Loading...
6230 SW 70 ST_EB-05-081 SouT�l fr � • INCORPORATED 1927 CO ��D CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI MEMORANDUM To: FILES (6230 SW 70th Street)—ERPB Appeal ;Valet Parking Permit Date: Feb.23, 2006 Re: Interpretation of LDC related to Dr. Colsky Property The following information is provided to complete the Planning Department files related to Dr. Colsky's property, 6230 SW 70'' Street, specifically the interpretation of LDC provisions related to valet parking. This property received approval from the ERPB for a site plan which includes the use of on-site valet parking in order to satisfy the required number of off- street parking. In addition an appeal of the ERPB decision was withdrawn. (1) The City Attorney discussed this item with staff on Feb. 17 at which time he ruled that the special valet parking provision(LDC Sec. 20-4.4 (I)permits the use of valet to satisfy up to 50 % of the required off-street spaces for this site and that the implementation of this section was by following Sec. 20-4.4 (L) which is entitled "Valet Parking" . (The actual Section is Sec.20-4.4 (M)—typo error). (2) LDC Sec. 20-4.4 (Ml) permits the administrative approval of valet parking which uses public property. The City Attorney opinion was that a Special Parking Permit could be issued administratively. (3) The Planning Department did not disagree with this interpretation but also pointed out if Sec. 20-4.4 (L) is applied, that section addresses a procedure that would include requiring City Commission approval where the applicant is proposing to charge for valet parking that is provided to meet required parking. (4) In the opinion of another staff member the LDC Section 20-4.4 (I) which allows for valet parking up to 50% of required parking also mandates that a Special Parking Permit must be obtained from the City Commission. (4/5 vote required). EAComm Items\2006\3-7-06\Memo on Dr Colsky Property Aoc City of South Miami 6230 SW 70th Street 6611 6610 6611 6610 6611 6610 6 6616 6621 6621 0 6632 Q 6620- 6621 6620 6621 .6620 U 6631 ° o 6631 6630 6631 6640 6631 6630 6641 6701 cD = 6� 6700 6700 6701 6700 6701 6700 o 0 0 CD 6701 04 6711 N C). 6710 6710 6711 6710 ,, 6711 6711 6721 6718 co 0 6721 6720 6721 6720 6721 6720 u) 0 0 6731 flo 6731 6730 6731 6730 6731 6730 co r SW 68TH ST 6802 6060 6370 6350 M 6300 6801 6800 6801 6800 cD o 6812 M M M 6840 6g1$ 6810 6825 6820 5950 6820 co CO cD CO 6303 6825 684 1 tj o00 6600 6 � Ln o 0 0 6901 O 6910 M 000 6917 ov o 000 6930 0 °' N 6912 6240 6230 rn 0 0 o N o 0 6g25 co co co m m cc co co 6929 0 ° N 6950 6941 �oC��b LO M 6931 1 N coo N o 0 0 6970 6941 cNo c.4 6940 6941 co CD CD CD co co 70TH ST 7001 7000 7001 ° To0p o rn 7009 7000 � o M m 7020 07 7011 7020 7021 0 7010 Q 7015 �ppp 0 F- 7021 7040 7030 7041 7101 7030 m 7105 rn F-7109 7031 7040 0 7040 O o 7051 7090 7107 SUBJECT = 7101 7110 7111 7110 r� 7171 7110 Q 7111 7115 7114 7111 PROPERTY Q o I— 7120 s 7121 N p v 0 fn L 6341 N � 0 6201 04 IV 6101 tD N CA CD SW 72ND ST c/) ° 0 oo O 633 32 6310 6180 7223 N J N -4 7230 7231 0 7231 00 CCOND o 7243 7240 � N M 7240 7251 N cD 7311 7301 7248 7310 7313 � 7300 'Coll 7311 7340 7321 7320 7321 7320 7331 7330 7333 7330 o �- cn w o r7341 7340 r6331 7340 i. w ° 0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500 Feet 1 338 So.2d 863. Page 1 338 So.2d 863 (Cite as:338 So.2d 863) 1:. 414082.3 Most Cited Cases District Court of Appeal of Florida,Third District. (Formerly 268k43) WALD CORPORATION,Appellant, Test for determining constitutional validity of V. legislative requirement that land be dedicated as a METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY,Appellee. condition for subdivision plat approval is not the No.75--1692. "reasonable relation" rule or the "specifically and uniquely attributable"rule,but is the"rational nexus" Oct. 12, 1976. approach, which allows local authorities to Rehearing Denied Nov. 8, 1976. implement future-oriented comprehensive planning without according undue deference to legislative Developer filed complaint seeking declaration of judgments, which requires a balancing of prospective unconstitutionality of county ordinance requiring needs of community and property rights of developer, dedication of land for canal purposes as a condition and which treats business of subdividing as a profit for plat approval. The Circuit Court for Dade making enterprise, thus drawing proper distinctions County, Dan Satin, J., granted county's motion for between the individual property holder and the summary judgment, and developer appealed. The subdivider. District Court of Appeal, Nathan, J., held that sufficient rational nexus existed. between such M Zoning and Planning X382.6 ordinance and county's goal of achieving intelligent 414k382.6 Most Cited Cases planning designed to protect citizens, to uphold (Formerly 414082.1,268k43) constitutionality of ordinance as valid exercise of It is eminently reasonable to allow municipality to police power, and that ordinance was not impose certain conditions upon developer so that it unconstitutionally vague, despite developer's may provide for the needs of persons who would not contention that it allowed for unlimited and otherwise have been a local concern. unsupervised discretion in determination of required dedications. Ll Zoning and Planning' 159 414k159 Most Cited Cases Affirmed. Where comprehensive plans for future development are adopted under statutes authorizing such plans, zoning changes may not be implemented where the West Headnotes proposed changes will not conform to the comprehensive plan, unless there is approval by the f 11 Zoning and Planning 382.3 local governmental commission. West's F.S.A. § 414082.3 Most Cited Cases 163.160, 163.195. (Formerly 1040) County ordinance requiring dedication of land for jQ Counties 07-255 canal purposes as condition for plat approval under 104k55 Most Cited Cases which county required, as condition of approval of County ordinance, which required dedication of land developer's plat for a proposed subdivision, that for canal purposes as condition for plat approval, developer dedicate canal rights-or-way, had a which was replete with regulations and sufficient rational nexus to county's goals of considerations concerning subdivisions and achieving intelligent planning designed to protect dedication, which contained more than adequate health, safety and welfare of county citizens to standards to be applied by department of public uphold constitutionality of such ordinances as valid works so far as platting and subdivision requirements exercise of police power, in that, inter alia, property were concerned, which allowed department was located in area subject to periodic flooding and reasonable, warranted discretion and which provided county board of commissioners in 1957 adopted plan that actions of county plat commission were for secondary canal system intended to run through reviewable by zoning appeals board, was not such property. unconstitutionally vague, despite developer's contention that it allowed for unlimited and IQ Zoning and Planning X382.3 unsupervised discretion in the determination of © 2006 Thomson/West.No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt.Works. 338 So.2d 863. Page 2 338 So.2d 863 (Cite as:338 So.2d 863) required dedications. be done under the supervision and subject to *864 Korner & Sampson, Coral Gables, for the approval of the department of public appellant. works. Rights-of-way for all such drainage works and maintenance thereof as Stuart Simon,County Atty. and Robert A. Ginsburg, prescribed by the manual of public works Asst.County Atty.,Miami,for appellee. construction and the county water control plan, must be dedicated to the use of the Before PEARSON,HENDRY and NATHAN,JJ. public, such dedication to be made prior to any such construction or alteration if so NATHAN,Judge. required by the public works department. (c) Rights-of-way and easements. The appellant in this case, Wald Corporation, is Whenever any drainage way, stream, or challenging a required dedication of canal rights-of- surface drainage course is located or planned way and maintenance easements which was imposed in any area that is being subdivided, the by the appellee, Metropolitan Dade County, as a subdivider shall dedicate such stream or condition of approval of appellant's plat for a drainage course and an adequate right-of- proposed subdivision. Wald refused to dedicate, and way necessary for maintenance, future instead filed a complaint in Dade County Circuit expansion and other purposes along each Court,seeking a declaration of the unconstitutionality side of such stream or drainage course as is of those sections of the Code of Metropolitan Dade determined by uniform standards prescribed County which required dedication of land for canal by the manual of public works construction. purposes as a condition for plat approval.