5876 SW 68 ST_EB-08-079 City of Sou h Nfiami PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FEES
DATE: 0 D CHE NO: Z/1,
NAME:
ADDRESS: 57t? O PH NE NO: 301- �(/3 —Z/WLf
03.41.300 ERPB HEARING FEES Ud ' 00
(Total)
Applications for new construction in the RS and RT zoning districts
Single unit ($750)
All other applicati
New constructs n 900 enovation($450); Signs, fences,walls,etc. ($225)
For each additions earance before the Board($150)
VARIANCE -
02.19.161 Advertisement and Notice Fees ............................($1500)
03.41.200 Admin Fee.......................................................($1500)
(TOTAL$3000)
EACH ADDITIONAL VARIANCE............................($1125)
SPECIAL USE/SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
02.19.161 Advertisement and Notice Fees ............................($1500)
03.41.200 Admin Fee.......................................................($1500)
(TOTAL$3000)
0119.161 REZONING APPLICATION (less than 10 acres).........($6000)
02.1.9.161 REZONING APPLICATION (more than 10 acres).....($20,250)
LDC TEXT AMENDMENT I(General standards,misc..provisions)
02.19.161 Advertisement and Notice Fees................................. ($1500)
03.41.200 Admin Fee............... .......................................... ($1500)
(TOTAL$3000)
LDC TEXT AMENDMENT II(Change Permitted use Schedule)
02.19.161 Advertisement and Notice Fees................................. ($4,500)
03.41.200 Admin Fee............... .......................................... ($19500)
TOTAL($6000)
02.19.161 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMEND AD FEE......... ($22,500)
03.41.200 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADMIN FEE..................($7,500)
(Total$30,000)
02.19.161 PUD/MAJOR CHANGE LEGAL ADS($1,575)
03.41.200 PUD/MAJOR CHANGE ADMIN FEE($3,675)
(Total $5,250)
03.41.200 PUD MINOR CHANGE ADMIN FEE($1,500)
03.41.200 WAIVER-OF-PLAT APPLICATION ($4,500)
TOTAL tv° 0
X:\Forms\RECEIPT FORM Part I(10-8-08).doc
Ordinance No.44-08-1979,adopted 10-7-08
lu
White copy to Planning;Pink copy to Customer, Yellow copy to Finance
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW & PRESERVATION BOARD
To: Chair & Members, Environmental Date: November 5, 2008
Review & Preservation Board Tuesday 8:30 a.m.
Via: Sanford A. Youkilis
Acting Planning Director
From: Lourdes Ca Sr a-Hernandez Re: ERPB-08-079
Planner
Applicant: Alejandro Remos, Architect
Location: 5876 SW 68 Street, South Miami, Florida
Request: NEW CONSTRUCTION: Preliminary
Review: First Review
APPLICANT'S REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting preliminary approval from the Environmental Review and
Preservation Board (ERPB) for the new construction of the proposed two-story building,
located at the above referenced location.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
A. ZONING DISTRICT: The proposed project is located in the TODD-MU4, Transit-
Oriented Development District Mixed Use 4. Pursuant to Section 20-3.1, of the Land
Development Code. The purpose of this district is to maximize the presence of a mass
transit center located within walking distance of the boundaries of the district. The
TODD District is intended to provide for the development of office uses, office services,
office-related retail, retail, retail services, and residential uses in multi-story and mixed
use projects that are characteristics of transit-oriented developments. Regulations
provide for the continuation of existing light industrial uses, but encourages
redevelopment through flexible building heights, design standards, and performance-
oriented incentives. Pursuant to Section 20-8.3(C)(2)(a), Permitted Uses, Land
Development Code. The uses permitted in each TODDMU-4 are Residential and
Commercial Uses.
B. SURVEY:
.See attached boundary survey, prepared by Frank Paruas, Professional Land Suveor,
submitted to the ERPB on October 24, 2008.
C. SITE PLAN DESIGN:
The applicant, Mr. Remos, Architect, for the proposed two-story building located at the
southwest corner of SW 68 Street and SW 58 Place. The proposed development
"Somerset School," consists of a lot area of 34,514.50 square feet. The two story
building provides.a gross floor area of 23, 998 square feet, first floor 11,172 square feet
and second floor 12,826 square feet. The design consists of an urban pedestrian
friendly covered walkway arcade, extending the entire length of the corner building.
,
5876 SW 68 Street
"Somerset School"
New Construction: Preliminary
ERPB-August 7, 2007
Page 2 of 3
Inclusive of a physical barrier designed to accent the character of the proposed building.
The parking area is located at the rear of the building and the children drop-ff on the
side adjacent to SW 68 Street. As per the Permitted Use Schedule, Section 20-3.3(D),
page 30.1, of the Land Development code; a School, Elementary is permitted by right
within the TODD MU4 zoning district. Pursuant to the Off-Street Parking Requirements,
Section 20-4.4(8)(10) for an elementary school must be one (1) space per four hundred
(400) square feet of gross floor area.
23,998sq.feet lspace
X = 59.99spaces ;z� 60spaces
1 400sgfeet
D. ELEVATIONS:
The building elevations for the entire site are part of the submitted set of plans, sheet
number A-103. The maximum height of the proposed two-story building is 28'-6" where
a maximum height of 30 feet is allowed. The elevations include the building height,
building finishes and materials, noted on plans. The physical barrier, designed to
include a metal gate are a part of the elevations. The massing of the buildings facades
and architectural elements are enhanced by the selected exterior paint colors.
E. EXTERIOR PAINT COLORS:
The design intent of the exterior paint colors are indicated,on the rendering that will be
presented at the ERPB meeting. The multi-color fagade colors by Sherwin Williams are
as follows: For the Body, Interactive Cream SW6113; and two accent colors Lakeshore
SW6494 and Redwing SW2909. The proposed color combination enhances the
architectural corner design and site circulation.
Note: A color rendering of the proposed building design, "Somerset School" will be
presented at the meeting, including the submitted photographs of both the subject
property for review.
F. Development Review Committee:
On October 28, 2008 (Tuesday), the committee met to review the proposed site plan.
The Stormwater Ordinance was emphasized by the Planning Department. The intent of
the Ordinance is to "require all properties to retain stormwater drainage on site as to
prevent development that would result in contributing to or causing recurrent ponding on
adjoining properties or public right-of-way." Also noted was the applicant shall submit all
required separate permits accordingly.
G. Landscaping Plan:
The landscape plan submitted to the City can be found on the attached site plan, sheet
L-1. The Plan includes a description of the landscape legend, including tree names and
other pertinent information.. Shown on the legend are the number of trees that will be
added as part of the proposed project. Pursuant to Section 20-4.5(D)(5)(b) of the Land
5876 SW 68 Street
"Somerset School"
New Construction: Preliminary
ERPB-August 7, 2007
Page 3 of 3
Development Code, the minimum number or trees required for the TODD zoning district
are 28 trees per acre of net lot area. A grading and irrigation plan will be required from
the applicant prior to final ERPB approval. A tree removal permit and performance bond
is attached for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION: Preliminary Approval with the following conditions:
1. Pending City Attorney' s ruling reference to square footage (to be determined if
porch area is to be counted as building square footage); '
2: Meet the requirements as set forth in the Adopted Stormwater Ordinance;
3. Submit the grading and irrigation plan prior to final ERPB approval;
4. Submit the engineering plans prior to final ERPB approval;
5. Signage for the building is not a part of this application; and
5. Any comments and/or suggestions from the Board.
Attachments:
• ERPB Application, dated October 22, 2008
• Property Survey (24"x36", On File)
• Photographs to be presented at meeting,
• Zoning Use Districts and Purposes for Todd 4 District, Section 20-3.1, Land Development Code
• Tree Removal Permit and Performance Bond
• Architectural Plans Site Plan & Landscaping Plan,
• Floor Plan
• Elevations
• Sections& Details
• Landscaping plan
LCH
Z:\ERPB\ERPB Agendas\2008 ERPB AGENDAS\November 5,2008\ERPB 08-079.doc
SouT,,
7
t o RLO
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING &ZONING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PRESERVATION BOARD APPLICATION
/ SOUTH MIAMI,FL
STREET ADDRESS OF JOB:
PROPERTY OWNER: o
ADDRESS: Ko l�fl 1 t� Cny STATE ZIP
STREET-
WHAT IS THE PRESENT USE OF THE PROPERTY?
SINGLE-FAMI
LY RESIDENCE BUSINESS OFFICE RETAIL STORE OTI-ER: Va Cwt A+
APARTMENT OR TOWNHOUSE MEDICAL OFFICE AUTO REPAIR
PLEASE,BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED:
i
an S Ir
WHAT WILL THE TO TAL COST BE TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT? ►A �'� '
( i, CL TEL NO.
APPLICANTS NAME: n P—Pvo ,I
ADDRESS: v • CITY STATE 1.
STREET i
FAX NUMBER: \ ` t ��
(G� It
AS THE APPLICANT,PLEASE,INDICATE YOUR RELATIONSHIP T ROJECT
O THIS P
OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TENANT/LESSEE CONTRACTOR OTHER:
ARCHITECT ENGINEER
OWNER OF THE BUSINESS
PERSON B's decision will be mailed to the contact indicated below):
PLEASE,INDICATE CONTACT
PROPERTY OWNER
APPLICANT
OTHER(prov sd as mid address)
DATE
PLEASE SIGN URNAME ON THE LINE ABOVE
Y:\ERPB\ERPB Application Form REVISED FOR-2007-2008-doc
T
ZONING REGULATIONS 20-3.1
ARTICLE III. ZONING REGULATIONS
20-3.1 Zoning use districts and purposes.
