Loading...
2001-24693 Reso / A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, DENYING THE AMENDMENT OF THE REVOCABLE PERMIT ISSUED TO ROGER J. SCHINDLER AND LESLIE SCHINDLER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WROUGHT IRON FENCE AND AUTOMATIC GATE IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY AT WEST 59TH STREET AND NORTH BAY ROAD ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5860 .NORTH BAY ROAD, TO ALLOW THEM TO BUILD A SOLID WOODEN FRAME WALL WITH STUCCO FINISH AND INSTALL ALUMINUM LOUVER GATES. WHEREAS, Roger J. Schindler and Leslie Schindler (the Applicants) own the property located at 5860 North Bay Road (the Property); and WHEREAS, the Applicants were granted a Revocable Permit by Resolution No. 91-20423 on December 18, 1991, for the construction of a wrought iron fence and gate at the west end of North Bay Road at 59th Street; and WHEREAS, the Applicants constructed a non-permitted solid wooden frame wall with stucco finish and installed aluminum louver gates instead and removed them due to deterioration; and WHEREAS, the Applicants attempted to reconstruct a solid wooden frame wall with stucco finish and installed aluminum louver gates without appropriate Public Works permit; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have requested the City to amend the Revocable Permit to allow construction of a solid wooden frame wall with stucco finish and install aluminum louver gates instead of the currently permitted wrought iron fence and gate; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have not demonstrated substantial need and/or provided a clear reason of why the Applicants should be allowed to obstruct the right-of-way view corridor; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have not demonstrated that any hardship exists that deprives them of a reasonable use of City property; and WHEREAS, the erection of a solid wall completely screens from public view the existing landscaping and would also partially block an open view of the bay; and WHEREAS, the amendment of the Revocable Permit will grant the Applicants special privilege that has been denied to other property owners in Miami Beach, such as the Swedroe case at the 78th street-end; and WHEREAS, the public right-of-way is property that must be open to the public. The /' construction ofa solid stucco wall in the right-of-way, which would be an extension of the existing private wall, and the installation of four aluminum louver gates would clearly create a condition where the public right-of-way now has become private; and WHEREAS, staff review indicates that four of the seven criteria elements to approve or deny a Revocable Permit were not met; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, after conducting a public hearing to consider the request to amend the Revocable Permit for the construction of a solid wood frame wall with stucco finish and install aluminum louver gates instead of the currently permitted wrought iron fence and gate at the west end of North Bay Road at 59th Street, hereby denies the request to amend the existing Revocable Permit. PASSED and ADOPTED this 19th ATTEST: ~:!~~ Approved as to form and language and for execution ~~ CITY ATT Y ?If- I-z./l/O/ Dated ~ ~ o ....., ~ g. tJ::l ~ ~ ~ r/.l ~ s:a. a Q.. g ~ CD ~ VI ~ r/.l ~ s:a. ~ tl:l ~ VI \0 9- CI.:l g ~ ~ ~ o >-I') ~ ::3 o ~ ('D ~ ..... o o o t> ~ tv -- .j:>.. '!to VI 00 0- <:> Z ~ :a ~ -< ~ > p --. en g :a o "rj ~ $ ~ Cl ~ en --l ~ ?i' ~ ;ji;: \ . ~ I .~ ~~i"': ~~~ ~ 'It VI 00 '" 0 z ~ iR 0::1 ~ ~ p. ,..., t'"' 0 ~ S' lJQ ~ C ~ ~ - ~ ~ - 'It - '" ..., CITY OF MIAMI BEACH NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ~ ..... NOTICE IS HEREBY given that public hearings will be held by the: City Commission of the' City of Miami Beach, in the Commission I' Chambers, 3rd floor, City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, December 19, 2001 to consider the following: at 10:30 a.m.: TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE REVOCABLE PERMIT ISSUED TO ROGER J. SCHINDLER AND LESLIE SCHINDLER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WROUGHT IRON FENCE AND AUTOMATIC GATE IN WEST 59TH STREET AND NORTH BAY ROAD ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5860 NORTH BAY RD. at 11:00 a.m.: TO CONSIDER A REVOCABLE PERMIT REQUEST BY GOLDWATER REALTY YII, INC., OWNER OF PROPERTY AT 1766 BAY ROAD, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HANDICAP RAMP, CONCRETE STEPS, WALKWAY AND RAILINGS ON THE ADJACENT CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY. INQUIRES may be directed to the Public Works Department at (305) 673-7080. Copies of the related documents are available for inspection at the Public Works Department, 4th floor, City Hall, ' during normal business hours. ALL INTERESTED PARTIES are invited to appear at this meeting, or be represented by an agent,. or to express their views in writing addressed to the City Commission, clo the City Clerk, 1700 ComieDtion Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. This meeting may be continued and under such circumstances additional legal notice would not be provided. . Robert E. Parcher, City Clerk City of Miami Beach Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Fla. Stat.. the City hereby, advises the public that: if a person decides ta appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respeclto any meUer considered at ils meeting or its hearing, such person must ensure that a verbatim record ot the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice does not constitute consent by the City for the introduction or admission of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence. nor does it authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed bylaw. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, persons needing special acccOlmodation to participete in this proceeding should contact the City Clerk's office no later than four days prior to the proceeding. Telephone (305) 673- 7411 for assistance; n hearinglOlpliired,telephpoe the Florida Relay Sec.-ice numbers, (800) 955-8771 (TOO) or (800) 955-8770 (VOlCE), for assistanCe. :. i' ,-.' ,;,_ '.,' . -.' ,.', ~!~~ ;:!.;)\ ~~~ ':;~:, ".- . -~ '. .-.~;,. -;.. ~.."'-- '.... -- .....~_~~.......-c~._:.__"" ~..;":"'. "- "- ..~ .-.'~----'~ -,-""-......' - .~'Ad '0067 I: '" ... 7 CD X CD os III a: en c: z c > :< c '" C) '" !:: CD m ,., - .to ... ~ ~: ~G) CITY OF MIAMI BEACH COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY m "'5;'" Condensed Title: A Resolution to deny an amendment to the exiting Revocable Permit for the construction of a wrought iron fence and gate and allow the construction of a solid wooden frame wall with stucco finish and the installation of aluminum louver gates. Issue: Shall the City amend the existing Revocable Permit which allows the construction of a wrought iron fence and gate and allow the construction of a solid wooden frame wall with stucco finish and the installation of aluminum louver gates? Item Summary/Recommendation: The existing Revocable Permit was issued in December 1991 for the construction of a wrought iron fence and gate. Applicant built a solid wooden frame wall with stucco finish and installed aluminum louver gates instead. Wall deteriorated and was removed by the applicant. This year, applicant pulled a building permit to construct a wall under his address which technically allowed him to build only within his property boundaries and not in the City's right-of-way. Acting on a resident's complaint, the applicant was directed to cease and desist. Staff review indicates that five of the seven criteria elements to approve or deny a Revocable Permit are not met. In addition, approving the construction of a solid wall and gates would be inconsistent with current City Ordinance and would clearly give a sense that this prime Biscayne Bay street-end is private property and not public. Staff review indicates that four of the seven criteria elements to approve or deny a Revocable Permit were not met. Recommend denial of the request to amend existing Revocable Permit. In the Commission's consideration, it also should be noted that the original basis of granting the Revocable Permit is available for review and discussion by the City Commission. Advisory Board Recommendation: I NIA Financial Information: Amount to be expended: D Finance Dept. Source of Funds: ~ ~~ AGENDA ITEM 5<1 A- DATE /ti-/?-tJ/ CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CON.mnS~ONMEMORANDUM. Mayor David Dermer and Members of the City Commission DATE: December 19, 2001 Jorge M. Gonzalez \ ,~ City Manager 0 rI" - U A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, DENYING THE AMENDMENT OF THE REVOCABLE PERMIT ISSUED TO ROGER J. SCHINDLER AND LESLIE SCHINDLER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WROUGHT IRON FENCE AND AUTOMATIC GATE IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY AT WEST 59TH STREET AND NORTH BAY ROAD ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5860 NORTH BAY ROAD, TO ALLOW THEM TO BUILD A SOLID WOODEN FRAME WALL WITH STUCCO FINISH AND INSTALL ALUMINUM LOUVER GATES. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends not to amend the Revocable Permit issued under City Resolution No. 91-20423 on December 18, 1991. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to City Code, Chapter 82, Article ill, 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. Roger Schindler and wife Leslie, owners of the property at 5860 North Bay Road, were granted a Revocable Permit by Resolution No. 91-20423 on December 18,1991, for the construction of a wrought iron fence and gate at the west end of North Bay Road at 59th Street. Instead of the wrought iron fence and gate, a solid wooden frame wall with stucco finish was erected. In June 2001, Mr. Schindler removed the non- compliance wall due to deterioration. Mr. Schindler then pulled a building permit under his address which technically allowed him to build only within his property boundaries and not in the City's right-of-way. A neighborhood resident filed a complaint that Mr. Schindler was building a non-permitted wall in the City's right-of-way. Public Works investigated and informed Mr. Schindler that he could only build a wrought iron fence and gate as allowed by his Revocable Permit. The Schindlers are now requesting the City to amend the existing Revocable Permit, to allow them to rebuild a solid wooden frame wall with stucco finish and re-install the aluminum louver gates. Attachment (1) shows the 10,400 square foot City right-of-way property, the Schindler's property and the location of the