FLS2003-02007
.
.
City of Clearwater
Planning Department Case #FLS 2003-2007
March 5 2003
To Who May It Concerns:
As a property owner of 2977 St. Croix Drive I have no problem with the prosposed
setback realignment of the property of2984 St. Croix Drive to accommodate a
workshop. The shed doesn't affect me or the surrounding area. The area is a dead end
street so there is no traffic concerns. The area landscraped very nicely with bushes and
mulch. I think the board should grant the variance.
If you need any information from me, I am glad to help.
~~
Jim Burbridge
,J"-~ \ "
< \\\\ '-~':"'> \ \\
.,-' "I, '-'~ \. \ \\
.~ '. \.. ",'..-- .'- \\. \\ \\
(;~"\J:;.,~_/- . ~ 1.~\\~\~'~ \
. t,\ ~t>.~ \\ ,- : ,',- \
.\\. \~\ \\\.. '." ,,' .. \ ~"
(\ , ,..- ' >... '
"~ ...... \ ,'"
,\ \ . <(;t,."
. .-<<b'; \ ~.
",,'\':"::.:r{.9:. '.'
~
~ r ';_......
, ~\..ij/"',
l) i~ . ".oJ \
f (c c:; ,. c'?
, =? u: ~.:' I
'-~ Jl l[) " ,
~~J
~
~
~
~
~
n
~
l'\
~
j
~
J'
~I'r)
~M
~
l'.
~i
~~'J
.
''::::
::::
'::::
.-
'-
....::
-
I~:l
1::\'
It
:::1"
"
IiI
U)
j'"-
f')
f')
e
e
Haines, Angel
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Wilson, Denise A.
.Wednesday, March 19,20038:10 AM
Tarapani, Cyndi
Haines, Angel
FW: Application
FYI
;~~~~o~~~~n~~r~:;~~a~:~ii~~: glariS01@tampabay.rr.com]{;\ro\'1
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:33 PM S \J
To: fgerlock@clearwater. fl. com C\ 1-- J
Cc: WHORNE III "'
Sub;ect, FW' Application r;;- 0\ \)
Frank-
l am asking to withdraw my request for a variance for application
#FLS2003-02007. I greatly appreciate all the work you have done and want to
let you know I am grateful for the staff that worked with me and we were
able to clear up any misunderstandings we had.I feel we have a great city
and leaders such as city manager Mr. Horne and will continue my support .
Again Thanks
Greg Larison
1
.
.
Schodtler, John
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Gerlock, Frank
Wednesday, March 19,20038:07 AM
Schodtler, John
FW: Application
Thanks for your efforts on this one.
chip
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Larison [mailto:glarisol@tampabay.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 8:05 AM
To: fgerlock@clearwater-fl.com
Subject: FW: Application
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Larison [mailto:glariso1@tampabay.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:33 PM
To: fgerlock@clearwater.fl.com
Cc: WHORNE
Subject: FW: Application
Frank-
l am asking to withdraw my request for a variance for application
#FLS2003-02007. I greatly appreciate all the work you have done and want to
let you know I arn grateful for the staff that worked with me and we were
able to clear up any misunderstandings we had.I feel we have a great city
and leaders such as city manager Mr. Horne and will continue my support .
Again Thanks
Greg Larison
1
CL WCoverSheet
------r
.
.
FLS2003-02007
2984 ST CROIX DR
Date Received: 2/12/2003
LARISON, GREGORY
ZONING DISTRICT: LMDR
LAND USE: RU
ATLAS PAGE: 264B
P. '," A';\" ,.; D'~<~.:
'.,'..'.....'T~.".. ii\ .. '"
.,;--.- "-~~ '. ~ "
"I,d- =- ED
c\tNO.- '2. \ \l.- \. 03 RECE\V
OAlE-
FEB 1 2 2003
r"1 II ?\l'l1!\l0; f)EP~RTMENT
'\. _ '.~ t, t. '.. . . ,t-rr-n
CIT". CiF CU"',t\\}\}r' '
.
.
CASE #:
DATE RECEIVE l.t z..<>>
RECEIVED BY (staff initials):
ATLAS PAGE #: ~c.(
ZONING DISTRICT:
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: v
SURROUNDING USES OF ADJACENT
PROPERTIES:
NORT~H. ,..,
SOUTH:~_
WEST
EAST:
,
u.
..
o
Planning Department
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 33756
Telephone: 727-562-4567
Fax: 727-562-4865
>-
'::~ ~
o~
~
SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION
SUBMIT 12 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION including
1) collated, 2) stapled and 3) folded sets of site plans
"rii SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE $ 100.00
* NOTE: 13 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS) FEB 12 2003
FLEXIBLE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT A~~MbQlXRTMENT
Single Family (LDR or LMDR only) Residential Infill Project (RCfW O1fl~EARWATER
- PLEASE TYPE OR PRlNT-
A. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A)
APPLICANT NAME: 6R..~DR.. Y L. LAP-. ISD ,,/
MAILING ADDRESS: d.. 91"C * ':S I, c.-. R. c. I X
PHONE NUMBER: 1 ~ '( / ., 9 I - r '6 Dt 9
R:)R.
~L~f=\YL0A.\E-R_ I-"L 33-rs9
\
101...-" 191-o~59
FAX NUMBER:
PROPERTY OWNER(S):
Gr~ORY L.
(Must i ude ALL owners)
q...
.....)0 ANN
LA~ ISDt-J
AGENT NAME:
MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE NUMBER:
FAX NUMBER:
CELL NUMBER:
E-MAIL ADDRESS: GLA.I<.I So I <S;:) IRf"r\f>A GF\Y, rr-, c.~
B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A)
STREET ADDRESS:
~ 9 ~4-
S~cD
a '-f- / .:;:1.. C\ /' I ~ / 7 e, 5 ~ I /00 I /' D .5 Lf. D
';;ST. ~R~l)(
O'R
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PARCEL NUMBER:
l~.~c>a SOt FT. A PP Ra '1--.
(acres, square feet)
PROPOSED USE(S) AND SIZE(S): 5To R. F\ G E. .s h. €., 1:::,) I \' b SQ. F T ,
(number of dwelling units, hotel rooms or square footage of nonresidential use)
PARCEL SIZE:
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST(S): I WIS~ "D RE-PLf\~E. AI\J -uLi0 WonOt. J 9 x. (\0 s.h.€.~
(include all requested code deviations; e.g, reduction in required number of parking spaces, speCific use, etc.)
A.tV~ (f\J'STA.LL F\I\.J II ~ llo qLLJ<nIN Urn Sk.t j:;:) 31.0 INc..J\.ES FRCUt""rl
r'f'\V (.AST PRoPc.S.R:T''( LpvE: NE-X.T To LAlDRllVc:..i.7 DRIvE
Page 1 of 6 - Flexible Standard Development Application Single Family Residential Infill Project- City of Clearwater
-
.
DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TOR), 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 INSU~NCE POLICY, ~ OR AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY
D. WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 3-913.A)
)i' 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. -
By RE..f"'r"\DVtNG:, ""'h..'t.. oLD S~f D cL R~ PLf=\c..t~C.""Y" IT 1..J,Th A ~I::>LaR
C.o-ORr;::,It0P,:\~i0 o.,LUN\.It0LH','""\ sh..E..i::) E..~hp.N'I:.E...S Th.L lQoks Or:: 'Tk.<C
PR.oP~P-..-rY ) PLp.,c:..l:.w Urv D~R. lRR.G~ IR~~S T"~T ..pR.E Vf.I\-lTE" U
C::.Rov.)T~ u..t0 O~R. ,,,-~~ O~ bRASCS ShRu\3>S.
J
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.