[FN11 *865 LM The trial court granted the County's FN1. Specifically, appellant seeks to have motion for summary judgment, holding that the ss 28--13(a), (b) and (c) of the Code of subdivision requirements relating to drainage would Metropolitan Dade County declared be upheld as a matter of law under either of the two unconstitutional as a violation of the Due prevailing standards of review. While we essentially Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the agree with the decision of the trial court, we feel that Fourteenth Amendment of the United States it is advisable for us to review the applicable law in Constitution and Article X, s 6(a) of the the area of subdivision dedication requirements. Florida Constitution. The challenged provisions read as follows: There are two distinct standards which have Sec.23--13. Drainage generally been applied by the various state courts (a) Master plan and manual of public works when confronted with mandatory dedication. The construction. The developer shall plan all first was initially proposed by the California Supreme drainage for his subdivision in accordance Court in the leading case of Ayres v.City Council,34 with the master plan entitled, 'County Water Cal.2d 31, 207 P.2d 1 (1949). In that case, the city Control Plan',recorded in plat book 64,page planning commission conditioned approval of a 114 and in accordance with the flood criteria proposed subdivision plat upon the dedication of an map,recorded in plat book 53,pages 68,69, eighty feet wide strip of land which was to be used and 70, or as such plan or map may be for the extension of a nearby cross street. Despite the changed or modified. The drainage plans fact that the existing street was only sixty feet wide, shall be subject to approval of the public the Ayres court upheld the dedication requirement, works department for compliance with such noting that the facts of the case sufficiently supported plan. the conclusion'that the required width is Reasonably (b) Permit to construct or alter drainage related to the potential traffic needs.' Id. at 39, 207 ways. No individual, partnership, or P.2d at 6. (Emphasis added.) corporation shall construct, deepen, widen, fill, reroute, or alter any existing drainage This 'reasonable relation' requirement has been way, ditch, drain, or canal without first applied in a number of other jurisdictions. See, e.g., obtaining a written permit from the Brous v. Smith, 304 N.Y. 164, 106 N.E.2d 503 department of public works. Plans for all G 952 ;Krieger v.Planning Com'n,224 Md. 320, 167 such work shall comply with the manual of A.2d 885 (1961). Unfortunately, however, the public works construction of the public language of Ayres often seems to be cited in cases works department, and all such work shall with markedly different fact patterns, to the extent © 2006 Thomson/West.No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt.Works. y 338 So.2d 863. Page 3 338 So.2d 863 (Cite as:338 So.2d 863) that the original test pronounced in Ayres may be to the subdividers activity. rendered virtually unrecognizable. Although the Pioneer Trust decision cited Ayres as The confusion surrounding application of the Ayres precedent, it would seem that the two cases proposed test may be evidenced through reference to several entirely different standards for the review of cases which were decided by the Illinois Supreme subdivision dedication requirements. The Ayres Court. In the first, Rosen v. Village of Downers standard of'reasonable relation' puts a heavy burden Grove, 19 Il1.2d 448, 167 N.E.2d 230 (1960), the on the developer to show that the required dedication high court of Illinois held that a municipality lacked bears no relation to the general health, safety and statutory authority to exact cash payments in lieu of welfare. In this regard, it is couched in traditional dedicating land for educational purposes. Although police power language: compulsory dedication itself was not in issue, the It is the (developer) who is seeking to acquire the Ayres opinion was cited: advantages of lot subdivision and upon him rests 'The provisions of the statute . . . appear to be the duty of compliance with reasonable conditions based upon the theory that the developer of a for design, dedication, improvement and restrictive subdivision may be required to assume those costs use of the land so as to conform to the safety and which are Specifically and uniquely attributable to general welfare of the lot owners in the subdivision his activity and which would otherwise be case and of the public.' Ayres, 34 Ca1.2d at 42, 207 upon the public. It is upon this theory that we P.2d at 7. sustain the requirement that a subdivider provide Thus, the Ayres standard of'reasonableness' defers curbs and gutters in Peterson v. City of Naperville, to the legislative judgment that there is or will be a 9 Il1.2d 233, 137 N.E.2d 371. threat posed to the welfare of both lot owners and the 'The distinction between permissible and forbidden general public if the required dedication is not made. requirements is suggested in Ayres v. City Council of City of Los Angeles, 34 Cal.2d 31, 207 P.2d 1 Pioneer Trust,on the other hand, shifts the burden of 11 A.L.R.2d 503, which indicates that the proving the validity of subdivision exactions to the municipality may require the developer to provide municipality; mandatory dedication is only to be the streets Which are required by the activity upheld where the discerned needs are directly and within the subdivision but can not require him to solely attributable to the proposed subdivision. The provide a major thoroughfare,*866 the need for presumptions of validity which are usually attendant which stems from the total activity of the police power measures are undermined, if not community.' Rosen. 167 N.E.2d at 233--34. ignored altogether, thus affording little deference to (Emphasis added.) the judgment of the local legislative authority. As noted above, the Ayres court had. upheld a dedication requirement which was 'reasonably Both of these standards have their relative strengths related' to the needs of the municipality, yet it was and weaknesses. The Ayres standard allows the suggested in Rosen that such requirements had to be municipality considerable flexibility in the 'specifically and uniquely attributable' to the activity formulation. of comprehensive plans for future of the subdivider. growth and development. It assures the local legislature that its dedication requirements will be In a subsequent decision, Pioneer Trust & Savings upheld short of gross abuse. But while such wide Bank v. Villiage of Mount Prospect. 22 Il1.2d 375 latitude is routinely accorded in other areas of police 176 N.E.2d 799 (1961), the Illinois Supreme Court power regulation, required dedication as a condition was directly confronted with an issue of mandatory for approval for subdivision plats stands in dedication. Although the court noted that Rosen had derogation of constitutionally protected property not decided the dedication question, it quoted the rights. Thus, it is imperative that some sort of 'specifically and uniquely attributable' language of standard be imposed which will not allow virtually the Rosen case to distinguish between permissible unbridled interference with private property. While and forbidden requirements. Like the earlier Rosen we believe that a legislative authority may require case, Pioneer Trust also cited Ayres as support for dedication of land as a condition for subdivision plat this standard of review. But while Ayres ruled that approval, the constitutional validity of such mandatory dedication requirements would be upheld requirements should not be tested merely for where 'reasonably related' to municipal needs, reasonableness. Such a method of review would Pioneer Trust ruled that such requirements would be allow local governments almost unlimited discretion invalid unless 'specifically and uniquely attributable' in the imposition of dedication requirements. For this © 2006 Thomson/West.No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt.Works. 338 So.2d 863. Page 4 338 So.2d 863 (Cite as:338 So.2d 863) reason, we cannot accept the ,Ayres rule of Eskind v. City of Vero Beach, 159 So.2d 209, 212 'reasonable relation.' Fl( a.1963). At the same time, the Pioneer Trust case created a Although Eskind involved a business regulation, its standard which is unduly restrictive of local exercises standard of review may be readily appropriated for of the police power. While it is possible to envision use in determining the validity of the subdivision instances where potential problems will be exaction which is currently before us. The situations 'specifically and uniquely attributable' to the involved in the two cases are analogous. As was proposed*867 subdivision,more often than not,local noted in a widely cited commentary on subdivision authorities are faced with situations which involve an control requirements: entire community, including land owned by the The subdivider is a manufacturer, processer, and complaining subdivider. The cause and effect marketer of a product; land is but one of his raw approach advocated by Pioneer Trust disallows a materials. In subdivision control disputes, the formidable method of subdivision control, which is developer is not defending hearth and home against an integral part of comprehensive planning. And the king's intrusion, but simply attempting to while it is important to guard against unbridled maximize his profits from the sale of a finished municipal discretion, it is equally important that product. As applied to him, subdivision control those who propose to subdivide may be subjected to exactions are actually business regulations. rational dedication requirements. For this reason, we John D. Johnston, Jr., Constitutionality . of also reject the 'specifically and uniquely attributable' Subdivision Control Exactions: The Quest for a rule of Pioneer Trust. Rationale, 52 Cornell L.Q. 871, 923 (1967). While this statement displays the correlation between In seeking to establish a moderate standard with subdivision control and business regulation, it is also which to review the actions of Dade County in the supportive of a critical distinction which must be instant case, we have sought guidance from the drawn between the ordinary property owner and the Florida courts. One circuit Court has adopted the subdivider. 