Loading...
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