HomeMy WebLinkAbout2nd Supplement to AppealTEW • CAR.DENAS LLP
A T T O R N B Y 5 A T L A W
Holl [le Is1 hwnec
Direct E.Ane1 (30,;) 536-8160
1's A9a11: BDF@,iTmLaw.coin
March 12, 2010
VIA HAND DELIVERY &
ELECTRONIC MAIL
Abel Rodriguez
Hearing Boards
444 SW 2" d Avenue
7th Floor
Miami, Florida 33130
FOUR SEASONS TOWER
.I.ftli FLOOR
"'! 1441 BRICKELL"ENUE
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131.3407
T 305.536.1112
F 305.536,1116
WWW.TEIYLAW.COM
Re: 2"d Supplement to Patna Liu Appeal, File No. 09-00565hal (the "Appeal').-
Historic
Appeal'):Historic & Environmental Preservation Board ("HEP Board') Decision
Regarding File No. HP -2 009-14 7(the "Application');
Dear Mr. Rodriguez:
This law firm represents Patra Liu, the appellant in the above -referenced matter, On
February 25, 2010, the City Commission deferred the Appeal until March 25, 2010. At the City
Commission meeting, the City Commission directed the appellant and the Spring Garden Civic
Association ("SGCA") to meet prior to the March 25, 2010 meeting to resolve their differences.
The parties have been in contact and are coordinating meetings prior to March 25. The appellant
will conduct good faith negotiations with the SGCA and is hopeful that a resolution will be
reached. Nevertheless, in order to consolidate and update the Appellant's position, we provide
this Second Supplement to Appeal. We also include a revised packet of the supplemental
materials that were distributed at the February 25, 2010 City Commission meeting.
I. THE FEBRUARY 25, 2010 CITY COMMISSION MEETING — LAST
MINUTE AMBUSH BY THE SGCA
The SGCA supported the Appellant's application before the Historic Preservation
Board on November 3, 2009. For several weeks prior to the February 25, 2010 City
Commission meeting, Ms. Liu and her architect made numerous attempts to contact the
designated representatives of the SGCA to confine their continued support. None of
their calls or emails were returned, On the date of the City Commission meeting,
moments before the item was called, Eileen Broton, the President of the SGCA, told Ms.
Liu that the SGCA, reversed its position and did not support her application,
Anel Rodriguez
Hearing Boards
March 12, 2010
Page 2
II. HISTORY OF APPLICANT'S EXTENSIVE REACH -OUT TO SGCA AND
UNPRECEDENTED CONCESSIONS RESULTING IN SGCA SUPPORT
OF PROJECT AT THE HEP BOARD MEETING
The SGCA's withdrawal of support was a surprise to Ms. Liu, given the extensive
reach -out she made to the SGCA during the process. The extraordinary efforts made by
Ms. Liu include:
A. On-site Meetings and Extensive Dialogue with Designated SGCA
Representatives and Agreement on Design:
Starting in April, 2009, Ms. Liu and/or her architect met with authorized
representatives of the SGCA, including but not limited to Goia De Carlo (SGCA
Board Member and SGCA attorney), Chris Vane (SGCA Vice President), and a
structural engineer, designated by the SGCA. Meetings took place at Ms. Liu's
home and the designated SGCA representatives made specific recommendations
regarding the design of the project. Ms. Liu and her architect followed and relied
upon that direction, resulting in significant expenses and the design before you
today. Specifically, Ms. Liu and her architect were told to retain the front fagade
and to start the new two story addition at the roof ridgeline.
B. Escrow Agreement
In October 2009, the SGCA agreed to support the application if Ms. Liu
agreed to establish an escrow account with sufficient funds to complete the shell
of the proposed addition, in order to protect the neighborhood from the possibility
of an abandoned construction site. Ms. Liu agreed to this extraordinary request.
