•��i�I4;i:��t;f+�'i1P Pin ' ' * of �y., ri �M� ► isl4 �tl� � 1