FLS2005-09072ORIGINAL \?j
FLS2005-09072-'-
841 BAY ESPLANADE /
Date Received: 09/21/2005 IINI sEP Z r 2005
HUSTON, JOHN AND SUZANNE
ZONING DISTRICT: LMDR
LAND USE: RU
ATLAS PAGE: 249A
PLANNER OF RECORD: NOT ENTERED
CLWCoverSheet
Z-zd?
Z s •
r
ZS ?
" Planning Department
C aMat o South Myrtle Avenue
,er 100 Clearwater, Florida 33756
Telephone: 727-562-4567
Fax: 727-562-4865
CASE #:
DATE RECEIVED:
RECEIVED BY (staff initials):
ATLAS PAGE #:
ZONING DISTRICT:
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION:
SURROUNDING USES OF ADJACENT
PROPERTIES:
NORTH: ---
SOUTH: -_-
WEST: ------------- -- -
EAST:
? SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION
? SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IGINA
1) collated, 2) stapled and 3) folded sets of site pla ? SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE $
* NOTE: 15 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS)
FLEXIBLE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
(Revised 12/30/2004)
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT-
A. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A)
APPLICANT NAME: --? _ _UZ4vL?l ----------------------------------------
MAILING ADDRESS: 841 -tS*q E°S ljo sV1a.4t
PHONE NUMBER: -721-_ 5 24. (d O 8 -?-FAX NUMBER: 2
PROPERTY OWNER(S): -J412u? ?34z*^r Qc 4-
(Must include ALL owners as listed on the deed - provide original signature(s) on page 6)
B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A)
STREET ADDRESS of subject s
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
(if
PARCEL NUMBER:
PARCEL SIZE:
the
(acres, square feW
PROPOSED USE(S) AND SIZE(S): __- ' __ - ?qv_
(number of dwelli g units, hotel
u i
square footage of nonresidential dse
)sr 2M
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST(S): -__-_-__-__-_
--
Attach sheets and be specific when identifying the request (include all requested code deviations; e.g. reduction in required nu11mber of parking spaces, specific use, etc.) -% 4 Olt
Page 1 of 6 - Flexible Standard Development Application 2005- City of Clearwater
PHONE NUMBER: 12 _ 1'_ $Z!SI=??JZS FAX NUMBER: -7?_???_ (o ?p!z
CELL NUMBER: `N7 _?( ' 63gLo-_ -- E-MAIL ADDRESS: t?et!? 0 ?11lt?'1 aure?n . [riuir.
0 9
W
H?
w,e)
+pA
DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED'UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTIFIED) SITE PLAN? YES --_ NO _ (if yes, attach a copy of the applicable
documents)
C. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP: (Code Section 4-202.A.5)
? SUBMIT A COPY OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY, DEED TO THE PROPERTY OR SIGN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING OWNERSHIP (see
page 6)
D. WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 3-913.A)
? Provide complete responses to the six (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA - Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail:
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it
is located.
A-11Z 0 Q*V ?Qli
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly
impair the value thereof.
--- --',? ---?,m r R.
---? 1----
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health o safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed
use.
--`-`-(?-_-?----------- --------- ----------------
he".,>
c?d? s e446J CA -fie sobrc4- Fr%?`"?
4. The proposed development is designed to - imize traffic congestion. 1
- - -- - - - - -- - -- - - - -- - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - -- - -- - - - --
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
--`-- ------
SIC%
6. The design of the proposed development mini izes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and ho r ti fl impacts,
on adjacent properties.
----------- -- ---
? Provide complete responses to the applicable flexibility criteria for the specific land use as listed in
requested (use separate sheets as necessary) - Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail:
i
?L
Yf'tt'h,;gd1 SVCS1
Page 2 of 6 - Flexible Standard Development Application 2005- City of Clearwater
I
FROM :CityOrClearwater-Plan Dept * FAX NO. :727 562 4865 0 03 2005 03:50PM P2
? Provide complete responses to the seven (7) RESIDENTIAL iNFILL PROJECT CRITERIA --Explain hM each criteria Is achieved, in detail:
1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for dovelopment is otherwiso Improntical without deviations from the intensity and
development standards. .
The proposed deviations will not increase the intensity.
2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential inflll project will not materially reduce'the fair market value of
abutting properties. (Include the existing value of the site and the proposed value of the site with the improvements.)
The proposed development of the parcel will not reduce the value of
the abutting properties. Existing site value $1,41? 000.00
Proposed site value $1,550,000.00_.__..
3. The uses within the residential inflll project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater.
The proposed residential addition and renovation compli.ep with all
resident.ia1,,.,uSe requirements 'm need ..by the City nf_C.lear_wa _er_ _.
4. The uses or mix of use within the'resldential Infill project are compatlhia with adjacent land uses.
This is a single family res.ident.ial property. Al1,surrounding _
properties are si_nglP family residenCPG.
5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential Inflll project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposed for development.
The proposed building addition to this... property will enhance -the existi
property in turn enhancinaimmediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed residential inflll project creates a form and function that enhances the community character of the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole.
The proposed architectural desian_elements and plan functi.pn.w.ill
enhance the immediate and surrounding pqr,cels.
7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified by the benefits to community character and the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole.
The proposed build n?v..a.da.i.t.ion will in raaGP -the value of the pro.p.e.rty
positi vet z_. a.f.f_o,.cting the Gt7rrniindi ng.. market. i nrrpasi nrg -va•lup -
OR161NAL
OCT 10 2005
'LANNit?G Wt LOPMENi SVGS
ITYO`!'tE.r;?waf?Gj,
Page 3 of 7 - Flexible tevelopment Applicatlon Residential Infitl 2005- City of Clearwater
0 9 ORIGINAL
E. STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design C
Manual and 4-202.A.21)
A STORMWATER NARRATIVE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH ALL APPLICATIONS. All applications that invol
addition or modification of impervious surface, including buildings, must include a stormwater plan that demo strates compliance with t
City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual. A reduction in impervious surface area do of qualify as an exemption
this requirement.
If a plan is not required, the narrative shall provide an explanation as to why the site is
? At a minimum, the STORMWATER PLAN shall include the following:
Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines;
Proposed grading including finished floor elevations of all structures;
___ All adjacent streets and municipal storm systems;
Proposed stormwater detention/retention area including top of bank a of slope and outlet control structure;
_ A narrative describing the proposed storm?te?ntrol plan inc eng all calculations and data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the
City manual.
__ Signature and seal of Florida Registered P ofessional gineer on all plans and calculations.
? COPY OF PERMIT INQUIRY LETTER OR S HWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT SUBMITTAL
D ?(SWFWMD approval is required prior to is ance of City Building Permit), if applicable
cknowledgement of stormwater plan uirements (Applicant must initial one of the following):
_ Stormwater plan a oted above is included
__ Stormwater an is not required and explanation narrative is attached. At a minimum, a grading plan and finished floor elevations shall
provided_
CAUTI - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A STORMWATER PLAN AND
NO HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY .
CCUR.
you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562-4750.
SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 4-202.A)
? SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (including legal description of property) - One original and 14 copies;
? TREE SURVEY (including existing trees on site and within 25' of the adjacent site, by species, size (DBH 4" or greater), and location,
including drip lines and indicating trees to be removed) - please design around the existing trees;
LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY;
? PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (ie. Reduce number of spaces). Prior
to the submittal of this application, the methodology of such study shall be approved by the Community Development Coordinator and shall
be in accordance with accepted traffic engineering principles. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not
deviations to the parking standards are approved;
? GRADING PLAN, as applicable;
? PRELIMINARY PLAT, as required (Note: Building permits will not be issued until evidence of recording a final plat is provided);
? COPY OF RECORDED PLAT, as applicable;
G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A)
? SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36"): D
All dimensions;
North arrow;
Engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet), and date prepared;
.
Location map; SEP 2,12005
Index sheet referencing individual sheets included in package;
Footprint and size of all EXISTING buildings and structures;
Footprint and size of all PROPOSED buildings and structures; PI.A "? , - ?C:? •
!?!NlNG 8. Ut'?,c: i-tYlc?.,x
All required setbacks; "OF ClI '414rU41 R
All existing and proposed points of access;
All required sight triangles;
Identification of environmentally unique areas, such as watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, and specimen
trees, including description and location of understory, ground cover vegetation and wildlife habitats, etc;
Page 3 of 6 - Flexible Standard Development Application 2005- City of Clearwater
r?
u
Location of all public and private easements;
Location of all street rights-of-way within and adjacent to the site;
Location of existing public and private utilities, including fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes and lift stations, gas
and water lines;
___ All parking spaces, driveways, loading areas and vehicular use areas;
Depiction by shading or crosshatching of all required parking lot interior landscaped areas;
Location of all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment and all required screening {per
Section 3-201(D)(i) and Index #701);
Location of all landscape material;
Location of all odoand g fixtures; management facilities; ^ Q
Location of all outdoor lighting fixtures; and ORIGINAL
Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks.
? SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in written/tabular form:
Land area in square feet and acres;
Number of EXISTING dwelling units;
Number of PROPOSED dwelling units;
Gross floor area devoted to each use;
Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular form with the number of required spaces;
Total paved area, including all paved parking spaces and driveways, expressed in square feet and percentage of the paved vehicular area;
Size and species of all landscape material;
Official records book and page numbers of all existing utility easement;
Building and structure heights;
Impermeable surface ratio (I.S.R.); and
Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses.
? REDUCED SITE PLAN to scale (8'/1 X 11) and color rendering if possible;
? FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the following additional information on site plan:
One-foot contours or spot elevations on site;
Offsite elevations if required to evaluate the proposed stormwater management for the parcel;
All open space areas;
Location of all earth or water retaining walls and earth berms;
Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned);
Streets and drives (dimensioned);
Building and structural setbacks (dimensioned);
Structural overhangs;
Tree Inventory; prepared by a "certified arborist", of all trees 8" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and condition of
H. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-1102.A) U
? LANDSCAPE PLAN: i
All existing and proposed structures; S' % }
Names of abutting streets;
Drainage and retention areas including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations;
Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscape buffers; PLANNING -? }t . SVC
Sight visibility triangles; CITY rll?:
Delineation and dimensions of all parking areas including landscaping islands and curbing;
Proposed and required parking spaces;
Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and locations, including driplines (as indicated on
required tree survey);
Plant schedule with a key (symbol or label) indicating the size, description, specifications and quantities of all existing and proposed
landscape materials, including botanical and common names;
Location, size, and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant schedule;
Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants including instructions, soil mixes, backfilling, mulching and
protective measures;
Interior landscaping areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressing in both square feet and
percentage covered;
Conditions of a previous development approval (e.g. conditions imposed by the Community Development Board);
Irrigation notes.
? REDUCED LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8 '/: X 11) (color rendering if possible);
? IRRIGATION PLAN (required for level two and three approval);
? COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, as applicable. Landscape associated with the Comprehensive
Landscape Program shall exceed minimum Code requirements to offset the areas where minimum Code will not be met.
Page 4 of 6 - Flexible Standard Development Application 2005- City of Clearwater
t
1. BUILDING ELEVATION PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A.23)
Required in the event the application includes a development where design standards are in issue ris and Downtown Districts) or as part
of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Proj ct Residential Infll Project.
,4 4- q S?I)CS I f"_
? UILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS - all si es of all b ' including height dimensions, colors and materials;
REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATI our sides of building with colors and materials to scale (8 '/2 X 11) (black and white and color rendering, if
possible) as required
J. SIGNAGE: (Division 19. SIGNS / Section 3-1806)
? All EXISTING freestanding and attached signs; Provide photographs and di ns (area, height, etc.), indicate whether they will be removed or
to remain.
? All PROPOSED freestanding and attach5d sign ide details including location, size, height, colors, materials and drawing; freestanding signs
shall include the street address (nume
? Comprehensive S gram application, as applicable (separate application and fee required). 1n) IF
? ed signage proposal (8 '/: X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application. II Z-4k,1 1. -
K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4-202.A.13 and 4-801.C) t._?.?-pp. nn I
? Include if required by the Traffic Operations Manager or his/her designee or if the proposed developme mow: +'fM }.i r'.
• Will degrade the acceptable level of service for any roadway as adopted in the Comprehensive an.
• Will generate 100 or more new vehicle directional trips per hour and/or 1000 or more new icle trips per day.
• Will affect a nearby roadway segment and/or intersection with five (5) reportable accid s within the prior twelve (12) month period or that is
on the City's annual list of most hazardous intersections.
Trip generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Tra ortation Engineer's (ITE) Trip General Manual.
The Traffic Impact Study must be prepared in accordance with a "Scopi eeting" held with the Traffic Operations Manager and the Planning
Department's Development Review Manager or tF esignee (727 2-4750)
Refer to Section 4-801 C of the Communityevelopment de for exceptions to this requirement.
Acknowledgement of traffic impact study require (Applicant must initial one of the following):
_ _ Traffic Impact Study is include a study must include a summary table of pre- and post-development levels of service for all roadway
legs and each turning movement at 111-16tersections identified in the Scoping Meeting.
Traffic Impact St is not required.
CAUTION - I PLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
AND NO HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY
If y6u have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562-4750.
