06-14-05 Item 17CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
INTER- OFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor and
Commission Members
P
From: Maria V. Davis
City Manager L
South Miami
bwArl
All- AmericaCily
2001
Date: June 14, 2005
ITEM No
Re: Appeal of ERPB Decision
7211 SW 62 Ave.
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 REGARDING THE APPROVAL OF A
NEW MIXED USE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED AT 7211 SW 62
AVENUE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BACKGROUND
At its April 19, 2005 meeting, the Environmental Review and Preservation Board (ERPB) gave final
approval to construction of a new building at 7211 SW 62 Avenue ( case: ERPB- 05- 009).The existing two
story building on the .574 acre site will be demolished and a new mixed use office/ retail/ and residential
structure will be built. The property is in the TODD(MU -5) zoning district, which permits buildings up to
eight stories or 100 feet in height (with the use of bonuses).
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 filed by Mr. Jay Beckman on April 22, 2005. 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.
SPECIFIC APPEAL ITEMS
The appellant is claiming that plans for the proposed building do not comply with several requirements of
the Land Development Code. The appellant's appeal form and two memo's (dated April 19, 2005 and May
31, 2005) explaining his position are attached.
CITY ADMINISTRATION POSITION
In order to properly review the appeal, attached is the ERPB staff report and the excerpt from the Board's
minutes of April 19, 2005 as it pertains to case no. ERPB -05 -009. The City Administration contends that
each of the appellant's claims as set forth in his May 31, 2005 memo should be denied and are contrary to
the interpretation of the Land Development Code. It should be noted, the issue regarding delineation
between parking levels and occupied stories was referred to the City Attorney prior to the ERPB approval.
Section 20 -8.8 (D)(7) of the LDC permits a garage in this zoning district to be up to 6 levels in height,
however the term "levels" is not defined.
Recent case law has supported that, absent a definition, the current procedure is to refer to the field of
expertise to provide a definition. "Level" is a term used in the field of architecture to define a parking level.
Given the absence of a definition in the LDC, staff suggests the appeal has correctly pointed out the need to
define the term within the LDC.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Commission affirm the decision of the ERPB in approving the plans for this
building.
Attachments
Proposed Resolution
Location Map
Copy of Appeal Application
Appellant's Memos
Copy of site/ building plans
LDC Regulations on Appeals Sec 20 -6.2
ERPB Staff Report
ERPB Minutes Excerpt- April 19, 2005
MD/DOD /SAY -
\\MCGRUFF\PLANNING \Comm Items\2005 \6- 14- 05 \ERPB -05 -009 Appeal report.doc
2
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, REGARDING THE
6 APPROVAL OF A NEW MIXED USE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED
7 AT 7211 SW 62 AVENUE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
8
9 WHEREAS, the Environmental Review and Preservation Board (ERPB) at its April 19, 2005
10 meeting reviewed Application No. ERPB -05 -009 and approved a proposed site plan and building design
11 for a new mixed use building to be constructed at 7211 SW 62 Avenue; and
12
13 WHEREAS, on April 22, 2005 an interested party, Mr. Jay Beckman; filed an appeal to the
14 decision of the Environmental Review and Preservation Board claiming that plans for the proposed
15 building do not comply with several requirements of the Land Development Code; and
16
17 WHEREAS, Section 20- 6.2(A) of the Land Development Code allows for an appeal of an ERPB
18 decision to be made to the City Commission by the applicant, interested citizens, or the City
19 administration; and
20
21 WHEREAS, Section 20 -6.2 (E) of the Land Development Code provides that the City
22 Commission may reverse, affirm, or modify any decision of the Environmental Review and Preservation
23 Board on which there has been an appeal.
24
25
26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED ' BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
27 COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA:
28
29 Section 1. That the appeal to the decision of the Environmental Review and Preservation Board
30 of April 19, 2005 regarding the non - compliance with regulations of the Land Development Code for a
31 new building at 7211 SW 62 Avenue is denied and the decision of the Board in this matter is affirmed.
