HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-94-03565 April 1994
Mr. Cesar Odio
City Manager of Miami
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, Florida 33133
Dear Mr. Odio,
Mrs. John E. Duvall
1900 Secoffee Street
Miami, Florida 33133
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item L O an S 1 2 3
Matty Hirai
City Clerk
Every night I cannot sleek, since I have heard about the re -platting that
has taken place i;.) Lot 23, Block C of Biscayne Park Terrace. We reside on
Lot 1, Block B Biscayne Park Terrace, and I cannot believe$( that your Plat
Department has approved such an outrageous change in this neighborhood.
We moved into our house on 18 December 1950 and we have always understood
that the lots in this neighborhood could not be changed from out 100 by 200
foot dimension.
As far back as 1958, there was a builder, who requested a lot division, but -the
neighbors quickly got up a petition, which was submitted to the City of Miami
Planning board on 2 December 1958. It was assured then that the city would
never permit a division of thse lots and the builder quickly dropped this
idea of dividing one of our lots.
As you probably recall, we also disapproved of the PUD development, when the
lots facing 22nd Avenue were allowed to change. The city determined that since
this was a commercial street, they would allow this PUD as a buffer to protect
any further invasion into our residential streets . We were assured that our
lot sizes would never be permitted to change.
How can it be, that one man, whom I understand to be Waldimer Lee, can disregard
all the precedents for this neighborhood and issue an adjustment to the owner
of Lot 23.
There must be some recourse for this horrible situation, it truly must be
stopped, for such a division is a cancer that will invade and destroy our
entire neighborhood. All the neighbor's are opposed to this change and want
you to do whatever is necessary to reverse this change on Lot 23. Please, Please,
do whatever is necessary to have the approval recinded, we cannot allow our
beautiful neighborhood to be destroyed by this obvious error on the part of your
platting department.
Thank you for your assistance, we desperately need your help , already the
beautiful oaks on Lot 23 have been butchered because of this mistake, it must not
be allowed to go any further.
Yours truly, '
Mrs. John E. Duvall
'94- 356
cc: Mayor Steve teve Clark, Matty Hirai, City Clerk ,`Mr. J. L. Plummer
-
sMT BY:CITY OF MIAM1 4-^7-94 3:43PM : CITY MANAGM'3 OFF,- 30MO1707;9 2/ 3
W. Tummit Ginn*
Ar#CW M V A411AW
eeeo 8AYP A A
am*$
UUMAH"EOM
v000"sa amova, ftORUD. ones
MIPANG EMI owl I
P#AXW IR 00 /aeon
April 14, 1994
City Manager Cesar Odio
City of Miami
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, FL 33133
Dear Mr. Odio:
11
CITY MANAOFRS OFFICE
94APR21 AN11=oe
I represent certain property owners living adjacent to the
property known as "Oak Shadow," a proposed plat located at
Lot 22 Block Cl Biscayne park Terrace subdivision, at the
corner of Secoffee and Emathla streets in Coconut Grove.
The Public Works Director in his capacity as Supervisor of
Plats pursuant to section 54.5-12(F) of the Municipal Code
granted a waiver of certain previously required right of way
dedications for the proposed plat. It is our contention that
this waiver was granted erroneously. unfortunately, there is
no process in the Municipal Code by which adjacent property
owners in particular or citizens in general may appeal this
decision. In the absence of an appeal process, my clients
wish to wake an appearance before the City Commission at the
newt available meeting to request that the City Commission
reject that decision of the Supervisor of Plats.
On a related issue.. I wish to express my displeasure and
concern with the failure of the public Works Director to
respond to my request of January 29, 19941 to be notified of
"any future meetings (including those of the plat and Street
regarding this iteM-0 I was never notified of any meetings
regarding this plat, and thus was not afforded the
opportunity to respond to Mr. XUrlya's request for a waiver.
Not was I told of the Plat -and Street Committee seeting of
March t0,, 1994, at which the tentative plat was approved. 2
was not provided a response to my letter until after several
verbal requests to the public Works Department. I was faxed
a copy of the Chief Assistant City Attorney'* memo to
94- 356
ObH/5>W OKHrmit- Ktr �� •.�J- J JJi /a.
wxy manager Cedar Odio �
4/19/94
Request for an appearance before the City Commission
Pave - g
Commissloner J.L. Plummer on March 3, 1994. ften there I was
not informed of the grant of the waiver despite any keen
interest in this issue. At beat this was an inexcusable
mistake. At worst, it is a clumsy (but effective) attempt to
limit public access to the platting process.