'strictly and uniquely attributable'standard of Pioneer Trust. Carlann Shores, Inc. v. City of Gulf Breeze, u Unlike one who merely reserves his property for 26 Fla.Supp. 94 (Fla. Santa Rosa Cty.Ct.1966). As personal use or sale as a single tract, the subdivider noted above,however, we choose not to adopt such a profits from the sale of lots within the subdivision to restrictive standard. The Fourth District Court of prospective home builders. The local government, in Appeal invalidated a mandatory dedication turn, must consider the welfare of the families who requirement in Admiral Development Corp. v. City will be filling the development. It is eminently of Maitland, 267 So.2d 860 (Fla.4th DCA 1975),but reasonable, therefore, to allow the municipality to because the municipality had exceeded its charter impose certain conditions upon the developer so that authority. While the Maitland case did cite a Rhode it may provide for the needs of persons who would Island decision which utilized the 'specific and not otherwise have been a local concern. And in a unique'language of Pioneer Trust,both of these cases very real sense, the subdivider profits from the are distinguishable to the extent that they were conditions imposed upon him, since the provision of concerned with dedication requirements which were safety and health requirements benefits potential set at a fixed percentage by law. Such fixed buyers, thus rendering the lots of the subdivision percentage requirements were found to be arbitrary more attractive. on their face. *868 This same reasoning was utilized by the Although no Florida appellate cases can be found on Supreme Court of Wisconsin to uphold a required the point concerned herein, the Supreme Court of dedication of land for school, park and recreational Florida has had occasion to limit exercises of the purposes. Jordan v. Village of Menomonee Falls,28 police power where private property rights were Wis.2d 608. 619--20, 137 N.W.2d 442, 448 (1966). adversely affected without adequate justification. In Using a police power rationale, the Wisconsin court a case concerning the regulation of outdoor found that there was a reasonable connection between advertising,the court held that private business could the required dedication and the anticipated needs of not be subjected to police power restrictions where the community. The court noted that it might be there was 'no reasonably identifiable rational impossible to show at times that the required exaction relationship between the demands of the public would be necessary to meet a need which was solely welfare and the restraint upon private business . . ..' I attributable to one particular subdivision. © 2006 Thomson/West.No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt.Works. 338 So.2d 863. Page 5 338 So.2d 863 (Cite as:338 So.2d 863) Nevertheless,the local authorities might well be able planning. Whole areas of a community are often to prove that continued approval of subdivisions over zoned before any actual development occurs. In fact, the years could result in dramatic increases in the Florida Statutes ss 163.160 and 163.195 specifically amount of services and safeguards which the authorize the adoption of comprehensive plans for municipality would have to provide. Such proof future development. Where such plans are adopted, would certainly justify the dedicatory requirement. zoning changes may not be implemented where the proposed change will not conform to the This 'rational nexus' approach provides a more comprehensive plan, unless there is approval by the feasible basis for testing subdivision dedication local governmental commission. It would seem requirements than the two methods of review illogical to foster intelligent prospective planning in discussed earlier. It allows the local authorities to the area of zoning, only to deny this same type of implement futureoriented comprehensive planning function in the area of subdivision control. without according undue deference to legislative judgments. It requires a balancing of the prospective For these reasons, we find that Sections 28--13(a), needs of the community and the property rights of the (b)and(c)of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County developer. But above all, it treats the business of are rationally connected to the goals which the subdividing as a profit-making enterprise, thus County seeks to achieve. The rational nexus between drawing proper distinctions between the individual intelligent planning which is designed to protect the property-holder and the subdivider. While the former health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Dade may not ordinarily have his property appropriated County and the disputed dedication*869 requirement without an eminent domain proceeding, the latter is sufficient to uphold the subject ordinances as a may be required to dedicate land where the valid exercise of the police power. requirement is a part of a valid regulatory scheme. u Wald finally contends that Section 28--13 is The record in the instant action clearly demonstrates unconstitutionally vague in that it allows for the need for proper drainage through the proposed unlimited and unsupervised discretion in the subdivision. The Wald property is located in a'glade determination of required dedications. We feel that area' of Dade County which has been subject to this claim is unfounded. Chapter 28 of the County periodic flooding. Although the subdivision parcel Code is replete with regulations and considerations itself is slightly above flood level, other parts of the concerning subdivisions and dedication. It contains glade both upstream and downstream from the parcel more than adequate standards to be applied by the are lower, and are thus subject to runoff from the Department of Public Works so far as platting and Wald subdivision. In 1957, the Board of County subdivision requirements are concerned. While the Commissioners for Dade County adopted a plan for a Department is allowed some reasonable, warranted secondary canal system which was intended to run discretion, it is properly limited by Chapter 28 when through the Wald Property. This plan was tentative, read in conjunction with the County's Manual of according to an affidavit by F.D.R. Parks, the Water Public Works Construction, Water Control Section, Control Engineer for the Dade County Public Works and the County Water Control Master Plan. Finally, Department; it is revised and realigned as different the actions of the Dade County Plat Commission are tracts are developed. The latest revision to the water reviewable by the Zoning Appeals Board, which control plan was approved in 1972. Parks' affidavit affirmed the Plat Committee's denial of approval for notes that both upstream and downstream property the Wald subdivision plat. We therefore find that will be adversely affected if flow-through drainage is Wald's claim of unbridled discretion is without merit. not provided across the Wald subdivision. A further See Thomas v. City of West Palm Beach, 299 So.2d critical point is that the subdivision itself would be 11 a.1974). damaged by periodic flooding without flow-through drainage. These points are not refuted. To the We hold that Sections 28--13(a), (b) and (c) of the contrary,Wald concedes that it will be benefited once Code of Metropolitan Dade County are the canal system is connected. constitutionally valid, both upon their face and as applied to the Wald subdivision. The trial court's Ll Although appellant belabors the fact that the order granting Dade County's motion for summary canal system is not yet fully operable, this point is judgment is therefore affirmed. without merit,since it would otherwise be impossible to institute reasonable regulation and dedication Affirmed. requirements as part of comprehensive municipal 0 2006 Thomson/West.No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt.Works. 338 So.2d 863. Page 6 338 So.2d 863 (Cite as:338 So.2d 863) 338 So.2d 863 END OF DOCUMENT 0 2006 Thomson/West.No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt.Works. Youkilis Sanford M. Eve Boutsis [eboutsis @ngf-law.com] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 12:15 PM To: npayne @cityofsouthmiami.net Cc: dodonniley @cityofsouthmiami.net; syoukilis @cityofsouthmiami.net; sdavid @cityofsouthmiami.net Subject: on the Beckman appeal add word: "the decision of the ERPB board in this matter is affirmed." J a ERPB Case No.: ERPB-05-081 (Decided January 17, 2006) Environmental Review and Preservation Board -ERPB Appeal of Decision to City Commission Arthor Colski Applicant V Jay Beckman Appellant Brief for Appellant Filed Febuary 9, 2006 (Notice of Appeal Filed January 23, 2006) E I V E D FEB 0 9 2006 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1 i Table of Contents IntroductorySummary .......................................................................................... 1 Statementof the Case ............................................................................................ 1 Statement of Jurisdiction ....................................................................................... 1 IssuesPresented .................................................................................................... 1 Summaryof Argument .......................................................................................... 2 Argument ............................................................................................................... 2 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 3 Exhibit A: Notice of Appeal .................................................................................. 4 Exhibit B: Land Development Code Provisions Cited ...................................:....... 5 Exhibit C: Sketch of Site Survey With Appellant's Measurement ........................ 