32
33 Section 2. This resolution shall be effective immediately after the adoption
34 hereof.
35
36
37
38 PASSED AND ADOPTED this , day of 2005
39
40
41
42 ATTEST: APPROVED.
43
44
45
46 CITY CLERK MAYOR
47
1 _(2)
2
3
4 Commission Vote:
5 READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM; Mayor Russell:
6 Vice Mayor Palmer:
7 Commissioner Wiscombe:
8 Commissioner Birts- Cooper:
9 Commissioner Sherar:
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
- 42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50 E:\ Comm Items\ 2005\ 6- 14- 05\ERPB -05 -009 Appeal Resol.doc
AWWW
APR 2 2 2005 L
City of South Miami
Environmental Review and Preservation Board P B
APPEAL OF DECISJOS TO CITY COMmISSION
An appeal of an ERPB decision or recommendation may be filed at any time before a building b errnssued by filing the same with tile city Clerk upon a fon-n prescribed therefore, Appeals may be taken y the applicant,
interested citizens, or the city administration (per Section 20-6.2 (A) of City's Land DevelOPI-neilt Code). The
City Commission will hear and enter i a decision on all appeals within 60 days of the filing of an appeal
ERPBCaseNo-: Date Of Decision of ERPB: AM,)
Subject Address 7-?-11 5W 61"d &2""'
INDICATE YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO SUBJECT CASE: Contact No.
Name (Print
APPLICANT
INTERESTED CITIZEN
CITY ADMINISTRATION
-0
J
--
I 3 64
V!0
SUMMARIZE REASON FOR APPEAL:
P -D
0 cf A Cne
�
Qj f1l I r
-: LINE ABOVE
FLEtSE SIGN YOUR NAME ON THE
S1,18MITTI-11S FORM TO CIT)' CLERK
E:4ERPBIERPB Appeak;IERPR .4ppecd Applicalion.doc
6 g 3
DATE
Co
ces
F $ �C
r - APR 222 ,Ss
Date: April 19, 2405
CITY CLERK'S OFFICIE
To.- Environmental review & preservation Board, City of South
From: Jay Beckman, 5520 SW 65 Street, South Miami, FL
Re: ERPB -05- 009, 7211 SW 62nd Avenue, New Construction
REQUEST FOR • OF • - DEVELOPMENT
CODE
Statement Of The Need For Requested Action
After examining the plans for the proposed building it is believed that several aspects of
the building do not meet the requirements of the Land Development Code.
Description Of Alleged Nonconformity
1. A 5% parking reduction is claimed as a bonus for an "arcade" (20 -8.10 Bonus
allocations). However, an arcade is not shown on the drawings as an arcade is
required to extend beyond the build -to -line (20 -8.2 Definitions).
2. A 20% parking reduction is claimed as a bonus for "more than three uses"
(20 -8.10 Bonus allocations). However, only three uses are proposed. Furthermore, to
claim a residential component by including one apartment unit is an abusive
interpretation of the code.
3. The proposed building includes nine stories where only seven are allowed (4
plus 3 for bonuses). The staff report claims that "based on city attorney's
interpretation, levels of parking are not calculated as stories but by building height."
The Land Development Code does not support such a position and this matter needs to
be clarified by the city attorney.
4. Does the proposed building comply with 20- 8.15(F)? "Along a frontage
containing a required building line, at least seventy -five percent of the width of any new
or reconstructed first -story building wall facing a street shall be devoted to interest
creating features, pedestrian entrances, transparent show or display windows affording
views into retail, office, or lobby space."
5. As a practical matter, where is service area (garbage pick -up, deliveries, etc.)?
Conclusion
It is requested that the proposed building be reexamined for the alleged violations of
the Land Development Code as described above before recommending approval of the
application.
e,fant �t ►� �`` L to t r� t i - ,2 y
2
ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT 20 -6.2
Zoning and Community Development Department (or the director's designee) no
later than the end of the next business day after the scheduled meeting was to
have been held. The director's decision, if for approval, shall constitute HPB
approval.