These issues and others will be brought to the City
Commission's attention during this requested appearance. I
look forward to a prompt response to this request for an
appearance before the City Commission.
Sincerely,
W6 Tuck Gibbs
9q_ 3 •
1
Ott xx �ixxrct
WALOEMAR It. llE ;1.'6 MAI H. ntAlA
�� chy Mana{te
Di�lC10f i �'-� led
� J
February 10, 1994
h I.;
Plr. 5 Mrs. Nichael A. Kuryla
281.1 Emathla Street
141ami, Florida 33133
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kuryla:
OAK SHADOW SUBDIVISION - TENTATIVE PLAT 11456-B
lhis department has received ,your request to reconsider the
decision of the Supervisor of Plats in his letter of December 8,
1993, wherein your request for an adjustment to the design
standards for the subject tentative plat was denied. You have
based''this request on your providing additional information which
establishes an undue hardship which mould result if the waiver of
dedication were not granted.
We have reviewed your lettor of February 4. 1994 which responds
to the four (4) conditions of the 141ami Citf
Code, Sec. 54.5-
12(f) which supports your request. Additily, City staff has
field surveyed the area in question and confirms your assessment
of the number of vesture fan palms that Mould be in the path of
any. now sidewalk constructed on Secoffee Street. The following
shall constitute the Supervisor of Plats' response to each of the
conditions set forth in our February 4, 1994 letter and which
correspond to the four 64) conditions of Miami City Code Sec.
S4.5-12(F):
(i) Tho estimated cost of S95 per lineal foot for removal and
reconstruction of the six foot high wooden fence appears to
be in line with the prices established by the industry and
trades at this time. The total estimated cost, then, for
115 feet of fence is Sa,125. To determine If the cost of
this relocation is an undue hardship for the applicant, the
cost of the land under consideration should bi calculated
and compared with the fence relocation cost. Our records
based on recent property sales, place the cost of the land
at approximately $15,00per square foot, Therefore* the
strip of land in question (17510.51) is worth opproximately
$1,312.60. The applicant would be required to expend funds
in an amount over four times the value of the land. This
relocation, for six inches of additional right of way,
appears to be an unreasonable requirement for the applicant,
resulting in an undue hardship.
i 1 0! AR MINT OF PUBLIC W+.ORKSIVII K.W. and Streel/hUsM. Florida )31W(PAI B/t-0,06
1
U
1
1
Mr. 6 Mrs. Michael A. Kuryla February 10, 1994
With regard to the issue of the trees in the tine of
proposed sidewalk construction, the City does not always
require the owner/applicant to construct sidewalk adjacent
to the site. in this case a covenant can be required
post pun in9 sidewalk improvements. flow evor, 1f sidewalk
construction were a requirement, then in all Iikelihond tho
City would act to preserve the trees and establish a new
sidewalk alignment outside the row of trees and not at the
base building line. The existence or removal of the trees
does not necessarily work a hardship on the applicant as the
trues are presently located in the public right of way.
However, since this department would require a realignment
of the sidewalk several feet from the base building line,
the issue of tree preservation supports the idea that the
dedication of right of way is not necessary. These trees
are also located within the external area of the 25-toot
corner radius base building line.
(2) The department concurs with the applicant's assessment that
the property in question (land exterior of radius and 0.5
foot x 175 foot strip) is under private ownership by the
applicant which a11ow3 for private use. This is a
substantial property right of the applicant.
(3) Again, the department concurs that the waiver of dedication
will in no way be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other property. Vegetation and mature trees
prevent the public from using the area in question.
(4) This department confirms that all departmental
representatives who were present at the special review
committee of December 11, 1993 concerning the subject
request Made Statenents in the affirmative that the waiver
of dedication would not burdon City services.
Therefore, having found that all four conditions set forth in
iiiami City Code Sec. 54.3-12(F) have been Met in regard to your
request for waiver of dedication in connection with the tentative
plat of 'Oak Shadow Subdivision', I hereby grant an unconditional
,waiver of dedication in accordance with your request.
Sincerely.
.tJ • �, .C...d...._..
