FLS2004-05033
~
,
"',
~ Clearwater
-~
v~
Planning Department
100 South Myrtle Avenue
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
o SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION
o SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION Indudlng
1) collated, 2) stapled and 3) folded sets of site plans
o SUBMIT APPUCA1l0N FEE $ 10000
* NOTE 15 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMA1l0N REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS) 0 RIG J N A L
FLEXIBLE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
Single Family (LDR or LMDR only) Residential Infill Project (ReVIsed 11/18/03)
- PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT-
A APPLICANT, PROPERTY PWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION (Code Section 4-202 Al
APPLICANT NAME
ROBERT D, BASHAM
PHONE NUMBER
FAX NUMBER
.FLrn61lj~r.=111'1 nr=-.~
If ~[b;~b~ 'ifIt:U
fvIAr ? R 2UU4
MAILING ADDRESS
2202 N. Westshore Boulevard, #500, Tampa
PROPERTY OWNER(S)
ROBERT D. BASHAM
(Must Lnclude ALL owners as listed on lhe deed - proVide onglnal slgnature(s) on page ~LANN!NG D6?"':1lTr,f~l\ r-
("!~ nr ..... ::: j 1\1 !JH-~l'v
. . ...., \J1l..~.:t,\I""~!I"~ fb .
-H ...... ""t l.l:..- ~
AGENT NAME
HARRY S. CLINE. ESQ.
MAILING ADDRESS
Post Off~ce Box 1669. €learwater. FL 33757
PHONE NUMBER
(727) 441-8966
FAX NUMBER (7 2 7) 442-8470
CEll. NUMBER
E-MAil ADDRESShsc@clw.macfar.com
B PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION (Code Section 4-202 A)
STREET ADDRESS of subject site
, S,l-- _
((40f'rAllff (]>>(
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lot Block 4. MANDALAY SUBDIVISION. Plat Book 14. pageR 32-35.
(,f not I,sled here, please note lhe locat,on of lhls documenlln lhe submittal) Plnellas County. F lor~da
05-29 -15-5466 6-004-( 0 0 \ n
PARCEl NUMBER
PARCEL SIZE 1 ]0' x fiO' fi,nOO/s'l ft . ~Ol
(acres, square feet)
PROPOSED USE(S) AND SIZE(S) ____~~~~.l.:..e..:_J2~.!1L:._E-~~~~_.!lJ:~~1_!:!!!!.~_____~________________-----
(number of dwelling Units, hotel rooms or square footage of nonresldenllal use)
Page 1 of 6 - FleXible Standard Development Application Single Family Resldennallnflll ProJect- City of Clearwater
r)
/
~,
DESCRIPTION OF REOUEST(S)
(1) E6nstructlon front property llne wlthln ten (10') feet of
Attach sh......ts and b... sp...clflC when IdentifYing Ihe request (Include all requested code deviations e 9 reduehon In required number of parking spaces specific use ale)
property line; (2) In-ground pool constructlon and deck at grade wlthln the rear
twenty-flve (25') feat setback from the CCCL, sald pool construction not to cross the
CCCL; and (3) Six (6') foot balcony overhang lUto rear setback
DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (fOR), A PREVlOUSL Y APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,
OR A PREVlOUSLY 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)
o SUBMIT A COPY OF THE T1TLE INSURANCE POLICY, DEED TO THE PROPERTY OR SIGN AFFIDAVIT A nESTING OWNERSHIP (see
page 6)
D WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (Code Sectton 3-913 A)
o ProVide complete responses to the SIX (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA - Explain ~ each cntena IS achieved, In detail
The proposed development 01 the land Will be In harmony With the scae, bulk, coverage, denstty and character of adjacent properties In
which It IS located
SEE ATTACHED
2 The proposed development Will not hinder or discourage the appropnate development and use of adJacent land and bUildings or Significantly
Impair the value thereof
SEE ATTA.GHED
3 The proposed development Will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons reSiding or working In the neighborhood of the proposed
use
SEE ATTACHED
r-::- r=-= ~ r.= n 11.. Il F D
U-~bylbU 'o/J b
l"lf\l ? h LUUlt
4 The proposed development IS deSigned to minimiZe traffic congestion
c:.FF. A 'T"l'A r.mm
... ... "-... '"'- __ ___It. _""'Il""'r\ n~f\.~"""Ii""
1J""lL...i"\\\~I\J~u\':'::ll 'Jl_,~"-\J' n IIII!!;;;.I I
~nv OF Ci ;=:APUVATER
5 The proposed development IS conSistent With the community character of the Immediate VICinity of the parcel proposed for development
SEE ATTACHED
6
The deSign of the proposed development minimiZeS adverse effects, Indudtng vtsual, acoustic and olfactory and hours 01 operalion Impacts,
on adjacent properties
t:li'li'
-,
Page 2 of 6 - FleXible Standard Development ApplicatIOn Single Family ReSidential Inflil ProJect~ City of Clearwater
o Provide complete responses to the seven (7) RESIDENTIAL INFlLL PROJECT CRITERIA - Explain h ow each cntena IS achieved, In detail
The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development IS otherwise Impractical without deviations from the intensity
and development standards
SFF A'l"T'ACHFn
2 The development of the parcel proposed for development as a resldentlallnfill prOject Will not materially reduce the fair market value of
abutting properties (Include the eXisting value 01 the site and the proposed value of the site With the Improvements)
SEE ATTACHED
3 The uses Within the resldentlallnfill project are otherwise permitted In the City of ~i:!:eG~ ~VE D
SEE ATTACHED
l'tll-\ f l) h LUU4
PLA~~! NG DE:n~RTMENT
CiTY Or- ClEA'RWATER
4 The uses or mix of use Within the resldentlallnfill project are compatible With adjacent land uses
SEE ATTACHED
5 The development of the parcel proposed for development as a resldentlallnfill project Will upgrade the Immediate VICinity of the parcel
proposed for development
SEE ATTAr-HED
6 The deSign of the proposed reSldentlallnfil1 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
SEE ATTACHED
Page 3 of 6 - FleXible Standard Development ApplicatIOn Single Family ReSidential InM ProJect- City of Clearwater
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
SEE ATTAr.HED
E STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (City of Clearwater DeSign Cntena 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 detenlion/retentlon area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure,
Stormwater calculations for attenuation and water quality,
Signature of Flonda 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 pnor to Issuance of City BUilding Permit), If applicable
u
'-''-', ,-". ""
IIC-". , ~'''VI'' '"
DE- c~~r\\ ;;~D'
L ~ = '....h'l= Q \:/ b
lVlH J ? R luu4
PLA~~~~ 2G D[p~nTrl/lIENT
Cri'Y OF ClEAi\VVATcR
Page 4 of 6 - FleXible Standard Development Application Single Family Residential Inflll ProJect- City of Clearwater
...--.....
F SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (Code Section 4.202 A)
o SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (mcludlng legal descnptlon of property) - One original and 14 copies,
o TREE SURVEY (including eXisting trees on site and Within 25' of the adjacent site, by species, size (DBH 4' or greater), and location,
mcludlng drip lines and indicating trees to be removed) - please design around the eXlstmg trees,
o LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY,
o PARKING DEMAND STUDY In conjunction With a request to make deViations to the parkmg 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 engmeerlng prinCiples The fmdmgs of the study Will be used m determlnmg whether
or not deviatIOns to the parking standards are approved,
o GRADING PLAN, as applicable,
o PRELIMINARY PLAT, as reqUired (Note BUilding perrT1lts Will not be Issued un~1 eVidence of recording a final plat IS provided),
o COpy OF RECORDED PlAT, as applicable,
G SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (Section 4.202 A)
R~C~~VED
o
SITE PLAN With the follOWing information (not to exceed 24" x 36 ')
All dimenSions,
North arrow,
Englneenng bar scale (minimum scale one mch equals 50 feet), and date prepared,
Locallon map,
Index sheet referenCing individual sheets Included In package
Footpnnt and size of all EXISTING bUildings and structures,
Footpnnt and size of all PROPOSED bUildings and structures,
All reqUired setbacks,
All eXISting and proposed pOints of access,
All reqUIred Sight tnangles,
IdentificatIOn of environmentally unique areas, such as watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, and specimen
trees, including descnpllon and location of understory, ground cover vegetation and Wildlife habitats, etc,
Locallon of all publiC and pnvate easements,
LocatIOn of all street nghls-ol.way within and adJacent to the Site,
Location of eXisting publiC and pnvate utilities, including fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes and lift stations, gas
and water Imes,
All parking spaces, dnveways, loading areas and vehicular use areas,
Depiction by shading or crosshatching of all reqUired parkmg lollntenor 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 (0)(1) and Index #701},
Location of all landscape matenal,
Location of all onslte and off Site storm-water management facllltJes,
Location of all outdoor IlghtJng fixtures, and
Location of all eXisting and proposed Sidewalks
hHr 9 n lUU4
PLAN O\! ~)JG DIEP/\RT~VUc.:NT
CITY OF ClEA.R\NAl ER
o
SITE DATA TABLE for eXisting. reqUired, and proposed development, m wnttenltabular form
Land area m square feet and acres,
Number of EXISTING dwelling unlls,
Number of PROPOSED dwelling units,
Gross floor area devoted to each use,
Parkmg spaces total number, presented I n tabular form With the number of reqUired spaces,
Total paved area, mcludlng all paved parking spaces and dnveways, expressed m square feet and percentage of the paved vehicular
area,
Size and species of all landscape matenal,
OffiCial records book and page numbers of all eXlstmg utility easement,
BUlldmg and structure heights,
Impermeable surface ratio (~S R), and
Floor area ratio (F A R) lor all nonresidential uses
o
REDUCED SITE PLAN to scale (8 Y, X 11) and color rendenng If poSSible,
o
FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, prOVide the followl ng additIonal mformalion on sle plan
Page 5 of 6 - FleXible Standard Development Application Single Family Resldentlallnflll PrOJeGt~ City of Clearwater
/
One-foot contours or spot elevatIOns on site,
Off site elevations If reqUired 10 evaluate Ihe 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 dnves (dimensioned),
BUilding and structural setbacks (dimensioned),
Structural overhangs,
Tree Inventory, prepared by a "certlfied arbonst", of all trees 8" DBH or greater, reflecting Size, canopy (dnp lines) and condition of such
trees
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 Inck..rdlng swales, side slopes and bollom elevations
Delineation and dimenSions of all reqUIred penmeter landscape buffers,
Sight VISibility triangles,
Delln e allo nand d I me ns Ions of a II parking areas Incl u d Ing la ndsca pin g Isla nds and cu rblng,
Proposed and reqUired parking spaces,
EXlstmg trees on-Site and Immediately adjacent to the Site, by speCies, size and locatIons, including drlpllne (as indicated on
required tree sUlvey),
Plant schedule With a key (symbol or label) indicating the Size, descnptlOn, speclficalions and quantities of all eXISting and
proposed landscape matenals, including botanical and common names,
LocatJon, Size, and quantities of all eXlstJng and proposed landscape matenals, indicated by a key relating to the plant schedule,
Typical planling details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants Including InstructJons, SOil mixes, backfilling, mulching
and protective measures,
Intenor landscaping areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and intenor 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)
I mgatlo n note s
o
REDUCED LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8 Y. X 11) (color rendenng If pOSSible),
IJ:= ~~r\l..!lIC:DJ-
b \., - \'00:c.---,U ~ L~ j
o
COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM appllcahon, as applicable
hl-\ I l) h IUu4
P" A ~ "' ""'''-' Ii'" r'"P'~ ~~I' n-r..'T
a...j-'"'-\l~ ,,~jl ~h':' I::.J.... J e~i~ ..::J\l
r~-b~ I I( i t:- ~~ It"': A O"'fH.{"~.:I ""~
... ~ """"-l..o-r -6 <:.~ \,.\. \.11 ... W ~. ""
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 Tounst and Downtown Dlstncts) or as
part of a ComprehenSive Infiil Redevelopment Project or a ResldentJallniill Project
r:J BUILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS - all Sides of all bUildings including height dimenSions, colors and materials
o REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATlONS - four Sides of bUilding With colors and matenals to scale (8 Y. X 11) (black and white and color rendering, if
J SIGNAGE (DIVISion 19 SIGNS J 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
r:J All PROPOSED freestanding and attached signs, ProVlde details including location, Size, height, colors, matenals and draWing, freestanding signs
shall Include the street address (numerals)
o ComprehenSive Sign Program application as applicable (separate appllca~on and fee reqUired)
u
\~ "" "I \""'V'I'
-"'J'~'"
K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY (Section 4-202.A.13 and 4-801 C)
Page 6 of 6 - FleXible Standard Development Application Single Family ReSidential Inflll ProJect- City of Clearwater
Signature of property owner or representative
2. (".fb.. day of
and/or by
own has
as
o
L SIGNATURE
I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representabons made In this
applicatIOn are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and
authonze City representatives to VISit and phot the property
descnbed In th P Icatlon
AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT
ROBERT D. BASHAM
(Names of all property owners on deed - please PRINT full names)
That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property (address or general location)
Lot 1. Block 4. MANDALAY SUBDIVISION. PlAt Rook 14. pAgP~ 1?-1,.
publlC records of Plnellas County, Florlda
2 That thiS property constitutes the property for which a request for a (descnbe request)
3 That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint
HARRY S. CLINE. ESO.
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, Flonda to consider and act on the above descnbed 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,
f" r:.:" ~ ~"" "~[))\ )
~ - \~, '1_)
\., _ ~;- - ~ J ~f -,
6 That (I/we), the underSigned authonty, hereby certify that the foregOing IS tr
Property Owner
r.J1f\1 I) h /uU4 ,
,
A"operty Owner
r~ f\~ '\WW,..... ncn"':....T~!/::.NT
l ... ~ J ... jJ 4.,..) -" ......j. i
. \ \l<"''-.:Ji
C .-. -",,' J' ~I\.-' I'~I ,-,,,
...J ~ ~ ~ ~ J J \-.;) I..... _ \. \. J.!-~
Property Owner
ST ATE OF FLORIDA,
COUNTY OF PINELLAS
Page 7 of 6 - FleXible Standard Development Application Single Family Resldentlallnfill PrOJect- City of Clearwater
Before me the undersigned. an officer duly commissioned by the laws of the State of Flonda, on
thiS
:l~
day of JA~ _ .>Mr
My Commission Expires ~ ~ n.}COt}
personally appeared ROBERT n _ HASHAM who haVing been first duly sworn
De"",os """ "'" that "of"'" fully u""~lands the "",terns of the am"""" lhot ~ ---ti
\ttl "'I R b
!~Vptf';\ 0 10 A. Ahlquisl
::.;. . ;: Go.l!llIuMlon # CC 960829
\'V~ Ji EIplreB Sep 27,2004-
~A_ ff\.\)~~~ Bonded Thru
I, '11I\\\\ AUanbe Bondulg Co. Ine.