III. FAVORABLE STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Application received a favorable recommendation from the City's
professional staff, with a specific finding that the proposal meets the intent of the
Secretary of the Interior's Standard No. 9, the applicable standard when determining
whether to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness: "New additions, exterior alterations or
related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the
property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with
the massing, scale, and architectural features to protect the integrity of the property and
its envirolunent." Specific findings supporting this conclusion include the following:
Extra attention has been paid to the integration of the new construction
with the existing structure that will be preserved.
TEw CARDENAS LLP
Four Seasons Tower, 15th Floor, 1441 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida 33131-3407 • 305-536-1112
Anel Rodriguez
Hearing Boards
March 12, 2010
Page 3
The plans depict a home which is comparable in height and scale;
directional emphasis; setbacks (front and side); and shape to its
neighboring homes.
The new two-story construction is significantly recessed from the front
fagade and begins approximately 14' to 22' behind the existing roof ridge.
This separation creates a clear differentiation between old and new.
The proposed design introduces some modern elements clearly
distinguishing the old from the new.
The architect and owner have paid "careful consideration" in relating the
new construction to the neighborhood.
This evaluation prepared by your professional staff provides competent
substantial evidence that the Application should be approved.
IV. HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD DENIAL OF APPLICATION
Although the HEP Board denied the Application, it was by a narrow 4-3 vote. It
is noteworthy to point out that a board member who had supported the complete
demolition of the home was not present for this meeting; based on his prior support, it is
likely that he would have voted in favor of the Application. Moreover, one of the most
outspoken HEP Board members against Ms. Liu's application is a past president of the
SCCA; indeed, he is the husband of the current SGCA president. He continues to
involve himself in the SGCA's deliberations regarding Ms. Liu's application.
V. CITY COMMISSION POWERS TO REVIEW HISTORIC
PRESERVATION BOARD DECISIONS
The SGCA's objections are based on its belief that the HEP Board's decisions
should never be reversed by the City Commission. The City Code does not support this
position. Sec. 23-6.2(e) specifically states, "The city commission may affirm, modify,
or reverse the board's decision.... The appeal shall be a de novo hearing and the
city commission may consider new evidence or materials in accordance with 2004
of the zoning ordinance." (emphasis added). The City Commission is the final
administrative arbiter of historic preservation issues. As with this case, the HEP Board
occasionally makes incorrect decisions. Contrary to the SGCA's assertions, it is proper
and absolutely within the City Commission's purview to reverse incorrect HEP Board
decisions.
TEw CARDENAS LLP
Four Seasons Tower, 15th Floor, 1441 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida 33131-3407 • 305-536-1112
Anel Rodriguez
Hearing Boards
March 12, 2010
Page 4
VI. THE FIFTY PERCENT RULE & THE REQUIRED ELEVATION OF THE
HOUSE
The Preservation Officer concludes that this design "represents a successful
compromise between the total demolition of the home and an attempt to correct the
structural and building code deficiencies." This well -reasoned conclusion represents an
understanding that this design is the best solution to allow preservation of the most
significant historic part of the home, still allowing Ms. Liu to construct a habitable
addition that meets current building codes and FEMA elevation requirements.
Ingelmo & Associates, a structural engineering firm, inspected the home and
concluded the following: "M our opinion, the cost associated with the noted necessary
upgrade will in all likelihood trigger the 50% rule and result in additional building code
requirements to comply with the Florida Building Code, 2007 addition." Most
significantly, the 50% rule would require any restored portion of the existing home not to
be used as habitable space, since it is twenty (20) inches below required flood elevation.
Accordingly, in arriving at the proposed design, Ms. Liu and her architect met
with the City Building Official, Mario Fernandez to seek a historic building waiver. The
building itself is not historic; no waivers are available. Based on this conclusion, work to
renovate the existing house, even with no addition, would trigger the new elevation
requirements. All habitable portions of the home must be elevated to meet current flood
criteria, with or without an addition. This would require destruction of the front facade of
the home.
