Loading...
2004-25740 Reso RESOLUTION NO. 2004-25740 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, FOLLOWING A DULY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT ON SAME, AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE CITY ADMINISTRATION'S RECOMMENDATION AND THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING REVOCABLE PERMITS PURSUANT TO SECTION 82-94 OF THE MIAMI BEACH CITY CODE, DENYING AN AFTER-THE-FACT REVOCABLE PERMIT IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT, DORON VALERO, FOR RETAINING A MASONRY WALL CONSTRUCTED IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY, ENCLOSING APPROXIMATELY 66 SQ. FT., ADJACENT TO HIS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 320 SOUTH COCONUT LANE. WHEREAS, Doron Valero (Applicant) owns the residential property located at 320 South Coconut Lane, on Palm Island (Property); and WHEREAS, the Applicant applied and obtained a building permit to construct a new residence on the Property; and WHEREAS, the Applicant alleges that, due to his surveyor's omission of a platted radius at the northeast corner of the Property, a masonry wall beyond this return radius portion was constructed within a portion of the adjacent public right-of-way, according to the building plans to accommodate the sliding gate in the wall; and WHEREAS, the encroachment was discovered during an administrative survey of properties on Palm Island and the Applicant was informed of this, and cited on two occasions; and WHEREAS, to retain the masonrywal! as constructed, the Applicant has submitted an application for an after-the-fact Revocable Permit, as required by the City Code, for the use of approximately 66 sq. ft. of the aforementioned public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the Administration has reviewed the application and herein recommends that the Mayor and City Commission deny the Revocable Permit, based in part, on the Applicants' failure to demonstrate a substantial need or that an unnecessary hardship exists as set forth in Section 82-94 of the Miami Beach City Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 82, Article III, Division 2, Section 82-93 of the City Code, the Mayor and City Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 10,2004, to consider the aforestated request for a Revocable Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, following a duly noticed public hearing to hear public comment on same, and having considered the City Administration's recommendation and the criteria for granting Revocable Permits pursuant to Section 82-94 of the Miami Beach City Code, denying an after-the-fact revocable permit in favor of the Applicant, Doran Valera, for retaining a masonry wall constructed in the city right-of-way enclosing approximately 66 sq. ft., adjacent to his property located at 320 South Coconut Lane. PASSED and ADOPTED this 10th ATTEST: ~~~ CITY CLE K M:I$CMBIPUBLlC WORKS DEPARTMENTICOMMISSION AGENDA ITEMSINOVEMBER 10. 2004\COCONUT LANE VACATION PUBLIC HEARING\320SCoconutLaneReso.doc APPROVED AS TO FORM & LANGUAGE & FOR EXECUTION D _ _ f2. C Lt/rloy ~ity~ Date lI5I2 N.W. 7'ttI 51REET sur1[ 202 ...... fUlll)A 33121 ~ (305) 220-J171 'All (305~ _0221 _. IV: ~llua ~urU~Yllr5 lIUC. LAND SURVEYORS SURI,f;Y No G/'-12717 SIt...... N ZOF Z u;.IO.__ ;Z'~7t7,a,' A'-o4~' -r4,? tXl . .4 :/ j up, ';!t>" CH .&-1-,45' BOUNDARY SURVEY SCALE = 1": 20 ArrACHM~WT A ,r-- Zl Ao../AceNT 2-0 .- , .( j ~ ~ /.-Of' ;? 13t4Ct - p-z. ~ ~ .?or- / .f?L.a.:t.. 24 f!. ' .t!ltJ, &/:'I ' ,4-;J.7,Z~ . -r':??J.1S' Ll, 1:l'M'()!!)" ell ~7'/'!J . ~ t ~ ~ --- IRIN.W.7Ih1TAEET.aI1ED "1M, FLOFIDA 331. TELEPHONE~ (305) 2li4-2iio FAX: (305) 214-0221 DFlAWN8Y: Nuna L~~~. ~t. SURVEY No. 1-0012717 / OF 2... SHEET NO Survey of Lot: 1 AND 20 FEET'ADJACENT TO BLOCK 2 D Subdivision: RIVIERA 1ST & 2ND ADDITION AMENDED According to the Plat thereof as recorded In the Plat Book at Page No. 37 of the public records of MIAMI-DADE County, Property Address: 320 S COCONUT LANE, For: DORaN VALERO . . . A.. ARC, Ale .. AIR CONOlTIONER PAD AE. .. "NCWOFl EASEMENT. AlA .. ALUMINUM ROOF AIS .. ALUMINUM SHED ASPH .. ASPHALT Be .BLOCKCOANER BLDG. .. BUILDING 8,M .. 