7 of Front Set Back Added 1 Introductory Summary The proposed parking lot design violates the Land Development Code (LDC)by including parking spaces in the required front setback area which is prohibited in a Residential Office (RO) district. The City Commission should overturn the Environmental Review and Preservation Board (ERPB) approval and deny this parking lot design because it is unlawful for the City Building Department to issue construction permits that do not comply with the LDC. Statement of the Case This case presents an important question concerning interpretation of the LDC concerning how required front setbacks are measured. The subject property is zoned Residential Office(RO) but lacks the necessary space to include the required parking for office use. Several attempts have been made in the past to use variances to mitigate the lack of parking space. Every such application has been denied by the City Commission. The property has been successfully used as a single family house which is a special use allowed in the RO district. In fact the building was designed for this purpose and faces a single-family house across the street. On January 17, 2006, a parking lot design for use of the property as an office was reviewed by the ERPB that includes stacked valet parking spaces in one side setback area and parking spaces in the front setback area. The ERPB gave architectural approval of the proposed design subject to the applicant obtaining a valet parking permit from the City Commission. On January 23, 2006, notice of this appeal of the ERPB decision(see Appendix A)was filed to initiate a review of LDC issues by the City Commission. The ERPB does not review for LDC compliance. Statement of Jurisdiction The LDC provides that an ERPB decision may be appealed to the City Commission by the applicant, interested citizens, or the City Administration. An appeal stays all actions related to the development of the property. The City Commission must hear and enter a decision on all appeals within sixty days of the date of filing the appeal and may reverse, affirm or modify the ERPB decision [LDC 20-6.2]. Issues Presented One issue is presented. Does the proposed parking lot design violate the LDC by including parking in the required front setback area, which is prohibited in the RO district? 2 Summary of Argument The issue presented in this appeal involves nonconformance with the LDC that results in a dysfunctional parking lot that will be disruptive to the neighborhood. The proposed parking lot design violates the LDC because it includes parking in the required front setback area which is prohibited in the RO district. City planning staff erred in interpretation of"required front set back," by not taking into account a portion of the Code that requires that the minimum required front setback be measured in a manner that leaves space for the creation of a specified width of road-right-of-way. Argument The proposed parking lot design violates the LDC because it includes parking in the required front setback area which is prohibited in the RO district. The proposed parking lot design violates the LDC by including parking in the required front setback area. Parking in the front setback area is prohibited in the RO district [LDC 20-4.4(F)(3)]. Four sections of the LDC are applicable to define"required front setback," which in this case is 25 feet measured from the official right-of-way line: 1. The regulations for roadway dedications, improvements, and setbacks provides that the official right-of-way width for 70th Street (street in front of subject property) shall be 50 feet (25 feet on each side of the street centerline)[LDC 20-3.6(F)(1)], and that required yard setback distances shall be measured from the official right-of-way line, regardless of whether such rights-of-way have been dedicated [LDC 20-3.6(F)(5)]. 2. Setback is defined as: Shall mean the horizontal distance between a building and the street right-of-way line or a side or rear property line [LDC 20-2.3]. 3. The dimensional requirements for the RO district provides that the front setback must be a minimum of 25 feet [LDC 20-3.5]. 4. The LDC also provides that where a conflict in the Code exists, the more restrictive limitation or requirement shall prevail [LDC 20-1.6]. Hence, for the subject property, the required front setback is defined by the LDC as follows: since the official road right-of-way is 50 feet, measure 25 feet from the road centerline to find the official road right-of-way line, then measure 25 feet from this point which is the required front setback. This leaves an.addition 10 feet to the existing building which is not enough to include parking spaces. These measurements are shown on Exhibit C. The intent of the regulations is clearly to preserve the official width of road right-of-way to allow room for public facilities (sidewalk, landscaping, utilities)without doing harm to the neighborhood. This is accomplished by measuring setbacks in a manner to preserve the official width of road right-of way whether dedicated now or in the future, or acquired by eminent domain in the future. In fact nearly all of the Residential Office(RO) and Single-family properties in the city which have a 25 feet required front setback have setbacks close to 50 feet when measured from the edge of the paved road. 3 The proposed parking lot design illegally includes parking in the required front setback area when the front setback is measured as instructed by the LDC. Conclusion One issue of nonconformance with the LDC that results in an impaired parking lot design has been cited. Therefore, the Commission should overrule the ERPB decision and deny this proposed parking lot design. ECEIVE ® JAN 2 3 2006 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City of South Miami Environmental Review and Preservation Board - E R P B APPEAL OF DECISION TO CITY COMMISSION An appeal of an ERPB decision or recommendation may be tiled at any time before a building pen-nit is issued by filing the same with the City Clerk upon a form prescribed therefore. Appeals may be taken by the applicant, interested citizens, or the city administration (per Section 20-6.2 (A) of City's Land Development Code). The City Commission will hear and enter a decision on all appeals within 60 days of the filing of an appeal ERPB Case No.: GAP -�QL�--��' Date Of Decision of ERPB: f 7�- Subject Address 0230 !4j.- 70 S INDICATE YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO SUBJECT CASE: Name(Print Name) Contact No. APPLICANT INTERESTED CITIZEN Jd�, �L,G� 79ki —-49— 20 3 CITY ADMINIS'f RATION — + SUMMARIZE T11E DECISION OF THE ERPB: SUI%IMARIZE REASON FOR APPEAL: �n oes o¢ vie �' !'e t' f Vxe l�CR1 EUP�fo /n cbde- PLE. SE SIGN YOUR NAME ON THE LINE ABOVE DATE SUBAIIT THIS FOR,II TO C17T CLERK C— 3— 0 �p E.IERPBiERPB AppealclERPB,4ppeul.41)plicalion.th)e 5 Exhibit B Land Development Code Provisions Cited (In numerical Order) 20-1.6 Conflicting provisions, page 2. Where a conflict exists between any limitation or requirement in this Code and any applicable limitation or requirement elsewhere in this Code, the more restrictive limitation or requirement shall prevail. 20-2.3 Definitions, page 17 Setback. Shall mean the horizontal distance between a building and the street right-of-way line or a side or rear property line. 20-3.5 Dimensional requirements, Nonresidential Districts, RO, page 50.2. Minimum Front Setback(feet) -25 20-3.6(F)Roadway Dedications, Improvements and Setbacks, page 51. (1) Public road rights-of-way shall be dedicated and paved to the minimum widths set forth in the city's adopted Transportation Element or as follows, whichever is greater: (a) One hundred (100) feet for Bird Road (SW 40 Street), Miller Road (SW 56 Street) and Sunset Drive (SW 57 Avenue). (b) Eighty(80) feet for Kendall Drive (SW 88 Street). (c) Twenty-five(25) feet for Progress Road (from SW 70 Street to SW 68 Street). (d) Seventy (70) feet for section and half section line roads. (e) Fifty(50)feet for all other roads, unless required otherwise herein. (f) Thirty-five(35)feet for all private roadways. (g) Twenty(20) feet for all alleys. (5) Required yard setback distances shall be measured from the official right-of-way line, regardless of whether such rights-of-way have been dedicated. 20-6.2 Appeals, page 141. (A)ERPB Decisions; Time; Standing to Appeal. All decisions and recommendations of the environmental review and preservation board (ERPB) shall be posted on the City Hall bulletin board immediately following the ERPB meeting. An applicant may obtain a building permit after noon of the day after the ERPB meeting, at which the application was approved, if all other requirements for the permit have been met. An appeal of an ERPB decision or recommendation may be filed at any time before a building permit is issued by filing same with the city clerk upon a form prescribed therefore. Appeals may be taken by the applicant, interested citizens, or the city administration. (B) Stay of Proceedings. An appeal stays all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from, unless the officer from whom the appeal is taken certifies to the city commission, after notice of appeal has been filed with him, that because of the facts 6 stated in the certificate a stay would, in the officer's opinion, cause imminent peril to life or property or that because the violation charged is transitory in nature a stay would seriously interfere with enforcement of the Code. (D) Appeal Hearing. The city commission shall hear and enter a decision on all appeals within sixty (60) days of the date of filing said appeal, and shall provide due notice of the appeal to the parties. (E) Commission Action. The city commission may reverse, affirm or modify any order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and shall make any order, requirement, decision or determination that, in the city commission's opinion, ought to be made in the circumstances. (F)Modification Allowed. When practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships would result from carrying out the strict letter of a Code provision, the city commission may, in passing upon appeals, vary or modify any regulation or provision of the Code relating to the use, construction or alteration of buildings or structures or the use of land, so that the spirit of the Code is observed, public safety and welfare secured, and substantial justice done. ' r t SKETCH CH of= suRVEY SCALE 1' _ 0.00)/ Abif Ml e.1 l^FM,' .?1• .�_e'er.^... ...:"�Q,�'2:.,L,.