Ms. Liu is in a Catch-22. To make improvements that would make the house
structurally sound, safe and Code -compliant, Ms. Liu would have to raise the house,
including the front facade. The SGCA objects to disturbing the front facade, but the
house is not historical, and does not qualify for a waiver. The proposed design, with a
260 square foot uninhabitable "foyer," is the only solution out of this Catch 22.
The proposed design offers to satisfy the SGCA's originally stated concern and
preserve the front of the home, even though it will result in a 260 square foot
uninhabitable space. The only habitable space will be contained in the new addition. Ms.
Liu presents a creative solution to preserve the front of the home, maintaining the
existing streetscape along NW 7t" Street Road, but still allowing Ms. Liu to add habitable
space.
TEw CARDENAS LLP
Four Seasons Tower, 15th Floor, 1441 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida 33131-3407 •305-536-1112
Ariel Rodriguez
Hearing Boards
March 12, 2010
Page 5
VII. REVISED PACKET
We include a revised version of the packet that was distributed at the February 25,
2010 City Commission meeting. These materials illustrate the following:
A. Selected Portions of the Powerpoint Presentation: Your Hearing Boards -
distributed packets already contain the full HEP Board application
materials. We now include selected portions to demonstrate the
following: (i) Rendering showing finished product, buffered by existing
mature trees; (ii) Adjacent two-story home, showing that a two-story
addition is appropriate for the area; (iii) Two-story home across the street
to provide context; (iv) Flooding; (v) Interior and exterior damage; (vi)
Comparison between next-door two-story existing home and finished
product, showing compatibility with neighborhood.
B. Property Appraiser Information for the Subject Home: In spite of an
approximately $150,000 drop in market value between 2008 and 2009,
Ms. Liu is still willing to make a very significant and costly investment in
her property and the neighborhood.
C. Ingelmo & Associates Letter: The structural engineer's letter concludes
that a proper renovation of the home will result in triggering the 50% rule.
D. Letters of Support: Ms. Liu provides letters of support fiom her next door
and across the street neighbors.
E. Petition Supporting Application: Seventeen (17) neighbors signed a
petition in support of Ms. Liu's application prior to the February 25, 2010
City Commission meeting.
F. Property Appraiser Information for Adjacent Property (821 NW 7th Street
Road): This property has 3266 square feet on a 7000 square foot lot. Ms.
Liu's plan proposes less square footage on the same size lot.
TEw CARDENAS LLP
Four Seasons Tower, 15th Floor, 1441 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida 33131-3407 •305-536-1112
Anel Rodriguez
Hearing Boards
March 12, 2010
Page 6
The HEP Board erred in denying Ms. Liu's application. The SGCA's last-minute
withdrawal of support was fundamentally unfair. Ms. Liu relied upon their direction and
incurred significant architectural fees in arriving at a design specifically driven by the SGCA's
authorized representatives. The City's Preservation Officer provides competent substantial
evidence that the appropriate criteria to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness have been
satisfied. It is clear that Ms. Liu's application presents the best option to preserve the most
significant portion of the house and still allow her to expand and renovate her home. Based on
the foregoing, we ask that the City Commission grant the Appeal and approve the Application.
Sincerely
B&`de la Fuente
For the Firm
Encl.
