Loading...
139 NE 96 Stc 4 PERMIT APPLICATION FOR MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE Date S/ i Job Address /.6/' A/C 2l # ST Tax Folio Legal Description Historically Designated: Yes No Owner/Lessee / Tenant C /44 AA �poC j ,6gAM S ( 0^/71 Master Permit # 0813ff Owner's Address / 3 ff A/ S.7 5 r e.3 w",/ - • e plc Signature of owner and/or Condo President Date Notary as to Owner and/or Condo President Date My Commission Expires: Address Phone 47 S 7 5/ Qualifier ,, hone State # Municipal # Competency # Ins. Co. Architect/Engineer Address Bonding Company Address Mortgagor Address Permit Type (circle one): BUILDING ELECTRICAL PLUMBING MECHANICAL ROOFING PAVING ENCE } SIGN w Ao4Z - 4J WORK DESCRIPTION C-o/A/57/.)C A/ P &4--C. Jr''d y4 ®-J ,r e- - ,vA AA . VV ,9"' Square Ft. Estimated Cost (value) ® D , 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 (IF 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. OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT: I certify that all the foregoing information is accurate and that all work will be done in compliance with all applicable laws regulating construction and zoning. Furthermore, I authorize the above -named contractor to do the work stated. - Signature of Contractor dr Owner- Builder f e c) ; Date Notary as to Contractor or Owner - Builder Date My Commission Expires: FEES: PERMIT L l'a RADON C.C.F. NOTARY - BOND TOTAL DUE h APPROVED: Zoning Building I J P Electrical Mechanical Plumbing Engineering • • • Z1 . . • •• • • 0 41 ; x 'Wood Pos t 2'24 Tccd R i . Tood Pickets • • for these re`_z.`. ... gh 4. Lev. 1.74 n liess 2915 ?_nces • • = '—�;s O.C. 5 -0u Q.C. (a) :e_rces not e:ceed{ng feRt in aei h • shrill; be constructed =.o meet the following; minimum requirements: from nominal 4 inch by 4 inch by d flea 0 inch long posts spaced 4 feet 0. an centers, haTi g a fiber stress or 1200p. s . i.' in bending, and sr .11 be embedded 2. feet 0 inches into a�conc= ete fcoing; 1 'foot 0 • itches in dismeter.m d 3 _ee:. 0 inches deep .. Other ccmpensr. ts-'she? 1 be des z7ne to comply, with the p_orisicr_s of t _s .Chapter and C2:_;r..o- - 23. • • (h) : erces not e nnee.r i 5 f v rend 4 '. feet in nelzht t' e ' . shall - t 2.r oT �.^. e'•.' { .. tea'. = D � r' : 2 = i 5 . 1 )" fl ee'211' 1 a. ;a 5 fe: : �o 1.71e:" 11". � :=e: a i^csle• c:, cen:.rn • k 6 4 . , x' 12515.1 Tocd fences so i' V cr. V e on Z property <• },, �. 'fUr `� .♦ha le by zoning = erulstic:zs they cannot 'be used as a wa.:1 of = bu ld 4, sisall be constructed . .to meet the following minimum specifications. 4 This property described as The Est of Lot 20 and All of Lot 21, Block 19 AN AMENDED PLAT OF MIAMI SWIMS SECTION NO. 1, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Hook In, Page 70 of th?. Public Records of Dade County, Florida. ( eel PROPFIUY • 1 / • -/ 0 \) I to -;31 7 :/--e7rZ 4 - ',/ 7C ‘ely & fr. .• /;• Unless it hems be signature and the origiend raised seal of Florida licensed sinveynt and snapper this (11 iii. sketch. plat or map is rot nth lllll ational purposes only and is not valid 31 • (5 Ze^, • ■ /(•7. • •v '5//e/)e . • . suRviy 1 hereby certify that the Hovey repte• seined hereon meets the minimum technical standards set forth by the Board of land Surveyors In chapter 61G17.6 Florida Adonneuritive Code pursuant to Section 172027,f1i. itatiotes. T t/ are no enticsacfs Kit, overlaps 'easements arrev g on the Pia other than as strovi to. • /();• 2 / • ere---17;•7 °F Richard and•Bransacom, 1 ) Ben, 4_1___ ___:_4:. _____ >:_'___ ______•-7-'.___._.. _ _._ .---- — 07-5 • /.'en,N • .„ • 7. k ' 1 • ‘3 3 l c. /9 i 'g'. / 77 f3.1 , • --, 17 7 2 4• e•..." • .... ••••••• • ---• w " • ;;;; ( -7 - FLOOD ZONE: X FLOOD INFORMATION: Community No.: 120652 Panel No.: 93 Suffin: j Date of P.I.R.M. 3.2-94 Rase Elevation Not Available Certified To: Rapid Title Services Company, Attorneys' Title Insurance Fund, Inc., Nicholls, Richard and Rome Financing Center, inc its successors and/or assigns and Bransacom, Ben. 0 z ta. 6 Note: Underground encroach- ments and utilities, if any, not located. Fence ownership by visual means only, legal ownership not determined. cze b V - ../ 70/el 797//// f 7'4"'/ • ; 4 /-4/ -/-//,/ ,></ • - /2 z •• 139 N.B. 96th Street, SCALE , /- DRWC.NO 45725 fl. Reg land eyor No ive Z7 DATE Mimt _t-Ibores Florida. NES an GARcIA, INC. .D. 20913 ENGINEERS - LAND SURVEYORS - LAND PLANNERS Rene Aiguesvives - 14327 Office address: 359 Alcatar Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Mailing address: P.O. Box 561131, Miami, Florida 33156 (305)666.7909 (954) 52341663 • PLANNING BOARD AGENDA OF Name of Owner /Applicant Present Zoning R - 20 Council Action Required Planning Board Action Council Action iami jhores F L OR ID A Ben Branscom November 14, 1996 wk: 677 -5166 Name of Architect/Contractor Phone No. Address of Property, and/or Legal Description 139 N.E. 96 Street Nature of Request Appeal of Building Official's decision regarding variance approved October 24, 1996 (see attached minutes). 