Waldemar C. tow
Director of public Works and
Supervisor of Plats
JJK:ew
cc: G. Miriam Maer. Chief Assistant City Attorney
Frank McMahon. Surveyor
Janes J. Kay, Chairman, Plat and Street Commi tee
C T - ...
. 2 -
PA- 356
CQ ! G "f'91.1 ..<. -O T - A "W
.%4- _.. .
IV ED
94 FED e4 AM 10: 37
,�OEF i, dt PURUC NC�t5
t�1E eltr W MIMI. ILA....
......... �. Vic. �._ .__.Gn :►ter _ .., ",t /U�. .94t ... d�lt�o-_ .._.
... :.I�.�.�LLif.fl4• Y • � �. .... ...... _.
._._..lam.. .... r..L...c&.. .. .. .........
9�c cef CA& -.XL. ...R na1..�. _ir
lb
_,�1i `._.........._ . _ .
y
jo(goo I' it
dloo
�.. ._. r�...da•+�+�f��,. � ':.. ��:. past.. ... 9�1i� .
D 356
160 .�i. ... ._....._......... _
{tetiaPs
44,4w. At f- .. • � �i . dK �.i �C...o�'�..'�.'. /. �• (/�.�.. 6�..�e4�, . /�I4ilk � .. �l � .
v
................Cody;... _...___...__._.._._..._...._................ _.._.._ ._.._,_......___............... ........... ,_
r
��e......WAar cadd -04k.._..... _
... _ 7wst,...(,o. /.•s4�.r�f....���tAkhatl�_ _ fit . - ..... ���, ....'xi�4'1�c'_ ..
. ,r;,s.. �lD....�c+El�d�dG._ Qiy _,PI � ...�M�� . GLt4�» ... +oSLC�L.. _.� �t�' • .. /�•f" ..
u �� _ �....i 1�
, do
X1114r.... Wide ftfsw Ar ALJ
'0
�rc,�....�►r�l�_ .i:. _ .'l�_......_ �ta�otdt�...�C__. p��'�nlEo� .. _ ..' 4 7 6
Fre 41g4- . PAt..3,. ... ... . .
Acr oid &v.
ot.. 4 it F
..,Misr. u-ses,...xier. 4, . ,.o!..�.. �ic...�o-at.. •
d,li...... ..✓l...Sr.ai�t�'
- - • �.).: .. a� .. ka. _. ! . � rird� �i�.eliwr.. i.. 0- 6/007 ......
_. _..._ ..... _
• / d a _1«t_ . ......
.... _ (�t�►,ce�.._ Qom... fib".•-�-.-��_.,�._�...��f� . o-....... _..... .
............may.._ _�L.1�c .. .__ ......._... _ ..... _. .... _ _..... __ .._
....... ...fin 4� . �.G� ' ....��_ ......�.. _4�t_...s.G...�.�%' ........
vivo .... , .9.t.
dC.A
nh-
34_�
.� s
MAY- i b-50d% Mu14 b t) i
_% . Am
....... SPA _...,...._..._._._._ _... __ _ ..... _ ............
356
MAY— 16—g4 MON 4 e !S i
GrrY OF MUM. "IOFUDA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
V-0 J.Lo. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner DA1e January 37, 1994 FIVA93-1053
GUIUECT "Ookshadow" -
( Tentative Plat $1456
ROM �'• Miri.am Maer 11lF9RcN"$.
Chief Assistant City Attorney
&4MUREs :
In connection with the referenced tentative plat, t have
reviewed the file and researched the reluvou, cods provisions.
This memorandum w111 be divided as follower I - Chronology of
Events and 11 - Applicable Law and Discussion.
1
At the November 41 1993 meetiny'of the City of Miami Plat
and SLceet Committee, the roforonced tentative plat was deferred
subject to the resolution of several issues. (A copy of the
November B. 1993 letter from the Plat and Street Committee is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A".) As you will note therein, the
Plat and Street Committee recommended to the Supervisor of Plate
that a requested waiver ut dedication of the 25-foot corner
radius at the intersection of Seeoffoe Street and Bmathala Street
and of 0.5 foot x 175 foot strip along Secoffee Street be
denied. The applicant was advised that the requested waiver
woul be decided by the Supervisor of Plate in accordance with
Chapter 54.5 of the City Code.