IT WILL BE..... -PLR.I:...ED NE..l<.T To Ll=\10RE:../vc:..€ DR. L,0\.-\lc..J, DE..C\.D LI\Jt::::>S
f'\T T"-~ t..vO of mY Pf<,oPe,R.TY.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working inJhe nAiahhnrhnnrl nf the proposed
use.
ih..E ~hE..O WILL Bt... ~E..hl"-JD A
R~~'C... -:':>5 I 1'3 LE
~ t-.J L 'V
IhRou GK
PI
lo FT
GA.T(.
-PRIVP-..c..y
"" CPT
F" E.. I\.JC:. E '
oJ
Loc.'r<...~ C) .
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion.
'TRAFFIc.. IS t"Y'\ INlmAL' LAL..0 Rftuc G.. DR\VE IS
oJ
.....011 h. t:\ N f=\~I:LSS G.PI,"TE:... 10 STE..Ph..E..tvS ~<:"~I::>C'lL.
t'JoT tmT='EoE:: IRAy~\C:-.
F\ OCF\D E..."-..I D
IT L0DuLb
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
.
,"-€. sh ED IS Al.U cY\ I t-.J U rY"\ .- ~o Lo R ~O-Q R D I "-l f'\'\ t.. C> W II"" C"r\ Y
l-\p usE:: ') h I C:::.h G> U PI L \ \' Y c.. (') tv S T R. u c-\ L u .
6, The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts,
on adjacent properties,
1h..E:.. Sh..u:::::, Ie.., AP~or...lmA.TF L'I' <::t( '-t" 'ALL AT \TS IY IS, t-.J~"T
Yf..P..Y VtSRBL\::: 'l3E...~A.uS€ 'i;;)~ \h.~ '\R..€.~S A ~ R:)
P E.. R (C"r\.E, T f. R c (-
~ PLx...\LL'
}\, Provide complete responses to the seven (7) RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT CRITERIA - Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail:
1 . The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the intensity and
development standards.
I~L LOC:P,,\ICW 'O~ \~E: ~hLD \S, I".! At0 A.R'C..F\. \t-\..Pt-r L "-A..VE:. tvD\
6Ef: rJ ABLE.. \0 bRa.......) AI-J y, h.\ NS
DUE:. \0 "\l-d:_ LAR<:::'t. IREES.
Page 2 of 6 - Flexible Standard Development Application Single Family Residentiallnfill Project- City of Clearwater
--
.
2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill 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.)
BY R~PLF\CituG f"'r\'/ QLQ WQoO sh.-r";;;:' (TLRl"C'\.\TE.. ltJF"t..STE..Q) u)tl"h A"-.\
F\lurY"\\~lJ('V"\ J:="A<--r~R-"/ BUILl ShLD , LP\SII"-.}<':::' f'Y\-f'I.~\{ Vf..R.RS) IN R
LO~F\:-T \ ct-J 'Ih A'''- I:::' <;;:), hE, RoW I SE.
Lt.. ~E. \.... E.. C; s .
3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater.
-1..T
IS
\...) So E. 0
A.:s.
A.
S\CRPtbE:.
sh~o.
4. The uses or mix of use within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses.
\~\5
IS
A
S lOR. F\ C-.~
-:::, h. ~ D.
5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposed for development.
:Lr wiLL F\OG \D -YhL VA.Lu..E:.
DF- """"
h.nrn.E
-
6. The design of the proposed residential infill 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.
-=r: r I :s A f= A. c... T", R "f t?--.LJ I \...:T S "'" ~ -a "\ h A. T fY\ E.. G 'T S r-: L C) R \ t::::rf'\
HLLRR\c..f\.N'E R.c.~U\R'Ll"C'\.~(\jTS) t0c:>\ DtuE. \0 RUST 1t'0 F\ ~h.I;:)R'T
IlenE. L\\( E. C)\"\--"f RS ~E.E:.toJ \f\..) VF\R..a~.
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.
":r: "A.vE. C"'l,,-)E:" ~r-:- ,h.E- LP.R~E.ST l ""s, \r-...J DUR ~C")rnrnUt0ITy AS t..0t-.LL
. \.
p.,s, DNE.. oW::- ,\--....t.. lARc:'LST DPlK ",Rn:_S 1f'J Th.'i:.. <::"OUtUI'" ,,,",-AT -P,c...TURlS
Shaw f::\R.E... L0'C.LL \A.~~ t--J ~P\.R.\E. ()~ .~ "T"\~c::'ST Do .\0 UPGRP-..t::::>~
C'Y'\ Y tV €,I Gh.l3oRS 500 IU
E. STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (City of Clearwater Design Criteria Manual and
4-202.A.21 )
o STORMWATER PLAN including the following requirements:
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, toe of slope and outlet control structure;
Stormwater calculations for attenuation and water quality;
Signature of Florida registered Professional Engineer on all plans and calculations
o COPY OF PERMIT INQUIRY LETTER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT SUBMITTAL
(SWFWMD approval is required prior to issuance of City Building Permit), if applicable
o COPY OF STATE AND COUNTY STORMWATER SYSTEM TIE-IN PERMIT APPLICATIONS, if applicable
Page 3 of 6 - Flexible Standard Development Application Single Family Residential Infill Project- City of Clearw ater
e
.
8. Accessory Uses Addendum:
Division 2. Accessory Use/Structures Section 3-201. General.
1. This is a storage shed adjacent to residence.
2. Storage shed is 176 sq. ft. to be placed in an area of approximately 12,200 sq. ft.
3. It is used as a storage shed.
4. Storage shed will be installed 36 inches from my east property line behind a 6 ft.
privacy fence, 28 ft behind the front edge of my residence.
5. Storage shed is 176 sq. ft; residence is 1830 sq. ft and does not include 320 sq. ft.
covered patio.
6. The storage shed is a separate structure installed behind a 6 ft. privacy fence only
accessible through a locked gate.
7. It is used as a storage shed.
8. Shed is 9 ft. 4 inches tall at it peak.
9. Shed is aluminum constructed that meets Florida hurricane requirements.
10.NA
11. NA
e
SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 4-202.A)
SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (including legal description of property) - One original and 12 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);
LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY;
o 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 w ill be used in determining whether or not
deviations to the parking standards are approved;
o GRADING PLAN, as applicable;
o PRELIMINARY PLAT, as required (Note: Building permits will not be issued until evidence of recording a final plat is provided);
o COPY OF RECORDED PLAT, as a Iicable"
G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A)
~
SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36"):
All dimensions;
North arrow;
Engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet), and date prepared;
Location map;
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;
All required setbacks;
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;
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 onsite and offsite storm-water management facilities;
Location of all outdoor lighting fixtures; and
Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks.
o
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 (FAR.) for all nonresidential uses.
o
REDUCED SITE PLAN to scale (8 % X 11) and color rendering if possible;
o
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 such trees.
Page 4 of 6 - Flexible Standard Development Application Single Family Residentiallnfill Project- City of Clearwater
.
.
.-
H. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-1102.A)
o
LANDSCAPE PLAN:
All existing and proposed structures;
Names of abutting streets;
Drainage and retention areas including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations;
Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscape buffers;
Sight visibility triangles;
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 dripline;
Location, size, description, specifications and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and
common names;
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.
o
REDUCED LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8 Y:z X 11) (color rendering if possible);
o
IRRIGATION PLAN (required for level two and three approval);
o
COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, as applicable.
1
I.
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 (e.g. Tourist and Downtown Districts) or as part
of a C~i~tOT~n?JSedev~nSf.€B Residentiallnfill Project.
BUIL~d ELEVATION DRAWINGS - all sides of all buildings including height dimensions, colors and materials;
o
REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATIONS - four sides of building with colors and materials to scale (8 Y:z X 11) (black and white and color rendering, if
possible) as required.