L. SIGNATURE:
I, the undersigned, acknowledgrteto resentations made in this STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS
application are true and ac ur e a of my knowledge and Sworn to and subscribed before me this 20 day of
authorize City pres tativ s an p ograph the roe Seemb_er_ A. D. 200
to me and/or by
describo se ?? • Ol i v e r _ who is personally known has
produced
N as
identification_
Signature of property wner or representative - ---
Nota public,
My commission expires: 5 210.1 LAURA S. ENIE
* * MV COMMIS
EXPIRES: May 2, 2007
4r. _ _...... Bonded Thru Budget Notary Services
Page 5 of 6 - Flexible Standard Development Application 2005- City of Clearwater
AFFID#VIT TO,AUTRORIZE AGENT:
? ORIGINAL
2.. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a: (describe request) (1
1 iS 41Dn11C 1U%rb is tfQSctl?3?ue o? 4A CV- ?1?V1 oi? Q 2
1\
1 11 c Q
1A?
3. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint: I lVQr'l
as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition;
4. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property;
5. That site visits to the property are necessary by City representatives in order to process this application and the owner authorizes City
representatives to visit and photograph the property described in this application;
6. That (1/we), the undersigned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and corre
Property Owner 61
Property Owner
Property Owner
Property Owner
STATE OF FLORIDA,
COUNTY OF PINELLAS
Beeffofje me the and?{si ned, an officer duly commission b the laws
1 , O( personally appeared
Deposes and says that he/she fully understands the contents of the of
My Commission Expires:
Notary Public - State of Florida
g Corola et+^^.':Yoifes My 30. 2d
Cornmiaslon # DD305200
Bonded By National Notary Assn.
S17-
on this 04'1 day of
who having been first duly sworn
;d. C
Notary Public
S:IPlanning Department lApplication Formsldevelopment reviewlflexible standard development application 2005.doc
SEP 21 2005
& DE w.. h , w. NT
QFC•LU, uV €Lp
N?
Page 6 of 6 - Flexible Standard Development Application 2005- City of Clearwater
(Names of all property owners on deed - please PRINT full names)
1. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described oroaertv (address or aeneral locationl-
P - - -- --- _.. • unvwvve: IV-LU-[W3 17:ub:ju EDZ
Thomas C. Nash, IT Esquire 51 DED-OCONNEiAUSTON
Macfarlane Fergule & McMullen . 029869
625 Court Street, Suite 200 I#:03440702 $K:13154 SPG:2671 EP6:2672
Post Office Box 1669 (33757) RECORDING 042 PAGES 1 $10.50
Clearwater, Florida 33756 DOC STAMP - DR219 3 $7,448.00
TOTAL: $7,458.50
DICK ANT. TENDERED: $7,450.50
B:?• ? 03-448702 OCT-20-2003 5:05pn
P INELLFIS Co BK 13154 PG 2671 CHANGE: 3.00
Hill 111111111111111111111111 Hill 11111111 CURK
7 -j
ORIGINAL
?------? _ WARRANTY DEED
KE J
EEL THIS INDENTURE made this day of October 2003, by and
HG AUT
-i:yetween PATRICK J. O'CONNELL, a single person of the County of
Pinellas, in the State of Florida, Party of the First Part, whose
mailing address is and
JOHN R. HUSTON and SUZANNE HUSTON, husband and wife, of the County
of Pinellas, in the State of FL, Party of the Second Part, whose
mailing address is 841 Bay Esplanade, Clearwater
W I T N E S S E T H:
That the said Party of the. First Part,
atio f th
M l_.!
SEP 2 12005
131. N a . ??OSI
for and in consider-
IL o e sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) to him in hand paid by
the said Party of the Second Part, the receipt whereof is hereby
acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold to the said Party of.
the Second Part, his heirs and assigns forever, the following
described land, situate lying and being in the County of Pinellas,
State of Florida, to-wit:
Lot 1, Block 40, MAN.DALAY, according to the map or plat thereof, as
recorded in Plat Book 14, pages 32-35, Public Records of Pinellas County,
Florida, Together with that strip of land including the seawall as shown on
the Plat lying between said Lot and waters of Clearwater Bay, and lying
between North and South boundaries of said lot as extended Lastwardly
to said Bay.
Subject to 2003 real estate taxes, restrictions,
reservations and easements of record.
Parcel I.D. No. 05/29/15/54666/040/0010
PINE LAS COUNTY FLA.
OFF. RWK 13154. PG 2672
ORIGINAL
And the said Party of the First Part does hereby fully warrant the
title to said land, and will defend the same against the lawful
claims of all persons whomsoever.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Party of the First Part has
hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year first above writ-
ten.
Signed, Sealed and Delivered
in Our Presence:
Print Name 4 bu LA/-C It V2.
61
Print Name t
STATE OF F Lv RiLA
COUNTY OF PINELLAS
p COW
SEP .I 12005 PLANNING & DEVF.i . ! I SVGS.
I HEREBY CERTIFY, that on this day personally appeared before
me, an officer duly authorized to administer oaths and take
acknowledgments, PATRICK J. O'CONNELL, to me personally known or
who has produced as identification and
who did take an oath, and known to me to be the individual (s)
described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and he
acknowledged before me that he executed the same for the purposes
therein expressed. A
WITNESS my hand and of 4i al seal at ?4'?' r
said County and State, this day of Octoba-,-? ?03.
J
i
Notary Public
Print Name
My Commission Expires:
(SEAL) TVWMM C Nash 11
commmwo pp18204
«'PI e,pkes March 14.2007
(SEAL )
CONNELL
Sty 9/21/2005
Receipt #: 1200500000000009246 11:30:59AM
Date: 09/21/2005
r
Line Items:
Case No Tran Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid
FLS2005-09072 02 Flex Std-Residential 010-341262 100.00
Line Item Total: $100.00
Payments:
I0f Method Payer Initials Check No Confirm No How Received Amount Paid
*CD Check
JOHN HUSTON/ SUZANNE R_D 4644
HUSTON
In Person
100.00
$100.00
0
THIS IS NOT A PERMIT.
This is a receipt for an application for a permit.
This application will be reviewed and you will be notified as to the outcome of the application.
cReceipt.rpt
Page 1 of 1
Payment Total:
0 •
LONG RANGE PLANNING
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
December 12, 2005
Joseph Oliveri
32707 U.S. Hwy 19
Palm Harbor, FL 34684
CITY OF C LEARWATE R
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756
TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4576
RE: Development Order regarding case FLS2005-09072 at 841 Bay Esplanade
Dear Mr. Oliveri:
This letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to Section 4-202.E of the Community
Development Code. On November 3, 2005, the Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed
your application for Flexible Standard Development approval to reduce the front (south) paper street
setback from 25 feet to 5 feet per section 2-203.B.C. The DRC recommended approval of the
application with the following bases and conditions:
Bases for Approval:
1. The proposal complies with Detached Dwellings criteria under the provisions of Section 2-
203.B.C.;
2. The plan complies with General Applicability Criteria under the provisions of Section 3-913; and
3. The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area.
Conditions for Approval:
1. That prior to building permit, a 36 inch fence (reducing to 30 inches in the site triangle) with an
evergreen non deciduous vine at 24 inch intervals be shown on the south property line on the site
plan;
2. That prior to building permit, the site plan show adequate evergreen buffer material on the south
property line which will achieve a minimum height of eight feet within two years;
3. That prior to building permit, the site plan show gutters on all structures draining to an approved
detention system on the north and south side of the residence; and
4. That prior to building permit, the site plan show revised ISR calculations.
I concur with the findings of the Development Review Committee and, through this letter, approve
your application for Flexible Standard Development with the above conditions. The approval is based
on and must adhere to the site plan and application received September 21, 2005.
BRIAN J. AUNGST, MAYOR-COMMISSIONER
WHITNEY GRAY, VICE MAYOR-COMMISSIONER HOYT HAMILTON, COMMISSIONER
FRANK HIBBARD, COMMISSIONER ® BILL. JONSON, COMMISSIONER
"EQUAL. EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYFR"
December 12, 2005
Mr. Oliveri - Page Two
M
Pursuant to Section 4-303, an application for a building permit shall be made within six months of
Flexible Standard Development approval (June 12, 2006). All required certificates of occupancy shall
be obtained within one year of the date of issuance of the building permit. Time frames do not change
with successive owners.
The issuance of this Development Order does not relieve you of the necessity to obtain any building
permits or pay any impact fees that may be required. In order to facilitate the issuance of any permit or
license affected by this approval, please bring a copy of this letter with you when applying for any
permits or licenses that require this prior development approval.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Scott Kurleman, Planner II, at 727-562-4567
X2504. You can access zoning for parcels within the City through our website:
www.myclearwater.com. * Make Us Your Favorite!
Sincerely,
Michael Delk, AICP
Planning Director
0
EXHIBIT "B"
idol
27
law
K
31
730 Eldorado, Clearwater Beach, Fl
53 Aster, Clearwater Beach, Fl
LL *CITY OF CLEAtWATER
Clearwater
October 10, 2005
> PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756
TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576
W W W.MYCLEARWATER. COM
John R Huston
841 Bay Esplande
Clearwater, F133767
RE: FLS2005-09072 -- 841 BAY ESPLANADE -- Letter of Completeness
Dear John R Huston :
The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the
case number: FLS2005-09072. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has
determined that the application is Complete.
The Development Review Committee (DRC) will review the application for sufficiency on
November 03, 2005, in the Planning Department conference room - Room 216 - on the second floor
of the Municipal Services Building. The building is located at 100 South Myrtle Avenue in
downtown Clearwater. Please call Sherry Watkins, Administrative Analyst, at 727-562-4582 no
earlier than one week prior to the meeting date for the approximate time that your case will be
reviewed. You or your representative (as applicable) must be present to answer any questions that the
DRC may have regarding your application. Additional comments may be generated by the DRC at the
time of the meeting.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 562-4567x2504 or
Scott.Kurleman@myclearwater.com.
Sincerely yours,
Scott Kurleman
Planner II
Letter of Completeness - FLS2005-09072 - 841 BAY ESPLANADE
Oct. 10 2005 02:25PM
YOUR LOGO CityOfClearwater-Plan Dept
YOUR FAX NO. 727 562 4865
NO. OTHER FACSIMILE START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT
01 97816623 Oct.10 02:24PM 00'42 SND 01 OK
TO TURN OFF REPORT, PRESS 'MENU' #04
THEN SELECT OFF BY USING '+' OR '-'.
FOR FAX ADVANTAGE ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CALL 1-800-HELP-FAX (435-7329).
FROM :CityOfClearwater-Plan Dept
camat'er
u
October 03, 2005
John R Huston
841 BayEsplande
Clearwater, F133767
,? 4-a 7?-
FAX NO. :727 562 4865
•
Oct. 03 2005 03:50PMi P1
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MUNIC.TPAL SERVICES BIRLDINU
100 SOTYrH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORTDA 3:3756
TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576
WWW.MYCLEAR)V ATEP,.COM
RE: FLS2005-09072 -- 841 BAY ESPLANADE -- Letter of incompleteness
Dear John R Heston :
The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the
case number: FLS2005-09072, Auer a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has
det ined that the application is tneomplete with the following comments.
Provide complete responses to the 7 Residential Infill Project "Criteria. Residential Tnfill will
permit a front setback to be reduced to 5 feet if the criteria are met.
Need a signed and sealed survey per Section F.
3 Need a tree survey per Section F.
Need a location map per Section F.
Need site data table for existing and proposed development including IMPERMEABLE
SURFACAE RATIO. •(2.)
Need colored building elevations of A Am sides per Section 1. Lpsf, l MPhc-T of IMPRovvtAw 's)
Need photos of existing structure and lot.
Need photos and addresses of similar structures with reduced front setbacks.
Section 4-202 of the Community Development Code states that if an application is deemed
incomplete, the deficiencies of the application shall be specified by Staff. No further development
review action shall be taken until the deficiencies are corrected and the application is deemed
complete. Please resubmit by Tuesday, October 10, 2005 @ Noon.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 562-4567x2504 or
Scott..K.urleman a myclearwatcr.com.
;?4kW WA114A5 E;4,2.-
Sincerely yours,
Scott Kurleman
Planner 11
.,
Lefler uflncumplelenesi ..FLS2005-09072 • 641 11AYF..1Pl.ANAnF,
Clearwater
October 03, 2005
John R Huston
841 Bay Esplande
Clearwater, F133767
*CITY OF CLE)WWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756
TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576
WWW.MYCLEARWATER. COM
RE: FLS2005-09072 -- 841 BAY ESPLANADE -- Letter of Incompleteness
Dear John R Huston :
The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the
case number: FLS2005-09072. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has
determined that the application is Incomplete with the following comments.
1. Provide complete responses to the 7 Residential Infill Project Criteria. Residential Infill will
permit a front setback to be reduced to 5 feet if the criteria are met.
2. Need a signed and sealed survey per Section F.
3. Need a tree survey per Section F.
4. Need a location map per Section F.
5. Need site data table for existing and proposed development including IMPERMEABLE
SURFACAE RATIO.
6. Need colored building elevations of all four sides per Section I.
7. Need photos of existing structure and lot.
8. Need photos and addresses of similar structures with reduced front setbacks.
Section 4-202 of the Community Development Code states that if an application is deemed
incomplete, the deficiencies of the application shall be specified by Staff. No further development
review action shall be taken a iciencies are corrected and the application is deemed
complete. Please resubmit y Monday, ctober 10, 2005 @ Noon
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 562-4567x2504 or
Scott.Kurleman@myclearwater.com.
