My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2012-0216 Regular City Commission Meeting
SIBFL
>
City Clerk
>
City Commission Minutes
>
2012
>
2012-0216 Regular City Commission Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2012 4:44:56 PM
Creation date
3/19/2012 4:41:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CityClerk-City Commission
Meeting Type
Regular
Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
02/16/2012
Document Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Summary Minutes: Regular City Commission Meeting February 16,2012 <br /> <br />City of Sunny Isles Beach, Florida <br /> <br />City Manager Cohen said prior to this current administration an administrative approval was <br />granted, that approval was granted to a structure as a temporary structure. When the second <br />application came in and we reviewed the application, it was their opinion, and they received <br />concurrence from the Building Official as well that the structure itself was reviewed as a <br />permanent structure from the Building Permit perspective and from the Zoning perspective, it <br />was granted administrative approval as a temporary structure and we felt that was <br />inconsistent. When they sat down and looked at the Code, and spoke to City Attorney, they <br />felt that this should come before the Commission in the Site Plan Review process, which is <br />why it appears that it is an after-the-fact request. We are here now to take a comprehensive <br />look which is what the Site Plan Approval process is designed to do, and we do believe that <br />the way the landscaping is set up, it can accommodate the proposed landscaping. <br /> <br />Mayor Edelcup said we are left here with a situation in which something was administratively <br />done, there was an initial approach to have more of these racks put in and with a discussion <br />with staff, they compromised by coming in with one rack. The second rack at the request of <br />the City was set so that a boat would not be visible above the bridge much like the original <br />rack that is there today which is 3 stories high. This rack would fall in where it could only be <br />two levels high. On the other hand, there is a great need for boat storage. There is a lot of <br />compelling-reasons in-his-mind-that-as long-as-the second boat rack does not exceed the <br />height limit of the bridge so the boats are not above the bridge line, and we have an <br />understanding from this point forward that there would not be any additional racks put in. In <br />reading the application, it is permitted to have up to 250 boats and they will wind up with <br />only having 200 - 210 boats in the facility and so we are still under the maximum that was <br />allowed and we are accomplishing the goal of providing boats whether it is on a temporary <br />basis or longer until such time as something is built to capacity for this area. Since most of it <br />is hidden from people entering over the bridge, admittedly people living on Atlantic Isle <br />don't have the advantage of having a bridge blocking our view and so we will see these two <br />racks but he does not find them to be objectionable. <br /> <br />Commissioner Scholl said his issue is what is temporary because if you are coming in and we <br />keep kind of piece meal it we don't have a unified plan, as this is more like a survey than a <br />site plan to him. Under any other circumstances, if an applicant came in we would ask for a <br />unified plan, and something that we would want to make sure that has got some aesthetic <br />value to it based on the use even though it is alongside the bridge. He asked if there was a <br />timeframe when their approval expires. City Manager Cohen said to clarify it, the structure <br />itself is not a temporary structure, it is deemed a permanent structure, but the applicant only <br />has a five-year lease for the property. He understands the concern that the Commission is <br />expressing, the only thing he wants to express is that he wouldn't necessary hold the <br />applicant responsible for the action offormer City staff. The first rack should have been here <br />before the Commission and it wasn't, the applicant was led to believe by City staffthat they <br />didn't need to go through that process, and we believed they did and technically both of the <br />structures are before the Commission tonight as part of this site plan approval because the <br />first structure that was approved was approved as a temporary structure, and so the time <br />period for the temporary structure is over and so it is in essence a comprehensive plan that is <br />being put before the Commission as both racks have to be approved tonight. <br /> <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.