HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2026-34187RESOLUTION NO. 2026-34187
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF
THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ("DRB") APPROVING THE DESIGN
REVIEW APPLICATION FILED BY KC PROPERTY HOLDINGS LAND
TRUST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY,
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 50 WEST DI LIDO DRIVE,
INCLUDING A WAIVER FROM THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND A
WAIVER FROM THE SITE WALL PICKETING REQUIREMENT (DRB
FILE NO. 25-1112), UPON A FINDING THAT THE DRB AFFORDED
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, OBSERVED THE ESSENTIAL
REQUIREMENTS OF LAW, AND BASED ITS DECISION UPON
SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE.
WHEREAS, on October 23, 2025, the Design Review Board ("DRB") heard an
application filed by KC Property Holdings Land Trust seeking design review approval for
the construction of a new two-story, single-family residence to replace an existing house
located at 50 West Di Lido Drive, including a waiver from the maximum height and a
waiver from the site wall picketing requirement (altogether, the "Application"); and
WHEREAS, following the hearing, the DRB voted to approve the Application; and
WHEREAS, the DRB order approving the Application was rendered on November
13, 2025 ("Order"); and
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2025, and pursuant to Section 2.2.4.8.b.2 of the
Resiliency Code, Michael Krieger, by and through William Riley, Esq., filed an appeal of
the DRB Order to the City Commission (City Commission Appeal File No. 2025-00002);
and
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2026, the Mayor and City Commission heard oral
argument for the subject appeal; and
WHEREAS, following oral argument, the Mayor and City Commission voted to
affirm the decision of the DRB upon a finding, pursuant to Section 2.2.4.8.d of the
Resiliency Code, that the DRB afforded procedural due process, observed the essential
requirements of law, and based its decision upon substantial competent evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission hereby affirm the decision of the Design Review Board ("DRB") approving
the design review application filed by KC Property Holdings Land Trust for the
construction of a new two-story, single-family residence to replace an existing house
located at 50 West Di Lido Drive, including a waiver from the maximum height and a
waiver from the site wall picketing requirement (DRB File No. 25-1112), upon a finding
that the DRB afforded procedural due process, observed the essential requirements of
law, and based its decision upon substantial competent evidence.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 1p day of , 2026.
ATTEST:
Stev Meiner, Mayor
'MAR 3 1 2026
Rafael 9. Granado, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO
FORM AND LANGUAGE
& FO ELUTION
9;� 31z�-lZ�
City -Attorney N�- Date
Discussion Items - R9 D
MIAMI BEACH
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission
City Manager Eric Carpenter
FROM: City Attorney Ricardo J. Dopico
DATE: March 18, 2026 3:00 p.m.
TITLE: CITY COMMISSION FILE NO. 2025-00002
APPEAL, FILED BY MICHAEL KRIEGER, OF AN ORDER OF THE MIAMI BEACH
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ("DRB") DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2025, FOR DRB FILE
NO. 25-1112, APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY
RESIDENCE, INCLUDING ONE OR MORE WAIVERS, TO REPLACE AN
EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE.
RECOMMENDATION
Below please find important information regarding the subject appeal.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY
1. Summary of Design Review Board approval.
This matter relates to an appeal, filed by Michael Krieger ("Petitioner") by and through William
Riley. Esq... of a Design Review Board ("DRB") order dated November 13, 2025, approving a
design review application, with a waiver from the maximum height limitation for single-family
homes and a waiver from the site wall picketing requirement, for the construction of a new two-
story, single-family residence at 50 West Di Lido Drive. Miami Beach.
ANALYSIS
2. Ex-parte communications.
As the City Commission will be sitting in an appellate capacity on this matter, any ex-parte
communications by members of the City Commission regarding this appeal must be disclosed,
and City Commissioners are subject to cross-examination regarding any such communications.
An ex-parte communication is any communication conducted outside of the public hearing.
While not prohibited under our Code, our office discourages members of the City Commission
from engaging in ex-parte communications. However. if you do engage in any ex-parte
communications relating to this appeal, please send an email to Nick Kallergis at
NickKallergisoc�miamibeachfl.gov, including the name of the individual with whom you
communicated. If you send or receive any emails or attachments relating to the appeal, those
should also be forwarded to Nick Kallergis. They must be disclosed on the record prior to the
commencement of the hearing.
3. Conduct of hearing.
Consistent with prior appeals heard by the City Commission. the schedule of the hearing will be
as follows:
1358 of 1677
(i) Argument of Petitioner Mr. Krieger — 10 minutes
(ii) Argument of Respondents City of Miami Beach and KC Property Holdings Land
Trust — 10 minutes combined
(iii) Rebuttal by Petitioner Mr. Krieger — 2 minutes
(iv) Deliberation by City Commission
There is no public hearing associated with this appeal. The City Commission's decision must be
based on the record before the DRB, and no new evidence may be taken.
4. Voting requirement and standard of review.
A five -sevenths (5/7) vote of the City Commission is required to reverse or modify the decision of
the DRB. In order to reverse or modify, the Commission must first find that the DRB:
(i) failed to provide procedural due process;
(ii) failed to observe the essential requirements of law: or
(iii) failed to base its decision upon competent substantial evidence.
If the City Commission votes to reverse or modify the DRB's decision, the City Commission must.
as part of its motion, clearly articulate the basis for its findings.
5. Attachments.
Please find enclosed the following for the City Commission's review:
• Petitioner's Appeal of Miami Beach Design Review Board Order
• Joint Response to Appeal
• Appendix A to Appeal
• Appendix B to Appeal — Architectural & Landscape Plans
• Appendix C to Appeal — Public Comments
CAL IMPACT STATEMENT
N/A
Does this Ordinance require a Business Impact Estimate?
(FOR ORDINANCES ONLY)
If applicable, the Business Impact Estimate (BIE) was published on:
See BIE at: https:i/www.miamibeachfl.gov/city-hall/city-clerk/meeting-notices/
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
CONCLUSION
Applicable Area
Middle Beach
Is this a "Residents Right to Know" item, Is this item related to a G.O. Bond
pursuant to City Code Section 2-17? Proiect?
1359 of 1677
Yes
No
Was this Agenda Item initially requested by a lobbyist which, as defined in Code Sec. 2-481
includes a principal engaged in lobbying? No
If so, specify the name of lobbyist(s) and principal(s):
Department
City Attorney
Sponsor(s)
Co-sponsor(s)
Condensed Title
3:00 p.m. DRB Appeal No. 25-1112 Filed by Michael Krieger. CA
Previous Action (For City Clerk Use Only)
1360 of 1677