2004-25718 Reso
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-25718
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON
NOVEMBER 10, 2004, TO CONSIDER AN AFTER-THE FACT
REVOCABLE PERMIT REQUEST BY DORON VALERO, FOR
RETAINING A MASONRY FENCE WALL IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY,
ENCLOSING APPROXIMATELY 66 SQ. FT., ADJACENT TO HIS
PROPERTY, LOCATED AT 320 SOUTH COCONUT LANE, MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, Doron Valero (Applicant) owns the residential property located at 320
South Coconut Lane (Property), on Palm Island; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant had applied and obtained a permit to construct a new
residence on the Property; and
WHEREAS, due to the Applicant's surveyor's omission of a platted radius at the
northeast corner of the Property, a masonry fence wall beyond this return radius portion
was constructed within a portion of the public right-of-way, according to the building plans
to accommodate the sliding gate in the fence; and
WHEREAS, during a survey of Palm Island it was discovered that said masonry
fence wall constructed on the Property was encroaching on the platted return radius and
the Applicant was informed of this; and
WHEREAS, to retain the masonry fence wall as constructed, the Applicant has
completed the application requirements for a 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, pursuant to Chapter 82, Article III, Division 2, Section 82-93 of the City
Code, the Mayor and City Commission are required to hold a public hearing 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, that a public hearing to
consider a request for an after-the-fact Revocable Permit by Doron Valero. as owner of
the residential property located at 320 South Coconut Lane, Miami Beach, Florida, to
retain a masonry fence wall within the return radius portion of the adjacent public right-of-
way, enclosing approximately 66 sq. ft., is hereby called to be held before the Mayor and
City Commission in their Chambers on the Third Floor of City Hall, 1700 Convention
10:30 a.m.
Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida, on November 10, 2004, beginning at , and the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish appropriate public notice of the
said Public Hearing in a newspaper of Miami Beach, at which time and place all interested
parties will be heard.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 13th
ATTEST:
~Lf~K~
T:\AGENDA\2004\Oct1304\Consent\320SCoconutLaneReso.doc
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
m
-
Condensed Title:
A Resolution to schedule a public hearing to consider an after-the-fact Revocable Permit request to retain a
masonry fence wall at 320 South Coconut Lane.
Issue:
Shall a Public Hearing be scheduled for November 10, 2004?
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 fence
wall constructed within the the public right-of-way.
The contractor was notified by the City Surveyor after the wall foundation was poured that it was built inside
the City right-of-way. In addition, a building inspector provided the same notification and building permit
violations were issued.
The Administration recommends that a public hearing be schedule for November 10, 2004.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
IN/A
Financial Information:
Source of
Funds:
Approved
D
Finance Dept.
islative Trackin
Robert Halfhill, Public Works 6833
Si n-Offs:
Department Dire
Assistant City Manager
AGENDA ITEM
DATE
C7L
ItJ-I]-tJfI
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
www.ci.miami-beach.f1.us
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
From:
Mayor David Dermer and Date: October 13, 2004
Members of the City Commission
Jorge M. Gonzalez ~ .y-- ~
City Manager U
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON
NOVEMBER 10, 2004, TO CONSIDER AN AFTER-THE -FACT
REVOCABLE PERMIT REQUEST BY DORON VALERO, FOR RETAINING
A MASONRY FENCE IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY ENCLOSING
APPROXIMATELY 66 SQ. FT., ADJACENT TO HIS PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 320 SOUTH COCONUT LANE.
To:
Subject:
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution.
BACKGROUND:
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, who is
constructing a house on this property requested an after-the-fact revocable permitfrom the
City to retain a masonry fence wall constructed within the return radius portion of the public
right-of-way (see attached Exhibit "A").
The contractor was notified by the City Surveyor after the wall foundation was poured that it
was built inside the City right-of-way. In addition, a building inspector provided the same
notification and building permit violations were issued.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant, in compliance with Revocable Permit requirements, will provide the City a
list of property owners within a radius of 375 feet to be notified of the scheduled public
hearing.
Mailed notices of this public hearing shall be provided at least 15 days prior to the hearing
to those owners lying within the 375 feet of the subject property. The notice shall indicate
the date, time and place of the hearing and the nature of the request and shall invite written
comments and/or participation at the hearing.
The application is being evaluated using the criteria for a revocable permit listed below.
(1) That the applicants need is substantial.