On Decombor 8, 1993, Waldemar Lee, Director of Public Works
and Supervisor of Plate,, advised the property owners that the
requirements for waiver, as set forth in Section 54.5-12 of the
City Code, had not been met and therefore the requested waiver
could not be granted. (A copy of this December 6, 1993 lottor is
attaul►ud hereto as Exhibit "B".)
On December 17, 1993, a meeting of a committee composed of
the directors, or their designees, of the departments represented
on the Plat and Street Committee was convened at the request of
Wr. Kuryla, the applicant 3n Lhe referenced matter, to appeal the
findings and Conditions imposed by the plat and Street Committee
at its November 4. 1993 meeting (hereinafter, the "Review
Committeo"). A copy of Mr. Ku la's written request for review
by the Review Committee and of the Deputy Director of Public
Works' memorandum dated December 17, 1993 notifying Mr. Loo of
the scheduling of this meeting ara attached hereto as Composite
8xhibit "CO.
34- 356 9
WV
MAY- 1 6-94 MON 9 L :52 P. 06
t „~ter
Commissioner Y.L. Plummer, Jr. January 29, 1994
Page 2
On December 23, 1993, Mr. Lee, Director of public Works,
issued a memorandum to Jim Kay, Chairman of the Plat and Street
Committee, setting forth the tindings of the "view Committee. A
copy ut Lille memorandum is attached hereto as exhibit "D",
(including all the attachments thereto). Tho December. 23, 1993
MQm�r�ndum indicates that Mr. Kuryla requested that the Review
Committee waive the required radius dedication and the dedication
along the southerly side of Secoffee Street in order that his
property could meet the minimum lot size requir*AWAIL6 for s.hat
zoning district. The memorandum provides that the Review
Committea was convened in AnnnrdAnnw with Section 54.5•7(0)(2) of
the City Code, and that its purpose was to hear the appeal of the
applicant and to reject or uphold the findings of the Plat and
Street Committee. The Review Committee discussed the technical
requirements conuciriilny 4he dedication and the minimum lot size
for Iota in that soning district and dovolopment sander a repoaled
zoning nrdfnanne, nrdinance No. 9500, compared to development
under the current zoning ordinance, Ordinance No. 11000. Mr.
Kuryla's property is located in an R•1 single family residential
zoning district with an SD•18 overlay. This zoning duniVneiLiu,t
requires a minimum of ten thousand square foot per lot. The
memorandum indicates that after hearing from Mr. Kuryla and
discussion among its members, the Review Committee waived the
dedication requirements for the corner radius and for the
dedication on the southerly side of Secoffee Street.
The resubmittal of the tontativo plat was heard by the Plat
and Street Committee on January 14, 1994. At that time,
additional comments and issues were raised by parsons in
attendance. among those comments, were the followings
A. The N.E.T. Administrator representing the Coconut
Grove neighborhood indicated that dedications must be uniformly
applied.
S. Xr. Tucker Gibbs, an attorney and Coconut drove
resident, representing the Coconut Grove Civic \,Clubs rained
several legal issues as followst
1. Does the Public Works Director have the authority to
grant a waiver where the waiver would result in creation of a lot
with less than the minimum number of square feet required for
that zoning district by Boning Ordinance No. 11000, our ourront
Boning Ordinance?
2. Does the Public Works Director's action, by granting
the waivers, in effect reduce the minimum lot size requirements
in this Zoning district?
lU C356
MAY-- 1 b-94 MON 9 .0 sas P. 09
Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. January 27, 1994
Page 3
3. is this another way to allow substandard lots, in
violation of the City Code and the Zoning ordinance? in other
words, by discussing the "unfairness" of Boning Ordinanco No.
11000, compared to tho earlier and nnw rappaled Zoning Ordinance
No. 9500, (the previous Zoning Ordinance allowed the square
foota a to be calculated prior to dedication), and granting
relie? by virtue of the waiver, is the Supervisor of Plats or the
moview Committee in effeuL amending the current Boning Ordinanco
to re-enact lanquago from Zoning Ordinance No. 9500 which t.hA
Committee deemed mnre equitable, notwithstanding the repeal of
Zoning Ordinance No. 9500 by the City CowLesLon without going
through the appropriate process (i.e., a public hearing before
the Planning Advisory board and two public hearings In front of
Lhu ClLy Commission)?
