Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-80-0178RESOLUTION NO. 80-178 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE IV, SECTION 17 (2), TO PERMIT AN EXISTING 8.0' CBS WALL OM LOT 18, BLOCK 475; AND THE INSTALLATION OF A MIRROR AT THE ENTRANGP; MIAMI (B-41), BEING APPROXIMATELY 619 SOUTHWEST 8TH STREET, AS PER SURVEY ON FILE, WITH 9.9' SETBACK FROM THE BASE BUILPING LINE (5. 0' REOUIRED) ZONED C-4 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting of January 21, 1930, Item No. 5, following an advertised hearing, adopted Resolution No. ZE 19-30 by a 3 to 3 vote den7ing variance ' as eelr1 WHEREAS, the applicant has set forth; and ' ' ' taken andaTlesi f171' the denial after ofsaid variance. to the 'City C7mmiss - . WHEREAS, the City. C°mmlsi°11:nc'tihstandinfT. the denial of the Z°tling 13°ard, ,ar!cl.after, cef1.1'1- consideration °ft,i'rlatter finds that- dut° 'neculiar. ecircumstances affecting this , - 7ar, el of land, Practical difficulties and unnecqssarY hardships would irrair the owner' s riRht ' to the reasonable Ilfs,sert:f.. the nr°Per:" without t't- he r et NO varlal::eYrWA::::11cIEF-1:jaE°:611137le:i131.:flutTe:s5t f: E or a!:::::P.:L'6:1:1::::::' ;1,..1:1:::, the t , col, Article IV,lilock 11.7; and he . arialli:a-- flc11:1:11!!:. CITY Section 17 (2):, to i rion °fP: ' 8thStree 9 Section -''' installation Southwest _ . . .. 6,ann t e n 0,61e1:lr::' 1) .17'e0. setback from. , extrano!, wall . NIAM:n file, with11111etral. cloi*e the base ic- ''' be'a, and the as P9r survey - zoned c_if (General t., cial) district, , surv. required) (B-4 ' 0, roxlinatelY -, _ _'bul tli:e PASSED AND AD()PTEI) this (s5a.ple is hereby granted. 28 day of. February . - • MAURICE A. FERRE MAURICE 'A. FERRE, M A Y 0 P. 'EST: RAL H G. ONGIE, CITY C PREPARED APPRO BY: AP TERRY-V. PERf GEOR F. KN AS$ITANT. CI ATTORNEY CITYt TTnrIF M COPRFCTNESS: N MEETING OF FEB 3 1980 ownesum.P 0 - 7 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A vARIANCE FR.OM ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE IV, SECTION 17 (2), TO PERMIT AN EXISTING 8.0' CBS WALL ON LOT 18, BLOCK 47S; MIAMI (B-41) , BEINGAPPROXIMATELY. 619 SOUTHWEST 8TH STREET, AS PER SURVEY ON FILE, WITH. 0.0' SETBACK FROM THE BASE BUILDING LINE (5.0'''REQUIRED) ZONED C-4 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) .DISTRICT,. r f WHEREAS, (the .Miami Zoning Board, January 21 1980, adopted as herein at its meeting of No. 5, folloTing. an advertised hearing, 7Fi3 to 3` vote denying variance taken an anneal from the denial of said variance \ 1 WHEREAS, th\Cit'Commission notwithstanding denial of the Zonin;,\Board, and after careful consideration o. this matter finds that'\due to peculiar circumstances affecting this parcel of ilia d, prac ical difficulties and unnecessary f hardships would impair the o er s right . to the reasonable use proppr the \ty w thout the va forth. �r` of 9 0,' Ite. esolution No.; a�f ter set forth; nd. WHEREAS the p is tit has the ance granted .as hereinafter set �\ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:. Section .�J No. 6871, CBS wall 1. The. request for: a. \T riance OF as ner°Ordinance Article IV, Section 17(2), to permit an existing 8 0' on lot 18, Block 47S; MIAMT. (B-41) being apnroximately 619 Southwest 3tY Street, from the base building line Commercial) District, be and AT'PEST:;� as per surve' on file, with 0.0' 5.0' required) ' zoned C�4 (General the same is hereby granted:.. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of FEBRUARY MAURICE A.;FERRE; setback 1980. RALP CITY G. ONGIE CLERK PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: TERRY V PiRCY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY MAYOR AS -E F. CI ATTO T DOCUMENTS FOLLOW" FORM AND CORPFCTNESS: 10X, JR. .TEY N MEETING OF F E B 2 8 1980 I OUmos REW RI ......«.........» CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Ralph G. Ongie City Clerk Terry V. Percy Assistant City DATE: ` r'►arch SUBJECT; Amendment to Resolution No, 80-178 REFERENCES; ENCLOSURES; Attached is an executed copy of Resolution No. 80- 178 that was amended on the floor by the City Commission. As you will recall, I discussed this with you, and we agreed' that redrafting of the Resolution was all that was necessary to correct.. same. TVP:ia Attachmen "SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS FOLLOW" 8 LOCATION/LEGAL OWNER APPLICANT: ZONING REQUEST RECOPMiENDATION Planning Dept. ZONING BOARD ZONING. FACT 'SHEET Approx. 619 S.W. 8th Street Lot 13, Block 47S MIAMI "(B-41) Packer Pontiac Corporation Phone 856-3000 665 S.W.8th Street William B. Roman Phone"379-8489 542 Pan American 'Bank .131dg. C-4 (General Commercial) Variance to permit" an existing 8.0' CBS wall on above site, as per survey on file, with 0.0' setback from the Base Building Line (5.0' required) . DENIAL. There. is no hardship which justifies granting this,, variance and if it remains in the present location, it will create a traffic hazard for pedestrians because thereis no vision clearance. If a building permit had been ob- tained before the wall was '_constructed, the : wall. could easily have been set back the required five feet. "SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS FOLLOW" 8 � y w ';`,9e/f7 "SU PPORTIVE DOCUMENTS FOLLOW" 41, Mayor and City Commission Attention: Mr. Joseph R. Grassie City of Miami, Florida Gentlemen:`` January 24, 1980 VARIANCE - DENIED BY ZONING BOARD APPEALED TO CITY COMMISSION BY THE APPLICANT: Packer Pontiac Approx. 