(A) Zoning Districts Established. In order to implement the intent of this Code and the
city's adopted Comprehensive Plan, the City is hereby divided into eighteen (18) zoning use
districts with the symbol designations and general purposes listed below and permitted uses
set forth in Section 20-3.3(D). A planned unit development (PUD) district is also created in
Section 20-3.7. Standards shall be uniform throughout each zoning use district. District
symbols and names shall be known as:
Symbol Name
RS-1 Estate Residential
RS-2 Semi-Estate Residential
RS-3 Low Density Single-Family
RS-4 Single-Family
RS-5 Single-Family(50'lots)
RT 6 Townhouse Residential
RT-9 Two-Family/Townhouse Residential
RM-18 Low Density Multi-Family Residential
RM-24 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential
RO Residential Office
LO Low-Intensity Office
MO Medium-Intensity Office
NR Neighborhood Retail
SR Specialty Retail
st GR General Retail
- TODD Transit-Oriented Development District
H Hospital
PI Public/Institutional
PR Parks and Recreation
HP-OV Historic Preservation Overlay
(B) District Purpose Statements.
"TODD, D-ansit-Oriented Development District. The purpose of this district is to
maximize the presence of a mass transit center located within walking distance of the
boundaries of the district. The TODD District is intended to provide for the develop-
ment of office uses, office services, office-related retail, retail, retail services, and
residential uses in multi-story and mixed use projects that are characteristic of
transit-oriented developments. Regulations provide for the continuation of existing
light industrial uses,but encourages redevelopment through flexible building heights,
design standards, and performance-oriented incentives. The district is appropriate in
areas designated "Transit-Oriented Development District" on the City's adopted
Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map.
Supp.No. 9
20-3.5 SOUTH MIAMI LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
Section 20-3.5G
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
REQUIREMENT RO LO MO NR SR GR TODD
Min. Lot Size
Net Area(sq. ft.) 7,500 7,500 10,000 7,500 5,000 10,000 5,000
Frontage (ft) 75 75 100 75 50° 100 50
Min. Setbacks (ft.)
Front 25 20 15b 25 10b 20 20
Rear 20 15 10 15 10 15 a
Side (Interior) 10 10 0 — — —
Side (Street) 20 15 10 15 lob 15 15
Adj. Res. Dist. 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Side (w/driveway) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Between Buildings 20 20 20 — — — —
Max. Building Height
Stories 2 2 4 2 4 2 2
Feet 25 30 50 25 50 30 30
Max. Building -
Coverage M 30 — — — — — —
Max. Impervious
Coverage (%) 75 80 85 75 90 85 85
Max. Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) 0.30 .70 1.60 .25 1.60 .80 .80
a 5'setback with wall opening adjacent to rear property line; no setback if no openings in
wall.
b Applies to ground floor only;columns are permitted within the setback.Columns shall not
be greater than 24 inches in diameter;columns on the property line shall not be closer
to each other than 10 feet.
C The frontage requirement does not apply to uses in the SR District.
(Ord.No.2-90-1445, 1-2-90;Ord.No.2-92-1497, 1-7-92;Ord.No. 13-93-1541,§ 1,9-17-93;Ord.
No. 23-94-1573,§ 1, 12-20-94;Ord.No.8-95-1581,§3,6-6-95;Ord.No. 1-96-1601,§ 1, 1-16-96;
Ord. No.-8-97-1629, § 1, 4-1-97; Ord. No. 17-03-1801A, § 1, 9-2-03)
5upp.No.8 50.2
r
cry
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI qn
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW & PRESERVATION BOARD
To: Chair & Members, Environmental Date: December 16, 2008
Review & Preservation Board Tuesday 8:30 a.m.
Via: Sanford A. Youkilis
Acting Planning Director (/
From: Lourdes Ca rer ernandez Re: ERPB-08-079
Planner
Applicant: Alejandro Remos, Architect
Location: 5876 SW 68 Street, South Miami, Florida
Request: NEW CONSTRUCTION: Final
.Review: Third Review
-.APPLICANT'S REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting final approval from the Environmental Review and
Preservation Board (ERPB) for the new construction of the proposed two-story building,
located at the above referenced location.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
A.1 PROJECT STATUS: The application appeared before the Environmental Review
and Preservation Board (ERPB), on November 18, 2008, and received preliminary
approval as presented of the site plan and architectural building design.`At such time,
the project proceeded with the engineering working drawings of development, which are
attached for final review and approval.
A.2 BACKGROUND: On November 5, 2008, the Environmental Review and
Preservation Board (ERPB), deferred the application with comments. Board members
questioned encroachment into public right-of-way, the function and design of the
arcade, if any green aspects were a part of the design, and the submittal of a building
model. Regarding encroachment into public right-of-way, the architect consulted with
the Building Department for clarification, (refer to attached letter dated, November 6,
2008 and Chapter 32, Encroachments into Public Right-of-Way, Florida Building Code).
The arcade was connected at the corner and follows the site curvature and functions as
one continuous covered walkway adjacent to the fagade of the building. Proposal
includes a gray water gutter collection and the building model will be presented at the
meeting.
A.3 ZONING DISTRICT: The proposed project is located in the TODD-MU4, Transit-
Oriented Development District Mixed Use 4. Pursuant to Section 20-3.1, of the Land
Development Code. Pursuant to Section 20-8.3(C)(2)and(3) and Section 20-8.5(B), the
uses permitted in a TODD MU-4 District are Residential and Commercial Uses, which
includes a school as a permitted use.
5876 SW 68 Street
"Somerset School"
New Construction: Preliminary
ERPB-December 16, 2008
Page 2 of 3
B. SURVEY:
See attached boundary survey, prepared by Frank Paruas, Professional Land Surveyor,
submitted to the ERPB on October 24, 2008.
C. SITE PLAN DESIGN:
The applicant, Mr. Remos, Architect, for the proposed development "Somerset School,"
consists of a lot area of 34,514.50 square feet. The two story building provides a gross
floor area of 23, 998 square feet, first floor 11,172 square feet and second floor 12,826
square feet. The design consists of an urban pedestrian friendly covered walkway
arcade, extending the entire length of the corner building, which provides a physical
barrier designed to accent the character of the proposed building. The parking area is
located at the rear of the building and the children drop-ff on the side adjacent to SW 68 ,
Street.
Pursuant to the Off-Street Parking Requirements, Section 20-4.4(6)(10) for an
elementary school must be one (1) space per four hundred (400) square feet of gross
floor area.
23,998sq.feet 1ppace
X - 59.99spaces � 60spaces
1 400sq.feet
The site plan notes and proposes a total of 61 parking spaces including forty-eight (48)
parking spaces on site and thirteen (13) street parking spaces abutting the subject
property. In accordance with a recently adopted change (Ordinance No. 31-08-1966) in
the Land Development Code, the applicant will be required to pay a $1,000 annual fee
for each on-street parking space counted as a required parking space, Section 20-
4.4(A)(3) of the LDC.
D. ELEVATIONS:
The elevations reflect the new arcade design. The building elevations for the entire site
are part of the submitted set of plans, sheet number A-103. The maximum height of the
proposed two-story building is 28'-6" where a maximum height of 30 feet is allowed. The
elevations include the building height, building finishes and materials, noted on plans.
The physical barrier, designed to include a metal gate are a part of the elevations. The
massing of the building's facades and architectural elements are enhanced by the
selected exterior paint colors.
E. EXTERIOR PAINT COLORS:
The design intent of the exterior paint colors are indicated on the rendering that will be
presented at the ERPB meeting. The multi-color facade colors by Sherwin Williams are
as follows: For the Body, Interactive Cream SW6113; and two accent colors Lakeshore
SW6494 and Redwing SW2909. The proposed color combination enhances the
architectural corner design and site circulation. Photographs of the subject and
5876 SW 68 Street
"Somerset School"
New Construction: Preliminary
ERPB-December 16, 2008
Page 3 of 3
surrounding properties, a rendering and a model of the proposed building design
"Somerset School" has been submitted to the Planning Department.
F. Development Review Committee:
On October 28, 2008 (Tuesday), the staff DRC committee met to review the proposed
site plan. The Stormwater Ordinance was emphasized by the Planning Department. The
intent of the Ordinance is to "require all properties to retain stormwater drainage on site
as to prevent development that would result in contributing to or causing recurrent
ponding on adjoining properties or public right-of-way." Also noted was that the
applicant shall submit all required permits accordingly.