4. Are there standards governing the waiver procedure or
does the Supervisor of Plats have unfettered discretion to grant
these waivers?
The Plat and Gtreet Committoo deferred action on this
tentative plot until reRnlutinn of these new legal issues by tho
City Attorney.
By letter dated January 14, 1994 addressed to Jim Kay as
Chairman of the Plat, and Street Committee, Mr. Kuryla has
questioned the doeision of the Plat and Street enmmittes
expressing his dissatisfaction with the proceedings. A copy of
this letter and its attachments is enclosed herewith as Exhibit
"E".
21
As set forth in Exhibit "F", the Review Committee provided
for in Section 54.5-7(D) "Review of Tentative Plat" has authority
to review the findings of the Plat and Street Committee onlX.
Thus, the attempt by this Review Committee at i s meeting of
December 17, 1903 to waive the mandatory dellicatinnta, an
authority reserved to the Supervisor of Plats, was invalid, as it
was outside the scope of its authority.
Section 54.5-12(r) -Adjustments to Dwuign Standards"
provides that. the Supervisor of Plate any authorise an adjustment
to tho dooL9n etandaraa when, in hia opininn, undue BhiD may
raeult from strict compliance with such standard. Th section
further provides that no adjustments may be granted unless the
Supervisor of Plats finds that all four of the listed conditivita
356
. . .
Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr. January 27, 1994
Page 4
exist. Those four conditions, as get forth in #aid Subsection,
are attached hereto so Exhibit "C". Thus, the standards which
govern the Supervisor of P1atw in reviewing applications for
waivers are clearly set forth.
Section 54.5-12(D)(2), also set forth in said Exhibit "G",
provides that lot dimuntsions, after, dedication of necessary
, rights-of-wayshall conform to t� soqu roments of the Zoning
Ord�nancaa. (Emphasis supplied) The attempted waiver was
conditioned upon subsequent dedication at time of development.
The effect of the requested waiver would violate this section of
the City code as well as the requirements of Zoning Ordinance no.
11000, which require, in an RS-1 Soning District with an SD.19
ovorlay, a minimum lot site of tan thnissand (10,000) square feet
per lot, in effect authorizing the creation of sub -standard lots.
The Public Works Director cannot de facto amend the Zoning
ordinance.
The fallowing alternatives should be considerede
1. The Supervisor of Plats could rescind his previous
denial of the waiver (Uhibit "B") if he finds all of the
standards In Section 54.5-12(r) have been stet.
2. The waiver, if granted, should not be conditioned upon
subsequent dedication at time of issuance of a development
permit.
3. The City Code could be amended to eliminate the
dedication requirements or tha Zoning ordinance could be amended
to reduce the minimum lot size for that zoning district.
4. The applicant advised the Plat and Street Committed hu
owns the adjauuui, property, and thus owns a total of 42,000
square toot. This amount of land would s6pm to offer,
collectively, development opportunities that would' not require a
waiver or code amendments.
OMM/tg/M665
i �' 4- 3o56
CITY OF MIAMI• FLonIDA
INTER-OFricE MEMORANDUM
To James J. Kay D'T°
Chairman, Plot and Stroet Committee
susxc?
room
Waldemar E. Lot
%d,O puop
DEC L'8
534;i
December 23,V1.1193
OAK SHADOW poq'inPS $,d �I
Appeal of Plat A Str !
Committee Findings
REFERENCES .
Director of Public Works 1!Nm0s rkcgL.etter, Memorandum
attendance lists
On December 17, 1923, a meeting was convened in the City
Manager's Conference Room to hear an appeal from Mr. Nlcheel
Kuryla, applicant, concerning the Plat & Street Committee's
findings and conditions set forth in the tentative plat of •oak
Shadow Subdivision" held on December 4, 1993. Specifically, Mr.
Kuryld requested relief from the required 25-foot corner radius
dedication at the intersection of Secoffee Street and EAathia
Strast and a 0.5 foot x 175 foot strip of land along the
southerly side of Secoffee Street in order to meet certain
requirements of the R-1, SO-18 overlay zoning district. i.e..
10,000 square feet per lot. The property to be platted as shown
on the tentative plat, 11456. is exactly 20.000 square feet in
area prior to any Medications. Mr. Kuryla wishes to subdivide
the property into two (2) lots of 10.000 square feet each. Mr.