8ENCH MARK BO,B... BASIS Of BEARINGS c. .. CALCULATED OS -CATCHBASJN CB,S, .. CONCRETE BLOCK STRUCTURE caw.. CONCRETE BLOCK WALL CH - CHORO DISTANCE CH, e, .. CHORD BEARING CL. .. CLEAR CL.F. .. CHAIN UNK FENCE. C.M.E, '" CANAL MAINTENANCE EASEMENT CONe. .. CONGRETE C.P .. CONe POACH. C.S. a CONCRETE SLAB D,e . DRAINAGE EASEMENT Q,M.E. .. DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE EASEMeNT DRIVE.. DRIVEWAY 0.. DEGREES E .. EAST E.T p, .. ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER PAD. ElEV = ElEVATION ENCR .. ENCROACHMENT F.H, _ FIRE HYDRANT FIP '" FOUND IRON PIPE F IA... FOUND IRON ROO F.F.E. .. FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION No. 32 Florida. MIAMI BEACH, Date: 11/26/2001 LOCATION SKETCH ABBREYIAnONS AND MEANING FN.D, . FOUND NAll & OISK FR:. FRAME. FT, _ FEET FNIP. . FEDERAL NATIONAL INSURANCE PROGRAM F.N. .. FOUND NAIL H. _ HIGH (HEIGHT) IN. & EG,.. INGRESS AND EGAESS EASEMENT l.P, a LIGHT POLE LF ,E. . LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION. U.l E. .. LAKE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT . . MINUTES. M. .. MEASURED DISTANCE MON. . MONUMENT MIH. .. MANHOlE MIL. . MONUMENT UNE. NAP. .. NOT A PART OF NGVO. NATIONAl GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM N. . NORTH. NTS, . NOT TO SCALE . . NO. ... NUMBER OIS. . OFFSET OH. .. OVERHEAD. O.H-La OVERHEAD UTIliTY UNES OVH. _ OVERHANG OR.B. . OFFICIAL RECORD 8001(. PVMT. a PAVEMENT PL _ PLANTER P/L. . PROPERTY LINE PC.C. . POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE PC, -POINTOFCURVE PT. . POINT OF TANGENCY POC, . POINT OF c::oM\ENCEtJENT POB, _ POINT OF BEGINNING ". FL 33139 SCale1"=~ $, .50 "" n J7 # ~5 "1' '. P.R,C. .. POINT OF REVERSE CURVE. PROP, COR.. PROPERTY COFINER. P,B..PLATBOOK. PO.. PAGE PWV _ PARKWAY PRM. PERMANENT REFERENCE MONUMENT. P.L.S... PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR. R. .. RECORDEO DISTANCE RR. .. RAILROAD. RES. . RESfOENCE. RIW... ~GHT.OF.WAY RAD. . RADIUS OR RACIAL R.P. . RADIUS POINT. ROE. . FlANGE. sec. .. SECTION STY. ... STORY SWI(. .. SIDEWALK. S.lF'.. SET IRON PIPE LB.'6/)14 S. "SOUTH. S.N.O. . SET NAlL& 0181< L.B.'6044 SP. . SCREENED PORCH. ~ . seCONDS 'T, . TANGENT TWP. .. TOWNSHIP. U,E. . UTIUTY EASEMENT. UTIL .. UTIUTY UP, .. UTIUTY POlE. W.M, .. WATER METER. W.F... WOOO FENCE. W.S, .. WOOO SHED. d.. CENTRAl. ANGLE. w. -WEST. , .. CENTER UNE. Jt. .. ANGLE LEGAL NOTES TO ACCOMPANY SKETCH OF SURVEY (sURVEY)~ EXAMINATION OF TME ABSTRACT OF TITlE WILl HAVE TO BE fAADE TO DETERMINE RECORDED INSTRUMENTS, IF IWY, AFFECTING THE PROPERTY. THIS SURVEY IS SU8JECT TO DEDICATIONS. LIMITATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS OR EASEMENTS OF RECORD. lEGAl DESCRIPTIONS PAOVlOEO BY CLIENT OR ATTESTING nn.E COMPANY. BOUNDARY SURVEY MEANS A DRAWING ANDtOA A GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF THe SURVEY WORK PEFlFOFIMeo 'N THE FielD. COULD SE DRAWN AT A SHOWN SCALE ANC/OR NOT TO SCALE. EASEMENTS AS SHOWN ARE PER PLAT 8001<, UNLESS OTHcnw::>e &!.fCWN. THE TEAM "ENCAOACHMENr MEANS VlSI8LE AND A80VE GROUND ENCROACHMENTS ARCHITECTS SHAU. VERIFY ZONING REGULATIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND SE'TllACkS AND THEY WILL BE RESPONSIBl..E OF SUBMITTING PlOT PlANS WITH THE COARECT tNF("IAM. nON ::'0'" Tl-fF.IR ol,F'l'F!CVAL. ;<011 AUTHORILo\TlON TO AUTHORITIES IN A NEW CONSTRUCTION, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THIS FlFW HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO LOCATE FOOTINGS A/IIOr'OA FOUNDATIONS. FENCE OWNERSHIp NOT DETIRMINEO. THIS PlAN OF SURVEY, HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE EXClUSIVE USE OF THE ENnnES NAMEO HEREON. THE CERTIFICATE DOES NOT EXTENO TO ANY UNNAMED PARTY THE FNlp l"LOCO MAPS HAVE DESlGNATfO THE HEREIN DESCRIBED LAND TO Be . ,),,'( . '.