~f
Notary PubliC
S IPlanmng DeperlmenrlAppl'catlOn Formslclevelopmenr rev,ewl2003 FORMSlsln!}le fem,ly reslfienr,al ,nf,J/ appbcatlon 2003 doc
R .-- r0 r-= ~ \tf---- D
--l ' ___ /! '\,; ~..J \' l_ 1
, \.l-",,~L,,-J \11 l-:-: I J
MAl ? h 2UU4
\i'5)! AJ\':\I In!""'" ~,,""r;rd:~ L..l.~~~IT
lr-~~J\-)\. u...\. ~~-""",L.I ~ ~j\:. u.....l.ll.Aou\1
errV' or- ClEA~'tI'VAli2:~
I
Page 8 of 6 - Flexible Standard Development Application Single Family Resldentlallnflil ProJect- City of Clearwater
D. WrItten Submittal Requirements (Code Section 3-913.A)
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 s
located.
The proposed constructLOn, both front and back, IS consistent with an emerging
development scheme along Eldorado Avenue, and essentially all new constructLOn
IS consistent wuh thiS request
2 The proposed development shall not hinder or discourage the appropriate
development and sue of adjacent land and buildings or significantly Impair
the value thereof.
The proposed constructLOn IS actually consistent wIth development standards as a
relates to propertIes on either side, and the new constructLOn will significantly
enhance the neighborhood, and accordingly the values along Eldorado Avenue at
thiS pOint
3 The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or
persons resldmg or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use,
The proposed development wIll be consistent WIth actlvaies which are ongoing,
which Involves new constructwn up and down the street, and the end result will
be consistent WIth the neIghborhood and wIll have no adverse affects
4 The proposed development is designated to mmlmize traffic congestion.
The proposed development has no Increased impact or affect on traffic
5 The proposed development is consistent with the commnnity character of the
Immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
The proposed development is consistent With the commumty character and wtll
represent an enhancement and improvement, consistent wIth recent development
I
along Eldorado Avenue
6 The desigri of the proposed development mmimizes adverse effects, including
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation Impacts, on adjacent
properties.
The proposed development IS contained within the Side setbacks so adverse visual
Impacts to the neighborhood should not be ofmatenal consequence, and the
l ~ r-- - r-:- r" usage-1flll be otherwIse conSistent with the neighborhood and Will have no other
_ r '- \' 1'1' 1\ \1 I
\ _ \..", r , ~_: u V,a'dVerg Impacts
h \datalalylhscldocs\chapman flex doc
I
ri~l-\l ? h lUU4
rl' ff,\~"V''"\"'':' ~r'i!l""~~~f1~r,,'T
","J'~4-1\. u'\. ~"J.I,.r.;~"U /./"tJ"\ ~ ~tdo.=.:IY'\J
C~yy OJ:: CuLEAR~N,,~T;:R
Seven (7) Residential [nfill Project Criteria:
1 The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development
is otherwise impractical without deviations from the intensity and
development standards.
The lots as platted and developed are relatively small by current standards, and
the buddmg envelope has beenJurther Impacted by the creatlon oJthe CCCL
Front constructIOn, although to be wllhm ten (10') Jeet oJthe property lme, wdl
be approximately twenty-jive (25') Jeet to thIrty (30') Jeet Jrom the edge oj
pavement, and Jurther expansIOn oj Eldorado Avenue IS unIzkely so adequate vista
eXIsts As to the rear constructIOn, the Jootpnnt of the buddmg, located twenty-
five (25') Jeet Jrom the CCCL IS m Jact Jorty-jive (45') Jeet, MOL, Jrom the rear
platted lot lme, and at lts nearest pomt IS thirty-two pomt Jour (32 4') Jeet Jrom
the retammg wall, so adequate VistaS will remam, and proposed constructIOn IS m
Jact consistent wIth other ongomg development up and down the street The pool
and declang will not be above grade and will have lIttle or no Impact from a
visual, or obstructIOn standpoznt
2 The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential
in fill 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 gross land value, accordmg to the Tax. Assessor's Office, IS approximately
$800,000, wllh new constructIOn, II IS antIcIpated that the value wdl double,
although market condllIOns will determme pncmg
3 The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted III the
City of Clearwater.
The use proposed IS smgle-famdy resldentwl, thIS IS an approved use wlthm the
zone for the City oj Clearwater, and IS consistent With the neIghborhood
I
,
I
4 The uses or mix Within the residential infill project are compatIble with
adjacent land uses.
The use IS conSIstent Wlth eXIstmg and emergmg development along Eldorado
Avenue
~r-(~r=-r\l tl~D-)
......J \ _~ ~-.. -....J
\'L~ \,.-;:'7 L=-: ~ \if L=:. l
MAT I) h ~uu4
rlA~ ~ 1 ~~G D;r:p"l\rrT~~ E\\\T
erN' O~ CLEl~IFhf\JAT;::R
',--
5 The developmen t of the parcel proposed for development as a residential
infill project will npgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development.
The propertj has not been upgraded or developed/redeveloped for many years
and the proposed development and use WIll represent an upgrade consIstent wtth
current patterns on Eldorado Avenue
6 The design of the proposed residential in fill project creates a form and
function that enhances the commuDlty character of the immediate vicinity of
the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole.
Any new constructlOn, of a stngleJamzly resIdentIal nature, wzll represent an
Improvement, and therefore an enhancement to the communIty, relatIve to thIs
partIcular property
7 Flexibility in regard to low Width, 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 requested mfill approval IS Justified, and does benefit the communIty, by
provIdtng an adequate bUlldmg envelope to construct a smgle-famzly resIdenttal
home consIstent wtth other propertIes betng currently developed along this street
and m this neIghborhood, and Will represent an Improvement, and therefore a
benefit, to the communIty as well as to the stte tndlVIdually
r ~ r-;: r-= r" fJA
l "- ~ - (~~~ ~ \/ ~ D
I
MAr ? R 2U04
I
r' f\ ~ '"\~"~" -. n....'"\ "ir...." n'l'""
"'" ",- "~,-~ u~~"' IJ~LJt!i'.;,~T
CnTl or Cir~5I.~W~r[::~
I
h \data\~ty\hsc\docs\chapm,lIl mfill doc
:MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMuLLEN
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
TAMPA Fl..O~lOA 33602
~81.3) i;!7,3 4Z00 F..6..X Cal~~ ~?.3 4396
6;::~ COU~1'" $'1F=l':t:e::i
p 0 eOX IQQS (21~ ~~75?)
C!...~ARWA-rI;tR ~LORlOA .33?5115
~7i::7l 441 s9i1Se FAX {?271 44.2: 8470
1501 SOUTH FLORiOAAVEN\..JE::
LAKE:L..ANO F"L.OR10A .33aO~
(863) 6BO 9908 FAX ~S6~) 5$.J .2S49
400 NOR'TH iAMPA STRE::~T SUITE 2300
F" 0 60X 1531 (ZIP 33601'
www mlmlegal com
E:MA>~ ,nfo@mlmlegal com
IN RE.F'LY ~E:F"E::~ TO
May 26, 2004
Clearwater
ORIGINAL
C1ty of Clearwater
State of Flor1da
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
The unders1gned, HARRY S. CLINE, a llcensed attorney at law,
does hereby cert1fy that as of the date of th1s cert1flcate that fee
slmple t1tle to the property descrlbed 1n 0 R. Book 12646, page 427,
pub11c records of P1nellas County, Florida, Wh1Ch property 1S descr1bed
as follows
Lot I, Block 4, MANDALAY SUBDIVISION, accord1ng to map or plat
thereof as recorded 1n Plat Book 14, pages 32 thru 35, publ1C
records of P1nellas county, Flor1da
1S presently vested 1n ROBERT D BASHAM.
EXECUTED th1S 26th day of May, 2004.
MAY ') R 2004
R r--' ~ ....-= r i\ [,-:=' rrl
_/ t - ...J I \ J =:l U
\., 1_ __ \_ F l~::.. J V ~-'"
By
rry S Cl1ne
nl4 ~ ." \' '''7' 'i""\ 'Fl, ~ r ""-J (;I ;'1';:: "J'!T
lt'l ;:"}.4\..1.. "\.ll.~ "- l..v J" 0 ~J ....1 -~\.oJ""",," \J
r."~-",1 "''> . r ' ~- r, --.r ~ 'I ,or =-:'J
~J b VI 'Ud Ii..,,~_~~..- ,<tlt_' ~ I L..1f">
';,
.'
r ..
,
FLS2004-05033
752 ELDORADO AVE
Date Received: OS/26/2004
STEVEN CHAPMAN
ZONING DISTRICT: LMDR
LAND USE: RU
ATLAS PAGE: 249A
PLANNER OF RECORD: NOT ENTERED
r '\ ~--'f -=-, r~=U
...... .... ~ r' - I ,.---J 1) I
~ \:... _ .... ~ _~ oJ \J ~ j
ORIGINAL
MAl ') n 2U04
;0 -. '-P'"",", ~ - -1'/ "..,-, "-'\!Ii
~ .!.. /I... '-........H..... "J ~./"--'=-J J.LI \l ~ u J....ll.............'\. ~
'" 1 ,-;po _i :i
if, \" v :: Jf"~ r....; I \ ,lfZ.\ 'lk~,
'\...J J- ll. ~ \.J t9............. \o,~ \. 'I.. "'or .... ij 0.....:10
C L W CoverSheet
'" .. l'
Receipt #: 1200400000000005497
Date: OS/26/2004
5/26/2004
2 22 32PM
L.lne Items:
Case No
Tran Code
Descnptlon
Flex Std-Rc'udcnlml
Revenue Account No
Amount Paid
FLS2004-05033
02
0] 0-341262
L.me Item Total.
100 00
$100 00
Payments:
Method
Payer
Bank No
Account No
Confirm No
How Received
Amount Paid
Eheck --- -MAeFARLANE FERGUSON &
MCMULLEN
dr
3886
In Person
IOO(Y
=-0 ~
F^ ~....~ ~
r" )
" ) I
,- "'"'
~ , ')
t
~~ ) 1
n ,J
~L ~ 1 [ -.
;?;~ :....~ r-.... .--'~
~~ ~-~ c::: '":..">,
= ,- J
rC"~-;.J "'-....~ -'="" L L
t -'=;) c..... I
'" - Q)
~t . -
r J J
~ L ?
<-
~l
Payment Total'
$100.00
'~,
THIS IS NOT A PERMIT
This IS a receipt for an application for a permit
This application will be reviewed and you wJlI be notified as to the outcome of the application
~Rccelpl rpl
Page 1 of 1
f'
DRC Meetmg Date
Case Number
Applicant
Address
Augu,;t 12, 2004
FLS2004-05033
Mr Robert Basham / Harry Clme
752 Eldorado A venue
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
REVISED STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST:
I
lIexIble Standard Development for constructIon of a new smgle-
family residence, and fence/wall The request IS for reductIOn to the
front (east) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet to the structure, front
I (south) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet to the structure and a concrete
wall four feet In height along the front (south) property hne and a
I non-opaque (wrought Iron type) fence along the front (east) sIde of
I the bUlldmg, under the provIsions of SectIon 2-203 C
,
EXISTING ZONING: Low: MedIUm Density Residential (LMDR)
EXISTING LAND USE: Residential Urban IClasslficatIOn (RU)
PROPERTY USE:
Current Use Smgle-Famlly residential
Proposed Use Smgle-FamIly residential
ADJACENT/ZONING LAND USES:
North Smgle-famIly residential
West Gulf of MexIco
East Smgle-famIly residential
South Beach aeee~s (R 0 W ) Smgle-famIly residential
CHARACTER OF THI!:
IMMEDIATE VICINITY: Smgle-famIly dwellmgs dommate the Immediate vlclmty
I
ANAL YSIS:
The 0 15-acre sIte I s loeated on the west side of E I dorado A venue, at the I nterseetl on of Eldorado
and the Bohema CIrcle South beach access The surrounding area IS charactenzed by detached
residential home::. The parcel contains an acces&Ory shed for the single-famIly dwellmg located at
756 Eldorado The proposal mcludes demolItIOn of the eXlstmg accessory shed
The applicant provided a block survey ,;howmg the cXlstIng front (east) setbacks of nelghbormg
properties to the north at 712 Eldorado and 820 Eldorado These propertIes were revcaled to be at
I
a 10-foot setback or les,; trom bUlldmg to property hne There are other properties along Eldorado
A venue and wlthm the sUIToundmg VICInity having front setbacks at 10 feet or less from property
I
line to dwelling umt, as eVidenced III the photographs taken dunng staffs sIte VISit
I
S" \Plun/lmg DepmlmenllC 0 Bl!'LLXlPelldlllg cases I Up Jor III{' lI('ll CDlJlEldorado 0752 80:,1/(/111 Appeal/! 1604
CDRlEldoludo 7521 LS SwlT Rep 01 I 110404 doc
The applicant has provided a block survey shoWIng the front (south) setback located along the
south Bohema Circle beach access IS charactenstIc of other beach access corner lots Photo~Tfaphs
taken dUrIng staff sIte VISit show eVidence that there are other propertIes along Eldorado A venue
and adlacent to beach access. nghts of ways located wIthIn the surroundIng VICInity havIng front
setbacks at 10 feet or less from property lIne to dwellIng umt
The applIcant has not provided eVidence to show I1mv a concrete 'Nail seven feet In h())ght IS
characterIstic of S1mtlar propert10s or meetmg the general applIcabIlIty cntena and reSIdential mfill
cntena The applicant reVised theIr request dunng the August 12, 2004 DRC meetmg to a
concrete wall four feet In heIght along the front (south) property lIne and a non-opaque (wrought
Iron type) fence along the front (east) SIde of the bUlldmg Photographs taken dunng staff site VISIt
show eVidence that there are other properties along Eldorado Avenue and ad1acent to beach access.