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/( Section 518(a)(1) Director of Building and Zoning ITEM NO. 5 Phone No. 751 - 7517 NOV. -0 — 96(THI;I 09:54 HIES INTERESTS MIA Hines November 4, 1996 Miarni Shores Village Planning & Zoning Department 10050 NE 2nd Ave. Miami Shores, FL 33138-2382 Dear Building & Zoning Board Members: TEL: 305 - 3=1 6039 P. 002 On October 24, 1996, I, Ben V. Branscom, owner of the property at 139 NE 96th St., M ami Shores was granted a hardship variance. This variance was needed to construct a 6 foot stockade style wooden fence as stipulated on the agenda itinerary. Upon the request for a building permit, it was communicated by Mr. Lubian that there was some concern regarding his review of the minutes pertaining to the approval by the Planning & Zoning Board. It is Mr. Lubian's impression that his interpretation of the minutes grants a 6 foot height only to the section of fencing that borders the parking lot. It is for this reason that another appeal must be made to the Board to construct the fence as requested: being 6 feet in height along it's entire length. The applicant strenuously pleads for an immediate permit approval owing to not only the verbiage in the aforementioned itinerary, but in the variance request contained in section D, which clearly indicates "the proposed fence would border only the parking lot and the alley at the north end of the property... ". Thank you in advance for your expeditious clarification and approvaL Sincerely, Ben V. Branscorn First Union Fjlani.tc! Cc[t:cr 200 S. Biscayne Sou:ev;:rd. Suite 1670 Florida 33131-2397 (305) 373.3400 (305) 371 -6059 FAX would make a considerable difference in regards to privacy. He stated excess noise and excess activity that occur at night are the major concern. Vagrancy , the jump starting of cars and the unanticipated degree of users of the parking lot at night are areas of concern. He stated that there has been commercial dumping and storage along the fence adjacent to the property. Mr. Blum confirmed that the dumpster is located at the far end of the parking lot away from the commercial building. Although the parking lot is zoned to be a buffer, the commercial activity spreads across the parking lot. Mr. Caldwell moved that it be a finding of fact that a hardship does exist and that the variance be approved. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion. Mr. Blum asked what a stockade style fence was, Mr. Branscom replied that it was simply placing boards up against one another. Mr. LuBien confimed that the approval was for a 6' fence on the side property line that borders the parking lot. The vote was called and was unanimous in favor. ITEM #3 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR GARAGE ENCLOSURE. Angela Jacobs 25 N.W. 108 Street Mr. LuBien explained that the garage is to the rear of the property. A sliding glass door from the conversion out to the rear yard will be installed as well as the installation of a bath. Angela Jacobs was present on her own behalf. She noted that the bath is existing. However, a shower will be added. She stated that the lavatory was draining directly into the yard, but this will be brought up to Code. Ms. Jacobs stated that she would like to eventually convert the enclosure to a bedroom. For now, she intends to use the area for storage. As the parking area is in the rear of the property, she needs direct access to the house from the rear of the property, thus the sliding glass doors. Mr. Walters asked if the applicant intends to park in the rear of the property. She stated she would. Mr. Walters asked what the required setback was for the rear yard. Mr. LuBien stated the Code specifies a minimum of 25 feet for a parking space. Mr. Walters inquired as to the current use of the conversion if it will be converted into a bedroom at a later time. Ms. Jacobs stated that the current garage door is rotten and does not want to replace it at this time. She stated that the planned changes are to relocate the washer and dryer, add a shower and installation of sliding glass doors. Mr. Walters asked if the interior would be finished. She stated it would not. Mr. Hegedus asked if consideration had been given to the septic tank size if the enclosure was converted to a bedroom. She stated that she conferred with her engineer and it was not a problem. Mr. LuBien confirmed that an addition of a bedroom requires approval by HRS and DERM. Mr. Hegedus stated that the sizing of the septic tank is crucial. As she may not come before the