G. Landscaping Plan:
The landscape plan submitted to the City can be found on the attached site plan, sheet
L-1. The Plan includes a description of the landscape legend, including tree names and
other pertinent information. Shown on the legend are the number of trees that will be
added as part of the proposed project. Pursuant to Section 20-4.5(D)(5)(b) of the Land
Development Code, the minimum number or trees required for the TODD zoning district
are 28 trees per acre of net lot area. A grading and irrigation plan will be required from
the applicant prior to final ERPB approval. A tree removal permit and performance bond
is attached for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION: Final Approval with the following conditions:
1. Meet the requirements as set forth in the Adopted Stormwater Ordinance;
2. Signage for the building is not a part of this application;
3. Execute an Agreement with the City concerning the annual payment for the
thirteen (13) on-street parking spaces abutting the property, which are being
counted as required spaces; and,
4. Any comments and/or suggestions from the Board.
Attachments:
• COMPLETE SET of Working Drawings
LCH
Z:\ERPB\ERPB Agendas\2008 ERPB AGENDAS\December 16,2008\ERPB 08-079RF.doc
Now
Sol
INCORPORATED
1927
C0RYO
November 18,2008
Re: Environmental Review&Preservation Board—Final Approval
Applicant: Somerset School
Project: New Construction: Preliminary
Address: 5876 SW 68 Street
ERPB No.: 08-079
Meeting Date: November 18,2008
Dear: Mr. Remos
The intent of this correspondence is to inform you that the City of South Miami Environmental
Review and Preservation Board(ERPB)has approved your application.
The next step in the plan review process is to submit an application for building permit. Please
contact the Building Department at(305) 663-6358. The final approval from the ERPB shall lapse
after six (6) months if no permit is applied for. This requirement can be found in Section 20-
5.11(L), entitled Expiration,Land Development Code.
Please be advised that an appeal of an ERPB decision or recommendation may be filed with the
City Clerk at any time before a building permit is issued. Appeals may be submitted by the
applicant, interested citizens, or the city administration [Section 20-6.2 (A), City Land
Development Code].
If you have any questions regarding this application, please contact Mrs. Lourdes Cabrera-
Hernandez at the Planning Department, between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday
through Friday at 305-663-6347.
Sincerel
ford Youkilis, f/CP
Acting Planning Director
Planning Department
Y:\ERPB\ERPB Letters\2008 Letters\ERPB FINAL AS PRESENTED.doe
j
4 SOU7,
� r
U w
INCORPORATED
1927
Q'
0R;o
December 16,2008
Re: Environmental Review&Preservation Board—Final Approval
Applicant: Somerset School
Project: New Construction: Final
Address: 5876 SW 68 Street
ERPB No.: 08-079
Meeting Date:December 16,2008
Dear: Mr.Remos
The intent of this correspondence is to inform you that the City of South Miami Environmental
Review and Preservation Board(ERPB)has approved your application with conditions.
The next step in the plan review process is to submit an application for building permit. Please.
contact the Building Department at(305) 663-6358. The final approval from the ERPB shall lapse
after six (6) months if no permit is applied for. This requirement can be found in Section 20-
5.11(L), entitled Expiration,Land Development Code.
Please be advised that an appeal of an ERPB decision or recommendation may be filed with the
City Clerk at any time before a building permit is issued. Appeals may be submitted by the
applicant, interested citizens, or the city administration [Section 20-6.2 (A), City Land
Development Code].
If you have any questions .regarding this application, please contact Mrs. Lourdes Cabrera-
Hernandez at the Planning Department, between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday
through Friday at 305-663-6347.
VSSincerelloukilis,ALCP
Acting Planning Director
Planning Department
Y:\ERPB\ERPB Letters\2008 Letters\ERPB FINAL WITH CONDITIONS08-079.doc
�1
Page 1 of 1
Kobola, Slaven
From: Kobola, Slaven
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 1:47 PM
To: Olivo, Jose -"-
Subject: Review of Somerset School's plans for Planning
1 p 9
Jose, here is what I have found as not being appropriate:
Somerset School, plan review (done 10/30/2008)
The survey:
1. . The survey does not show the existing sidewalk's width.
The Site Plan (A-101
2. Future sidewalks' widths are not shown.
3. Driveway at SW 68th Street is 21' wide, and it should be 22' wide (LDC, 20-4.4).
4. Driveway at SW 58th Place is not dimensioned, but it is certainly less than 22' wide (as required by LDC,
20-4.4).
5. Triangles of visibility (TOV) are not shown at intersection of SW 68th Street and SW 58th Place. If they
would be shown, it may be that the building's staircase on the NE corner of the building will encroach in
the TOV, which is not allowed by LDC, 20-3.6.
6. Triangles of visibility (TOV) are not shown at intersection of SW 68th Street and SW 58th Place. If they
would be shown, it may be that the street parking stalls will encroach in the TOV, which is not allowed by
LDC, 20-3.6.
7. Triangles of visibility (TOV) are not shown at either of ingress/egress points. If they would be shown, it
may be that the street parking stalls will encroach in the TOVs, which is not allowed by LDC, 20-3.6.
8. It appears that there is not 10 SF of landscaped area provided per parking space, as required by LDC, 20-
4.5(12).
The Landscape Plan (L-1):
9. The trees flanking the parking areas in the South and South-West portion of the property appear to be
planted in the parking stalls' setback, which is not allowed by LDC, 20-4.5(12).
In addition to the submitted material:
10. The applicant should be forced to carry out the "unity of title", as required by LDC, 20-5.16.
11. Drainage plans were not submitted.
Feel free to add your comments, preferably in a different font color.
Slaven Kobola
�.O4/ 2008 it
GIS Coordinator
11/12/2008
v,1
Vote: 7 Approved 0 Opposed
2) .[ERPB-08-079] Applicant: Somerset School
Location: 5876 SW 68 Street
Request: New Construction: Preliminary
Applicants Present: Mr. Remos
Ms. Resendiz read the item into the record.
Mrs. Mark questioned if there were any pictures of the surrounding properties. Ms. Resendiz
replied yes.
Mr. Trautman questioned where the water goes from the concrete scoffers on the flat roof that
pour down to the sloping roof. The applicant responded that the roof is structurally sloped.
Mr. Chandler questioned the location of the property line. The applicant responded that the
property line is approximately 5' from the curb. Mr..Chandler then commented that in the
Florida Building Code an encroachment to the right of way is not allowed since it is past the
property line. He then suggested for the applicant to look into the encroachment in the right of
way section in the Florida Building Code.
Mr. Chandler questioned if the item had already gone to City Commission. Ms. Resendiz replied
that they are permitted by right and do not need to go to City Commission.
Mr. Fernandez questioned if the drop off porch was being included and considered as lot
coverage. The applicant replied that it is not being counted for the parking requirement but it is
counted as part of lot coverage.
The Board members discussed the Florida Building Code right of way encroachment.
Mr. Rivera questioned if there was a tree permit on the site. The applicant replied that there is a
permit on site.
Mr. Trautman recommended that the applicant install a gutter system in the end of the sloping
roof that would pick up the water or a system that would irrigate the rest of the building. He then
commented that there could be a lot of toilets that could benefit from grey water.
Mr. Chandler recommended that all of the arcades connect. He then commented that it would be
nice for it to be connected in the corner.
Mr. Fernandez commented that the corner is important and plays a minor role. He recommended
a fin or an eyebrow that connects to the corner.
ERPB Mins 11-05-2008 -
Pg 3 of 9
Mr. Trautman commented that he would like to see more of a green aspect. However, he will not
grant preliminary approval due to the property encroachment line.
Mr. Chandler commented that there is a lot of merit in the project, but since there is an issue of
fire and encroachment of the right of way he could not approve the project.
Mrs. Marks commented that the project was nice. She then recommended for the applicant to
look into green involvement and consider solar water heating.
Mr. Bedell commented that the Landscape Plan is appropriate, but it eliminates any opportunity
to plant street trees.
Mrs. Mark suggested to the Staff that pictures of the surrounding properties be included and a
model is required for visual purposes for the Board members.
Motion: Mr. Chandler moved to defer the application to allow the applicant to continue working
on the project in order to bring it to a sustainable design and further study the encroachment of
the right of way. Mr. Fernandez seconded.
Vote: 7 Approved 0 Opposed
3) [ERPB-08-067] Applicant: Lcotta Designers,Inc.
For: Cool—De- Sac
Location: 5701 SW 72 Street
Request: Signage Installation
Applicants Present: Mrs. Corteris and Mrs. Suarez
Ms. Resendiz read the item into the record.
Mr. Trautman questioned the position of the window sign that was located on the North
elevation. Ms. Resendiz replied yes.
The Board members discussed the location of the hanging sign.
Mr. Chandler questioned if the sign cannot extend beyond ten percent of that specific window.
Ms. Resendiz replied yes.
Mrs. Mark commented that the sign exceeds the size and if it is located on all the windows. The
applicant responded that originally the sign was placed on all of the windows. However as of this
moment it is only on that one window.
Motion: Mr. Trautman moved to approve the application with the condition that the hanging
sign cannot exceed 3 square feet and the signage proposed for the window must be only on that
one window. Mr. Jude seconded.
Vote: 7 Approved 0 Opposed
ERPB Mins 11-05-2008 -- -
Pg4of9
sour
1
V
INCORPORATED
1927
CORAO
November 6, 2008
Re: Environmental Review & Preservation Board—Deferral
Applicant: Somerset School
Project: New Construction: Preliminary
Address: 5876 SW 68 Street
ERPB No.: 08-079
Meeting Date: November 5, 2008
Dear: Mr. Remos,
The intent of this correspondence is to inform you that the City of South Miami
Environmental Review and Preservation Board (ERPB)has deferred your application.
In order to continue processing your application, you are required to re-submit fifteen (15)
copies of the revised plans to the Planning Department. The deadline for re-submitting the
revised plans is November 8, 2008. The ERPB will meet on November 18, 2008. If you
fail to meet the deadline requirements, your application will be assigned to the next
regularly scheduled meeting. During this meeting, the ERPB will either grant approval of
your application with conditions or they can request additional modifications to the plan, if
necessary.