~ 6"_ so' ~D. 721 '~I .." LE:GE:ND TYPICAL : ~ ~ ~ WOOD FENCE. CHAIN LINK FENCE. C.B.S. WALL (C.BW.) EXISTING ELEVATIONS ('lXl( 0.00 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS. SURVnnM'S NDTJ:Jt. 1). IF SHOWN. BEARINGS ARE REFERRED TO AN ASSUMED MERIDIAN, BY SAID PLAT IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY. IF NOT, THEN BEARINGS ARE REFERAED TO COUNTY TOWNSHIP MAPS 2). IF SHOWN, ELEVATIQNSARE REFERRED TO CJty o~ "'l~; 8.M' 1118-111 ELEV 5,';;7 rJ"h~ OF N.G.V.D, Of 1929 3). THIS IS A SPECIFIC PURPOSE SURVEY 4). THE CLOSURE IN THE BOUNDARY SURVEY IS A8O\IE 1 :7500 FT I HeREBY CERTIFY: THAT THIS "BOUNDARY SURVEY' OF THE PAOPERTY OESCRIBED HEREON, AS RECENTLY SURVEYED AND DRAWN UNDER MY SUPERVISION, COPoM'UES WITH THE MINiMUM TECHNICAL STANDARDS AS SET FORTH BY THE FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSK)NAL LAND SURVEYORS IN CHAPTER61G17~, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE PURSUANT TO 472-027, FLORIDA STATUTES. 8V~~ /1-17-01 o tn...:\ IBARRA (DATE OF FIELD WORK). PROFESSIoNAL LAND SURVEYOR NO. 5'2. 0,", STATE OF FLORIDA. (VAlIOCOPlES OF THIS SURvey WIll. BEAR TIoE EMBOSSED SEAL OF THE AneSTING lAND SURVEYOR) REV'SEOQN 3-~-oZ S,ciIF7'"Z-H _ REVISEDCN 3-29-~ ilP-D~r'EO t C{/!!,,'_ ee~15el>"!l; 11- 2+-o~\:' c:u,.)~.,....t.l$~ r1ili,io-;;":o~:li~ . i!P-oA"" ;'-I<iIE'( N Situated in Zone: AE Community/Panel/Suffix: I Date of Firm: 07/17/1995 Base Flood"E~eyation: ~~~651-0191J w rertified to: WORON VALERO t'!-:...~ October 21, 2004 To Whom It May Concern: A few months ago, we were doing some utility location work in the west end of Palm Island when we noticed what seemed to be a wall under construction on City-owned property. At the time, a concrete footer was being partially completed. We called this to the attention of the person who at the time seemed to be in charge of the construction and advised him that the footer was within the street right-of-way. He showed us a survey of the property (Lot I, Block D-2, AMENDED RIVIERA, P.B. 32, P.37, M.D.C.R.) done by Nova Surveyors Inc. I personally and verbally advised him that the survey was incorrect because it didn't reflect a 25-foot radius in the northeasterly property comer as indicated in the record plat. Back in the office, I brought this matter to the attention of Mike Alvarez, Assistant Public Works Director, who took immediate action and contacted the Code Enforcement Department. Nova Surveyors Inc. admitted to the error, but even though the mistake was cited early on (when just the footer had been partially completed) the wall was erected in the street right-of-way. Attach m ent B Attach rn ent B(2) Attach m ent B(3) Miami-Dade My Home My Home 1;)t&1~ Show Me: l~r()P:~y.lnf~rlT1~tior1. ..... II Search By: l~el:~t.'t:I1l." II Textonly :t:- ColorAerialpho,tography use. for Black & White m 3139.5116 Property Information: Primary fl100 SINGLE FAMILY one: RESIDENCE ~LUC: fl001 RESIDENTIAL- SINGLE FAMILY Beds/Baths: ~/O Floors: 1 Livina Units: Kl ,djSq ~52 Footaoe: Lot Size: ~,840 sa FT ear Built: 1925 32 5342 5 54 42 PB 32-37 RIVIERA 1ST & 2ND ADDN Legal ~MD LOT 1 & 20FT STRIP Description: ~DJ BLK 2 D LOT SIZE 8840 sa FT OR 20297-4620 03 120021 Sale Information: aleO/R: 0297-4620 ale Date: /2002 ale Amount: 1,060,000 Assessment Information: !Year: 2004 2003 Land Value: $1,166,880 707.20C Buildina Value: $16,493 $16.065 Market Value: $1,183,373 723,26~ ssessed Value: $1,183,373 723,26~ otal Exemotions: $0 $0 axable Value: $1,183.373 723,26~ Page 1 of2 1 MIAMI.C 4t".