352 NE 98 St (4)Present Zoning R 14,5
aiami Jhores9 llage
F L 0 R 1 D A
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA OF JVt-/ ku) i 4 ITEM NO. /
Name of Owner/Applicant e. t.H Phone No.
Address of Property, and /or Legal Description 10 Nt, SI°
Nature of Request MIAYM OE ROUG 41 ROM VrrA4Z,
VikORIT
Area of Present Building
Area with Proposed Addition
Parking Spaces Provided
Parking Spaces Required with Addition
Setbacks as per Code
Setbacks Provi ded
Variances/ NIS . 8eessita,V -S `ct) nAr-S
Council Action Required
Date of Applicant Notification
Planning Board Action
Counci 1 Action
Director of Building and Zoning
July 1, 1988
Members of the Miami Shores Planning Board
Village of Miami Shores
10050 N.E. 2nd Avenue
Miami Shores, FL 33138
Dear Members:
I have recently had a swimming pool constructed at my house
located at 352 N.E. 98 Street (West 1/2 of Lot 4 and all of Lots
5 & 6, Block 42). Due to numerous peculiar and unusual
conditions affecting this property the pool was built on the
east side of the house and garage. This historic landmark house
and garage was constructed in 1926 with a zero lot line on lot
#4. This eliminated any side yard to the west of the house and
any usable backyard behind the house, but provided a yard east
of the garage and house. The rear (south) portion of the east:
side yard is where the septic tank and drainfield are located.
Because the only usable yard is east of the house and that the
south portion of this yard contains the septic tank and
drainfield it was necessary (to comply with building code) to
push the pool several feet further towards the front (north)
house line than I would have liked.
According to the zoning ordinance it is necessary to have a 4
foot fence surrounding a pool. There are several conditions
that make it impossible to strictly apply the specified
provisions of this ordinance to this property. At this time
there is an existing 4 foot wire fence which surrounds the east:
yard space. It is part of the original 1926 landscaping
features of the yard, bordering the rear, east side and
extending beyond houseline (north) aspect of the yard. This 4
foot wire fence which is very old, rusted and in a state of
disrepair, is not aesthetically pleasing to the surrounding
neighborhood. Since this property is a registered historic
landmark designate and in keeping with the historic spirit and
flavor I would like to replace the existing fence with a new 4
foot solid wrought iron construction fence which is
aesthetically pleasing, high quality, protects the neighborhood
children, and is congruous to the historical nature of the house
and yard (ie trees, hedges, plants, fence location, brick rose
garden, higher elevation (grade) while also maintaining the
usable space of the east yard which has been present since
original construction of the house in 1926. In order to replace
the existing fence with another 4 foot fence in front of the
house line would require a six inch height variance.
As a result of strict application of this code, without
variance, placement of fencing at the houseline would result in
a dramatic change in the historic architecture flavor and style
of the yard and house. It would severely encroach on the usable
space surrounding the pool and yard, cause disruption of
original brick rose garden, loss of over 20% of usable east yard
space, and would be unsightly and not integral to the
surrounding neighborhood because of the then noticeable 12 -24
inch difference in elevation of east yard north of the house
line. There would be the loss of numerous large trees planted
in this area, (in front of house line) which are presently
harmonious and congruous to the present landscaping (ie two
Gumbo Limbos approximately 30 foot each, one 30 foot orchid
tree, one 25 foot rubber tree, 2 15 foot Frangi Panie, cherry
hedge approximately 70 to 80 feet which runs parallel to the
present fence).
In contrast, variance would be in harmony with the intent and
purpose of this ordinance. Replacement of the existing 4 foot:
wire fence with wrought iron fence of exactly the same height:
and location as present fence:
1. Would not be detrimental or change the existing use of
property or prospective development of property in the
vicinity.
2 .
3. Would be more substantial than existing fence,
therefore, safer for neighborhood children.
4. Would upgrade neighborhood and be more aesthetically
pleasing.
Sincerely,
Thomas B. Chaille
Would not provide any advantage with respect to the use
of property since there would be no change in usage of
property from present usage as established since 1926.
Would enhance the unique character and historical
architectural features of house yard and neighborhood.