nghts of ways located WIthIn the surroundIng vlclmty havmg fences/wall of four feet In heIght
located In the front setbacks
The applIcant has WIthdrawn their request for the SWimmIng pools and rear and front setbacks tQ
pool deck
The Improvements Will add value to the eXIstIng property and should have a posItive Impact on
nelghbonng property values The current land value for 756 Eldorado Avenue IS $800,00000 and
the proposed Improvements are expected to double the eXistIng value The proposed remodelIng
WIll result In a development that maIntams the eXistIng character of the neighborhood The
development compiles WIth densIty and ImpervIOus surface ratIo standards wlthm the Low
MedIUm DensIty ReSidential Dlstnct
All appilcable Code reqUIrements and cntena IncludIng but not lImIted to General ApplIcabilIty
cntena (Section 3-913) and ReSidentIal Infill Project cntena (SectIon 2-103 B) have been met
CODE ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS:
There are no outstandIng enforcement Issues assOCIated With thiS site
S IP/alll/lllg Departmellt\C D B\rLEX\Pelldlllg ca~e~\Up (01 the Ill'\! CDBIE/dolOdo 0752 Ba~ham Appea/ / /1604
CDllIE/doll/do 752 FL'5 SIiI./TRepoltll0404 doc
GENERAL STANDARDS (Section 3-913):
Consistent Inconsistent
1 Development of the land wIll be In hannony with the X
scale, bulk, corerage, densIty and character of adjacent
properhes I
2 Development I will not hinder or dlscourage X
development and use of adjacent land and bmldmgs or
I
&HITlIficantly Impair the value thereof
3 I X
Development IWIll not advcrsely affect the health or
safety of persons re&ldIng or working m the
neighborhood I
4 Development liS deSIgned to mmImize traffic X
congestlOn I
5 Development! IS conSistent WIth the commumty X
character oftM~ Immediate VICInIty
6 De::-Ign of the proposed development mmIllllZeS X
I
adverse effects, mc1udmg VIsual, acoustIc and
olfactory and hours of operatIOn Impacts on adjacent
properties
I
FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR LMDR DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECTS:
Section 2-203.C): :
I Consistent In co n si stent
I Smgle-famIly I detached dwellmgs are the only X
permitted use' elIgIble for residentIal mfill project
applicatIon,
2 The development or redevelopment of the parcel X M
proposed for development IS othelwlse Impractical
Without devlahons from the mtensity and other
development standards,
3 The development of the parcel proposed for X
development as a reSidentIal mfi11 project wIll not
I value of abuttmg
matenally reduce the faIr market
propertIes, I
I
4 The u&es wIthm the re&ldentIal In fi 11 project are X
I
otherwise penmtted III the dIstnct,
5 The u..es wIthm the reSidentIal mfi11 proJ ect are X
I
compatIble With adJacent land uses,
6 The development of the parcel proposed for X
development as a reSidentIal mfill project Will upgrade
I
the immedIate vlcmity of the parcel proposed for
development, I
-
S If'tmmmg Deparlmi:nl\C D B\FLEXlPelldll1g (a leI IUp for Ihe lint CDBlEldurado (7)2 Basham Appeal II I (j 04
CDBl1!-ldol ado 752 Ff ':> ':>/a!T Report I j 0404 doc
7 The desIgn of! the proposed resIdential mfill project X
creates a fonh and functIOn which enhances the
I
community character of the immediate vlclmty of the
parcel proposed for dcvelopment and the CIty of
Clearwater as a whole,
8 FleXIbIlIty m regard to lot wIdth, requIred setbacks, X
I
height, off-street parkmg access or other development
I
standards are JustIfied by the benefits to commumty
character and i the ImmedIate vIcImty of the parcel
I
proposed for development and the CIty of Clearwater
as a whole I
,
*See analysIs section for eXplanatIon of mconsIstency with cntena
I
I
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
I
The Development ReVle\\[ CommIttee revIewed the applIcation and supportmg matenals on
August 12, 2004 The Planmng Department recommend5 APPROVAL of the FleXible Standard
I
Development for constructIOn of a new smgle-famIly resIdence, sWlmmmg pool/deck, and
fence/wall The request IS; for reduetlOR to the front (east) setback from 25 f~et to 10 feet to the
structure, front (soHtb) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet to the stmcture, front (south) setback from
25 feet to 3 5 feot to the pool decle, for reductIOn to the waterfront (Coastal COflstruetlOFl Control
LIne) ,;ctbaek from 25 feet to 2em feet to the pool deck and pool, A wall of seven feet 1fl height In
the setbacks, as part of a ResidentIal Infill Project under the provIsIons of Section 2 203 C The
request IS for reduction to I the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet to the structure, front
(south) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet to the structure and a concrete wall four feet m height along
the front (south) property lIne and a non-opaque (wrought Iron type) fence 'along the front (east)
Side of the buddmg, under the provIsIons ofSeetlon 2-203 C for the site at 752 Eldorado Avenue,
on the followmg bases and condItIOns
Ba5es for Approval
1 The proposal compiles wIth the FleXIble Standard Development cntena as a ResIdential Infill
Project per Section 2-203 C
2 The proposal IS In complIance WIth other standards In the Code Includmg the General
Apphcabdlty Cntena per SectIon 3-913
3 The development 15, compatIble wIth the surroundmg area and Will enhance other
redcvelopment efforts I
CondItions of Approval
1 That a $200 Recreahon Faclhty Impact fee IS due pnor to bUildIng penUlt Issuance for each
new residentIal umt I
2 That vehIcles cannot be parked m the dnveway blockll1g the pedestnan acce<;s to the concrete
I
SIdewalk i
3 That any future propos~ls for deckmg to be located <;eaward of the coastal constructIOn control
lme wlll reqUIre approval from the State ofFlonda, and
I
4 That any future proposals for sWImmmg pool or deck additIOns III the setback from the coastal
I
constructIOn control hne Will reqUire a FleXible Standard Development approval for reductIOn
I
I
') \Planmng Deparlment\C D B\FLEXIPendmg caW\ \Up jar the ne-.;t CDB\E/dorado 0752 Basham 4ppea/l/ 16 04
CDElL/dorado 752 FLS ')/afJ Ii ep 01 I 110404 doc
Prepared by Planmng Department Staff
ATTACHMENTS I
LocatIOn Map I
Aenal Photograph of Site and VICInIty
Zomng Atlas Map I
Surroundmg EXistmg U:.es Map
I
Photograph~ of Site and ViCinIty
Block Survey
S \!'Iannmg Deparlmell/\C!) B\rLEX\Pelldmg cOles\UpjCJi 1111' ne.H (DH\Elrlorado 0752 Ba:,ham Appea/1116 04
I CDB IE/do I ado 752 rL;; Slaff Reporl 110404 doc
:
Schodtler, John
From
Sent
To
Subject
Schodtler, John
Monday, November 08,2004300 PM
'JayneS@Jpflrm com'
Basham Appeal
Ann Garris was In today to review the Appeal and Flexible Standard files She indicated she and the neighborhood
aSSOciation would be present at the CDS meeting
John Schodtler
1
.",'6Ib,..
.,I~'iAlllF'lI( .........
~{~ 1J",'''~II~J~7x~
.. ~""I ~...._~~';.
:C:3~',\ i, - \ ~ ':.
"~'- .
..C"': -,:=- - ~;
...~.- ~"
.....-. c'='. - ;:::;..
':.?s..- ,,~~-:\
~~JP.~'m""~~""
...............~TE"',.,,"
":J/If'~.
I CITY
OF
CLEARWATER
PlANNING DEPARTMENT
POSl OFFICE Box 4748, CLFAR\i;AITR, FlORIDA 33758-4748
MlJNICIPAL SI,RVlCF!> BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRnF AVENUr, CLEARWATER, FlORIDA 33756
THEPHONF (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4576
Lor-G RANGE PIANJ\ING
DFVFLOPMrNT fu-VIEW
September 27,2004
Mr Harry S Clme, Esg
POBox 1669
Clearwater, FL 33757
I
RE Development Order regardmg case FLS2004-05033 at 752 Eldorado Avenue
I
Dear Mr Clme
I
ThIS letter constItutes a De~elopment Order pursuant to Section 4-202 E of the Commumty
Development Code On August 12,2004, the Development ReView Committee (DRC) revIewed your
application for Flexible Standard Development for construction of a new smgle-famIly reSIdence, and
fence/walL The request IS for reductIon to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet to the
structure, front (south) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet to the structure and a concrete wall four feet m
height along the front (south) property line and a non-opaque (wrought Iron type) fence along the front
(east) Side of the bUIldmg, under the provISIons of Section 2-203 C The DRC recommended approval
I
of the applIcatIon WIth the followmg bases and conditIons
i
I
I
Bases for Approval I
1 The proposal complIes WIth ReSIdentIal Infill Project cntena under the prOVISions of Section 2-
203 C, I
2 The plan complIes WIth General ApplIcabIlIty Cntena under the prOVISions of SectIOn 3-913, and
I
3 The proposed development IS compatIble WIth the surroundmg area
CondItions of Approval
1 That a $200 Recreation FaCIlIty Impact fee IS due pnor to bUlldmg permIt Issuance for each new
residentIal umt I
2 That vehicles cannot be parked m the dnveway blockmg the pedestnan access to the concrete
I
Sidewalk i
3 That any future proposals for deckmg to be located seaward of the coastal constructIon control line
I
WIll reqUIre approval from Ithe State of FIonda, and
4 That any future proposals for sWlmmmg pool or deck addItions III the setback from the coastal
construction control lIne wbl requIre a FleXIble Standard Development approval for reductIon
I concur WIth the findmgs of the Development ReVIew CommIttee and, through thiS letter, approve
your apphcatlOn for FleXIble Standard Development WIth the above four condltlOn The approval IS
I
I BRIAN J AUN(,S I, MA\OR COMMI~~jONI R
Hm I J-lA \1Il1 or- VICF 1\'11\\ OR-CO\J \lI~~ION f R WHITh Ll G R.\\ I lo\\ \1I~~IOr-1 R
r]{A~K J-lllJllI\RD, COMMISSIOr-LR * UIII JON'iON COMMI~~IO"1 R
"I:QUAI EMI'l OYMI J\ T AND An m;"IA IIVI Ac I ION LMPI O'rTR"
September 27, 2004
Mr Clme - Page Two
based on and must adhere to the sIte plan and applIcatIOn dated receIved May 26, 2004 and the revised
sIte plan dated received September 15, 2004
Pursuant to Section 4-303, ani applIcatIOn for a bmldIng permit shall be made WIthIn one year of
I
FlexIble Standard Development approval (September 27, 2005) All reqUIred certificates of occupancy
I
shaH be obtalOed wIthtn one year of the date of Issuance of the bUIldIng permIt TIme frames do not
change WIth succeSSIve owners I
I
The Issuance of this Development Order does not rebeve you of the necessIty to obtaIn any bUIldmg
I
permIts or pay any Impact fees that may be requIred In order to faCIlItate the Issuance of any permIt or
I
lIcense affected by thIS appro'lal, please bnng a copy of thIS letter WIth you when applymg for any
I
permits or licenses that reqUIre thIS pnor development approval
I
I
Pursuant to SectIon 4-502 A, an appeal maybe InItIated wIthm seven days of the date the Development
Order IS Issued by an applIcant or property owners WIthIn the requIred notice area and who presented
competent substantIal eVidence m the Level One reVIew A copy of the Development Order IS beIng
I
sent to those surroundmg property owners who presented competent substantial eVIdence In the Level
One reVIew, The filmg of an applIcatIOn/notice of appeal shall stay the effect of the deCISIon pendmg
the final determmatlOn of the case The appeal penod for your case WIll expIre on October 4, 2004,
(seven days from date of Development Order)
I
If you have any questions, please do not heSItate to call John Schodtler, Planner I, at 727-562-4604
You can access zOnIng for parc~ls WIthIn the CIty through our web SIte www myc1earwater com
Smcerely,
~
Cynthia H Tarapanl, AICP
Plannmg DIrector
Cc surroundmg property owners
S \Plannmg DepartmenllC D B\Slandarii FlexlPendmg Casesl2 - ReVIewed and Pendmg\Eldorada Ave 752 (LMDR) AppravedlEldorado 752
Development Order doc
VIrginIa L. Foster
815 Eldorado Ave.
Clearwater, PI 33767
Mary Tsamlis
34 Acacia St.
Clearwater, PI 33767
Gus Tsamlls
701 Mandalay Ave.
Clearwater, PI 33767
Patsy Schamber
708 Bruce AVe.
Clear~ater, FI 33767
Dean Milhouse
704 Bruce Ave.
Clearwater, PI 33767
Greg Johnson
720 Bruce Ave.
Clearwater, FI 33767
Joe Clvcevich
736 Bruce Ave.
Clearwater, FI 33767
MIrIam WInters
21 Acacia St.
Clearwater, PI 33767
Edith Follis
750 Eldarado Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33767
Martin Sportschuetz
754 Bruce Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33767
Jean David
756 Mandalay Ave.
Clear~ater, PI 33767
Gordon W. Maxwell
733 Mandalay A~enue
Clearwater, PI 33767
James K. Brennan
743 Eldarodo
Clearwater, PI 33767
Sandra Britton
750 Mandalay
Clearwater, PI 33767
Anne M. Gannis
38 AcaCIa St.
Clearwater, FI 33767
Sheila Murphy
757 Eldorado Ave.
Clearwater, FI 33767
Lois DaVIS
827 Eldorado Ave.
Clearwater, Fl 33767
Norman H. Fay
830 Mandalay Ave
Clearwater, PI jj767
Michael Ypsilandis
809 Mandalay Ave.
Clearwater, PI 33767
Barbara Buchanam
755 Eldorado Ave.
Clearwater,FI 33767
David Keil
753 Mandalay Ave.
Clearwater, FI 33767
Elaine Lucas
7045 BlandIng Boulevarc
JacksonvIlle, FI 32244
Dolores M. Klrlos
34 Bohenia CIrcle
Clearwater, PI 33767
Bill Klrlos
34 Bohenla CirCle
Clearwater, FI 33767
NICk Karistinos
38 Mango St.
Clearwater, FI 33767
Kathy TsoulJas
720 Mandalay Av~
Clearwater, FI ~3767
~UlJlTbQ$
~ ~d\)l 'f.. ~Lol' r1f;~"''''_""
.~~ ~~'.,...~ :'l~
'!'.' ,~f .......-t.,.".<II.;:'>.
I!.""'''~ -......
'I " j ~~ .,
!;If.~." fa ~-=-'"
l< --~''- '7'(, ~ -<' "
~~ - "<:[<l
.. ::::.= r.......~
..~. ==-- ~l:!
.. lr' ,,~ ----=""_ "'- ;:;;:, b
':.~...~- - ,,~-;,
"'!i2>- -.....~~J.' ..