Sincerely yours,
Scott Kurleman
Planner II
Le. ter of Incompleteness - FLS2005-09072 - 841 BAYESPLANADE
7B1 ?e6z3
Ll
Oct. 03 2005 04:38PM
YOUR LOGO CityOfClearwater-Plan Dept
YOUR FAX NO. 727 562 4865
I
NO. OTHER FACSIMILE START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT
01 97816623 Oct.03 04:37PM 00'48 SND 01 OK
TO TURN OFF REPORT, PRESS 'MENU' #04.
THEN SELECT OFF BY USING '+' OR
FOR FAX ADVANTAGE ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CALL 1-800-HELP-FAX (435-7329).
LL SOCITY OF CLIWWATER
° Clearwater
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
October 03, 2005
> PLANNING DEPARTMENT
100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756
TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576
W W W.MYCLEARWATER. COM
John R Huston
841 Bay Esplande
Clearwater, Fl 33767
RE: FLS2005-09072 -- 841 BAY ESPLANADE -- Letter of Incompleteness
Dear John R Huston :
The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the
case number: FLS2005-09072. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has
determined that the application is Incomplete with the following comments.
1. Provide complete responses to the 7 Residential Infill Project Criteria. Residential Infill will
permit a front setback to be reduced to 5 feet if the criteria are met.
2. Need a signed and sealed survey per Section F.
3. Need a tree survey per Section F.
4. Need a location map per Section F.
5. Need site data table for existing and proposed development including IMPERMEABLE
SURFACAE RATIO.
6. Need colored building elevations of all four sides per Section I.
7. Need photos of existing structure and lot.
8. Need photos and addresses of similar structures with reduced front setbacks.
Section 4-202 of the Community Development Code states that if an application is deemed
incomplete, the deficiencies of the application shall be specified by Staff. No further development
review action shall be taken until the deficiencies are corrected and the application is deemed
complete. Please resubmit by Tuesday, October 10, 2005 @ Noon.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 562-4567x2504 or
Scott.Kurleman@myclearwater.com.
Sincerely yours,
A
Scott Kurleman
Planner II
Letter oflncompleteness - FLS2005-09072 - 841 BAYESPLANADE
w »
Oct. 03 2005 03:50PM
YOUR LOGO City0fClearwater-Plan Dept
YOUR FAX NO. 727 562 4865
NO. OTHER FACSIMILE START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT
01 97816623 Oct.03 03:49PM 00'56 SND 02 OK
TO TURN OFF REPORT, PRESS 'MENU' #04.
THEN SELECT OFF BY USING '+' OR
FOR FAX ADVANTAGE ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CALL 1-800-HELP-FAX (435-7329).
Kurleman, Scott
From: GG Rigsby [ggrigsby2001 @yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 4:57 PM
To: Kurleman, Scott
Subject: RE: variance request at 841 Bay Esplanade, FLS2005-09072
Scott Kurleman
Planner II
City of Clearwater
Planning Department
Scott.Kurleman@myclearwater.com
Nov. 2, 2005
Dear Sirs:
The owners at 841 Bay Esplanade have requested a
variance to build even more structures on a
60-foot-wide lot. We live directly across the street
from that property and we have to vehemently oppose
any such variance for a host of reasons.
First, the lot has almost no "green space" left. It is
our understanding that there must be 35 percent of any
lot available for drainage, plants, grass, and other
requirements. The property at 841 Bay Esplanade
already is way over that limit. While we understand
the need for flexibility in these issues, that
property already has broken city setback rules on at
least three of its four boundaries. It is apparent
from looking at what the owners wish to do that they
will decrease even further what little green space is
left. We do not want our yard or property to become
the only area for rain drainage besides the city
,access point directly south of 841 Bay Esplanade. This
could and probably will lead to more water standing
than already occurs on both Gardenia Street and Bay
Esplanade.
Second, is the addition itself. It is our
understanding that residential properties must have
two parking spots per home. With this addition they
become closer to the street and to the public access
to the south and will undoubtedly block the sidewalk
and no parking areas even more than they already do.
The owners at 841 Bay Esplanade already park beside
their home, on the city's public access, despite no
parking signs in front of the access and despite the
city ordinance prohibiting parking on grass. They
already routinely violate the no parking area in front
of the public access, and around our home. We have had
to repeatedly ask them, their guests, and contractors
to remove their various vehicles from our side of the
street, which is a no parking area. Police logs should
show we have called numerous times. Nor do we like any
contractor placing their equipment on our property --
which has occurred as well and we have had to call the
police about this as well.
Third, the existing house at 841 Bay Esplanade already
breaks the city's setback rules on at least three of
its four boundaries -- to the north and to the west
and to the south (next to the public access). We are
1
• •
not sure about all the reasons for the city's
development code's setback limits, but we imagine that
part of the goal is to prevent houses from completely
paving over green space, overwhelming their next-door
neighbors, pushing the public away from using the
public access property next door and building a house
that is completely out of character as compared with
the rest of the neighborhood. The property at 841 Bay
Esplanade already has pushed way beyond the maximum
legal limits of its 60-foot by 130-foot lot. Allowing
additional encroachment would only exacerbate an
already bad situation.
Fourth, in addition to the structure's closeness to
the street, the home in question is near the "T" end
of the intersection of Gardenia and Bay Esplanade. The
people parking at 841 Bay Esplanade violate both state
law and city ordinances in regards to parking within
so many feet of an intersection, stop sign and the no
parking signs already in place. With the proposed new
structure, we believe they will cause even more
parking headaches than they cause now.
Fourth, according to the Pinellas County Property Tax
Appraiser, the swimming pool on the property is not
listed on the tax rolls. What other additions and
add-ons have occurred that break city setbacks and
other ordinances and that show up on neither tax rolls
nor with the City of Clearwater Building Department?
Fifth, the owner of 841 Bay Esplanade already parks
his SUV next to the home on the south side, literally
on the public access. The pin for demarcation of city
vs. private property is already under the driveway of
the property at 841 Bay Esplanade. How is it possible
for the public to tell what is public access and what
is private property? If built, the new structure would
only enhance the perception that the city access is
only about 40 feet wide instead of the 60 feet wide it
really is. The Gardenia Street public access is one of
only two public accesses on Bay Esplanade that has
palm trees in the front. The others have guard rails
and signage that make it much clearer where private
property ends and public property begins.
Sixth, we have been trying for months without success
to get the city to replace the missing, northernmost
"public access" sign beside 841 Bay Esplanade. The
sign disappeared during recent construction at that
house. The lack of a sign there prevents the public
from realizing that the access is actually 60 feet
wide - the same width as the property at 841 Bay
Esplanade. Even without the new addition, the house at
that address already encroaches on the public access.
Part of its driveway is on the public access, as well
as many of its plants. Much of the house, its
sidewalks, swimming pool and concrete deck already
break the southern setback guidelines. The owners of
that house use the public city access as their own
private parking lot. City logs should indicate our
efforts on the sign issue in recent months.
Lastly, allow us to also point out that whatever is
decided upon by the city, the owners of 841 Bay
Esplanade have already remodeled their home to a great
extent, pushing the legal boundaries in every
direction. How much more encroachment on the
2
• •
neighbors, the public and the neighborhood should be
allowed? The neighborhood already has put up with a
lot of construction noise, trash thrown in private
yards and noisy construction people.
Thank you for reading this and considering our side of
this variance request. We would appreciate a return
e-mail acknowledging receipt of this letter.
Sincerely,
Mr. and Mrs. George Berta
70 Gardenia St
Clearwater, FL 33767
ggrigsby200l@yahoo.com
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
3
0
0
Kurleman, Scott
From: John Farr Dohnfarr@verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 5:43 PM
To: Kurleman, Scott
Subject: RE: Variance Request FLS2005-09072
Nov. 2, 2005
To: Scott.Kurleman@myclearwater.com
Dear Development Review Committee and Planning
Director:
I believe that the property located at 841 Bay
Esplanade Clearwater, FL 33767 is already
overdeveloped according to our city code. The 60-foot
by 130-foot lot already has too little green space and
the proposed variance, FLS2005-08072, would violate
green space goals even more.
The house at 841 Bay Esplanade also already breaks
city setback rules on three sides. In particular, much
of that house, its driveway, sidewalks, pool and paved
pool deck already encroach on the public access
property to the south.
I thought the city's goal was to bring new
construction in line with current building rules.
Instead, this variance would not only leave in place
structures that violate the code, it would allow even
more violation of the code's setback goals.
Allowing the variance would reduce the southern
setback by 80 percent, in essence giving away about 20
feet of public access waterfront property to a private
property owner for free.
I believe the city must protect its public accesses to
the water for all citizens to use, not allow them to
be crowded by, built upon and parked upon by private
landowners.
Please let me know by e-mail that you have received
this objection.
Sincerely,
John A. Farr
66 Gardenia St.
Clearwater, FL 33767
johnfarr@verizon.net
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
1
• 0
Kurleman, Scott
From: GEORGE BERTA [gberta@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 4:09 PM
To: Kurleman, Scott
Subject: RE: Variance Request at 841 Bay Esplanade, FLS2005-09072
Scott Kurleman
Planner II
City of Clearwater
Planning Department
Scott.Kurleman@myclearwater.com
Nov. 2, 2005
Dear Sirs:
The owners at 841 Bay Esplanade have requested a variance to build even more
structures on a 60-foot-wide lot (FLS2005-09072). We live directly across
the street from that property and we have to vehemently oppose any such
variance for a host of reasons.
First, the lot has almost no "green space" left. It is our understanding
that there must be 35 percent of any lot available for drainage, plants,
grass, and other requirements. The property at 841 Bay Esplanade already is
way over that limit. While we understand the need for flexibility in these
issues, that property already has broken city setback rules on at least
three of its four boundaries. It is apparent from looking at what the owners
wish to do that they will decrease even further what little green space is
left. We do not want our yard or property to become the only area for rain
drainage besides the city access point directly south of 841 Bay Esplanade.
This could and probably will lead to more water standing than already occurs
on both Gardenia Street and Bay Esplanade.
Second, is the addition itself. It is our understanding that residential
properties must have two parking spots per home. With this addition they
become closer to the street and to the public access to the south and will
undoubtedly block the sidewalk and no parking areas even more than they
already do. The owners at 841 Bay Esplanade already park beside their home,
on the city's public access, despite no parking signs in front of the access
and despite the city ordinance prohibiting parking on grass. They already
routinely violate the no parking area in front of the public access, and
around my home. We have had to repeatedly ask them, their guests, and
contractors to remove their various vehicles from our side of the street
which is a no parking area. Police logs should show we have called numerous
times. Nor do we like any contractor placing their equipment on our property
-- which has occurred as well and we have had to call the police about this
as well.
Third, the existing house at 841 Bay Esplanade already breaks the city's
setback rules on at least three of its four boundaries -- to the north and
to the west and to the south (next to the public access). We are not sure
about all the reasons for the city's development code's setback limits, but
we imagine that part of the goal is to prevent houses from completely paving
over green space, overwhelming their next-door neighbors, pushing the public
away from using the public access property and building a house that is
completely out of character as compared with the rest of the neighborhood.
The property at 841 Bay Esplanade already has pushed way beyond the maximum
legal limits of its 60-foot by 130-foot lot. Allowing additional
encroachment would only exacerbate an already bad situation.
Fourth, in addition to the structure's closeness to the street, the home in
question is near the "T" end of the intersection of Gardenia and Bay
Esplanade. The people parking at 841 Bay Esplanade violate both state law
1
and city ordinances in regards4lo parking within so many feet o9an
intersection, stop sign and the no parking signs already in place. With the
proposed new structure, we believe they will cause even more parking
headaches than they cause now.
Fourth, according to the Pinellas County Property Tax Appraiser, the
swimming pool on the property is not listed on the tax rolls. What other
additions and add-ons have occurred that break city ordinances, encroach on
public property and show up on neither tax rolls nor with the City of
Clearwater Building Department?
Fifth, the owner of 841 Bay Esplanade already parks his SUV next to the home
on the south side, literally on the public access. The pin for demarcation
of city vs. private property is already under the driveway of the property
at 841 Bay Esplanade. How is it possible for the public to tell what is
public access and what is private property? If built, the new structure
would only enhance the perception that the city access is only about 40 feet
wide instead of the 60 feet wide it really is. The Gardenia Street public
access is one of only two public accesses on Bay Esplanade that has palm
trees in the front. The others have guard rails and signage that make it
much clearer where private property ends and public property begins.
Sixth, we have been trying for months without success to get the city to
replace the missing, northernmost "public access" sign beside 841 Bay
Esplanade. The sign disappeared during recent construction at that house.
The lack of a sign there prevents the public from realizing that the access
is actually 60 feet wide - the same width as the property at 841 Bay
Esplanade. Even without the new addition, the house at that address already
encroaches on the public access. Part of its driveway is on the public
access, as well as many of its plants. The owners of that house use the
public city access as their own private parking lot. City logs should
indicate our efforts on the sign issue in recent months.
Lastly, allow us to also point out that whatever is decided upon by the
city, the owners of 841 Bay Esplanade have already remodeled their home to a
great extent, pushing the legal boundaries in every direction. How much more
encroachment on the neighbors and public and neighborhood should be allowed?
How much of the construction noise, the trash they've thrown in our yard,
and noisy construction people do we have to put up with?
Thank you for reading this and considering our side of this variance
request. We would appreciate a return e-mail acknowledging receipt of this
letter.
