The URL can be used to link to this page

Res No 153-19-15425RESOLUTION NO. 153-19-15425 A Resolution relating to a Variance application to increase the maximum building coverage requirement for a single-family residential building located at 5800-5820 SW 87 Street. WHEREAS, Mr. Scott Fuhrman submitted an application (number PB-19-012) requesting a variance from Section 20-3.5H of the Land Development Code (LDC) to construct an addition onto an existing two-story single-family residential structure within the RS-3 Zoning District at 5800-5820 SW 87 Street; and WHEREAS the variance request is to allow a maximum building coverage of approximately 25.40% (9,734 SF), where a maximum of 20.4% (7,817 SF) is permitted; and WHEREAS, the approval of a variance requires a review by the Planning Board and a recommendation to approve, deny or approve with conditions, as well as the approval of the City Commission after a public hearing; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2019, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the application request, considered each of the criteria listed in Section 20-5.9 of the LDC and voted on the variance request; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board recommended approval by a vote of four (4) ayes to one (1) nay on the variance request with the condition that the Building Coverage request be reduced so that it only includes the breezeway; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami, having considered each of the variance criterion listed in Section 20-5.9 of the LDC and having found that those conditions have been met, desire to approve the variance applications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The recitals set forth in this resolution are true and they are supported by competent substantial evidence and they are incorporated into this resolution by reference as if set forth in full herein. Section 2. The variance request listed in the application (number PB-19-012) submitted by Mr. Scott Fuhrman to allow a maximum building coverage of approximately 25.40% (9,734 square feet), where a maximum of 20.4% (7,817 square feet) is permitted within the RS-3 zoning district to allow the construction of an addition to an existing two-story single-family residential structure located at 5800-5820 SW 87 Street, South Miami, Florida is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant record a Unity of Title on the two properties; Page 1 of 3 Resolution No. 153-19-15425 2. The project shall be reviewed by the Environmental Review & Preservation Board; 3. Compliance with the minimum landscape requirements for two-story single-family residential properties listed in Section 20-3.5(H)(C)(8) of the Land Development Code; 4. Compliance with the minimum landscape requirements listed in Section 20-4.5(F) of the Land Development Code; 5. Compliance with the minimum street tree requirements listed in Section 20-4.5.1(0) of the Land Development Code; 6. The applicant shall execute a covenant provided by the City in a form approve by the City Attorney to ensure that all construction or change of use are in substantial accordance with the approved plans and all of the conditions set forth in this section, as determined in the sole and absolute opinion of the City's Planning and Zoning Director and to provide for the maintenance of the street trees and right-of-way landscaping subsequent to planting; and 7. A tree removal permit shall be filed for the removal and/or relocation of any tree on the site. A tree removal permit shall also be filed for the pruning or trimming of more than one-third (1/3) of the canopy of any tree on the site. Section 3. The approval of the requested variance includes, as an Exhibit to the Application, the architectural plans signed and sealed by Hector C. Fernandez, dated October 24, 2019 for the proposed addition to the existing two-story single-family residential structure located at 5800-5820 SW 87 Street which is incorporated herein by reference. The approval of the variance is subject to and conditioned upon the project being built in substantial compliance with the plans submitted with this application as determined by the Planning and Zoning Director in the Director's sole discretion. Section 4. Corrections. Conforming language or technical scrivener -type corrections may be made by the City Attorney for any conforming amendments to be incorporated into the final product for signature. Section 5. Severability. If any section clause, sentence, or phrase of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, the holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution. Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th, day of November , 2019. ATTEST: V ekA CITY tLERK Page 2 of 3 Resolution No. 153-19-15425 READ AND t(1''PROVED AS TO FORM, COMMISSION VOTE: LEGALITY A D THEREOF N� Mayor Stoddard: Vice -Mayor Harris: Commissioner Gil: Commissioner Liebman: Commissioner Welsh: 5-0 Yea Yea Yea Yea Yea Page 3 of 3 Agenda Item No:7. City Commission Agenda item Report Meeting Date: November 19, 2019 Submitted by: Marcus Lightfoot Submitting Department: Planning & Zoning Department Item Type: Resolution Agenda Section: Subject: A Resolution relating to a Variance application to increase the maximum building coverage requirement for a single-family residential building located at 5800-5820 SW 87 Street. 4/5 (City Manager -Planning Dept.) Suggested Action: Attachments: 5800-5820 SW 87 street CM Memo - JKTVersion.docx 1._Reso_re_1of6 variances_5800-5820 SW_87 St_CArev-BuiIding_CoverageCArev(3).docx Revised Variance LOI Fuhrman 10.25.19 mh.pdf PB-19-012 - Backup Documents.pdf Sunbiz - 5765 SOMI LLC.pdf PB-19-012 - Final PB Regular Meeting Minutes Excerpt - 09-10-2019.pdf FUHRMAN_CITY COMMISSION SET 19-10-24 24x36 - COVERSHEET.pdf FUHRMAN_CITY COMMISSION_SET 19-10-24 24x36 - SURVEY.pdf FUHRMAN_CITY COMMISSION SET 19-10-24 24x36 - SHEET A-01.pdf FURHMAN_CITY COMMISSION_SET 19-10-24 24X36 - SHEET A-02.pdf FUHRMAN_CITY COMMISSION_SET 19-10-24 24x36 - SHEET A-04.pdf FUHRMAN_CITY COMMISSION SET 19-10-24 24x36 - SHEETA-05.pdf FUHRMAN_CITY COMMISSION SET 19-10-24 24x36 - SHEET L-1.2.pdf FUHRMAN_CITY COMMISSION_SET 19-10-24 24x36 - SHEET L-2.0.pdf MDBR Ad. pdf CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI South Miami OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER ,, „f "[;1ti %1 :1%11., INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: The Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Commission VIA: Steven Alexander, City Manager FROM: Jane K. Tompkins, Planning and Zoning Director Date: November 19, 2019 SUBJECT: A. A Resolution relating to a Variance application to increase the maximum building coverage requirement for a single-family residential building located at 5800-5820 SW 87 Street. B. A Resolution relating to a Variance application to increase the maximum impervious coverage requirement for a single-family residential building located at 5800-5820 SW 87 Street. C. A Resolution relating to a Variance application to reduce the minimum side street setback requirement for a single-family residential building located at 5800-5820 SW 87 Street. D. A Resolution relating to a Variance application to reduce the minimum cumulative yard setback requirement for a single-family residential building located at 5800-5820 SW 87 Street. E. A Resolution relating to a Variance application to reduce the minimum setback requirement for concrete slabs for a single-family residential building located at 5800-5820 SW 87 Street. F. A Resolution relating to a Variance application to increase the physical barrier height limit for a single-family residential building located at 5800-5820 SW 87 Street. BACKGROUND: Mr. Scott Fuhrman, the applicant and owner of both 5800 SW 87th Street and 5820 SW 87th Street, is developing plans to make improvements so that they function as one (1) single-family home. To accomplish this, Mr. Fuhrman is requesting a series of variances so that the structures, once combined, will comply with the dimensional requirements for the RS-3 zoning district. REQUEST: Six (6) variances are requested to allow the plans for the combined property to comply with the dimensional requirements for the RS-3 zoning district. The variances, as requested, are as follows: 2 5800-5820 SW 87 Street — Request for Approval of Variance Requests November 19, 2019 Page 2 of 14 A. Variance to allow a maximum building coverage of approximately 25.40%, where a maximum of 20.4% is permitted; B. Variance to allow a maximum impervious coverage of approximately 47.6% where a maximum of 30.4% is permitted; C. Variance to allow an east side street setback of fifteen (15) feet, where a minimum side street setback of twenty (20) feet is required; D. Variance to allow a cumulative yard setback of twenty-five (25) feet, where a cumulative yard setback of 41.04 feet is required; E. Variance to allow a concrete slab setback of zero (0) feet, where a minimum concrete slab setback of five (5) feet is required. F. Variance to allow a physical barrier at the side street and front yard at the N.E. corner where 100% of the physical barrier is 4' to 6' high, where the Code permits 60% between 4' to 6' high; and ANALYSIS: Located in the RS-3 zoning district, the applicant is proposing to unify the existing single-family structures on the two (2) lots and perform various renovations to the site. In order to accomplish the goals of the project, the applicant is proposing to combine the properties together using the Unity of Title process. The Unity of Title process is a separate application and not a part of this request. Once combined, the property will have a lot size of approximately 38,319 square feet, which exceeds the minimum lot size requirement for the RS-3 zoning district. Because the structure on 5820 is a two-story single-family residence, the unified structure must follow the dimensional requirements for two-story single-family residential structures listed in Section 20-3.5(H) of the Land Development Code (LDC) once combined. Rounding the lot size to 39,000 square feet as required, the combined property will be subject to the following standards: Table 1: New Two -Story Single -Family Residential and Second Story Additions Percentage Requirements for Maximum Building Coverage, Impervious Coverage, and FAR Lot Size (Square Feet) Maximum Building Coverage Maximum Impervious Coverage Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 39,000 .204 .304 .306 The applicant's intent is to make improvements to the properties that allow them to function as one building site. Both properties are currently developed with a single-family residence and 3 JKT/MWL C:\Users\EASYPD-1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@3805CD35\@BCL@3805CD35.doa 4. 5800-5820 SW 87 Street — Request for Approval of Variance Requests November 19, 2019 Page 3 of 14 customary amenities. Included in the planned improvements are a breezeway connecting the two houses, renovations to the house on 5800 SW 87th Street (so that it won't remain as a second single-family structure on the property), a redesign of the driveway so it serves both properties, and additional landscaping and walkways. The proposed improvements are shown on the Proposed Site Plan, sheet A-04 (attached). Review Criteria: Section 20-5.9 of the (LDC), Variance approvals, provides the standards against which applications must be reviewed. More specifically, Section 20-5.9(H) provides that variance approvals shall be based on an affirmative finding as to each of five (5) criteria. The applicant has provided his opinion of how the criteria are satisfied in the Letter of Intent included in the Application Package. The following is staffs analysis of each request: A. BUILDING COVERAGE VARIANCE Once unified, the applicant is proposing to renovate the existing structures. This includes a revision to the existing covered terrace attached to 5800 and the addition of a new covered terrace at the rear of the 5800 structure. Based on table 1 above, the maximum building coverage allowed for the site is as follows: Table 2: Building Coverage Lot Size Maximum Existing Building Proposed (SF) Building Coverage Coverage Building Coverage (SF) (SF) (SF) 38,319 7,817 (20.4%) 8,059 (21%) 9,734 (25.40%) Based on table 2 above, the existing building coverage exceeds the maximum and the proposed renovations will further exceed the maximum allowed by 5%. Accordingly, the applicant has requested a variance for building coverage. Pursuant to Section 20-5.9(H) of the LDC, all variance decisions shall be based on an affirmative finding as to each of the following criterion: 1. The variance is necessary to relieve particular extraordinary conditions relating to a specific property; Once the property is unified, the existing structure will have a building coverage of approximately 8,059 square feet, which exceeds the maximum permitted by approximately 242 square feet, making it a nonconforming structure. The applicant is proposing to add both a breezeway that will combine the homes and new covered terraces. By doing so, the applicant is proposing to increase the nonconformity that will be created once the lots are combined. Because the situation could easily arise when two lots are joined, it cannot be said that the extraordinary condition relates to a specific property. 