(d) All approved designation reports shall bear the official signature of the chair
presiding at the meeting at which such reports are approved.
(e) Reserved.
M Financial interest.
i. Any member of the board who has a special financial interest, direct or
indirect, in any matter before the board shall make that interest known and
shall abstain from participation therein in any manner.
ii. Willful failure to disclose such financial interest shall constitute malfea-
sance in office and shall render the action voidable by the City Commission.
(Ord. No. 11 -90 -1451, 8- 21 -90; Ord. No. 20-93 -1546, §§ 1, 2,11- 16 -93; Ord. No. 18 -95 -1591, § 1,
10 -5 -95; Ord.. No. 6 -96 -1606, § 2, 5 -7 -96; Ord. No. 9 -96 -1609, § 1, 5- 21 -96; Ord. No. 12 -96 -1612,
§§ 1, 6, 7- 30 -96; Ord. No. 19 -96 -1619, § 5, 10 -1 -96; Ord. No. 17 -97 -1638, § 1, 6 -3 -97; Ord. No.
12 -00 -1714, § 5, 4- 18 -00; Ord. No. 8 -03 -1792, § 1, 5- 20 -03; Ord. No. 10 -03 -1794, § 2, 5- 20 -03;
Ord. No. 04 -04 -1811, § 1, 5 -4 -04; Ord. No. 06- 04- 1813, § 1, '6 -8 -04)
20 -6.2 Appeals.
(A) ERPB Decisions, 7 ime; 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 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.
(C) Restraining Orders. If certification occurs in accordance with subsection (B) above,
proceedings may not be stayed except by a restraining order, which may be granted by the city
commission or by a court of record on application, on notice to the officer from whom the appeal
is taken and on due cause shown.
Supp. No. 9 141
20 -6.2 SOUTH MIAMI LAND DEVELOPMENT 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.
(G) Prior Denials. The city commission shall not be required to hear an appeal or
application previously denied if it finds that there has been no substantial change in conditions
or circumstances bearing on the appeal or application.
(Ord. No. 27 -92- 1522, 11 -3 -92 Ord. No. 10 -93- 1538, 7- 20 -93; Ord. No. 4 -94 -1553, § 1, 3 -1 -94)
20 -6.3 Violations.
Any of the following shall be a violation of this Code and shall be subject to the enforcement
remedies and penalties provided by this Code and state law:
(A) To engage in any development, use, construction, remodeling or other activity upon the
land and improvements thereon subject to the jurisdiction of this Code without all
required permits, certificates or other forms of authorization as may be set forth in this
Code.
Supp. No. 9 142
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
Excellence, Integrity, Inclusion
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW & PRESERVATION BOARD
To: Chair & Members, Environmental Date: April 19, 2005
Review & Preservation Board Tuesday 8:30 a.m.
Via: Don O'Donniley
Planning Director
From: Lourdes Cabrera -H rnandez Re: ERPB -05 -009
Planner
Applicant: Mr. Jeffrey J. Weiss
Location: 7211 SW 62 "d avenue, So. Miami, FL
Request: NEW CONSTRUCTION
APPLICANT'S REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting final approval for the construction of a new office building to be
located at the above referenced property.
Legal Description:
Lots 8,thru 11, Block 1, "Revised Poinciana Park ", according to the plat thereof, as recorded in
plat book 41, at page 41, of the public records of Miami -Dade County, Florida.
Background & STAFF ANALYSIS:
At the last ERPB meeting of April 5, 2005 the applicant received preliminary, approval with
conditions. Please refer to the attached ERPB letter dated April 6, 2005. At the previous two
ERPB meetings the proposed new construction was deferred and received comments from the
Board, refer to attached letters from March 15, and February 15, 2005 ERPB meeting.
The applicant is proposing to build a mixed -use office /retail /residential building. The property
has an area of 25,011 sf. or 0.574 acres. An existing two- story c.b.s. building will be.
demolished. The zoning classification is the Transit Oriented Development District (TODD MU-
5), in which a mixed use is permitted by right.