Sincerely,
Mr. and Mrs. George Berta
70 Gardenia St
Clearwater, FL 33767
gberta@hotmail.com
2
Page 1 of 1
0 0 Kurleman, Scott
From: Jeannelokey@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 10:17 AM
To: Kurleman, Scott
Subject: 841 Bay Esplanade Application
RE: Notice of filing of an application for flexible standard development approval at 841 Bay Esplanade (FLS2005-
09072)
Dear Scott Kurleman,
We would like to send our support of the application.
We live at 839 Bay Esplanade and we welcome the restoration of 841 that John and Suzanne have done. Any
further additions will only add to the beauty of their home as well as our neighborhood.
We, along with our other neighbors, wish everyone in our neighborhood would take the time for the improvements
the Huston's have done.
Please approve their request.
Paul and Jeanne Lokey
11/2/2005
Kurleman, Scott
From: Andy Burwell [andy_burwell@msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 2:54 PM
To: Kurleman, Scott
Cc: andy_burwell@msn.com
Subject: 841 Bay Esplanade application
Page 1 of 1
RE: Notice of filing of an application for flexible standard development approval at 841 Bay Esplanade
(FLS2005-09072)
Dear Scott Kurleman,
I would like to voice our support of the application.
We live next door at 845 Bay Esplanade and think that John and Suzanne have done a wonderful job of
restoring 841 Bay Esplanade.
I know their garage addition will do nothing but compliment their home as well as our entire
neighborhood.
I only wish some of our other neighbors cared for their homes like the Huston's do.
Please approve their request.
Andy & Vickie Burwell
ag/
9a9
10/27/2005
i
A7?4 -
? dw.,, st r???S Ala
?? ???,..L 'Vim` °?-. 6??^' `,P'?-'?"?ry.
J? 0 (/ i rr
6??r. r
blaf-tj 11
OCT 3 1 2005
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
C17'-/ OF r,!.FARWATER
409 Cleveland St. • Clearwater, FL 33755 • Phone: (727) 443-4488 • Fax: (727) 461-2374
0
0 CITY OF CLEARWATER
Clearwater PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
u 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756
TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576
W W W . MYC LEARW ATER. C OM
October 17, 2005
RE: NOTICE OF FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR FLEXIBLE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT
APPROVAL AT 841 BAY ESPLANADE (FLS2005-09072)
To Surrounding Property Owners:
As a property owner within 200 feet of 841 BAY ESPLANADE, the City of Clearwater Planning Department
gives notice that an application for Flexible Standard Development approval to reduce the front (south) paper
street setback from 25 feet to 5 feet per section 2-203(B)(C) for a two story addition in the LMDR district..
On November 03, 2005, the Development Review Committee (composed of the City's professional staff) will
review and determine whether the application demonstrates compliance with the City's Community
Development Code. Following that review and determiniation, the Planning Director will issue a
Development Order approving, approving with conditions, or denying the application. The earliest date that
the City will make a decision on the application will be November 03, 2005.
The City encourages you to participate in the review of this application. You may contact me at 562-4567x2504
orScott.Kurleman@myclearwater.com for further information, visit our office to review the files and/or submit
written comments to be considered in the City's review of the application. Please be advised that the applicant
may submit additional or new information regarding this case; which you may review during regular business
hours. However, no further notice will be provided to you should the application be amended.
An appeal of the decision of the Planning Director may be initiated by the applicant or property owners within
the required notice area who present competent substantial evidence at, or prior to, the Development Review
Committee meeting on November 03, 2005 . An appeal must be filed, including an appeal fee, with the
Planning Department within seven days of the date of the Development Order.
Thank you for your interest in the City of Clearwater's development review process. You may access our
Planning Department through the City's website: www.myclearwater.com.
Sincerely yours,
Scott Kurleman
Planner II
Letter of Notification - FLS2005-09072 - 841 BAYESPLANADE
'?> /C\ 473?) ` - yz:)n ct-&-Q-
SATTERWHITE, JON T *BROAD, SUSAN
PO BOX 236 832 NARCISSUS AVE
ROSSVILLE IL 60963 - 0236 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1336
ROWAN, MICHELE
824 NARCISSUS AVE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1336
MANIERRE, CARTER H
MANIERRE, ANN G
850 NARCISSUS AVE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1131
WELPTON, MARY ELIZABETH
462 MAIN ST STE 300
WATERTOWN MA 02472 - 2246
GIANNETTI, ELISABETTA
275 DUNDAS ST WEST
TORONTO ON M5T 1G1 00030 -
CANADA
LEYDEN, MICHAEL J
LEYDEN, MARGARET M
858 NARCISSUS AVE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1131
MITCHELL, LARRY
MITCHELL, LINDA
57 SABLE CT
LAKE SAINT LOUIS MO 63367 -
1609
CHAPEL BY SEA CLEARWATER
BCH C
54 BAY ESPLANADE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1607
BAY ESPLANADE LLC
206 S BRAND BLVD
GLENDALE CA 91204 - 1310
LOKEY, PATSY S
835 BAY ESPLANADE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1302
BURWELL, ROBERT A JR.
845 BAY ESPLANADE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1108
RIGSBY, GWENDOLYN G
BERTA, GEORGE A
70 GARDENIA ST
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1319
DUBE, RAYMOND G
DUBE, MARIE L
829 BAY ESPLANADE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1302
LOKEY, PHILIP E
19820 US HIGHWAY 19 N
CLEARWATER FL 33764 - 5016
LENGWIN, CAROL A
LENGWIN, MARK
855 BAY ESPLANADE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1108
GORNY, PAUL V
GORNY, KERRY L
850 BAY ESPLANADE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1109
DUFFY, JEFFREY S.
CLARKSON, LISA J
830 NARCISSUS AVE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1336
KRIMITSOS, DIMITRIOS
KRIMITSOS, CAROL
48 CONVENT RD
SYOSSET NY 11791 - 3811
KOZIK, ROBERT D
1455 JASMINE WAY
CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 6164
FARR, JOHN A
FARR, ANN M
66 GARDENIA ST
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1316
ALBRECHT,BRUCE
ALBRECHT, YVETTE
840 BAY ESPLANADE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1301
LOKEY, PAUL B
839 BAY ESPLANADE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1302
HUSTON, JOHN R
HUSTON, SUZANNE
841 BAY ESPLANDE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1108
BARTHOLOMEW, JOHN C
BARTHOLOMEW, MARY T
859 BAY ESPLANADE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1108
KOUSATHANAS, ATHANAS D
KOUSATHANAS, MARY P
854 BAY ESPLANADE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1109
OSBURG, STEPHEN C GREENBERG, AARON KAUPE, SANDRA T
OSBURG, SYBIL M 142 BAYSIDE DR 1185 N LAKE WAY
868 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2501 PALM BEACH FL 33480 - 3245
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1110
4
r *?
Clearwater
•
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756
TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576
W W W. MY C LEAR W AT ER. C O M
October 17, 2005
RE: NOTICE OF FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR FLEXIBLE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT
APPROVAL AT 841 BAY ESPLANADE (FLS2005-09072)
To Surrounding Property Owners:
As a property owner within 200 feet of 841 BAY ESPLANADE, the City of Clearwater Planning Department
gives notice that an application for Flexible Standard Development approval to reduce the front (south) paper
street setback from 25 feet to 5 feet per section 2-203(B)(C) for a two story addition in the LMDR district..
On November 03, 2005, the Development Review Committee (composed of the City's professional staff) will
review and determine whether the application demonstrates compliance with the City's Community
Development Code. Following that review and determiniation, the Planning Director will issue a
Development Order approving, approving with conditions, or denying the application. The earliest date that
the City will make a decision on the application will be November 03, 2005.
The City encourages you to participate in the review of this application. You may contact me at 562-4567x2504
orScott.Kurleman@myclearwater.com for further information, visit our office to review the files and/or submit
written comments to be considered in the City's review of the application. Please be advised that the applicant
may submit additional or new information regarding this case; which you may review during regular business
hours. However, no further notice will be provided to you should the application be amended.
An appeal of the decision of the Planning Director may be initiated by the applicant or property owners within
the required notice area who present competent substantial evidence at, or prior to, the Development Review
Committee meeting on November 03, 2005 . An appeal must be filed, including an appeal fee, with the
Planning Department within seven days of the date of the Development Order.
Thank you for your interest in the City of Clearwater's development review process. You may access our
Planning Department through the City's website: www.myclearwater.com.
Sincerely yours, .
Scott Kurleman
Planner II
Letter of Notification - FLS2005-09072 - 841 BAYESPLANADE
G`ITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
4997ER;??, POST ONCE Box 4748
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748
U1
Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition
Doug Williams
P.O. Box 8204
Clearwater, F133758
0
t
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
99,4...... Posr Oma Box 4748
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758 4748
ClearV\i cdoev/ -?
day ?e?2?
[00
awiltoarm i 'q-I 33107
•
n structures or plantings in the sight triangles must be less than 30" in height or have
a' of dear trunk. WMEM
4
A-
4-1
en
,i
C1. •.
0 •
SIGHT VISIBILITY TRIANGLES
0
seawall...
TEIFFNT 1Q'-®„
:
0
9 0
t - IM
._ ? ?' M TYI
I
row-
1
Z-
E
L
yU
N
I
Lv
• z
Q
J
WI
?I
m
Q.1
E GARDENIA STREET
(UNIMPROVED EAST OF BAY ESPLANDE)
01 EXISTING SITE PLAN
SCALE: P a 20'
SITE DATA
TOTAL LAND AREA:
1,849 SQUARE FEET
1
TOTAL GREEN SPACE: 0.2896
2,116 SQUARE FEET 2'1 1 LZ
DD?
? ,p V
° $ E
Z ti7
N E
O V
• 00
n
w 3 ?
oy?.
a
L
a
w
F F F fz U] W
z m O O a.
R: U ?ry F F Vl
a a 3 a a
a
?nwx0?[C
° z F ? o a
°,z a
W
U
w Z
c o
n
H ? M
o
2° Z a_j
?O o
a ~ m °
c v
= go
W
Dare: 11. rr. 05
REF : NONE
Drawn: EKK
Job: 05-36
Sheer
I TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SPACE: 0.129°
5,613 SQUARE FEET 5- • -13
q.Q lr`}1
oL?
oS 1 011
?E
cw Z I
W
?I
z
Q
nn?
?.L
I?
W I
m
I
I
I
E GARDENIA STREET
(UNIMPROVED EAST OF BAY ESPLANDE)
O PROPOSED SITE PLAN
SCALE: P = 20'
SITE DATA
TOTAL LAND AREA:
1,849 SQUARE FEET
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SPACE:
5,585 SQUARE FEET 52 O?
TOTAL CAREEN SPACE:
2,264 SQUARE FEET 2(t Uo
0.1150 =(t(P
02950 . 3q
E
U
L44
}
u
E=4 ys?
? l N E
`d
a Zo
0
.m
oS?kn'
b g=uNj
voti
ti
a
vi A
w
U .Z-i w?" 0
Z N U
O
x
LK
P4 UUE%
ao aw.ax
wE. O ¢fA
0XAaa:cx7
nwxo>?
°zE"?oa
v ¢
W
U
Ld
n
W
W °c M
C Z
0 o
o N m
o
:- = ao 0
W
H
Date: 11. 11.05
REF NONE
Drawn: EKK
Job: 05-30
Shoat A S 2
r ?
?.Z Ztxz I ??b
4v 4
?xca
I a E
qq o ?
IIIID0?lP) Y
//rf ' d IV O U
/ < W
11 . JJJ
e.
e d
° °
d
U- N e e d
W
F-A
`< d el ?mw
0
d d
° ° POOL I ? I ? ° e D
LI / EXISTING ONE I I F H F w
STORY GAR /Q LANTER e' o ~ - w w
GARAGE k? d°.. e u? I ? x
a d d° 6 z z w x
Q I I e.? W6aa<F?
ca Qy
'n 0
?LJIY j a .. e ° zF? O...1
s t? t e _ 6
111A0, 110)
Zk lj d I o d z
mmmmmm?
` N f 1905' M) ??? . ? e
NORTH
Z
a LaJ
to
105-
I Q? a
W °c M
aI I C W _j
SITE DATA ag o
;a 'Amer a
GARDENIA STREET c co TOTAL LAND AMA: 0 =
c-,,, 0 0
(UNIMPROVED EAST OF BAY ESPLANDE)
1,850 SQUARE FEET G)
ME JAM
I m °irTt®
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SPACE: 0 At o . 10.
G?>f1 NONE
kA? 5,181 SQUARE FEET 5`l? 1
EKK
EXISTING SITE PLAN TOTAL GfeEN SPACE: 0349° Shat 05-38
O SCALE: 1" = 20' 1
21063 SQUARE FEET AS 1
\n o "3 q
`? \\ u
a'1 Z 8
°°
° ¢
I I o$?
I N - E
e °° .. I G968' lM) I u a
lwmm now
mmm' (P)
E ti
46, O U
Z ° \•. W PLANTE ¢ ^ n
°
"4 . ° ta•• i fn
W 15PA a 5 ti
`
0 ? eAJ 14%_ rF/ ? ti
IMP 4
°
00 a
Q 4?' a
r .? a
??ua a.a°° ° € a
POOL °
U Z W
H>?