If you have an y further questions regarding this application, please contact Mrs. Lourdes
Cabrera Hernandez at the Planning Department, between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00
PM, Monday through Friday at 305-663-6326.
Sincerely,
WYo, i ' ,AICP
Acting Planning Director
Planning Department
Y:\ERPB\ERPB Letters\2008 Letters\ERPB DEFERRED08-079.doc
s �
tr s O U U
INCORPORATED
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW & PRESERVATION BOARD
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday,November 18,2008
8:30 AM
I. CALL TO ORDER
Action: Mr. Trautman(Chair), called the meeting to order at 8:30 A.M.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Action: The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.
III. ROLL CALL
Action: Mr. Trautman performed roll call.
Board members present constituting a quorum: Mr. Trautman, Mrs. Mark, Mr. Bedell, Mr.
Chandler, Mr. Jude Board members absent: Mrs. Morales- Fernandez , Mr. Balli, Mr. Rivera,
and Mr. Fernandez
City Staff present: Mr. Marcus Lightfoot (Permit Facilitator) and Alerik Barrios (Assistant) Staff
absent: Mrs. Lourdes Cabrera-Hernandez(Planner)
IV.REQUESTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1) [ERPB-08-079] Applicant: Somerset School
Location: 5876 SW 68 Street
Request: New Construction: Preliminary
Applicants Present: Mr. Remos and Mr. Zuleta
Mr. Lightfoot read the item into the record.
Mrs. Mark questioned if the applicant submitted photographs of the surrounding properties. The
applicant replied yes.
Mr. Trautman questioned why the grey water gutter would be placed by the arcade instead of at
the bottom of the sloped roof. The applicant responded that the gutter would be within the
ERPB Mins 11-18-2008
Pg 1 of 4
t o'
eighteen (18) inches that the city requires and the structure is recessed from the curb. Mr.
Trautman commented that the gutter will over hang eighteen (18) inches and is not allowed. Mr.
Chandler commented that. there is no limit after fifteen (15) feet according to the Florida-
Building Code.
Mr. Trautman recommended that the grey water gutter be moved to the bottom of the sloped
roof. He then questioned the location of the scoffers and if the applicant was aware that it is
required by the building code to have emergency scoffers. The applicant showed the Board
members the location of the scoffers that are precast over flow. The regular scoffers are drains
and he was aware of the emergency scoffers.
Mrs. Mark questioned if the model of the project included the eight foot high fencing. She then
commented that it will be higher than what was proposed. The applicant responded that the
fence is not included in the model but it can be seen in the rendering.
Mrs. Mark asked how the applicant was going to water the plants that are supposed to be going
up the fence. The applicant replied using an irrigation system.
Mrs. Mark questioned how the new building fits in with surrounding buildings. The applicant
responded by giving details of the surrounding the properties.
Mrs. Mark questioned if the gutter that over hangs the sidewalk complies the code. Mr. Chandler
replied that it is ok, but the right of way has been an issue in the past.
The applicant gave the example of the east wall of The Shops at Sunset Place along SW 57`h and
how it relates to his project He then commented on how the situation of the encroachment of
right of way is seen in certain buildings in the city.
Mrs. Mark commented that she liked many aspects of the project, but feels that it is too massive
and there aren't any areas for street trees. She then stated that the third floor does not have a roof
and this is located near multi family residences.
Mr. Trautman complimented the architect on a great job trying to create a school that will help
the community.
Mrs. Mark commented that the school does not have any landscaping.
Motion: Mr. Trautman moved to grant preliminary approval as presented. Mr. Bedell seconded.
Vote: 4 Approved 1 Opposed (Mrs.Mark)
2) [ERPB-08-08-048] Applicant: Lidia Prieto
Location: 5920 SW 68 Street
Request: Revision to Plans
Applicants Present: Mrs. Prieto
ERPB Mins 11-18-2008
Pg 2 of 4
Mr. Fernandez recommended moving the building back five feet so that there is a sidewalk, a
strip for landscaping which would resolve the issues with the emergency exit door. The applicant
replied that they were granted a variance for the side setback 17 and it cannot come closer to the
apartment complex.
Mr. Trautman recommended that adding glazing to the cross at the end of the chapel will allow
some natural light to enhance the beauty of the outside and inside.
Mr. Bedell commented that they should look into lighting for the parking area. The applicant
questioned if the lighting could be a combination of off the building and something else. Mr.
Trautman replied that it could be combination different types of lighting.
Mr. Fernandez questioned if the proposed five foot concrete sidewalk right of way is to be
dedicated. The applicant responded it is five feet from the curb and dedicating three feet.
Motion: Mr. Bedell moved grant preliminary approval for the application with the following
conditions:
(1) Relocation of the four silver buttons to from the east side to the south side.
(2) Addition of glazing on the east side
(3) Property wall separating the apartments to the south
(4) The reconfiguration of the door
(5) Study the symmetrical elevation
(6) Roof screening of the mechanical equipment
Mr. Jude seconded
Vote: 4 Approved 0 Opposed
3) [ERPB-08-079] Applicant: Somerset School
Location: 5876 SW 68 Street
Request: New Construction: Preliminary
Applicants Present: Mr. Remos, Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Zulueta
Mrs. Cabrera-Hernandez read the item into the record.
Mr. Trautman questioned if the flat sloping roof on sheet "A - 07" contains a storm drain. The
applicant replied no, but they would consider placing either a parapet, storm drain or an awning
over the door.
Mr. Bedell questioned if the landscape plan was part of the package. Mrs. Cabrera- Hernandez
replied that there is a landscape plan in the file, but not the package.
Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Zulueta introduced themselves and gave the Board members an insight into
the school.
ERPB Mins 12-16-2008
Pg5of8
s
Mr. Trautman questioned if the school is part of the Miami-Dade County Public School, the
grade levels and who could attend. The applicant responded yes, the center is for k— 8 and any
child in Miami Dade County could attend.
Mr. Trautman questioned if the green space of the project is enough for the physical education of
the school. The applicant responded yes.
Mr. Fernandez questioned why the applicant on the roof plan did not include a.centralized air
system. The applicant responded that they are in the front near side to the parapet wall. He then
commented that the parapet is forty two inches tall with the stand and the green screen is six
inches behind so they could use it for recreation.
Mr. Trautman moved to grant final approval with the condition that the architect rework the stair
number two, add a parapet with a drain and an over flow that would preserve the crown, any
unfortunate roofing condition and the Landscape plan to be added to the next time they submit.
Mr. Trautman amended the motion.
Motion: Mr. Trautman moved to grant final approval with the condition to incorporate a study
of whether or not the parapet wall goes with height at the top of the unit, Add a parapet with a
drain and an over flow that would preserve the crown and any unfortunate roofing condition and
the Landscape plan to be added. Mr. Jude seconded.
Vote: 4 Approved 0 Opposed
4) [ERPB-08-081] Applicant: Acolite & Claude United Sign Co.
For: South Baptist Health
Location: 6250 SW 72 Street
Request: Signage Installation
Applicants Present: Mr. Ramirez
Mr. Lightfoot read the item into the record.
Mr. Trautman question if the signage for South Miami Hospital Baptist Health falls under the
standard. Mr. Lightfoot said yes.
Mr. Bedell questioned if the products are available on the promises. Mr. Lightfoot said that
according to the code the sign falls under advertising.
Motion: Mr. Trautman moved to approve the application with signage saying South Miami
Baptist Health as advised by Staff conditions and the removal of the list. of services being
provided.
Vote: 4 Approved 0 Opposed V
5) [ERPB-08-090] Applicant: Kemp Signs,Inc.
For: Chevron Gas Station
ERPB Mins 12-16-2008
Pg6of8
South Miami
Florida
2001
CITY OF SO UTH MIAMI
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Performance Bond Calculation Sheet
October 24, 2008
Applicant: CSM Real Estate, LLC
Project address: 6835 SW 67th Street
South Miami, F133143
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant has filed a tree removal permit for the
removal of three (3) Mahogany trees, one (1) Banyan tree, and three (3) Golden Rain
trees. The applicant has also filed a tree removal permit for the relocation of four (4)
Mahogany trees.
The intent of this calculation sheet is to provide the calculations in regards to the
requirements of the performance bond.
Pursuant to the Tree Removal Permit — Submittals, Section 20-4.5(I)(4)(d) of the City of .
South Miami Land Development Code,
i. A performance bond to guarantee compliance with all conditions, limitations,
and restrictions of the tree removal permit, including, but not limited to,
planting of all required replacement trees.
ii. The bond shall be equivalent to one hundred fifteen percent (11 S%) of the
estimated cost of the permitted activity and may be in the form of a letter of
credit, surety, cash, or certificate of deposit.
iii. All performance bonds shall remain in force for a minimum of either one (1)
year after the actual completion date of the permitted activity (to ensure that
any replanted trees which perish are replaced), or, until viability of all
replanted trees has been achieved, which ever occurs last.
iv. At the discretion of the Planning Director, performance bonds may be partially
released in phases based upon partial completion of planting or other permit
requirements.
The-calculated value of the bond shall not exceed $3,220.00.
Therefore, the calculations are as follows:
1. The estimated price for relocating one (1) 18'-0" high Mahogany tree is $700.00
per tree.
