1298 NE 95 St (4)PERMIT APPLICATION FOR MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE
Date // Job Address 01 /• 0-C— Sr Tax Folio
Legal Description 075 ' ew' c— . °"1/ '' ` 1re Historically Designated: Yes No
Owner/Lessee / Tenant /651 il81
�9 I M� r�rri� S — 2 A.3
Owners Address � i 4V � �.� s T i �{�� Ph one dos
Architect/Engineer Address
Address
Master Permit # 3 ZS 37
Contractin Co. Q»? Address
Qualifier •�\U kVA SS#
State # E ° to C' 3 Municipal # Competency # Ins. Co.
Bonding Company
Mortgagor Address
Permit Type (circle one): ELECTRICAL PLUMBING MECHANICAL ROOFING PAVING FENCE SIGN
WORK DESCRIP'T'ION 115 r�rle `ry .c.e 1a S gl �° 0-g i oi
t. n 1
i no cg. gide o ,,,
Estimated Cost (value) IP 'i ..ZO 0
Square Ft.
WARNING TO OWNER: YOU MUST RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT AND YOUR FAILURE TO DO SO MAY
RESULT IN YOUR PAYING TWICE FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY (1F YOU INTEND TO OBTAIN FINANCING,
CONSULT WITH YOUR LENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT.)
Application is hereby made to obtain a permit to do work and installation as indicated above, and on the attached addendum (if applicable). I
certify that all work will be performed to meet the standards of all laws regulating construction in this jurisdiction. I understand that separate
permits are required for ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, SIGNS, POOLS, ROOFING and MECHANICAL WORK.
0 ' R'S AFFIDAVIT: I certify that all the foregoing information is accurate and that all work will be done in compliance with all applicable
laws egulating construction and zoning. Furthermore, I authorize the above -named contractor to do the work stated.
///2 (%tt
Si ndo President Date Signature of Contractor or Owner- Builder
FEES: PERMIT ® RADON C.C.F. 3
Date
F4 • f,7- 0,2-
,cAe,
Date Notary as to Con actor or Owner- Builder ate
My Commission Expires: r ro
MARIA BARREIRO
my cornrnission =ORM
Expires Aug. 18. 1990
NOTARY , S� BOND 3 0
TOTAL DUE ,
APPROVED:
Zoning Building I q{�
N "l Electrical
Mechanical Plumbing Engineering
P.K.
PERMIT ;r
STATE OF FLORIDA:
COUNTY OF DADE:
THE UNDERSIGNED hereby gives notice that improvements will be made to certain - real property, and in
accordance with Chapter 713. Florida Statutes, the following information is provid d in this Notice.
1. Legal description of property and street address: L- t iq Nsal('k Q)11)(
2. Description of improvement:
‹4s
3. Owner(s) name and address: C 1. ��,� \\r‘V\i
lC\P Ii
Interest in property:
Name and address of fee simple titleholder:
4. Contractor's name and address:
5. Surety:(Payment bond required by owner from contractor, if any)
Name and address:
Amount of bond $
6. Lender's name and address:
7. Persons within the State of Florida designated by Owner upon whom notices or other documents may
be served as provided by Section 713.13(1)(a)7 „Florida Statutes.
Name and address:
8. In addition to himself. Owner designates the following person(s) to receive a copy of the
Lienor's Notice ar,•provided in Sectioq 713.13(1)(b),Florida Statutes.
Name and address:
9. Expiration date of this Notice of Commencement: (the expiration date is 1 year from the date of
recording unless a different' date is specified)
1 9 9 8 , NOV 20 PM 5:68 9 8 8 5 5 8 1 5 3
NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT
TAX FOLIO #
■. _
Signature of twner •�,
�wr
Sworn to and subscribed before me this � • 5 4..h day of
Notary Public
My Commission Expire
I.D.
AA A) is
1°199 *1A ".,, "..1 �r
'*1OF loe
OF FLORIDA, COUNT UhllC.
10 CafiliFY f` a• Phis is a free co y of lfo a$
fA�f $•lo I in f',• o •■: on day
(Ness my h nd and Official Seal.