°
7 17 LANTER
leem,
a
.4 4
e
Q
°. xH<ac
"NL
I
m _ M _ I ° >¢Qa E-
° a
°°. °o
I 70 NEW PLANTER c?\7 a z Q
? -f1-11n?[il`
( x L 7A x 5' ismm3' ?n?
z
o a 40
W C M
W .2
O
'm z W
SITE DATA
?o o
GARDENIA STREET o
i ?° E TOTAL LAND AREA:
(UNIMPROVED EAST OF BAY E PLANDE) 1,850 SQUARE FEET OCT ® 2005 a
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SPACE: P R ,0. '0- 05
SQUARE FEET 5sal CRY
F Drown: EKK
I PROPOSED SITE PLAN TOTAL GREEN SPACE: .?; Job: 05-36
Sheet
SCALE: I" = 20' 1 SQUARE FEET 2Z " ?
O ` 2c1 AS 2
4 4
9:25 am Case Number: FLS2005-09 -- 841 BAY ESPLANADE
Owner(s): John R Huston
841 Bay Esplande
Clearwater, 17133767
TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email
Location: 0.18 acres located at the northeast corner of Bay Esplande and Gardenia Street.
Atlas Page: 249A
Zoning District: LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential
Request: Flexible Standard Development approval to reduce the front (south) paper street setback from 25 feet to 5
feet per section 2-203(B)(C) for a two story addition in the LMDR district.
Proposed Use: Detached dwelling
Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition
Association(s): Clearwater, F133761
2544 Frisco Drive
TELEPHONE: 727-725-3345, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: Djw@gte.net
Neighborhood Clearwater Beach Association
Association(s): Clearwater, F133767
100 Devon Dr
TELEPHONE: 443-2168, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: papamurphy@aol.com
Presenter: Scott Kurleman, Planner II
Attendees Included: Neil Thompson, Lenny Rickard, Scott Rice, and Scott Kurleman
S , 1? r
The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments:
General Engineering: l?
1 . 1) No Issues.
Environmental:
1 . No Issues.
Fire:
1 . No Issues.
Harbor Master:
1 . No issues.
Legal:
1 . No issues.
Land Resources:
1 . No Issues.
Landscaping:
1 . No issues.
Parks and Recreation:
1 . No issues - residential property - 2nd story addition
Stormwater:
1 . No Issues.
Solid Waste:
1 . No issues.
Traffic Engineering:
I . No issues.
Planning:
Development Review Agenda - Thursday, November 3, 2005 - Page 6
1 . `Provide complete4onses to the 7 Residential Infill Project Criterwesidential Infill will
permit a front setback to be reduced to 5 feet if the criteria are met.
2 . Need photos and addresses of similar structures with reduced front setbacks.
3 . What is the project value?
4. Provide responses to the flexibility criteria 2-203.B.1. --
5 . Clarify. How is the proposed single family residence in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage,-
density, and character of adjacent properties? Reply to each seperately. Provide specific
addresses.
6. Clarify. How will the new single family residence not discourage or hinder the appropriate
development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof?
7. Clarify. How is the residence consistent with the community character of the immediate vicini
8 . Clarify. How does the single family residence minimize adverse effects, including visual,
acoustic, olfactory, and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties? Reply to each
seperately.
9. 2-303.C.1. Specify... How is the development otherwise impractical w/o deviation gj&? `? Q ; Ct
10. 2-203.C.5. How will it upgrade the immediate vicinity? `"' `l7'
11 . Acknowledge stormwater and traffic impact section.
12. Provide dimensions on building elevation per Section I of the FLS application.
13 . Brick pavers surfaces are not considered pervious; therefore ISR does not meet County
requirements of .35 pervious area.
Other:
No Comments
Notes: Sufficient if enough pervious area is added to achieve an ISR of .65 impervious and .35 pervious. Brick paver surfaces are not
considered pervious.
Development Review Agenda - Thursday, November 3, 2005 - Page 7
wgllmllms?
LJ
Oct. 31 2005 05:12PM
YOUR LOGO CityOfClearwater-Plan Dept
YOUR FAX NO. 727 562 4865
NO. OTHER FACSIMILE START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT
01 97816623 Oct.31 05:12PM 00'52 SND 02 OK
TO TURN OFF REPORT, PRESS 'MENU' #04.
THEN SELECT OFF BY USING '+' OR '-'.
FOR FAX ADVANTAGE ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CALL 1-800-HELP-FAX (435-7329).
0
§ 8-102
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
Historic property means any prehistoric or his-
toric site, building, structure, or other real or
personal property of historic, architectural, or
archaeological value, and designated as such by
the city commission. Historic properties may in-
clude but are not limited to Indian habitations,
ceremonial sites, artifacts, and other properties,
or any part thereof, having intrinsic historical,
architectural, or archaeological value relating to
the history, government and culture of the city.
Historic easement means any easement, restric-
tion, covenant or condition running with the land,
designed to preserve, maintain or enhance all or
part of the existing state of places of historic,
architectural, cultural or archaeological signifi-
cance.
Historic district means a geographically defin-
able area designated as such by the city commis-
sion.
Home occupation means an occupation, craft or
--profession conducted entirely within a dwelling
unit or conducted from a motor vehicle based at a
dwelling unit such that the use is incidental to the
residential use of the dwelling unit and does not
change the residential character of the dwelling
unit.
Horizontal zone means an area in proximity to
the airport with an outer boundary the perimeter
of which is constructed by swinging two arcs, each
with a 5,000-foot radius, from the center of each
end of the primary zone, i.e., 200 feet from the end
of the runway, and enclosed by connecting the
arcs with two lines tangent to such arcs. (See
airport height definition for illustration).
Hospital means an establishment primarily
engaged in providing diagnostic services, exten-
sive medical treatment including surgical ser-
vices, and other services, as well as continuous
nursing services. The establishment has an orga-
nized medical staff on duty 24 hours a day,
inpatient beds. and equipment and facilities to
provide complete health care; may also provide
complete health care emergency room care and
include less intensive medical uses such as con-
valescent and ambulatory care facilities.
Impermeable lot coverage means any perma-
nent installation on or improvement to the natu-
•
ral earth surface which completely or partially
prevents the absorption of precipitation and sur-
face water in a natural manner. Such coverage
shall be expressed as a percentage of the area of
the lot.
Impervious means surface which has been com-
pacted or covered with a layer of material so that
it is highly resistant to infiltration by water,
including surfaces such as compacted sand,
limerock, shell or clay, as well as most convention-
ally surfaced streets, roofs, sidewalks, parking
lots and other similar structures.
Impervious surface ratio (ISR) means a mea-
surement of intensity of hard surfaced develop-
ment on a site. An impervious surface ratio is the
relationship between the total impervious surface
area on a site and the gross land area. The ISR is
calculated by dividing the square footage of the
area of all impervious surfaces on the site by the
square footage of the gross land area.
Indoor recreation/entertainment means a busi-
ness which is open to the public where customers
pay the proprietor for the use or enjoyment of
recreational facilities or equipment within an
enclosed building. This category of use includes:
auditoria, stadiums, bowling alleys, theaters, rac-
quetball facilities, martial arts instruction, gym
facilities, video/electronic game, dance studios,
billiards facilities, health studios and like uses.
Inoperative means not in working condition as
designed, or not capable of being operated law-
fully.
Intensity means the measure of permitted de-
velopment expressed as floor area ratio or density,
or both.
Interval ownership/ timesharing unit means an
overnight accommodation, the ownership or con-
tractual use of which is for a specified period of
time, designed to be utilized as a temporary place
of residence and counted as a hotel room for the
purpose of applying the density standards of this
development code.
Joint access (or shared access) means a drive-
way connecting two or more contiguous sites to
the public street system. '
Supp. No. 1 CD8:16
§ 2-203 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
Section 2-203. Flexible standard develop- criteria set out in this Section and other applica-
ment. ble regulations in Article 3.
The following Level One uses are permitted in
the LMDR District subject to the standards and
Table 2-203. "LMDR" District Flexible Standard Development
Use Min. Lot Size
(sq. ft.) Min. Lot
Width (ft.)
Min. Setbacks (ft.) Max. Height
(ft.) Min. Off-Street
Parking
Front Side Rear(1)
Attached Dwellings 10,000 100 25 10 15 30 1.5/unit
Detached Dwellings 5,000 50 15-25 5 5-15 30 2/unit
Residential Infill Projects(3) n/a n/a 10-25 0-5 0-15 30 1/unit
Utility/Infrastructure Facilities(2) n/a n/a 25 10 15 n/a n/a
(1) Waterfront detached dwellings in LMDR District should be 25 feet except as provided in Article
3 Division 8, section 3-805 and Division 9, section 3-904 and except where adjacent structures on
either side of the parcel proposed for development are setback 20 feet and then the rear setback
shall be 20 feet. The Building Code may require the rear setback to be at least 18 feet from any
seawall.
(2) Utility/infrastructure uses shall not exceed three acres. Any such use, alone or when added to
contiguous like uses which exceed three acres shall require a land use plan map amendment to
Transportation which shall include such uses and all contiguous like uses.
(3) The development standards for residential infill projects are guidelines and may be varied based
on the criteria set forth in Section 2-203(C).
Flexibility Criteria:
A. Attached dwellings.
The parcel proposed for development is a
corner lot and is vacant on the date of
adoption of this Development Code;
2. The buildings are designed with front
setbacks on both streets;
3. Off-street parking is screened from adja-
cent parcels of land by a landscaped wall
or fence of at least four feet in height;
4. No more than two of the front doors of the
dwelling units front on a single street;
5. The development of the attached dwell-
ings does not require the removal of a
protected tree;
6. The dwelling units are contained in no
more than two buildings;
7. The buildings are consistent with the ar-
chitectural style of existing dwellings in
the immediate vicinity of the parcel pro-
posed for development;
8. The parcel proposed for development is
not located in a designated Neighborhood
Conservation District, or if the parcel is
within the boundaries of a designated
Neighborhood Conservation District, the
lot area, lot width and setbacks are not
less than 90 percent of the average lot
area, lot width and setbacks of all im-
proved parcels of land which are located
within the Neighborhood Conservation Im-
mediate Vicinity Area and the height does
not exceed 120 percent of the average
height of buildings and structures located
within the Neighborhood Conservation Im-
mediate Vicinity Area.
B. Detached dwellings.
Front setback:
A determination of the front setback
shall consider the extent to which
Supp. No. 12 CD2:14
C1
•
ZONING DISTRICTS
existing structures in the neighbor-
hood have been constructed to a reg-
ular or uniform set back from the
right-of-way;
The reduction in front setback will
not adversely affect adjacent prop-
erty values.
?J The reduction in front setback is
?C consistent with neighborhood char-
acter; and
S? d The reduction in front setback re-
sults in an efficient house layout.
2. Rear setback:
a. The reduction in rear setback will
allow for the preservation of existing
vegetation which could not other-
wise be preserved; or
b. The reduction in rear setback will
allow the development or redevelop-
ment of a substandard lot which
would otherwise not be feasible; or
c. The reduction results in an efficient
house layout; and
d. The structures located within the
rear setback otherwise required in
the LMDR District are buffered with
landscape material or fences to pro-
tect the privacy and value of adja-
cent properties.
3. Side setback: The reduction in side set-
back will allow for the preservation of
existing vegetation which could not other-
wise be preserved.
(Desidential infill projects:
1. Single-family detached dwellings are the
only permitted use eligible for residential
infill project application;
The development or redevelopment of the
parcel proposed for development is other-
wise impractical without deviations from
one or more of the following: intensity;
other development standards;
§ 2-204
3. The development of the parcel proposed
for development as a residential infill
project will not materially reduce the fair
market value of abutting properties;
4. The uses within the residential infill project
are otherwise permitted in the district;
5. The uses within the residential infill project
are compatible with adjacent land uses;
6. The development of the parcel proposed
for development as a residential infill
project will upgrade the immediate vicin-
ity of the parcel proposed for develop-
ment;
7. The design of the proposed residential
infill project creates a form and function
which enhances the community character
of the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposed for development and the City of
Clearwater as a whole;
8. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required
setbacks, height, off-street parking access
or other development standards are justi-
fied by the benefits to community charac-
ter and the immediate vicinity of the
parcel proposed for development and the
City of Clearwater as a whole.
D. Utility l infrastructure facilities.
1. No above ground structures are located
adjacent to a street right-of-way;
2. Any above ground structure other than
permitted telecommunication towers and
utility distribution lines located on or
along a rear lot line shall be screened
from view by a landscaped opaque wall or
fence which is at least two-thirds the
height of the above ground structure and
shall be landscaped with trees and hedges
which five years after installation will
substantially obscure the fence or wall
and the above ground structure.
(Ord. No. 6526-00, § 1, 6-15-00; Ord. No. 6680-01,
§ 2, 4-5-01; Ord. No. 7413-05, § 3, 5-5-05)
Section 2-204. Flexible development.
The following Level Two uses are permitted in
the LMDR District subject to the standards and
Supp. No. 12 CD2:15
0 •
.•^?
§ 2-203 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
Section 2-203. Flexible standard develop- criteria set out in this Section and other applica-
ment. ble regulations in Article 3.
The following Level One uses are permitted in
the LMDR District subject to the standards and
Table 2-203. "LMDR" District Flexible Standard Development
Use Min. Lot Size
(sq. ft.) Min. Lot
Width (ft.)