4 1KT/MWL C:\Users\EASYPD-1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@3805CD35\@BCL@3805CD35.docx 5800-5820 SW 87 Street — Request for Approval of Variance Requests November 19, 2019 Page 4 of 14 2. Denial of the variance would result in hardship to the owner. Hardship results if the restriction of the zoning ordinance, when applied to a particular property, becomes arbitrary, confiscatory or unduly oppressive because of conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties under similar zoning restrictions; If the variance submitted was for the minimum necessary, a denial would result in hardship to the owner. However, because the applicant is proposing to increase the nonconformity, a denial would not result in hardship. The applicant could have requested a variance that included a smaller connection between the two (2) structures or omitted one of the three (3) covered terraces at the rear of the unified structure. 3. The extraordinary conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; Prior to the unification of the property, both sites complied with their respective dimensional requirements outlined in the LDC. The extraordinary conditions were created when the applicant elected to unify the two (2) sites. The applicant further increased the extraordinary conditions of the site by proposing the various additions. 4. The requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure; Because the unified structure will be a non -conforming structure once combined, the minimum variance necessary would be the square footage necessary to bring the property into compliance. Because the applicant is increasing the nonconformity by proposing various additions, the requested variance is not the minimum variance necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. S. That the approval of the variance will be in consistent with the general intent and purpose of the land Development Code and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Approval of the requested increase in building coverage for the site would not be consistent with the general intent and purpose of the two-story dimensional requirements listed in the LDC. The purpose of this section of the LDC is to establish special dimensional requirements and performance standards in order to regulate two-story single-family structures and two-story additions within the RS-3 zoning district. Essentially, the purpose of the section is to regulate the size of two-story single-family residential structures that are built in the City. By approving a larger building coverage than what is allowed, the larger home would be disruptive to the character and visual harmony of the neighborhood. B. Impervious Coverage Variance As part of the project, the applicant is proposing to renovate the unified site with additional impervious surfaces. Prior to appearing before the Planning Board at its September 10, 2019 meeting, the project included a large number of granular surfaces in addition to the 5 JKT/MWL C:\Users\EASYPD-1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@3805CD35\@BCL@3805CD35.dooc ., 5800-SS20 SW 87 Street — Request for Approval of Variance Requests November 19, 2019 Page 5of14 proposed additions. Based on recommendations from the Planning Board, the applicant revised the plans to reduce the amount of impervious coverage proposed for the site. Based on table 1 above, the maximum impervious coverage allowed for the site is as follows: Table 3: Impervious Coverage Lot Size Maximum Existing Impervious Proposed (Square Feet) Impervious Coverage Coverage (SF) Impervious Coverage (SF) (SF) 38,319 11,649 (30.4 .) 12,667 (33%) 18,255 (47.6%) Based on table 3 above, the existing improvements exceed the maximum impervious coverage standard, and the proposed improvements will further exceed the maximum allowed by 17.2%. Because of the increase in impervious coverage, the applicant has requested a variance for impervious coverage. Pursuant to Section 20-5.9(H) of the LDC, all variance decisions shall be based on an affirmative finding as to each of the following criterion: 1. The variance is necessary to relieve particular extraordinary conditions relating to a specific property; Once the property is unified, the existing unified structure will have an impervious coverage of approximately 12,667 square feet, which exceeds the maximum permitted by approximately 1,018 square feet, making it a nonconforming site. The applicant is proposing to add approximately 5,588 square feet of impervious surface to the site, which would increase the nonconformity. Because the situation could easily arise when two lots are joined, it cannot be said that the extraordinary condition relates to a specific property. 2. Denial of the variance would result in hardship to the owner. Hardship results if the restriction of the zoning ordinance, when applied to a particular property, becomes arbitrary, confiscatory or unduly oppressive because of conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties under similar zoning restrictions; If the variance submitted was for the minimum necessary, a denial would result in hardship to the owner. However, because the applicant is proposing to increase the nonconformity, a denial would not result in hardship. 3. The extraordinary conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; Prior to the unification of the property, both sites complied with their respective dimensional requirements outlined in the LDC. The extraordinary conditions were created when the applicant elected to unify the two (2) sites. The applicant further increased the extraordinary conditions of the site by proposing the additional 0 JKT/MWL C:\Users\EASYPD-1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@3805CD35\@BCL@3805CD35.doac 5800-5820 SW 87 Street — Request for Approval of Variance Requests November 19, 2019 Page 6 of 14 impervious surfaces. Because of that, the extraordinary conditions and circumstances result from the actions of the applicant. 4. The requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure; Because the unified site will be a nonconforming site once combined prior to the addition of the connecting breezeway, the minimum variance necessary would be the square footage necessary to bring the property into compliance. As the applicant is increasing the nonconformity by proposing additional impervious surfaces, the requested variance is not the minimum variance necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. S. That the approval of the variance will be in consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Land Development Code and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Approval of the requested increase to the impervious coverage for the site could be inconsistent with the general intent and purpose of the LDC. The impervious coverage regulations established in the LDC aid in preventing water runoff to both the neighboring properties and the right-of-way as well. The regulations also aid in the prevention of excessive impervious surfaces on the site that could create a heat island for the surrounding area. The regulations are also support the planting of trees and other landscaping that offers other environmental benefits. For these reasons alone, the proposed variance could be injurious to the neighborhood. In addition, the applicant is proposing that approximately 2,579.1 SF (51.6%) of the front setback area (4,996 SF) will consist of green area where the existing Front Yard Green Area is 4,141 SF (83%). Once the renovations are complete, the front yard green area will be reduced by approximately 1,561.9 SF which is due to the increase in impervious coverage in the front yard setback area. This would be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. C. East Side Street Setback Variance The applicant is proposing to construct a covered terrace at the rear of the unified structure along the side street side of the property. Because the existing structure has an existing side street setback of fifteen (15) feet, the applicant is proposing to place the terrace fifteen (15) feet away from the property line and make it flush with the house. On September 20, 2016, the City Commission adopted Ordinance #23-16-2256, effectively increasing the side street setback to twenty (20) feet for properties in the RS-3 zoning district. Any single-family structure built with an approved building permit prior to that date was grandfathered in and any new construction would need to comply with the new regulations. Because the LDC requires that the proposed covered terrace be placed a minimum of twenty (20) feet away from the side street, the applicant has requested a variance to reduce the side street setback requirement for the property. Pursuant to Section 20-5.9(H) of the LDC, all variance decisions shall be based on an affirmative finding as to each of the following criterion: VA JKT/MWL C:\Users\EASYPD-1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@3805CD35\@BCL@3805CD35.doa 5800-5820 SW 87 Street — Request for Approval of Variance Requests November 19, 2019 Page 7 of 14 1. The variance is necessary to relieve particular extraordinary conditions relating to a specific property; The applicant is requesting approval to place the covered terrace five (5) feet closer to the property line than what is required. If the variance were to be denied, the terrace would have to be repositioned so that it is the correct distance away from the property line. If the lot were the minimum size for the district, repositioning of the terrace might be difficult to do. Because the size of the unified site will be significantly larger than the typical RS-3 zoned lot, there are no particular extraordinary conditions to relieve. The site is large enough to accommodate the placement of the terrace at the correct setback. Because of that, the variance is not necessary. 2. Denial of the variance would result in hardship to the owner. Hardship results if the restriction of the zoning ordinance, when applied to a particular property, becomes arbitrary, confiscatory or unduly oppressive because of conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties under similar zoning restrictions; Because of the size of the unified lot, a denial of the variance would not result in a hardship to the owner. The terrace could be repositioned so that it complies with the LDC requirements with little to no issue. 3. The extraordinary conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; Because the applicant is proposing to make the terrace flush with the existing house, the extraordinary conditions created are solely from the actions of the applicant. 