+sn` lGtc. So v7—if f21 G f/�` �F` a � � ,• I,4,4y 1//Vp, l''P ti ' . i A 6 2 lc-l-I)ja ME C In Y l73 • • � Ea1c2pAG.E•ic�S �D,SD / - • 9 1 INTO THE 15 E�2LY �� C 60 y'`� FRO Iv'r 041 MEN'7" � fro -Nis �` � •��'� ,� fir` u,✓�, �`�� v fit•��"��� • , b u• r Z NGrL rre- .TAE o Trf�',P/6//T-ASP f G S w 7U'R A 9JC3 TO 71•E VATIC N RAln A►JC FRO{ BE JECT F.f�C1PE iY FCC!LS�1 pG �71�E F BASED FipC ID a =V T ECEIVEIM JAN 2 3 2006 Y CLERK'S OFFICE City of South Miami CIT Environmental Review and Preservation Board - E R P B APPEAL OF DECISION TO CITY COMMISSION .An appeal of an ER PB decision or recommendation may be tiled at any time before a building pen-nit is issued by filing the same with the City Clerk upon a forin prescribed therefore. Appeals may be taken by the applicant, interested citizens, or the city administration (per Section 20-62 (A) of City's Land Development Code). The City Commission will hear and enter a decision on all appeals within 60 days of the tiling of an appeal ERPB Case No.: ��f L5 QS—�S'1 Date Of Decision of ERPB: j 7 ~- �} Subject Address 6 230 INDICATE YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO SUBJECT CASE: Name(Print Namc) Contact No. APPLICANT INTERESTED CITIZEN ��� � 7$b -x-68- 2��3 (.'ITY ADMINISTRATION SUMMARIZE THE DECISION Oi,T11E ERPB: SUMMARIZE REASON FOR APPEAL: Cole 45:�14 PLE. SE SIGN YOUR NAME ON THE LINE ABOVE DATE S1.1811IT THIS FORM TO CITY CLERK" E.I ERPB;ERPB,4ppenlciERPB Apperl.4l?plication.zinc 11 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI \ Excellence, Integrity, Inclusion \ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW& PRESERVATION BOARD To: Chair& Members, Environmental Date: January 17, 2006 Review& Preservation Board Tuesday 8:30 a.m. Via: Don O'Donniley :00k Planning Director From: Lourdes Cabrera- ernandez Re: ERPB-05-081 Planner Applicant: Arthur Colsky Location: 6230 SW 70th Street, South Miami Request: Exterior Renovation APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting final approval from the ERPB for the renovation of the site plan, located at the above address. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Attached sketch survey. Background & STAFF ANALYSIS: At the ERPB meeting of December 6, 2005, applicant received preliminary approval with conditions refer to the attached letter dated December 7, 2006. Previous staff report dated December 6, 2005 enclosed for reference. At this time, the applicant has submitted a landscape plan that reflects one tree to be removed. The attached Tree removal permit dated January 12, 2006, refers to the conditions. Upon final approval of the site plan from the ERPB, the applicant will proceed with valet parking conditions, tree removal conditions, and an occupational license. The property may continue to be used as an RO "Residential-Office zoning district; which is permitted by right. However, it must meet the parking requirements and the dimensional non-conformity is not increased. At this time the applicant is requesting final approval of the site renovation from the ERPB. RECOMMENDATION: Final Approval, with the following conditions: 1) Applicant must comply with the valet parking and conditions; and, 2) Applicant must comply with the tree removal conditions; and, 3) Any comments and/or concerns from the Board. Attachments: ERPB letter dated 12/07/05, ERPB Report 12/06/05, Tree Permit Application, Application, Survey, Photos and Landscape plan. LCH K:\ERPB\ERPB Agendas\2006 ERPB AGENDAS\ERPB Jan. 17, 2006\ERPB 05-081 F.doc sour, South Miami 3 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI Wh"edcaM • INCORPORATED OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 1927 P ORV0 2001 To: Honorable Mayor,Vice Mayor and Date: February 21,2006 Commission Members ITEM No From: Maria V. Davis Re: Appeal of ERPB Decision City Manager 6230 SW 70 Street RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR.AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO AN APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PRESERVATION BOARD CASE NO. ERPB-05-081 REGARDING THE APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING IN A "RO" RESIDENTIAL OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 6230 SW 70 STREET; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BACKGROUND At its January 17, 2006 meeting, the .Environmental Review and Preservation Board (ERPB) gave final approval to a revised site plan for a medical office building located at 6230 SW 70 Street in an "RO" Residential Office zoning district(Application No. ERPB-05-081). The existing one story building can be used as a medical office providing that six off street parking spaces are included (1162 sq. ft. = 200). In 2005 the property owner submitted a request for a one parking space variance which would have allowed the preservation of all the mature oak trees on the site. The variance was denied by the City Commission on September 21, 2004. The applicant subsequently revised the site plan to include six parking spaces. This design and location of the proposed spaces and the use of valet parking is sufficient to comply with the required off-street parking for the use proposed. The plans were submitted to the Environmental Review and Preservation Board and were approved by that Board at its meeting on January 17, 2006. This decision has been appealed and is the subject of this report. SPECIFIC APPEAL The Land Development Code (Section 20-6.2(A) provides that a decision made by the ERPB may be appealed to the City Commission by the City Administration, the applicant, or an interested citizen. Attached is an appeal of Application No. ERPB-05-081 filed by Mr. Jay Beckman on January 23, 2006. The City Commission has 60 days from the filing date to hear the appeal and enter a decision (reverse, affirm or modify the ERPB decision). The filing of the appeal stays all actions or proceedings related to the development of the property. 1 f1 The appellant is claiming that plans for the proposed building do not comply with the provision of the Land Development Code (Section 20-4.4(F)(3) which prohibits parking in the front setback area in the "RO" zoning district. The appellant has submitted an appeal form dated January 23, 2006, and a seven page brief "dated February 9,2006.Both documents are attached. CITY ADMINISTRATION POSITION The City Administration contends that the appellant's claim as set forth in his February 9, 2006 brief should be denied based upon the following observations: (1) The applicant's approved plan indicates that there are six required parking spaces, two of which are double stacked on the west side of the building. These spaces will require the issuance of a valet parking permit as per LDC Sec. 20-4.4(I), which permits valet parking to be used to satisfy up to 50% of the required spaces. (2) The applicant contends that four of the parking spaces are located in the front setback which is prohibited by the LDC. The measurement of the setback is defined in Section 20-3.6(F)(5) as: "(5) Required yard setback distances shall be measured from the official right-of-way line, regardless of whether such rights-of-way have been dedicated." The staff has examined both the site plan and the legal survey of the site. The parking spaces are not in the required 25 foot front setback. Attached is the property survey and the parking space plan which was approved by the ERPB. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Commission affirm the decision of the ERPB in approving the site plan for this building and deny the appeal. Attachments Proposed Resolution Location Map Copy of Appeal Appellant's Brief Survey Copy of site plan ERPB Staff Report(ERPB-05-081) ERPB Minutes Excerpt-Jan. 17,2006 MD/DOD/SAYN ;?26;Q, E:\Comm Items\2006\2-21-06\ERPB-05-081 Appeal report.doc 2 I' I RESOLUTION NO. 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF 3 THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO AN 4 APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL 5 REVIEW AND PRESERVATION BOARD CASE NO. ERPB-05-081 6 REGARDING THE APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN FOR AN 7 OFFICE BUILDING IN A "RO" RESIDENTIAL OFFICE ZONING 8 DISTRICT LOCATED AT 6230 SW 70 STREET; PROVIDING AN 9 EFFECTIVE DATE. 10 11 12 WHEREAS, the Environmental Review and Preservation Board (ERPB) at its January 17, 13 2006 meeting reviewed Application No. ERPB-05-081 and approved a proposed site plan for the use of a 14 building located at 6230 SW 70 Street; and 15 16 WHEREAS, on January 23, 2006 an interested party, Mr. Jay Beckman, filed an appeal to the 17 decision of the Environmental Review and Preservation Board claiming that plans for the proposed 18 building do not comply with parking provisions of the Land Development Code; and 19 20 WHEREAS, Section 20-6.2(A)of the Land Development Code allows for an appeal of an ERPB 21 decision to be made to the City Commission by the applicant, interested citizens, or the City 22 administration; and -23 24 WHEREAS, Section 20-6.2 (E) of the Land Development Code provides that the City 25 Commission may reverse, affirm, or modify any decision of the Environmental Review and Preservation 26 Board on which there has been an appeal. 27 28 29 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY 30 COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: 31 32 Section 1. That the appeal to the January 17, 2006 decision of the Environmental Review and 33 Preservation Board on Application No. ERPB-05-081,.regarding the non-compliance with regulations of 34 the Land Development Code for a proposed office building at 6230 SW 70"' Street is denied and the 35 decision of the Board in this matter is affirmed. 36 37 Section 2. This resolution shall be effective immediately after the adoption hereof. 