Min. Setbacks (ft.) Max. Height
(ft.) Min. Off-Street
Parking
Front Side Rear(1)
Attached Dwellings 10,000 100 25 10 15 30 1.5/unit
Detached Dwellings 5,000 50 15-25 5 5-15, 30 2/unit
Residential Infill Projects(3) n/a n/a 10-25 0-5 0-15 30 1/unit
Utility/Infrastructure Facilities(2) n/a n/a 25 10 15 n/a n/a
(1) Waterfront detached dwellings in LMDR District should be 25 feet except as provided in Article
3 Division 8, section 3-805 and Division 9, section 3-904 and except where adjacent structures on
either side of the parcel proposed for development are setback 20 feet and then the rear setback
shall be 20 feet. The Building Code may require the rear setback to be at least 18 feet from any
seawall.
(2) Utility/infrastructure uses shall not exceed three acres. Any such use, alone or when added to
contiguous like uses which exceed three acres shall require a land use plan map amendment to
Transportation which shall include such uses and all contiguous like uses.
(3) The development standards for residential infill projects are guidelines and may be varied based
on the criteria set forth in Section 2-203(C).
Flexibility Criteria:
A. Attached dwellings.
The parcel proposed for development is a
corner lot and is vacant on the date of
adoption of this Development Code;
2. The buildings are designed with front
setbacks on both streets;
3. Off-street parking is screened from adja-
cent parcels of land by a landscaped wall
or fence of at least four feet in height;
4. No more than two of the front doors of the
dwelling units front on a single street;
5. The development of the attached dwell-
ings does not require the removal of a
protected tree;
6. The dwelling units are contained in no
more than two buildings;
Supp. No. 12 CD2:14
7. The buildings are consistent with the ar-
chitectural style of existing dwellings in
the immediate vicinity of the parcel pro-
posed for development;
8. The parcel proposed for development is
not located in a designated Neighborhood
Conservation District, or if the parcel is
within the boundaries of a designated
Neighborhood Conservation District, the
lot area, lot width and setbacks are not
less than 90 percent of the average lot
area, lot width and setbacks of all im-
proved parcels of land which are located
within the Neighborhood Conservation Im-
mediate Vicinity Area and the height does
not exceed 120 percent of the average
height of buildings and structures located
within the Neighborhood Conservation Im-
mediate Vicinity Area.
B. Detached dwellings.
1. Front setback:
a. A determination of the front setback
shall consider the extent to which
•
ZONING DISTRICTS § 2-204
existing structures in the neighbor- 3. The development of the parcel proposed
hood have been constructed to a reg- for development as a residential infill
ular or uniform set back from the project will not materially reduce the fair
right-of-way; market value of abutting properties;
0
b. The reduction in front setback will
not adversely affect adjacent prop-
erty values.
C. The reduction in front setback is
consistent with neighborhood char-
acter; and
d. The reduction in front setback re-
sults in an efficient house layout.
2. Rear setback:
a. The reduction in rear setback will
allow for the preservation of existing
vegetation which could not other-
wise be preserved; or
b. The reduction in rear setback will
allow the development or redevelop-
ment of a substandard lot which
would otherwise not be feasible; or
c. The reduction results in an efficient
house layout; and
d. The structures located within the
rear setback otherwise required in
the LMDR, District are buffered with
landscape material or fences to pro-
tect the privacy and value of adja-
cent properties.
3. Side setback: The reduction in side set-
back will allow for the preservation of
existing vegetation which could not other-
wise be preserved.
C. Residential infill projects:
1. Single-family detached dwellings are the
only permitted use eligible for residential
infill project application;
The development or redevelopment of the
parcel proposed for development is other-
wise impractical without deviations from
one or more of the following: intensity;
other development standards;
Supp. No. 12
4. The uses within the residential infill project
are otherwise permitted in the district;
5. The uses within the residential infill project
are compatible with adjacent land uses;
6. The development of the parcel proposed
for development as a residential infill
project will upgrade the immediate vicin-
ity of the parcel proposed for develop-
ment;
7. The design of the proposed residential
infill project creates a form and function
which enhances the community character
of the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposed for development and the City of
Clearwater as a whole;
8. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required
setbacks, height, off-street parking access
or other development standards are justi-
fied by the benefits to community charac-
ter and the immediate vicinity of the
parcel proposed for development and the
City of Clearwater as a whole.
D. Utility /infrastructure facilities.
1. No above ground structures are located
adjacent to a street right-of-way;
2. Any above ground structure other than
permitted telecommunication towers and
utility distribution lines located on or
along a rear lot line shall be screened
from view by a landscaped opaque wall or
fence which is at least two-thirds the
height of the above ground structure and
shall be landscaped with trees and hedges
which five years after installation will
substantially obscure the fence or wall
and the above ground structure.
(Ord. No. 6526-00, § 1, 6-15-00; Ord. No. 6680-01,
§ 2, 4-5-01; Ord. No. 7413-05, § 3, 5-5-05)
Section 2-204. Flexible development.
The following Level Two uses are permitted in
the LMDR District subject to the standards and
CD2:15
iipll
^1
i -K F -
•
4
.-,*. _ -1
1p
awr ? ?
000 '
loo,
l
- Li
l
.
ti
1
¦
0 0
porn,
• •
11''i ?i" 111
""°..... ,-;, Ili
I I a
EXHIBIT "A"
E low
F. 1i1J,.,!.
lo}' ' i
i
' a # Iill lisp
•
maim
849 Bruce Street, Clearwater Beach, Fl
fl.: ;,r
821 Bay Esplande, Clearwater Beach, Fl
Ld
01
Q
z
Q
nn?
WI
?I
m
I
I
I
I I I
a'a e .
4-
d I
d X968' cM)
iia saw
mmm cP?
e <. ? NEW PLANTER
rl;ll
I
SITE DATA
E GARDENIA STREET
(UNIMPROVED EAST OF BAY ESPLANDE)
TOTAL LAND AREA:
1,849 SQUARE FEET
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SPACE: 0.1190
5,585 SQUARE FEET
TOTAL GREEN SPACE: 0.299°
2,264 SQUARE FEET
O PROPOSED SITE PLAN
SCALE: P = 20'
E
t
4U
N
W
7
0
$ E
y S [i]
F4 - E
Y 3 ?
oz?-
E o ti
v
? mco
ti
> ?a
a
w
w 6F G. cnw
z m 0 E >
-10 4
WI W IN
?o3a a
w F 0 6 ul
F
? :V CL
°o?:4 wix
wx`0 a
2F?.
p O ]
°z a
na?
W
V
Z
n
o N c M
M
C a
0 's
z
a ~ m °
o j c
W
2
H
Date: 11. 11. 05
REF : NONE
Drawn: EKK
Job: 05-36
Sheet A S 2
W
?I
Q
J
V)
WI
I
W
Co
I
I
I
I
? I 1
<a I
d° I
I
.. d .I '.
° 1969' (MJ
IIIm' !P)
a OI ISPA a
`2
I I
d ° POOL
d °
EXISTING ONE m
STORY
AR
CANTER
e
GARAGE '
q I c '
/? a
I '
i?Y d <
d.
° 1303' (M) -?
4 A rNORTH
E GARDENIA STREET
(UNIMPROVED EAST OF BAY ESPLANDE)
SITE DATA
TOTAL LAND AIREA:
1050 SQUARE FEET
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SPACE:
5,151 SQUARE FEET
TOTAL GREEN SPACE:
$ 2063 SQUARE FEET
o Q)
J-- 0
M
M
0b ? ?
e
try
A
4
034ge
O EXISTING SITE PLAN
SCALE: P = 20'
.I
AkL
Lv
• 4 I
Z
Q
WI
?I
m
? ? ? IIIIDm' lP)
130m3' (M)
•
E GARDENIA STREET
(UNIMPROVED EAST OF BAY ESPLANDE)
OI EXISTING SITE FLAN
SCALE: P - 20'
SITE DATA
TOTAL LAND AREA: p z °
1050 SQUARE FEET 00
m
? o
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SPACE: 0bm- a
0
5,181 SQUARE FEET c.?
m m
;o z
TOTAL GREEN SPACE: 034%
2Aro3 SQUARE FEET
E
°u
u
`u
° $ E
N E
Ey °o u -
• m
u n
E m(V
v n
r T X
O x Li.
? a U N
von
n
?cn m
ti
v
s
0.
W
W d E- UI W
x Z V2 U f Z
o U
a z 3 aw ;
a
2
z a o? m
a oa?U
ooU]wW`a
G g>
x
0 c„ 0 ,.4
z
C?
W
U
Z
a a t40
O 0 M.
o y °c M ,
im -2
C
W
o?
mo
Go o
.:- 10. 10. 05
?[RE's NONE
Shot
W
01
Q
z
Q
W
LLJI
?I
cn
I
I
d
I a I
. da
e - of a
(M)
1
E GARDENIA STREET
(UNIMPROVED EAST OF BAY ESPLANDE)
OI PROPOSED SITE PLAN
SCALE: I" = 20'
SITE DATA
TOTAL LAND AREA: " 1=
1,850 SQUARE FEET OCT 10 2005
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SPACE: PLA DEPARTI
5,154 SQUARE FEET CITY OF CLEARM
TOTAL C BEEN SPACE: 034%
2,666 SQUARE FEET
e
s
U
A 90
Q _ b
O
?sw
N = E
°o u
Q E
Y 3 ?
o=n.
E o
d n
N
v
c
F z w
° x A
w¢E C° uEM-
xz°a
o --
¢ U a `E w
zzw?x
a?¢oA'cn
a?oaa?
m w w a
00
w x a ?
ozE-?oa
U ¢
W
V
Z
c
n
C W mi
?-' Z
O
N m O
i v
=moo
W
2
POT H
10. 10. 05
: NONE
Drawn: EKK
Job: 05-36
Sheet
0 •
§ 2-203 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
Section 2-203. Flexible standard develop- criteria set out in this Section and other applica-
ment. ble regulations in Article 3.
The following Level One uses are permitted in
the LMDR District subject to the standards and
Table 2-203. "LMDR" District Flexible Standard Development
Use Min. Lot Size
(sq. ft.) Min. Lot
Width (ft.)
Min. Setbacks (ft.) Max. Height
(ft.) Min. Off-Street
Parking
Front Side Rear(1)
Attached Dwellings 10,000 100 25 10 15 30 1.5/unit
Detached Dwellings 5,000 50 15-25 5 5-15 30 2/unit
Residential Infill Projects(3) n/a n/a 10-25 0-5 0-15 30 1/unit
UtilityAkfiastructure Facilities(2) n/a n/a 25 10 15 n/a n/a
(1) Waterfront detached dwellings in LMDR District should be 25 feet except as provided in Article
3 Division 8, section 3-805 and Division 9, section 3-904 and except where adjacent structures on
either side of the parcel proposed for development are setback 20 feet and then the rear setback
shall be 20 feet. The Building Code may require the rear setback to be at least 18 feet from any
seawall.
(2) Utility/infrastructure uses shall not exceed three acres. Any such use, alone or when added to
contiguous like uses which exceed three acres shall require a land use plan map amendment to
Transportation which shall include such uses and all contiguous like uses.
(3) The development standards for residential infill projects are guidelines and may be varied based
on the criteria set forth in Section 2-203(C).
Flexibility Criteria:
A. Attached dwellings.
1. The parcel proposed for development is a
corner lot and is vacant on the date of
adoption of this Development Code;
2. The buildings are designed with front
setbacks on both streets;
3. Off-street parking is screened from adja-
cent parcels of land by a landscaped wall
or fence of at least four feet in height;
4. No more than two of the front doors of the
dwelling units front on a single street;
5. The development of the attached dwell-
ings does not require the removal of a
protected tree;
6. The dwelling units are contained in no
more than two buildings;
7. The buildings are consistent with the ar-
chitectural style of existing dwellings in
the immediate vicinity of the parcel pro-
posed for development;
8. The parcel proposed for development is
not located in a designated Neighborhood
Conservation District, or if the parcel is
within the boundaries of a designated
Neighborhood Conservation District, the
lot area, lot width and setbacks are not
less than 90 percent of the average lot
area, lot width and setbacks of all im-
proved parcels of land which are located
within the Neighborhood Conservation Im-
mediate Vicinity Area and the height does
not exceed 120 percent of the average
height of buildings and structures located
within the Neighborhood Conservation Im-
B. Detached dwellings.
1. Front setback:
a. A determination of the front setback
shall consider the extent to which
Supp. No. 12
:14 "1'?? 1.-
11
DISTRICTS
existing structures in the neighbor-
hood have been constructed to a reg-
ular or uniform set back from the
right-of-way;
b. The reduction in front setback will
not adversely affect adjacent prop-
erty values.
C. The reduction in front setback is
consistent with neighborhood char-
acter; and
d. The reduction in front setback re-
sults in an efficient house layout.
2. Rear setback:
a. The reduction in rear setback will
allow for the preservation of existing
vegetation which could not other-
wise be preserved; or
b. The reduction in rear setback will
allow the development or redevelop-
ment of a substandard lot which
would otherwise not be feasible; or
c. The reduction results in an efficient
house layout; and
d. The structures located within the
rear setback otherwise required in
the LMDR District are buffered with
landscape material or fences to pro-
tect the privacy and value of adja-
cent properties.
3. Side setback: The reduction in side set-
back will allow for the preservation of
existing vegetation which could not other-
wise be preserved.