6130 SUNSET DRIVE
SOUTH MIAMI,FL 33143
TEL: 305-663-6326 ♦FAX:305-668-7356
f
2. There are four (4) Mahogany trees that need to be relocated, therefore the price
for these trees are:
$700.00 x 4 =$2,800.00
3. Therefore, the total amount would be $2,800.00.
4. Pursuant to Section 20-4.5(I)(4)(d)(ii) of the Land Development Code, The bond
shall be equivalent to one hundred fifteen percent (115%) of the estimated cost of
the permitted activity and may be in the form of a letter of credit, surety, cash, or
certificate of deposit. Therefore:
$2,800.00 x 115% = $3,220.00
7. The Performance Bond must be made for the amount of$3,220.00
YATree Protection Ord Removal\Tree Removal Penn its\2008\October\5 876 SW 68 Street\Performance Bond Calculation Sheet -
Tree Removal Agreement.doc
6130 SUNSET DRIVE
SOUTH MIAMI,FL 33143
TEL:305-663-6326 ♦FAX:305-668-7356
Somerset School — City of South Miami.
FACADE COLORS .
Blue.
SW 6494 Lakeshore
e
Cream
SW 6113
Interactive Cream
SW 6113
Interactive Cream
Red
SW 2909
Redwing
CASH
CASH RECEIPT
CHECK NO. ?)
DATE:
City of f Sout Miami
FUND ACCOUNT NO
RECEIVED OF (-)IV()LA L)-o
5LO bb �-T
DESCRIPTION 11�1G1 Q
AMOUNT S
PLEASE MAKE ALL CHECKS PAYABLE TO:
"CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI"
VALID ONLY WHENBEARING OFFICIAL REGISTER VALIDATION SHIER
South Miami
` F l o r i d a
Y i
I'•ire�1 t.R�,�.�..��,
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Tree Removal Permit Conditions Form
October 23, 2008
Applicant: Somi Group, LLC
Project address: 5876 SW 68`h Street
South Miami,F133143
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant has filed a tree removal permit for the removal of three
(3) Mahogany trees, one(1)Banyan tree, and three (3)Golden Rain trees. The applicant has also filed
a tree removal permit for the relocation of four(4)Mahogany trees.
The permit is approved with the following conditions:
All replacements must he Native Hardwoods, Florida Fancy Number 1 with a minimum height
of 12'-0 to 14'-Vunless otherwise stated
I. The removal of the trees listed above has been approved. Because the trees have been strangled
out by Wysteria and have multiple health issues, no canopy replacement will be required. The
proposed landscape plan mitigates the removal of these trees.
II. The City Arborist recommends that Albezzia Lebbek, which was not on the tree disposition
inventory be removed as well. Pursuant to Section 20-4.5(H)(5)(f) of the Land Development
Code, Albezzia Lebbek is considered an invasive species and is exempt from needing a permit
for removal.
III. The relocation of the four (4) Mahogany trees must comply with the regulations as set forth in
the Tree Removal Permit Relocation Standards Section 20-4.5(K) of the City of South Miami
Land Development Code, which states:
1. Trees other than palms:
a. Tree roots shall be severed in such a manner as to provide a root ball which is
sufficient to ensure survival of the tree when relocated. A sufficiently-sized planting
hole shall be provided at the relocation site to ensure successful re-growth;
b. After root severing, adequate time shall be allowed prior to replanting to ensure
survival of the tree(s). After root severing and prior to relocation, tree(s) shall be
watered a minimum of twice weekly; and, after relocation, said tree(s) shall be
watered a minimum of twice weekly until the tree(s) are established;
c. During removal and transportation of the tree, the root ball and vegetative portions
of the tree shall be protected from damage from wind or injury;and,
d. Any tree that dies or becomes nonviable within one (1) year of relocation shall be
replaced according to the standards set forth in Section 20-4.5(J)(2) & (3) of the
Land Development Code.
6130 SUNSET DRIVE
SOUTH MIAMI,FL 33143
TEL:305-663-6326 ♦ FAX: 305-668-7356
2. Preservation credit for relocated trees. Permittees who successfully relocate trees shall
receive full credit for the relocated trees and the tree replacement requirements herein
shall not apply to such relocated trees. All relocated trees shall meet the standards set
forth above.
IV. In the event that any of the trees die or become nonviable within one (1)year of relocation,the
replacement tree shall follow the guidelines listed above for replacement trees.
V. Failure to plant, preserve, or maintain each individual tree shall be considered a separate
violation of the Land Development Code.
VI. The trees are not to be removed until the ERPB has issued its final approval for the site plan.
VII. Pursuant to the Tree Removal Permit— Submittals Section 20-4.5(I)(4)(d) of the City of South
Miami Land Development Code,
1. A performance bond to guarantee compliance with all conditions, limitations, and
restrictions of the tree removal permit, including, but not limited to, planting of all
required replacement trees.
2. The bond shall be equivalent to one hundred fifteen percent(115%) of the estimated cost
of the permitted activity and may be in the form of a letter of credit, surety, cash, or
certificate of deposit.
3. All performance bonds shall remain in force for a minimum of either one (1)year after
the actual completion date of the permitted activity (to ensure that any replanted trees
which perish are replaced), or until viability of all replanted trees has been achieved,
which ever occurs last.
4. At the discretion of the Planning Director,performance bonds may be partially released
in phases based upon partial completion ofplanting or other permit requirements.
VIII.The calculated value of the bond shall not exceed$3.220.00.
I ;o J40, the legal owner/agent of the above referenced project agree with the
condit' laced on this tree removal permit.
D
Si . r ate
Sworn to and subscribed to me this-Dday of 2008
Public No
My comm' sion expires:
NKENGA A.PAYNE
MY COMMISSION#DD 714025
EXPIRES:October 5,2011
Bonded Thru Notary Public Underw6tars
YATree Protection Ord Removal\Tree Removal Permits\2008\October\5876 SW 68 Street\Tree Removal Conditions Form2 doc
6130 SUNSET DRIVE
SOUTH MIAMI,FL 33143
TEL: 305-663-6326 ♦ FAX:305-668-7356
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW & PRESERVATION BOARD ` 1 s
To: Chair & Members, Environmental Date: November 18, 2008
Review & Preservation Board Tuesday 8:30 a.m.
Via: Sanford A. Youkilis
Acting Planning Director
From: Lourdes Cab re -Hernandez Re: ERPB-08-079
Planner
Applicant: Alejandro Remos, Architect
Location: 5876 SW 68 Street, South Miami, Florida
Request: NEW CONSTRUCTION: Preliminary
Review: - Second Review
APPLICANT'S REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting preliminary approval from the Environmental Review and
Preservation Board (ERPB) for the new construction of the proposed two-story building,
located at the above referenced location.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
A.1 BACKGROUND: The application first appeared before the Environmental Review
and Preservation Board (ERPB), on November 5, 2008, and was deferred with
comments. Board members questioned encroachment into public right-of-way, the
function and design of the arcade, if any green aspects were a part of the design, and
the submittal of a building model. Regarding encroachment into public right-of-way, the
architect consulted with the Building Department, for clarification refer to attached letter
dated, November 6, 2008 and Chapter 32, Encroachments into Public Right-of-Way,
Florida Building Code. The arcade has been connected at the corner and follows the
site curvature and functions as one continuous covered walkway adjacent to the fagade
of the building. Proposal includes a gray water gutter collection and the building model
will be presented at the meeting.
A.2 ZONING DISTRICT: The proposed project is located in the TODD-MU4, Transit-
Oriented Development District Mixed Use 4. Pursuant to Section 20-3.1, of the Land
Development Code. The purpose of this district is to maximize the presence of a mass
transit center located within walking distance of the boundaries of the district. The
TODD District is intended to provide for the development of office uses, office services,
office-related retail, retail, retail services, and residential uses in multi-story and mixed
use projects 'that are characteristics of transit-oriented developments. Regulations
provide for tie continuation of existing light industrial uses, but encourages
redevelopment'through flexible building heights, design standards, and performance-
oriented incentives. Pursuant to Section 20-8.3(C)(2)(a), Permitted Uses, Land
Development Code. The uses permitted in a TODD MU-4 District are Residential and
Commercial Uses.
,s
5876 SW 68 Street
"Somerset School"
New Construction: Preliminary
ERPB-November 18, 2008
Page 2 of 3
B. SURVEY:
See attached boundary survey, prepared by Frank Paruas, Professional Land Surveyor,
submitted to the ERPB on October 24, 2008.
C. SITE PLAN DESIGN:
The applicant, Mr. Remos, Architect, for the proposed two-story building located at the
southwest corner of SW 68 Street and SW 58 Place. The proposed development
"Somerset School," consists of a lot area of 34,514.50 square feet. The two story
building provides a gross floor area of 23, 998 square feet, first floor 11,172 square feet
and second floor 12,826 square feet. The design consists of an urban pedestrian
friendly covered walkway arcade, extending the entire length of the corner building,
which provides a physical barrier designed to accent the character of the proposed
building. The parking area.is located at the rear of the building and the children drop-ff
on the side adjacent to SW 68 Street. As per the Permitted Use Schedule, Section 20-
3.3(D), of the Land Development code; a School, Elementary is permitted by.right within
the TODD MU4 zoning district.
Pursuant to the Off-Street Parking Requirements, Section 20-4.4(B)(10) for an
elementary school must be one (1) space per four hundred (400) square feet of gross
floor area.