619 S.W 8th Street Lot 18, Block 47S; MIAMI (B-41) The Miami Zoning Board, at its meeting of January 21, 1980, Item #5, following an advertised Hearing, adopted Resolution No. 19-80 by a 3 to 3 vote DENYING Variance from Ordinance 68,71, ARTICLE IV, Section. 17(2), to permit art existing 8.0' CBS wall on Lot 18, Block 47S; • MIAMI-(B-41), being approx. 619 S.W. 8th Street, as per survey on file, with 0.0' setback from the Base Building Line (5.0' required); zoned C-4 (General Commercial) . There were no objections. Two proponents present at ZB meeting. A RESOLUTION to provide for this Variance has been !prepared by City Attorney's office and submitted for consideration of the City Commission. cm Z. M 36 cc: Law Department Planning Department Sincei?el.y1 u• _r� Director the Planning and Zoning Boards Administration NOTE`: Planning Department Recommendation: DENIAL. Tentative City'Commission date: February 1980. "SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS FOLLOW" 1 i .(.. .>,.: 1 5.6e MAN AM6141LAN bAP tlU1LUINti 150 SOUTHEAST THIRD AVENUE Sti uI FLOKIDA Awn City of Miami Department of Administration Planning and Zoning Boards 3318 Pan American. Drive Miami,Florida Gentlemen: The Packer Corporation hereby appeals from thedecision of the Miami Zoning Board, Resolution No. 19-80, adopted at its meeting of January 21, 1980, with respect to Item 5 on the Agenda; the same being application for variance with respect to Lot 18, Block 47 South, City of Miami, as per Plat thereof, recorded in Plat. gblic Re • Book B, at Page ; 41, of the Pu __. _ cords of Dade County,' Florida, to permit an 8' concretei block wall on the.south lot line with no set back from. the basebuilding line. The property in question is zoned C-4 ` (General -Commercial) Check in the amount of $225.00 to coverappeal fee is enclosed. notify me as to the date upon, Please..' which this appeal will be heard by �the;�City_ Coirimission. �' `SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS FOLLOW" 5. APPROXIMATELY 619 S.W. 8TH STREET Lot 18, Block 47S; MIAMI (B-41) Variance from Ordinance 6871, ARTICLE IV, Section 17(2), to permit an existing 8.0' C.B.S. wall on above site, as per survey on file, with 0.0' setback from the Base Building Line (5.0' required); Zoned C-4 (General Commercial). Secretary filed proof of publication of Legal Notice of Hearing and administered oath to all persons testifying at this Hearing. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL. There is no hardship w1ticF justifies granting this variance and if it remains in the present location, it will create a traffic hazard for pedestrians because there is no vision clearance. If a building permit had been obtained before the wall was constructed, the wall could easily have been set back the required five feet. Ms. Susan Groves, Planning Department: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, the petition before you tonight is to permit an existing 8' wall which is on the property line. It was built without a permit and the Planning Department is suggesting that had it been built with a permit, it would have been set back 5' from the property line and would not have created visual hazards for pedestrians and automobile traffic. We are suggesting that the wall be moved back the required 5' to provide protection for the pedestrians. So for this reason, we're recommending denial of the petition. Mr. Roman: William B. Roman, 542 Pan American dank Building, attorney for the petitioner. I think the best presentation I could make to begin with, is to let you see these photographs so that you'll get a visual picture of it. It's a little difficult for you to visualize exactly what the situation is with respect to the adjoining properties. As you examine those photographs, you'll see that the property directly to the east, Lots 19 and 20, are occupied by the John Turner warehouse. That property runs from the base building line on S. W. 8th Street back and occupies both Lots 1, 2, 19 and 20. That building comes right out to the base building line so that if you'll look at the photo- graphs, the existing wall is set back a few inches from that base building line. Now we came before this Board last year is connection with the lot behind this present let, Lot 3, and asked for a conditional use to use it for employee parkirg. At that time, the Board insisted that we put up an 8' block wall on the north end of t°iat property to protect the residential area across the street whi:h •e did. We were under the impression