38 39 PASSED AND ADOPTED this , day of ,2006 40 41 42 ATTEST: APPROVED: 43 44 45 46 CITY CLERK MAYOR 47 c r% 1 2 3 4 Commission Vote: 5 READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mayor Feliu: 6 Vice Mayor Wiscombe: 7 Commissioner Palmer: 8 Commissioner Birts-Cooper: 9 Commissioner Beclunan: 10 CITY ATTORNEY 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 E:\Comm Items\2006\2-21-06\ERPB-05-081 Appeal Resol.doc 42 .43 44 45 46 ' t City of South Miami 6230 SW 70th Street 6611 6611 6610 6 6616 6610 6611 6610 6621 0 0 CA > 6621 6620 I— 6621 6620 6621 6620 �-- 6631 CO 6632 Q 6631 U ° = 6641 6630 6631 6640 6631 6630 0 6701 6700 6700 6701 6700 6701 6700. N 6711 0 �� cfl 6701 (fl 61 6710 6710 6711 6710 co r, 6711 6711 3:-6721 6718 0 CO 6721 6720 6721 6720 6721 6720 0) 0 6731 0 Wo m 6731 6730 6731 6730 6731 6730 � SW 68TH ST to WCI) 6801 6800 6801 q6820 6802 Rp 6370 6356815 6810 6825 5950 c ^ M 6820 m '0 co 6825 6841 N V, 6�p`5 cn o� 01 �� 6 6910 0 69 b(IF 6917 v o v 0 N °0 0 CO 6930 co N 6912 6240 6230 rn 0 o 6g25 W. 0 co 0 6950 C. 6929 rn 6931 rn 6941 co°j�� co LO 0 1 N `�° N ° ° o 6970 6941 cNO 6940 6941 cD co co co C° m 70TH ST 0 7000 1 co 0 7009 v 7001 7000 7001 o 000 0° 7020 M co 7040 7011 7020 7021 0 7010 Q 7015 1pOp H 7021 7030 7041 7101 U 7030 7109 7105 D' 7051 7031 7040 0 7040 c6'» o 7090 > = 7101 7110 7111 7110 7107 SUBJECT � 7171 7110 Q 7111 7115 7114 7111 PROPERTY Q o 7120 Lc,) 61? 7121 N cl) Z 6161 0�i rn 6201 6'6341 cc_ N �,9� 6101 01 co SW 72ND ST 0 co yo 0 633 32 6310 6180 0 cp coo o� b 7223 �', J N 7231 0 7231 10, d co o 7230 N Cl 7243 7240 c, n co 7311 ;7310 0 7301 7248 N N o 7311 7340 7313 7320 7300 7321 0 7321 7331 7330 7333 7330 o M W ^P 7341 7340 6331 7340 ch ti w 0 0 0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500 Feet IECEI JAN 2 3 2006 JU CLERK'S OFFICE City of South Miami Environmental Review and Preservation Board - E R P B APPEAL OF DECISION TO CITY COMMISSION An appeal of an ERPB decision or recommendation may be tiled at any time before a building pen-nit is issued by filing the same with the City Clerk upon a form prescribed therefore. Appeals may be taken by the applicant, interested citizens, or the city administration (per Section 20-6.2 (A) of City's Land Development Code). The City Commission will hear and enter a decision on all appeals within 60 days of the tiling of an appeal ERPB Case No.: Date Of Decision of ERPB: Subject Address 0230 YW, 7,0 s INDICATE YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO SUBJECT CASE: Name(Print Name) Contact-No. APPLICANT INTERESTED CITIZEN ^ 7A --249– 2-c? 3 CITY ADMINISTRATION SUMMARIZE TI1E DECISION OF THE ERPB: !�I 0 , /b V� SUMMARIZE REASON FOR APPEAL: Ct,de PLE. SE SIGN YOUR NAME ON THE LINE ABOVE DATE SU&t11T THIS FOR,11 TO C11T CLERI: C— 3— 0 E.IERPBi ERPB.4P1xenlctERPB.tppeeil Ahplicaiinn.doe ERPB Case No.: ERPB-05-081 (Decided January 17, 2006) Environmental Review and Preservation Board -ERPB Appeal of Decision to City Commission Arthor Colski Applicant V. Jay Beckman Appellant Brief for Appellant Filed Febuary 9, 2006 (Notice of Appeal Filed January 23, 2006) ECE.IVE.D FEB 0 9 2006 CITY CLERK'S 0 FFICE Table of Contents IntroductorySummary .......................................................................................... 1 Statementof the Case ............................................................................................ 1 Statementof Jurisdiction ....................................................................................... 1 IssuesPresented .................................................................................................... 1 Summaryof Argument .......................................................................................... 2 Argument ............................................................................................................... 2 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 3 Exhibit A: Notice of Appeal .................................................................................. 4 Exhibit B: Land Development Code Provisions Cited ........................................... 5 Exhibit C: Sketch of Site Survey With Appellant's Measurement ........................ 7 of Front Set Back Added 1 Introductory Summary The proposed parking lot design violates the Land Development Code(LDC) by including parking spaces in the required front setback area which is prohibited in a Residential Office (RO) district. The City Commission should overturn the Environmental Review and Preservation Board (ERPB) approval and deny this parking lot design because it is unlawful for the City Building Department to issue construction permits that do not comply with the LDC. Statement of the Case This case presents an important question concerning interpretation of the LDC concerning how required front setbacks are measured. The subject property is zoned Residential Office(RO) but lacks the necessary space to include the required parking for office use. Several attempts have been made in the past to use variances to mitigate the lack of parking space. Every such application has been denied by the City Commission. The property has been successfully used as a single family house which is a special use allowed in the RO district. In fact the building was designed for this purpose and faces a single-family house across the street. On January 17, 2006, a parking lot design for use of the property as an office was reviewed by the ERPB that includes stacked valet parking spaces in one side setback area and parking spaces in the front setback area. The ERPB gave architectural approval of the proposed design subject to the applicant obtaining a valet parking permit from the City Commission. On January 23, 2006, notice of this appeal of the ERPB decision(see Appendix A)was filed to initiate a review of LDC issues by the City Commission. The ERPB does not review for LDC compliance. Statement of Jurisdiction The LDC provides that an ERPB decision may be appealed to the City Commission by the applicant, interested citizens, or the City Administration. An appeal stays all actions related to the development of the property. The City Commission must hear and enter a decision on all appeals within sixty days of the date of filing the appeal and may reverse, affirm or modify the ERPB decision [LDC 20-6.2]. Issues Presented One issue is presented. Does the proposed parking lot design violate the LDC by including parking in the required front setback area, which is prohibited in the RO district? 2 Summary of Argument The issue presented in this appeal involves nonconformance with the LDC that results in a dysfunctional parking lot that will be disruptive to the neighborhood. The proposed parking lot design violates the LDC because it includes parking in the required front setback area which is prohibited in the RO district. City planning staff erred in interpretation of"required front set back," by not taking into account a portion of the Code that requires that the minimum required front setback be measured in a manner that leaves space for the creation of a specified width of road-right-of-way. Argument The proposed parking lot design violates the LDC because it includes parking in the required front setback area which is prohibited in the RO district. The proposed parking lot design violates the LDC by including parking in the required front setback area. Parking in the front setback area is prohibited in the RO district [LDC 20-4.4(F)(3)]. Four sections of the LDC are applicable to define"required front setback,"which in this case is 25 feet measured from the official right-of-way line: 1. The regulations for roadway dedications, improvements, and setbacks provides that the official right-of-way width for 70th Street(street in front of subject property) shall be 50 feet (25 feet on each side of the street centerline)[LDC 20-3.6(F)(1)], and that required yard setback distances shall be measured from the official right-of-way line, regardless of whether such rights-of-way have been dedicated [LDC 20-3.6(F)(5)]. 2. Setback is defined as: Shall mean the horizontal distance between a building and the street right-of-way line or a side or rear,property line [LDC 20-2.3]. 3. The dimensional requirements for the RO district provides that the front setback must be a minimum of 25 feet [LDC 20-3.5]. 4. The LDC also provides that where a conflict in the Code exists, the more restrictive limitation or requirement shall prevail [LDC 20-1.6]. Hence, for the subject property, the required front setback is defined by the LDC as follows: since the official road right-of-way is 50 feet, measure 25 feet from the road centerline to find the official road right-of-way line, then measure 25 feet from this point which is the required front setback. This leaves an addition 10 feet to the existing building which is not enough to include parking spaces. These measurements are shown on Exhibit C. The intent of the regulations is clearly to preserve the official width of road right-of-way to allow room for public facilities (sidewalk, landscaping; utilities)without doing harm to the neighborhood. This is accomplished by measuring setbacks in a manner to preserve the official width of road right-of way whether dedicated now or in the future, or acquired by eminent domain in the future. In fact nearly all of the Residential Office(RO) and Single-family properties in the city which have a 25 feet required front setback have setbacks close'to 50 feet when measured from the edge of the paved road. 3 The proposed parking lot design illegally includes parking in the required front setback area when the front setback is measured as instructed by the LDC. Conclusion One issue of nonconformance with the LDC that results in an impaired parking lot design has been cited. Therefore, the Commission should overrule the ERPB decision and deny this proposed parking lot design. ECEIVE JAN 2 3 2006 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City of South Miami Environmental Review and Preservation Board - E R P B APPEAL OF DECISION TO CITY COMMISSION An appeal of an ERPB decision or recommendation may be tiled at any time before a building pen-nit is issued by filing the same with the City Clerk upon a form prescribed therefore. Appeals may be taken by the applicant, interested citizens, or the city administration (per Section 20-6.2 (A) of City's Land Development Code). The City Commission will hear and enter a decision on all appeals within 60 days of the tiling of an appeal ERPB Case No.: ��P(�-�QS--Q)�� Date Of Decision of ERPB: f 7 Q 6 Subject Address (o 2 0 S:W, 7,0 INDICATE YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO SUB.IECTC'ASE: Name(Print Name) Contact No. APPLICANT INTERESTED CITIZEN e 7A—z68- 20 3 CITY ADMINISTRATION SUMMARIZE THE DECISION OF TILE ERPB: ..,4ap/,b tfg) SUMMARIZE REASON FOR APPEAL: C6de PLE. SE SIGN YOUR NAME ON THE LINE ABOVE DATE S118111T THIS FORM TO C17T CLERK E.IERPBiERPB.4ppernlv'ERPB.4ppcnl,4pplicmion.