(2) That the applicant holds title to an abutting property
(3) That the proposed improvements comply with applicable codes, ordinances,
regulations, neighborhood plans and laws.
(4) That the grant of such application will have no adverse effect on governmental/utility
easements and uses on the property.
(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 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
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.
(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.
(7) That granting the vacation will not be injurious to the surrounding properties, the
neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
CONCLUSION:
Recommend the City Commission set a time on November 10, 2004, for a public hearing,
during the Commission meeting.
_ 11." 71ft S1IIEET SU1E =
_~D2I
_ (305) %21>-3171
FM. (JOI5): 2t4-022I
IlIA. ft
~1JlJa ~urlJ1"Y1Jrs lint".
LAND SUR\€YORS
SUIMY No CI"-/27/7
9iEI:.I NO.~c:k ~
;z ~ '?7t7, rh'
A --cf4-&<!'
-I'.4-;!. W
A :I j 'tJ~ !,?~ "
01 ..<J.f.4S'
BOUNDARY SURVEY 8lWd3 1"'$13 N.T.S.
r---. -zz
/"'" 20 ' S'Jletp. ~T
70 8W~ 2-0 -,
0
W
0
:J
.. ....J
," , 01-
".( .
) .
z~ <C
we::: .
, .
~ -,51"'1 ~ ~ COW ....
0..
~ ~ ~~
~.3&O -
~ to
I3W a.I- -p" 2- .or
~ t-or-I . ~4 -
~ (f.€..::: '?).~ o. J:
/--Of. t!- o (Q,f) '." w<C
13~ - p-Z- .~' l,Q 0::0 ><
~. 16'.2' <CO W
" $>
1~7'
.W
00::
'z
0::_
~
t
~
~
----
,R, 2S.C/()'
A ~~,fi'
To zz. 3i?'
-. /13";!7' ZS'"
qy ~ 3:$, Zr:J
ft ; ZIt}. Q:J .
~;.J.7.Z't>'
" ..?~ 15
Ll" /2~'CP.)'
elf :../-7. /~ 0
~ ' .;I!iI")I
,~ ~. ':~' \-i
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Q:_J. ~"~.:'
" .'~,'
; (. J
, ~. t "
P': \': : n
\ i l ,.' .
Fort Lauderdale
Jacksonville
Miami
Orlando
Tallahassee
Tampa
Washington, DC
West Palm Beach
. ~ 1
" ; ~ :~", I
One Southeast Third Avenue
SunTrust International Center
28th Floor
Miami, Florida 33131-1714
,.i'
www.akennan.com
3053745600 tel 3053745095 fax
August 25,2004
VIA FAX AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. Fred Beckmann
Director
City of Miami Beach Public Warks Department
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Fax: 305-673-7028
Re: Request for Revocable Permit - 320 South Coconut Palm Lane
Dear Mr. Beckmann:
The undersigned represents Mr. Doron Valero in his pending request for a revocable permit for
his property located at 320 South Coconut Palm Lane. Per my conversations with Mr. Valero, this letter
constitutes a brief description of the hardship which forms the underlying basis of the revocable permit
request.
As you may recall, the property is located at the western tip of Palm Island. I have attached for
your information a copy of the survey for the property. Mr. Valero is in the process of building his
personal house on the property, under a building permit issued by the City. The construction is nearly
completed, and Mr. Valero is anticipating moving into his house relatively soon.
However, after the building permit was issued and construction was well underway, an error in
the survey was brought to the various parties' attention. The design for the house calls for the
construction of a masonry wall along the northeastern comer of the property. The plans for the masonry
wall provided for the wall to make a direct 900 turn at that comer, and continue along the Coconut Palm
Lane frontage up until the gate for the driveway. The wall has been constructed in accordance with those
plans.
Unfortunately, a re-examination of the survey revealed that the comer of the property is not a 900
angle, but actually provides for a rounded edge. The rounding of the comer of the property
accommodates a turning radius for an old, narrow right-of-way that runs from Coconut Palm to the
intracoastal. Below is an older aerial photograph, taken from the Miami-Dade County Property
Appraiser's web site, showing the outline of the subject property (in red) and showing the old right of way:
{M2148069;1}
Mr. Fred Bickman
August 25,2004
Page 2
Although the figure above is not exact, it iJIustrates the relationship of the boundaries of the subject
property and the existing right-of-way. Because the masonry wall was constructed to the theoretical
intersection of the northern and eastern property lines - squaring off the comer - a portion of that
masonry wall was built on the old right-of-way.