when we got the'permit for the pav:ng and that wall that that encompassed wreryth' ng. !'hat was on our o:.an. So we proceeded to put up the wall as you s=_e it in the photocr p'is. Now the thing that is not completed on these photographs•is tl-e decorative block on top of that wall to make it a complete 8'. At the time we were startin to do that, the building inspector came out ane stopped us. He did not complain about the setback but he said that '.n order to have a block wall, it could not be in excess of 2'; that we would have to tear down the wall to a height of 2'. And that doesn't make sense to me because the whole purpose of our wall is for security purposes. Now, January 21, 1980 Item 5 ZB "SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS FOLLOW" there's not a large amount of traffic going in and out of that parti- cular lot. The back half is used for employee parking. They come in, in the morning and they leave in the afternoon. The front half which is zoned commercial, we store new cars. Those cars stay there and they aren't moving in and out. You'll see from the photographs, if you're trying to come out of that property onto S. W. 8th Street, you have to get beyond the John Turner warehouse in order to have any visibility anyway. On the other side, our show room for Packer Pontiac comes out to the base building line so actually there's 350' on the west side of this particular lot and 100' on the east side of this particular lot that all come out to the base building line. And to set this wall back an additional 5' only leaves you with a 5' area that will collect trash and beer bottles and anybody can come in there and_.. hide and way -lay somebody walking down the street. If you'll look at the photographs closely, you'll see that the side- walk from the base building line and out to the curb is a wide side- walk. It's much wider at that point than it is farther down. And we see no reason why we should have to set this wall back another 3' in order to accommodate the Zoning Board. To me, it's not going to be as attractive as if you have a nice decorative block wall there. And we need a block wall for security purposes. If the Hoard has any questions I'll be glad to answer them. Mr. Gort: Do any of the Board Members have a question for the applicant? Ms. Baro: I went by the property and I did see these two beautiful rows of cars there. Are you telling me that you don't go in through there to park? How do the employees park? Mr. Roman: The employees go in to park at the back end of the lot but they only go in and oast once a day. They have to come out on 8th Street because there's no exit on S.W. 7th Street. We're not permitted to exit on S. W. 7th Street. Ms. Baro: It's not an entrance either? Mr. Roman: No. S. W. 8th Street is the only entrance and exit into that property because the back lot, Lot 3, is residential whereas the front lot is commercial. That's why we can keep new cars on the front lot. Mr. Rolle: Mr. Roman, along that street is there any vegetation at all on the street itself?. Mr. Roman: Not that I've been able to see because S. W. 8th Street is one of the older sections of town and most of the properties are built right up to the sidewalk. Mr. Rolle: Would you say that's a sidewalk -and -a -half or a double sidewalk? Mr. Roman: i would say that's a double sidewalk at that single sidewalk west of this. Mr. Rolle: Thank you. Mr. Gort: We'll close Board Members. point and a the public hearing and have discussion among Ms. Basila: I'm confused about the permit business for both walls. was a citation actually issued to them? January 1980 1980 Item 5 ZB `SUPPORTIVE` DOCUMENTS FOLLOW" Mr. Perez-Lugones: Department here. Ms. Basilan I'd like to hear from.him.:.... ._._.._ Mr. Washington: My name is Nick Washington. I'm a zoning inspector, City of Miami Building and Zoning Inspection Department. I have a citation that was issued by the building inspector to the owner of the property for constructing a wall without a permit and several letters that went between the Chief Building Inspector, Rafael Licea, and the owners of the property advising them they should take out a permit for the wall. They made an application for a permit which was not issued because the wall was in a• visual clearance area. Zoning re- quired it to either be lowered 2.6' or set back 5' from the base building line. Ms. Basile: Mr. Roman, you said that when you submitted your plans for the back wall on 7th Street, was this also included? Mr. Roman: The back wall was done first. When we submitted the plans for the paving in the front, it was an overall plan. The back wall was a continuation of the wall that we had back there already. We had to continue that on. When we came up for our permit for the decorative block, I submitted the application and the lady there said 'You don't have a proper survey' although there was one in the files and she said 'I can't tell from this survey where the base building line is.' So we went out and had another