4. The requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure; Because of the size of the lot, the terrace can be placed at a location that complies with the LDC setback requirements and provides the applicant full use of the land, building or structure. Because of that, the requested variance is not the minimum variance necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. S. That the approval of the variance will be in consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Land Development Code and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Approval of the requested decrease in the side street setback requirement for the site would not be consistent with the general intent and purpose of two-story dimensional requirements of the LDC. The purpose of the section is to regulate the size of two-story single-family residential structures that are built in the City. By approving a smaller setback than what is required, it is essentially allowing a larger home to be built than what would normally be permitted. A larger home can be seen as out of character with and obtrusive to neighboring properties. :, JKT/MWL C:\Users\EASYPD—i\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@3805CD35\@BCL@3805CD35.docx 5800-5820 SW 87 Street — Request for Approval of Variance Requests November 19, 2019 Page 8 of 14 D. Cumulative Yard Setback Variance The applicant wishes to unify two (2) separate lots with two (2) separate single family structures and combine those two (2) structures into one (1) unified structure. This proposal, however, will not meet the minimum cumulative yard setback required for the site. Pursuant to Section 20-3.5(H) of the LDC, the cumulative width of both side yards shall be not less than 20 percent of total lot width. Because of that, the applicant has requested a variance to reduce the cumulative yard setback requirement for the property. Pursuant to Section 20-5.9(H) of the LDC, all variance decisions shall be based on an affirmative finding as to each of the following criterion: 1. The variance is necessary to relieve particular extraordinary conditions relating to a specific property; Once the property is unified, the existing unified structure will have a cumulative yard setback of twenty-five (25) feet where a minimum of 41.04 feet is required. Unless portions of the building are demolished to meet the minimum setbacks required for a lot of this size, the only other option would be for the applicant to request a variance, making it necessary to relieve particular extraordinary conditions relating to the specific property. 2. Denial of the variance would result in hardship to the owner. Hardship results if the restriction of the zoning ordinance, when applied to a particular property, becomes arbitrary, confiscatory or unduly oppressive because of conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties under similar zoning restrictions; A hardship must be inherent in the land and not be based on the people involved or the circumstances in which they find themselves. By unifying the lots, the applicant has elected to take two (2) legal conforming sites, combine them, and make them nonconforming thereby creating a self-imposed hardship. While a denial of the variance would prevent the applicant from unifying the two (2) properties, it wouldn't deny him the use of the property. He would still be permitted to build on the two (2) individual lots as long as the renovations follow the respective dimensional requirements outlined in the LDC. Because of that, a denial of the variance would not result in a hardship to the owner. 3. The extraordinary conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; Prior to the unification of the property, both sites complied with their respective setback requirements outlined in the LDC. The extraordinary conditions are created when the applicant elected to unify the two (2) sites. Because of that, the extraordinary conditions and circumstances result from the actions of the applicant. 0 JKT/MWL C.\Users\EASYPD-1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Tech nologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@3805CD35\@BCL@3805CD35.doa 5800-5820 SW 87 Street — Request for Approval of Variance Requests November 19, 2019 Page 9 of 14 4. The requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure; Because of the placement of the existing structures, the unified structure will have an existing side interior setback of ten (10) feet and an existing side street setback of fifteen (15) feet and a cumulative side yard setback of twenty-five (25) feet. When the sites are unified the minimum required will be 41.04 feet. The applicant is not proposing a change to the side setbacks for the site; because of that, the requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. S. That the approval of the variance will be in consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Land Development Code and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Approval of the requested decrease in the cumulative setback requirement for the site would not be consistent with the general intent and purpose of two-story dimensional requirements of the LDC. The purpose of this section of the LDC is to establish special dimensional requirements and performance standards in order to regulate two-story single-family structures and two-story additions within the RS-3 zoning district. The purpose of the section is to regulate the size of two-story single-family residential structures that are built in the City. By approving a smaller setback than what is required, it is essentially allowing a larger home to be built than what would normally be permitted. A larger home may be obtrusive to and out of character with neighboring properties. E. Concrete Slab Setback Variance As part of the project, the applicant is proposing to construct a series of granular walkways throughout the site. Due to the placement of the existing structures, portions of the walkway do not meet the minimum setback required for impervious surfaces. Pursuant to Section 20- 3.6(B)(7) of the LDC, concrete slabs, A/C equipment and/or wood decks may project into required setbacks and extend up to five (5) feet from property lines. The applicant is proposing that the granular walkways have the following setbacks: • Side Interior Setback: 3'-1" • Side Street Side Setback: 0'-0" • Rear Setback: 0'-0" Because the LDC requires impervious surfaces to have a minimum setback of five (5) feet from the property line, the applicant has requested a variance to reduce the minimum concrete slab setback requirement for the property. Pursuant to Section 20-5.9(H) of the LDC, all variance decisions shall be based on an affirmative finding as to each of the following criterion: 10 JKT/MWL C:\Users\EASYPD-1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@3805CD35\@BCL@3805CD35.docx 5800-5820 SW 87 Street — Request for Approval of Variance Requests November 19, 2019 Page 10 of 14 1. The variance is necessary to relieve particular extraordinary conditions relating to a specific property; Granular walkways are not required by the LDC or needed for the use and enjoyment of the property; there is no extraordinary condition that needs to be relieved and the variance is not necessary. The applicant can lay sod or mulch in its place and still be able to safely traverse the subject lot. 2. Denial of the variance would result in hardship to the owner. Hardship results if the restriction of the zoning ordinance, when applied to a particular property, becomes arbitrary, confiscatory or unduly oppressive because of conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties under similar zoning restrictions; Because of the availability of other materials such as sod or mulch, denial of the variance would not result in a hardship to the owner. 3. The extraordinary conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; Because the applicant is proposing to place the granular walkway on portions of the site instead of sod or mulch, the extraordinary conditions created are solely from the actions of the applicant. 4. The requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure; Because the site can be easily traversed if sod or mulch were placed on the site, the requested variance is not the minimum variance necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. S. That the approval of the variance will be in consistent with the general intent and purpose of the land Development Code and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Approval of the variance would not be consistent with the general intent and purpose of the LDC and would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. F. Physical Barrier Variance Physical barriers such as fences and walls are regulated by Section 20-3.6(H)(2)(c) of the LDC: c. In the setback areas adjacent to a right-of-way, and along that portion of a rear setback area that is adjacent to the front yard of an adjoining property, fences, walls, trellises, gates and hedges shall not exceed four (4) feet in height above grade with the following exceptions: L Wooden fences exceeding four (4) feet in height adjacent to a right-of-way in required front setback areas shall provide for a minimum of sixty (60) 11 JKT/MWL C:\Users\EASYPD—i\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@3805CD35\@BCL@3805CD35.docx 5800-5820 SW 87 Street — Request for Approval of Variance Requests November 19, 2019 Page 11 of 14 percent open area for all portions between four (4) and six (6) feet in height above grade. The applicant is proposing to install six foot (6') high, solid, physical barriers along the property line adjacent to the SW 58th Avenue right-of-way and at the front of the property at the northeast corner. These barriers do not comply with the code section provided above and require a variance in order to be approved. In addition, since the Planning Board meeting, the applicant has added a six (6) foot high physical barrier (mural) in the east side setback to the rear of the house that is subject to these requirements and must obtain a variance. Pursuant to Section 20-5.9(H) of the LDC, all variance decisions shall be based on an affirmative finding as to each of the following criterion: L The variance is necessary to relieve particular extraordinary conditions relating to a specific property; The east property line is adjacent to a public right-of-way (SW 58th Avenue) that allows access to the canal that runs behind the property. Dante Fascell Park is across that right- of-way. Given the proximity of these public areas and the exposure of the rear yard, the variance would be necessary to relieve particular extraordinary conditions relating to the site. 2. Denial of the variance would result in hardship to the owner. Hardship results if the restriction of the zoning ordinance, when applied to a particular property, becomes arbitrary, confiscatory or unduly oppressive because of conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties under similar zoning restrictions; Because the applicant is choosing to construct physical barriers within both the front setback area and the side street setback area, the applicant is creating a self-imposed hardship. Consequently, denial of the variance would not create a hardship for the owner. He would still be allowed full use of the land and could resize or relocate the physical barriers so that they comply with the LDC. 3. The extraordinary conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; Because the applicant is proposing to build solid six (6) foot high physical barriers within both the front setback area and side street setback area instead of resizing or relocating them, the extraordinary conditions created are solely from the actions of the applicant. There are no extenuating circumstances that would prevent the owner from resizing or relocating the physical barriers on the site. 4. The requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure; 12 JKT/MWL C:\Users\EASYPD-1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@3805CD35\@BCL@3805CD35.docx 5800-5820 SW 87 Street — Request for Approval of Variance Requests November 19, 2019 Page 12 of 14 The construction of the physical barriers on the property that comply with the current regulations will not prevent the applicant from using the land, building, or structure. Consequently, the requested variance is not the minimum variance necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. S. That the