A RVE9N 1 , � R! of ' suit on • oust of }
a
l/ 1
:TAIL THIS DOCUMENT TO:
DADE COUNTY RECORDER
44 West Flagler ST 8th FL
MIAMI, FL 33130
phone # (305)372 -7777
Prepared by: N,A\ - ts e jz ,„
9 qS
MAR
f.1y Commission CC48905E
F r -nom n..q. 1C, 1999
0/
Address:
N VO Dl JU
tA1Au, t! t 3341
Ran. ow
m1OO 06' 27'
A'43. 68'
(FIELD)
A PORTION
OF LOT 1
B10C C' 86
..: .vex.:..........: :t:F:k.,:.::12i;i:::::ii•
1` 4 : j1s
T:5?
ftr =r ii:.. y tI i/ a :
. ^ �. ♦a
1::i
OC ANCHORS
(iv 31\ tt
95.1
117.85' (PLAT )
(
0)
E
a a 85' FIR ( !
1.
t
ri
DATER
METER
5' CONCRETE WALK
rE S - LE
17. 0'
g Z
` N
• Q *I 7
C*J
7 Q'
i
, :x r , . ra.. ixt r r i i rr * rrn *X *.. a,rx•
10PS
COLUMN (TYP.
A. a
PLANTER /72._
95. t5'
CONCAETE WALL
A PORI I
OF LOT
BLOCK
117. @8'f PLAFn
1 17 7A' ( rin r"
v)
• C FIP (f /2')
25. B5' FIP
0, Q'
0.3'
• -.I au
0 9-
•
4
k�k
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA OF OCTOBER 15, 1998
Name of Owner /Applicant LESLIE NORTHUP /DAYLE PECK
Name of Architect/Contractor Al DESIGN STAMP CONCRETE
Address of Property, and/or Legal Description 1298 N. E . 95 STREET
Nature of Request APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR TERRACE IN SIDE YARD .
Present Zoning R -35
Area of Present Building
Area of Proposed Addition
Total Area
Parking Spaces Provided
Parking Spaces Required with Addition
Setbacks as per Code : Front Side Rear
Setbacks Provided : Front Side Rear
Variances/Zoning Change NONE
ddtiami Jhores91liage
F 1_ 0 R 1 0 A
NOTE: SIDE YARD FACES BAYSHORE DRIVE AND BAY FRONT PARK.
Council Action Required
Planning Board Action
Council Action
ITEM NO. 8
Phone No. ( 305) 758 -0803
Phone No. (305) 266 -1552
Proposal for Home Improvement Project
Property: 1298 NE 95- Street -
Owners: Lesley Northup and Dayle Peck
Project: Terrace
Description: Ground -level natural flagstone terrace to extend from east and south sides
of house, wrapping around corner. Site plan attached.
Justification:
(1) This house is built on a corner lot facing 95th Street. The side of the house to the
east faces Bayfront Park. The previous occupants of the house did little to improve
the appearance of the property, which is particularly ugly on the bayfront side. The
terrace project is proposed
(a) to upgrade the appearance of the house (and the neighborhood), altering an
unkempt and neglected part of the property, now dominated by a particularly
unattractive plain concrete stoop; and
(b) to provide a comfortable seating area on the N. Bayshore side of the house
(currently just a strip of grass).
(2) Originally, the plan was to erect a wooden deck in this location. After presenting
architectural plans at the Miami Shores Village Hall, we found Mr. Lubian's
arguments against a deck to be persuasive; viz., the building material was perishable,
and no other wooden decks were visible from the street in the immediate
neighborhood.
(3) This revised plan would
(a) be harmonious with the rest of the neighboring architecture, utilizing stone and
unobtrusive concrete;
(b) be at ground level, so as not to visually intrude on the openness of the park space;
(c) be landscaped so as to make the entire side of the house more aesthetically
appealing.
(4) The plan is in accordance with the site plan document issued as a guide by the
Village:
(a) The terrace is set back more than 10' from the sidewalk to the east side.
(b) While the setback from the concrete wall that divides this property from the lot to
the south is only 10', the presence of the wall and of substantial hedging on both
properties —as well as the fact that the north side of the adjoining house is
undeveloped and virtually windowless— guarantees privacy and a more than
adequate distancing from the adjacent building.
1
(5) Concerns raised by Mr. Lubian include the following:
(a) Whether the east side of the property can be considered the "side."