survey made and brought that in 4' and had the base building line checked, and nobody said a word about a setback at that time. All they complained about was the fact that we didn't have a permit for a wall 8' high. And I couldn't understand now why this question of a setback has come up. Mr. Carner: The responsibility for legal construction is the developer's and not the Building Department's. The fact that they may have omitted to catch something does not relieve anybody of the re- sponsibility of building it according to Code. ►7r. Roman: I understand that. Mr. Carner: You said something earlier about planting on top of the wall? Mr. Roman: No, decorative block. That will make it conform 'to the rest of our building which is to the west of this property. other questions? Is.'Dasila: Susan wanted to say something a minute ago. ms. Groves: I just wanted to point out that the wall on the north portion of the property was required to be set back 20' from the base building line as a part of the conditional use. Mr. Roman: That's true because it was a residential zone. Block 3 is a residential zone and we had to set the wall back on the residential property to protect the residential people across the street. That's correct. Mr. Gort: Thank you sir. Anybody else?••Do I hear a motion? Mrs. Baro: I went by there, of course we all did, and I do feel that it is a commercial corner - and the type of development around there is (Comment in background Mrs. Baro: Yes, "SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS FOLLOW" that type of development around there. It is a one - January 21, 1980 Item 5 ZD 1 1 way street. It is a very neat wall. In fact, I think it's a pretty wall. It was done very nicely. Perhaps you could give us a little greenery? Some place where you could plant something. Mr. Perez -Lugones: Mrs. Baro, the wall is et the base blinding line. Mrs. Baro: / know that, / saw that, but the sidewalk is very wide. ?Ir. Perez-Lugones: That is City property. Mrs. tiara: Where? That is City Property? It Mr. Perez -Lugones: It is outside the base building line. Mrs. Baro: I'm not saying they should dig up the sidewalk. The wall is on their property not on City property. Mr. Perez -Lugones: The wall is on their property but there is nothing further from the wall to the center of the street within that property. Mrs. Baro: Anyway, I feel that in view of the neighborhood, in view of the fact that it's a nice looking building and the wall is not unattractive at all, that I would be inclined to move for approval. 1 'Ir. Gort: There's a motion on the floor, i,s. there a second? Okay, it dies for lack of a second. Ms. Groves: I would just like to point out it's not the landscaping .hat the Department is primarily concerned with but it is the visual clear- ince we're concerned about, that this wall is going to create a hazard for )edestrians in particular. Mr. Carner: In the absence of a second to approve, 1,11 move to deny. mr. Cruz: I second it. Mr- Gort: We will now close the Public hearing and have discussion mong Board Members. Does someone wish to ask Mr. Roman a question? Mr. Rolle: I'll ask him a question. Mr. Roman: hs far as the visual clearance is concerned, you can see hat you have the problem whether that wall is set back 5' or not. You till have to clear the buildings on both the east and the west. So it's ot a question of visual clearance because of the wall, it would be a ,lestion of visual clearance because of the buildings on either side. The all does not interfere with vision and you can see that there is a double idewalk there on this property whereas there's a single sidewalk on the #2st so the question of visual clearance doesn't really enter into this at 11. Mr. Perez-Lugones: We have a motion to deny made by Mr. Carner and a .?.cond by Mr. Cruz. 1 Return Notice favoring petition was received in the mail from property owner of record. .. 2 Return NoegoPlYising Petition were received in the mail from .°PertY owners of record. ZD 'SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS FOLLOW" Ai fr7 Mr. Stephen Carner offered the following resolution and oved its adoption: RESOLUTION ZB-19-80 RESOLUTION TO DENY REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE 6871, ARTICLE IV:SECTION 17(2), TO PERMIT AN EXISTING 8.0 FEET CBS WALL ON LOT 18, BLOCK 47S; MIAMI (B-41) BEING APPROXIMATELY 619 S. W. RTH STREET AS PER SURVEY ON FILE, WITH 0.0 FEET SETBACK FROM THE BASE BUILDING LINE (5.0 FEET REQUIRED); ZONED C-4 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL). Upon being seconded by t+lr. Ricardo Cruz, this resolution licled in the following tie vote which constitutes a denial. AYES: Mg. Basila Messrs. Carney, Cruz NAYS: Ms. Baro Messrs. Gort, flolle 'Ir. Perez-Luqones: We have a tie vote which constitutes denial . This Item has been denied. You have a right to appeal this !cis ion to the City Cortunision and you have fifteen days to do so. For i formation on how to proceed, please get n touch with my office. Thank you. 4