~~.II. _I ACTIVE TOOL: SELECT Aerial Photography - AirPhoto USA 2004 0_114ft Legl " " " " . w~ 5 At:t:~Ghment C http://gisims2.co,miami-dade.fl.us/MyHome/propmap.asp?app=none&bytool=ADDR&cmd=FIN... 10/18/2004 ;~ We appreciate your feedback, please take a minute to complete our sllrvey. j\IIyHome I Property 1.I'!.f9rmation I P'9pertyTaxes I My Neighborhood I Pr9pertyAPp",iser Home I Using Our Site I About I Phone Directory I Privacy I Disclaimer , <t_ ,,: If you experience technical difficulties with the Property Information application, please click here to let us know. E-mail your comments, questions and suggestions to Webrnaster Web Site @2002 Miami-Dade County. All rights reserved. 320 S. Coconut Lane Design/Construction alternatives for the remote controlled front gate are: 1. Two panel hinged gate with sloped or hinged bottorn that conforms to the rising slope of the driveway. 2. Two panel hinged gate with rising hinges as gate opens. 3. Sliding gate on track over a circular track. 4. Sliding telescoping gate on double tracks. 1. 2 po.nel go. te CIlIII Elevo. tlon forpl 3. SlIcllng telescoping go. te over clrculo.r tro.ck 2, 2 po.nel hinged go.te w/rlslng hinges - DIm Elevo. tlon fort2 4. SlIcllng telescopIng go. te on clouble tro.cks Attach m ent D Attach rn ent E Attach rn ent F Attach rn ent G . CITY OF MIAMI BEACH lQ NOTICE OF A PUBLtCHEARING I NOTICE IS HEREBY given that a public hearing will be held byttle I Mayor and Cny Commission of the City of Miami Beach, FloI'i4a, in i the Commission Chambers, 3rd floor, City Hall, 1700 Convention :. Center Drive, Miami 6each, Florida, on Wednesday, Nov.mber.1.0,i.... 2004, af 10:30 a.m:TOCONSIDER AN AFTER"THE>PACT ..:; REVOCABLE PERMIT' REQUEST BY DORON VALERO, FOR i RETAINING A MASONRY FENCE IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF.WAY .1' ADJACENT TO" HIS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 320 .'. SOUTH '" COCONut LANE. . . Inquiries may be directed to Public Works at (305)673-7080. .' '. INTERESTED PARTIES are invited to appear at this'~ting.oi.. ..... represent~. by .anagent, or to express their views.. in wrltirlg. . addressed' to the City Commission, c/o the City Clertt, 170!) Convention Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall, Miami Beach, F~ 33139. This meeting may'be opened and continued and, under Stll!tl circumstances additional legal notice would not be provided. Robert E. Parcher, City Clerk City of MiamiBeac~ Pursuant to Section 286.01 05, Fla. Stat., the City hereby adviell public that: if a person decides to appeal any decision ma City Commission with respect to any matter considered at meeting or its hearing, such person must ensure that a verbalim record. of the proceedings is made, which record ,includeS" the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is tp be based,'l11iS notice does not constitute consent by the City for the introductionOf' . admission of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence, nO!' does. it authorize challenges or appeals not oth~ise allowed by law. . . To request this malerial. in accessible format, sign language interpreters, information. on access for persons with disabilities.,. aOOJ. ." or any accommodation to review any document or participatil-in er!Y city-sponsored pr.oceeding, please contact (305) 604-24~~), (305) 673-7218(TTY) five dars i~ advan.ce..to .in.itiate you~~. reql$St...... '.. ..' . TTY users may all>>caIl711 (F1onda Rekiy..Se/'VlCe)....'....,. ;,;'"...,;..... 'M M'~t-'; 't.',~' 't't'", ~_ j\_~:,',t -~ t-~<;;,:~ -_~ ~- -, 1, ~-_'ti :-::l""l"-!\'~' ':t~"l '--............~........~_..;.:....:.:..i~~:A~", $t~\t~~."ft..~\..,\~. . .