The revised office building includes three office levels and six levels of parking, totaling nine
stories and a 99' -8" in height to the top of the concrete slab at stair roof. Based on city attorney's
interpretation, levels of parking are not calculated as stories but by building height. Pursuant to
Section 20- 8..3(D)(b) Permitted Heights: ,Todd (MU -5. Maximum building height 100 feet.
Refer to Sheet A -1 for proposed parking calculations and bonus' credits.
At this time the applicant is requesting final approval of the site and building design from the
ERPB. Note: Signage not a part of this submittal.
RECOMMENDATION: Board should consider if the project's meets their architectural
standards. In other words, has the applicant implemented the Boards comments and
suggestions from the April 5, 2005, March 15, 2005 and February 15, 2005 ERPB meetings.
Attachments:
ERPB letter dated April 5, 2005, March 15,' 2005 and February 15, 2005, February 15, 2005,
Application (on file), Survey, Site Plan, Floor plan, Elevations, Landscaping &- Irrigation Plan. A
complete set of working' drawings and a revised model.
LCH
K: \ERPB \ERPB Agendas\2005 AGENDAS \ERPB April 19, 2005 \ERPB 05- 009RRR.doc
�C SOU7,�
a �
c�
•
INCORPORATED •
1927
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW & PRESERVATION BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
$:30 AM
I. CALL TO ORDER
Action: Mr. Trautman, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 8:35 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,
and Mr. Judea
Board members absent: Mr. Balli, Mr. Vitalini, and Ms. Banks.
City staff present: R. Don O'Donniley (Planning Director), Lourdes Cabrera - Hernandez (Planner),
and Patricia E. Lauderman (ERPB Board Secretary).
IV. REQUESTS
1) SIGNAGE INSTALLATION [ERPB -05 -034],
Applicant: Mark Bennington for:
"M Cycle Gym"
Location: 6114 South Dixie Highway
Request: The applicant is requesting approval for
signage for the retail business by the
name of "M Cycle Gym ", located at the
above referenced location.
Applicant present: Mark Bennington
Action: The Board, staff and applicant discussed the signage request. The proposed exterior
signage is located in the "GR" General Retail district:
Motion: Mr. Jude moved for approval of the application with the following condition: that the
lettering of the signage is no taller than the lettering of "Racquet World" signage and (2) provide
approval letter from property owner. Ms. Morales- Fernandez seconded the motion.
Vote:_ Approved 4 Opposed 0
2) EXTERIOR RENOVATION [ERPB -05 -033]
Applicant: Judi Witkin for: "Z Gallerie"
Location: 5701 SW 72 Street
Request The applicant is requesting approval to
for the exterior renovation/upgrade for
the existing retail business by the name
- of "Z Gallerie," located at the above
referenced location:
Applicant present: Judi Witkin
Action: The Board, staff and applicant discussed the request. The proposed renovation is located
in the "SR" Specialty Retail district.
Motion: Mr. Trautman moved for approval of the application as presented with the following
condition: (1) applicant provides approval letter from property owner. Mr. Jude seconded the
motion.
Vote: Approved 4 Opposed 0
3) SIGNAGE INSTALLATION [ERPB -05 -035]
Applicant: Pizza Power
Location: 7400 SW 57 Avenue
Request: The applicant is requesting for a change
of copy to the new business by the name
of "Pizza Power," located at the above
referenced location.
Applicant present: Gene Martinez
Action: The Board, applicant, and staff discussed the proposal, consisting of two signs. The
Board clarified to the applicant the usage of signage (as stated by the land development Code) is
for the purpose of identification of the business and not for advertisement. The proposed new sign
will read "Pizza Power" and will be single face acrylic mounted on the existing electrical box on
the mansard roof of the existing building. The second sign which is on the pole will read "Pizza
Power" on two faces and the proposed colors are black and red lettering on a white background.
Mr. O'Donniley requested that applicant meet with planning staff in order to resolve the business'
occupational license issue.