Kuryla further stated that the property immediately to the west
of the Oak Shadow Subdivision site on the westerly side of
Emathla Street was platted in 1979 as Maranatha Subdivision (113-
74), which plat included a 25-foot corner radius dedication on a
100 toot x 100 foot tract of land resulting in a platted tract
=.with an area less than 100000 square feet. The net area
requirements of a lot at that time were defined as the total area
within the property lines prior to any required dedications. The
net area of a lot as defined under the current zoning ordinance.
110001 is the total Ares within the lot lines excluding any
street rights -of -way or other required dedications. Mr. Kuryla
stated that he only desires to have the same opportunity to
replat his property as did his neighbor across the"street. The
applicant has* in lieu of this dedication, offerad'to grant a
pedestrian easement over the same area of land described to be
dedicated.
The meeting was convened with the Supervisor of Plats 10
accordance with Section 54.5-7(D)(2) of Lhe'Niami City Code. The
purpose was to hear the appeal of the applicant and then to
rejector uphold the findings of the Plat and Street Committee.
A listing of those in attendance at this meeting Is attached to
this Memorandum.
M oft
COMPOSITE MMISIT "D" ...._ 134 — 3 v 6 /3
James J. Kay December 23, 1993
Chairman, Pat and Street Committee
It was the consensus of the committee that the applicant's
request to eliminate the required 25-toot corner radius
dedication at the intersection of Secoffee Street and Cmathla
Street and the dedication ut a 0.6 foot x 175-toot strip of land
on the southerly side of Secoffee Street should be granted under
the provisions of City Code Section 54.5-12(F) (adjustment to
design standards), In granting the owner's request the committee
considered the following criteria:
1. The underlying plat of the property in question was planted
In 1912 as Lot 23. Block C. "plat of Biscayne Park Terrace
Subdivision" (2-36) in which dedications were made for
Secoffee and Emathla Streets. To require the owner to make
further dedications and at the same time sustain a loss in
net lot area for the lots considered was not an equitable
situation, notwithstanding the requirements of Miami toning
Ordinance 11000, ArttclR 26. definitions, 'lot area, net.
The neputy Director of the Planning. Building and Zoning
Department, Joseph NcNanus, agreed that the present
definition of net lot area creates an inconsistency in how
the City has dealt with platting requirements in the past.
He agreed to recommend that the Zoning Ordinance be amended
to reflect a new definition of net lot area that would be
inclusive of street right of way dedications. The amendment
process, however, could take five to six months before such
an ordinance became effective. it was felt by the committee
that this time frame was inordinately long and that decisive
action should be taken at this time.
2. The property in question (exterior of radius and 0.6 foot
strip,of land) is under private ownership by the applicant
which allows for private use - a substantial property right
of the applicant.
3. The applicant has proffered to dedicate a pedestrian easement
over the area in question. This would allow for the
construction of sidewalk and other public uses associated
with public access.
4. The request of the applicant does not burden Mrservices.
In addition to the granting of a platted pedestrian easement by
the applicant. t'he committee, as a condition of granting the
request to waits the afurementioned dedication, has required the
applicant to execute a covenant to run with -the land which shall
make mandatory the dedication of the 25-foot corner radius and
the 0.5 foot x 176 foot strip of land should a building permit be
issued on either of the proposed lots described in the Oak Shadow
Subdivision.
Iq - 2 I 356
4b
James J. Kay December 23, 1993
Chairman. Plat and Street Committee
Based upon the consensus ur the committee's findings in the above
and my authority as Supervisor of Plats. I am Afracting you to
eliminate the requir*ments for a 25•foot corner radius at the
intersection of Secoffee Street and Emathle Street and the 0.5
foot x 175 foot strip of land on the southerly side of Secoffee
Street in connection with the plat or "Oak Shadow SuU ivisi0a."
NEL:JJK:mw
cc: Frank McKahon. P.L.S., Surveyor
G. fliriam fiaer, Chief Assistant City Attorney
Committee Mem0ers � l
Michael Kuryla, Applicant
34- 356
� � 1
R eml ?f 6 7
A166 7'�Y�- - e vl' o 14 ri;i4
pla cS Ae e. � C. o m,-41 Ale e e / Ala slew le e 4, /f it .
/ al!ll 71
.�,� ��,�� p� � l.6•�1 �"e,•?eC' Ind �I .? �• � .