(Ioc 5 Exhibit B Land Development Code Provisions Cited (In numerical Order) 20-1.6 Conflicting provisions, page 2. Where a conflict exists between any limitation or requirement in this Code and any applicable limitation or requirement elsewhere in this Code, the more restrictive limitation or requirement shall prevail. 20-2.3 Definitions, page 17 Setback. Shall mean the horizontal distance between a building and the street right-of-way line or a side or rear property line. 20-3.5 Dimensional requirements, Nonresidential Districts, RO, page 50.2. Minimum Front Setback(feet) -25 20-3.6(F)Roadway Dedications, Improvements and Setbacks, page 51. (1) Public road rights-of-way shall be dedicated and paved to the minimum widths set forth in the city's adopted Transportation Element or as follows, whichever is greater: (a) One hundred (100) feet for Bird Road (SW 40 Street), Miller Road (SW 56 Street) and Sunset Drive (SW 57 Avenue). (b) Eighty(80)feet for Kendall.Drive(SW 88 Street). (c) Twenty-five(25)feet for Progress Road(from SW 70 Street to SW 68 Street). (d) Seventy(70)feet for section and half section line roads. (e) Fifty(50) feet for all other roads, unless required otherwise herein. (f) Thirty-five(35)feet for all private roadways. (g) Twenty(20)feet for all alleys. (5) Required yard setback distances shall be measured from the official right-of-way line, regardless of whether such rights-of-way have been dedicated. 20-6.2 Appeals, page 141. (A)ERPB Decisions; Time; Standing to Appeal. All decisions and recommendations of the environmental review and preservation board(ERPB) shall be posted on the City Hall bulletin board immediately following the ERPB meeting. An applicant may obtain a building permit after noon of the day after the ERPB meeting, at which the application was approved, if all other requirements for the permit have been met. An appeal of an ERPB decision or recommendation may be filed at any time before a building permit is issued by filing same with the city clerk upon a form prescribed therefore. Appeals may be taken by the applicant, interested citizens, or the city administration. (B) Stay of Proceedings. An appeal stays all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from, unless the officer from whom the appeal is taken certifies to the city commission, after notice of appeal has been filed with him, that because of the facts 6 stated in the certificate a stay would, in the officer's opinion, cause imminent peril to life or property or that because the violation charged is transitory in nature a stay would seriously interfere with enforcement of the Code. (D)Appeal Hearing. The city commission shall hear and enter a decision on all appeals within sixty (60) days of the date of filing said appeal, and shall provide due notice of the appeal to the parties. (E) Commission Action. The city commission may reverse, affirm or modify any order, .requirement, decision or determination appealed from and shall make any order, requirement, decision or determination that, in the city commission's opinion, ought to be made in the circumstances. (F)Modification Allowed. When practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships would result from carrying out the strict letter of a Code provision, the city commission may, in passing upon appeals, vary or modify any regulation or provision of the Code relating to the use, construction or alteration of buildings or structures or the use of land, so that the spirit of the Code is observed, public safety and welfare secured, and substantial justice done. t�xr) fb� � SKETCH OF SU,RVE SCALE 1• _ 120.001 t ° 6. So u7-If Airsyr OF LOX a �, A 6 a..s,reL vg lcleouAY U� ` Ertl C Roo Lqe S iD,'SO Lv 1 10-10 THE �5 f&i2 LY Q � t � '► y r C ` D 13 ul�b>>J - ;-f.. A d Aw—o F&lr--- a.osl- r � W� mEAIT �� t�to ,�r rde or Pla � NGrL -� W 3) A ER�C./goA eX==s .'2.Q� + lJ,b� /PTO 77/� �VTt1 E12LY �O?g: �) r-ZwND 3� I�iSS%6Le� c.��'ol4=i�NesNTS. 1� .TiYE cam•71fglel4vr-4/r-e-4 Y /2�,*e S 7U'Y L-,7g,6:F7- /S 7- f�EQIsATc� pn�Trr'�' .�d6,TC`C� PI�PEI�Y , AGCC3FlDM TO T<•£NADONAL•FLOOD PFOGUM T1=Me-eCT FPDPE..-UY FALL.S W FLG�DC)ZE E I .IM Nov PANS tjAz: MJFM= DATE OF'F� F Fd Zf EtE-S-H/�AFLOCID E-EYj 7-17-1"s- CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI Excellence, Integrity, Inclusion \ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW&PRESERVATION BOARD To: Chair& Members, Environmental Date: January 17, 2006 Review& Preservation Board Tuesday 8:30 a.m. Via: Don O'Donniley D6 Planning Director From: Lourdes Cabrera- ernandez Re: ERPB-05-081 Planner 100- 1 Applicant: Arthur Colsky Location: 6230 SW 70th Street, South Miami Request: Exterior Renovation APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting final approval from the ERPB for the renovation of the site plan, located at the above address. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Attached sketch survey. Background & STAFF ANALYSIS: At the ERPB meeting of December 6, 2005, applicant received preliminary approval with conditions refer to the attached letter dated December 7, 2006. Previous staff report dated December 6, 2005 enclosed for reference. At this time, the applicant has submitted a landscape plan that reflects one tree to be removed. The attached Tree removal permit dated January 12, 2006, refers to the conditions. Upon.final approval of the site plan from the ERPB, the applicant will proceed with valet parking conditions, tree removal conditions, and an occupational license. The property may continue to be used as an RO "Residential-Office zoning district; which is permitted by right. However, it must meet the parking requirements and the dimensional non-conformity is not increased. At this time the applicant is requesting final approval of the site renovation from the ERPB. RECOMMENDATION: Final Approval, with the following conditions: 1) Applicant must comply with the valet parking and conditions; and, 2) Applicant must comply with the tree removal conditions; and, 3) Any comments and/or concerns from the Board. Attachments: ERPB letter dated 12/07/05, ERPB Report 12/06/05, Tree Permit Application, Application, Survey, Photos and Landscape plan. LCH K:\ERPB\ERPB Agendas\2006 ERPB AGENDAS\ERPB Jan. 17, 2006\ERPB 05-081 F.doc LOCATION MAP (N.T.S.) �' 40 54# dc Q � z w PROPERTY ADDRESS: 6230 S.W. 70th Street, Miami , Florida 33143 . LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The West 54 .00 feet of the North 88 . 00 feet on the East 137 .00 feet of the North 150 .00 feet of the West of the Southeast 1, of the Southeast 4 of the Southwest '4- of Section 25 , Township 54 South, Range 40 East, lying and being in Dade County, Florida. FOR: MARTA MILLIAN GONZALEZ. CERTIFY TO: MARTA MILLIAN GONZALEZ. UNION TITLE SERVICES, INC. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, INC. SURVEYOR'S NOTES. F'Fiff"ARED BY 1)The aur my wm Conducted for the purpose of•*Boundary Sune1 or*am a not r1(e+ided to(Wneete bit nsguialoty F~KZor, of any tederet.stem regional or local apstl%.DDard.commbrm or other entRy. GUNTER GROUP, INC. LE3 4507 2)The accuracy obsstriaa by rrserunwnents and CWCu Iabon♦on 010 aura.mew and exceeds"Wvnurn Tew.cai Stariderde LAND SMVEYM—LAND PLANNING ,eabertterya for a Buburben nee(1 foot In 1.600 feet)ae 900011100 n Gmpter 61G17-4.Florida^d>rimnbee"Cbde 3)This Survey does not naffed or dstarrrine evvnierwitp, 9350 5.w. 22nd TERRACE 4)Leper deaorlpav+rC)ect to any dedications.ir*Matlons reeatoems re ,shone or essernents of record MIAMI. FLORIDA 33165 6)Elmmina0on d J a ADeOadr of Tise wa(tare to be made to ostern,"recorded nsblwran®,if any sffactinp he property,s,,mm nAr mat a a. d Pubic Reoorda rot Drfo r^ed by he office 7 teas am (305) 220-007 3 6)No efbn was made by Im office to bcata any underprdund Lam"andbr snr,9rree M"n of sout""wgedl propry, (I—) cKGaw� h This aur.ey has Dean prepared for Ina exckshe use d Pie erntsae nrnec here,crlt/and ins cW"os"oa flreor,gip not �rip, nfue a.n Uli4y farJ6be6`wx�rned prtlaa. aria rrooiutMa 01�a�1 MaL UtlM'!Easernenb rot noted as vrplOrbns r o 1010¢Mla �+ucw t0)Onvewaya a portwra bored wiltrn goedway9 not ndtad es+oieeona a snvoacrv*lsnm C%o CARk UTr 11)Foumdalk"andar lootlnpa underneath pre ground surface hat ma/oross beyond hs bounder/ranee d the harm desont i (1+r) hnut parcel are not at+owt rrtG 11 tu` 12)PL Don floes«Ftebar found and aro.m on b1e sketch d tansy have ro sage unless oslervnse afated a due 13)Fence ownerahici debnrtne try vauai"mom only Iff arryt;Leper awnerarip riot oetem0ned t>rc taoro"o' 14)No search d reC0r0V was made by"110M beside he record plat:ttreftxe we CIO not trt>py or accept respons"ity for art' .1 m FE"M Eaernars.Dedlraom or LrMasan tar which ntamissdn was rot drrllahed. 16)CarlteU 1M appropriate aUpicrlpOa prior tic any dsrR1 wok M M rW1on-0OSCrEed prcat for Bu �N R ray -/ t 6)Profeasorsf Land Survelo,and Mapper n retQOrable charge PQW do Ors[L6 4312,stem d Florida aM its oiatd 17)The;survey is not valid Mthout s»apnsntre and pre raised wd of e Fiords Licensed Land Surveyor and Hopper. '0a rata rR[ BY: P. 'DO ORTIZ l.5 4312 v. tit>M c. per 'a1.mo,rwr OR- RICARDO OR'nZ LS 5629 . t lislstry canal/b pie above nenad artw and.