Mr. Valero is requesting the revocable permit in order to allow the already-constructed masonry
wall to remain in the right-of-way, based on the hardship imposed by the existing conditions on the
property. Visible in the aerial photograph above, and shown on the survey, is a long-established
accessory building located along the front of the northern property line. The location of that accessory
building, coupled with the narrow frontage dimension and the required floodplain elevation, has dictated
the development of the front side of this property.
In 2003, Mr. Valero requested a variance of the setback regulations from that property line in
order to accommodate that accessory building. That variance was granted by the City of Miami Beach,
finding that the presence of that accessory building in that location constituted a sufficiently unique
attribute of the property as to form a hardship, requiring relaxation of the land development regulations.
The design and location of the masonry wall runs from the comer of this accessory building, and is
dictated by its location. I have attached a copy of the City's Order for your review.
The need to place the masonry wall in the present location is also driven by the physical demands
of a privacy gate across the driveway. Local and federal floodplain regulations have required the building
site to be elevated significantly above the grade of the adjacent roadway. Because of this, it is impossible
to provide a driveway gate that swings inward towards the primary structure - the bottom of the gate
~r. Fred BickJnan
August 25,2004
Page 3
would strike the driveway sloping upward to the elevated building pad. The only way in which a
driveway gate can be constructed is via a sliding gate that shifts to the north. The squared masonry wall
provides adequate space for this to be installed, but a wall along the return radius would not.
~aintaining the masonry wall in its present location will in no way interfere with the effective
use of the right-of-way. The right-of-way has not been utilized for years - indeed, the adjoining and prior
property owners have been using that property exclusively. The right-of-way is too narrow to
accommodate vehicular traffic. Indeed, it is our understanding that the City has no present plans to allow
vehicular traffic, but will use the right-of-way as a pedestrian path for views of the water. Since there will
be no vehicular traffic, the present location of the wall will not interfere with this intended use - since it
encroaches not onto the main right-of-way, but only onto the return radius. This is consistent with the
condition on the north side ofthe right-of-way, where the property owner has constructed a garage on the
return radius (a condition we understand is lawfully grandfathered).
Finally, the existing rounded front property line - accommodating the return radius - creates a
property configuration that is almost unique. The rounding of the property line creates a street frontage
that is smaller than virtually every other frontage on Palm or Hibiscus Island. Indeed, as indicated on the
revised survey, the entire frontage is barely wider than the driveway. Thus, as a direct result of the return
radius, the owner is burdened with a physical condition that is specific and particular to this property.
All of these factors contribute to a unique property configuration that creates an undue hardship
on the owner, and which warrants the issuance of the rcvocable use permit. Since the design of the
masonry wall is consonant with the intended use of the right-of-way, and mirrors the condition which
exists on the other return radius, the property owner believes that a revocable use permit would be
appropriate at this location.
Please feel free to call me at (305) 755-5858 if you have any questions or need any further
documentation regarding this matter. I look forward to speaking with you, and hope that your department
can support the requested permit.
Very truly yours,
Encl.
cc: ~r. Doron Valero
,e ; 2/0, a;) .
,4;:'-!-7,2,,"!)I
,., 212 7S /
L.\ ~ 12 o.?I'()I?) .,
e #. ._.".~ leJJ .
R~.s1PD
Sc.4'~
PAGE 18
-
" ,
'.(
)
,..
~
.~
UJr' &
l3"flCI . p-Z-
~ _~,-1
~(J. ~,&O
/-;"'_1 i.?;WJcJ::-fJ-.2
ff.E.. :::: ':J.~
, /((;, J ,
,~
..~ ""
. . 6'<
. ~. 1.!?2'
~
~
?-(7"T-/
&a.:,t - Z4
~
~
- ,
\'\
~I~
I ~ "f"/_
,,~. t}+'
..,,, ... ,
'QJNJ a~' "
"'( .
. .
~:. .> ~,
~ '1/1. 1\).
. 'Ji ~"'...~~ .
~ ~.f1"~ .
.' .
. ,,'. ~
" . ~
. t1I . :
" ' I
7.5;.
)( ~I l(
7&DPC 11.1'
~
,flit
,'41- '
, -54r
ll\ .