DiG
E N-MAJ KA
I N T E R I O R D E S I G N A N D S P A C E P L A N N I N G
Submitted inlo ilia
MAY 23, 1. 9 9 4 record in connoction with
item 17- on Shy - q 4
HONORABLI: MAYOR, CI1Y COMMISSIONER AND CITY MA AGERS:
t1'tir zrCl
City "C"Ierk
1HE ISSUE BEFORE IHIS BODY IS WHETHER Olt N01 MR. KURYLA 1S
ENTITLED 10 AN ADJUSIME:NI OR VARIANCE. OBVIOUSLY, THE AI'l'LICANT
DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT '10 1111S ADJIISIMENT Olt VARIANCE, 1T IS A
PRIVILEGE WHICH ONLY 1HE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR CAN BESTOW. YOU
AS OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS SHOULD DECIDE WHETHER 1I118
ADJUSTMENT/VARIANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED. YOU NEED '10 DEIERMINE
WHETHER THE PIIBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR CORRECTLY APPLIED THL STANDARDS
AND GUIDELINES SEI 0111 1N YOUR MUNICIPAL CODE WHEN HE GRANTED
THIS ADJUSTME.NI/VARIANCL. THEREFORE, WE MUS-f FfRSl- LOOK AT THE
IMPACT OF THE ADJUSIMENT OR VARIANCE, WHICH MEANS 10 DEVIAIE FROM
111E NORM; 1O DO IIIFFERENI THAN WHAT PRESENTLY EXISTS. THIS IN
ITSELF IS DEIRLMENTAL TO 111E NEIGHBORHOOD. WHAT PLACES ]HIS
NEIGHBORHOOD IN IIS SELLCIIVE POSIliON, IS THE UNIFORMIfY OF 1.OT
SIZES. THE VALUE OF 111E HOMES THEREON, THE ECONOMIC STABILITY,
BY REASON OF THE CERIAINIY OF MAINTAINING THESE VALUES.
CERTAINLY i-HESE ARE rIlE VERY VALUES MR. KURYLA SOUGHI 10 ACHIEVE
WHEN HE MOVED INTO THE HOME, HE OWNS ADJACENT TO SUBJECT
PROPERTY. AND HE HAS ENJOYED THE BENEFITS OF THESE CRIfER1A IN
MANY WAYS BUT MOST URAMAIICALLY IN THE ECONOMIC GAIN HE HAS
ACHIEVED 1N AS MUCH AS THE: HOUSE HE OWNS AT 2811 EMA"IHLA S1REE1
4- 356
DEGEN-MAJKA ASSOCIATES, INC. 3841 NORTHEAST 2nd AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33137 TELEPHONE 305-573-0400
LICENSE 41B C000150
E N-M
AJ KA
I N T E R I O R D E S I G N A StAb)&xitted iRxt(A tLc pub ic: L A N N I N G
{ record in r.ox; nedion with
1 WAS PURCHASED FOR UNDER ST50„ 00 AN' HE NOW LISTS 11 FOR SALE
1< em i2. c�ra. 231 � .
FROM $835, 000. 00 bla fly Hirai
i City Clerk
THEREFORE AN ADJUSTMENT OR VARIANCE FOR ANY REASON IS DETRIMENTAL
TO THE WELL. BEING OF THE AREA. HOWEVER, JUST A REQUEST FOR AN
ADJUSTMENT OR VARIANCE IS NO! THE TRUE ISSUE -WHICH IS A REQUEST
FOR THIS ADJUSTMENT OR VARIANCE BASED ON HARDSHIP. ACCORDING 1O
YOUR MUNICIPAL CODE WITHOUT A CLEAR AND CONVINCING SHOWING THAT
THE APPLICANT WOULD SUFFER AN IRREVERSIBLE HARDSHIP HERE AN
ADJUSTMENT OR VARIANCE CANNOT HE OBTAINED.