..,. 'ft/ j""'" <r:c:~ ~\
............ I'l TE'R, ".0
"410"a
I
Ic
IT Y
OF
CLEARWATER
,.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLEARWA1FR, FLORIDA 33758-4748
MUNICIPAL SrRVlO.s BUilDING, 100 SOUTH MVRnE AVFNUE, CLE.\RWATER, FlORID.... 33756
TELFPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4576
LoNG RM"\JGr PlANNING
Dc"VEIOPMlcNT REVIEW
September 27,2004
Mr Harry S Clme, Esq
POBox 1669
Clearwater, FL 33757
RE Development Order regardmg case FLS2004-05033 at 752 Eldorado Avenue
I
Dear Mr ClIne
ThIS letter constItutes a De;Yelopment Order pursuant to SectIon 4-202 E of the CommunIty
Development Code On August 12,2004, the Development ReView Comnnttee (DRC) reviewed your
I
applicatIon for Flexlble Standard Development for constructlOn of a new smgle-famIly resIdence, and
fence/wall The request IS fdr reductIOn to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet to the
I
structure, front (south) setback' from 25 feet to 10 feet to the structure and a concrete wall four feet In
heIght along the front (south) property lIne and a non-opaque (wrought Iron type) fence along the front
(east) slde ofthe bUIldmg, under the proVISIons of SectIOn 2-203 C. The DRC reconunended approval
of the applIcatIOn With the followmg bases and condItIons:
I
Bases for Approval I
1 The pTOposal complIes WIth ReSIdentIal Infill Project cntena under the proVISIOns of SectIOn 2-
203C, I
2 The plan complIes WIth General ApplIcabIlIty Cntena under the PTOvlslons of SectIOn 3-913, and
3 The proposed development!Is compatIble With the surroundmg area
ConditIOns of Approval I
1 That a $200 RecreatIon FaCIlIty Impact fee IS due pnor to bUlldmg permit Issuance for each new
reSidentIal umt I
2 That vehIcles cannot be pa~ked m the dnveway blockIng the pedestnan access to the concrete
SIdewalk i
3 That any future proposals for deckmg to be located seaward ofthe coastal constructIOn control hne
I
WIll reqUire approval from the State ofFlonda, and
I
4 That any future proposals for sWlmmmg pool or deck addItIons III the setback from the coastal
I
, construclIon controllme wr reqUIre a Flexible Standard Development approval for rednclIon
I concur wlth the findmgs of Ithe Development ReVIew CommIttee and, through thiS letter, approve
your apphcatlOn for FleXIble Standard Development With the above four conditIOn The approval IS
I
I BRIAN J AUN(,<; I, MAYOR (O,ljMI~SIONI R
HoYT HAIJlll0N, VI( I M,WOR-((JMMI<;SIONI R WHll NEY GRi\l, CO\l\\I~'IO~rR
FR.\l\K HIBBARD, SOMMI'iS]ON~ll * Bill JONSON, Co,lhlll'''IO,,1 R
i "CQO" FM,,"'M"T MD ^,"R"" '" ""'0,' FM" 0'"'''
September 27, 2004
Mr Clme - Page Two
based on and must adhere to the sIte plan and applIcation dated receIved May 26,2004 and the reVIsed
sIte plan dated recelved September 15, 2004
Pursuant to SectIOn 4-303, an applIcatIOn for a bUIldmg permIt shall be made wlthm one year of
FleXIble Standard Development approval (September 27,2005) All reqUIred certIficates of occupancy
shall be obtaIned wlthm one year of the date of Issuance of the bUIldmg permIt TIme frames do not
change wIth successive owners
The Issuance of thIS Development Order does not relieve you of the neceSSIty to obtam any bUIldmg
permIts or pay any Impact fees that may be reqUIred In order to facIlItate the Issuance of any permIt or
lIcense affected by tills approval, please bong a copy of thIS letter WIth you when applymg for any
permits or lIcenses that requIre tlns pnor development approval
Pursuant to SectIOn 4-502.A, an appeal may be InItIated wIthm seven days ofthe date the Development
Order IS Issued by an applIcant or property owners wIthm the reqUITed notice area and who presented
competent substantIal eVIdence III the Level One reVIew. A copy of the Development Order IS beIng
sent to those surroundmg property owners who presented competent substantial eVIdence In the Level
One review The fillllg of an applIcatIOn/notIce of appeal shall stay the effect of the deCISIon pendmg
the final detemunatlOn of the case The appeal penod for your case WIll expIre on October 4, 2004,
(seven days from date of Development Order)
If you have any questIOns, please do not heSitate to call John SchodtIer, Planner I, at 727-562-4604
You can access ZOnIng for parcels wlthm the CIty through our webslte' www myc1earwater com
Smcerely,
~
CynthIaH Taraparu, AICP
Plannmg DIrector
Cc surroundIng property owners
S IPlanmng DepartmemlC D BISrandard Flex\Pendmg Cases\2 - ReViewed and PendmglEldorado Ave 752 (LMDR) ApprovedlEldorario 752
Development Order doc :
September 27,2004
Mr Clme - Page Two
based on and must adhere to the sIte plan and applIcatIOn dated receIved May 26,2004 and the revIsed
SIte plan dated receIved September 15,2004
I
Pursuant to SectIOn 4-303, an applIcatIOn for a bUIldIng permIt shall be made wlthm one year of
I
FleXIble Standard Development approval (September 27,2005) All reqUIred certIficates of occupancy
I
shall be obtamed wIthm one year of the date of Issuance of the bUIldIng permit Time frames do not
change wIth succeSSIve ownersl
I
The Issuance of thiS Development Order does not relIeve you of the necessIty to obtam any bUIldmg
I
permits or pay any Impact fees Ithat may be reqUIred In order to facIlItate the Issuance of any permIt or
lIcense affected by thIS approval, please bnng a copy of thiS letter WIth you when applymg for any
permIts or lIcenses that reqUIre thiS pnor development approval
Pursuant to SectIon 4-502 A, an appeal may be InItIated wlthm seven days of the date the Development
I
Order IS Issued by an applIcant or property owners wlthm the reqUIred notIce area and who presented
competent substantIal eVIdency m the Level One review A copy of the Development Order IS bemg
sent to those surroundlllg prop;erty owners who presented competent substantial eVidence m the Level
One reVIew. The filIng of an applIcatIOn/notIce of appeal shall stay the effect of the deCISIon pendmg
I
the fmal detenmnatlOn of the case The appeal penod for your case WIll explfe on October 4, 2004,
(seven days from date of Development Order).
I
I
If you have any questIons, please do not heSItate to call John Schodtler, Planner I, at 727-562-4604
I
You can access zOlling for par~els wlthm the CIty through our web sIte www.myc1earwater com.
I
I
Smcerely,
~
CynthIa H TarapanI, AICP
Plannmg DIrector
Cc surroundmg property owners
I
I
S IPlannmg DepartmenllC D B\SlandaL FlexlPendmg Cases\2 - Reviewed and Pendmg\Eldorado Ave 752 (LMDR) Approved\Eldorado 752
Development Order doc
~IIIJ[fJlUdQ'"
~~l~~LoF 'Htk
~\~A-\ ~ lt~jI!'''#''''''''.,.#W"~...IIi~~
",-",i1..",,~Jt .........."...
~~~., I I~-:' ...
11 ~ ,.' ," I ,!f!..1'7tT':, 'i\ ~
"l~.:c /"'"
..~. _~ ' <e:[tIj
",r:::.:;;~=-_ Q~
..~':.. -==-- ~~
~~"'"~~- ,"r-..'-:~
......:~ tP.~"n;;"~'\7,l
.............)t1E\\,~II'.
8'.1/1"
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
POST OHleF Box 4748, CIF.ARWATER, FlORIDA 33758-4748
MUNICIP>\L SERVlcrS BunDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVI:NUr:, ClEARWAI r.R, FlORIDA 33756
Tr.lI:PHONE (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4576
lONG f{,\f>.JGE PIANN"ING
DEVELOPMFNT fuVII:W
September 27,2004
Mr Harry S Clme, Esq
POBox 1669
Clearwater, FL 33757
RE Development Order regardIng case FLS2004-05033 at 752 Eldorado Avenue
Dear Mr Cline
ThIS letter constItutes a Development Order pursuant to SectIon 4-202 E of the Commumty
Development Code. On August 12, 2004, the Development ReView Committee (DRC) Tevlewed your
application for FleXIble Standard Development for constructIOn of a new smgle-famIly reSIdence, and
fence/wall. The request IS for reductIon to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet to the
structure, front (south) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet to the structure and a concrete wall four feet III
heIght along the front (south) property hne and a non-opaque (wrought Iron type) fence along the front
(east) sIde of the bUildIng, under the prOVISIOns of SectIOn 2-203 C The DRC recommended approval
of the applIcatIOn WIth the follOWIng bases and conditIons
Bases for Approval
1 The proposal complIes WIth ReSIdentIal Infill Project cntena under the proVISIOns of SectIOn 2-
203 C,
2 The plan complIes With General ApplicabIlity Cntena under the proVISIons of SectIOn 3-913, and
3 The proposed development IS compatIble With the surroundIng area
ConditIons of Approval
1 That a $200 RecreatIon FaCIlIty Impact fee IS due pnor to bUIldIng permIt Issuance for each new
reSIdential umt
2 That vehicles cannot be parked m the dnveway blockmg the pedestnan access to the concrete
SIdewalk
3 That any future proposals for deckIng to be located seaward of the coastal constructIOn control hne
WIll reqUire approval from the State ofFlonda, and
4 That any future proposals for SWImmIng pool or deck addItIOns III the setback from the coastal
constructIOn control lIne WIll reqUIre a FleXIble Standard Development approval for reductIon
I concur wlth the findmgs of the Development ReView CommIttee and, through thIS letter, approve
your apphcatIOn for FleXIble Standard Development WIth the above four condition The approval IS
BKlAN J }\Uo\'G~ L, Iv!. \ ':t Oll-( O~I~I]~SIONrll
J JOYT H \MlI10o\' VIG ]\11I\OR-COM~II~~IONII( WHITNFl GilA" (O\j,III~~IOI\.FIl
FRANK llH;H IRD 'COMMI"SIONl-R * Bill JONSON, (011,\11..,..,101\.1 K
"LQUAI EM PI OYM 1 NT AND AI I JR/>,l/\ I IVI AC1ION CMPI OYl- R"
DRC Meetmg Date
Case Numbcr
Applicant
Address
August 12,2004
FLS2003 -05 03 3
Mr Robert Basham / Harry Clme
752 Eldorado Avenue
CITY OF CLEARW A fER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DRAFT STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION'
REQUEST:
Flexible Standard Development for constructIOn of a new smgle-famlly re'>ldence,
and fence/wdll The reque~t IS for reductIOn to thc front (east) ~ctback from 25
feet to ] 0 feet to the structure, front (south) !,etback from 25 feet to 10 feet to the
structure and a concrete wall four feet In height along the front (south) property
Ime and a non-opaque (wrought Iron type) fence dlong the front (cast) Side of the
bUlldmg, under the provISIOn,> of SectIOn 2-203 C
EXISTING ZONING/LAND USE: Low MedIUm DenSity Re'>ldentlal (LMDR), Residential Urban ClasSificatIOn,
I (RU)
I
Current U~e
Proposed U,>e
Smgle- F aml I y residential
Smgle-Famlly residential
PROPERTY USE:-
I
ADJACENTIWNING LAND USES'
I North
I West
Ea,>t
I South
Smg1c-fam11y resldcntlal
Gulf of MeXICO
Smgle-famlly residential
BLaeh access (R 0 W) Smgle-family residential
CHARACTER OF THE
IMMEDIATE VICINITY:
Smgle-famlly dwelling~ dommate the Immediate VICInity
ANALYSIS:
The 0 IS-acre site 1S located ani the west '>Ide of Eldorado Avenue, at the intersectIOn of Eldorado and the Bohema
Circle South beach access Thel~urroundlng area I'> charactenzed by detached reSidential homc,> The parcel contain'>
I
an accessory shcd for the ~mg1c-fam11y dwelhng located at 756 Eldorado The proposal mcludes demohtlOn of the
eXI,>tlng acce~sory shed :
I
I
The apphcant prOVided a block survey shOWing the eXlstmg front (east) setback'> ofnelghbormg properties to thc north
I
at 712 Eldorado and 820 Eldoraoo These propertlc,> were revealcd to be at a la-foot setback or less from bUlldlllg to
I
property lme There are other propert1C<; along Eldorddo Avenue and wlthm the ,>urroundmg VICInity haVing front
setbacks at 10 feet or less from p'ropcrty hne to dwelling umt
I
The applicant has provldcd a block ~urvey showmg the front (~outh) ,>etback located along the ,>oulh Bohema CIrcle
beach access IS charactenstlc of bthcr beach access comer lot<.
I
The applicant ha,> not provlded eVidence to show how a concrete wall seven feet m hClght IS charactenstlc of ~lllular
I
properties or mcctmg the general applicabIlity cnterla and reSidential mfill cntena The request ha~ been reduced to a
I
concrete wall four feet m height along the front (south) propcrty Ime and a non-opaque (wrought Iron type) fence along
I
the front (east) Side of the bUlldmg
I
The apphc.urt ha, w>thdmwn thT reque" fm the ,w,mmmg pool, aud rea< aud frool <clback, to pool deck
~ \Planning DeparlmellllC [j) B\Standard Flcll/naCllve or rllllshed Ca~e~IEldorado 0752 (LMDR) ApprOved\Eldorado 752 SlajJ
Report dac- Page J
The l1nprovement~ will add value to the eXI~tlng property and should have a posItive Impact on nelghbonng property
value~ The current land value for 756 Eldorado Avenue IS $800,00000 and the propo<;ed Improvement<; are expeGted
to double the eXisting value The proposed remodeling Will re<;ult In a development that maintainS the eXIsting
character of the neighborhood The development complte<; WIth demlty and ImpervlOu<; <;ur/ace ratIO standard~ wllllln
the Low Medium DensIty ResidentIal Dlstnct
I
All apphcablc Code reqUlrement<; and cntena mcludmg but not hmlted to General Appheabll1ty criteria (SectIOn 3-
I
913) and Re<;ldentlallnfiI1 Project cntena (Section 2-103 B) have been met
COOl!: ENFORCEMENT ANXLYSIS:
There are no oubtandmg enforcement I~sues a~~oelated with thIS sIte
I
I
GENERAL STANDARDS (Sec'tlOn 3-913)
I
i
Development o~ thc land WIll be In
harmony with die scale, bulk, coverage,
I
denSIty and character of adjacent
propCrtlC<;
Consistent InconSistent
X
2
Development WIll not hinder or dl<;collrage
dcvelopment and! use of adjacent land and
bUlldmgs or slgmficantly Impair the value
thereof I
!