approval of the variance will be in consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Land Development Code and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. While the approval of the variance will not be consistent with the general intent and purpose of the LDC, it would not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION: Planning Board item PB-19-012 was reviewed by the Planning Board at its September 10, 2019 meeting. At the meeting, the Board voted on each variance request individually. The results of each of those motions are listed below: A. Variance to allow a maximum building coverage of approximately 25.40%, where a maximum of 20.4% is permitted. The Planning Board recommended approval of the request, with the condition that the Building Coverage is reduced to only include the breezeway (4 to 1). While the plans were revised to address other concerns, the applicant did not reduce the proposed building coverage for the project. B. Variance to allow a maximum impervious coverage of approximately 47.6% where a maximum of 30.4% is permitted. The Planning Board recommended approval of the request, with the condition that the maximum impervious coverage be reduced so that it only includes the breezeway (4 to 1). While the plans have been revised, they do not fully accommodate the Board's recommendation. The applicant only removed a portion of the granular walkways on the site. The remaining renovations are still proposed for the site. C. Variance to allow an east side street setback of fifteen (15) feet, where a minimum side street setback of twenty (20) feet is required. The Planning Board unanimously recommended denial of the request. The applicant did not revise the plans to accommodate the Board's recommendation. D. Variance to allow a cumulative yard setback of twenty-five (25) feet, where a cumulative yard setback of 41.04 feet is required; The motion to approve the variance request was approved with a vote of 4 to 1. 13 JKT/MWL C:\Users\EASYPD-1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCLTechnologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@3805CD35\@BCL@3805CD35.doac 5800-5820 SW 87 Street — Request for Approval of Variance Requests November 19, 2019 Page 13 of 14 E. Variance to allow a concrete slab setback of zero (0) feet, where a minimum concrete slab setback of five (5) feet is required. The Planning Board unanimously recommended denial of the request. The applicant revised the plans to reduce the number of granular walkways on the site. However, the applicant is still proposing a setback of zero (0) feet for the remaining granular walkways on the site. This request can be seen on the Proposed Site Plan, sheet A-4. F. Variance to allow a physical barrier at the side street and front yard at the N.E. corner where 100% of the physical barrier is W to 6' high, where the Code permits 60% between W to 6' high. The Planning Board unanimously recommended denial of the request. The applicant has revised the plans to make the proposed physical barrier along the side street property line comply with the LDC regulations for physical barriers. However, the applicant is still proposing that a six (6) foot high solid mural wall be constructed within the side street setback area where a maximum height of four (4) feet is allowed. This request can be seen on the Proposed Site Plan, sheet A-4. RECOMMENDATION: Because each of the variance requests are tied to changes proposed by the applicant, a hardship with the land cannot be identified. Accordingly, staff recommends that the application be denied. If the City Commission should choose to approve the application, the project should be reviewed by the Environmental Review & Preservation Board as it will be an addition to a two (2) story single-family residence. Additionally, the applicant is required to meet the minimum landscape requirements for the RS-3 Zoning District that are listed in the LDC. That said, the following conditions should apply: 1. The applicant record a Unity of Title on the two properties; 2. The project shall be reviewed by the Environmental Review & Preservation Board; 3. Compliance with the minimum landscape requirements for two-story single-family residential properties listed in Section 20-3.5(H)(C)(8) of the Land Development Code; 4. Compliance with the minimum landscape requirements listed in Section 20-4.5(F) of the Land Development Code; 5. Compliance with the minimum street tree requirements listed in Section 20-4.5.1(0) of the Land Development Code; 6. The applicant shall execute a covenant provided by the City to provide for the maintenance of the street trees and right-of-way landscaping subsequent to planting; and 7. A tree removal permit shall be filed for the removal and/or relocation of any tree on the site. A tree removal permit shall also be filed for the pruning or trimming of more than one-third (1/3 ) of the canopy of any tree on the site. 14 1KT/MWL C:\Users\EASYPD-1WppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@3805CD35\@BCL@3805CD35.doa 5800-SS20 SW 87 Street — Request for Approval of Variance Requests November 19, 2019 Page 14 of 14 ATTACHMENTS: • Application, dated August 8, 2019 • Letter of Intent, • Warranty Deeds for 5800 SW 8r Street & 5820 SW 8r Street • Sunbiz Information — 5765 SOMI LLC • RDR Miami — Public Hearing Notification Specialists — Mailing Label Affidavit, dated February 4, 2019 • RDR Miami — Public Hearing Notification Specialists — 500 Ft. Radius Map • Mailing of Courtesy Notices Affidavit, dated August 13, 2019 • Neighborhood Awareness Letter, dated August 13, 2019 • Legal Ad • Architectural Plans • Coversheet • Map of Boundary and Topographic Survey • Zoning Legend, Building Data, and FAR Calculations, sheet A-01 • Site Diagrams, sheet A-02 • Proposed Site Plan, sheet A-04 • Proposed Ground Floor plan, sheet A-05 • Proposed Landscape Plan, sheet L-1.2 • Hardscape Plan, sheet L-2.0 15 JKT/MWL C:\Users\EASYPD-1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 8\@BCL@3805CD35\@BCL@3805CD35.doa BERcow RADGLL FERNANDEZ & LARKIN ZONING. LAND USE ANC E:MVIRONMENTAL LAW DIRECT LINE: (305) 377-WO E-Mail: MMammOBRZoninoLaw.com VIA HAND DELIVERY October 25, 2019 Ms. Jane Tompkins Planning Director City of South Miami 6130 Sunset Drive South Miami, Florida 33143 Re: Revised Letter of Intent for Scott Fuhrman's Variance Requests for the Properties Located at 5800-5820 SW 87 Street Dear Ms. Tompkins: This law firm represents Scott Fuhrman and 5765 SOMI LLC (the "Applicant'), the owners of the properties generally located at 5800-5820 SW 87 Street (the "Property") in the City of South Miami (the "City"). This letter shall serve as the Applicants required letter of intent in support of the following variances as permitted by Section 20-5.9(G)(6) of the Code: 1. Variance to allow a maximum building lot coverage of approximately 25.40%, where a maximum of 20.4% is permitted; 2. Variance to allow a maximum impervious area of approximately 47.6%, where 30.4% is the maximum permitted; 3. Variance to allow a 25' cumulative yard setback, where a 41.04' cumulative yard setback is required; 4. Variance to allow a 15' east side "street' setback, where a 20' setback is required; SOUTHEAST FINANCIAL CENTER - 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, SURE 850 • MLAMI, FLORIDA 3W31 PHONE. 305.374.5300 • FAX. 305.3n.8222 • W W W.BRZONINOLAW.COM 0 N Ms. Jane Tompkins October 25, 2019 Page 2 5. Variance to allow a physical barrier at the side street and front yard at the N.E. corner where 100% of the physical barrier is 4' to 6' high, where the Code permits 60 % between 4' to 6' high; 6. Variance to allow walkway impervious setback of 31" at the side setback, where 5' is required; 7. Variance to allow walkway impervious setback of 0' at the side street setback, where 5' is required; and 8. Variance to allow a walkway impervious setback of 0' at the rear setback, where 5' is required. Prol2erty, The Property, further identified by Miami -Dade County Property Appraiser Folio Nos. 09-4036-033-2020 and 09-4036-033-2050, is developed with single family residences. The home at 5820 SW 87 Street was developed in 2015 while the home at 5800 SW 87 Street was developed in 1969. The Property is zoned RS-3, Low Density Residential and designated Single Family Residential by the City's Future Land Use Map. Proposal. The Applicant wishes to unify the parcels and the existing residences to create one harmonious single family home. In an effort to preserve the existing structure at 5800 SW 87 Street, the Applicant proposes to connect the two (2) homes via a tastefully designed breezeway. The proposed unification of the Property will include the renovation and beautification of the existing structures. The Applicant proposes lush landscaping and compatible architectural details to ensure a synergistic unity of the structures. In designing the proposed renovations, the architect gathered inspiration from the surrounding neighborhood to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood and enhancement of existing conditions. Other Applications. In connection with this variance application, the Applicant is also submitting a Unity of Title application to unify the parcels. The Unity of Title application is required in order to ensure the Property is unified and considered one (1) single family home. Variance Request. In order to develop the Property into a unified single family home, the Applicant seeks the following variances: 1. Variance to allow a maximum building lot coverage of approximately 25.09%, where a maximum of 20.4% is permitted; BCRCOW RADGLL FERNANDEZ & LARKIN ZONING. LANo USE ANo ENVIRONMENTAL LAW N Ms. Jane Tompkins October 25, 2019 Page 3 2. Variance to allow a maximum impervious area of approximately 47.6%, where 30.4% is the maximum permitted; 3. Variance to allow a 25' cumulative yard setback, where a 41.04' cumulative yard setback is required; 4. Variance to allow a 15' east side "street" setback, where a 20' setback is required; 5. Variance to allow a physical barrier at the side street and front yard at the N.E. corner where 100% of the physical barrier is 4' to 6' high, where the Code permits 60% between 4' to 6' high; 6. Variance to allow walkway impervious setback of 31" at the side setback, where 5' is required; 7. Variance to allow walkway impervious setback of 0' at the side street setback, where 5' is required; and 8. Variance to allow a walkway impervious setback of 0' at the rear setback, where 5' is required. The existing homes on the Property were built in 2015 and 1969. The Applicant wishes to unify the existing homes on the Property and renovate the 1969 structure to today's standards. The Applicant submitted an application to close the abutting right -of -away. However, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended that the Applicant seek variances instead of abandonment of the right-of-way. The retention of the existing 1969 structure creates a hardship in meeting the requirements of the Code. It is worth noting that the Applicant is proposing improved landscaping and vegetation throughout the Property. Additionally, in accordance with the landscape plans twelve (12) new trees are being proposed as well as lush shrubbery throughout the Property. The variance to exceed the maximum permitted impervious area results from the use of certain materials such as water features and hardscape that are not considered impervious by the City Code. The side setback variances are necessary in order to retain the existing 1969 home at the Property. The requested variances are necessary in order to unify the Property and for the maintenance of existing conditions at the Property. In accordance with Section 20-5.9p of the Code, this application complies with the variance approval criteria as follows: BERCOw RADELL FERNANDEZ & LARKIN ZONINO. LANs USE ANO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW N N Ms. Jane Tompkins October 25, 2019 Page 4 1. The variance is necessary to relieve particular extraordinary conditions relating to a specific property; The variances are necessary to allow the existing home on the Property to remain and be joined by unity of title. Demolition of the existing home is an extraordinary hardship on the Applicant. 