ERPB MINUTES 4 -19 -05
Page 2 of 5
Motion, Mr. Trautman deferred the application with the following conditions: (1) wall signage is
limited to read "Pizza Power" no wording of salads, wraps, is permitted; (2) applicant needs to
revise marquee sign in order that business name of "Pizza Power" is 2/3 in size and logo (orange
background with lettering) is decreased to 1/3 in size.
Mr. Jude seconded the motion.
Vote: Deferred 4 Opposed 0
4) SIGNAGE INSTALLATION [ERPB -05 -036]
Applicant: Heather Raylinski for
"Up Against the Wall
Location: 5701 SW 72 Street
Request: The applicant is requesting approval to
install ,signage and a new for the retail
business by the name of "Up Against the
Wall," located at the above referenced `
location.
Applicant present: Heather Raylinski
Action: At today's meeting, the Board, staff, and applicant discussed the signage request. The
proposed signage is located in the "SR Specialty Retail district.
Motion: Ms. Morales-Fernandez moved for approval of the application as presented. Mr. Jude
seconded the motion:
Vote: Approved 4 Opposed 0
5) SIGNAGE INSTALLATION [ERPB -05 -024]
Applicant: Art Sign Co. for "HSBC"
Location: 7300 SW 57 Court
Request; The applicant is requesting approval for
signage on the north, south, east and
west fagade of the new building.
Applicant present: Jose Gonzalez
Action: At today's meeting, the Board, staff, and applicant discussed the signage request, which
included flat and directional signs. The proposed exterior signage is located in the "SR" Specialty
Retail district.
Motion: Mr. Trautman moved for approval of the application as presented. Ms. Mark seconded
the motion;
Vote: Approved _4 Opposed 0
ERPB MINUTES 4 -19 -05
Page 3 of S
6) EXTERIOR RENOVATION [ERPB -05 =037]
Applicant: Eastshore Int'l Corp
Location: 6301 SW 72 Street
Request: The applicant is requesting final approval
for the exterior renovation of the
existing two -story building, at the above
referenced property.
Applicant present: Luis Jauregui
Actions At today's meeting, the Board, staff, and applicant discussed the request for exterior
alteration. This property is zoned "RO" Residential office. The intent of the alteration is for the
building to be consistent with the property to the west, 6333 SW 72 Street.
Motion: Ms. Mark moved for preliminary approval with the following conditions: (1) submittal
of a landscaping plan; and (2) applicant resolves scupper situation and awning issue. Mr. Trautman
seconded the motion.
Vote: Approved 4 Opposed 0
7) NEW CONSTRUCTION: Final [ERPB -05 -009]
Applicant: Mr. Jeffrey Weiss
Location: 7211 SW 62 Avenue
Request: The applicant is requesting final approval
for the construction of a new office
building to be located at the above
referenced property.
Applicant present: Nazy Given
Action: The Board, staff, and applicant discussed the revised design to a proposed mixed -use
office /retail /residential building. At the last meeting ERPB meeting of April 5, 2005 the applicant
received preliminary approval with conditions. At the previous two ERPB meetings the proposed
new construction was deferred and received comments fro the Board. At today's meeting, Mr.
O'Donniley brought to the Board's attention a letter written by Mr. Jay Beckman which outlined
several aspects of the proposed design which need, to be reexamined for compliance with the Land
Development Code. The Board addressed Mr. Beckman's letter and determined that items he listed
in the letter were out of the Board's purview. The Board decided to review the application based
on their recommendations to the applicant from the last meeting;
Motion: Mr. Trautman granted final approval to the design based on the Board's last
- "recommendations in which the applicant; has complied fully, however, final approval with the
following conditions: that applicant must comply and have all zoning issues which were raised in
meeting resolved before final approval. Ms. Mark seconded the motion.
Vote: Approved 4 Opposed 0
ERPB MINUTES 4 -I9 -05
Page 4 of 5
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes for regular meeting held on April 5, 2005:
Action: The Board duly approved the minutes of April 5, 2005 as presented,
Vote: Approved 3 Opposed 0 Abstained l (Ms; Morales - Fernandez)
VI. REMARKS
No remarks were said,
VII ADJOURNMENT
"Action: There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10 :30
A.M.