Board for minor alterations to the interior upon converting the enclosure to a bedroom, it may be pertinent to check the septic tank size now. I, Ben V. Branscom, owner of the residential property at 139 NE 96th St., intend to appeal the decision of the building inspector to the Miami Shores Planning and Zoning Board relating specifically to the maximum height allowance of any boundary fencing not to exceed five feet. I hereby request a hardship variance according to Article VII, Section 702, to seek permission from the Planning Board to construct a wooden stockade style fence to a maximum height of 6 feet due to the following peculiar and unusual conditions that affect the property. A) The property is adjacent to a parking lot on it's east boundary that is used by not only the patrons and employees of Village businesses, but by various individuals who may or may not be Village residents, Village business patrons or Village business employees. The usage of and access to the lot is unattended, unrestricted and unmonitored and experiences varying levels and kinds of activity at all hours of the day and night. In addition, the existing concrete structure that separates the property from the parking lot which is mandated and maintained by the city is not in compliance with the Miami Shores Village code, in that its height is at a maximum of 4 feet, measuring a full foot lower than required and in having been constructed after the year 1958. B) The ordinance which affords the opportunity to construct a boundary fence no more than 5 feet in height would restrict any attempt to create to create a sufficient visual, acoustical or physical barrier when comparing and contrasting the usage of the parking lot with the elevation and proximity of the residential property. An additional fencing height of 12 inches would limit the field of vision from the parking lot into the residence, specifically during evening hours by more than 60 %. C) A variance enabling the construction of a wooden stockade style fence to a maximum height of 6 feet would create enough of a barrier to afford reasonable use of the property in that the two rooms which would be protected by the boundary fence are the only bedrooms in the residence. The residence would be, to a greater degree, visually and acoustically separated from the various activities in the lot which include, but are not restricted to commercial and residential parking, loading and unloading, pedestrian loitering, the jump starting of cars, vagrancy, the storage and disposal of construction materials and the dumping of commercial and residential landscaping refuse. D) It is in the opinion of this applicant that the fencing height ordinance exists to afford residential property owners a degree of privacy while discouraging excessive separatization between residential properties, an effect of blockading, and fragmentation of residential city blocks. The proposed fence would border no other residential lots and would exceed the allowed height by a maximum of 12 inches. The proposed fence would border only the parking lot and the alley at the north end of the property and would be primarily visible by only the aforementioned vantage points. In no way would this variance prove detrimental s z u , 4, 1'1% %■ 4 . EL . • Section 518. [Fences, wails and hedges.] Fences, walls and hedges may be located within any yard, including the margining thereof, subject to the following re- quirements: (a) Maximum height Three and one -half (3 in any required front yard, five (5) feet in any required side yard or rear yard; except that (1) Any such feature along a side plot line in an R. A or 0 district that is contiguous to or across an alley from a business or commercial district may be erected to a height not exceeding eight (8) feet (1) along any rear plot line, or (2) along any side plot line rearward from a point ten ( 10) feet distant from the front plot line; 11 % o • e • • somsooeses ef: 0 if; c t7;sc d ‘ks 4- Gt/e_ C ie t kiA e cf— kk a C- 6L4-- eds1 - C4k-eitxfiz_; er \V V tY'n frezt. con': s , a a f -- ?g s i - c.11 11- t would make a considerable difference in regards to privacy. He stated excess noise and excess activity that occur at night are the major concern. Vagrancy , the jump starting of cars and the unanticipated degree of users of the parking lot at night are areas of concern. He stated that there has been commercial dumping and storage along the fence adjacent to the property. Mr. Blum confirmed that the dumpster is located at the far end of the parking lot away from the commercial building. Although the parking lot is zoned to be a buffer, the commercial activity spreads across the parking lot. Mr. Caldwell moved that it be a finding of fact that a hardship does exist and that the variance