2. Denial of the variance would result in hardship to the owner. Hardship results if the restriction of the zoning ordinance, when applied to a particular property, becomes arbitrary, confiscatory or unduly oppressive because of conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties under similar zoning restrictions; Denial of these variances would result in hardship to the Applicant and would deprive him of full use of the Property. 3. The extraordinary conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; The existing structure's location is not a result of the Applicant's action. The Applicant wishes to unify abutting parcels in common ownership and renovate the existing Property to be used as his family's residence. 4. The requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure; These variances are the minimum necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the Property and structures thereon. 5. That the approval of the variance will be in consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Land Development Code, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare Approval of these variances will be in consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Land Development Code, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare because they will allow a City resident to improve the existing conditions at the Property. BGRCOW RADcLL I-- NANDEZ & LARKIN ZONING. LAND USE ANO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW C7 N Ms. Jane Tompkins October 25, 2019 Page 5 Accordingly, we respectfully request your favorable recommendation to the Planning Board and City Commission. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, r � Michael J. Marrero Enclosures cc: Marcus Lightfoot Scott Fuhrman Maritza Haro, Esq. BCRCOw RADGLL FtRNAN DEZ & LARKIN ZONINC3, LANM USE AMC) ENVIRONMENTAL LAW so Ur a 7 • incoRPORKrco • 1927 �O P113 City of South Miami Planning & Zoning Department City Hall, 6130 Sunset Drive, South Miami, Florida 33143 Telephone: (305) 663-6326; Fax: (305) 668-7356 Application for Public Hearing before Planning Board & City Commission Address of Subject Property: 5800 SW 87 Street Lot(s) 1-5 Block 12 Subdivision Sea View Park 5820 SW 87 Street PB 17 - 80 Meets & Bounds: Applicant: Scott Fuhrman Phone: 305-608-6038 Representative: Mickey M. Marrero, Esq. Organization: Bercow Radell Fernandez and Larkin PLLC Maritza Haro Salgado, Esq Address: 200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 850 Phone: 305-377-6225 Miami, FL 33131 Property Owner: Scott Fuhrman Signature: Mailing Address: 5820 SW 87 Street Phone: 305-608-6038 South Miami, FL 33143 Architect/Engineer: Howard Bogis Phone: 305-495-2433 HF Architect S THE APPLICANT, PLEASE INDICATE YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THIS PROJECT: X Owner _Owner's Representative _Contract to purchase _Option to purchase Tenant/Lessee APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE FOR THE FOLLOWING: PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE ITEM: Text Amendment to LDC X Variance _Zoning Map Amendment _Special Use _ PUD Approval —Special Exception _ PUD Major Change _Other (Waiver of Plat) Briefly explain application and cite specific Code sections: Applicant seeks the following variances: (1) max. building lot coverage, (2) maximum impervious coverage, (3)cumulative side yard setback, (4) minimum side street setback, (5) height allowed for physical barriers, (6) walkway impervious setback for side setback, (7) walkway impervious setback for rear setback and (8) walkway impervious setback for side street setback. See letter of intent for detailed descriptions. Section: Subsection: Page #: Amended Date: iUBMITTED MATERIALS 'LEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY. _ Letter of intent — Justifications for change _ Statement of hardship _ Proof of ownership or letter from owner Power of attorney _ Contract to purchase Current survey (1 original sealed and signed/1 reduced copy @ 11" x 17") _ 15 copies of Site Plan and Floor Plans 24 x 36", 1 reduced copy @ 11" x 17" _ Affidavit -Receipts attesting to mail notices sent _ Mailing labels (3 sets) and map Required Fee(s) The undersigned has read this completed application and represents that the information and all submitted materials are true and correct a applicant's knowledge and belief. Scott Fuhrman 6019-- TP—Plicant's Signature and title Print Name Date Upon receipt, applications and all submitted materials will be reviewed for compliance with the Land Development Code and other applicable regulations. Applications found not in compliance will be rejected and returned to the applicant. OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Filed Date of PB Hearing Date of Commission Petition Required Petition Accepted Method of Payment 24 Z:1Forms\Current Planning Department Forms\Planning Department Forms\Planning Board\PB - Variance Procedures - Revised 4-30- 2013.doc ftallaw W. Jana G. AdmiM Bsq. Attorney at Law Sullivan, Admire & 8011Ivan, P.A. =5 Poaoe do Leon Boakvard, Salte no Coral Gables, FL 33134 30&44"121 BAtUM to: Reef Tick Company, LLC Ann: L mette Santlep 31 Ocean Ref Drive, Sake A201 Key Largo, FL 33037 305W-9323 File Number. 16437 Fox Parcel Identification. No. 0.40.36-03MMO 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 CFM 2016RO406512 OR BK 30150 P95 39-40 Mss) RECORDED 07/13/2016 12:44:44 DEED DOC TAX M 400.00 HARVEY RUVINP CLERK OF COURT IIIAM-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA -- -_-- _.18p= Above Tta Una Pon. R=Wiaa D=1 Warranty Deed c1h J WAATUMY FORM • S'8CT10N 689.Q�. F S.) This Indmtm made this _ked^ziy of April, 2016, between Jaeat Fox, an uarenaarrkd widow, whose post office addross Is 74233 Waford Court, IAA wood Ranh, PL 34202, of the Comity of Manatee, State of Florida, grantor", and 5965 Sonsi IMC a Florida limited Habl* emputy. whose post office address is 3820 Soud want 87 ShvA Mlaaak FL 331A ofdte County ofMlami-Dade, Soite of Florida, gmAft`. Wiftessath, drat said gttttttor, for and in cowddwdon of the seta of M AND N01100 DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideredons to sold grantor in hand paid by said grantee, tho receipt wheredis hereby admowledV4 has granted, bargained, and sold to the maid grantee, and grantees heirs and assigns forever, die following doacn'hed lan4 skurtc6 lying and being InMhuni-Dade Cnaty. Florida, to -wit: Lots i, 2 wo 36 Bkwh 12, AMENDED PLAT OF SBA VZW PARK, amodiag to the Plat t4erooA ae recorded In Plat Book 179 at Page 80, of the Publie Records of Miami -Dade CO". Florida, and M11 feet of an Ailey lying Southwesterly aad aQumt as per Ordlsancc recorded In OMW Records Boole 29873, at Page M2, of the Yatdtc Records of b2ami-Dade Cat[aty, Florida. Subject to taxes for 2016 and subsegtmmt years; coveasath candktons, restrietlaas, eattyaeats, reservations and limitations of record, if nay. and aid grantor does hereby fully warm the title to said land, and vnll defend the Sarno against Isra W clainn of all peisoas whomsoever. *'Gm% a md't rzft ' arm aed for i 4WU Of Plud. o 0004 eaWhM 25 Book3O15O/Page39 CFN#20160406512 Page 1 of 2 OR B K 30150 PG 40 LAST PAGE In Wane Whereof, grantor hea hereunto sat pmwes head and mg the day and year fnmt above wriUM Sgnod, sealed and delivared in our presence: VVitixss Names - - MUM N C U• RUA= State of Florida County of NLaatoe \ 110 foreg g Instrument was admowledged before me this 1 ` day of April, 2016 Joao Faux, who U is personally known or htm prodaoed a ddvees Deem as In- ,,, Notary Pe�blia, of [N T000 J. PASKiET Notary Public - Slate of Florida - MY Comm. Expires Jul 28. 2017 Commission # FF 011285 MY Commtwiosi Explivs, WaymnY Deed (SgWjory FvrW - Page 2 26 Book30150/Page40 CFN#20160406512 Page 2 of 2 PMpared byandmiu to: Paulina A. Cervantes, Esq. Attorney at Law Sanchez -Medina, Gonzalez, Quesads, Lage, Crespo, Gomez, Machado & Preis, LLP 201 Alhambra Circle Suite 1205 Coral Gables, FL 33134 305-377-1000 Return to: Reef Title Company, LLC 31 Ocean Reef Drive Suite A-201 Key Largo, FI. 33037 iSpace Above This Line For Recording Data] Special Warranty Deed CFhi 2015RO765245 OR BK W875 Pss 1540-1541 (2fts) RECORDED 12/03/2011 11:06:48 DEED DOC TAX 5129870.0E HARVEY RUVIHr CLERK, OF COURT MIAMI-DADE COUHTY► FLORIDA This Special Warranty Deed made this -a day of November, 2015 between South Miami Developers, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, whose post office address is 201 Alhambra Circle Suite 1205, Coral Gables, FL 33134, grantor, and Scott Palmer Fuhrman and Lindsay Fubrman, husband and wife, whose post office address is 5820 SW 87 Street, South Miami, FL, grantee: (whenever used heroin the tarns grantor and grantee include all the parties to this instrument and the heirs, legal representatives, and assigns of individuals. and the successors and assigns of corporations, trusts and trustees) Witnesseth, that said grantor, for and in consideration of the sum TEN AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable considerations to said grantor in hand paid by said grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, and sold to the said grantee, and grantee's heirs and assigns forever, the following described land, situate, lying and being in Miami -Dade County, Florida, to -wit: Lots 4 and 5, Block 12, Amended Plat of Sea View Park, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 17, Page 90, of the Public Records of Miami -Dade County, Florida, and 10.11 feet of an alley lying southwesterly and adjacent (as per unrecorded Ordinance #25-92-1520). Parcel Identification Number: 09-4036-033-2050 Together with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. To Have and to Hold, the same in fee simple forever. And the grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that the grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by, through or under grantors. In Witness Whereof, grantor has hereunto set grantors hand and seal the day and year first above written. M_ DoubleTimeo Book29875/Page1540 CFN#20150765245 Page 1 of 2 OR BK 29875 PG 1541 LAST PAGE Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence: I 'Developers, LL rida li ited liability pany David M. anage- State of Florida County of Miami -Dade The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this (0 day of November, 2015 by David M. Cabanas, Manager of South Miami Developers, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, nof said company. He L] is personally known or [X] has produced a Florida driver's license as identification. [Notary Seal] KARIN:#FF GI) s'- Notary Pab(Ic -e o1 Florida ., Ely COMM. Eeplrep 18. 