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 - Hernandez, of the PIanning &
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 Minutes\2005 Minutes \ERPB MINS 4- 19- 05.doc
ERPB MINUTES 4 -19 -05
Page 5 of 5
O
sae
O
Ing
Hill 0 'p omi
g N
i-111H
CO-2
Hill
gli I 111,
HMO
oz '1H
Ejqqm
il
Iii Re
im , A 1� Vim 11H
I E 1 11
NIB I
57
C9
11111111111111 111111119
tv
-
1
Ing
Hill 0 'p omi
g N
i-111H
CO-2
Hill
gli I 111,
HMO
oz '1H
Ejqqm
il
Iii Re
im , A 1� Vim 11H
I E 1 11
NIB I
57
C9
11111111111111 111111119
-
1
111111119
B
lit lluuiu9i,
�6 �® ��.
is
111111111111111191
@�?
Ing
Hill 0 'p omi
g N
i-111H
CO-2
Hill
gli I 111,
HMO
oz '1H
Ejqqm
il
Iii Re
im , A 1� Vim 11H
I E 1 11
NIB I
57
C9
CI
ti
— --I M'4 g lung lym
MUM SH;
4§ ANN Q m y
92 M-0 on; pm uo go
P J B ASSOCIATE P.A.
ARCHITECT
m.N
A A P. ,
A
ANA
a., nip M, tin
1' - 11 P of as
go H"
spif
-nn4d off o Hj
is py. alp MR
lot
, pa 1"
E
�9
FLORIDA 'g
0 Ims 4 1
R But E MA: 2", NI
G
N.
" ldp 0 :
A W— - a
A 10 .1.8 I In 1A
— - p ..
— 20 K
= - H. �
�0' 0
MH 12 owl I
A
A 5W 1 !HUN
ORM Ilz�
MAPS n
a P
S
gym' m= E 8 m
$,°, 10
Qq 4'
UP oil Hug a Am
41
945
1
1 Eli 1
'H 4 z ;Is
09
CI
ti
9ggs 0-,-. s- 8-4 now ;a 9% a W- OR no
gh no -- " "H I fps 1 on HS WN 1 0 P;
04 Nq A 4 in qng ;
5.. -g2
on H. -s
Og VP H HE go He a �"Qpg w6v TU
U A 21 Mh % 0 an I WHO 1 0 1
A-S -A WHY 2 "U" Qpy QHR pa 41 V
SH W: 1 91 A
HE 293 Ho us
gms H a 31001
00 11 it 12 Rio 104— Rmwn a 01 h,y 51
-a it FIR. p oo �D Dog-,
2— go
9. au,
la
1 " RUN
a` p
NIP
o
IN 1
N H
4§ ANN Q m y
92 M-0 on; pm uo go
P J B ASSOCIATE P.A.
ARCHITECT
m.N
A A P. ,
A
Ely 4 a
4 !K. a Ina E 1
a., nip M, tin
1' - 11 P of as
mum Q 1040 W
Rif R H Q
111
-nn4d off o Hj
is py. alp MR
of in- 8%3;
, pa 1"
E
�9
FLORIDA 'g
0 Ims 4 1
R But E MA: 2", NI
G
N.
" ldp 0 :
A W— - a
A 10 .1.8 I In 1A
— - p ..
— 20 K
= - H. �
�0' 0
A
A 5W 1 !HUN
a P
g TWO
$,°, 10
Qq 4'
9ggs 0-,-. s- 8-4 now ;a 9% a W- OR no
gh no -- " "H I fps 1 on HS WN 1 0 P;
04 Nq A 4 in qng ;
5.. -g2
on H. -s
Og VP H HE go He a �"Qpg w6v TU
U A 21 Mh % 0 an I WHO 1 0 1
A-S -A WHY 2 "U" Qpy QHR pa 41 V
SH W: 1 91 A
HE 293 Ho us
gms H a 31001
00 11 it 12 Rio 104— Rmwn a 01 h,y 51
-a it FIR. p oo �D Dog-,
2— go
9. au,
la
1 " RUN
a` p
NIP
o
MR
�—�%
P J B ASSOCIATE P.A.