J. SIGNAGE: (Division 19. SIGNS I Section 3-1806)
o All EXISTING freestanding and attached signs; Provide photographs and dimensions (area, height, etc.), indicate whether they will be removed or
to remain.
o All PROPOSED freestanding and attached signs; Provide details including location, size, height, colors, materials and drawing
o Comprehensive Sign Program application, as applicable (separate application and fee required).
o Reduced signage proposal (8 Y:z X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application.
K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4-801.C)
o Include as required if proposed development will degrade the acceptable level of service for any roadway as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan.
Trip generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip General Manual. Refer to Section 4-801
C of the Community Development Code for exceptions to this requirement.
L. SIGNATURE:
I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this
application are true and accurate to the best of my knoYfledge and
authorize City representatives to visit and photograph the property
described in this application.
STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS
S,IIllor,n to . and subscribed before me this l.k:- day of
r e ~r~~yu{ ,A.D. 20..Q.3.... to me and/or by
, who is personally known has
produced f1-)M "Dy-.5 t.:: (~ I".J'e as
identification.
f ;": ..~ Suzanne E Seal
\ /J. ~. * My Commis8lon CC929281
~-<- '''''::.' ExplrqAprlI1..2C1Cl4
N public,
My commission expires:
Page 5 of 6 - Flexible Standard Development Application Single Family Residentiallnfill Project- City of Clearwater
M ~ -= -= . e-
o .; 0 = .; =
0 0 = 0 = .s.
N $. i:l. 0 = i:l. 0 =
-- .... .... "
N 0 = 0 = <.l
= = ~
- lI) = - .... = - ....
-- ? ~ ~ e ~ <.l
N 5
-
- -< -<
-; -;
.... ....
e -= 0
Eo- Q,l E-l
5 ...
.Gl = -
Q,l ... =
.... Q,l 0 Q,l
- g::: '" e
Q,l .... c::
e = ~ 0 ....
Z ~ e ~ ~ 0
= = = ~ :;:;
8 ...... .~
... N 0.
~ 1.0
N 0.
~ - co
"<t Q)
= M
Q,l I =
... 0
&! - '0
0
Q)
e E
z 0
5 :e: u
00 .. -
:::::J
r--- I;: E 0
M = ...
e Q) Q)
~ U 0.=
0
0 co 0
...-
0 J2 lIJ
0 . co
0 ~ e I-c:-c
0 Z -0
0 0 .... ::i!!i .- Q)
0 = acro r.;:::
0 N = wu'"
-... e 0 a.. = 0
0 N ... N <c~c: '-
0 ..... ... - 0
-... -< r-- I-CO~
M N
0 0 Oc:- 0
0 ~ zco= ~
(1)...3: ~
N .....
~ = -.E:::::J
~ e (1)_0
.. Z -0.>-
=1:1: -; .:.: ~.O) -g
... .~ = u co
~
C. = ~ ~
0
.- :'S! co-g
~
~ '" .!.Q ~
~ = ~
~ .s I lIJ .-
.... ':g .- >
Q, ~ ~
.C (/)
... ~ Q)
'" 0 .0
Q,l
Q !i: z
0 .~
(/)
::2 c:
0
j :;:;
Q,l co
-= g
e ....:l
U ~ 0.
= 0.
~ co
.. N 0 .!.Q
Eo- 0 tI
.. J::
Q,l ~ I-
....
~
i:l. tI
r--
0
0
N
0
I
M
e 0 -=
Z 0 ~
N e
~ Q,l (/) .cl U
'" ;.; .... e
5 ~ ....:l Q,l
U .... - ~
Q,l =
....
- e
Q,l
= ....
~ ~
~
.
.
Index of Photos:
1. Displays old wood shed 9 years ago.
2. Facing north on Lawrence Drive, showing tree canopy, gate to Stephens
School service delivery drive.
3. Displays shed behind 6 ft privacy fence with exterior landscaping after
City removed sidewalk to dead end street. I have now placed irrigation to all
landscaping, which will attain a height of approximately 15 ft.
4. Displays tree placement, end of sidewalk, and rear access drive opened by
Countryside Christian Center without community knowledge and acquired
without impact study of traffic flow in our community. They have also built a
school which has increased traffic flow.
5. Displays typical traffic flow during church service days without regard to
community safety for speed and stop signs.
6. Displays neighbor across street, 2977 St. Croix Drive, facing south who
obtained a variance for pool and fence.
7. Displays neighbor at 1775 Lawrence Drive who obtained a variance for
house addition as indicated.
.
.
DRC Meeting Date: March 13, 2003
Case Number: FLS2003-02007
Agenda Item: 11:30 a.m.
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
APPLICANT:
Mr. Grergory L. Larison
LOCATION:
2984 St. Croix Drive
REQUEST:
Flexible Standard Development approval to reduce the front (east)
setback along Lawrence Drive from 25 feet to three feet (to shed), as
part of a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Section 2-
203.C and 3-201.
PLANS REVIEWED:
Site plan submitted by Mr. Larison.
SITE INFORMATION:
PROPERTY SIZE:
0.28 acres; 12,200 square feet
DIMENSIONS OF SITE:
90 feet of width by 127 feet of depth
PROPERTY USE:
Current Use:
Proposed Use:
Single-Family residential
Single-Family residential
PLAN CATEGORY:
RD, Residential Low Classification
ZONING DISTRICT:
LMDR, Low Density Residential District
ADJACENT LAND USES: North: School
West: Single-family residential
East: Single-family residential and Place of worship
South: Single-family residential
CHARACTER OF THE
IMMEDIA TE VICINITY: Single-family dwellings, dominate the immediate vicinity.
DRAFf Staff Report - Development Review Committee - March 13, 2003 - Case FLS2003-02007 _
Page I
.
.
ANALYSIS:
The 0.28-acre site is located at the northwest comer of St. Croix and Lawrence Drives. It is
located within a residentially developed area. The site contains an existing 1,830 square foot,
single-story, single-family dwelling. The site has one, existing driveway along the south property
line (St. Croix Drive).
The proposal includes a 176 square foot shed 9.5 feet in height in association with an existing
single-family dwelling. The proposed shed has replaced a dilapidated 144 square foot (nine feet
by 16 feet), wood shed with new, 176 square foot (11 feet by 16 feet), metal shed. The shed, to be
located in the same location as the existing shed, will be 9.5 feet in height located three feet from
the front (east) property line along Lawrence Drive. Lawrence Drive terminates at the northeast
comer of the subject site. A six-foot, solid wood fence exists along the front (east) property line
along Lawrence Drive and will continue to buffer neighboring properties from the shed. The
proposed shed will otherwise meet all other Code requirements including square footage
limitations. Existing trees preclude the placement of the shed further from the front (east) property
line.
CODE ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS:
There is currently an active code enforcement case associate with the proposed shed not being
constructed with the proper building permit.
A. COMPLIANCE LOW HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (Section 2-201.1):
STANDARD REQUIRED! EXISTING PROPOSED IN
PERMITTED COMPLIANCE?
DENSITY 7.5 dwelling units One dwelling One dwelling Yes
per acre (one unit) unit unit
IMPERVIOUS 0.65 0.34 0.34 Yes
SURFACE
RATIO (ISR)
DRAFf Staff Report - Development Review Committee - March 13, 2003 - Case FLS2003-02007 -
Page 2
e
e
B. FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL INFILL
PROJECTS IN THE LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (Section
2-202.C):
STANDARD PERMITTED! EXISTING PROPOSED IN
REQUIRED COMPLIANCE?
LOT AREA N/A 12,200 square 12,200 square Yes
(minimum) feet feet
LOT WIDTH N/A 80 feet 80 feet Yes
(minimum)
FRONT 10 - 25 feet South: 31 feet to South: 31 feet to Yes
SETBACK house house
East: three East: three
inches feet to inches feet to
shed; 25 feet to shed; 25 feet to
house house
REAR o - 25 feet N/A* N/A* N/A*
SETBACK
SIDE 0- 15 feet North: 30 feet to North: 30 feet to Yes
SETBACK pool pool
West: three feet West: three feet
to pool; five feet to pool; five feet
to house to house
HEIGHT 30 feet 15 feet - house 15 feet - house Yes
maximum 9.5 feet - shed
PARKING Two spaces per Two spaces Two spaces Yes
SPACES unit (two spaces)
minimum
* Under the provisions of Section 3-902.D. corner lots have two front setbacks and two side
setbacks.
C. FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECTS IN THE LOW
MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (Section 2-203.B):
1. Single-family, detached dwellings are the only permitted use eligible for residential
infill project applications;
The proposal includes constructing a 176 square foot single-story shed (9.6 percent of the
floor area of the existing single-family dwelling) at the northeast corner of the site three
feet from the front (east) property line along Lawrence Drive in association with an
existing single-family dwelling.
DRAFf Staff Report - Development Review Committee - March 13, 2003 - Case FLS2003-02007 -
Page 3
.
.
2. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is
otherwise impractical without deviations from the intensity and development
standards;
The shed replaced an existing, dilapidated wood shed. It is 9.5 feet in height located three
feet from the front (east) property line along Lawrence Drive. is otherwise meets all other
Code requirements including but not limited to square footage limitations. Existing trees
preclude the placement of the shed farther to the west. However, there is space available to
the rear of the property that would allow for placement of the shed to meet all requirements
of code. An illegal wood fence six feet in height exists along the front (east) property line
protecting the privacy of the neighboring properties to the east. In addition, Lawrence
Drive terminates at the northeast corner of the subject site. Surrounding properties have
not been similarly developed with like accessory structures.
3. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential inflll project
will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties;
The proposal is not similar in size, scale and placement to other accessory structures on
surrounding properties in the neighborhood. A solid, wood fence six feet in height exists
along the front (east) property line which should protect the privacy of the abutting
property to the east.
4. The uses within the residential inflll project are otherwise permitted in the district;
The site is zoned Low Medium Density Residential District and the proposed accessory
structure and use will be in compliance with the zoning. Surrounding properties include
single-family residential dwellings with associated accessory structures including sheds
and located in compliance with code. The shed is not in keeping with the existing
character of the neighborhood.
5. The uses within the residential inflll project are compatible with adjacent lands uses;
Adjacent land uses are predominantly single-family residential dwellings. The subject site
is a single-family dwelling and that use will not change with this proposal. The proposal is
compatible with adjacent land uses.
6. 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 will be buffered with a six foot, solid wood fence and landscaping.
DRAFT Staff Report - Development Review Committee - March 13,2003 - Case FLS2003-02007 -
Page 4
.
.
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;
The proposal includes a 176 square foot shed. It is consistent with the Low Medium
Density Residential District and not other developments in the area.
8. 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 development will aesthetically improve the immediate area and Clearwater
as a whole by replacing a deteriorating, wood shed with anew, metal shed. The reduction
in setbacks will be similar is size and scale to other properties in the area.
D. GENERAL APPLICABILITY (Section 3-913): Conditions which are imposed by the
Community Development Coordinator and the Community Development Board
pursuant to a Level One or a Level Two Approval shall ensure that:
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.
The area is characterized with single-family dwellings with a variety of accessory
structures including pools and sheds. This proposal includes a similarly sized and placed
shed in association with an existing single-family dwelling. The development complies
with density and impervious surface ratio standards within the Low Medium Density
Residential District. The site is similar in size and dimension to other properties in the area.
The proposal is not consistent and in harmony with scale, bulk, coverage, density and
character of the adjacent properties.
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.
The site is zoned Low Medium Density Residential District and characterized by single-
family dwellings. The character of the proposed development will not be in compliance
with that zoning classification. The development complies with density and impervious
surface ratio standards within the District.
DRAFT Staff Report - Development Review Committee - March 13, 2003 - Case FLS2003-02007 -
Page 5
.
.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use.
The proposed accessory use should not create any adverse health or safety impacts in the
neighborhood and is permitted in the Low Medium Density Residential District.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion.
The proposal will have no effect on traffic congestion in the area.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
The proposed development is not consistent with the community character of the
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual,
acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties.
The proposal includes constructing a 176 square foot, single-story shed (9.6 percent of the
floor area of the existing single-family dwelling) at the northeast corner of the subject site
in association with an existing single-family dwelling. The level of service on St Croix and
Lawrence Drives will not be degraded.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The application and supporting materials were reviewed by the Development Review Committee
on March 13, 2003. The Planning Department recommends DENIAL of the Flexible Standard
Development application to reduce the front (east) setback along Lawrence Drive from 25 feet to
three feet (to shed), as part of a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Section 2-203.C
and 3-201 for the site at 2984 St. Croix Drive, with the following bases and conditions.
Bases for Denial:
1. The proposal does not comply with the Flexible Development criteria as a Residential Infill
Project per Section 2-203.B.
2. The proposal is not in compliance with other standards in the Code including the General
Applicability Criteria per Section 3-913.
3. The development is not compatible with the surrounding area.
Conditions of Denial:
1. Shed should be relocated with a building permit to rear of property, which will allow it to meet
minimum standard setbacks.
2. The 6 foot wood fence should be relocated with a building permit to accommodate the required
3 foot wide landscape buffer.
Prepared by: Planning Department Staff:
John Schodtler, Development Review Specialist
DRAFT Staff Report - Development Review Committee - March 13, 2003 - Case FLS2003-02007 -
Page 6
.
.
.tt'TII,~
..',\\~LOF THtj(+
..~,~\ "".'J.:rI"'-'~'7p....
....:L,.. ~~~'7'"
~::::::" I ~'" ~..
~~~,\ 1/, '\ ~..
.'1~ ~ 1\ _ ,.' , ~
iIO . ---- ~~-==t:__
r:' ---
"''-4':. .c=_ ___ ~
.....' ~,. _.~.- ~~
""'~~-===- .,~,,:S
":.. . "I;~~~.~' 1"."" ..\
.....rJ'.. "~TM.'J. ~V\~
+++##~TE~'t"..
-#1,.'
CITY OF
CLEARWATER
POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756
TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4865
PIA'lNING DEPARTMENT
February 19, 2003
RE: NOTICE OF FILING OF ANN6E>N FOR FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
AT 2984 ST. CROIX DRIVE (FL82993 92007)
To Surrounding Property Owners:
As a property owner within 200 feet of 2984 S1. Croix Drive, the City of Clearwater Planning Department gives
notice that an application for Flexible Standard Development has been filed for that property. The
request is to reduce the front (east) setback along Lawrence Drive from 25 feet to three feet (to shed),
as part of a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Section 2-203.C and 3-201. The proposal
includes a 176 square foot shed 9.5 feet in height in association with an existing single-family
dwelling.
On March 13, 2003, the Development Review Committee (composed of the City's professional staff) will
review and determine whether the application demonstrates compliance the City's Community Development
Code. Following that review and determination, the Planning Director will issue a Development Order
approving, approving with conditions or denying the application and a copy of this Development Order will be
mailed to you. The earliest date that the City will make a decision on the application will be March 20,2003.
The City encourages you to participate in the review process of this application. You may phone me at 727-
562-4604 x. 2667 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.
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 (March 13, 2003). 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. Please do not hesitate to
contact me should you have any questions. You may access our Planning Department through the City's
website: www.clearwater-fl.com.
~hl
John Schodtler
Development Review Technician
S:\Planning Depanmen^C D B\Standard FleNending Cases\3 - Up far the Next DRClSt Croix 2984 Larison\St Croix 2984 NotificationLetter.doc
BRIAN]. AUNGST, MAYOR-COMMISSIONER
WHITNEY GRAY, VICE MAYOR-COMMISSIONER HoYT HAMILTON, COMMISSIONER
FRANK HIBBARD, COMMISSIONER * BILLjONSOJ'.:, COMMISSIONER
"EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER"
.