2018 CO M ISSIon 125362 Notary Public Printed Name: My 28 Special Waffanry Deed - Page 2 DoubleTlmse Book298751Page1541 CFN#20150765245 Page 2 of 2 rdr miami I public hearing notification services certified lists of property owners within a specific radius + radius maps + mailing labels + mailouts + notice of public hearing site posting rdrmiami.com I diana@rdrmiami.com 1 305.498.1614 February 4, 2019 City of South Miami Planning & Zoning 6130 Sunset Drive South Miami, FL 33143 Re: Property owners within 500 feet of: SUBJECT: 5800 SW 87 Street, South Miami, FL 33143 FOLIO NUMBER: 09-4036-033-2020 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEA VIEW PARK AMD PB 17-80 LOTS 1-2 & 3 INC BILK 12 & 10.11 FT ALLEY LYG SWLY &ADJ CLOSED PER ORD 25-92-1520 SUBJECT: 5820 SW 87 Street, South Miami, FL 33143 FOLIO NUMBER: 09-4036-033-2050 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 36 54 40 SEA VIEW PARK AMD PB 17-80 LOTS 4 & 5 BLK 12 & 10.1 1FT ALLEY LYG SWLY & ADJ CLOSED PER ORD 25-92-1520 This is to certify that the attached ownership list, map and mailing labels are a complete and accurate representation of the real estate property and property owners within 500 feet radius of the external boundaries of the subject property listed above, including the subject property. This reflects the most current records on file in the Miami -Dade County Property Appraisers' Office. Sincerely, Total number of property owners without repetition: 58 461 Rio Development Resources, LLC rRDR1 has used its best efforts in collecting the information published in this report and the findings contained in the report are based solely and exclusively on information provided by you and Information gathered fmm public records and that local government By acceptance of this report, you agree to hold RDR harmless and indemnity RDR from any and all losses, damages, liabilities and expenses which can be claimed against RDR caused by orrelated to this report — rdr miami I public hearing notification services certified fists of property owners within a specific radius + radius maps + mailing labels+ ma0outs + notice of public hearing site posting rdrmiami.com I diana@rdrmiami.com 1 305.498.1614 500' RADIUS MAP N SSW BBrM SUBJECT: 5800 SW 87 Street, South Miami, FL 33143 FOLIO NUMBER: 09-4036-033-2020 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEA VIEW PARK AMD PB 17-80 LOTS 1-2 & 3 INC BLK 12 & 10.11FT ALLEY LYG SWLY & ADJ CLOSED PER ORD 25-92-1520 SUBJECT: 5820 SW 87 Street, South Miami, FL 33143 FOLIO NUMBER: 09-4036-033-2050 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 36 54 40 SEA VIEW PARK AMD PB 17-80 LOTS 4 & 5 BLK 12 & 10.11 FT ALLEY LYG SWLY & ADJ CLOSED PER ORD 25-92-1520 C AFFIDAVIT MAILING OF COURTESY NOTICES Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared, Michael J. Marrero, who swore or affirmed that: 1. Affiant is the attorney of record for the public hearing applications for applications for variances and a unity of title for the properties located at 5800 SW 87 Street and 5820 SW 87 Street. The revised applications were filed on August 9, 2019 with the City of South Miami to request variances and approval of a unity of title for the properties. Affiant hereby certifies that mailing of courtesy notices to the property owners within a five -hundred foot (500') radius of the subject property were transmitted to the U.S. Post Office on August 13, 2019, via regular First Class US Mail. Affiant further certifies mailing of courtesy notices to the abutting property owners of the subject property were transmitted to the U.S. Post Office on August 13, 2019, via Certified First Class US Mail, Return Receipt Requested. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. Michael J. Marrero STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF NIIAMI-DADE ) Sworn to and subscribed before me on this 131' day of August, 2019 by Michael J. Marrero, who is personally known to me and did take an oath. �• 'A EXPlRE3: Irlaach 8.20�1 eon MRNNftPJftunaei,1bM N G e: V,Ul N tary Ptui 6, State of VC1 Commission No: -1 c My Commission Expires: 0 05 - . 31 Br.Rcow RADELL FF.RNANDEZ & LARKIN ZONING, LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL_ L-AW DIRECT LINE: (305) 377-6238 E-Mall: MMarrero@BRZoningLaw.com VIA US MAIL August 13, 2019 CHARLIE HOUSING LLC 5201 BLUE LAGOON DR #807 MIAMI, FL 33126 Re: Notice of Accepted Application - Variances for 5800-5820 SW 87 Street _ Dear Sir or Madame: We represent Mr. Scott Fuhrman and his wife Lindsay, with regard to their request to their request for variances and unity of title applications for the properties located at 5800 SW 87 Street and 5820 SW 87 Street (the "Application"). The City accepted the completed applications on August 9, 2019. In accordance with the City Code, please accept this letter as the required notice of the City's receipt of the Application. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Michael J. Marrero Enclosures cc: Jane Tompkins Scott Fuhrman Maritza Haro, Esq. '1019 Plank s;'7 c r,' orin 0c•i 32 SOUTHEAST FINANCIAL CENTER • 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, SUMS 850 • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 PHONE. 305.374.5300 • FAX. 305.377.6222 • WWW.BRZONINGLAW.COM NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI ; Planning and Zoning Department 6130 Sunset Drive; South Miami, Florida 33143 Phone: (305) 663-6326; Fax #: (305) 668-7335 On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 7:00 P.M., the City of South Miami's Planning Board will conduct public hearings in the City Commission Chambers at the above address on the following items: 1. PB-19-012 Applicant: Scott Fuhrman A Resolution relating to a Variance application to increase the maximum building coverage requirement, to increase the maximum impervious coverage requirement, to reduce the minimum side street setback requirement, to reduce the minimum cumulative yard setback requirement, to reduce the minimum setback requirement for concrete slabs, and to increase the physical barrier height limit for a single- family residential building located at 5800-5820 SW 87 Street. SW 86TH ST cn un _ 00 I _ = i D m m SW 87TH ST ;' i - All interested parties are urged to attend. Any interested person has the right to appear before the Planning Board for the presentation, adjustment or determination of an issue, request or controversy within the jurisdiction of the Board. Objections or expressions of approval may be made in person at the hearing or filed in writing prior to or at the hearing. The Planning Board reserves the right to recommend to the City Commission whatever the board considers in the best interest for the area involved. interested parties requesting information are asked to contact the Planning and Zoning Department by calling 305-663-6326 or writing to the address indicated above. You are hereby advised that if any person desires to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at this 33 meeting or hearing; such person will need a record of the proceedings. and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based (F.S. 286.0105). Refer to hearing number when making any inquiry. MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW Published Daily except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADS: Before the undersigned authority personally appeared! GUILLERMO GARCIA, who on oath says that he or she is the DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, Legal Notices of the Miami Daily Business Review flute Miami Review, a daily (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) newspaper, published at Miami in Miami -Dade County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Legal Advertisement of Notice in the matter of NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI - PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT -SEP. 10, 2019 in the XXXX Court, was published in said newspaper in the issues of 08/30/2019 Affiarn further says that the said Miami Daily Business Review is a newspaper published at Miami, in saic Miami-D:de County, Florida and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Miami -Dade County, Florida each day (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post price in Miami in said Miami -Dade County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and afford further says that he or she has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said GUILLERMO GARCIApersonst krwtwlt0 me m;^t BARBARATHOMAS Cmmission#GG 121171 �• a; Expires November2,2021 •••"f 4'` 9edded This Tmy Face lnsuranm8M 385-7019 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI SOUrV 3 V • fact Bwao 7 rn T ��oxto PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT 6130 SUNSET DRIVE; SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA 33143 PHONE (3051663-6326; FAX 1: (305) 688-7335 On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 7;00 P.M., the City of South Miami's Planning Board will conduct public hearings in the City Commission Chambers at the above address on the following items: 1. PB-19-012 Applicant: Scott Fuhm am A Resolution relating to a Variance application to increase the maximum building coverage requirement, to Incroase themaximum impervious coverage roqulrement, to reduce the minimum side street setback requirement, to reduce the minimum cumulative yard setback requirement, to reduce the minimum setback requirement for concrete slabs, and to Increase the physical barrier height limit for a single-family residential building located at 5800-SBM SW 87 Street. 2. PS-19-017 Applicant: Madison Square South Miami, LLC A Resolution relating to a Variance application to reduce the minimum off-street parking space requirement for a mixed -use project on both the East and West Madison Square properties as legally described herein. 3. PB-19-018 Applicant: South Miami Community Redevelopment Agency A Resolution of the City of South Mamt Local Punning Agency, a/k/a Planning Board, finding that the South Miami Community Redevelopment Agency's proposed Amendment to the South Miami Community Redevelopment Plan conforms to and is consistent with the City of South Miami Comprehensive Plan, or making recommendations to such effect. All interested parties are urged to attend. Any interested person has the right to appear before the Planning Board for the presentation, adjustment or determination of an issue, request or controversy within the jurisdiction of the Board. Objections or expressions of approval may be made in person at the hearing or filed in writing prior to or at the hearing. The Planning Board reserves the right to recommend to the City Commission whatever the board considers in the best interest for the area involved. Interested parties requesting information are asked to contact the Planning and Zoning Department by calling 305-663-6326 or writing to the address indicated above. You we hereby advised that if any person desires to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at this meeting or hearing, suet person win need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which fecerd includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based (F.S. 286.0105). Refer to heating number when making any inquiry. 8/30 19-111/0000422767M 01 1 2/7/2019 Detail by Entity Name Dig isioN or CoPF,_ AzioN; D-4artment of State / Division of Corporations / Search Records / Detail Sy Document Number / Detail by Entity Name Florida Limited Liability Company 5765 SOMI LLC EWng Information Document Number L14000169406 FEI/EIN Number APPLIED FOR Date Filed 10/30/2014 State FL Status ACTIVE Last Event LC STMNT CORR Event Date Filed 04/15/2016 Event Effective Date NONE rincipal Address 2840 SW 3 AVE MIAMI, FL 33129 Changed: 02/15/2017 Mailing Address 2840 SW 3 AVE MIAMI, FL 33129 Changed: 02/15/2017 $tgistered Agent Name & Address FUHRMAN, SCOTT 2840 SW 3 AVE MIAMI, FL 33129 Address Changed: 02/15/2017 Authorized Person(a) Detail Name & Address Title AMBR FUHRMAN, SCOTT 2840 SW 3 AVE MIAMI, FL 33129 35 Title AMBR http://sear::h.