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA OF OLTbil• t3, c
Name of Owner /Applican
Address of Property, and /or Legal
Nature of Request A� obi' V \I $ COM
Present Zoning it .1
Area of Present Building
Area with Proposed Addition
Parking Spaces Provided
Parking Spaces Required with Addition
Setbacks as per Code
Setbacks Provided
Council Action Required N /
Date of Applicant Notification
c Jl 1 mi cJ� Bores 0 i e
F L O R 1 D A
Council Action A'�- 9�((
ITEM NO.
Description l2 1 SI
t 1® e.kilaMU.* Ph one No.
Planning Board Action P.M . Oki
N/ActIkt4M ret, * CVO (Alm
‘14 FC0141* 'th tD
Vari ancesThoteer 0 DSOki it lM
VIGT 9 NG ?It'S W V16.1ttS 014 HiSiOitlt VAR a MR v(,.
Director of Building and Zoning
July 1, 1988
Members of the Miami Shores Planning Board
Village of Miami Shores
10050 N.E. 2nd Avenue
Miami Shores, FL 33138
Dear Members:
I have recently had a swimming pool constructed at my house
located at 352 N.E. 98 Street (West 1/2 of Lot 4 and all of Lots
5 & 6, Block 42). Due to numerous peculiar and unusual
conditions affecting this property the pool was built on the
east side of the house and garage. This historic landmark house
and garage was constructed in 1926 with a zero lot line on lot
#4. This eliminated any side yard to the west of the house and
any usable backyard behind the house, but provided a yard east
of the garage and house. The rear (south) portion of the east
side yard is where the septic tank and drainfield are located.
Because the only usable yard is east of the house and that the
south portion of this yard contains the septic tank and
drainfield it was necessary (to comply with building code) to
push the pool several feet further towards the front (north)
house line than I would have liked.
According to the zoning ordinance it is necessary to have a 4
foot fence surrounding a pool. There are several conditions
that make it impossible to strictly apply the specified
provisions of this ordinance to this property. At this time
there is an existing 4 foot wire fence which surrounds the east
yard space. It is part of the original 1926 landscaping
features of the yard, bordering the rear, east side and
extending beyond houseline (north) aspect of the yard. This 4
foot wire fence which is very old, rusted and in a state of
disrepair, is not aesthetically pleasing to the surrounding
neighborhood. Since this property is a registered historic
landmark designate and in keeping with the historic spirit and
flavor I would like to replace the existing fence with a new 4
foot solid wrought iron construction fence which is
aesthetically pleasing, high quality, protects the neighborhood
children, and is congruous to the historical nature of the house
and yard (ie trees, hedges, plants, fence location, brick rose
garden, higher elevation (grade) while also maintaining the
usable space of the east yard which has been present since
original construction of the house in 1926. In order to replace
the existing fence with another 4 foot fence in front of the
house line would require a six inch height variance.
As a result of strict application of this code, without
variance, placement of fencing at the houseline would result in
a dramatic change in the historic architecture flavor and style
of the yard and house. It would severely encroach on the usable
space surrounding the pool and yard, cause disruption of
original brick rose garden, loss of over 20% of usable east yard
space, and would be unsightly and not integral to the
surrounding neighborhood because of the then noticeable 12 -24
inch difference in elevation of east yard north of the house
line. There would be the loss of numerous large trees planted
in this area, (in front of house line) which are presently
harmonious and congruous to the present landscaping (ie two
Gumbo Limbos approximately 30 foot each, one 30 foot orchid
tree, one 25 foot rubber tree, 2 15 foot Frangi Panie, cherry
hedge approximately 70 to 80 feet which runs parallel to the
present fence).
In contrast, variance would be in harmony with the intent and
purpose of this ordinance. Replacement of the existing 4 foot
wire fence with wrought iron fence of exactly the same height
and location as present fence:
1.. Would not be detrimental or change the existing use of
property or prospective development of property in the
vicinity.
2. Would not provide any advantage with respect to the use
of property since there would be no change in usage of
property from present usage as established since 1926.
3. Would be more substantial than existing fence,
therefore, safer for neighborhood children.
4. Would upgrade neighborhood and be more aesthetically
pleasing.
5. Would enhance the unique character and historical
architectural features of house yard and neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Thomas B. Chaille