,
X
3
Development wtl) not adversely affect the
health or safety i of per;.on~ re~1 dmg or
working In the nCIghborhood
I
I
Development 1<;, dC<;lgned to minimIZe
traffic congestion:
I
Development I!> coml!>tent wJth the
commumty character of the Immedmte
vlclntty I
X
4
x
5
X
6
I
DeSign of the; proposed development
mlmmlLes adverse effects, mcludmg
vI<;ual, acou~ttc dlld olfactory and hour.. of
I
operatlOn Impacts on adjacent propertIes
X
I
S \Plannmg DepartmenllC D BISlrmdard Fle\lfnaLllve 01 FllllOhed Cw,e:, \Efrlorado 0752 (I MDR) Approved\Ddorado 752 ~/aIJ
Report doc- Page 2
FU:XIBILlTY CRITERIA FOR 1.1\1 DR DISTRICT R FM DEN IIAL IN); ILL PROJ ECTS: (SectIOn 2-203 C):
Smgle-famlly detached dwelhng~ Jre the
only pcmlltted u<,e ehglble fOf re<,ldentlJI
mfill project apphtatlOn,
Con~I"tent Inconsistent
X
The development or redevelopment of the
parcel proposed for development IS
other\'me Impractical without devIatIOns
I
from the mten!>lty and other development
standards I
The development of thc parcel proposcd for
developmcnt as al reSldentml mfill project
I
Will not matenally reduce the fair market
value of abuttmg properties,
,
I
I
The u"'c"' wlthm th,c re",ldcntlal mfill project
are otherwise penTlltted m the dlstnct,
The .'", ~thm ,1 "".denb.1 mfill pmJect
I
arc compatlble with adjacent land uses,
I
The development ofthe parcel propo"ed for
development J" a! re!>ldentlal mfil1 project
will upgrade the Immediate vlclmty of the
parcel proposed for development,
i
,
I
The deSign of the proposed res! dentlal In fi 11
proJcct creatc<, a form and functIOn which
I
enhances the commumty character of the
I
Immediate VICInity of the parcel propo",cd
I
for development and the City of Clearwater
as a whole, I
Flexlblhty m regard to lot Width, reqUired
I
setbacks, height, off-street parkmg access
or other development "tandards arc Justlficd
I
by the benefits to community character and
I
the Immediate VICInity of the parcel
I
propo"ed for development and the City of
Clearwater as a wHole
I
j
"'See andlY"I" "eetlOn for explanation of mcon",l",teney With entena
2
X'"
3
x
4
x
5
x
6
x
7
x
8
x
~ \/-'Ial1llmg LJeparlmellt\C D'BlSwlldard FleY;\/nacllve 01 FlIlIsheri Cases\Eldorado 0752 (LMDR) Approved\Eldorado 7i2 SwfJ
Reporl doc- Page 3
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION-
I he Devclopment Review Commlttce rcvlewed the apphca110n and supportmg ma1enah on August 12, 2004 1 he
Pl:mnmg Dcp,lItment recommend~ APPROVAL of the FlexIble Standard Development for constructIOn of a new
smgle-famlly rC~ldence, sWlmmmg pool/deck, and fence/wall The reque~t IS for reductIOn to the front (ea~t) setback
from 25 feel to 10 feet to the structure, front (:.outh) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet to the- ~tructure, front (,,>outh)
setback from 25 feet to 3 5 feet to the pool deLk, for reductIOn to the waterfront (Coastal ComtruetlOn Control L1I1c)
setback from 25 fcet to zero feet to the pool deck ami pool, A wall of <;evcn feet 111 height 111 the setbacks, as part of a
ReSidential Inftll ProJcet under the provlslOn~ of ScctlOn 2-203 C for the ~Ite at 752 Eldorado A venue, on the
followmg bases and conditions
Ba<;e<; for Approval
I The propo<;al compiles with the FleXible Standard Development cntena a~ d ReSidential InftH Project per SectIOn
2-203 C I
2 The proposal IS m compliance wIth other standards 111 the Code mc1udmg the General Apphcablltty Cntend per
SectIOn 3-913 I
3 The development IS compatible with the ~urround\l1g area and Will enhance other redevelopment drorts
Conditions of Approval I
I That a concrete wall be no taller than four feet In height along the front (south) property lme dnd the non-opaque
I
(wrought uon type) fence alqng the front (ed~t) SIde of the bUlldmg not exceed SIX feet m heIght
2 That a $200 RecreatIOn Fae-Ihty Impact fee IS due pnor to bUlldmg penmt Issuance for edch new reSidential umt
3 That the fdce ofthe garage bb 20' from the back edge of sidewalk
I
4 That vehicles cannot be pdrk~d In the dnveway bloekmg the pedestnan access to the concrete Sidewalk
I
I
I
Prepared by PJanmng Departmef!t Staff
: John Schodtler, Planner I
S lPfall/JI/lg lJepallmellllC 0 8l~tandard Flex\hwctlve or FEI1l\hed (.ast'sIEldorado 0752 (LMDR) Approwd\fldorado 752 Slaj)
RepOlI doc- Page 4
~)
v
~
MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMuLLEN
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
1501 SOUTH FLORIDA AVENUE
LAKE LAND FLORIDA 33803
(863) S80 9908 FAX (863) 6832849
ONE TAMPA CITY CENTER SUITE 2000
201 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET
POBOX 1531 (ZIP 33601)
TAMPA FLORIDA 3360a
(813) 273 4200 FAX (813) 273 4396
625 COURT STREET
POBOX 1669 (ZIP 33757)
CLEARWATER FLORIDA 33756
(727) 4418966 FAX (727) 442 8470
IN REPLY RE.FER TO
www mfmlegal com
EMAIL Info@mfmlegal com
Clearwater
August 12, 2004
City of Clearwater
Post Office Box 4748
Clearwater, FL 33758-4748
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Re FLS2004-050B3 - 752 Eldorado Avenue, Clearwater, FL [Robert D Basham]
I
FLS2004-05032 - 756 Eldorado Avenue, Clearwater, FL [Steven B Chapman]
I
Dear Sir or Madam I ....
I
Please allow thiS letter to serve as our request to withdraw that portIon ofthe above-
I
referenced applicatIOns which deal With the setback request from the CCCL
I
If you have any questIons, please do not hesitate to contact my office
I SIncerely yours,
,
I
I
HSC koh I
cc Mr Robert D Basham
I
Mr Steven M Chapman
I
~~ne
h \data\aty\hsc\corresp '04\cJty 812 doc
~G-30-2004 15 03
--
MRCERRLANE FERGUSON
727 442 8470
P.03
..
August 30,2004
~g)~(c[~]%7~ ro~
SEP I 5:rot t1:V
Mr John Schodtler
C1ty of Clearwater
Post Office Box 4748
Clearwater, FL 33757-4748
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
Cln' OF CLE;\RWATE,q
I
Re FLS2004-05033 - 752 Eldorarlo Avenue, Clearwater, FL [Robert D Basham]
I
Dear John
Supplementmg our appl1canon, and In direct response to your comments at the DRC
meebng regarding the above, We would hke to your fIles to reflect the followmg addItIonal
comments' I
1 As to rJquested addltlOnal informatlon, your Item # 3, the requested 10'
setback for house COnstructlOD from Boherua CIrcle IS consIstent With the scale, bulk and
density of all other coristructlOn on Eldorado. eA'1ending from Acacia On the south to
Garderua on the north I Specd1cally Bohewa IS a 60' \\o'1de, unopened, street nght-of-way
The 60' beach accessway, immediately to the south, between eX1sting houses at 730 and
734 Eldorado, as well4s the 60' wide beach access at Mango Street 1Dlffiediately to the
north, have residential constructIOn WIthIn the setbacks adjacent to sald accessways
I
Some of these arc much closer than the 10' requested by thIs applIcant As reflected ill
the block survey proVided the CIty, the Mango Street access to the north has an existing
tltree (3) story reSIdential structure at 800 Eldorado Avenue, WIthin 70' of the nght-of-
way and a three (3) story reSIdential structure at 780 Eldorado Avenue, WithIn 5.0' of the
I
nght-of-way
I
2 In response to your corrunent Item # 6. newly constructed residentIal, ""ill
I
represent an upgrade, not only from a valuatIOn standp01nt, but from an aesthetIc
standpomt New reSIdential constructIon along Eldorado IS ongOing, and this applicatIOn
Will be consIstent With the current trend of quality, beachfront homes which definItely is
an upgrade for Clearwater Beach
I
I
3 RelatIve to your comment Item # 7, the lot Itself IS only 60' wide, and If
full setbacks are applied. the buildmg envelope IS reduced to a pomt that a qUalIty,
bcachfront home, canno~ be constructed consistent With the emergmg pattern on th1s
street
qL~-30-2004 15 03
MRCF~RLRNE FERGUSON
727 442 8470
P.04
August 30, 2004
Page 2
4 In response to your comment Item # 8, even though we sunultaneously tiled an
applicatIon for the property to the north, usmg the same arclutectural elevatIon as we dId
for the Basham property, please be advIsed that the two (2) propertIes wIll not be
developed WIth the saine identical archItectural features These propertIes are owned by
two (2) separate mdIYlduals, and tlus IS to advIse you that as and when we file actual
I
building plans, we wt.ll provide you With elevatIons reflecting dtfferences in archItectural
detaIls 1
5 Fmally) relauve to the wall requested along Bohema, as noted m the block
survey provIded to you, there IS a 6' high block wall along the southem bOundary of the
Mango Street access, J.here the three (3) story resldentlal structure 15 constructed WIthm
5' of the property line I Although not reflected on the block survey, there 15 also a
retarnmg wall on the north property hne for the house located at 730 Eldorado Avenue,
wmch 15 the beach accbs unmedlately to the south. That IS a concrete wall that runs
I
along the property lme, so we thmk our request IS consistent With other area development
Enclosed are some arc~tectural proJectl.Ons for the wall or enclosure we would h.ke to
have for security for the SIte, given the fact that there apparently IS sIgmficant publIc
actiVIty lfivolving thts ~ccess, so that pnvacy and securIty become an ISSue We do not
believe our proposed e'fIc1osure or wall facIlity adversely Impacts, in any way, VIstas
otherwise enjoyed by the publIc, and It IS not gomg to extend beyond the bUilding hne for
the house along Eldorado_ We have dropped the \\owl apphcatIon to 4', and would hope
that it Will be approved along the southern property line for famIly pnvacy and secunty
I
I
I trust tlllS addresses y~ur concerns, but lfnot, please give me, or Mr elme, a call and we
WIll schedule a meetmg to sit down and reVlew further, If acceptable, please forward the
appropnate approvals from th~ CIty so we can proceed,
I
Sincerely yours,
BDG INCORPORATED
ChrIS Kirschner
CK
\
I
I
I
\
I
v-
.--"-
/~
"
Questions about the application for 752 Eldorado flexible development
Please send answers to Mrs Jack Bntton
Who detemunes the definition of the character of the neighborhood? The
neighbors? The developer? The developer"s lawyer? The PlannIng official?
What determines if & lot ~s sufficiently "unbuildable" for it to quahfy for infill
status and flexIble development. What are the standards for determining thiS
status? I
I
If simply being "contained within side setbacks" makes any kind of building or
I
wall permIssible. What is the purpose of side setbacks?
I
Where in the code does it say that development must be compatIble wIth an
"emerging development ~cheme? Who determines what this development
I
scheme should be? Developers?
I
In what ways will this development benefit communIty character that a
bmlding within the regul~ guidelines would not do? Is a building extendIng
into the side setback moie beneficial to the community than one which abides
by the rules? Would notla building obeying the regular guidelines bring Just as
much benefit to the community?
I
The code refers consistently to "adjacent properties" and "abutting properties"'.
I
What in the code allows the applicant to extend the cnteria for approval to
properties "along the strdet" and "properties being currently developed"?
I
I
5 f\,.:>o/ liSfK~C>~ ~. 0::>",,-
SO-:\\"d.. ~ G) ~ R \ 'Tu N:S:-~ co r;v--:.
RECE~VED
AUf, v'd LUU"
PLANNING DEPARTMEMT
CITY OF CLEARWATE.R
. ,
> .
(
~
,
COMMENTS ON INFILL DEVELOPMENT REQUEST FOR PROPERTY
AT 752 ELDORADO AVENUE (Lot 1, Block 4, Mandalay Subdivision)
as invited by your letter to property owners surrounding this address'
"\
We, the undersigned property owners and residents in the North Clearwater Beach
community, respectfully request that the City refuse the developer's request for a
15 foot reduction in the 25 foot setback required on the South property line We
also request that any wall allowed in the South property line setback be limited to
the Standard Requirements, not the Flexible ReqUIrements. We ask this for the
following reasons:
RJECE~VE[D
There is considerable evidence both in the vicinity of this property
and in the larger North ~each community that the character of the AUG lJ ~ 2U04
community is mostly open and friendly, with space for the gentle
breezes from the Gulf to cover the island, and people to greet one IPLAN~iNG [)EPARTbb~ENT
another and become neighbors and friends. The frequent wide crrv OF CLEARWATER
views and glimpses of the water are a major factor in making
North Clearwater Beach 'special. The City Charter recognizes this
by forbidding the vacation of these street ends for any purpose whatsoever.
The openness of the cOnlmunity makes it pleasant to be outdoors. We who live
here and those who visit treasure this and allowing the 15 foot proposed
intrusion of this unnecessarily wide building will set a precedent for more
closing of our open Vistas.
1. The developers claim ihat improvements on the land would be "otherwise
impractical without deviations from the development standards" is based on the
size of the lot. This is th~ same size lot as most others in the neighborhood and,
therefore, not a claim to uniqueness WhICh Infill Development requires.
Perhaps the lot size does not let the developer build as large a building as he
would hke, but it can hardly be argued that the lot size makes it "Impractical to
build on it," since a house of a size common and prevalent in the North Beach
community would fit within the standard setbacks.
2. With regard to entitlelent to a water view by nearby neighbors. this IS not
the point in question. ThF question is "Will the development reduce the fair
market value of surrounding properties?" Many real estate professionals would
agree that the additional l5 feet of tall buildmg intruding into the setback area,
coupled with a high wall on the property line will limit nearby owners' water
view and thus reduce the market value of their property, as well as, more
importantly, significantly reducing the general public's water view as they walk
and dnve by.
- 1 -
. .
\
, \
'.
I
3. The code requires that the uses or mix be compatible with adjacent land uses.
The developer states that it is conSistent with "emerging development along
Eldorado." The code does not ask about "emerging development." It addresses
current adjacent land uses. Emerging development is not listed anywhere as
criteria
4. The developer states, "Any new construction of a single-family residential
nature, will represent an improvement, and therefore, and enhancement to the
community, relative to this particular property." We agree with him, and feel
certain that an improvement, withm the setbacks, will be an enhancement to the
community. The reduction in setback is not necessary for the beneficial effects
to the community.
5. We disagree with the developer's interpretation of what consists of II an
adequate building envelope" for a residence at this site. The code refers to "the
immediate vicinIty of the parcel." The developer prefers to compare it to
"propertIes being currently developed along this street and in this
neumborhood. ...He further says it will be a benefit to the community. He has
not addressed the requirement which refers to the "immediate vicinIty of the
parcel." The City, by restricting those who can appeal the Planning Director's
decision in this matter to those who are "within the required notice are_a.," and
other references to "abutting" and "adjacent" properties, has limited ~~~E C[E ~V[E D
comparison area for the developer to an area much more restricted that "along
this street" and "in this nejghborhood." AIJG L' ~ tUU4
And we find nothing in th~ code that gives permission to go beyond~tlle~&\%\l!~G Df:Pt>!l?:TMIENT
immediate vicinity in mak;ing comparisons. We request that you followth'e(CoclKEARVVATER
I
in this! Actually, making comparisons WIth other buildings anywhere is a denial
of the purpose of the code~ which is to improve the community You cannot
improve the community by imitating errors made in the past. In almost every
decision about Infill Development the assurance is that "this does not set a
precedent." So, we submit that using other developments as precedent to be
followed should not be a part of this decision.
,
We have been led to believe that Staff feels comparisons should be made to other
properties on the "street ends" on Clearwater Beach, calling them "paper streets."
We do not find anything inlthe code about street ends and paper streets. If the
purpose of the 25 foot setb~ck from a street is to maintain visibility at the
intersectIOn, then, we submit, this intersection is particularly important as it IS a
place where cars and pedestnans intersect and the need for visibility, which will
already be compromised by the front street setback reduction, is even more
important. The end of the street is well used by residents and visitors alike as
access to the beach, or to g~ther in the evenings to watch the sunset. Due to street
- 2 -
. . . ;:;OUt, residents and vi!rs from a wide area funnel through this access. It IS
the m6t heavily used public access in this neIghborhood.
I
In summation: We belieye that the requirements of the code, carefully followed,
would not allow the reasons given by the developer for reducing the side
setback IN ANY WAY. I It is obvious that an adequate building can be built at
I
752 E:Idorado without any hardship to the developer. ol>~y!ng the full 25 foot
setback requirement from Bohenia Circle,
j
I r, __----
Signed-
Name
Addres)J 1 ~ 1
REC~~VED
Phone(Optional)
At IB L' ~ lUU~
/ If cMJL 3 ~ 7.) 0 ?) j) ~ &r ((AH) 9f 1.:1--
· II1I!({TtIJ !}of?rSCUt{~l ?it;- JJr<ucf liVE 121 'flf3 ~210
· ~ ',J/ iJO,{~?kl~ )/~7 P3J'7 /
'/J~~ 1~;AJ1wj)A-i-AiAuE 447-4Lf9/'
· ~-L01N'M~737, M~U-rrL '-I'{2...2281
./ ~ k. ~ 71f1 tltrl~ LN3r 72.ZS-
~d1K'ct 6~~" 750 f{~ 44-3- 4166
/t?~ ~7 7j~Eld~() Av-R ~~6-(970
/5 al?dcJ~ q2/7 5C
/ {l d 111 t:WJ J~ /11/[ /.;( r; (;; ~~S3
3,? f1 c UI c: (' ~ ,c;f L/ ~ - fLfra
I
i?~/ &~ I)/ (if//-- oJ713
~
(j~2 -~f 2-- 'J
.