Response: The house plan clearly puts the front of the house on 95 Street,
regardless of the layout of the lot. In support of this contention, let me note that
no less an authority than the U.S. Postal Service considers the 95 Street side of
the house, where it regularly delivers the mail, to be the front. (You will recall
that this was a sufficient justification to establish the existence of Santa Claus in
the classic movie, "Miracle on 34 Street." Should you declare the east side to be
the front of the house, then we want our address changed to N. Bayshore Avenue,
which sounds nicer.) We should be allowed the full 10' setback permitted for
side yards on the east side.
(b) Conflict on the south side with adjoining property.
Response: The continuation of the terrace to the south side of the property with a
width of at least 10' would technically bring the "structure" to within 13' of the
adjoining property, rather than the required 15'. In this case, the distinction is
irrelevant: the adjoining house constitutes a large blank wall to the north; the
residents neither use the side yard, nor can they see (without great effort) the
proposed terrace area. Tall plants line both sides of a concrete wall between the
properties.
This terrace extension is necessary because the morning sun makes it
extremely uncomfortable to sit on the east side of the house in the a.m. However,
the terrace extension to the rear of the property allows us to take advantage of a
large tree at the southeast corner, which casts shade in the morning and makes
that portion of the terrace usable and comfortable in the early hours.
(c) Concern about any form of construction in the vicinity of the Park.
Response: The terrace is designed to be all but invisible from Bayfront Park. It
will be set at ground level, and be simply a flat, unobtrusive area suitable for low -
key seating. The property is surrounded by a low concrete - and -stone wall which
sets the terrace apart from common spaces and makes it virtually unnoticeable.
In any event, the terrace will be a major improvement to the side of the
house now visible from the Park. The current ugly concrete stoop, deteriorating
lighting and scraggly landscaping will be replaced by a subdued, but elegant,
area. The use of natural stone (or, if necessary, stone -look Eurotile) will blend
harmoniously with the rest of the neighborhood. Stone will be chosen to
harmonize with the stone already in place on the surrounding wall, the front of the
house, and the front pathway. Indeed, the terrace will be considerably more
attractive than the huge concrete circular driveways —one bright red and the other
asphalt —of the two houses to our immediate north; these eyesores, which now
face the Park between 95 and 96 Streets, dominate the west side of the street.
We equest that the Planning Board act favorably on this proposal.
V ry respectful su mitted,
Lesley A. Northup
2
Planning & Zoning October 15, 1998 Page 3
ITEM #6 DENIAL OF APPEALS TO BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DENIAL OF PANT COLOR
OF ROOF
Rosetta Betty 9105 North Bayshore Drive
Mr. LuBien explained that the roof color is inappropriate. The roof had been painted without a
permit. This item was heard at the May 21 and June 18, 1998 meetings.
Ms. Betty was present on her own behalf stating that the current roof color is peach whisper. She
indicated that at the time her roof was painted the color was undeterminable. At the June 18
meeting, the Board explained to her the Code requirement for through color tile and Mr. LuBien
stated that he believed that the original roof color was white, based on the style of tile. She
presented to the Board with a tile sample to demonstrated that the tile was cement based not a
through color tile. Therefore since the tile was origily grey cement painted white then her roof
can be painted a color other than white. Ms. Betty's sister, Monica Betty was present and noted that
the color complemented the other homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Blum expressed his concerned
of matching the paint color should the roof need to be repaired in the future. Mr. Sturman moved
to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Building Official. Mr. Hegedus seconded, the
motion which passed unanimously.
ITEM #7 APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR TERRACE IN SIDE YARD
Leslie Northup & Dayle Peck 1298 NE 95 Street
Mr. LuBien explained that the side yard of property is really the front yard to the homes on North
Bayshore drive. As a side yard she would only need a 10 feet setback
Ms. Northup was present on her own behalf and explained the proposed plans to built a ground level
natural flagstone terrace extending from the east and south sides of the home, wrapping around the
corner. The terrace would be harmonious with the surrounding homes and upgrade her property
value. Mr. Blum asked Ms. Northup if she would be willing to alter her application to reflect the
15 feet setback required for the adjoining property and she agreed. Mr. Powell moved to approve
the application with the amended setback requirements. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion and the
vote was unanimous in favor.