23,998sq.feet X Ippace = 59.99spaces 60spaces
1 400sgfeet
The site plan notes and proposes a total of 61 parking spaces including forty-eight (48)
parking spaces on site and thirteen (13) parking spaces off-site. In accordance with a
recently adopted change in the Land Development Code, the applicant will be required
to pay a $1,000 annual fee for each on-street parking space counted as a required
parking space, Section 20-4.4(1)(3) of the LDC.
D. ELEVATIONS:
The elevations reflect the new arcade design. The building elevations for the entire
site are part of the submitted set of plans, sheet number A-103. The maximum height of
the proposed two-story building is 28'-6" where a maximum height of 30 feet is allowed.
The elevations include the building height, building finishes and materials, noted on
plans. The physical barrier, designed to include a metal gate are a part of the
elevations. The massing of the building's facades and architectural elements are
enhanced by the selected exterior paint colors.
E. EXTERIOR PAINT COLORS:
The design intent of the exterior paint colors are indicated on the rendering that will be
presented at the ERPB meeting. The multi-color facade colors by Sherwin Williams are
as follows: For the Body, Interactive Cream SW6113; and two accent colors Lakeshore
SW6494 and Redwing SW2909. The proposed color combination enhances the
5876 SW 68 Street
"Somerset School"
New Construction: Preliminary
ERPB-November 18, 2008
Page 3 of 3
architectural corner design and site circulation.
Note: A color rendering of the. proposed building design, "Somerset School" will be
presented at the meeting, including the submitted photographs of both the subject
property for review.
F. Development Review Committee:
On October 28, 2008 (Tuesday), the staff DRC committee. met to review the proposed
site plan. The Stormwater Ordinance was emphasized by the Planning Department. The
intent of the Ordinance is to "require all properties to retain stormwater drainage on site
as to prevent development that would result in contributing to or causing recurrent
ponding on adjoining properties or public right-of-way." Also noted was that the
applicant shall submit all required permits accordingly.
G. Landscaping Plan:
The landscape plan submitted to the City can be found on the attached site plan, sheet
L-1. The Plan includes a description of the landscape legend, including tree names and
other pertinent information. Shown on the legend are the number of trees that will be
added as part of the proposed project. Pursuant to Section 20-4.5(D)(5)(b) of the Land
Development Code, the minimum number or trees required for the TODD zoning district
are 28 trees per acre of net lot area. A grading and irrigation plan will be required from
the applicant prior to final ERPB approval. A tree removal permit and performance bond
is attached for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION: PreliminaaApproval with the following conditions:
1. Pending City Attorney' s ruling reference to square footage (to be determined if
porch area is to be counted as building square footage);
2. Meet the requirements as set forth in the Adopted Stormwater Ordinance;
3. Submit the grading and irrigation plan prior to final ERPB approval;
4. Submit the engineering plans prior to final ERPB approval;
5. Signage for the building is not a part of this application; and
5. Any comments and/or suggestions from the Board.
Attachments:
• Letters Dated 11/06/08, 11/05/08, Chapter 32; 11/12/08 and 11/06/08 (on file)
• ERPB Application, dated October 22, 2008 and Property Survey (24"x36", On File)
• Photographs and Model to be presented at meeting,
• Zoning Use Districts and Purposes for Todd 4 District, Section 20-3.1, Land Development Code
• Tree Removal Permit and Performance Bond
• Architectural Plans Site Plan & Landscaping Plan,
• Floor Plan, Elevations (revised), Sections & Details, Landscaping plan
LCH
Z:\ERPB\ERPB Agendas\2008 ERPB AGENDAS\November 18,2008\ERPB 08-079R.doc
ALEJANDRO REMOS
ARCHITECTS
November 6, 2008
Lourdes Cabrera
City of South Miami Planning Dept.
6130 Sunset Drive
South Miami, Fl. 33143
RE: Meeting today with Victor Citarella, Building Official
Ms. Cabrera:
This letter shall confirm the outcome of our meeting this morning about ERPB's concern
over the possible conflict between the City's TODD District and the Florida Building
Code, as addressed in my letter of Nov. 5, 2008 (attached).
You and I met with Victor Citarella, Building Official, and we discussed Article VIII.
TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 20-8.11 Regulation plan-
Intent
"...locations where arcades over sidewalk are required, representative locations
where arcades are permitted but optional..."
We also reviewed Regulation Plan Graphic 20-8.17 Supp. No. 5 page 196 that shows
and encourages useable area over the arcade, and reviewed FBC Chapter 3202.5 as
addressed in my previous letter.
Mr. Citarella concurred and said he has no objection to the arcade over the public ROW
and defers to the Planning Dept.
I would appreciate you attaching this and my previous letter to our re-submittal to the
Board.
Thank a)r our attention to this matter.
y
Sinc
Ir /
Alejand o Remos, RA p State of of Florida Registered Architect#AR11702~
18501 Pines Blvd. Suite 107,Pembroke Pines,Fl. 33029*954.442.7122 *remosbldg @aol.com
ALEJANDRO REMOS
ARCHITECTS
November 5, 2008
Lourdes Cabrera
City of South Miami Planning Dept.
6130 Sunset Drive
South Miami, Fl. 33143
RE: ERPB meeting for Somerset School
Ms. Cabrera:
As you are aware,the Somerset School project was continued to the next ERPB meeting
due in part to a question raised by the Board whether there is any conflict between the
City's TODD District allowance of arcades in the public right of way and the
requirements of the Florida Building Code. The Board asked that we investigate this
question.
The section of the Code that addresses this issue is Chapter 32 -ENCROACHMENTS
INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY:
Section 3202.5 SIDEWALK OR STREET OBSTRUCTIONS states as follows:
Unless allowed by the applicable governing authority having jurisdiction of the
right-of-way of public property, public property shall be maintained clear of any
and all obstructions, including among others, posts, columns, display of wares or
merchandise and sidewalk signs. [emphasis added]
In the Somerset School project,the columns holding up the arcade are in the sidewalk
right-of-way as allowed by the City's TODD District. The TODD District encourages the
use of arcades over the sidewalk. The City is the "applicable governing authority having
jurisdiction of the right-of-way." Accordingly, section 3202.5 of the Florida Building
Code allows posts and columns in the public right-of-way because the City of South
Miami allows it. There are numerous buildings in South Miami with arcades in the
public right-of-way. The most obvious example is Sunset Place (see attached photos).
The Board also inquired about the enclosed usable area over the arcade. Here again, as
depicted in the City's graphic section of the Code(see attached), the City encourages
usable area over the arcade - going as far as not counting this area in parking area
calculatiogs-,Pased on the above, the design conforms with the City of South Miami's
Land Use'fC6de and also the Florida Building Code 2006 Edition.
Sinc6r yy �..__...._..�....._.
ejan Fo Remos, RA
State of Florida Registered Architect#AR11702
18501 Pines Blvd. Suite 107,Pembroke Pines,Fl. 33029* 954.442.7122 remosbldg(daol.com
CHAPTER 32
ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
SECTION 3201 3202.3 Encroachments 8 feet or more above grade. En-
GENERAL croachments 8 feet(2438 mm)or more above grade shall com-
3201.1 Scope.The provisions of this chapter shall govern the ply with Sections 3202.3.1 through 3202.3.4.
encroachment of structures into the public right-of-way: 3202.3.1 Awnings, canopies,marquees and signs. Awn-
ings,canopies,marquees and signs shall be constructed so
3201.2 Measurement.The projection of any structure or ap- as to support applicable loads as specified in Chapter 16.
pendage shall be the distance measured horizontally from the Awnings, canopies, marquees and signs with less than 15
lot line to the outermost point of the projection. feet(4572 mm)clearance above the sidewalk shall not ex-
3201.3 Other laws.The provisions of this chapter shall not be tend into or occupy more than two-thirds the width of the
construed to permit the violation of other laws or ordinances sidewalk measured from the building. Stanchions or col-
regulating the use and occupancy of public property. umns that support awnings, canopies, marquees and signs
3201.4 Drainage.Drainage water collected from a roof,awn- shall be located not less than 2 feet(61.0 mm) in from the
ing, canopy or marquee, and condensate from mechanical curb line.
equipment shall not flow over a public walking surface. 3202.3.2 Windows,balconies,architectural features and
mechanical equipment. Where the vertical clearance
above grade to projecting windows,balconies,architectural
SECTION 3202 features or mechanical equipment is more than 8 feet(2438
ENCROACHMENTS ' min),1 inch(25 mm)of encroachment is permitted for each
3202.1 Encroachments below grade.Encroachments below additional 1 inch(25 mm)of clearance above 8 feet(2438
grade shall comply with Sections 3202.1.1 through 3202.1.3. min),but the maximum encroachment shall be 4 feet(1219
mm).
3202.1.1 Structural support.A part of a building erected 3202.3.3 Encroachments 1.5 feet or more above grade.
below grade that is necessary for structural support of the Encroachments 15 feet (4572 mm) or more above grade
building or structure shall not project beyond the lot lines, shall not be limited.
except that the footings of street walls or their supports
which are located at least 8 feet (2438 mm) below grade 3202.3.4 Pedestrian walkways. The installation of a pe-
shall not project more than 12 inches(305 mm)beyond the destrian walkway over a public right-of-way shall be sub-
street lot line. ject to the approval of local authority having jurisdiction.