.
74 I mA.d, ~ AlJ~
737 JIJ 11
7 J.FJ-A'tifrl/f-:::jJ e~()~i~-uMENT
....:~o' ~r CLEARWATER
J;2 7 U~J()
- 3 -
~J
"
IIIl ~ ~.. .
.
I
I
Address
Phone( Optional)
Signed' Name
J30
~
~.
~dl
flay f'11.4NO/lM /'
tflf 7 -..2 /Lj ':J
~V-6- S-767'
L-JY~"1o-~
;V'/~
~J:J
~-- J f IV
, A
.~/[' f(~1f/577)l/47 3CS-J#~/y(j?6 0>7
t/ IL I ' .
f""",A, Lvu\1 7~~ 86~,~ C ,/L '- \~ Y<"'\;;( - q Sft\ J
Qjf;fr 1Jo~/\ 7 ~o. rn1fJvnc&[O;J !lifr;tj2~
~A"c ~~ 'T1<6 /J1ij-NLJtfft-4;j f
'l/fttiJ( ~ 7 (q 11/1/V1J/kll A/~IEC[E~VIED
~ AUG \ ~ ~UU4
PILAN ~ J L\JG !J1ErfJjfrl\.~ r ~-i
." - . F LEAIC{\tVA n. I ~
tJ L( (] .rVve'
72.0 If. "'C~
f/'fz baS-S-
- 4 -
'- ~ ,~, .. II
,
.
,
Address
Phone( Optional)
Signed: Name
fr (! w~ -1--L V-~ -?(, -s c)
~[Ftr~~\f[ElD
AlII; \. tf 2UO~
PLANrr~~u\\G Ol\OA~~MEMT
CiTY OF CLEARWATER
. 5'..
ELAINE LUCAS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
7045 BLANDING BOULEVARD
JACKSONVILLE, FL 32244
TELEPHONE: 904.777.1886
FACSIMILE: 904.777.9873
CIty of Clearwater
Planning Department
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater Fl3756
Re: 752 Eldorado Avenue (FL S2004-05033)
Dear Mr Schodtler'
Please be advIsed this firm represents Ms. Barbara Buchanan In thIS matter Ms
Buchanan is the owner of property located at 755 Eldorado Avenue, across the street
from the property seekmg the reductIon of the set back lines It IS her pOSItIon that the
application should be demed based on the Comments letter signed by the other residents
of the neighborhood The grounds stated by the Developer do not support the relaxation
of the code standards. The current set back reqUirements may not be in lIne WIth the
plans of the current owner but they are not mappropriate for the use of the lot The
constructIOn of the seven foot wall will block the VISibility of the beach for the residents
that have purchased property in the area and relIed on the current standards
Please accept thIS as a vote to reject the application If further mformatlon or
confirmatIOn is needed you may contact Ms Buchanan directly at (904) 389-1039, or thIS
office
Smcerely,
~~Ula~
ElaIne Lucas
RECEIVED
EL II
AUG 1 () '2004
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF CLEARWATER
Cc Barbara Buchanan
Aug 06 04 05:30p
Jot" ,Br 1 tto n
72 - 443 -4465
r.:lI 003/005
p.2
08/08/2004 09 42 FAX 727 461 4888
PtofeSSlonal Real Estata
COMMENTS ON INFILL DEVELOPMENT REQUEST FOR PROPERTY
AT 752 ELDORADO AVENUE (Lot 1, Block 4, Mandalay Subdivision)
as Invited by your letter to property owners sun oundlng thiS address
\Ve, the undersigned property owners and resIdents in the North Clearwater Beach
communIty, respectfully ~equest that the City refuse the developer's request for a
15 foot reduction in the 25 foot setback required on the South property line We
also request that any wall I allowed in the South property line setback be limIted to
the Standard Requuements, not the FlexIble Requirements_ We ask this for the
followmg reasons' I
There is considerable evidence both In the vicmity of this property
and In the larger North Beach community that the character of the
community is mostly open and friendly, with space for the gentle
breezes from the Gulf to: cover the Island, and people to greet one
another and become neIghbors and friends Thl:: frequent WIde
views and glimpses of the water are a major factor in making
North Clearwater Beach Ispecial The City Charter recognizes thIS
by forbiddmg the vacation of these street ends for any purpose whatsoever.
The openness of the commumty makes It pleasant to be outdoors_ We who live
here and those who visit treaSure tins and allowing the 15 foot proposed
Intrusion of this unnecessarIly wide building will set a precedent for more
closmg of our open vistaS.
1 The developers claim that improvements on the land would be "othe:rv-,rise
impractical Without deviatIOns from the development standardstl is based on the
size of the lot. This IS the, same size lot as most others 1n the neIghborhood andl
therefore, not a claim to uniqueness which Intill Development requires_
Perhaps the lot size does not let the developer build as large a building as he
would like, but it can hardly be argued that the lot SIze makes It "impractical to
build on it," since a house of a size comr.oon and prevalent in the North Beach
communlty would fit withm the standard setbacks.
I
2. With regard to entitleln1ent to a water view bv nearby neighbors. tillS IS not
the point In question. The questlOn is "WlH the development reduce the fau
market value of surroundin2. Dfoperties?" Many real estate profeSSIonals would
agree that the additional 15 feet of tall bUIldmg Intruding lllto the setback area.
coupled with a high wall on the property line ,,,;I] limit nearby owners' water
~ and thus reduce the market value ofthelr property, as. well as, more
impor:antly, slgl1ltlcantly reduclng the general public's ~~~~tl?-E!Olk
and drive by. ~r:.vt:.1 V t;.
I
- 1 -
AUG 1 ti 2004
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF CLEA~'NATER
Ru;: 06 0"1- OS:30p
Jahl Jr 1 tton
~
72', 443-4466
~ 004/005
p.3
08/08/2004 08 42 FAX 727 481 4888
ProfeSSlonol Real Estatp
,
3. TIle code requires that the uses or mix be compatIble with adjacent land uses.
The developer states that it is consistent "WIth "emergmg development along
Eldorado." The code does not ask about "emergmg development. !I It addresses.
current adiacent land uses. Emerging development IS not listed anywhere as
criteria.
4. The developer states, "Any new construction of a stngle-famlly residentIal
nature, W1Il represent an unprovement, and therefore, and enhancement to the
I
community, relative to this particular property" We agree WIth him, and feel
celtain that an ImprOVement, within the setbacks, will be an enhancement to the
communIty. The reduction In setback IS not necessary for the beneficial effects
to the community.
5 We dxsagree WIth the developer's interpretation of what consists of "an
adequate bUilding envelGpe" for a residence at tIDs site. The code refers to "the
immediate vicrmty of the parcel. II The developer prefers to compare It to
"properties being currently developed along this street and In this
nelJ!hborhood ..He further says it will be a benefit to the commUnIty. He has
not addressed the requirement which refers to the "inlmedIate vicimty of the
oarcel.H The Clty, by restncting those who can appeal the Planning Director's
dectsion In this matter to:those who are "within the required notice area, H and
other references to "abut1;ing" and "adjacent" properties, has limited the
companson area for the de" eloper to an area much more restricted that "along
trus street" and ''In thIS neIghborhood_'1
And we find nothing in the code that gives permtssion to go beyond the
Immediate viclmty in makmg comparisons We request that you follow the code
in thlS' Actually, making comparisons with other bUIldings anywhere is a denial
of the purpose of the code, WhlCh IS to Improve the community. You cannot
improve the community by umtating errOr;') made in the past. In almost every
deCISIon about Infill Development the aSSurance is that "this does not set a
precedent." So. we submit that using other developments as precedent to be
followed should not be a part of this decision.
We have been led to believe that Staff feels compansons should be made to other
properties on the "street ends" on Clea["\~ra.ter Beach, calling them "paper streets"
We do not find anythmg in the code about street ends and paper streets_ Tfthe
purpose of the 25 foot setback from a street is to maintain visibility at the
mtersection, then, we submit, this inte,rsection is particularly important as it is a
place \\-here Cars and pedestnans intersect and the need for visibility, whIch will
already be compromised by the front street setback reductIOn, is even more
Important The end of the street 1$ well used by reSIdents and visitors alike as
access to the beach, or to gather In the evemngs to watch the sunset. Due to street
- 2 -
08/08/2004 08 43 FAX 727 481 4888
ProfeSSlonal Real Estatp
~ 005/005
AUG: 06 04 OS;30p
.Joh. Jr). t.t.Ot'1
7 2 '. 4 43 - 44 S 6
r:'.4
layout, residents and visitors from a wide area funnel through this access It is
the mot heavily used public access in this neIghborhood
In summation We believe that the requirements of the code, carefully followed,
would not allow the reasons gIven by the developer for reducing the sIde
setback IN ANY W A Yj. It is ObVIOUS that an adequate building can be built at
752 Eldorado without any hardship to the developer, obeYing the full 25 foot
setback requil"ement from Bohenia Circle Beach Access.
Signed: Name
Address
Phone( OptIonal)
I
8~~
7Jjr f(}t1r d-~9'04-3 n-/03'1
....
- .J -
08{ 11;:1/2004
14 38
NO 542 [;1002
-"
ELAINE LUCAS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
7045 BLAl'WING BOULEVARD
JACKSONVILLE, FL 32244
TELEPHONE: 904.777.1886
FACSIMILE: 904.777.9873
RECE~VED
City of Clearwater
Planning Department
100 South Myrtle Avenue
I
Clearwater F1 3756 '
I
Re 752 Eldorado Avenue (FL 82004-05033)
Allr, 1 II LUU4
PLAl\jNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF CLEARWATER
Dear Mt Schodtler.
Please be adVISed tins film represents Ms. Barbara Buchanan in this matter Ms.
Buchanan IS the owner dfproperty located at 755 Eldontdo Avenue, across the street
from the property seekmg the reduction of the set back lines. It is her position that the
apphcatIon should be demed based on the Comments letter signed by the other residents
of the neighborhood. Th,e grounds stated by the Developer do not support the relaxatlDll
of the code standards. The current set back requrrements may not be in line with the
plans of the current owner but they are not inappropriate for the use of the lot The
construction of the seven foot wall will block the visibility of the beach for the residents
that have purchased pr~ in the area and rclied on the current standards.
Please accept thIs as a vdte to reject the applicat1On. Iffurther informatJ.on or
confirmation IS needed you may contact Ms Buchanan directly at (904) 389-1039, orth.1s
office I
Sincerely.
~c9.U.COI5
EIame Lucas
I
EL.ll
Ce. Barbara Buchanan
08/10/2P04 14 38
~
'llj I U 8 I 2 n 0j "8 4 ~ F' ,n 4 6 1 4, ~ P r (I t% 8 S 1 0 n alP Ii) alE s tate
Aug a6 04'OS:30p John Brltto~ 727 443-446G
NO 542 GJ003
I.tl OIlJ:no~
p.2
COMMENTS ON lNFILL DEVELOPMENT REQUEST FOR PROPERTY
AT 752 ELDORADO AVENUE (Lot 1, Block 4~ MandaJay Snbdivision)
as invited by YOUT lener to property owners surrounding this address
!
We, the undersigned property owners and Tesldents in the North Clearwater Beach
coronmruty, respectfully request that the City refuse the develo,?er's request for a
15 foot reduction in the.:f5 foot setback required on the South property line. We
also request that any wall allowed in the South property I ine setback be limited to
the Standard Reqwrements, not the flexIble Requirements. We ask this for the
follO'W"lng reasons; I R fEe fE ~ VE [[J
'I
'I
,
There is considerable ~vidence both in the vicinity of this property ill If, 1 n iUU4
and in the larger North I Beach community that the character of the IP
community is mostly open and friendly, with space fOT the gentle ~~~~,~~ D.Ept\!qrMENT
breezes from the Gulf to cover the islan~ and people to greet one 0, CLEARWATER
another and become ne~ghbors and mends. Tbe frequent 'Wide
views and glimpses of the water are a major factor in making
North Clearwater Beach special. The City Charter recognizes this
by forbiddmg the vacation of these street ends for any purpose whatsoever.
The openness of the community makes it pleasant to be outdoors. We who lIve
here and those who visit treasure this and allowing the 15 foot proposed
intrusion of this unnec6sarily wide building will set a precedent for more
closing of our open vistaS.
1 The developers clain; that improvements on the land would be "otherwise
impractical without deviations from the development standardst! is based on the
size oithe lot. This is tlie same size lot as most others in the neighborhood and,
therefore, not a claim to uniqueness which lnfill Development requires.
Perhaps the lot size doe~ not let the developer build as large a building as he
would like, but it can hardly be argued that the lot SIze makes it "impractical to
build on it, n since a ho~e of a size common and prevalent in the North Beach
commumty would fit within the standard setba.cks.
2 With regard to entitlekent to a water view by nearby neighbors. this is not
the ooint in. ~stion. The queStlon is "Will the development reduce the fair
market value ofsurroundina: properties?1I M3llY' real estate professionals would
agree that the ad d ltional I 15 feet of tall building mtrudin2: into the setback area
coupled with a high wall on th~roperty line VlilI limit nearby owners' water
~ and thus reduce the market value of their property, as weB as, more
importantly. significantly reducing the general public's water view as they v.ralk
and drive by.
- 1 -
.
08(09J:Ou~ n~ 43 FA~
,- ,
,27
~R1 ~ Prof8SS1onal Real Estate
NO.642 JJ004
tm VIJJ/ '-'~'-J
08/10/2004 14.38
Au{; 06 04~ OS; 30p
,
Johh 3rlt~On 727 443-.4~6
10'.4
layout, residents and visitors from a wide area funnel through thlS access. It is
the mot heavily used. public accesS in this neighborhood.
In summation We believe that the requirements of the code, carefully followed,
would not allow the reasons gIven by the developer for reducing the side
setback IN ANY WAY. It is obvious that an adequate building can be built at
752 Eldorado without any hardship to the developer, obeying the full 25 foot
setb:'lJ.~k requirement from. Bohenia Circle Beach Access.
I
Signed: Name
Address
Pb.one(Optional)
,
8~~
/ I
7Jjr f(Jlr- J1l90If'3 aq-/o39
RECE~VED
AI U:; 1 n LUU4
IPLANN:0[G Or-:J'Jt\ rq-:-MENT
f"iTV nit:' f"! tL I 'LllHhlJ\iifElO
- 3 ..
08/10/2004
..
14 38
NO 642 [;1001
,
,- .
- ,
ELAINE LUCAS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
I
900 CESERY BLVD SUITE 103
,
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32211
n:LEPHONE: 904.744.1902
F ACSIlVIILE: 904.744.1922
EMAIL: E~AlNELUCASLAW@BELLSOUTH.NET
I
ATTENTION TO: FAX NUMBER:
"It J,.,. CI 1- J L \k f fd7- 56;)-L/67L
V,y\V' ""Y''y I (ir I ,
.
DATE: ~ II 0 1 OL PAGES: 5
REFERENCE': \ ~ ~uCVy._....C\
~ 1'" V un. 1l.\I'o(1I
COMMENTS: I
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
I
I rR<IF~F~\\f~n
I
...'J...............~
I Allr, 1 0 LUU~
, IPD IJ.. ~~U').Pr.: r)l"""~ - rJ:i1""~ ~p-
, ~ - -... .... - li.lo '!lo tt ~ J~ L.....