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporabonSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityNameBdirectionType=lnibal&seanchNameOrder-5765SOMI... 1 /2 2n/2019 Detail by Entity Name FUHRMAN, LINDSAY 9100 S DADELAND BLVD SUITE 400 MIAMI, FL 33156 Annual Reports Report Year Filed Date 2016 02/17/2016 2017 02/15/2017 2018 02/28/2018 Document Images 02/282018 — ANNUAL REPORT 02/15/2017 — ANNUAL REPORT 04/15/2016 — CORLCSTCOR 04/04/2016 — LC Amendment 02/17/2016 — REINSTATEMENT 10/30/2014 — Florida Limited Liability View image in PDF format View image in PDF format View image in PDF format View image in PDF format View image in PDF format View image in PDF format 36 http://search.sunbiz.org/inquiry/CorporabonSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EniityName&directionType=lnitial&searchNameOrder-5765SOM I... 2/2 CITY OF SOUTH M IAM I PLANNING BOARD Regular Meeting Minutes Excerpt Tuesday, September 10, 2019 CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS 07:00 P.M. The City of South Miami Code of Ordinances, Section 8A-5, requires that all lobbyists, as defined in that section, must register with the City Clerk before engaging in any lobbying activities and in most cases pay an annual fee of $500.00 and an additional $100 for each additional issue. This applies to all persons who are retained with or without compensation to influence any action, decision, recommendation of someone with the city, including the city manager, city attorney, department heads, city personnel, or members of the city commission or members of any city board, concerning a matter that could foreseeably be address by the city commission or a city board. There ore some exceptions and exemptions. The following are not considered to be lobbyist: a representative of a principal at a quasi-judicial hearing, experts who present scientific or technical information at public meetings, representatives of a neighborhood association without compensation and representatives of a not -for -profit community based organization for the purpose of requesting o grant who seek to influence without special compensation. Individuals who wish to view or listen to the meeting in its entirety, audio and video versions of the meeting can be found on the city's website (www.southmiamifl.eov). I. Call to Order Action: Dr. Philips called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. II. Roll Call Board Members Present Constituting a Quorum: Dr. Sally Philips (Chairperson), Mr. Subrata Basu, Mr. Lee Jacobs, Orlando Borges, and Mr. Jay Miller. Board Members Absent: Ms. Mary Ann Ruiz (Vice -Chairperson) and Mr. Maximo Monterrey. City Staff Present: Ms. Jane Tompkins (Planning Director) and Mr. Marcus Lightfoot (Senior Planner/Zoning Administrator). City Staff Absent: None. City Attorney: Mr. Thomas Pepe. III. Administrative Matters Ms. Tompkins informed the Board that there were no administrative matters to discuss. IV. Public Hearings: 37 1. PB-19-012 Applicant: Scott Fuhrman A Resolution relating to a Variance application to increase the maximum building coverage requirement, to increase the maximum impervious coverage requirement, to reduce the minimum side street setback requirement, to reduce the minimum cumulative yard setback requirement, to reduce the minimum setback requirement for concrete slabs, and to increase the physical barrier height limit for a single-family residential building located at 5800-5820 SW 87 Street. Applicant: Scott Fuhrman represented by Mr. Mickey Marrero, Esq., Maritza Haro, Esq., and Mr. Howard Bogis. Mr. Borges read PB-19-012 into the record. Mr. Lightfoot presented the item to the Board. Mr. Miller asked if the request should be taken individually. Mr. Lightfoot responded that each of the requests could be handled individually or as a whole. Mr. Lightfoot then stated that he would defer to the City Attorney on the best course of action for the item. Mr. Pepe stated that the item would have to be taken as a whole. Dr. Philips asked what was left out of the impervious coverage calculation. Mr. Lightfoot stated that Staff calculated the impervious coverage and came up with a different number. He stated that the condition was to have the applicant recalculate the number to make sure that it was correct. Dr. Philips asked how this item differed from the item that was heard at a previous meeting by the same applicant. Mr. Lightfoot stated that the item that was previously heard was for the abandonment of the right-of-way adjacent to the applicant's property, whereas the current request was for variances on the property. Mr. Marrero presented the project to the Board. Mr. Marrero introduced the Board to Mr. Howard Bogis, the Architect of Record for the project. Mr. Bogis presented the architecture for the project to the Board. Afterwards, Mr. Marrero continued presenting the project to the Board. Mr. Borges asked if the owner has any interest in working with staff to get their recommendation. Mr. Marrero stated that because the proposed changes led to the variance request, it was considered to be a self-imposed hardship and City Staff couldn't support the requests. Mr. Marrero added that the request is a unique situation that doesn't really work within the regulations outlined in the City's Land Development Code (LDC). Mr. Jacobs asked if all that was being proposed was the single story and two (2) story homes were being combined and if there weren't any additions, to which Mr. Marrero stated that he was correct. 38 Dr. Philips stated that she doesn't understand why the project is adding a large amount of impervious area when there are other options available. Mr. Marrero stated that a lot of the features on the plan are permeable but by definition, the LDC considers those features to be impermeable. Mr. Bogis added that the gravel walkways shown on the plan are proposed to be crushed rock but are considered to be impervious. He then stated that the biggest impervious area has to be the gravel walkways. Mr. Miller asked the applicant to point out to the Board on the site plan what was new on the property. Mr. Bogis obliged and pointed out the additions to the property. Mr. Miller asked if there was anything else added besides the carport area that connected the two (2) homes, to which Mr. Bogis stated yes. There is a new covered terrace at the rear of the property. Mr. Bogis then clarified which pathways on the property were granular. Mr. Marrero asked Mr. Bogis to explain to the Board the functionality of the impervious areas. Mr. Bogis explained that the Landscape Architect of record has studies showing that water permeated through the gravel areas. Instead of providing more lawn which would require more maintenance, they decided to use the granular areas. Other municipalities consider the gravel to be pervious. Mr. Miller stated that the application essentially involves a property owner that wants to do something different with their land, to which Mr. Marrero agreed. Mr. Miller asked if the patios were being expanded as well. Mr. Bogis pointed out on the plan where the open terraces were and stated that they were always a part of the project. The Chairperson opened the floor to public comments on PB-19-012 • Antoinette Fischer —Oppose • Leigh Emerson Smith — Oppose The Chairperson closed the floor to public comments on PB-19-012 Mr. Marrero clarified that there won't be any floor area or structure added to the property. The request is just to combine the homes. Mr. Basu asked staff to provide the maximum building coverage allowed and what was requested. Mr. Lightfoot provided the information. Mr. Basu asked if the request was the result of the proposed breezeway and the covered terrace, to which Mr. Lightfoot stated yes. Mr. Basu asked if it were possible to push the breezeway back so that it wasn't a straight line across the front of the properties. Mr. Basu then explained the reason why the breezeway should be pushed back. He then stated that he didn't want to tie a specific design to the variance request. Mr. Borges asked if there was a Board that reviewed architecture for the City, to which Mr. Lightfoot stated that the Environmental Review & Preservation Board reviews architecture. Regarding the impervious coverage, Mr. Basu stated that the gravel is a problem, because it sits on compacted bedrock which does not let water percolate into the ground. He then stated that he has an issue with the request and stated that it should be looked into. 39 Mr. Basu stated that because the setbacks are existing, he didn't have an issue with the cumulative yard setback request. Mr. Basu stated that he didn't have an issue with the side street setback request. Regarding the physical barrier request, Mr. Basu stated that he would prefer to see a landscaped hedge barrier opposed to a solid barrier. Mr. Basu stated that if the impervious coverage is reduced, he wouldn't have an issue with the concrete slab setback request. In closing, Mr. Basu stated that his main issue was the request for impervious coverage. Motion: Mr. Basu moved to approve PB-19-012 with the following conditions: 1. The Impervious Coverage is reduced; and 2. An alternate solution for the 6'-0" high solid physical barrier is considered. Mr. Jacobs seconded the motion. Mr. Borges asked for clarification on what the Board will be voting on. Dr. Philips responded that based on the motion, the Board would be approving four (4) of the six (6) requests as is and recommending changes to the other two (2) requests. Mr. Lightfoot informed the Board that the applicant has a swimming pool and it is required that it be protected. Mr. Marrero stated that the Board can recommend approval of the four (4) variances and recommend that the impervious coverage calculation be reduced. Vote: Yes 2, No 3 (Miller, Philips, Borges) Mr. Jacobs: Yes Mr. Miller: No Dr. Philips: No Mr. Basu: Yes Mr. Borges: No The motion to approve PB-19-012 failed to carry. Because of that, PB-19-012 was not approved. Mr. Miller suggested that a motion be made that allow the applicant the ability to install the carport. Mr. Pepe stated that a motion for reconsideration would need to be made by the prevailing side. Dr. Philips asked if the Board could make a list of the conditions and send them to the City Commission. Mr. Pepe responded that the motion that was made and voted on would accomplish that goal. Mr. Miller elected to make a new motion for the item. Motion: Mr. Miller moved to permit the breezeway so that the two (2) properties could be brought together with the following restrictions: 4 40 1. The request for additional impervious coverage that includes the open terraces and the 6'- 0" high solid physical barrier not be approved. In other words, the rest of the requests would be denied. Mr. Marrero stated that as the application reads, the Board would be in favor of request 1 and request 2, but not the remaining requests. Mr. Borges seconded the motion. Asking for clarification, Mr. Miller explained that the motion would approve everything needed to allow the breezeway to be built and deny all the other requests. Mr. Lightfoot informed the Board that once the property is combined, it won't comply with the LDC regulations as is, before any additions or impervious surfaces are added. Mr. Miller clarified the requests that he supported. The Board then held a discussion on how to correctly vote on the requests before them. Afterwards, Mr. Miller withdrew his motion and the Board decided to vote on each request individually. Motion A: Mr. Basu moved to approve the Variance request to increase the Building Coverage with the condition that the Building Coverage request is reduced so that it only includes the breezeway. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. Vote: Yes 4. No 1(Borees) Mr. Jacobs: Yes Mr. Miller: Yes Dr. Philips: Yes Mr. Basu: Yes Mr. Borges: No The motion to approve the Variance request to increase the Building Coverage was approved. Motion B: Mr. Basu moved to approve the request to increase Impervious Coverage with the condition that the impervious coverage request is reduced so that it only includes the breezeway. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. Vote: Yes 4. No 1(Borees) Mr. Borges: No Mr. Basu: Yes Dr. Philips: Yes Mr. Miller: Yes Mr. Jacobs: Yes 41 The motion to approve the Variance request to increase Impervious Coverage was approved with the condition that the request be reduced to provide only for the breezeway. Motion C: Dr. Philips moved to approve the Variance request to reduce the Cumulative Yard Setback as presented. Mr. Basu seconded the motion. Vote: Yes 4, No 1(Borees) Mr. Borges: No Mr. Basu: Yes Dr. Philips: Yes Mr. Miller: Yes Mr. Jacobs: Yes The motion to approve the Variance request to reduce Cumulative Yard Setback was approved. Motion D: Dr. Philips moved to deny the Variance request to reduce the Side Street Setback. Mr. Basu seconded the motion. Vote: Yes 5, No 0 (None) Mr. Borges: Yes Mr. Basu: Yes Dr. Philips: Yes Mr. Miller: Yes Mr. Jacobs: Yes The motion to deny the Variance request to reduce Side Street Setback was approved; the Variance was denied. Motion E: Dr. Philips moved to deny the Variance request to increase the height of the physical barrier. Mr. Basu seconded the motion. Vote: Yes 5, No 0 (None) Mr. Jacobs: Yes Mr. Miller: Yes Dr. Philips: Yes Mr. Basu: Yes Mr. Borges: Yes The motion to deny the Variance request to increase the height of the physical barrier carried; the Variance request was denied. Motion F: Dr. Philips moved to deny the Variance request to reduce the Concrete Slab Setback. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. 42 Vote: Yes 5, No 0 (None) Mr. Borges: Yes Mr. Basu: Yes Dr. Philips: Yes Mr. Miller: Yes Mr. Jacobs: Yes The motion to deny the Variance request for the Concrete Slab Setback carried; the Variance request for the Concrete Slab Setback was denied. 