3202.1.2 Vaults and other enclosed spaces.The construc- The vertical clearance from the public right-of-way to the
lowest part of a pedestrian walkway shall be 15 feet(4572
tion and utilization of vaults and other enclosed space below mm)minimum.
grade shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the au-
thority or legislative body having jurisdiction. 3202.4 Temporary encroachments.Where allowed by the lo-
cal authority having jurisdiction, vestibules and storm enclo-
3202.1.3 Areaways.Areaways shall be protected by grates, sures shall not be erected for a period of time exceeding 7
guards or other approved means. months in any one year and shall not encroach more than 3 feet
3202.2 Encroachments above grade and below 8 feet in (914 mm) nor more than one-fourth of the width of the side-
height. Encroachments into the public right-of-way above walk beyond the street lot line. Temporary entrance awnings
grade and below 8 feet(2438 mm)in height shall be prohibited shall be erected with a minimum clearance of 7 feet(2134 mm)
except as provided for in Sections 3202.2.1 through 3202.2.3. to the lowest portion of the hood or awning where supported on
Doors and windows shall not open or project into the public removable steel or other approved noncombustible support.
right-of-way. 3202.5 Sidewalk or street obstructions. Unless allowed by
3202.2.1 Steps.Steps shall not project more than 12 inches the applicable governing authority having jurisdiction of the
(305 mm)and shall be guarded by approved devices not less right-of-way or public property,public property shall be main-
than 3 feet(914 mm)high,or shall be located between col- tained clear of any and all obstructions,including among oth
umns or pilasters. ers;"posts, columns, display of wares or merchandise and
3202.2.2 Architectural features.Columns or pilasters,in-
sidewalk signs.
cluding bases and moldings shall not project more than 12
inches (305 mm). Belt courses, lintels, sills, architraves,
pediments and similar architectural features shall not pro-
ject more than 4 inches (102 mm).
3202.2.3 Awnings.The vertical clearance from the public
right-of-way to the lowest part of any awning,including va-
lances, shall be 7 feet(2134 mm)minimum.
FLORIDA BUILDING CODE-BUILDING 32.1
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
Planning &Zoning Department
City Hall, 6130 Sunset Drive, South Miami, Florida 33143
Phone: 305.663.6326 or 6347; Fax: 305.666.4591
APPLICATION FOR TREE REMOVAL
Project Address:
a G (o South Miami,Florida
/� S
Property Owner:
W.,c, Phone: L-4 0 Z 2,641
Address: ' 3
.
Work To Be Performed By(check one): Contractor V Owner/Builder
Contractor f-,F-06 (30 Phone:
Address: �d e a F, Q tl ewe)
This applicati n/ or the removal of e speci c):
� n
Use of pr, '(check one): Commercial Resi i
Signa e f ontractor/Quali r Signature f Pro Owne
cgnMIS ION DD5 97 Notary: 4
Notary: 3 0,c i e-- 'MiRES:iul>,28.2010
"�.'( �f� �l My coil lsslou: DD57.
7.NprAR� F�.Nutwiy Discoum.4soc.Co. EXPIRES:Jul ')ti.?010
Two copies of a site p]an an o e survey must e inc uded. I.xiX,'NOTARY Ft.Vumn Disco,mi Assce.Co.
Depending on the type of tree(s),the fee for a tree removal permit is $50.00.
This permit may be approved with conditions, limitations, and/or restrictions.
' OFFICE USE ONLY
Tree survey or site plan must be attached (2 copies).
PLANNING &ZONING DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL YES NO
Does this application involve a Natural Forest Community?
Does this application involve protected and/or specimen trees?
Has this application been incomplete for 120 days or more?
Effective Expiration Approved?
Date: 1017,,E q Date: 12_,+ or If yes, by: MW
Conditions, limitations,restrictions, if any: 6, rerno m is , IT awe
C<�+' t CGt'lcA r�i�✓t
-tie �Q,�cl S C•c�? Cnv'r hi-'F�c�- -�� 5� 'CY'e�5 '�.•.
In L
�, �'C�c,�c o,J i t1n Yl�'G w 1�t G�Pri c.l J E��_ l-c,v�Cl5 c�„jX (Jtia r / ow V�
Vn C:t_, M `J
�(:!�-r \P;-v��,�,c� -4-e e,n ;c. s "ba v d -Eo �Y1SV-rG
A cc:.~E C d -'y--J�E s - -rt-�,c •-t-'v'�es -�a•r �^e•�n r>>!�ti �,v:,f e
rv)NIL-, C) V` �G �jyvv l}ctib i� V1��;1 11 t �55vc S
\ter , i,ie ur,Cr 1/Y Yt N._ �.t1� '� h��/ Y c.1 ve
}
Pagel of 2
Youkilis, Sanford
From: Luis Figueredo [Ifigueredo @ngf-law.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:46 AM
To: Youkilis, Sanford
Subject: FW: Somerset K-8 Charter School
Sandy I would like to discuss the attached with you.
Luis
Luis R. Figueredo,
Nagin Gallop & Figueredo, P.A.
18001 Old Cutler Road, Suite 556
Palmetto Bay, Florida 33157
Telephone: (305)854-5353
Facsimile: (305)(854-5351
LFigueredo(dngf-law.com
From: Cabrera, Lourdes [mailto:LCABRERA @cityofsouthmiami.net]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 8:26 AM
To: Luis Figueredo
Cc: Soto-Lopez, Ricardo
Subject: FW: Somerset K-8 Charter School
Good morning,
The inquiry below is same as the hard copy I provided to you last week. Basically, the applicant is inquiring on
the LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. Please advice.
Sincerely,
Lourdes Cabrera- Hernandez
Planning Department: Planner
6130 SW 72 Street
South Miami, FL 33143
(305) 663-6347
Icabreraa-cityofsouthmiamiami.net
www.cityofsouthmiami.net
Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a
public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.
From: RemosBldg @aol.com [mailto:RemosBldg @aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 6:31 PM
To: Cabrera, Lourdes
Cc: gusabalo @comcast.net; Soto-Lopez, Ricardo; Youkilis, Sanford
Subject: Somerset K-8 Charter School
Lourdes,
I want to first thank you for another very productive meeting concerning our proposed site plan for the above
10/30/2008
Page 2 of 2
referenced school. Pursuant to our discussion of the "PORCH area"at the main (and only) student entrance,
and the fact that we did not include this area in our area calculations, you informed us that it was your
understanding that this PORCH area should be counted in the GROSS AREA calculations because it is roofed.
My interpretation of the code leads me to believe that this area should not be counted in the GROSS AREA
calculations for the following reasons:
1. as we looked in the Land Development Code at sec. 20-2.3 DEFINITIONS -Floor area, gross states:
"...In particular, gross floor area shall include all spaces designed or intended for:
e. Enclosed terraces, breezeways or porches.
However, gross floor area shall not include space used for:
e. Open terraces, breezeways or porches".
2. We attempted to find the definition of PORCH, OPEN PORCH or ENCLOSED PORCH in the above
referenced Definitions section but did not find one. You suggested we look at our district-TODD MU-4 district-
definitions and did not find one there either. You did find, however, in the closest similar zoning district-
HOMETOWN DISTRICT OVERLAY-the only definition of porch in the code which reads as follows: FRONT
PORCH: "An un-airconditioned, ROOFED structure, at the ground floor level or first floor level, attached
to the front of a building, OPEN except for railings and support columns."
I believe we can all agree that this porch area in our building is un-airconditioned, roofed, at the ground floor
level, attached to the front(main entrance)of the building and is OPEN except for railings and support columns
-therefore it can not be considered an ENCLOSED porch --thus, excluding it from gross floor area calculations
as mentioned above in 1.e -"Open porches".
If the City's concern is that this area may be enclosed in the future, we could certainly record a deed restriction
prohibiting the enclosure of said area.
If you or any other City staff member has any questions concerning the above, please do not hesitate to contact
me, as we are all aware that time is of the essence since the school needs to be open on August 2009, and
we are shooting for ERPB submittal deadline of October 23 for review on November 4.
Respectfully Submitted,
Alejandro Remos, Architect
State of Florida Registered Architect#AR 11702
State of Florida Certified General Contractor#CGCO54318
18501 Pines Blvd. Suite 107
Pembroke Pines, Fl. 33029
954.442.7122
New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News& more. Try
it out!
10/30/2008
PLANNING&ZONING DEPT.
6130 SUNSET DRIVE
SOUTH MIAMI,FL 33143 south Miami
TEL: 305-663-6326 _ > F i o r I d a
FAX: 305-668-7356 r All-Imerta gill
November 12, 2008
Alejandro Remos, RA
Alejandro Remos Architects
18501 Pines Blvd
Suite 107
Pembroke Pines, FL. 33029
RE: ERPB Approval Request
Dear Mr. Remos:
In response to your letter dated November 7, 2008, please be advised that it is the continuing
policy of the Planning Department that all building construction work done in the TODD zoning
district is to reviewed by the ERPB. The LDC section (20-8.12) provides that a project which
meets all architectural standards ":..may be approved by Departmental staff". This is strictly an
optional route for review and approval.
It is the decision of the Planning Director that the.project at 5876 SW 68t" Street must be
submitted to the ERPB for review and determination.
If you have any questions,please feel free to call, 305-663-6325.
Sincerely,
t
Sanford A. YoukiHs; ICP
Acting Planning Director
c.Ajibola Balogun, City A4anager
Luis Figzteredo, City Attorney
ERPB File
SAY
X:\Letters\Remos Letter ERPB.doc
a�
ALEJANDRO REMOS
ARCHITECTS
November 7, 2008
Mr. Sanford Youkilis,
Acting Planning Director
City of South Miami Planning Dept.