~ .,('''.,..v......' CITY OF MIAMI BEACH COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY ~ - Condensed Title: A Resolution to conduct an after-the-fact Revocable Permit request to retain a portion of a masonry wall constructed in City Right-of-Way at 320 South Coconut Lane. Issue: Shall an after-the-fact Revocable Permit be approved for 320 South Coconut Lane? Item SummarY/Recommendation: Pursuant to City Code, Chapter 82, Article III, Division 2, upon receipt of a Revocable Permit application, the City Commission shall schedule a public hearing to consider the request for use of the public right-of- way. Mr. Doron Valero, owner of the property located at 320 South Coconut Lane, is constructing a house on this property and has requested an after-the-fact revocable permit from the City to retain a masonry wall partially constructed within the public right-of-way. The owner and the contractor were notified on three occasions and cited on two of those occasions by the City Surveyor and Building Inspector after the wall foundation was poured inside the City right-of-way. Neither the owner nor the contractor responded to the citations, but proceeded with building the wall. The revocable permit is requested to accommodate the construction of a driveway gate. The 66 square feet of City right-of-way would facilitate the operation of the single panel gate; however, there are several viable alternatives to the gate construction that would not require use of City right-of-way. The Administration recommends denial of the revocable oermit reauest. Advisory Board Recommendation: I N/A Financial Information: Source of Anlourlt Account '.' ..... APpro"ed Funds: 1 D 2 3 4 Finance Dept. Total Clerk's Office Le islative Trackin Robert Halfhill, Public Works 6833 Si n-Offs: Department Direc Assistant City Manager City Manager M:I$CMBIPUBLlC WORKS DEPARTMENTICOMMISSION AGENDA ITEMSINOVEMBER 10, 20041COCONUT LANE VACATIO HEARING\320SCoconutLaneSummary.doc AGENDA ITEM DATE RlD /1- (O~OC( CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 www.miamibeachfl.gov To: From: Subject: COMMISSION MEMORANDUM Mayor David Dermer and Date: November 10, 2004 Members of the City Commission Jorge M. Gonzalezdv ~ City Manager U A RESOLUTIO OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, FOLLOWING A DULY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT ON SAME, AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE CITY ADMINISTRATION'S RECOMMENDATION AND THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING REVOCABLE PERMITS PURSUANT TO SECTION 82-94 OF THE MIAMI BEACH CITY CODE, DENYING AN AFTER-THE-FACT REVOCABLE PERMIT IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT, DORON VALERO, FOR RETAINING A MASONRY WALL CONSTRUCTED IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY, ENCLOSING APPROXIMATELY 66 SQ. FT., ADJACENT TO HIS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 320 SOUTH COCONUT LANE. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION The Administration recommends denial of Revocable Permit due to the failure to satisfy three of the seven evaluation criteria elements for a Revocable Permit. BACKGROUND Pursuant to City Code, Chapter 82, Article III, Division 2, upon receipt of a completed Revocable Permit application, the City Commission scheduled a public hearing to consider the request for use of the public right-of-way, Mr, Doron Valero, owner of the property located at 320 South Coconut Lane is constructing a house on this property is requesting an after-the-fact Revocable Permit from the City to retain a masonry wall constructed within the return radius portion of the public right-of-way (Attachment A), The City Surveyor notified the contractor, after the wall foundation was poured, that it was built inside the City right-of-way, A building inspector provided the same notification and building permit violations were issued on July 23, 2004 and August 16, 2004, Mr, Valero, nor his contractor have responded to the violations and the construction of the wall continued despite these warnings and citations (Attachment B), ANALYSIS Mr, Valero purchased the property at 320 South Coconut Lane in 2002 for $1,06 million, Attachment C shows that the property land value is currently assessed at $1,17 million, The area land value of the property is approximately $132 per square foot. The area of encroachment is approximately 66 square feet which, if the