~ /-.:;;,y ~
II~ An-. 115
A\'.
llS
/6.,.?t) I
4/5'cL
~.
~
~
'1
,
~
'i
'-
~
,t ----- .-
't
..,
~
,-
~f!;
. ,-~IIIIIfII'. ., ,
~ ';I5i'II ,~-'";,:., '. ........ ',j}
SlJRVEYO:t:OTE: . ~
'!'here may be meute recorded iu tbe
Public ll<<:ll'lla ~t 8~0W1l on this s~
08/15/2004 18:28 3053259995
ITEC DE5IE~!
PAGE 03
.
....
Recording Office Use Dilly
'.'-/
BI!FORE THI!
BOARD OF AD.JUSTMiENT
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA
INRE:
The application of
DORON VALERO
. 320 SOUTH COCONUT LAN:E
PALM ISLAND
LOT 1 AND 20 FT. STRIP ADJ.
BLOCK 20; RIVIERA 1 ST AND 2ND
ADDITION AMENDED SUB.
PLAT BOOK 32-37
.....~.~~U~~Q:E COUN!y, FLORIDA !':' ,. '. . . . ......,."..",... .
MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 200~ .
FILE NO. 2920
J
o RooD E R
The applicant. Doron Valero, filed an application with the Planning Department fel.
variances in order to construct a new 8lngl.e fa~i1y residence and retain an existing
'...-/ accessory structure and swimming pool, as follows:
, , A variance to waive 6' of the minimum required front yard setback of 201 in order to
retain an existing accessory building 14' from the front property line facing South
Coconut Lane.
2. Avatiance to waive all of the minimum required side .yard setback of 7' - a" in order-
to retain the above accessory structure.
3.
A variance to waive 4' - 10" of the minimum required 9' side yard setback to the
'.wa~8~..:ec:r:i~,.ef.,&~wj~l~tAg~lQClI"in.order~o Jetatn, ,th:e:fll~!8tililQ;S.W~rmr:rlif1g.;.~91""1I.tt:l'i:. .,
4' - 2" south side setback. . .. . '
4. A variance to waive l' - 5" and l' -- 8" of the minimum required side yard setback of
7' - 6' for air conditioning equipment in order to locate air conditioning compressors
6' - 1" from the north side property line and 5' - 1 01 from the south side property .
Hne. .
Notice of ~e requ.est for variances was given as required by law and malted to owners of
property within a distance of 375 feet of the exterior limits of the property on which
applIcation was made.
'.......... THE BOARD FIN:DS that the property in question is located in the RS-4 Zoning District.
08/16/2004 18:28
3053259995
ITEC DESIGN
PAGE 04
RecordIng Offlcs Use Gnli'
';'1Ifl
,_../
~
poro" Val,ro
J2Q .. Coconut Lane
1..Io!---'
~
-' ..'--~,.<:J"~'"
THE BOARD FURTHER FINDS, based upon evidence, testimony, information and
documentation presented to the Board, and pol'Uons of the staff report and
recommendations, as applicable, which are Inoorporated herein by this reference, that with
regard to the requested variances when conditioned aa provided for In this Order:
That special conditions and circumstances ex/st which at~ psoullarto the land, ,~truGture, or
building involved and whIch are not applicable to other lands, stluctures, or buildings In the
same zoning district;
.... . "1!~.',' '1T#gtrJie",~.,.ifi~.;,~Rrt ,.,;rQ,lilmstamMl'S' drJ);r"#JfJf'~lt,.'trom'~h&..ft~on. ,fiJf . tile .'.
applicant,'
That granting the variances requested will not confer on the applicant any special privileg€~
that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning
district;
That literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant or
.rights commonly enJoyed byotherproperli$s in th$ same zoning district under the terms of
this Ordinance and would work unnecessary and undw9 hardship on the applicant;
..'-/
That the varlancss granted are the minimum variances that will make possIble the
reasonable use of the land, building or structure,'
That the granting oftha variances will be in harmony wit:) the general Intent and purpose of
this Orc/ine-nee and thet such variances will not be injurious to the area involved or
otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and
That the granting of this request ;s consistent with the comprehensive plan and does not
"~~' .': :'''':'.~..,''~<<!J~~.~~...I~.'(.'!!!~.e~.~~C{:.~~!..~~.,SfJ.t .fodh in th~ plan. ., ..' .':' .... . . ....:'.. .,. . ',. .