+or persons aiat one SketU+d Survey or"deeorttyW property b bus arc Oorett to P.I. r—w11 a PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR bit bard ray ivtov 1Vd96 and bseei.•MOW*tiuveyad and p1abW ur(der rry direction;also pid rt*a pia Iv rvrurri T@ctttYDai & MAPPER. STATE OF FLORIDA. Smndards set to Chapir 61 017-0,FbAda Adm9erbasve Code,pursuant to Section 472.027 Bonds Statutes. DATE: No.; I SKETCH No. DRAWN 5- _27-20042 1 00-/.39/ /.2 6/-3 SKETCH OF SURVEY SCALE r - �o.001 To . n �7�x. �� Si � _� 7,.y�✓ y� s 4>�� - ,.,} 'rte �:.. ,`•j_' w.P.1i. �q 6�►�e�.tre��EwnY Q ENC40Awes 1p'so l N-ro THE edsrEk LY \ G K A V r5l- t(` U-07 l6.80 2.ca �.z) A woup FEr+r 73 INTO rlE Axe �sree�.-r E 6.22 3) A chop JG6 Eti C460A Cn'C'S 2.00' - 0,68'1,070 7r- 5adr.�Q2cs p�P�,�T r u,✓e, �c%�: ,d) Fpr�,c�p .3� t�iS�%�c-E Ei✓c�A�NMBNTS. 4v Y rD e s w 7o 41 gTeEe T iS 1✓07- DeQ/aA7ED pn/ T.��r .SrJdT�GT PROPE�T'�! AOOOF10#4 TO THE NATIONAL ROOD PgAAANCE PFKXV IM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FANS IN FLOOD ZONE= COMMUWrY No: PANE.No.: eLfTu= DATE OF Fisk FM ZONE= I BASED FLOOD ELEK= sour 04 31 N � • INCORPORATED • 1927 O RTO P CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW & PRESERVATION BOARD REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES Tuesday,January 17,2006 8:30 AM EXCERPT I. CALL TO ORDER Action: Mr. Trautman, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 8:32 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, Ms. Mark, Ms. Morales-Fernandez, Mr. Balli, Mr. Jude and Mr. Vitalini. Board members absent: None City staff present: Lourdes Cabrera-Hernandez (Planner), and Patricia E. Lauderman(Secretary). City staff absent: R. Don. O'Donniley (Planning Director). IV. REQUESTS 1) EXTERIOR RENOVATION [ERPB-05-081] Applicant: Arthur S. Colsky Location: 6230 SW 70 Street Request: The applicant is requesting final approval from the ERPB for the renovation of the site plan, located at the above address Applicant present: Arthur Colsky Action. At the ERPB meeting of December 6, 2005 the applicant received preliminary approval with conditions. At today's meeting the Board noted that applicant had addressed Board's conditions and decided that no further discussion was needed. Motion: Mr. Trautman motioned for approval as presented with the following conditions: Staff: 1. Applicant must comply with valet parking and conditions. 2. Applicant must comply with the tree removal conditions. Mr. Jude seconded the motion. Vote: Approved 6 Opposed 0 An appeal of an ERPB decision or recommendation may be filed at any time before a building permit is issued by filing same with the city clerk upon a form prescribed therefore. Appeals may be taken by the applicant,interested citizens,or the city administration[per§20-6.2(A)of the City's Land Development Code]. If you have any questions concerning this matter,please contact Lourdes Cabrera-Hemandez,of the Planning& Zoning Department,between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM,Monday through Friday,at 305.663.6347. DOD/pel K:\ERPB\ERPB Minutcs\2006 Minutes\Excerpt ERPB MINS 1-17-06(item05-08 1).doc ERPB MINUTES 1-17-06 Page 2 of 2 a M o b � b � Z � m n 2 F m LU 2 > > m co q m � a 3 M Q Y ,I N p z F W E W 2 N U a S W € $ j U H _W m m 0 Zm a cc co � v . W ° N 3 4 C CL Q U . CO pco J� a z O co v rN'+' c C E i V E � IECEI�E JAN 2 2 2006 JAN 2 3 2006 CITY MANAGff�FFICE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City of South Miami Environmental Review and Preservation Board - E R P B APPEAL OF DECISION TO CITY COMMISSION An appeal of an ERPB decision or recommendation may be tiled at any time before a building pen-nit is issued by filing the Same with the City Clerk upon a form prescribed therefore. Appeals may be taken by the applicant, interested citizens,'or the city administration (per Section 20-6.2 (A) of City's_ Land Development Code). The City Commission will hear and enter a decision on all appeals within 60 days of the filing of an appeal ERPB Case No.: �I�P L5 Q�--�}� Date Of Decision of ERPB: j °-1 7 Q Subject Address 62-30 S;Ls, 70 s INDICATE YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO SUBJECT CASE: Name(Print Name) Contact.No. APPLICANT INTERESTED CITIZEN J '�, 7A — 49— 2—1 3 CITY ADMINISTRATION SUMMARIZE THE DECISION OF THE ERPB: Uq) SUMMARIZE REASON FOR APPEAL: 1 Co�'e i PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME ON THE LINE ABOVE DATE l i SUB,111T THIS FORM TO CITY CLERK 3— 0 6 E:iEUBIERPBAppeals(ERPB Appeal Application.doe i Miami-Dade My Home Page 1 of 2 1 1 f. "a. 'fit S_• K", My Home r IV ro ; Show Me: �Propet�y�lniforritatlon � � :. Search By: 11s6ledilt m' 0 Text one Property Appraiser Tax Estimator _ Summary Details: Folio No.: 09=4025=000-0600 Property: 6230 SW 70 ST Mailing SKIN SOURCE INC Address: 8220 SW 52 AVE MIAMI FL 33143-8439 Property Information: � ' a+ Primary y one: 800 OFFICE 0001 RESIDENTIAL- cP o CLUC: SINGLE FAMILY " Beds/Baths: 1/1 Rf- v Floors: 1 Living Units:1 dj Sq Footage: 1,162 _ Is, Lot Size: 4,750 SQ FT - Year Built: 1957 25 54 40.10 AC W54FT OF N88FT OF E137FT OF Digital Orthophotography-2006 0 109 ft Legal N150FT OF W112 OF SE1/4 Description: OF SE1/4 OF SW1/4 LOT SIZE 4750 SQUARE FEET - We appreciate your feedback,please take a minute to complete our survey. OR 19160-2164 0600 1 Sale Information: My Home I PropeM Informaton I.P o P .ty_Taxes Sale O/R: 19160-2164 1 M.y_Neighborhood I Property Appraiser Sale Date: 6/2000 Home 1 usin Our_Site About Phone Directory Privacy 9...... _I..._ I— I—�I Disclaimer Sale Amount: 1$135,000 Assessment Information: Year: 2007 2006 Land Value: $235;125 $178,125 If you experience technical difficulties with the Property Information application, Buildin Value: $95,476 $50,000 please click here to let us know. Market Value: $330,601 $228,125 Assessed Value: $330,601 $228,12 E-mail your comments,questions and suggestions to Webmaster otal Exemptions: $0 $0 axable Value: 1 $330,601 $228,12 Web Site ©2002 Miami-Dade County. All rights reserved. http://gisims2.miaTnidade.gov/myhome/propmap.asp 10/25/07 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the City Commission of the City of South Miami, Florida will consider the following appeal during its regular City Commission meeting on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 beginning at 7:30 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers, 6130 Sunset Drive: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI , FLORIDA, RELATING TO AN APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PRESERVATION BOARD CASE NO. ERPB-05-081 REGARDING THE APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING IN A "RO" RESIDENTIAL OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 6230 SW 70 STREET AVENUE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Inquiries concerning this item should be directed to the Planning Department at 305-663-6326. ALL interested parties are invited to attend. Maria M. Menendez, CMC City Clerk City of South Miami Pursuant to Florida Statutes 286.0105,the City hereby advises the public that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by this Board,Agency or Commission with respect to any matter considered at its meeting or hearing,he or she will need a record of the proceedings,and that for such purpose,affected person 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. J:\My DocumentsNotices Notice of appeal 02.21.06.doc soul, o � � r � q U `+ w INCORPORATED _ 1927 4 O RtV P January 18, 2006 Attn: Mr. Arthur Colsky 6280 SW 72 Street #611 South Miami, FL 33143 Re: Environmental Review& Preservation Board No. 05-081 EXTERIOR RENOVATION 6230 SW 70 Street South Miami, FL On the ERPB meeting of Tuesday, January 17, 2006 the motion was approved as presented. Staffs conditions: 1. Applicant must comply with the valet parking and conditions. 2. Applicant must comply with the tree removal conditions. Your next process is to submit for a building permit by contacting the Building -Department at (305) 663-6358. If you have any further questions regarding this application, please contact Ms. Lourdes Cabrera-Hernandez at (305) 663-6347 at the Planning Department. Note: Pursuant to Section 20-5.11(L) Expiration. Final approval by ERPB 'shall lapse after six (6) months if no permit is issued, except as may be extended by the ERPB for a period not to exceed six (6) months. Sincerely, Don O'Donniley, AICP Planning Director Planning. Department An appeal of an.ERPB decision or recommendation may be filed at any time before a building permit is issued by filing same with the city clerk upon a form prescribed therefore. Appeals may be taken by the applicant, interested citizens, or the city administration [per § 20-6.2 (A) of the City's Land Development Code]. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Ms. Lourdes Cabrera-Hernandez, of the Planning Department, between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday at 305-663- 6347. From: Menendez, Maria Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 4:30 PM To: Youkilis, Sanford Cc: O'Donniley,Don Subject: ERPB Appeal Importance: High Hi Sandy, Please remind Don about the ERPB Appeal. The Manager asked him to check with the appellant whether she wanted to have it on the.9/20 meeting. We need to know so that we may go ahead with the mailings. Also, if we postpone it I have to schedule something for the Presentations section. Thanks, Maria M. Menendez City Clerk . 6130 Sunset Drive South Miami, FL 33143 Tel: 305-663-6340 Fax: 305-663.6348 Email: mmenendez Cc-cityofsouthmiami.net � J . n o on -3L d 0 i r o � m P n M2m x ' m . m � N N .TO to m ce • N L7 :! n va ° 6 0 cn 1 m m Cl co J1� a m p 1!9 ^ +e : @ p 1' //q In G. Yi p O to m Z oAz � z m. m � III � � ^-``•t z z m � � o a o i m m m i 0 i r i a O A X l} X -7 1 4ORY S wwd IMF V 9,c AI)A P I I Q � d I vA IEJ vii Psc. 1 v� 0� PIP, ° v V i LANDSCAPE PLAN WERN 0230 SW 70 STREET Cp l ���