CiTY Of CU;~"c;VHATt='
I
,
I
\~l
~
NOTE 1'ne infonnatlOn co:r'ita1ned in thIs transmission may be attorney pnvdegeo and confidmtlsl. It IS
intended only for the use of the mOlVldual or entity named above If the reader ofthts message IS not the
IIltended r<<:Jplent, you are hereby notified that any dISSeIDl.na!ion, dIstrlbuuon or copy of this
communiCation may be strlct1y prohlbtted by law If you have received thiS commumcanon m error, please
notify Ollr office inunedlately a~ the number above and return the ongmal message at the address shown
above via U S Postal Semce Postage cost Will be reimbursed. Thank you
6 ~,; ~;~l~a'~ rwater
~I,r\ ' - i\,l1,t I
I-- -.:;. -= I :;.-::
- =- I
o
FAX: COVER MEMO
CITY OF CLEARW A TER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
100 S. MYRTLE AVE., 2nd Floor
qLEARW ATER, FL 33756
(727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865
TO:~~~~ c~~
FAX: 44 2 '4-70
!
I
,
Phone:
,
FROM: ~lJ~: S- ~ Phone:
DATE: o'i", vu""
SUBJECT: ,9. ~
I
I
MESSAGE: ~ ~.r~'...{l-\ --- ~ "I\.L.'1f..A....,.:.!
~(j'
NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLVDING THIS PAGE)
I }WCJY
~
-- 0:
7)2 -- tcJr :[
-
7~6 - L(9r 2...
-
~,' -1}(-/L~/J~ 1fJ(!(-/)f 7Z2 ~~ C6~. -
I
,
I
, --
"
211 I I'
lvA-v?7: GE-r-l?)(-1:-u 2)" ~r ~~cK Y"CJ
./ . pttff,t -lrdA'~ ~:)
:f~
/I17f:;J.OK'- clB:r~~.LfL~d~Cl:\I- Or: ~~~
_~D&tc4 AehSS CCe!r L
-
- I
I
I
-
,
I
I
-
,
I
! ~
, I ~,
, !
11
l!
fll
1,(
I
,
,
t
"
I ~'
I "
Section 3-905. Coastal construction control line.
A Purpo:::.e This sectIOn establishes wlthm the city the coastal constructlOn
control line as the lIne of reference from whIch setbacks shall be measured along the Gulf
of MeXICO for bUlldmgs and ':itructures pursuant to F S S 161 053 In order to protect thc
safety, economiC, envIronmental, recreatIOnal and community appearance objectIves of
the cIty
B ReqUired setback No bmldmg or structure shall be located seaward of the
coastal constructIOn control hne unless approved by the State of FlOrIda
C lnterpretatwn Nothmg contamed m thiS section shall be constmed to
confhct WIth or .'.Uperseqe the authOrIty of the state m regard to establIshmg the locatIOn
or relocatIOn of the coastal constructlOll control lIne, or any waJver or varIance to the
requIrements relatIve thereto pursuant to F S ch 161, or the reqUIrements and authOrIty
ofthe CIty and the county constructIOn hcensmg board pursuant to Chapter 47 and the
CIty pursuant to Chapter 146 ThIS section shall be admullstered accordIng to the follOWIng
reqUirements
Complrance WIth the proVISIOns of this development code shall be
mdependent of any actIon or authonty ofthe State of flonda pursuant to
Ch 161 F S and no actlOn by the state shall reheve any person from
comphanFe WIth the requlfements ofthlS development code
2
Seawalls shall not be governed by the reqUIred setback IdentIfied m thiS
sectIon ,
I
I
Any request to modIfy the setback reqUIrements contamed III thIS sectIon
shall be conSIdered as an applicatIOn for a Level Two approval as prOVIded
for In ArtIcle 4 DlvlslOn 4
i
3
IJ-- ~ ~ -It)
WITHERS, JOHN W
WITHERS, CAROL M
PO BOX 24895
LEXTNGTON KY 40524 - 4895
FOLLIS, EDITH H TRE
y'750 ELDORADO AVE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1420
DANIEL, EDWARD J
J15ANIEL, JEAN S
V 756 MANDALA Y AVE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1434
CHAPMAN, STEVEN B
3051 TECH DR
ST PETERSBURG FL 33716 - 1001
BASHAM, ROBERT D
2202 N WESTSRORE BLVD # 500
TAMPA FL 33607 - 5761
DOUGLASS, SARAH G
1605 BITTER CREEK LN
BATAVIA OH 45103 ~ 9654
CASE, DONALD R
CASE, DONNA J
1121 GALLOWAY DR
WOODSTOCK IL 60098 - 8043
BROWN, TOM F SR TRE
BROWN, KATHERINE C TRE
10720 MONTAGUE ST
TAMPA FL 33626 - 1852
O'CALLAGHAN, WILLIAM
C/O MARGUES, ANNA
738 MANDALA Y AVE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1430
KINNEAR, CAROL J
V""l45 ELDORADO AVE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1421
.
REESIDE, ALAN E JR
REESIDE, ARlSTEA A
739 ELDORADO AVE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1421
MURPHY, HOMER T
MURPHY, SHEILA
757 ELDORADO AVE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1423
KORMENDI, ROGER
1025 CONNECTICUT AVE NW #
308
W ASHfNGTON DC 20036 -
SYMANSKl, RICHARD
771 ELDORA DO AVE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1423
vMC GINLEY, ELIZABETH A
742 MANDALA Y AVE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1430
HA WK, RONALD L
PO BOX 851
LANCASTER OR 43130 - 0851
ROBERTS, DANNY K
ROBERTS, PAMELA E
818 GAINESBORO HWY
BAXTER TN 38544 - 3714
SPICOLA, A G JR
SPICOLA, SHELlA G
1224 N CASEY KEY RD
OSPREY FL 34229 - 9783
PAPAGEORGIOU, NTINA
PAPAGEORGIOU, GEORGE
760 MANDALAY AVE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1434
HARDGRA VE, NEWT L
HARDGRAVE, ELLEN D
736 ELDORADO AVE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1420
.
BONACIO, CLARA E
JC/O BONACIO, TOBIAS S TRE
732 MANDALA Y AVE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1430
KORMENDI, ROGER C
1025 CONNECTICUT AVE NW #
308
WASHINGTON DC 20036 - 5424
LENSS, GERALD K
LENSS, SHIRLEY D
754 MANDALA Y AVE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1434
FUENTES, LAWRENCE E
KREISCHER, ALBERT C JR
1407 W BUSCH BLVD
TAMPA FL 33612 -7601
DI PASCA, ROBERT V
740 ELDORADO AVE
CLEARWATERFL 33767 - 1420
BOYER, WAYNE J
BOYER, IAN L
760 ELDORADO AVE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1422
BELTON, FREDERICK C
IBELTON, TRACY M
1745 HAIM RD
MT DORA FL 32757 - 3617
v13RENNAN, JAMES K
BRENN AN, SALLIE C
743 ELDORADO AVE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1421
BIRCHFIELD, JOHN A TRE
4700 N HABANA AVE # 703
TAMPA FL 33614 -7122
PATSALIDES, HARRY
70 WILLOWOOD LN
OLDSMAR FL 34677 - 2058
;;, \ "
BRITTON, JOHN
/750 MANDALAY AVE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1434
Clearwater Nbr CoahtlOn
Pres Mr Doug WIllIams
2544 Fnsco Dnve
Clearwater, Flonda 33761
-ANNAS, STEVE J
ANNAS, KATHLEEN F
766 ELDORADO AVE
CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1422
Clearwater Beach Assoc
827 Mandalay Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 33767
DaVId MacNamee
.
BUCHANAN, BARBARA J
3864 CONCORD ST
JACKSONVILLE FL 32205 - 8902
Page 1 of 1
Schodtler, John
From Magarch1 @aol com
Sent Monday, August 09,2004459 PM
To SchodUer,John
SubJect 752 & 756 Eldorado
John Thanks for showing me case FLS 2004-05032 I appreciate the tIme you spent
speaking with me about theIr varIance requests. As I mentioned, I would vOice a
concern, If appropriate, not about the requested variances, but rather the fact that
the two houses look Identical and will, therefore, visually say "spec houses II I think, If
the speculators and architect are reasonable, It would take very little effort to put
another Ilskln" on one of them & changing the appearance slightly
May be worth requesting, at any rate Thanks again, Marty Greenberg
8/16/2004
Message
Page 1 of]
Schodtler, John
From
Sent
To
Subject
Importance
Kathy O'Hearn [KOH@c1w macfar com]
Tuesday, August 10, 2004 843 AM
Schodtler, John
752 AND 756 Eldorado Avenue / August 12th ORe
High
John Can someone fax over staff report on above? Harry came back from vacation early because of this and he
IS waiting to review reporl Thanks Kathy
8/1 0/2004
Message
Page 1 of 1
Schodtler, John
From
Sent
To
Subject
Schodtler, John
Tuesday, August 10, 2004 848 AM
'Kathy O'Hearn'
RE 752 AND 756 Eldorado Avenue I August 12th ORC
Kathy,
Here are the draft staff reports This IS alii have al thiS time
John Schodtler
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Kathy O'Hearn [mallto KOH@c1w macfar com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004843 AM
To: Schodtler, John
Subject: 752 AND 756 Eldorado Avenue / August 12th DRe
Importance: High
John Can someone fax over staff report on above? Harry came back from vacation early because of thiS
and he IS waiting to review report Thanks Kathy
8/ I 1/2004
Message
Page 1 of 1
Schodtler, John
From Schodtler, John
Sent Wednesday, August 11, 2004256 PM
To 'Kathy O'Hearn'
Subject RE 752 AND 756 Eldorado Avenue / August 12th ORC
A written request Will be required and I have no problem accepting It at the ORe meeting
John Schodtler
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Kathy O'Hearn [mallto'KOH@c1w madar com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 20042.47 PM
To: Schodtler, John
Subject: 752 AND 756 Eldorado Avenue / August 12th ORe
John I have not spoken with Harry since our last conversation, but am told that one of parties Involved
did and they Will probably withdraw request for setback from CCCL re pool/deck Can thiS be done first
thing In a m In form of wntten request, or at the actual ORC hearing? Let me know since I don't know that
I Will be In contact with Harry thiS afternoon Thanks Kathy 0'
8/11/2004
Message
Page t of 1
Schodtler, John
From
Sent
To
Subject
Schodtler, John
Wednesday, August 11, 2004346 PM
'Kathy O'Hearn'
RE 752 AND 756 Eldorado Avenue / August 12th ORC
I am letting you know I spoke with Ed Armstrong this afternoon about his client's objection to the north property
(wall) I was Informed Harry and he have been In contact
John Schodtler
-----Ong I nal Message-----
From: Kathy O'Hearn [mallto KOH@c1w macfar.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 20043 10 PM
To: 5chodtler, John
Subject: RE 752 AND 756 Eldorado Avenue / August 12th DRC
Will have It at meeting Thanks ko
-----Onglnal Messagen---
From: John Schodtler@myClear\Nater com [mallto John Schodtler@myCJear\Nater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 2 56 PM
To: Kathy O'Hearn
Subject: RE. 752 AND 756 Eldorado Avenue / August 12th DRC
A written request will be required and I have no problem accepting It at the ORC meeting
John Schodtler
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Kathy O'Hearn [mallto KOH@c1w macfar com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 20042'47 PM
To: Schodtler, John
Subject: 752 AND 756 Eldorado Avenue / August 12th ORe
John I have not spoken With Harry Since our last conversation, but am told that one of
parties Involved dId and they Will probably Withdraw request for setback from CCCL re
pool/deck Can thiS be done first thing In a m In form of written request, or at the actual ORC
heanng? Let me know since I don't know that I Will be In contact With Harry thIS afternoon
Thanks Kathy 0'
8/11/2004
Message
Page 1 of I
Schodtler, John
From
Sent
To
SubJect
Kathy O'Hearn [KOH@c1w macfar com]
Wednesday, August 11,2004352 PM
Schodtler, John
RE 752 AND 756 Eldorado Avenue / August 12th ORC
John Last I heard Wayne Boyer's concerns were wall @ 7' which HSC told him not a problem and that houses
appeared to be duplicate [row houses] which we advised was Just submitted that way for Size, not aesthetics and
we have letter from Basham/Chapman addreSSing both Issues which we have faxed to Ed If you know of ANY
OTHER problems with this [bleep] appllcatron, let me know HAl Kathy
-----anginal Message-----
From: John.5chodtler@myClearwatercom [mallto'John Schodtler@myClearwater com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004346 PM
To: Kathy O'Hearn
Subject: RE 752 AND 756 Eldorado Avenue / August 12th ORC
I am letting you know I spoke with Ed Armstrong thiS afternoon about his client's objection to the north
property (wall) I was Informed Harry and he have been In contact
John Schodtler
-----anginal Message-----
From: Kathy O'Hearn [mallto KOH@c1w macfar com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 20043,10 PM
To: Schodtler, John
Subject: RE' 752 AND 756 Eldorado Avenue / August 12th ORC
Will have It at meeting Thanks ko
-----Onglnal Message---n
From: John,Schodtler@myClearwater.com [mallto John Schodtler@myClearwater,com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 11,20042'56 PM
To: Kathy O'Hearn
Subject: RE' 752 AND 756 Eldorado Avenue / August 12th ORC
A wntten request Will be required and I have no problem accepting It at the ORe meeting
John Schodtler
-----Onglnal Message-----
From: Kathy O'Hearn [mallto KOH@c1w macfar com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 20042'47 PM
To: Schodtler, John
Subject: 752 AND 756 Eldorado Avenue / August 12th ORC
John I have not spoken With Harry since our last conversation, but 8m told that one
of parties Involved did and they Will probably Withdraw request for setback from CCCL
re pool/deck Can thIS be done fIrst thing In a m In form of wntten request, or at the
actual DRC heanng? Let me know since I don't know that I Will be In contact With
Harry thiS afternoon Thanks Kathy 0'
8/1112004
9:45 am
Clse Number' FLS2004-0S -- 752 ELDORADO AVE
Onllcr(s) Robert D Basham
2202 N Westshore Blvu
Tampa, FI 33607
TELEPHONE No Phone, FAX No Fax E-MAIL No Emall
Location. 0 151 acres locelted at the north west COI ncr of the mtersectwn of Eldorauo A venue and Bohema CIrcle
Atlas Page' 249A
Zonmg Dlstnct. LMDR, Low MedIum Den:;'lty ResIdential
Request: FlexIble Standard Development for con~truGtlOn ofa new single famIly rcsldence, sWImmmg pool/deck, and
fence/wall The request I~ for reductlOlI to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet to the structure,
front (south) setback from 25 fcct to 10 feet 10 the sh llcture, front (south) setback f10m 25 ket to 3 5 feet to
the pool deck, for IcuuctlOtl to the waterfront (Coastal Con<,tructlOn Control Line) setback from 25 feet to
zcro feet to the pool deck and pool, A wall of scven feet m heIght In the <,ctbacks, as part of a ReSIdential
Infill ProJcGt under the proVISIOns of SectlOn 2-203 C
Propo~ed Use Detached dwellIng
NeIghborhood No NeIghborhood AssocatJon Data
AssoclatlOn(...)