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, by the Board, that the variances as requested and set
forth above be APPROVED with the following conditions to which the applicant has agreed:
1 . The detached structure shall not have ~ny cooking facUitles and may not be
rented or lerased. The structure shall not be enlarged beyond its current size. In the
course of renovation, ~f any of the walls need to be removed then the entire
structure shall be removed.
2. The proposed structures, inclUding the detached accassory structure may not
exceed the maximum lot coverage of 35%,
'---'
3.
Alrof the a1r..condltlonlng equipment shan be placed along the north side yard no
closer than 6' - 1" from the side property tine.
Pac@ ') ,..,-F 011
08/16/2004 18:28 3053259996
ITEe DESIGN
PAGE EEi
RecQrdlng Office Usa C/;'\!:i
, ...-
~~
Elli, ~q. 2929
Doran Valtm
"32~ S. Coconut Ida
......./
4. The pool deck may not encroach into the approved 4' .... 211 south side setback.
5. A fandscape pla,n fotthe entire site shall be submitted to and approved by staff
before a buUdtng permit Is Issued for construction of the addition.
6. The apptlcant shall comp1y with all conditions Imposed by the Public Works
Department.
7. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within one (1) year of the da,te of this
hearing and complete the project within two (2) years of the date of the hearing. If
. -. ..,:.~.. :.i.'~~ :'-'.;"~.~:r:;t.,. ." :~;~;f~'.:: :~WGlI~j~~"I"~.!lZ~.~":~I'i~/'QllI)n$.tJ1Ia,stl_":iS'.;ml1t..wr.r>Tfi7l~ed"'wil!ttr,f .tri~
speclfietl'ttme firriftS, the ap'pUcant$hafl, prior toa~pil'lItlon of such period, apply to
the Board far an extension of time. At the hearing on such application, the Bbard
may deny Of approve the request and modify the above oondltlons or Impose
additional c:ondltlons. Failure to comply With this condition shall subject the variance
to Section 118-356, City Code, for revocation. or modification of the variance.
This order is not severable, and if any provision or condition hereof is held void 01'
unconstitutional in a final dectslon by a court of competent Jurisdiction, the order
shall be retumed to the Board for reconsideration as to whether the order meets the
criteria for approval absent the stricken pro\llslon or condition, and/or It is
appropriate to modlfy the remaining conditions or impose new conditions.
PROVIDED, the applicant shall build in accordance with the plans submitted as part of this
tile and as approved by the Board of Adjustment with any applicable modifications. The
applicant shall have a building permit for the work contt;lmplated herein issued by the
.BuIldlng De,partment on or before February 28, 2004 (within one year of the date of this
hearing), otherwise this Order shalt become null and void, untes8 the issuance of such
permit Is stayed by an appeal of this Order to a court of competent jurisdiction. This Order
'.. ."..".' :."~ '_. doe.s...no~ constitute ~. building perm~, but upon presentation of a recorded copy of this
.' :.':Gnltrtt!1,!t.rNlmmg:!~r:tment,.e.:par.Mlt stlali 'b&pr.ocS!s.l!if:.nf~f;ap'pmVer:l~'{IlJb'Ject t~r. .
compUance with the conditions hereof) In accordance with and pursuant to the ordii,ances
of the City of Miami Beach.
8.
'....._.1
Board of Adjustment of
The Ciql of Miami Be h, Florida
,
By:
'J
G. amez, AICP
nlng and Zoning Director
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
.....'-"""~.
Page 3 of -4
08/ " 2004 18: 28 3053259995
ITEe DESIGN
PAGE 05
. ,
'. 'I'"
Recording Office USlg Onl:,
..'
flJaNo.2929
poro" Valm
J1Q S. Coconut Lane
.'-/
STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF MfAMI.DAD:E )
. ,'.:.
Notary:
Print Name: C-fJM. L.fD' ~,~-r
Nota,ry Public, State of Florida
~-'~
Approved As To Form:
Legal Department (~"II""')
Flied with the Clerk of the Board of Adjustment on ~~S ' 03
F:\PLAN\$zba\FINAL.ORD\2929ROrdef 320 S,Coconut Ln 2R2B-03.doc
( ~6J.)
....... . \ '.. ,,\;,..,..... ,..../. . '",. . ...... .~.:~...... .: ;:.......',~. ~.\
~...._.......
Paqe 4 of 4