cc: Ellen Uguccioni (w/encl., via electronic mail)
Patra Liu (w/encl., via electronic mail)
Ilija Mosscrop (w/encl., via electronic mail)
TEw CARDENAS LLP
Four Seasons Tower,15th Floor, 1441 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida 33131-3407 • 305-536-1112
PATRA LIU
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
APPEAL OF HEP BOARD DENIAL
PZ.11
09-00565ha1
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS
Selections from Powerpoint Presentation
Property Appraiser Print-out: Subject Home
w
I:
Ingelmo & Associates (Structural Engineer) Letter C
Neighbor Letters Supporting Application D
811 NW 7th Street Road (Next Door)
804 NW 7th Street Road (Across Street)
Petition in Support of Application
Wo
Property Appraiser Print-out: Next Door Neighbor (821) F
0
I
a
0
I )"1"1"',
� �
7�\�
. . <.. .�
c0
log
InfOrmation Map
page I of' I
NEUMMIMEMEM
Dig4al Orthophotography - 2007 0 - 115 ft
This reap was created on 212312010 134-46 PM for reference purposes only
Vveb Site Q 2002 rviiarni-Dade CourAy. A rights reserved,
M
Summary Details:
Fo�io No.: �1-3135-D27-082t3
Propert��511 NIA1 7 ST Rk,)
tv"Wling PATRA P LlU
Address
811 NW 7 ST RD MlAlvll FL
33136-3024
Property Information:
Pr[mary Zone: 01100 SINGLE FAIMLY
RESIDENCE
CLUC, 001 RESIDENTIAL -
I ISINGLE FAMILY
unuts:
SC FT
3 LOT 19 BLK 10 LOT
lZE 50.000 X 140 OR
D747-1021 10 2002 1
R 20747-1021 1002 00
Assessment Information:
Year: 2009 2008
Land Vague:
$60,030 $210,105
BuiIdino Valtje.
(3132,073 $132,089
Mwkel Vallue:
$192,103 3342,194
Assessed Value:
,$140,424_ $140,287
Exemption Information:
Year:
200E:j::2 "I
Hfjrnesj!eaA;
$25,0D0 1 $2 0
qO
'2nd Homestead:
I YES I r toso
Taxable Value Information:
Sale Information:
Sale Date: 1012002
Sale Arnount
S230,000
Sale 01F:
20747-1021_
Sales
Qualification
Sales which are qualified
DescuLflon-1--
View Add1ions I Sales
lit" p: �Ygis i nis 2 - m i alini d a Cie. -o v/1-1whom e!PrIntm ap.,asp? imup utT-littl): //gi �] m s2 , m i anii da d C . go... 2,12 3,, 0 10
A
IrINGELMO
l �
ASSOCIATES ® PA
May 2, 2009
Ms. Patra P. Liu
8 1 1 N.W. 7`h. St Rd
Miami, F)orida 33136-3024
RE: Inspection of Residence
811 N.W. 7",.�l Rd; Miami
Dear Ms. Liu:
CIVIL r
STRUC I URAL
ENGINEERING
DESIGN
CONSULTING
C.A. No. 26864
p ngelma0hgolmo.Ulz
www.ingelmo.biz
At the request of Mr. liija Mosscrop, Architect, INGELMO Associates visited your residence
on -Wednesday, April 29, 2009 to perform a visual inspection of the existing structural
conditions.
The house sits onthe north side of NW 71h. St. Rd and backs onto a canal, According to
property records the single story family home was built in 1940. The house consists of
exterior load bearing masonry resting on conventional foundations. The floor of the
residence is wood franed and sits over a crawl space. The existing clearance from the bottom
of the wood joists to the ground ranges from 10" to 16". The wood floor joists generally span
between the exterior masonry walls and interior foundation walls, T•he roof structure consists
of conventional wood framing resting on a concrete tie beam and interior wood framed
partitions.
Our visual assessment of the structural elements consists of the following observations:
1, The exterior load bearing masonry walls have experienced cracking in a number of'
locations. The tie beam that runs along the perimeter of the masonry wall exhibits a
horizontal crack along the east and south elevations. Additional heavy cracks are also
evident in the masonry areas,
2. The southeast corner of the residence has experienced foundation settlement, The
settlement, in our opinion, has resulted in the heavy cracks that exist along the tie
beams and the masonry walls at this particular. location.
3. The interior first floor wood framing system exhibits considerable deflection. Large
areas of the living and dining areas are in an extreme state of deflection and visual
observation .indicates that there is heavy. damage to the underfloor wood joists at this
location. The bathroom substructure is also in very poor condition and there is
noticeable cracking of the underfloor wood joists. This condition was rioted during
,our inspection. There is also evidence of excessive floor deflection in the bedrooms
that lie along the north-east side of the house.