.
CITY OF
CLEARWATER
POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756
TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4865
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
February 14,2003
Mr. Gregory Larison
2984 St. Croix Drive
Clearwater, FL 33759
RE: Application for Flexible Standard approval (FLS2oo3-02007) to reduce the front (east) setback
along Lawrence Drive from 25 feet to three feet (to shed), as part of a Residential Infill Project
under the provisions of Section 2-203.C and 3-201.
Dear Mr. Larison:
The Planning staff has reviewed your application to reduce the front (east) setback along Lawrence Drive
from 25 feet to three feet (to shed), as part of a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Section 2-
203.C and 3-201. at 2984 St. Croix Drive. The proposal includes a 176 square foot shed 9.5 feet in height
in association with an existing single-family dwelling. After a preliminary review of the submitted
documents, staff has determined that the application is complete.
Please provide the following:
1. Cell number (if available);
2. Email address (if available); and
3. Signed and sealed survey;
The application has been entered into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number:
FLS2003-02007.
The Development Review Committee (DRC) will review the application for sufficiencv on March 13, 2003
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
Sherrie Nicodemus, 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 committee may have regarding your application.
Additional comments will be generated by the DRC at the time of the meeting.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 727-562-4558.
0'...."'"
"'"....~
Mark Parry
Lead Planner
S:\Planning Departmen^C D B\Standard Flex\Pending Cases\3 - Up for the Next DROSt Croix 2984 Larison\St Croix 2984 complete letter. doc
BRIAN J. AUNGST, MAYOR-COMMISSIONER
WHITNEY GRAY, VICE MAYOR-COMMISSIONER HOYT HAMILTON, COMMISSIONER
FRANK HIBBARD, COMMISSIONER * BILL]ONSON, COMMISSIONER
"EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER"
.
.
Schodtler, John
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Gerlock, Frank
Monday, March 10, 2003 9:30 AM
Schodtler, John
FW: Pre-meeting comments for FLS2003-02007 - 2984 St. Croix Drive.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerlock, Frank
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 9:30 AM
To: Horne, Bill
Subject: RE: Pre-meeting comments for FLS2003-02007 - 2984 St. Croix
Drive.
Bill,
I have spoken with John Schodtler and reviewed the file regarding Mr. Larison's request.
It appears the series of events were 1) the City recieved a compliant about the shed being
built without a permit on 26Au02, 2) Inspection and subsequent "red tag" on 30Ja03 and 3)
Permit Application recieved 12Fe03. The shed was a replacement of an existing shed that
was a nonconforming structure (due to setback).
Our Code requires that in order to approve a request such as this the "applicant needs to
show that the proposed development is consistent with the community character of the
immediate vicinity fo the parcel proposed for development." It has been staff
interpretation that this criteria for this type of request, means that the applicant
should show that there are other encroachments of similiar setbacks within the immediate
vicinity. This is where the application is deficient. Additionally, it should be noted
that if the applicant had made the proper application for the building replacement it
would had been denied. It should also be noted that the applicant does have sufficient
property to place the structure at another location meeting all necessary setbacks. I hope
this helps. I will call the applicant today with explanation.
Frank Gerlock
-----Original Message-----
From: Horne, Bill
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 1:41 PM
To: Gerlock, Frank
Subject: FW: Pre-meeting comments for FLS2003-02007 - 2984 St. Croix
Drive.
Frank,
Ref email below.... . Sounds like Greg understands what we are asking him to do and feels
there may not be precedent to support his request. Would John normally go look at the area
to assess that a common sense judgment is required as Greg has asserted?
Bill Horne
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Larison [mailto:glarisol@tampabay.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:23 AM
To: Schodtler, John
Cc: WHORNE
Subject: RE: Pre-meeting comments for FLS2003-02007 - 2984 St. Croix
Drive.
John-
I understand what you are saying but it is I who starts things in the
1
~_~_u
neighborhood. From putting in4ltd and landscaping to painting,4It new
windows which is a improvement to all of us. Neighbors come to me for help
and advice which I gladly give. I even had to get the city to put up no
dumping signs to prevent people from dumping into our spring fed lake. This
shed is an improvement to my property both in looks and value and even my
privacy fence had to of been okayed before I aquired this site. Where the
shed is sitting is a area that nothing can grow but sand-my alternative is
to destoy an area that fully sodded. I still do not understand what a
variance is if you can not differ from what the book says even though it
would be an improvement to the neighborhood and someone has to set a
precedent. This neighborhood is known as Salls Lake and the address of 1746
St Croix you had in your e-mail I believe is located in the county.
Greg Larison
Salls Lake
-----Original Message-----
From: Schodtler, John [mailto:JSCHODTL@clearwater-fl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 9:41 AM
To: 'Greg Larison'
Subject: RE: Pre-meeting comments for FLS2003-02007 - 2984 St. Croix
Drive.
Mr. Larison,
The sent comments are only a draft. No decision will be made until the
actual date of the Development Review Committee meeting, March 13, 2003.
Your application was received with all of the required documentation to
allow us to accept the application as "complete". However, it is not until
staff reviews the content of the application that a determination can be
made about the applications "sufficiency".
The code requires that the applicant show their request is characteristic of
other properties in their neighborhood. Your submittal does not establish
this. Your request is for a three foot front setback where twenty-five feet
is required. Your application included photo's of a swimming pool and a
single family residence at what appear to be reduced front setbacks
The board will require you to provide documentation of more properties with
reduced front setbacks in your neighborhood to proceed with your request to
be heard on March 13, 2003.
John Schodtler
Clearwater Planning
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Larison [mailto:glariso1@tampabay.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 6:41 PM
To: Schodtler, John
Cc: WHORNE@clearwater-fl.com
Subject: RE: Pre-meeting comments for FLS2003-02007 - 2984 St. Croix
Drive.
Mr. Schodtler -
You are asking for additional information which I do not understand (item
8). I presented you with complete packages including photos showing the new
shed in place that replaced an existing wood shed that was bug infested. I
have worked with the city in removing an existing sidewalk and replaced it
with landscaping that is fast growing and will hide the shed completely. You
have sent letters to my neighbors about my request, and there are no
objections. The street is deadend at my property and was always a dump site
until my wife and myself kept it clean for the neighborhood children to have
a safe place to play. I pointed out variances you gave to my neighbors for
both a swimming pool (within 6 feet)and a large room addition (apporox. 15
feet back) and both of these can be considered obstructions to traffic. Mr.
2
I '
.
Mark Parry, Lead Planner, sen4lle a letter 2/14 stating my app~ation is
complete and now planning is saying information is insufficient(item 8). The
letter also states a review will be on 3/13/03 on the application for
sufficiency-does this e-mail mean you already have decided to decline my
application? You also mentioned a neighborhood association which we have
never been aware of in the fifteen + years we have lived here. The City of
Clearwater appointed me to represent our community during the school
construction upheave I , and both the city and our community was able to get
the school board to give concessions that benefited both our city and our
community. My neighbors can attest to my encouragement of improvements to
our neighborhood.
I am totally disabled and I do have woodworking I do for physical therapy,
and that is why I needed to replace myoId shed with a new aluminum shed to
work in along with swimming exercises 3 times a week. I have worked with
city manager Bill Horne and all of our city council members in the past, and
I will respect and adhere to your decision. I also wish to thank the one
member of the review committee who visited my home and gave me some good
advice about my trees.
Please advise what further information is required by the planning board to
proceed with my request.
Thank you.
Greg Larison
glariso1@tampabay.rr.com
727/797-7399-home
727/797-0859-fax
727/742-0436-cell
-----Original Message-----
From: Schodtler, John [mailto:JSCHODTL@clearwater-fl.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 4:35 PM
To: 'glariso1@tampabay.rr.com'
Subject: Pre-meeting comments for FLS2003-02007 - 2984 St. Croix Drive.