6130 Sunset Drive
South Miami, Fl. 33143
RE: Somerset School— 5876 SW 68`x' Street
Mr. Youkilis:
As a follow-up to our recent meeting with ERPB, and discussions with staff, we elect to
proceed with Departmental Staff approval pursuant to the TODD District allowance
(section 20-8.12) and that way avoid having to schedule an additional ERPB meeting:
20-8.12 Architectural standards—Intent
The Architectural Standards are pre-approved and are intended to provide a
degree of predictability about the quality of building designs and to promote
harmony among buildings without requiring an appearance before and approval
by a review board for every one project.Applicants with projects which conform
to these standards may obtain approval from the Departmental staff without
appearing before ERPB. Appearance before ERPB remains an optional route.
Every permissible option is not described herein; other options may be approved
by ERPB. [emphasis added]
We are grateful for the recommendations made by the ERPB and have agreed to
incorporate them in our plans as discussed with staff.
As you are a .are,the school has seasonal constraints for opening and we are
endeavoring`meet an extremely tight schedule.
Sinc re r
f
Alejand o Remos, RA
State of Florida Registered Architect#AR11702
18501 Pines Blvd. Suite 107,Pembroke Pines,Fl. 33029 *954.442.7122 remosbldg(a,aol.com
Page 1 of 1
Lightfoot, Marcus
From: jason chandler Ochandler2 @gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:16 PM
To: Lightfoot, Marcus
Subject: ERPB -school comments
Marcus:
FYI the section on the Florida building Code is chapter 32 - Encroachments in public right of way
Jason R. Chandler, A.I.A.
Chandler and Associates
. 5940 S.W. 73rd Street, Suite 206
South Miami, FL 33143
tel: 305-669-7592 fax 305-669-7593
www.chandlerarchitecture.com
Confidentiality Notice:This e-mail message contains information, which may be confidential and
privileged and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S. C. §2510-2521 and is
legally privileged. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. Unless you
are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to
anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in
error, please advise the sender by calling (305) 669-7592 or by reply e-mail, and destroy all copies of the
email.
11/6/2008
Page lofl
Kobola, Slaven
Fromm: Kobo|a. S|oven
Sent: Tuesday, November O4. 2UO81:47PM
To: [)|ivo. Jnoa \
Smb ��� R�i�w��m��S��� ��� P�mning ` ��" � 7 ��
^ . �°".
lose, here is what have found as not being appropriate:
Somerset School, plan review [done 10/3O/2UO8)
` '
The surv�W.
1. The survey does not show the existing sidewalk's width.
The Site Plan (A-101):
Z. Future sidewalks' widths are not shown.
3. Driveway ntSVV 68th Street is 21' wide, and it should be 22' wide (LDC, 20-4.4).
4. Driveway at8VV 58th Place is not dimensioned, but it is certainly less than 22' wide (as required by LDC,
2O-4.4).
5. Triangles of visibility /TOV1 are not shown at intersection of SW 68th Street and SW 58th Place. If they
would be shown, it may be that the building's staircase on the NE corner of the building will encroach in
the TOV, which is not allowed hv LDC, 20-3.6.
6. Triangles of visibility (TOV) are not shown at intersection of GVV 68th Street and GVV 58th Place. If they
vvnu|d be shown, it may be that the street parking stalls will encroach in theTC)V, which is not a||nvved by
LDC, 20-3.6.
7. Triangles of visibility (TOV) are not shown at either of ingress/egress points. If they would be shown, it
may be that the street parking stalls will encroach in the TOVs, which is not allowed by LDC, 20-3.6.
8. It appears that there is not 10 5F of landscaped area provided per parking space, as required by LDC, 2O-
4.5(13).
The Landscape Plan (1.71
9. The trees flanking the parking areas in the South and South-West portion of the property appear to be
planted in the parking stalls' setback, which is not allowed by LDC, 20-4.5(12).
In addition to the submitted material:
10. The applicant should be forced to carry out the "unity of title", as required by LDC, 20-5.16.
11. Drainage plans were not submitted.
Feel free to add your comments, preferably in a different font color.
Slaven KoboKa
pa
^.
^
�
/lOA �
~~~'
`
G|S Cnondinohzr
11/I2/2008 /
Somerset School — City of South Miami.
FA(ADE COLORS .
Blue.
SW 6494 Lakeshore
Cream
SW 6113
Interactive Cream
SW 6113
Interactive Cream
Red
SW 2909
Redwing
�f�i��+,C,' y�•ilMTtiY� , �� -Y � ki .� ��� •. .'''!..:Jr.a�.`t �.'' - �rs.� �it"h ��i1 �" rL�`t �Y�''�.
� I
I �
I ,
I ,
t
I �
I i
t s�'
rp
w o6 mi,w 66 MN WE$w 1-11 �t
.6
v'1'
T WTT
I T-F
~ it
NNW"
...............
. .. .............. ......... ............
f-
fill
r
,"W�.
rt
Wr- .
.. ;z_
e0o..
e s «amass. _• �.
• �Z ..
jilff
e'
_,.
'40
R L I
�e
P R 1 H i 1 N
�F
m
asterlyview along SW 68th Street'
ANN&r. ,
w ,
,
g
Ahl
from Subject Property
�.` / P.s �4f�;�i�t+�{�i`� ''�.�PA'�,�'lal�i��i1 ,��1� 1��,.r�t - ... j� .''7 i�t). i �1•r"'qf G.� .� �C,Y�''� 'Y�`�r d`y ,+ i4.. ��� � ta':,.
�, �__'� '',r. Afar'.•r
.,: 11p � ,}'! + ,I ' �i�'/>��''N��1U..l�i� �'fi.�+} ,,,�� si�•�,�i 7i �r Yy � .,
V ..;��s+ i !' wY
�r 1Q v s1 r � -s �A f((• "� �y'®X'- f� .�. � � �� !$�i ��� 4.., � � 1�"� r i
s �
a
... T ti
n t
' i°a'i.., � ... r .,. .. ...`. 7:.. �/. <Y�R 'r'•i' ��Y f-�'`�'{'�.� .fie y-�.. ,
y I ) Ir
mow-
wd ,
^1 �A
Vf '♦ x
Ai
;.,�1' 'T��I�FY ���'±Ftgl� �tf � �°� � � dj'�r L' a Y: ;1< s ',�� °�� ."'�$� �.'.`�' + -♦t�
• S � �. ��..ye • 1-:. - >x� � 'ww, r ^cam Y, °. � r.°r. ..� ".. � �� �� yc
ar � -
�- .. �v, t iaR1Pj- - �+ 'i,�GL 'r j�� R N"•7 `-4"•� `a � r SIC c '^ s
�e M
r r ate , 1tq,- .�a�• ,e s�I �. •.c T i 'a ♦y x �,1 ,'a,
':t'ay '1(' .,,�a. ,�71 s 3. '. h '° '°F.y""'t _ ♦w.a>-,+_ i°� m a" ., u` .'.:.,: s I `�i ..*
c:,,- 4 p1}�`..rA',: ;�« 1.�� � + � -s>` r 3 �'4tY �T 3C.i� ¢f- e,• u'.+�.- � Y � ..f- � ,il�s � ♦ a- -� �1M t"
• �,. �Q f `d •♦y `t. ��yb >� � ,f 1�f��! �.•�� y� ^�a# �. �:.,
,�` '� °yE—� .rSr o a 1��1„./� .1 7f A •�.y�: ' ��, a� _.��-
'' ��'�Yi{' : �'�'.1► ) F'� ,
. :.a � i�a;• .mac, �•,I e,? •F,,i" '�, ���ix� s .,,.•��_ t��!.!+z.!':
Arr-
1 .
,
.. _.. fF
K
.N1�,
�C
ry
low
Uy
_ 1
w
'Al
- b
r
� i
1 y;
1 .
Wg .r
M
r _
W
E*,
i� - l
III � Y
aksel�Qrs
v
w �
x.. LAI
N 2D 3D Road .aerial Bird's eye Labels
� Z
* .' <
W t i k & ,
wr �
P s
S * F
Ik
.• -
blurrey Park
. ..,: ..
I@ iM am •
s � i
n
1 S
y pp
,r a.
Y.
'J
' n
• r
_
r7
u
�• a
C21
Subject Property
r
r
-
7 t
°+€ ,
,
yy� i - ` t K '�� � 1 •� 4k"r Y t:, ,� �,rS'� �;�t,/ !� 'j (. "1 .. � . J ,�'n^[. � _ s` }�• t, ,.;•'.
•. v
�2 .. 1r ; a; w� - , 9 ✓fit l�` S f 1 u� �k * y!r 1. :J y. y,{,z�,T �'
7y 4
Wr
Aho
'*• t" fib' -r �r1 i L _ �. �_ _��' i -- - i �- �/ �� ;� u t �I � -+t _ -� ,
f; '� ? •.+�► �� �►-AOW
or I
LA
- - -
son, mom
r — r ♦ .' +.
INV
-, .�` i ♦ ,. ' fir' `1... 7 .�. - '•�" - y ap • +'rr `a� •�� yr' i # �•N�L •i 00i t fpl\ '�.• ►� ♦ ,.. ' a
m
own
L
_ •I�I I � x '-� i. - � _�_ �c•���� � A — � _. - .. - � _ - .. , ��T � - .ter. _ - ' T y __
1
l _ t