25:1 CUIC) On10 AV( -flue. suite 301 • Coxal GfaUlus R 3:5134 • Iel 305-461 -U'09,17ay. 30b,161 .&)iO
May 2, ?009
f atra P. Liu
Page Two
4. The residence, in general, is in very poor structural condition.
Based on our site.visit and the extent of the existing deterioration, we note below our
assessment of the residence and possible causes:
® The existing elevation survey of the lot indicates a drop in elevation between the front
and the back of the property. "This would tend to result in storm water flow from the
street thru the lot and toward the canal that backs the rear property line, 'This has been
corroborated by the Owner in that during rain events the water not only flows in that
direction but there is large extents of standing water on the property, The negative
impact of this event is that this running water will tend, over time, to erode the soil and
in an extreme event undermine the existing foundations. in our estimation, this could
he the cause scenario of the settlement that has he'en reflected on the southeast corner
of the property. The existing soil borings indicate a soft layer' of silt with peat
approximately 2 feet below existing grade that is evident in all the borings taken.
Migration of these fines during periods of rain can also be contributing to the noted
foundation and wall settlements and could be undermining other areas of the
residence.
As indicated above, large areas of the existing wood floors are deflecting excessively
with the possibility of a floor collapse in the not too distant future, Inspection of the
floor structure. reveals a strong presence of humidity and wetness of' the structural
system. The wood floor joists located above the crawl space are, in the existing
condition, separated by no more than,l0 to 12 inches from the grade under the house.
The wood joists are not pressure treated and it is possible that during periods of rain,
as described above, they could be partially submerged in water, This is the reason that
the Florida Building C'ode requires a minimum clearance of 18 inches from the bottom
ol'the wood joists to the exposed ground in eraw'1 spaces.
Remediation of the existing conditions will have to include complete replacement of
the floor system \vith .a necessary adjustment to the existing lloor elevation in order to
comply with the crawl space clearance requirements. The existing masonry walls, as
a result of the evident deterioration, should be brought to compliance with the Florida
Building Code. This would require providing new vertical wall reinforcing in the
form of new rebar cut into the existing masonry wall from the foundation to the roof'
tic -beam every four feet around the perimeter of the house. The existing concrete tie
beams will have to be repaired and in those areas that exhibit a horizontal crack,
replacement of these sections is necessary. As a consequence of the partial tie -beam
replacement, portions of the roof structure would need to be removed and replaced.
May 2. 2009
Patra P. Liu
Page Three
The existing foundation system and the subsoil conditions need to be addressed in
order to arrest a recurrence of the,present settlement -.this may entail partial
replacemen} of the existing footings and/or some form of a deep foundation system.
Additional repairs might be required to concealed. structural elements including the
existing interior wood framed load bearing partitions.
In our opinion the cost associated with the noted necessary upgrade will in all
likelihood trigger the 50% rule and result in additional building code requirements to
comply with the Florida Building Code, 2007 Edition. These requirements would
include, at a minimum, things such as the reinforcing of the masonry %�,alls as noted
above and a complete upgrade to the roof structure including all fastenings and
hurricane anchors.
The remedial action described above, in order to be effective, would need to be performed in
its totality and in a sequential manner from the foundation to the rool'structtire. "hhe work
will entail removal and replacement of most of the existing structure. However, unless the
house is elevated, none of the noted remedial action will prevent the continued effects of the
recurring flooding,
Should you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me,
Sincerely,
�<g-eTnTity, ssociates PA
i
maul Ingelmo, P,E,
President !'
Pl/mn
Cc:file
111
May 4, 2009
Historic Environmental Preservation (HEP) Board
City of Miami Planning Department
444 SW 2nd Avenue, 3,d Floor
Re: Property of Ms. Patra Liu, 811 NW 7th Street Road, Miami
To the Board Members of the City of Miami HEP Board:
My name is Flavin Carrillo and me and my wife life next door to Ms. Patra Liu at 807
NE 7th St. Road. We live in the one-story house directly south of Patra's house.