C. Residential infill projects:
1. Single-family detached dwellings are the
only permitted use eligible for residential
infill project application;
2. The development or redevelopment of the
parcel proposed for development is other-
wise impractical without deviations from
one or more of the following: intensity;
other development standards;
§ 2-204
3. The development of the parcel proposed
for development as a residential infill
project will not materially reduce the fair
market value of abutting properties;
k
4. The uses within the residential infill project
are otherwise permitted in the district;
5. The uses within the residential infill project
are compatible with adjacent land uses;
6. The development of the parcel proposed
for development as a residential infill
project will upgrade the immediate vicin-
ity of the parcel proposed for develop-
ment;
7. The design of the proposed residential
infill project creates a form and function
which enhances the community character
of the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposed for development and the City of
Clearwater as a whole;
8. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required
setbacks, height, off-street parking access
or other development standards are justi-
fied by the benefits to community charac-
ter and the immediate vicinity of the
parcel proposed for development and the
City of Clearwater as a whole.
D. Utility /infrastructure facilities.
1. No above ground structures are located
adjacent to a street right-of-way;
2. Any above ground structure other than
permitted telecommunication towers and
utility distribution lines located on or
along a rear lot line shall be screened
from view by a landscaped opaque wall or
fence which is at least two-thirds the
height of the above ground structure and
shall be landscaped with trees and hedges
which five years after installation will
substantially obscure the fence or wall
and the above ground structure.
(Ord. No. 6526-00, § 1, 6-15-00; Ord. No. 6680-01,
§ 2, 4-5-01; Ord. No. 7413-05, § 3, 5-5-05)
Section 2-204. Flexible development.
The following Level Two uses are permitted in
the LMDR District subject to the standards and
Supp. No. 12 CD2:15
• 0
Exhibit "C"
Response #1: The proposed deviations will not increase the intensity. It will remain a single
family residence.
Response #2: The proposed development of the parcel will not reduce the value of the abutting
properties. Existing site value $1,400,000.00. Proposed site value after
improvements $1,550,000.00.
Response #3: The proposed residential addition and renovation complies with all residential use
requirements imposed by the City of Clearwater.
Response #4: This is a single family residential property. All surrounding properties are single
family residences.
Response #5: The proposed building addition to this property will enhance the existing property
in turn enhancing the immediate vicinity. See response to comment #7 in
response letter.
Response #6: The proposed architectural design elements and plan function will enhance the
immediate and surrounding parcels. See response to comment #5 in response
letter.
Response #7: The proposed building addition will increase the value of the property positively
affecting the surrounding market increasing value. See response to comment #5
with respect to character.
•
FROM :CityOfClearwater-Plan Dept
FAX NO. :727 562 4865
LA
Oct. 03 2005 03:50PM P2
1-1ange orxnluete responses to the Raven (7) RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT CRITERIA - Explain h= each criteria Is 2011Aved, In detail:
1. The development or rartaveioprrient of the parcel proposed for dovolopment Is otherwtso Imprarticat without deviations from the Intnnally and
development standards.. '
2. The development of the parcel,propused for development or a residential Inttil project will !not materially reduca1he fair market value of
abutting properties. (Include the existing value of the site and the proposed value of the site with the improvements.)
3. The uses within the residential inflll project are otherwise permitted In the City of. Clearwater.
4. The uses or mix of use within the'resldenttal Infill project are compatlhla with adjacent land uses.
5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential Infili project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel
propossd for development.
6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function that enhances the community character of the Immediate
viclnlty of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole.
.y
7. Flexibility In'regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are juslilled by the benerds to community character and the
Immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole.
* FOR RESPONSES SEE EXHIBIT "C" ATTACHED
Page 3 of 7 - Flexible Oevetopment Application Residential Infill 2005- City of Clearwater
December 12, 2005
AA - 0002921
To: Scott Kurleman
City of Clearwater
Planning Department
Municipal Services Building
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
Re: Additions & Renovations to
The Huston Residence
841 Bay Esplanade
Clearwater, FL 33767
Reference: FLS2005-09072
Dear Mr. Kurleman:
I am writing this letter as a follow up to our telephone conversation earlier this morning. As
discussed, we agree to the following items listed below for improvements to the above referenced
project.
1) A 36" high fence shall be installed along the property line abutting Gardenia St. This
fence shall run from the existing fence at the pool deck to the existing sidewalk. The
fence shall be reduced to 30" high within 20' of the front property line.
2) An evergreen hedge shall be installed on the property side of the new fence referenced
above. This hedge shall be a minimum of 8' tall within 24 months of date of issuance of
building permit.
3) The entire roof system of the residence shall be guttered with all downspouts manifolding
to newly installed dry wells which will be installed on both the north and south sides of the
existing property.
It is understood that a development order will be issued and the above conditions shall be a
requirement for the proposed scope of work prior to the issuance of a building permit for
construction.
1 thank you for your cooperation relative to this !utter. Should you have any questions or
concPrn, ?'- hesitate to call.
Sins
. _r
Presid;
JLO/le
CC: John and Suzanne Huston
32707 US Hwy. 19 0 Palm Harbor, FL 34684 • Phone 727 • 781 • 7525 • Fax 727 • 781 • 6623 • E-mail design@ohveriarch.com
FROM :OLIVERI ARCHITECTS
M „0002021
DATE: 12112/05
TO: Scott Kudeman
CC:
FAX NO. :7277816623
FAX COVER SHEET
FAX #: 727-562-4576
PAGE 1 OF 2 (including cover sheet)
c. 12 2005 02:08PM P1
DEC 12 2005 , I
1EA
PROJ. NAME: Huston Residence
PROJECT #: 05-38
FROM: Joseph L. Olived, AIA
Architect
SENDING ORIGINAL Yes
Signed & sealed letter regarding the additions & renovations
to the Huston Residence at 841 Bay Esplanade, Clearwater
Your Reference # FLS2005-09072
32707 U.S. Hwy 19 • Palm Harbor, FL 34684 • Phone 727-781-7525 - Fax 727-781-6623 • E-mail design@oliveriamh.com
iROM :OLIVERI ARCHITECTS
I
FAX NO. :7277816623
To: Scott Kurleman
City of Clearwater
Planning Department
Municipal Services Building
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
Re: Additions & Renovations to
The Huston Residence
841 Bay N_splanade
Clearwater, FL 33767
Reference: PLS200549072
Dear Mr, Kurleman:
&c. 12 2005 02:09PM P2
I am writing this letter as a follow up to our telephone conversation earlier this morning. As
discussed, we agree to the following items listed below for improvements to the above referenced
project.
1) A 36" high fence shall be installed along the property line abutting Gardenia St. This
fence shall run from the existing fence at the pool deck to the existing sidewalk. The
fence shall be reduced to 30" high within 20' of the front property line.
2) An evergreen hedge shall be installed on the property side of the new fence referenced
above. This hedge shall be a minimum of 8' taU within 24 months of date of issuance of
building permit.
3) The entire roof system of the residence shall be guttered with all downspouts manifolding
to newly installed dry wells which will be installed on both the north and south sides of the
existing property.
It is understood that a development order will be issued and the above conditions shall be a
requirement for the proposed scope of work prior to the issuance of a building permit for
construction.
I thank you for your cooperation relative to this matter. Should you have any questions or
concerns, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely yours,
JLO/le
CC: John and Suzanne Huston
32707 US Hwy. 19 0 Palm Harbor, FL 34684 • Phone 727 . 781 • 7525 • Fax 727 . 781 • 6623 • Frmail desi?mCo?aliveriarch.com
December 12, 2005 AA - 0002921
•
Dec. 13 2005 09:26AM
YOUR LOGO .
YOUR FAX NO. 7275624865
NO. OTHER FACSIMILE START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT
01 97816623 Dec.13 09:25AM . 00'56 SND 02 OK
TO TURN OFF REPORT, PRESS 'MENU' ##04.
THEN SELECT OFF BY USING '+' OR '-'.
FOR FAX POVANTAGE ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CALL 1-800-HELP-FAX (435-7329).
AA - 0002921
November 16, 2005
City of Clearwater
Attn: Scott Kureman
Planning Department
Municipal Services Building
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
Re: Huston Residence
Reference: FLS2005-09072 - 841 Bay Esplanade
Dear Mr. Kurleman:
I am writing this letter in response to your comments dated October 31, 2005 for the above-
referenced project.
Comment 1: Provide complete responses to the 7 Residential Infill Project Criteria.
Residential Infill will permit a front setback to be reduced to 5 feet if the criteria
are met.
Response 1: See revised Residential Infill Project Criteria application enclosed.
Comment 2: Need photos and addresses of similar structures with reduced front setbacks.
Response 2: This property and situation is unique and there are no similar situations in the
immediate area.
Comment 3: What is project value?
Response 3: The estimated construction cost of the proposed scope of work is between
$115,000.00 and $120,000.00.
Comment 4: Provide responses to the flexibility criteria 2-203. B.1
Detached dwellings.
1. Front setback:
a. A determination of the front setback shall consider the extent to
which existing structures in the neighborhood have been
constructed to a regular or uniform set back from the right-of-
way.
Page 1 of 4
32707 US Hwy. 19 • Palm Harbor, FL 34684 • Phone 727 • 781 • 7525 • Fax 727 • 781 • 6623 • E-mail design@oliveriarch.com
•
•
b. The reduction in front setback will not adversely affect adjacent
property values.
C. The reduction in front setback is consistent with neighborhood
character.
d. The reduction in front setback results in an efficient house layout.
Response 4: a. Visually when driving along Bay Esplande, this site appears to
abut a vacant undeveloped residential lot. The unimproved
Gardenia Street in no way appears to be like a R.O.W.
Therefore, the front setback in question is from a theatrical
street that does not exist. The front setback in question appears
visually to be a side. The proposed front (side) setback is in
harmony with the other homes in the immediate community.
b. The reduction of this front setback will not affect adjacent
property values. It will appear from the road to be in harmony
with all of the other residences in the community.
The setback in question appears to be a site setback and not a
front set back. It will be in harmony with the neighboring
properties.
The proposed layout is efficient and in harmony with the adjacent
properties.
Comment 5: Clarify. How is the proposed single family residence in harmony with scale, bulk,
coverage, density, and character of adjacent properties? Reply to each
separately. Provide specific addresses.
Response 5: Scale: The existing single family residence is a two story structure and when
the proposed renovation is complete will remain a two story structure.
This is in harmony with many other two story single family residences
within the immediate vicinity.
Bulk: The proposed two story addition to the existing two story residence
will in fact enhance the aesthetic quality of the existing residence.
The use of positive and negative space in the form of covered
terraces and finished living area will help move the building's facade
creating interest and dimension. The terracing of forms from single
story to two story at the front facade with multiple roof elevations
articulates the building's massing.
Coverage: The proposed addition to the existing residence will somewhat
increase the building footprint and overall percentage of building
versus land area but will in comparison to neighboring properties be
less than others in the immediate vicinity.
Page 2of4
•
•
Comment 9: 2-303.C.1. Specify... How is the development otherwise impractical w/o
deviations?
Response 9: Most new single family residences of the size and scale are accommodated with
a minimum of a two car garage. The existing residence having an unusable
single car garage forces the property owner to park in the front drive. When guest
visit, they have no option but to park in the R.O.W. Should the property be
accommodated with a two car garage the owners will be able to park two
vehicles within allowing space for guest parking in the front drive in lieu of the
R.O.W. Without a deviation to the current setback there is not enough land area
to construct a two car wide garage.
Comment 10: 2-203.C.5. How will it upgrade the immediate vicinity?
Response10: The property addition to the existing residence will accommodate the removal of
an existing unsightly single car visually detached garage. It will when complete,
enhance the existing structure by adding dimension, interest and visual appeal. It
will use current technology with reference to building systems and materials
and will be constructed to today's current and applicable codes. The use of all of
the above will make the property and project stand out above within the
community in a positive way.
Comment 11: Acknowledge stormwater and traffic impact section.
Response 11: Stormwater and traffic impact sections have been acknowledged.
Comment 12: Provide dimensions on building elevation per Section I of the FLS application.
Response 12: See revised building elevation with building heights and dimensions.
Comment 13: Brick paver surfaces are not considered pervious; therefore ISR does not meet
County requirements of .35 pervious area.
Response 13: The existing ISR is .72. Existing impervious areas have been modified to allow
the site when complete with the new scope of work to be at.71. It is
acknowledged that brick surfaces are not considered pervious. See enclosed site
plan referencing I.S.R., Sheets AS1 & AS2 dated 11.11.05.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely Yours,
'OLIVERI ARCHITECTS
AA-0002 21
Jo§PnK'L Oli AIA"
. ARW1-4028
President
r ,.
JLO/gt Page 4 of 4
0 0
Density: The subject property is a single family residence within a community
of single family residences. Each adjacent property is a single family
residence which is the same use. Density will remain unchanged
from current.
Character: The existing single family residence's architectural style is "old
Florida" vernacular. The exterior finishes include materials detailing
and overall architectural style is of what is indigenous of the old
Clearwater Beach area.
* See Exhibits A & B enclosed.
Comment 6: Clarify. How will the new single family residence not discourage or hinder the
appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly
impair the value thereof?
Response 6: The proposed addition is to an already existing single family residence. It will not
affect in any way the development of any surrounding properties. The proposed
improvements to this property will increase the overall size of the existing
residence which will in turn increase the value of the subject property in the real
estate market.
Comment 7: Clarify. How is the residence consistent with the community character of the
immediate vicinity?