ARCHITECT
NEW OFFICE BUILDING FOR JEFFREY J. WEISS PHI
... _A.'
�9
FLORIDA 'g
N.
0�
O
ro
EMI
EF
CJ
z
z
0
2
19 W N 5
—g I - I.
qq11 I.
11N. F
HN '-
�—�%
P J B ASSOCIATE P.A.
ARCHITECT
NEW OFFICE BUILDING FOR JEFFREY J. WEISS PHI
... _A.'
�9
FLORIDA 'g
ro
is
D,) ED a,-,)
B-) E D E 1)
EDb
,$ S ?
ED Bi ED,
--------------- --
E D/
)E
-----------
v RD MD C)
R7 -
.�) o 1 #3
f„� J
I.
g O
..............
B E-3
tl m
-----------
v r
s + sr))
ED)x �f
ED [�
+ Y R
ED) ED, ED-) —
....... ....
tz
CD
H� G
mm�. - Erod
3..a.. wr, � � yG e° � ..C6 xm � C.. e. ° °•,: m -, Ce° � A �.
yy$pbg CC >p m �WOaxmeyy�����ne6� aWW�mm �° v [�
10"
��cry � �i�gg ��
c ��� SPa anp
WPM m A � b'e� °• z � b �'� aW �'e��� WBoo�.� � � � ��e�
` Sr x$ q$n,' 3a$' me9P goo.5'o °z oo �m��� e�W rig z
mmap OW $ °<a< Li 'wmWOW$ i7 WWWW$'� ad pv a�om$m nn vn�yp� °oR ���xpf� n >g y d
PInn0o.�'.W p,W� A
> oxr"a� .��C�''"�� ���� °gyp elan �x� m x � •neFFgy PW'W , xa °z �d Q nCxnd OZ n x�4 x a �xs 3L '�x�9L� r$ X � y � � � ao�on� o � m
Rill H�ox�ox �8gz 8 y 5 -.. p8
�
_
p�ugJ
cZ x
CPi
A
H
#b z
at
H
x odNo
w
m
n
r
m p y
V7
D,) ED a,-,)
B-) E D E 1)
EDb
,$ S ?
ED Bi ED,
--------------- --
E D/
)E
-----------
v RD MD C)
R7 -
.�) o 1 #3
f„� J
I.
g O
..............
B E-3
tl m
-----------
v r
s + sr))
ED)x �f
ED [�
+ Y R
ED) ED, ED-) —
....... ....
tz
CD
H� G
mm�. - Erod
3..a.. wr, � � yG e° � ..C6 xm � C.. e. ° °•,: m -, Ce° � A �.
yy$pbg CC >p m �WOaxmeyy�����ne6� aWW�mm �° v [�
10"
��cry � �i�gg ��
c ��� SPa anp
WPM m A � b'e� °• z � b �'� aW �'e��� WBoo�.� � � � ��e�
` Sr x$ q$n,' 3a$' me9P goo.5'o °z oo �m��� e�W rig z
mmap OW $ °<a< Li 'wmWOW$ i7 WWWW$'� ad pv a�om$m nn vn�yp� °oR ���xpf� n >g y d
PInn0o.�'.W p,W� A
> oxr"a� .��C�''"�� ���� °gyp elan �x� m x � •neFFgy PW'W , xa °z �d Q nCxnd OZ n x�4 x a �xs 3L '�x�9L� r$ X � y � � � ao�on� o � m
Rill H�ox�ox �8gz 8 y 5 -.. p8
�
_
p�ugJ
cZ x
Szg
A
I I I t1,5. 1z�0 I I OZm I.I IZ
O�Oym�I�l�51 O o
°
�p
timp >
OOOt/1
m3 O
yAZ,
��mm
Fa°A
�ZAm
rmoo
O. °OO�Dmr
°. ��
DDOC'C
DtVD
➢y�AK
ZDm 2RA D C
O
zE . 4
moll.