43 7-0 Fuhrman residence CITY COMMISSION SUBMISSION: 110 - 24 - 19 5800-5820 SIN 87th St. South Miami, FI. 33143 SCOPE OF WORK A) Proposed Breezeway B) 5800 Renovation - Exterior and Interior C) 5820 Renovation - Existing Laundry Room - Create Access to 5800 D) Proposed Driveway E) Landscape Improvements throughout the entire site. n architect AA260e164e THRESHOLD INDEX OF DRAWINGS ARCHITECTURAL: A-00 COVER SHEET/ DRAWING INDEX SURVEY A.01 ZONING DATA / CODES / LOCATION MAP A.02 ZONING DIAGRAMS A.03 EXISTING SITE PLAN : Not Submitted A.04 PROPOSED SITE PLAN A.05 PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN LANDSCAPE: L1.2 RENDERING - MASTER SITE PLAN L2.0 HARDSCAPE PLAN MAP OF BOUNDARY ARID TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY V -ins r 1 �.� I MtllT a•la1?701' ....r tau dt•s/Aa JI►DO1 I dl1AY7roatw sort I 1 ar 38 TOI S9 jl 1 >r I 1:1 1 4 � u i1 •A in .fit e 8 � Ittl L07.1 1 O'c"•11 .l 'B 1 A I nw�wlww:�u O aal�tZi�O a1r:_�mlrmrtrr� ow'�wlim:�r� Uri�aa�m:iae:� [l ww�r/i m'mr�rl alL7:�taaa:lr� t.7mrli af:mr'." I�IrC:"'tIi m�iae:>t raw-�m®Mt:l� 1:1 r'^IG:ta t1i aat:>• r:>f r,lwr�r<T�m�rt� r�m�_,_mlacau luwL-�rtim:iu rLwL=�mlim'w«� rlmc=��lam:fa�� tart-Mtl�m>.�ri luwi.�aaaim�u l�ta©�aiu�� rnr•�wliiz•as 1'1r1-V 1c�r�m:im:>t t77m�itYi©11t'.� e:lr-�aanwaR:>•0110111 oilMilo oil w?tira� w tm m:satm tamer-�c�c�NLy lLrr_-:�<I1m:i ' naaY�r�m:iv 1,1r.�mlim:iu LL"Mh IA► raAo Aa roc o arPLona at R00. ccowN I wI ALI a0a att$ 0 arAAltl u mrw aLe.rss a1 coomm Iawt to am. Dar /C. 111" P a"ftw I.I. pc .1 WLaCr C1 CO.1tWff RAM r.rc mom rto« arena art. Dora am aaR /NlR AK M carat own w3 R1Y0Ct R alw[ La1CM A Am tbto. elm Mom om D00 Muwm cm COaaa7f c aaaAlmD a[. alAm tillticw sc «aaar varu 1 aaa Onvik xrcc j a0m Iat rllm KAcA woo -ow cm" ARC wwmO Aft A1Aa7M Clr Cwr LAr raC[ M rMCI ppoo Aw 6CO Il moit or ID I.0 rD.R ra rDDffft a A oft' SWACt CLr.M . s ^CLOC aao a 1c . am .�. a1rAl w IOa[ 1'nA raar Ow ® MAw w= Q PRt mtwcm 1 -raw am t.1.I.. (.w00W Dow L«w... li r f< --- L..rr.r So 11 .Lt --- .0 Dow 01 CM&L.a W..-I 11W.0 CALL rA..At --- tY -C. 01 W-- WI W a.r tM..W.r1 w C a a Oro cur colt on P A'iol"C LCW wu mx noWw o.rAa� rt'cm � Z �In WD .ppm M aaraAf Am M dla.rt RAra VY P [ IL«0A L1aIa[1 tLwr110a Am aANIL [ M rsoul. f1Ca mMa. AR WD a N AS2MM aA W Cr aa11711T. ALOM M Camir P a. gm so= IiRpar soli P. r1.1 AS .A SNKM tocar" wRM. PC^01 A/Oa kcallm" M M Kill o9301040. a 0= PI M aao .aA..a wt rP cr Mat ran coc llf[r wak" tal AOan W.am a aan//moa M 40P. ul t"wu WAMMM Dow a TM 1.A P aA.l7 • a.1a. r" Wt ILCCD . 7a.' coawA.l. I/w a .A MM «t o1 f0111. aa« ]Sill up, Ir[l mosto, 1mka Y7so l 4 M M MS R7L[Lf1 ■ M L[i[m Am 04 1L11.17 r Wrt tLil [iaAR® I« aAA07 M W..@m "m Kt.1 KOlM O M liA1a P M Rla lOtA101 «O IIR. IP GUNK" .a A£A.Y voic « a01 P M nAvAL a M rrowwla CL P=& « as vmv amotwm M ""To P . mb Raw" C. m am ..WA= am m Pa. Mt CONCOU tl A MENCS13110" P lid W. cm, tRiM .1 T.l lot a 'a soiM'O 00 aP .Own of IRY[m SWOo W to I« a11f0.aR:JI 1WaOa 7. Oala4r P im « RICO W&'M CCgwsofa a M rriawla cairn." r as =Real .m IaPHO 1A10 or 1taboam 1LAa .,t 1tl.LI.QA r0 WL YL RA10l1IR[ atal 10 a0A/ M ACWIC, P Tt OalA01.. a avow ouvw tl I.W ALRomms AIi/01 a0O1/A104 a4 .« al M w Wit" rm R LEND also PORSUSM M/ a0Aaa1 1Ai1 a[ t01AARi o M aaLaa.L 1.IW M rrn 11.1.11ta7 aaLs+uaa N/I / A.RtARp W I1a.At M P M .I«rm. 0 KIM = AID W rLR.1O lyA[ TW A111a.IDW rtyol 01m mc{ IMR ml Am ic, Re wa iom e aARRrAas, [r.lat al raLaL L'a1Lla1A0 M Itaw.C. M M bc* Cti01 [OalwL r Ir1 «Ar «HAWK MI .001 0 AUM CP AC arum a aMa [LtC.fOC au+a LOaKI mMlrw ofra..aa 1ta1TA1Da «.awn. W 143MA[t 1RL.[1 IC4A01100 Am MNMW-. atat am Low= a0 Alf rP 94DW 1"M as 9M CC" MW IAQACAsoAO WIMLAlpa TW AW aP ll I aamll Wool COWL CowswiOa to gxc"=Y Como Wisp" slid ow CoA tr ftOO« (1-aoo- st-.no 40 M rWOMM Ua.p WWWAIO no Iola wa1cmm or m A00..a1 « C[tt101a 10 1Law. a" at mumn w On" Tw 11a 11Tso0 Nat. « IARR1 IMt Pot n OMM 111 0m 0016 P M "004 AAA « IA " Atta 11..Ra0.11c m CMW or M MMCW Lon P TM 71AM r.a 1a aaa so0w . amr tan a'M a w's no wommmAL r1Ala1O oft' " ALL aa'.= AL-0m as anAo.n Lrt1 P M 1w0R WhIM AID PON 1[Ki1 R alm. Aa a tiDaos Am late .IAMmm Mato 049-M .00-IM tl amlims t Do so0M AK a[rmm) W A1 M 1W0CmORC Kum on" P T.1IW t1Li ROI Ps7aI "1"" 0. COO Mt SWIM t KC. aGm M OW10 W.NW 1w ix MWII M r /M Nw /.1k w..Wq r N /W1 MIN. r 1w.r. a pm aw 17, •.1. a0. N M...w N r RN aWr-O.r C.�4. FwAk W mll A 0 « Ar. W a.A...r.r W .r1r.. « w G mi- 1...ar .-a a.r 307% v lw. iaR.s: W.. W A ar 11. A.11.ar .lA N W W. raft wwAra I. w /M .wwl, w r...M . r1 a.w t7. •'.w a0. 11aY R....a. N mw. oor Cwr4. r11111.. W Intl ..N .0 r.A.r W w...W1y po *.r. (w w w.w1M op.- I 31-91-1120). W 1. l 1 A W a Y ar.A It. r Ar(atlO .LA/ P [tA LaR ►rI. iwA11 Y Ir P. I11~. w M.1M w .M aY. 17. I.a. b, r N 1'Mr h- N WW-Ww C.114, rww. Ya1YR .aA • w1.w r w A1.. 1•1 frw..r.' W .OwK w w IAVnw. 111-10-11H. 1r.1AY r 0..w arw. ar mI! ..a. 1 N « J,- LW.w.I r alw+-o w n..s. rww..w wTewlr o... w Ywa aq. r N MMMMry wwl. r IIM ar..t. w .A..A w .r M r AmEmD RA7 P YA Mla IARI. MY t.I.wMT w..r Iwa N ww N M N 1.wry NN low" NroitNI llWN wN N arr.wY1► W N W ar. /1 ..W1.. N✓ry N11 N 1.rM►' w1...1.. N N l.N r1 . /.L.1r r 11111 ..A W • ...A w w ..1...I1.► soli'•-r-Dow W N L...r O..I 0... - a. Aft wAft a..w wRa-r-Dow W N oCwr Cw/ W . WA.p r /0717 r.% W WN .•.Wra.r w11N.\ WOO.1.1W WY.1 t.r Nw•. -"N.04 v..uN 1.1. 1ww 1•1 w..wa Y N A r l.r 0- arw-ow w.4, IW - N l) Q OtO co J m U. J to O O co � J 'T FW- W } `> �7 / Li LL Q Z U m CL t LL a � O � W 400- 1607.009 HAIR 01 / 11 / 1011 Aawtla.a W / 81 / 101a aRa.rw Ot 01 __& __ .� . , ; q H] /q b\ g5'��.�__yn S! k �{ ,! | . |; . • | | _ | r� ' : M37 . .) _ ) \ (\\{I! I !!In z9 4is H fuhrman residence I E. R. P. B. 1 C Folios 09-4036.033-2020 S 2050 1 £ 5800.20 southvwst 87lh street. South Miami, FL 33143 r architect . 6001610 ory mgm laglyvu �H _ MIKE 7i'IMNIW 4W08 *; +;z 4;49 4SOM4009 OE-0089 3 i o osoz s ozoz-eEoreEorso :on0a -8 'd 'a '3 1 aouGPISGJ ueuugn; a I m at EF. orvioorrn PN!yaxo ....... i............ l❑ � EbLEE'li'IWe1W 4Mo8 7auis 4iL8 paMyynos OZ9oBS ' 7H !xi iti ii OGOZ 9 oZoZ-cco-9Eo"o:o!loj - i a '9 'd '2i '3 I souspissi ueuuyn; oroloovm pylya�o _ o n n EME ld'IWQIW 41noS'4GW;S WS WOMMMOS OZ•009S '8'd'&3 I aauapeSaa ueuuyn:l i e W �iW � pV w 8u0 pN u Zw_ • w3 v10 6 VtOz rUW 0 5 w '�3�Ww�z6W p3ww.w~Q�o;g�o"o��o� �x�'a �3Sw33�w3i".x'3nimu3".x'�Ou 0 a 6fol at9laa9LYY I�YI14�JD _ ___ i HI.: 3 ii (�.' O p _, E4LE£ 7i 'I.IW 4inDS 4-75 41L8 4sarn47no5 OL'0085 aqua isa ueuu n 8'd'b'3 P. a 4 d IV 91 g ggo i S.W. 58THAVENUE IXEANDERAV LAE(P) 25' TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY := of N e ..1 51 MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW Published Dairy except Saturday. Sunday and Legal Holidays Miami, Miami -Dade County. Florida STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE: Before the undersigned authority personally appeared GUILLERMO GARCIA. who on oath says that he or she is the DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, Legal Notices of the Miami Dairy Business Review ffk/a Miami Review, a daily (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) newspaper, published at Miami in Miami -Dade County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement. being a Legal Advertisement of Notice in the matter of CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI - PUBLIC HEARINGS - NOV, 19, 2019 m the XXXX Court. was published In said newspaper in the issues of 1170812019 ARam further says that the said Miami Daily Business Review is a newspaper published at Miami, in said Miami -Dade County, Florida and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Miami -Dade County, Florida each day (except Saturday. Sunday and Legal Holidays) and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Miami in said Miami -Dade County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and arrant further says that he or she has neither paid nor promised any person. firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the saitl Swom d subscribed before me this 8 da NOVEVGER, A.D. 2019, GUILLERMO GARCIA personally known to me BARBARATH06W Comsilssionf GG 121171 - i Expires November 2.2021 ``:fy,';,•,vr adndk TluuTroy Fse lmurenre 1013357915 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida will conduct Public Hearing(s) at its regular City Commission meeting scheduled for Tuesday, November 19, 2019, beginning at 7:00 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers, 6130 Sunset Drive, to consider the following Rem(s): A Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute an Amendment to the 2018- 2021 Collective Bargaining Agreement (Lieutenants and Captains) between the Miami Dade COumy FORM Benevolent Association ('PBA') and the City of South Miami and to the 2018-2021 Collective Bargaining Agreement (Police Officers and Sergeants) between the Florida State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police, Inc. ('FOP') and the City of South Miami. A resolution of the City of South Miami relating to the South Miami Community Redevelopment Agency (SMCRA); approving, after public hearing, the proposed SMCRA Community Redevelopment Plan to extend the life of the SMCRA and expand its boundaries, subjem to approval by the Miaml-Dade County Board of County Commissioners; and requesting and recommending such approval. A Resolution relating to a Variance application to Increase the maximum building coverage requirement for a single-family residential building located at 5800-5820 SW 87 Street. A Resolution relating to a Variance application to increase the maximum impervious coverage requirement for a single-family residential building located at 5800-5820 SW 87 Street. A Resolution relating to a Variance application to reduce the minimum side street setback requirement fa a single-family residential building located at 58DO-5820 SW 87 Street - A Resolution relating to a Variance applicaCwn to reduce the minimum cumulative yard setback requirement for a single-family residential building located at 5800-5920 SW 87 Street A Resolution relating to a Variance application to reduce the minimum setback requirement for concrete slabs for a single-family residential building located at 5800-5820 SW 87 Street A Resolution relating to a Variance application to increase the physical barrier height limit for a single-family residential building located at 5800-5820 SW 87 Street. 52 es 2/� WZ09L£40000/ZL 1-6L RILL 'paseq aq of si teadde aql 4a4m uodn aouaplAa pue Auowpsel sql s. pnloul plooai got4m apew si s6ulpaa=d a4110 plooal w4eglaA a 1041 mnsua of paau Am uomad pare 'amdmd 4ons lol legl pue's6utpaaomd au{ to pmoal a paeu pIm aqs to aq '6uueaq to 6ullaaw sll le palaptsuoo lauew Aue of loadsai 4llm uotsswwoo io Aoua6V 'pRo8 sl4l Aq apew uasloap Ave leadde of sapoep uomad a 11 legl otlgnd a4l saslApe Agaieq Alp egl'SOLO'99Z sainlelS epuolj of luensmd w10 Alto OYVO'GuAed y PbuwlN 'OD£9-E99-SOE :le a3410 s,lpap Alp 9411oeluoo aseald'uopeuuolut iaqun{ joj ,pnaq aq ptm pue PUage of Pal!Aul are wiped palswewl -nv 'ooue0dwoo epoo anuanm lewalut jol 6uIPIAoid pue :salnlelS epuatj 9S1 wldego gitm aouepl000e ul saalsrul to pleoq iegwaw- Atj a loi bulplAoid auawnoop ueld aq1 }o A➢Ilgepeal anmdwi of suotslAmd sapntoul 4314m 'seaueulplo to opo0 s�4.0 a4110 III alolW'91 iaidego'punt iswl luawaiPai smotyo aopod twelW glnoS to Allo 9416apuawe epuolA 'lwelyy glnoS to Apo aql to uolsstwwoo Apo pue loAeyy a41 }o asueulplo UV 'Qppej ssaul3 lnrAgd Pue olpnlS 014ft6ola4d'olpnlS uolloMsut SIMS teuoa»d 'do4S lagxa /lgneag apnloul leul sasn 6uiwamoo Ile :suoplpum a IetpadS 4'E-03 uo6oas Pue 'alnpagoS asn Paw.lwad (o)£ E-o2 uopoas 'Suoq!ugaa E'Z-OZ uogl s WOO luawdoloAaa punt a p to swgl 6uu oltol aql &qwm a3ueuwpj0 uV 'sasn WOP NpunS pue'43euuegd'6mCI pue eueniuetq teolp@Vl 6ulw80um wgdaorj IeIoadS. 1S'L-OZ uotloaS pue sluawwinbay 6unoed Pue sash IepadS PUB Pal4wlad, MO VL-OZ uotwaS'IIA alo.pv '.wo,P.Puoo as0 letoads. 7'E-OZ uogoas Pue ,empa4os asN Pagluued. (0)£'E-0Z uollaeS'111 olotuV'.suo9tu9o0. £'Z-OZ uolloaS '0 aiotpV 'apoo luawdolana0 puej aql 6ulPuawe aouewpl0 UV