> Mr. Larison,
>
The Development Review Committee had a pre-meeting yesterday morning to
discuss your case.
Below are their comments.
> 9:30 a.m. Case: FLS2003-02007 - 2984 St. Croix Drive.
> Owner/Applicant: Gregory L. Larison (home: 727.797.7399/fax:
> 727.797.0859/email glariso1@tampabay.rr.com)
> Location: The O.28-acre site is located at the northwest corner of
> St. Croix and Lawrence Drives.
> Atlas Page: 264B.
> Zoning: LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District.
> Request: Flexible Standard Development approval to reduce the front
> (east) setback along Lawrence Drive from 25 feet to three feet (to shed),
> as part of a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Section
> 2-203.C and 3-201.
> Present Use: Single-family dwelling.
> Proposed Use: The proposal includes a 176 square foot shed 9.5 feet
> in height in association with an existing single-family dwelling.
> Neighborhood Association(s): Virginia Groves (Paula Clemens 1746 St.
> Croix Dr. Clearwater FL 33759)
> Presenter: John Schodtler, Development Review
> Specialist.
>
> Attendees included:
> City Staff: Mark Parry, Frank Gerlock, Lisa Fierce, Joe Colbert,
> Rick Albee, Wayne Wells, Glen Bahnick and Tom Glenn
> Applicant/Representative: Gregory L. Larison
>
3
> The
> 1.
>
> 2.
>
> 3.
>
> 4.
>
> 5.
>
>
> 6. Landscaping:
> a) No comments
> 7. Parks and Recreation:
> a) No comments
> 8. Planning:
> a) Insufficient information has been given to justify such
> reduction. Either submit additional justification or staff can not
> support requested setback reduction and therefore the structure will need
> to be relocated to meet required twenty-five foot setback from street
> property line.
> 9. Solid waste:
> a) No comments
> 10. Stormwater:
> a) No comments
> 11. Traffic engineering:
> a) No comments
DRC reviewed this
Environmental:
a) No comments
Fire:
a) No comments
General engineering:
a) No comments
Harbor Master:
a) No comments
Land resource:
a) No comments
apPlitltion with the following comment~
>
>
> NOTES:
> 1. Send comments to Gregory L. Larison at
> DRAFT CONDITIONS:
>
4
.
e
Gerlock, Frank
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Horne, Bill
Saturday, March 08, 2003 1 :41 PM
Gerlock, Frank
FW: Pre-meeting comments for FLS2003-02007 - 2984 S1. Croix Drive.
Frank,
Ref email
there may
to assess
below.... . Sounds like Greg understands what we are asking him to do and feels
not be precedent to support his request. Would John normally go look at the area
that a common sense judgment is required as Greg has asser~eaf
Bill Horne
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Larison [mailto:glariso1@tampabay.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:23 AM
To: Schodtler, John
Cc: WHORNE
Subject: RE: Pre-meeting
Drive.
-
~,-ap ""~M' f!.!)
^ /tV, 'I" ~
I~ 'Vi; e.o,..t~.... r
..a w t;1'I# tA-CI t1I6
Croix ()t.b '5~
9" ~ ,,"
€l -
/I'1t /6
_~~MIAJt.a
s,.~~ "...... .s:...J
..... ~ "s~7i.-ftt'
comments for FLS2003-02007 - 2984 St.
John-
I understand what you are saying but it is I who starts things in the
neighborhood. From putting in sod and landscaping to painting, and new
windows which is a improvement to all of us. Neighbors come to me for help
and advice which I gladly give. I even had to get the city to put up no
dumping signs to prevent people from dumping into our spring fed lake. This
shed is an improvement to my property both in looks and value and even my
privacy fence had to of been okayed before I aquired this site. Where the
shed is sitting is a area that nothing can grow but sand-my alternative is
to destoy an area that fully sodded. I still do not understand what a
variance is if you can not differ from what the book says even though it
would be an improvement to the neighborhood and someone has to set a
precedent. This neighborhood is known as Salls Lake and the address of 1746
St Croix you had in your e-mail I believe is located in the county.
Greg Larison
Salls Lake
-OtI'$lf,.", ;--
-----Original Message-----
From: Schodtler, John [mailto:JSCHODTL@clearwater-fl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 9:41 AM
To: 'Greg Larison'
Subject: RE: Pre-meeting comments for FLS2003-02007 - 2984 St. Croix
Drive.
.. lP1 - "'.1
(DJi;..u 0 3
~ s', of,? C7
CD J D.1'A..J 6 3
Mr. Larison,
The sent comments are only a draft. No decision will be made until the
actual date of the Development Review Committee meeting, March 13, 2003.
Your application was received with all of the required documentation to
allow us to accept the application as "complete". However, it is not until
staff reviews the content of the application that a determination can be
made about the applications "sufficiency".
The code requires that the applicant show their request is characteristic of
other properties in their neighborhood. Your submittal does not establish
this. Your request is for a three foot front setback where twenty-five feet
is required. Your application included photo's of a swimming pool and a
single family residence at what appear to be reduced front setbacks
1
.
.
Gerlock, Frank
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Horne, Bill
Saturday, March 08, 2003 1 :41 PM
Gerlock, Frank
FW: Pre-meeting comments for FLS2003-02007 - 2984 S1. Croix Drive.
Importance:
High
Frank,
Ref Mr Larison's email, can't we simply tell him what information we need to assess
whether we can approve his case? Please advise. This person will give us what we want if
he understood what it is we are asking him to provide? Thanks.
Bill Horne
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Larison [mailto:glariso1@tampabay.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 6:41 PM
To: Schodtler, John
Cc: WHORNE@clearwater-fl.com
Subject: RE: Pre-meeting comments for FLS2003-02007 - 2984 St. Croix
Drive.
Mr. Schodtler -
You are asking for additional information which I do not understand (item
8). I presented you with complete packages including photos showing the new
shed in place that replaced an existing wood shed that was bug infested. I
have worked with the city in removing an existing sidewalk and replaced it
with landscaping that is fast growing and will hide the shed completely. You
have sent letters to my neighbors about my request, and there are no
objections. The street is deadend at my property and was always a dump site
until my wife and myself kept it clean for the neighborhood children to have
a safe place to play. I pointed out variances you gave to my neighbors for
both a swimming pool (within 6 feet)and a large room addition (apporox. 15
feet back) and both of these can be considered obstructions to traffic. Mr.
Mark Parry, Lead Planner, sent me a letter 2/14 stating my application is
complete and now planning is saying information is insufficient (item 8). The
letter also states a review will be on 3/13/03 on the application for
sufficiency-does this e-mail mean you already have decided to decline my
application? You also mentioned a neighborhood association which we have
never been aware of in the fifteen + years we have lived here. The City of
Clearwater appointed me to represent our community during the school
construction upheavel, and both the city and our community was able to get
the school board to give concessions that benefited both our city and our
community. My neighbors can attest to my encouragement of improvements to
our neighborhood.
I am totally disabled and I do have woodworking I do for physical therapy,
and that is why I needed to replace myoId shed with a new aluminum shed to
work in along with swimming exercises 3 times a week. I have worked with
city manager Bill Horne and all of our city council members in the past, and
I will respect and adhere to your decision. I also wish to thank the one
member of the review committee who visited my home and gave me some good
advice about my trees.
Please advise what further information is required by the planning board to
proceed with my request.
Thank you.
Greg Larison
glariso1@tampabay.rr.com
727/797-7399-home
727/797-0859-fax
1
~~
I
,
727/742-0436-cell
e
.
-----Original Message-----
From: Schodtler, John [mailto:JSCHODTL@clearwater-fl.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 4:35 PM
To: 'glariso1@tampabay.rr.com'
Subject: Pre-meeting comments for FLS2003-02007 - 2984 St. Croix Drive.
> Mr. Larison,
>
The Development Review Committee had a pre-meeting yesterday morning to
discuss your case.