be approved. Mr. Hegedus seconded the motion. Mr. Blum asked what a stockade style fence was. Mr. Branscom replied that it was simply placing boards up against one another. Mr. LuBien confimed that the approval was for a 6' fence on the side property line that borders the parking lot. The vote was called and was unanimous in favor. ITEM #3 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR GARAGE ENCLOSURE. Angela Jacobs 25 N.W. 108 Street Mr. LuBien explained that the garage is to the rear of the property. A sliding glass door from the conversion out to the rear yard will be installed as well as the installation of a bath. Angela Jacobs was present on her own behalf. She noted that the bath is existing. However, a shower will be added. She stated that the lavatory was draining directly into the yard, but this will be brought up to Code. Ms. Jacobs stated that she would like to eventually convert the enclosure to a bedroom. For now, she intends to use the area for storage. As the parking area is in the rear of the property, she needs direct access to the house from the rear of the property, thus the sliding glass doors. Mr. Walters asked if the applicant intends to park in the rear of the property. She stated she would. Mr. Walters asked what the required setback was for the rear yard. Mr. LuBien stated the Code specifies a minimum of 25 feet for a parking space. Mr. Walters inquired as to the current use of the conversion if it will be converted into a bedroom at a later time. Ms. Jacobs stated that the current garage door is rotten and does not want to replace it at this time. She stated that the planned changes are to relocate the washer and dryer, add a shower and installation of sliding glass doors. Mr. Walters asked if the interior would be finished. She stated it would not. Mr. Hegedus asked if consideration had been given to the septic tank size if the enclosure was converted to a bedroom. She stated that she conferred with her engineer and it was not a problem. Mr. LuBien confirmed that an addition of a bedroom requires approval by HRS and DERM. Mr. Hegedus stated that the sizing of the septic tank is crucial. As she may not come before the Board for minor alterations to the interior upon converting the enclosure to a bedroom, it may be pertinent to check the septic tank size now. Name of Owner /Applicant iami crhores F L O R 1 D A PLANNING BOARD AGENDA OF October 24, 1996 ITEM NO. 2 751 -7517 home Phone No. 677 -5166 work Ben Branscom Name of Architect/Contractor Phone No. Address of Property, and/or Legal Description 139 N.E. 96th Street Nature of Request Approval of variance to permit construction of a 6' wooden stockade fence. Present Zoning R - 20 Area of Present Building Area of Proposed Addition Total Area Parking Spaces Provided Parking Spaces Required with Addition Setbacks as per Code : Front Side Setbacks Provided : Front Side VariancesMaggClat Section 518 (a)(1) Council Action Required Planning Board Action Council Action Yes Rear Rear Director of Building and Zoning I, Ben V. Branscom, owner of the residential property at 139 NE 96th St., intend to appeal the decision of the building inspector to the Miami Shores Planning and Zoning Board relating specifically to the maximum height allowance of any boundary fencing not to exceed five feet. I hereby request a hardship variance according to Article VII, Section 702, to seek permission from the Planning Board to construct a wooden stockade style fence to a maximum height of 6 feet due to the following peculiar and unusual conditions that affect the property. A) The property is adjacent to a parking lot on it's east boundary that is used by not only the patrons and employees of Village businesses, but by various individuals who may or may not be Village residents, Village business patrons or Village business employees. The usage of and access to the lot is unattended, unrestricted and unmonitored and experiences varying levels and kinds of activity at all hours of the day and night. In addition, the existing concrete structure that separates the property from the parking lot which is mandated and maintained by the city is not in compliance with the Miami Shores Village code, in that its height is at a maximum of 4 feet, measuring a full foot lower than required and in having been constructed after the year 1958. B) The ordinance which affords the opportunity to construct a boundary fence no more than 5 feet in height would restrict any attempt to create to create a sufficient visual, acoustical or physical barrier when comparing and contrasting the usage of the parking lot with the elevation and proximity of the residential property. An additional fencing height of 12 inches would limit the field of vision from the parking lot into the