wall and gates. Attachment (2) shows the details of the wall and gates. Attachment (3) is a series of pictures showing the property while the Schindlers were trying to construct a non-permitted solid wall using a building permit pulled for the repair of a wall within their property. Attachment (4) is a picture showing current conditions. At the City Commission meeting of November 28, 2001 the public hearing was set for December 19, 2001. Notices have been mailed to the adjacent property owners and advertised in the local newspaper. ANALYSIS: Pursuant to City Code, Chapter 82, Article ill, Division 2, Section 82-92, Revocable Permits, and the City Attorney's recommendation, a fully notified public hearing is required to amend this Resolution. The applicant in compliance with Revocable Permit requirements has provided the City a list of property owners within a radius of375 feet. Notices of this public hearing were mailed and published in a local newspaper. Per City Code, revocable permits shall be granted or denied based upon the existence of the following criteria: (1) That the applicants need is substantial. Not satisfied. Substantial need not stated in the application. The applicant simply stated the reason/need for the revocable permit is to "reconstruct plywood fence covered with stucco and reinstall existing gate". A reason or basis or basis for obstructing the right- of-way view corridor as requested by the applicant has not been demonstrated. (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. Should be satisfied, since the applicant will have to get a building permit. (4) That the grant of such application will have no adverse effect on govemmentaVuti1ity easements and uses on the property. Satisfied. Stormwater pipe leading to bayfront outfall is buried under the City's right-of-way, but under the revocable permit the City has full access to its property. Ifneeded, the revocable permit can also be terminated at the sole discretion of the City Commission. (5) Alternatively: . a. That an unnecessary hardship exists that deprives the applicant of a reasonable use of the land, structure or building for which the 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. Applicants have not demonstrated that any hardship exists that deprives them of a reasonable use of City property. b. That the grant of the revocable permit will enhance the neighborhood and/or community by such amenities as, for example, enhanced landscaping, improved drainage, improved lighting, and improved security. Not satisfied. The erection of a solid wall completely screens from public view the existing landscaping and would also partially block an open view of the bay. (6) That granting the revocable permit requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this article to other owner ofland, structures or buildings subject to similar conditions. Not satisfied. Special attention should be paid to this criteria since the City has prevailed in Court in the Swedroe case at the 78thstreet-end. In this case, Mr. Swedroe built a fence and other improvements in the City's right-of-way creating the impression that the right-of-way was private property. The Historical Preservation Board issued a final order to Mr. Swedroe directing removal of the fence, landscaping and hardscape, plus the installation of signage that clearly delineates public access to the street-end. (7) That granting the revocable permit will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this article, and that such revocable permit will not be injurious to the surrounding properties, the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Not satisfied. By definition, a public right-of-way is property that must be open and accessible to the public. The construction of a solid stucco wall in the right-of-way, which would be an extension of the existing private wall and the installation offour aluminum louver gates, would clearly create a condition where the public right-of- way now has become private. The applicant would pay an annual fee of $4,680.00 for 10,400 square feet of public right-of-way. In order to grant a revocable permit, the City Commission must make an affirmative finding with respect to each of the criteria set forth above. These findings may be made by one motion addressed to all findings or, at the request of any member of the Commission, a finding or findings shall be considered separately. In the Commission's consideration, it also should be noted that the original basis of granting the Revocable Permit is available for review and discussion by the City Commission. CONCLUSION: Recommend the City Commission deny any amendment to the Revocable Permit issued under City Resolution No. 91-20243, which allows the construction ofa wrought iron fence and gate at the west side of North Bay Road and 59th Street. JM F: IRA/MAIAV/11 ALLIVGKICOMMEMOIPHRGISClUNDLER.doc lQ""'" """-:t -..... --' ,,~\t,""~ .' ' SC" \ \ ~ . .,; .....t!,\ "Q \" t""' .~ ~.",I lJ l.. ",.1'1" J" "-. ~~ ~.":'\~...:- .~;'..~;;. ~.'~-.\. ,l.~ ""..,,' ~"';";.'l4" ....oft4G. .0.' GATE :j ~ LINE GATE 101M' _ ".~.14 /oJ . ___ ~__....__~~:Y ~" Jo()",~: ~ lol. t;*.,"" 114"''' I-\'N-^l~e-Mlo\ l fL,.. ~S1TE ~ .....~ "' . < ~.... . ~ -" .. . _' ~", ...;.~. ...., ........ .':to "<:. _ ,.:.. ." ._~ .'.-. ~'- .. -'.. ._~:'.. . ~".'._..' ..