Below are their comments.
> 9:30 a.m. Case: FLS2003-02007 - 2984 St. Croix Drive.
> Owner/Applicant: Gregory L. Larison (home: 727.797.7399/fax:
> 727.797.0859/email glariso1@tampabay.rr.com)
> Location: The 0.28-acre site is located at the northwest corner of
> St. Croix and Lawrence Drives.
> Atlas Page: 264B.
> Zoning: LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District.
> Request: Flexible Standard Development approval to reduce the front
> (east) setback along Lawrence Drive from 25 feet to three feet (to shed),
> as part of a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Section
> 2-203.C and 3-201.
> Present Use: Single-family dwelling.
> Proposed Use: The proposal includes a 176 square foot shed 9.5 feet
> in height in association with an existing single-family dwelling.
> Neighborhood Association(s): Virginia Groves (Paula Clemens 1746 St.
> Croix Dr. Clearwater FL 33759)
> Presenter: John Schodtler, Development Review
> Specialist.
>
> Attendees included:
> City Staff: Mark Parry, Frank Gerlock, Lisa Fierce, Joe Colbert,
> Rick Albee, Wayne Wells, Glen Bahnick and Tom Glenn
> Applicant/Representative: Gregory L. Larison
>
>
> 5.
>
>
> 6. Landscaping:
> a) No comments
> 7. Parks and Recreation:
> a) No comments
> 8. Planning:
> a) Insufficient information has been given to justify such
> reduction. Either submit additional justification or staff can not
> support requested setback reduction and therefore the structure will need
> to be relocated to meet required twenty-five foot setback from street
> property line.
> 9. Solid waste:
> a) No comments
> 10. Stormwater:
> a) No comments
> 11. Traffic engineering:
DRC reviewed this application with the following comments:
Environmental:
a) No comments
Fire:
a) No comments
General engineering:
a) No comments
Harbor Master:
a) No comments
Land resource:
a) No comments
> The
> 1.
>
> 2.
>
> 3.
>
> 4.
2
a)
e
No comments
>
>
>
> NOTES:
> 1. Send comments to Gregory L. Larison at
> DRAFT CONDITIONS:
>
.
3
'11' e 'd 'f
The board Wl requlre you to provlde ocumentatlon 0 more
reduced front setbacks in your neighborhood to proceed with
be heard on March 13, 2003.
., 'th
propertles Wl
your request to
John Schodtler
Clearwater Planning
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Larison [mailto:glariso1@tampabay.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 6:41 PM
To: Schodtler, John
Cc: WHORNE@clearwater-fl.com
Subject: RE: Pre-meeting comments for FLS2003-02007 - 2984 St. Croix
Drive.
Mr. Schodtler -
You are asking for additional information which I do not understand (item
8). I presented you with complete packages including photos showing the new
shed in place that replaced an existing wood shed that was bug infested. I
have worked with the city in removing an existing sidewalk and replaced it
with landscaping that is fast growing and will hide the shed completely. You
have sent letters to my neighbors about my request, and there are no
objections. The street is deadend at my property and was always a dump site
until my wife and myself kept it clean for the neighborhood children to have
a safe place to play. I pointed out variances you gave to my neighbors for
both a swimming pool {within 6 feet)and a large room addition (apporox. 15
feet back) and both of these can be considered obstructions to traffic. Mr.
Mark Parry, Lead Planner, sent me a letter 2/14 stating my application is
complete and now planning is saying information is insufficient {item 8). The
letter also states a review will be on 3/13/03 on the application for
sufficiency-does this e-mail mean you already have decided to decline my
application? You also mentioned a neighborhood association which we have
never been aware of in the fifteen + years we have lived here. The City of
Clearwater appointed me to represent our community during the school
construction upheavel, and both the city and our community was able to get
the school board to give concessions that benefited both our city and our
community. My neighbors can attest to my encouragement of improvements to
our neighborhood.
I am totally disabled and I do have woodworking I do for physical therapy,
and that is why I needed to replace my old shed with a new aluminum shed to
work in along with swimming exercises 3 times a week. I have worked with
city manager Bill Horne and all of our city council members in the past, and
I will respect and adhere to your decision. I also wish to thank the one
member of the review committee who visited my home and gave me some good
advice about my trees.
Please advise what further information is required by the planning board to
proceed with my request.
Thank you.
Greg Larison
glariso1@tampabay.rr.com
727/797-7399-home
727/797-0859-fax
727/742-0436-cell
-----Original Message-----
From: Schodtler, John [mailto:JSCHODTL@clearwater-fl.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 4:35 PM
To: 'glariso1@tampabay.rr.com'
Subject: Pre-meeting comments for FLS2003-02007 - 2984 St. Croix Drive.
> Mr. Larison,
>
2
The Development Review commit1lt had a pre-meeting yesterday m~ing to
discuss your case.
Below are their comments.
> 9:30 a.m. Case: FLS2003-02007 - 2984 St. Croix Drive.
> Owner/Applicant: Gregory L. Larison (home: 727.797.7399/fax:
> 727.797.0859/email glariso1@tampabay.rr.com)
> Location: The 0.28-acre site is located at the northwest corner of
> St. Croix and Lawrence Drives.
> Atlas Page: 264B.
> Zoning: LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District.
> Request: Flexible Standard Development approval to reduce the front
> (east) setback along Lawrence Drive from 25 feet to three feet (to shed),
> as part of a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Section
> 2-203.C and 3-201.
> Present Use: Single-family dwelling.
> proposed Use: The proposal includes a 176 square foot shed 9.5 feet
> in height in association with an existing single-family dwelling.
> Neighborhood Association(s): Virginia Groves (Paula Clemens 1746 St.
> Croix Dr. Clearwater FL 33759)
> Presenter: John Schodtler, Development Review
> Specialist.
>
> Attendees included:
> City Staff: Mark Parry, Frank Gerlock, Lisa Fierce, Joe Colbert,
> Rick Albee, Wayne Wells, Glen Bahnick and Tom Glenn
> Applicant/Representative: Gregory L. Larison
>
>
> 4.
>
> 5.
>
>
> 6. Landscaping:
> a) No comments
> 7. Parks and Recreation:
> a) No comments
> 8. Planning:
> a) Insufficient information has been given to justify such
> reduction. Either submit additional justification or staff can not
> support requested setback reduction and therefore the structure will need
> to be relocated to meet required twenty-five foot setback from street
> property line.
> 9. Solid waste:
> a) No comments
> 10. Stormwater:
> a) No comments
> 11. Traffic engineering:
> a) No comments
DRC reviewed this application with the following comments:
Environmental:
a) No comments
Fire:
a) No comments
General engineering:
a) No comments
Harbor Master:
a) No comments
Land resource:
a) No comments
> The
> 1.
>
> 2.
>
> 3.
>
>
> NOTES:
> 1. Send comments to Gregory L. Larison at
> DRAFT CONDITIONS:
>
3
.
.
Schodtler, John
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Gerlock, Frank
Tuesday, March 11, 2003 12:44 PM
Schodtler, John
FW: Pre-meeting comments for FLS2003-02007 - 2984 St. Croix Drive.
fyi
-----Original Message-----
From: Horne, Bill
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 4:55 PM
To: Gerlock, Frank
Subject: RE: Pre-meeting comments for FLS2003-02007 - 2984 St. Croix
Drive.
Frank,
Thanks for the feedback. You are on track and I hope Greg understands that he has placed
himself out on a limb. He will be surprised to learn that someone complained and they were
right. If it matters, let him know that we have communicated on his issue.
Bill Horne
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerlock, Frank
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 9:30 AM
To: Horne, Bill
Subject: RE: Pre-meeting comments for FLS2003-02007 - 2984 St. Croix
Drive.
Bill,
I have spoken with John Schodtler and reviewed the file regarding Mr. Larison's request.