We have lived there since 1978. 1 am a retired general contractor.
We are very much in favor of Patra's plans to replace her existing house. Her
house is in very poor condition. I can see that the house has foundation problems
and that there is a very large crack in the tie beam. I can also tell you that her
property is lower than mine and much more affected by the rain. Her property
floods much more than my property.
Patra has shown us the plans for the new house. It is a lovely small house and we
welcome living next door to it. We have no problem that it is a two-story house. I
do not think asking her to fix this house is reasonable. The house is old and was
built with poor building materials. The house is not Like the other big houses across
the street that have historical and architectural character.
We have known Patra since the first day she moved in. She is an excellent
neighbor and we wish that she is able to build her new house. I ask that you
approve her application.
Sincerely,
C1
Flavio Carrillo
Historic Environmental Preservation (HEP) Board
City of Miami Planning Department
444 SW 2°a Avenue, 3d Floor
Miami, FL
Re: Ms. Patra Liu
811 NW 7t" Street Rd
Miami, FL 33136
Application for a Certificate of Demolition and Certificate of Appropriateness
Dear Members of the City of Miami HEP Board:
We are Ms. Patra Liu's neighbors (located directly across the street from the above-
mentioned property) and are writing this letter to express our strong support for her two
applications currently before this Board and to urge you to let her proceed with her plans.
We have known Patra for many years. When we first met her, we lived on the opposite side
of the canal just on the border of Spring Garden, but moved to our current location (across
the street from Patra) in 2003—one year after she, herself, moved in. While we realize that
the neighborhood known as Spring Garden has been designated a historic district, we do not
believe that this designation was meant to—or should—obstruct structural and
environmental improvements to houses in the neighborhood when those improvements do
not adversely affect the overall scale and character of Spring Garden. The houses that make
up Spring Garden are an eclectic mix of homes from the 1910's, 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's etc.
up to modern homes of the late 201h Century. It is inevitable that structures of 2009 and
beyond will be built in Spring Garden (there are a number of vacant lots in the area). We
believe that structures can be built in this modern area and still complement the
neighborhood. We feel it is possible—and imperative—to build suitable homes and/or
structures that do not distract from the historic "feel" of our unique area.
As a general contractor with vast knowledge and experience in preserving historic structures
in both Miami and Miami Beach, we are well versed in the intent of these preservation laws
and the reasons why they are put in place. We support them 100%. As a contractor, we also
know that there are ways to erect new buildings or to renovate old ones that do not sacrifice
the character of the historic district in which it is located. As a resident of Spring Garden,
this is important to us.
We have thoroughly reviewed the proposed plans for Ms. Liu's "replacement" home. We
find it beautiful and in keeping with the look of the current house's front fagade. We realize
that it has a second floor. We do not object to this as the two homes to the north of Patra
(also across the street from us) are two-story houses. We live in a two-story house. It is not
an anomaly in this neighborhood! In the case of Patra's proposed two-story home, the
second floor is recessed and, thus, less visible to us from across the street.
We are also well aware of the flooding issues in our neighborhood and specific to Patra's
property. It is visibly evident that her elevation is lower than that of her two side neighbors,
making her lot the low point in the street. As such, we support her efforts to raise her home's
elevation to conform to FEMA flood standards.
Lastly, we are supportive of her plans because of her commitment to incorporate as many
"green building" materials and features into the home. This is NOT mandatory, but she
chooses to go above and beyond what codes currently require.
We look forward to Patra living in this new house across the street from us for many years
to come. The style, size and scale of the home fits well within the streetscape. It would be a
lovely complement to the neighborhood and we urge you to support both of the two
aforementioned applications.
& Megan Halloran
7t' Street Road
Miami, FL 33136
E
SUPPORT FOR PATRA MU APPEAL
HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD
FILE NO. HP -2009-118
811 NW 7TH STREET ROAD
The undersigned neighbors support Patra Liu's appeal of the Historic and Environmental
Preservation ("HEP ")Board's decision regarding File No. HP -2009-118. We support reversal of
the HEP Board's decision and support approval of her application to allow partial demolition and
new construction at 811 NW 7t�' Street Road, as depicted in the plans for File No. HP -2009-118.
NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE
Page _� of 7f
r�
_
1 7
;
rjPV,\
Awe
I
�.A
i �
C (>� l/Xl
(/€ LVID(�
fi -. i I. .rn
Q f �-•� Ll t t ""i
..
<•
6
So k-
oCld
I r -
f /i L7 1 �._.0
4� iii f
l �f r`
Page _� of 7f
SUPPORT FOR PATRA LIU APPEAL
HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD
FILE NO. HP -2009118
811 NW 7T11 STREET ROAD
The -undersigned neighbors support Patra Liu's appeal of the Historic and Environmental
Preservation ("HEP ")Board's decision regarding File No. HP -2009-118. We support reversal of
the HEP Board's decision and support approval of her application to allow partial demolition and
new construction at 811 NW 7`" Street Road, as depicted in the plans for File No. HP -2009-118.
RMUMO
ADDRESS SIGNATURE
F
A&LJ i'G -!7'- g1%rl�r�;'c
IV
Page z-_ of z--.-.
I a
Property Infoi-mation Map
Page I of' I
zczmzc���
Digitail Onhopholography - 2007 0 115 ft.
This map was created oni 3/1112010 5:33:19 PM for reference purposes only
Web Site (�' ) 2002 Miiami-Dade County, Al rights reserved.
M
&
Summary Details:
olho No01-3135-01 081 0
roperty. 1821 NVV 7 ST RD
laillinq ICESAR PPUEGUES &W
NW 7 STRD WAW FL
Property Information:
Assessment Information:
Year: 2009 2008
Land Value: $60�030 5210,105
Building Value: S252A15 $266,418
Market Value. $312,445 $476,523
Assessed Value- $183,173 5182,991
Exemption Information:
Year: 2009 2008
idp_mestead- S2,5 000 1 525,000
grad Homesleaq, I YES YES,
Taxable Value Information:
Year:
0100 SINGLE FAMILY
Primary Zone:
RESIDENCE
Applied
0601 RESIDENTIAL -
CLUC:
SINGLE FAMILY
Beds/Baths-
613
Floors-,
2
Living Uniiis:
ti
Ad j SqFootage:
3,256
Lot Saxe:
7,000 SO FT
Year Built:
1922
5132,991
SPRING GARDEN PB 5..
Legal
38 LOT 18 BLK 10 LOT
Descriptions
SIZE 50.000 X 140 OR
$132,991
15'270-3123109'1 4 .
Assessment Information:
Year: 2009 2008
Land Value: $60�030 5210,105
Building Value: S252A15 $266,418
Market Value. $312,445 $476,523
Assessed Value- $183,173 5182,991
Exemption Information:
Year: 2009 2008
idp_mestead- S2,5 000 1 525,000
grad Homesleaq, I YES YES,
Taxable Value Information:
Year:
21709
2008
SaJe OIR�
Applied
Applied
Taxing Authority:
Exemptioni
Exemptioril
DescFjpUory
Taxable
Taxable
Addaanal Sale:�
Value:
Value:
Regionalk
S50,000i
$5101,0001
$133,173
5132,991
County:
S50,000/
$50,00011
$133,173
$132,991
city:
$50,0001
S50.000i
S133,173
$132,991
School Board:
$25,0001
$25,0001
$158,173
, S157'.991
Sale Date: 10/1991
Sale Annount
$0
SaJe OIR�
Salves
SaWeS which are
Quahi
drsqualhfied as a result of
DescFjpUory
eXarninafion of the deed
Viiev,,
Addaanal Sale:�
littli ://gi s i m s2. nij am i da de. go v/m yho ni e/pri ntrnap,,1SP? III al) UIT' hI.): //gi sim s2. ni i anii dad c . go. 31/11/2010