residence, specifically during evening hours by more than 60 %. C) A variance enabling the construction of a wooden stockade style fence to a maximum height of 6 feet would create enough of a barrier to afford reasonable use of the property in that the two rooms which would be protected by the boundary fence are the only bedrooms in the residence. The residence would be, to a greater degree, visually and acoustically separated from the various activities in the lot which include, but are not restricted to commercial and residential parking, loading and unloading, pedestrian loitering, the jump starting of cars, vagrancy, the storage and disposal of construction materials and the dumping of commercial and residential landscaping refuse. D) It is in the opinion of this applicant that the fencing height ordinance exists to afford residential property owners a degree of privacy while discouraging excessive separatization between residential properties, an effect of blockading, and fragmentation of residential city blocks. The proposed fence would border no other residential lots and would exceed the allowed height by a maximum of 12 inches. The proposed fence would border only the parking lot and the alley at the north end of the property and would be primarily visible by only the aforementioned vantage points. In no way would this variance prove detrimental to the use or prospective development of property in the vicinity in as much as the parking lot is zoned "Double X ", a permanent designation in the Village of Miami Shores. I appeal to the Miami Shores Planning and Zoning Board to accept this variance and look forward to presenting this case to Board. Sincerely yours, Ben V. Branscom toN 1 J O /j /t 17 So /d1 11' /I 1 7 V. MEMO AMMO • o 1.7 b ? G 7 7 I2 23 ) 2 'a 2 4 Fillt rms ra MEM It /2 Flaffi 2 J rr i • /2 13 15 : /G 8 T Ink WSW IMO 9 6' E !d /5 da7.11z_ St u 2 1 23 N4 . E . ►� •PARKING /3 12 !t I LOT I HOUSE 1'2 I NO, 139 g ".A/45 /7 'l / '' x . _ 4 3- - - mot. E. 2 a ' 1 •�� 4 9 9 T«. 7 T ". 9 T P4. 9 4 T ~_ to M. Section 518. (Fences, walls and hedges.] Fences, walls and hedges may be located within any yard, including the margining thereof, subject to the following re- quirements: (a) Maximum height: Three and one -half (3 in any required front yard, five (5) feet in any required side yard or rear yard; except that (1) Any such feature along a side plot line in an R. A or 0 district that is contiguous to or across an alley from a business or commercial district may be erected to a height not exceeding eight (8) feet (1) along any rear plot line, or (2) along any side plot line rearward from a point ten (10) feet distant from the front plot line; • This property described as:' The East $ of Lot 20 and All of Lot 21, Block 19 AN AMENDED PLAT OF MIAMI SHORES SECTION NO. 1, according to the Plat thereof, as'recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 70 of tilt? Public Records of Dade County, Florida. 1, 94 o 4,e /6 /7, So i JO' 5 e D ti p Unless it bears the signature and the original raised seal of a Florida licensed surveyor and mapper This • drawing, sketch. plat or map is for informational purposes only and is not valid. 7" 9 D e 543eyllesic vice ‘k; 4'f, • .o A BOUNDARY SURVEY 1 hereby certify that the survey repre- sented hereon meets the minimum technical standards set lonh by the Board of Land Surveyors In chapter 61C174 Florida A - rive Code pursuant to Secti•- 72.027 • . Statutes. T are no en . ts, overlaps / easements' a • • d g on the Fla her than as /—'1= - "II Reg. land 4/E d i tJ 0 , AO , z ; : ho /, P rim . C Gv /574W5 /a 4d t° 4 ' h 4 �® 0\0 \O I 1 f.,•.5.- . N 1 .40' 1 q " ; L, . , • . ` 175•' ' - •. • et4;i:/X . �..- DATE /2• PROPERTY OF: Nichol1S, Richard and .Bransacom, Ben a 03 .CU E; y l/ fb S , .,c, 0 axl Z o , A ! 2 / 7 ro S'C4 /C /„ - Z OO • .X-f•E S'7": 074 . FLOOD ZONE: X FLOOD INFORMATION: Community 120652 Panel No.: 93 Suffix: J Date of F.I.R.M.: 3-2-94 Base Elevation: Not Available Certified To: Rapid Title Services Company, Attorneys Title Insurance Fund, Inc., Nicholls, Richard and Home Financing Center, Inc. its successors and /or. assigns and Bransacom, Ben. Note: Underground encroach- ments and utilities, if any, not located. Fence ownership by visual means only, legal ownership not determined. cAS C3�C L 9 0 v Ze-'���/7/ /c7 - ,q14•r2c1/ 70247 C'�'k� /ice e > i /� e, 2‘ - L/17) - 74''n e., C') - ele7 /c /� � Coi/c - C'or>crr, /a- a4s.•v- e) w7 139 N.E. 96th Street, • 1 S E SBa 2 GARCI - A, INC. ENGINEERS - LAND SURVEYORS - LAND PLANNERS Rene Aiguesvives — #4327 Office address: '359 Alcazar Avers "are, Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Mailing address: PIO. Box 561131, Miami, Florida 33156 (305)666 -7909 (954) 523.8663 DRA BY DRWG. NO 45725 0 a z