�z °mnZti
nz m
Om �OI
xm�
OAS II
m�9
c° °i Ao
Zm >Mpom
m3zK
ON II
~�zTD
Otmnp
D O�z MDD
mD.O ZZvF.
Como
AIuF O[nD
W
Q
�
x cr"�a on �(itfmooy o-ly ayA"F mn.._°m°.
°O ZW1a p: �~NMv Oz FvN Z� mm Oim
IN IUD
do
z
7.
DA9
GmA
N
NO
Dmm DmN
OA�oll D Olt An
II V�
O
II.
-
°F _°n, lynn ZOA <3�T. �Om mA 4) om 22
a Dz�iF o. mn D�
°
_
R.
a
of �.w o °. zT.
l �cZ'SA Y mz x, mm
x0� n RN
o
m moo°
timN
QOO
°min
Ovilb
A II
J it G
Nm
o
A
o
y
m
r Ntn
o.. Oo
II
o
2 zm
2
N A N N O
2 �F Os S. z4 2m mCDiZ2Or Z..
a
orn z Fas coci3 �a n m
oDs� voO �o
mKZI 6s
z MK
o l 0
oDr o`^A
z m2
°zDD.. ua7 oo z. oo Sczy DNmc ,FF' > o° SF .o.
z.. mz� Ano1n zm. 1. n z
D
�oDC
z�cD 551> q >1
�o Z°ZO 8
1
Z L
�
O
Ayy
-z 3 O
ATZ
Cr
AF O
[]
VI
�j �.. O° �- pin-i� m CD m
y6OZ ° mr�z � �' DS�oN � zvF
y �zm Nnz �o-1 m
mIx.ID
n O O 'Omp
-n
Z-
FA o�
[g�1
LOG D Z P.m'- D
'Oa XD
o o
��
�z
°o I
s Di
m%n
.,, o ![p!
nC
m
Z mA OD
n °- 9<. 0O
...z
IxlO
oA OO mDN
D_ °Fc
z II II
�D
it
p
GC
z
DSO
:Z_m
3pZ
C
oy
o
nay yA °
Z o D
D A �D.
O
UZ ND
° °31
D
Z
O
_ANK
O
2A ° N��O mNC F�
c °�Amg
m
m MF A OII00
N Dm �n oNN
'
o
M
NO
j.. p~
1�
OvO
A °
O
°
A
/��
`.,
-
F�vaAmeD Um $ �zo
wN n
vom
o
o
< A
u
o a
a
IM
xx
n m Nz=
^1
1
.
A
ti z pRam
C�j
M
in
�,.
o
az
as
�
N
S m
oA
m
bi
*:4
N
H
Ln
y
oR�
ro
H
xa0
ao� a
Rl.
9c� D
obpa
oAw N
30O3
0.00
OOO
D. j .1 >mD,•OZZr.CJ
3F(°�ZO
_
r>
\m
t1
tSjJ
nO
N
.Z7
(1
o mo
C] A
C ��E �Sn
°KO -r
ay.
Am3Am
K
u Jm
m
H
7
!
f
vnZ
O
Am
II p0�
o
°p2
_pD
n N 51
r�
nO
°
N'nv
it So
V
TO
R n
m Z
�
m
xl1 11 Z JVA�A
mmKZ z
Z
m
w
!!
o 11
_ m '
J I
M
Nz11
0
C
jjj
pp
poz9 N
A Z
o
n O
m m
11 O Z
D N
A
O n o
S r y
m
(�C�,
z
°
NNNJ S
O
y
II
yy
C�
C
Z
C
A
yAZ,
F�^j
DA D° w
➢Amy
z F'_ T n $z.. Sna N °z
g A O
° F ➢S' �vo�+ A-'��
.TpN
ZDm 2RA D C
O
zE . 4
Dm� 9Es
z ° ° p
n xA. oAg° 'yz
m0 °t/5 OA �A�
ASm
ANII II �
a
O
c° °i Ao
Zm >Mpom
m3zK
ON II
>
OmN F-N
9
D
i