IT IS I.MPORTANI 10 EXAMINE THIS SO CALLED HARDSHIP. WHEN YOU
LOOK AT IT FROM EVERY CORNER THE ONLY HARDSHIP EXISTING IS THAT
MR. KURYLA CANNOT MILK LINT OF THIS PROPERTY THE HIGHEST DOLLAR
VALUE CONCEIVABLE. THAT, MR. MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS, IS
NOT THE TYPE OF CIRCUMSTANCE THAT YOU, THE LAW, AND THE COURTS
HAVE CHARACTERIZED AS A HARDSHIP. FURIHER THE LAW DOES NOT
PERMIT A HARDSHIP VARIANCE WHEN THE HARDSHIP IS SELF-IMPOSED,
1
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS IS. MR. KURYLA KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE
KNOWN AT THE TIME HE MADE THIS RECENT PURCHASE OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY, THAT I1 DID NO[ QUALIFY TO BE SPLIT INTO TWO LOTS
WITHOUT THE PRESENCE_ OF A TRUE HARDSHIP.
"` 4- 356
DEGEN-MAJKA ASSOCIATES, INC. 3841 NORTHEAST 2nd AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33137 TELEPHONE 305-573.0400
LICENSE#IB C000150
E G E N A J K A
I N T E R I O R D E S I G N A N D S P A C E P L A N N I N G
1
I
f
1
E
3
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
UNDER LAND USE LAW A TRUE HARDSHIP EXISTS ONLY IF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNDULY OPPRESSIVE:, ARBITRARY AND/OR
CONFISCATORY, NONE OF WHICH APPLIES TO THE: PRESENI CIRCUMSTANCES.
THE ONLY HARDSHIP EXISTING IS THA{ MR. KIIRYLA CANNOT ACHIEVE-' THE
LEVEL OF GREED AND AVARICE THAT HE SOUGHT WHEN HE BOUGHT THIS
PROPERTY. THE MERE FACT THAT HE CANNOT MAKE A "KILLING" IS NO1
THE BASIS FOR A VARIANCE AS THA1 IS NOT A HARDSHIP.
TRULY THE ONLY HARDSHIP THAT WOULD EXIST 1S THE ONE THAT EACH
INDIVIDUAL IN THE. NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD SUFFER IF THIS IS GRANTED.
MR. KIIRYLA HAS ALREADY ABUSED IHL NEIGHBORHOODS STANDARD OF
ZONING LAW BY BUILDING ADDLIONS TO THE 'hill EMATHLA PROPERTY
WHICH VIOLATE ZONING SET BACKS AND OTHER REOUt Rf_MENTS, PLUS WHICH
THEY WERE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUI THE BENEFII OF BUILDING PERMITS AND
ACCOMPANING INSPECTIONS.
Submitted
into the public
record in conzxectio.n with
item I ;L-
on
CC: HONORABLE
STEPHEN CLERK, MAYOR
HONORABLE
MILLER DAWKINS, VICE MAYOR
C ii]T la�2k
HONORABLE
VICTOR DEYURRE, COMMISSIONER
HONORABLE_
WILLY GORT, COMMISSIONER
HONORABLE
J.L. PLUMMER, COMMISSIONER
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY CLERK
94- 356
DEGEN-MAJKA ASSOCIATES, INC. 3841 NORTHEAST 2nd AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33137 TELEPHONE 305-573-0400
HCENSENIB C000150
•
EG
I N T E R I O R
12
E I" I\A J K
D E S I G N A N D S P A C E P L A N N I N G
April 4, 1994
�A
M
Cesar Odle, City Manager
3500 Fan American Drive
w ^
Miami, !L 33133
+,,r•
N
Dear Mr. Odio,
We recently learned of the request by our neighbor Mr. Kuryla to
split Lot 23 of Block C (corner of 8ecoffee & Bmathla) who's
address is 2801 6mathla St. based on "hardship by owner".
We are strongly against this lot split and find it hard to
imagine why he would be granted an adjustment based on
"hardship". Mr. Kurlya, in addition to 2801 Bmathla St., owns
the house nest door at 2811 Baathla 8t. which was advertised
recently for sale at $875,000.00. Mow is hardship defined by
code? We feel that this decision is without basis and creates an
unwanted precedent. This is a neighborhood of 1/2 acts lots and
should remain so. To allow lot splitting would r*4uoe the value
of all homes in this area and create a burden for traffic,
schools and local protection services.
We would like this matter to be heard at'ths next commission
seating. Ple as place this issue on your calendar.
Silathla
y•
JB. Gig
etre te Clark, Mayor
y Hirai, City Clark
34- 3561,./.Z-I
NORTHEAST Znd AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33137 TELEPHONE 305.573.0400
OCEUSEoil COOO130