It appears the series of events were 1) the City recieved a compliant about the shed being
built without a permit on 26Au02, 2) Inspection and subsequent "red tag" on 30Ja03 and 3)
Permit Application recieved 12Fe03. The shed was a replacement of an existing shed that
was a nonconforming structure (due to setback) .
Our Code requires that in order to approve a request such as this the "applicant needs to
show that the proposed development is consistent with the community character of the
immediate vicinity fo the parcel proposed for development." It has been staff
interpretation that this criteria for this type of request, means that the applicant
should show that there are other encroachments of similiar setbacks within the immediate
vicinity. This is where the application is deficient. Additionally, it should be noted
that if the applicant had made the proper application for the building replacement it
would had been denied. It should also be noted that the applicant does have sufficient
property to place the structure at another location meeting all necessary setbacks. I hope
this helps. I will call the applicant today with explanation.
Frank Gerlock
-----Original Message-----
From: Horne, Bill
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 1:41 PM
To: Gerlock, Frank
Subject: FW: Pre-meeting comments for FLS2003-02007 - 2984 St. Croix
Drive.
Frank,
Ref email below.... . Sounds like Greg understands what we are asking him to do and feels
there may not be precedent to support his request. Would John normally go look at the area
1
to assess that a common sense4ltdgment is required as Greg has4ltserted?
Bill Horne
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Larison [mailto:glariso1@tampabay.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:23 AM
To: Schodtler, John
Cc: WHORNE
Subject: RE: Pre-meeting comments for FLS2003-02007 - 2984 St. Croix
Drive.
John-
I understand what you are saying but it is I who starts things in the
neighborhood. From putting in sod and landscaping to painting,and new
windows which is a improvement to all of us. Neighbors come to me for help
and advice which I gladly give. I even had to get the city to put up no
dumping signs to prevent people from dumping into our spring fed lake. This
shed is an improvement to my property both in looks and value and even my
privacy fence had to of been okayed before I aquired this site. Where the
shed is sitting is a area that nothing can grow but sand-my alternative is
to destoy an area that fully sodded. I still do not understand what a
variance is if you can not differ from what the book says even though it
would be an improvement to the neighborhood and someone has to set a
precedent. This neighborhood is known as Salls Lake and the address of 1746
St Croix you had in your e-mail I believe is located in the county.
Greg Larison
Salls Lake
-----Original Message-----
From: Schodtler, John [mailto:JSCHODTL@clearwater-fl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 9:41 AM
To: 'Greg Larison'
Subject: RE: Pre-meeting comments for FLS2003-02007 - 2984 St. Croix
Drive.
Mr. Larison,
The sent comments are only a draft. No decision will be made until the
actual date of the Development Review Committee meeting, March 13, 2003.
Your application was received with all of the required documentation to
allow us to accept the application as "complete". However, it is not until
staff reviews the content of the application that a determination can be
made about the applications "sufficiency".
The code requires that the applicant show their request is characteristic of
other properties in their neighborhood. Your submittal does not establish
this. Your request is for a three foot front setback where twenty~five feet
is required. Your application included photo's of a swimming pool and a
single family residence at what appear to be reduced front setbacks
The board will require you to provide documentation of more properties with
reduced front setbacks in your neighborhood to proceed with your request to
be heard on March 13, 2003.
John Schodtler
Clearwater Planning
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Larison [mailto:glariso1@tampabay.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 6:41 PM
To: Schodtler, John
Cc: WHORNE@clearwater-fl.com
Subject: RE: Pre-meeting comments for FLS2003-02007 - 2984 St. Croix
2
Drive.
.
.
Mr. Schodtler -
You are asking for additional information which I do not understand (item
8). I presented you with complete packages including photos showing the new
shed in place that replaced an existing wood shed that was bug infested. I
have worked with the city in removing an existing sidewalk and replaced it
with landscaping that is fast growing and will hide the shed completely. You
have sent letters to my neighbors about my request, and there are no
objections. The street is deadend at my property and was always a dump site
until my wife and myself kept it clean for the neighborhood children to have
a safe place to play. I pointed out variances you gave to my neighbors for
both a swimming pool (within 6 feet)and a large room addition (apporox. 15
feet back) and both of these can be considered obstructions to traffic. Mr.
Mark Parry, Lead Planner, sent me a letter 2/14 stating my application is
complete and now planning is saying information is insufficient(item 8). The
letter also states a review will be on 3/13/03 on the application for
sufficiency-does this e-mail mean you already have decided to decline my
application? You also mentioned a neighborhood association which we have
never been aware of in the fifteen + years we have lived here. The City of
Clearwater appointed me to represent our community during the school
construction upheavel, and both the city and our community was able to get
the school board to give concessions that benefited both our city and our
community. My neighbors can attest to my encouragement of improvements to
our neighborhood.
I am totally disabled and I do have woodworking I do for physical therapy,
and that is why I needed to replace myoId shed with a new aluminum shed to
work in along with swimming exercises 3 times a week. I have worked with
city manager Bill Horne and all of our city council members in the past, and
I will respect and adhere to your decision. I also wish to thank the one
member of the review committee who visited my home and gave me some good
advice about my trees.
Please advise what further information is required by the planning board to
proceed with my request.
Thank you.
Greg Larison
glariso1@tampabay.rr.com
727/797-7399-home
727/797-0859-fax
727/742-0436-cell
-----Original Message-----
From: Schodtler, John [mailto:JSCHODTL@clearwater-fl.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 4:35 PM
To: 'glariso1@tampabay.rr.com'
Subject: Pre-meeting comments for FLS2003-02007 - 2984 St. Croix Drive.
> Mr. Larison,
>
The Development Review Committee had a pre-meeting yesterday morning to
discuss your case.
Below are their comments.
> 9:30 a.m. Case: FLS2003-02007 - 2984 St. Croix Drive.
> Owner/Applicant: Gregory L. Larison (home: 727.797.7399/fax:
> 727.797.0859/email glariso1@tampabay.rr.com)
> Location: The 0.28-acre site is located at the northwest corner of
> St. Croix and Lawrence Drives.
> Atlas Page: 264B.
> Zoning: LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential District.
> Request: Flexible Standard Development approval to reduce the front
> (east) setback along Lawrence Drive from 25 feet to three feet (to shed),
3
> as part of a Residential In~l Project under the provisions4lt Section
> 2-203.C and 3-201.
> Present Use: Single-family dwelling.
> Proposed Use: The proposal includes a 176 square foot shed 9.5 feet
> in height in association with an existing single-family dwelling.
> Neighborhood Association{s): Virginia Groves (Paula Clemens 1746 St.
> Croix Dr. Clearwater FL 33759)
> Presenter: John Schodtler, Development Review
> Specialist.
>
> Attendees included:
> City Staff: Mark Parry, Frank Gerlock, Lisa Fierce, Joe Colbert,
> Rick Albee, Wayne Wells, Glen Bahnick and Tom Glenn
> Applicant/Representative: Gregory L. Larison
>
> The
> 1.
>
> 2.
>
> 3.
>
> 4.
>
> 5.
>
>
DRC reviewed this application with the following comments:
Environmental:
a) No comments
Fire:
a) No comments
General engineering:
a) No comments
Harbor Master:
a) No comments
Land resource:
a) No comments
> 6. Landscaping:
> a) No comments
> 7. Parks and Recreation:
> a) No comments
> 8. Planning:
> a) Insufficient information has been given to justify such
> reduction. Either submit additional justification or staff can not
> support requested setback reduction and therefore the structure will need
> to be relocated to meet required twenty-five foot setback from street
> property line.
> 9. Solid waste:
> a) No comments
> 10. Stormwater:
> a) No comments
> 11. Traffic engineering:
> a) No comments
>
>
> NOTES:
> 1. Send comments to Gregory L. Larison at
> DRAFT CONDITIONS:
>
4