Response 7: The residence in question is of old Florida Vernacular Architecture. The exterior
finish materials, detailing and overall architectural style are what is indigenous to
the old Clearwater Beach area. The use of covered porches, large overhangs,
single hung windows, and horizontal siding are elements that define "Old Florida"
Architecture.
Comment 8: Clarify. How does the single family residence minimize adverse effects, including
visual, acoustic, olfactory, and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent
properties? Reply to each separately.
Response 8: Visual: The existing property is a single family residence within a
single family residential neighborhood. Its visual appeal is
superior to that of it's neighboring properties at this time. It
has no adverse affect
to adjacent neighboring properties.
Acoustic: This property has no apparent impact acoustically to the
community of which it resides. It has no adverse affect to
adjacent neighboring properties.
Olfactory: N/A
Hours of operation: The existing property is a single family residence within a
single family residential neighborhood. It will remain the
same. It has not adverse affect to adjacent neighboring
properties.
Page 3 of 4
REVISIONS BY
r,
G? Po
p'e
vPoI
>xw
P
a' ti
<
a
d GQyV s n'
7n
69 5i
tJ
a
F
O?O
V
WW
gL ?FE p]
a :
?osaaa
W ?KaF
t?oa'ao
oom?>a
?
n
zo
?zFVO?
s
uaz
W
U
oZ
.2 'C'a 1, *q,
LAJ
Cr
_J
W 116
Al Z
aI 0
H m 0
0 0
= 00
°
=
U
'O
W
2
H
Date: 10. 10. 05
Scale:/S SHOWN
Project Mgr. DSH
Drown: DSH
Job: 05-36
Sheet
Al
Of Sheets
17
• C? 11 C I I II_? i 1- I 4-
1 11 _ 6
. ? I _ F??•1 ? ? t .i?? • '? d.? ? ?. ???7t ? ?_ I .-? I ? ? ? I I I ? 1 J ` I? 4 ? ? ?
AN f P e' j))? 4 rt I- I I i -- - ?\
Z=A
ILA?l
?- 1 L
lzi
TU
- - --- -_- -_ i - l ?J Ili i - R
L!__? _
0 0? t ' ? ;, _ 1 1
- ?'1/1, )` ,-, - ? Ala-.1,,
,-- '-,.ter -- ?"?•'?l 'Yy?„ ?+'?- ?? ? ? _T..?, „?j?jj '" __"---
101 50UTW ELEVATION
SCALE: 3116" = V-0"
REVISIONS BY
r
y
1? ? J q
Qua
`oB9
W
E
a -
Qm
?Q
w.
W
°?'?
au?FF?
??oF r
3? so
u. z
oze'?o_
a
OQz
W
?Z
Lai
C u n
C?
lJ?
?Z
14
C?
0
M?
« ? 00
I U
W
I
H
Date: 10. 10. 05
Scole:AS SHOWN
Project Mgr. DSH
Drawn: DSH
Job: 05-36
Sheet
A2
Of Sheets
RECEIVED
UL 110 M5
101 SOUTW ELEVATION ,
SCALE: 3116" = I'-0"
REVISIONS BY
k
c
?kE
v
FJ&??
a
?m-
>u
a
•..6 Ft?Ui 'r
=Z V10'-?
UO-}4] pl
?U OFF!/
a03hU5
K
;?QaK`SF
??00.CU
'z
a
co<?
W
V
W
"c O o n
F ? p M
M
°
e a U.
?Z
Al 0 0
a N m
= Go S
M U
W
2
N
Date: 10. 10. 05
Scole:AS SHOWN
Project Mgr. DSH
Drawn:OSH
Job: 05-36
Sheet
A2
Of Sheets
t • •
rsF.i fX - 7' - `R
'riles '
. F i?? ; IR JB ar sy ,
Fa t ?*
PR?4"cKTY + -- "?"
r
?
a..a81?.T"?'I£r?>•.r, a,3_?t4?+- ..L.. ?? c?!ihai'.e -7tl ?".-wsA:._..a.
.: rk
R ECEIVED
Ul"T , 0 2005
0R 1 G IV N PLANNING DEPARTMENT
cav nF ri rAmAturv
s.,
?x?srt?cc, aT?ucrv?c? PtZUrEKTY
W P,
RECEIVED
I
LKJ 1 0 2005
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(:ITV OF t`I FARWATFP
• •
DSCN0081.JPG
10/7/2005
DSCN0086.JPG
10/7/2005
r
ORiCiNt kL
DSCN0085.JPG
10/7/2005
RECEIVED
DSCN0087.JPG
Ufo?7/210 2005
PLANNING ®EPARTME41
•
AI
f-re•ra- - . ?h.? 4 _
1w
t
?z s
DSCN0089.JPG
10/7/2005
DSCN0090.JPG
10/7/2005
,` 4
.
IQW
DSCN0091.JPG
10/7/2005
ORIGINAL
•
RECEIV
?:n
DSCN0093.JPG
10/7/2005
OCT 1 o at, ,
PLANNING ')EPAQTN
CITY OF r? C "n18.
fir, ? '?£r µ ;
•
kL
DSCN0094.JPG
10/7/2005
-'-_
DSCN0095.JPG
10/7/2005
x t ? ? 1' W,?Y Y
DSCN0096.JPG r
""???? DSCN0099.JPG
10/7/2005 10/7/2005
orl
P' L PLANNING DEPAo Div+NT
CROFOr-o- t-
! i
DSCN0101.JPG
10/7/2005
RECEIVF-O
ul"T ^ w,
a 1j a w ANNING DEPulPiwitiml
::QTY 4F (' I; o rc
DSCN0103.JPG
10/7/2005
0
F- -I
V
0
0
SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 29S., RANGE 15E.
A I
I
vl
I
I
so'
I
I
I
I ADJACENT CONC DRIVE I
I I
°'•' a ADJACENT 6' WOOD FENCE ADJACENT 48" CNAlI LINK FENCE
° FOUND
a 30' a' I IN CONIC, v 0.0' 129.68' (M) 2.1 ' 2.4 ` 0.FOUND "X"
° IN SEAWALL
7-7
0.0
'
d s. C °.y °j ' 111.00 ` (P)
.4 16.4 CONC. SLABS CONC.
a, ? WALLS j
?0, a,,, ,° ? i ?4 ` ° G Y 13
ry ° ROOFEDXSLAB a3
32,5'
2000
.ro 2 STORY FRAME " ,.a 4 zo. t' ? a ispA R A
Q; RESIDENCE
22.7' 23.4' A, 4' LO I °'• ° : i ? ? L E A
co N BLOCK 40 o a C
a _ A a°
1 STORY FRAME 10.6' d N
CK
GARAGE O O 11.0' e ,? ? Iti I ??,
INS
o zss' °I.
C6 o
19.7'
l?l 14.0 ` h ° h
I
2? Q CONC. SLAB O ' I A I I ° E9 ° W WODD DOCK p 12.1
0E w a q N °. e QL d•v p 56.4' 1.7'CATWALK
°I
w O ?< 45 ° CO
a" I11.00 (P) m VERED
SIR ° BOAT X \ LIFT w
130.03' (M) FOUND "X" IN
a, CONC. DECK
SCALE: 1"=20'
4 (UNIMPROVED EAST OF BAY ESPLANDE)
o _
d
0
GARDENIA STREET
I FCM 4"
--------------
I
I
I
CERTIFIED TOI JOHN R. AND SUZANNE HOUSTON
MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WITTER CREDIT CORP,
MCFARLAND, FERGUSON AND McMULLEN
ATTORNEYS TITLE INSURANCE FUND, INC.
F.E.M.A. Zone "AE (EL 11)" . Pere
7 c Ina-n-A-n-1
4
0
0
0
FOUND "X"
IN SEAWALL
I II
I I
I
RECEIVED
ucr , o zoos
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A SURVEY OF: LOT 1, BLOCK 40, MANDALAY SUBDIVISION, AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 14, PAGES 32-35, OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA.
EVANS LAND SURVEYING INC.
A 146E
, FL .3 51RE UNIT 8
BELTREES
DUNEDIN, FL 34698 ( (7 727)734-3621
1. DESCRIPTION AS PROVIDED BY CLIENT. SURVEY TYPE DATE _ INV NO
2. SURVEY WAS PERFORMED WITHOUT BENEFIT OF AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE BOUNDARY SURVEY 10109103 03-683
3. OTHER THAN SHOWN ON PLAT THIS FIRM HAS MADE NO ATTEMPT TO RESEARCH
INSTRUMENTS OF RECORD REFLECTING EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY, AND/OR
--
4. OWNERSHIP THAT MAY EAST BUT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY.
NO UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENTS WERE LOCATED.
5. PRINTED DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON DRAWING SUPERCEDE SCALED DIMENSIONS, ITEMS
MAY BE DRAWN OUT OF SCALE TO GRAPHICALLY SHOW ENCROACHMENTS AND/OR
& OVERLAPS.
USE OF THIS SURVEY BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THOSE CERTIFIED TO WILL BE AT THE
RE USERS SOLE RISK, WITHOUT LIABILITY TO THE SURVEYOR.
7. ELEVATIONS ARE BASED UPON NCVD 1929 DATUM. ?-
B. UNLESS OTHERWWSE NOTED, FOUND CORNERS HAVE NO IDENTIFYING CAP OR DISC. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT'THE SURVEY REPRESENTED'HEREON MEETS
CHAPTEOS 61-G17?8•OF THE FLORIDA
THE MINIMUM REOUIREMENTSOF
FCM - FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT
CONC =CONCRETE tf • r
,
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. 7 . r
FIP = FOUND IRON PIPE
ESMT = EASEMENT _
°
P
FPP = FOUND PINCH PIPE
FIR = FOUND IRON ROD DRN = DRAINAGE
M = MEASURED + j J
A
FN/D= FOUND NAIL IN DISK
CALCULATED
C ,
'?' 'K
CC jb-@?-?
SV/p =
= SET NAIL IN DISK
SI(1 = SET IRON ROD (1/2°) LB#6225
POL
P P = PLAT
D = DEED
3
LARRY' L
VANS
JOHN C
,'81NDER
=
OINT ON LINE
® BEARING BASIS LINE
PCP = PERMANENT CONTROL POINT F = FIELD .
FL REG: N, . 2031E .
? REG. =. 4888
*
PRM m PERMANENT REFERENCE MONUMENT (SURVEY INVAU0 WITHOUT EMBOSSED
L).:
?eez. ?w w
DRAWN BY: JCB CAD FILE: MANDALAY-LOT,1B40 . CRD TILE: MANIB40.Cr5
? 4
ORIGINAL
i
a?
Q?
Q
}
QI
QI
I
I
I
(M)
REQUIRED
--- ------ - -- ^--- --------v
1
1
EXISTING POOL I
CABANA
EXISTING I
POOL DECK EXISTING
------------------- POOL'
------- - - - - -----j
I
TW-5TCW
A
401211191. 1
-------------1
-------------------------
i ?
1 ?
$1 EXISTING
®I DRIVE
e
4
IOa
Q
11100, (P)
r ??rr?r rr rr?rrr?rr??rr rr?sal?
13003, (M)
PROPOSED W-O" LINE OF EXISTING
SETBACK ELEVATED DECK
Cir,41lC7 L¦rN l r4 bT.
f UNIMPROVED)
d
PLAN . ,. j
NORTH
101 PROPOSED ARCNITECTURaL SITE PLAN
SCALE, 1/16" a P-0"
p?
6-16- 0040#0-
EXISTING DOCK
RENSIONS BY
u
Q
?xm
Nryry
F
3
a?za?W
M
°
? z
®_
a
W
V
eQ a?
J Z w li
v§11
=?a
l
w
Dote: 09. 20, 05
Scal*:AS SHOWN
Project Mgr, DSH
Drown: SEH
Job: 05-3e
Sheet
Al
G
of Sheets
r
?g
L L)
OCT 192005
QUA
^
?
° PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT °
SJCS ? E
?$
° - CITY OF Ci EARWATI R r e "
111' (P)
° NEW PLANTER
o [z.
LLJ
'
'I /
U)
? I .e
SPA
.. .
.
Q
a.
?
a
n
Z
e ° 49 I d ?°
e ^
I`
?
® N
l?
C
O
a
J I I
°
? "° n
POOL W
F W
z x
Ljjj .. p
I C]
W
- >
?zt/]OE
S ANTER
<-
° ° ,
0 r Y O r V1
PROPOSED TWO
I I
e' 0 3 a a
STORY RESIDENCE ° w a a °x d F
° a?1=1(L
°
ul) ze-vloa
o
O
-
?.IIIIDO'
(P) NEW PLANTER
°/ °
C\2
a d
? ? em? U d
1211, 6" AND
v' 4" DIA. 0
fQ 0 / - \
a? r
- V
°
OLEANDERS
I -
+
W
ro-
3 - " 41'-0" o
DIA. 8 AND 12" OAK WITH
'
A °> W c
0 CE -
J
C
NOPY
OAK WITH DIA. PALMS 35
25' CANOPY &
C
° W
Z
18" PALMS
X
GARDENIA
E STREET
I6" PALMS °
_
I y
(UNIMPROVED EAST OF BAY ESPLANDE) W
Date: 10. 1 B. 05
REF : NONE
i? • Drawn: RDW
t
' - Job: 05-36
SuR11 Sheet
no [
SCALE: I" = 20' w TS.,
YO -19 -05-