Revocable Permit is approved, would be charged at 90 ct per square foot resulting in an annual permit fee of $59.40, Mr, Valero claims that the wall must be constructed in the City right-of-way to enable the driveway single panel gate, designed by his architect, to operate correctly; however, there are several engineering options available that could be applied to this situation that will allow the driveway gate to function without the acquisition of additional property (Attachment D). These options include: - A two panel, staggered, or inclined, hinged gate would provide for a rise in the gate as it opens, - A sliding panel gate operating on a circular track. - A sliding telescoping gate on tracks. The application is being evaluated using the criteria for a Revocable Permit listed below, (1) That the applicants need is substantial. Not Satisfied. There is no evidence of substantial need, Several altematives that would resolve the gate situation without acquisition of City property through Revocable Permit or vacation, (2) That the applicant holds title to an abutting property, Satisfied, (3) That the proposed improvements comply with applicable codes, ordinances, regulations, neighborhood plans and laws. Not Satisfied, The construction process itself meets applicable codes and ordinances; however, the wall was constructed on City right-of-way despite repeated City notification / warnings prior to construction of the wall. (4) That the grant of such application will have no adverse effect on governmental/utility easements and uses on the property, Satisfied, (5) Alternatively: a) That an unnecessary hardship exists that deprives the applicant of a reasonable use of the land, structure or building for which vacation or Revocable Permit is sought, arising out of special circumstances and conditions that exist and were not self-created and are peculiar to'the land, structures or building involved and are not generally applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district and the grant of the application is the minimum that will allow reasonable use of the land, structures or building; or Not Satisfied, The applicant built the wall on City right-of-way to meet the construction requirements of a gate claiming the gate would not be feasible with the wall built to the property line, Neither the owner, nor the contractor responded to three notifications by the City that the wall was built on City right- of-way, This situation was entirely avoidable, b) That the grant of the vacation will enhance the neighborhood and/or community by such amenities as, for example, enhanced landscaping, improved drainage, improved lighting, and improved security, Not Satisfied, There are no plans for improving or enhancing the right-of-way besides the construction of the privacy wall. (6) That granting the permit requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied to other owner of land, structures or buildings subject to similar conditions, Satisfied, Other property owners have applied for and have been approved for Revocable Permits, vacating, or purchasing right-of-way, However, construction was not started until the approval was obtained from the City, (7) That granting the vacation will not be injurious to the surrounding properties, the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare, Satisfied, CONCLUSION The Administration recommends denial of the Revocable Permit because: 1, Mr, Valero and his contractor were notified that the wall was being built in the City right-of-way; nevertheless, the wall was built disregarding City warnings and citations, 2, Three of the Revocable Permit criteria are not met. 3, There are other engineering and building alternatives to the construction the driveway access gate, Attachments JMG/RCM/FHB/II M:\$CMB\PUBlIC WORKS DEPARTMEN1\COMMISSION AGENDA lTEMS\NOVEMBER 1 0, 2004\COCONUT LANE VACATION PUBliC HEARING\320S Coconut Lane Meroo.doc