Presenter John Schodtler, PI,mner I
Attendees Included.
The DRe reViewed thiS appllcatlOlI With the followmg comments
(General Engmeenng.
1 I) VehIcles cannot be parked III thc drIveway blockmg the pedestrIan aceess to the concrete
SIdewalk ('-="01 '\ S ~ ~ 1'0~
Thc above to be addressed pnor to D 0
Envlronment.!l:
No Issues
FIre
No Issues
Harbor Master
No Comments
Leg.!!.
No Comments
Land Resources
No Comment~
Landscapmg'
I no Issues
2 Thc property owner shall, wlthm 30 days, plant a heuge or other solid landscape buffer on the
outSIde of the wall parallcl to both street rIght of W,IY~ The thrce foot wide butft.r shall consIst
of shrubs at least 18 mches m hClght ,It the tlmc of plantmg planted 36" on center
Parks and RecreatIOn.
I A $200 Recre,ItlOn FaCIlity Impact fee l~ due pnor to bUlldmg pernut I'><;uance for each new
reSIdential umt
s,torm" ater
I No I%ue!>
Solid Waste
No Comment!>
Cr.lffiC Engmeenng'
I I F,Ice of garage must be 20' from the back edge of SIdewalk
tHIS ISSUE To be addle<;<;cd pnor 10 DO
Tral fie Impact Fec of $1 923 to be paId pnor to C 0
Plamllllg-
Development ReVIew Agenda - Thur:;.day August 12,2004 - P,Ige 3
Note~
Plan<; mdlcdte [he, deck (struGturc) <;eawclrd ofth" eoa<;tal cons AIOn control1111c Th!<; will
need to be approved by the State of Flol Ida per Section 3-905,
Outside (front) ~td1fWays ~11,d] be pellTIltted to extend Into a reqUired setbdck Mea not more t1un
three feet prOVided through dce(,ss IS not ob<,truGted
(-
3) Clanfy General Appl1cablltty Cntena # I ,5, & 6 - How IS tht reduced front (<;outh) setbdtk from
the uIllmproved Sohema ngnt-of-way meetmg these cntend? May need to proVIde block survey
Clanfy General ApphcabJ! Ity Cnlena "# ],5 & (j - How IS the proposed 7 foot wncrete weill
meetmg these clltena?
Clanfy ImpervIOus Surface RdtlO for each property Please provlde a bredkdown of each
component
G. Clanfy General ReSIdential InfiIl Cntencl, The development of the parcel propo!>cd for
devdopment d~ a reSIdential lIlfill project will upgrddc the nnme(hate VIClIllty of the parcel
proposed for devdopment
Clanfy General Re:;'ldtntIal lnfilI Cntena "Thc development or redevelopmcnt of the parcel
proposed for development I~ othef\vlse Impractical without deViatIOns from the intensity and
other devdopment <;tandard:;. "
Clanfy Generdl Resldenlldl Infill Cfltcna, The design of the propo~ed reSidential mfill project
aeates a form and functlOn whIch enhance:;. the commumty character of the llumedlate VICInity of
the pdre-c1 propo~ed for development dnd the CIty of Clearwater as a whole,
9 SectIOn 3-905 Coa~tdl constructIOn controlllllc ThiS section e<;tabhshes wlthm the c1ty the
~coastdl wnstructlOn controllme as the line ofreferencc from whIch setbacks shall be- measured
along the Gulf of MeXICO for bU1ldlIlg~ and structures pur<;uant to F S g 161 053 III order to
. ~ proKet the sdfcty, economiC, environmental, recreatIOnal and commumty appedtanCe obJective:;.
'S 0 f the CI ty Any request to modi fy the setback reqUlremcnts contm ned III thiS section <;ha II be
consldcred as an apphcdttol1 for a Level Two approvdl as proVided for m Arttclc 4 DlvlslOn 4
Cdn bUlldlllg be deSign not to mdtch Identrcdlly the nelghbonng home? - LN" I
"'-'- (3E; (:::0 ~b~ \"
2
4
5
G
G)
10
Other
No Comments
ThlS JpplIcatlOn 1<., lllsuffiClent
Plea"c resubmit 3 ,>ets of reVI~lon<;
Development RevH'W Agenda - fhur<;day Augu~t 12, 2004 - PdgC 4
I~\
~,;
l~tle!~Ohn f-~=~~~P~~--~~-=-=--
To SANDY@BRITTONJ COM
SubJect Responses to Questions
1 Who determines the definition of the character of the neighborhood?
The Community Development Coordinator (Cynthia Tarapanl) and the Planning
Department Staff
2 What determines If a lot IS sufficiently "unbUlldable" for It to qualify for Inflll status and flexible
development?
The dimensional and flexibility standards of the Low Medium Density Residential ZOning
District set the reqUIrements for what level of revIew IS reqUired
3 What IS the purpose of side setbacks?
The purpose of s~tbacks IS to prOVide a unified standard for development
4 Where In the code does It say that development must be compatible With an emerging
development scheme?
The code does not address this Item, nor was this response to the criteria acceptable
5 In what ways will this development benefit community character that a bUilding Within the
regular gUidelines would not do?
This bUilding will benefit In that It will be characteristic of already established (setbacks)
developments In the community
6 What In the code allows the applicant to extend the criteria for approval to properties along
the street and properties bemg currently developed?
The applicant proVided a block survey showlf1g the adjacent and abutting property was
developed With setbacks less than the Code requires Staff extended the parameters to
other beach access corner lots to verify If they were also developed Similarly
/' " ...
". .
TO:
FAX COVER MEMO
CITY OF CLEARW A TER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
100 S. MYRTLE AVE., 2nd Floor
CLEARW A TER, FL 33756
(727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865
~~~~ (~~
FAX:
Phone:
FROM: ~hV) S"
DATE: 050 M
MESSAGE: ~iVT
NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE)
Page 1 of I
Schodtler, John
From CANOYZIM@aol com
Sent Monday, August 02,2004941 AM
To Schodtler, John
Subject variances for Lots 1 & 2, Mandalay SubdivIsion
Dear Mr Schodtler,
As property owners and residents at 741 Mandalay Avenue, we are responding to the request for variance filed
with regard to Lots 1 & 2 of Mandalay SubdivIsion
We urge that the variance for the south setback from 25 feet to 10 feet to the structure, and the south setback
from 25 feet to 35 feet for the pool deck not be granted We also request that the variance for the 7-foot wall
height not be granted
One of the charms of our beach neighborhood IS that due to setbacks, view corndors have been preserved for
residents and vISitors who enJoy walks through the area The plans for the above referenced would create a
compound-like appearance, pushed to the maximum width, which to everyone outSide the compound restricts
their views and presents a forbidding exterior This seems particularly inappropriate along the public access,
which those of us not fortunate enough to be able to afford gulf front property, value highly A solid wall pressing
along the l:loardwalk access, with a very large structure Immediately behind it, IS not welcoming for residents or
vIsitors
Please help preserve as much of the openness of our neighborhood as possible, by denYing these variance
requests on the south Side of this property
Sincerely,
Michael and Candy Zimmerman
727 447-0808
8/2/2004
Page I of 1
Schodtler, John
From
Sent
To
Cc
Subject
MCBEL T@aol com
Tuesday, August 03, 2004 3 58 PM
Schodtler, John
PASons@aol com
Vanance request for 752 & 756 Eldorado Ave
Dear Mr Schodtler,
8-3-2004
My wife and I have owned a our home at 761 Eldorado Ave Since August 1998 On July 26, 2004, we
purchased the house next to us at 757 Eldorado Ave We purchased both of these homes knowing that In time
a house would be bUllion the proposed location at 752 Eldorado and we were sure that the house at 756
Eldorado would be renovated Into a much larger home or torn down and rebUilt We knew what the
setbacks were at 752 & 756 when we purchased our property, as did those that are requesting the vanances
We paid a high price for the property al 757 Eldorado We considered the fact that the 25 foot setbacks on
corner lots would stili afford us a gulf view even If a house was bUilt at 752 We feel that by granting these
vanances, It Will Immediately lower the value of our homes
We are opposed to any lessening of the 25 foot setback and the bUilding of a 7 foot fence A 7 foot fence Will
not benefit the character of the community Since new homes are bUilt With the lower floor being parking, we
see no privacy benefit of a wall
I you have any questions from us, please give us a call at 352-343-7775
Sincerely yours,
Freddie & Tracy Belton
8/4/2004
7Co ~ ~
~~~
:)12... 33/<" 1
fj~ ~ ~clA+l.t.v_
.Q -tq (3-(flU ~ k ~
~~'~r
f;)2J -t J~1.:. ~ ~ ~
aJJ-~j j) ~ ~~
~ 7h:, ~-<r~.1MJ ''7(1 i ~ ~
~ 44~y d- r
~~
~ OVL&J ~ LLIL CL-:.
'7 ~ w ~~- RitCBVIED
~ {VVV ~ ~GO~
) q ~ PLANNi~GJf~P~RT~ENT
j 1?J ~ ~~ ~O~ATER
A;~ r no- ~~
~" ~. tvlo ~
0--"'-'-' ~ J.. d <t. L "J
7:L- ~~ J ~~ :
.3 -tL.:-L <-t c-;. ~ y-::otk
~ -j... ~ oJL cJ._~ ~
~~ ~~~ cf<tS.7/Ve.
- .--. .-:::J . E.to " r-l ::'l.J_ Il n.'_ .,
~ , ~ ) (I""""""'"... 11
u
..,f;lll~J".JIr#
\1 b.UlU<q ........
,~.!. V .......:.~>::
."f'..~"'j ~~.~~-;,.
1IiII1/!F'~'" '11J ~-st'"
,;;:::;'c;$~) ;.g:'
~r.:: ~ O~
~-')k =-::-~ ~;
,"'9~ ="~~.
-.........~TE~t.,"
Engmeerlng C'dtimtlon Don Melone 562-4798
07/26/2004 1) Vehicles cannot be parked within the dnve apron area blocking the pedestrian access to the
concrete Sidewalk
2) Is there a Unity of Title on this property?
All of the above to be addressed pnor to 0 0
~ Conditions Associated With -
FLS2004-05033
752 ELDORADO AVE
Environmental Condition
07/23/2004 No Issues
Heather Faessler
562-4897
Fire Condition Joe Colbert
07/27/2004 No Issues
562-4567 xt 3548
LANDSCAPE - ZONING
John Schodtler
562-4604
08/02/2004
The property owner shall, Within 30 days, plant a hedge or other solid landscape buffer on the
outside of the wall parallel 10 both street right of ways The three foot Wide buffer shall conSist of
shrubs at least 18 Inches In height at the time of plantmg planted 36" on center
08/02/2004
no Issues
Parks & Recs Condition
A $200 Recreation FacIlity Impact fee IS due pnor to bUilding permit Issuance for each new
residential Unit
Storm Water Condition
Initials MIssing
Initials Mlssmg
07/26/2004
No Issues
TraffiC Eng Condition Bennett Elbo 562-4775
07/27/2004 1 Face of garage must be 20' from the back edge of Sidewalk To be addressed prior to 0 0
TraffiC Impact Fee of $1,923 to be paid prior to C 0
Zoning Condition John Schodtler 562-4604
05/27/2004 Plans Indicate the pool deck (structure) seaward of the coastal construction controllme ThiS Will
need to be approved by the State of Flonda per Section 3-905,
07/13/2004 Outside (front) stairways shall be permitted to extend mto a required setback area not more than
three feet provided through access IS not obstructed
08/02/2004
Clarify General Applicability Cnterla #1,5, & 6 - How IS the reduced front (south) setback from the
unimproved Bohenla right-of-way meeting these crltena? May need to provide block survey
Clanfy General Applicability Criteria #1,5, & 6 - How IS the proposed 7 foot concrete wall meetmg
these criteria?
Clarify Impervious SUliace Ratio for each property Please provide a breakdown of each
component
08/02/2004
08/02/2004
~-~a~ ~~.
\
\ Pnnt Date 08/0212004
Page 1 of 1
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
CaseCondltons
PmeJJa~ County Property Appraiser Information 05 29 15 5466600400 In
P dge 2 of 3
05 I 29 I 15 / 54666 I 004 / 0010
04-Aug-2004 Ju... 5Mlth, CFA Plnellas County Property Appralser 08 00:45
OwnershlP Inforrrlation Vacant P rope rty Use and Sales
BASHAM. R.OBER.T 0 OSK 12646 OPG 0427
2202 N liJESTSHORE BLVD ** 500
TAMPA fl 33607-5761
COrrlparable sales value as Prop Addr 0
of Jan 1, 2003, based on Census Tract' 260.02
sales frorrl 2001 - 2002
874.200 5ale Date OR BOOk/Page Prlce (Qual/UnQ) Vac/Irrlp
Plat InforMatlon 4 12,003 12,646/ 427 900.000 (U) V
1926' Book 014 Pgs 032-035 0 10 0/ 0 0 ( )
0000' Book Pgs - 0 10 0/ 0 0 ( )
0000 Book Pgs - 0 10 oj 0 0 ( )
2003 Value EXEMP nON 5
Jus t I Marke t, 694,400 HOMestead 0 OwnershlP % .000
Historic 0 Use % .000
Assessed/Cap 694,400 Tax Exerrlpt % .000
Other Exerrlpt, 0
Taxable 694,400 Agrlcultural 0
2003 Tax InforMation Updates for 2004 Land Inforr.-.atlon ln progress
2004 Changes not reflected in 2003 Values
Olstrict Cl,J Seawall Frontage
Clearwat e r Vlew,
03 Mlllage 23 0851 Land 5lze Unlt Land land land
Front x Depth Price Unlts Meth
03 Taxes lli,030 29
1) 60 x 110 15.000 00 60.00 F
Speclal Tax 00 2) 0 x 0 00 00
3) 0 x 0 00 00
Wl thou t the Save-Our-Horrles 4) 0 x 0 00 00
cap, 2003 taxes will be 5) 0 x 0 00 00
11>.030.29 6) 0 x 0 . 00 00
Wl thout any exer.-.p t lons,
2003 taxes wlll be
lli.030 29
Short Legal MANOAlAV SUB BLK 4, LOT 1
Oescriptlon
Building Information
http //pao co pllle II a " f1 us/htbm/cgl-scr3 ?o= I &a= I &b= 1 &r=&5=] &u=0&p=05+29+] 5+54
8/412004
Pmellas County Property Appraiser InformatiOn 05 29 15 54666 0040010
Page 3 of3
Updates for 2004 III progress. 2004 changes not reflected in 2003 value~.
ProQerty and Land Use Code desGrIQtlom
05 / 29 / 15 / 54666 I 004 I 0010
04-Aug-Z004 J~~ S~~th, CFA P~nella5 COunty Property Appra~8er
Vacan t Parce 1 Proper ty Use, 000 Land Use 00
08'00:45
Vacant Extra Features
Descr~ptlon D~~en3~ons Prlce Unlts Value RCD Year
1) .00 0 0 0 0
2) .00 0 0 0 0
3) .00 0 0 0 0
4) .00 0 0 0 0
5) .00 0 0 0 0
6) 00 0 0 0 0
TOTAL RECORD VALUE 0
Pinellas County Property Appraiser
Parcel Information
Back to Search Page
An cxplandtlon of this screen
http Ilpao co pmellas fl us/htbm/cgI-scr3?0=I&a=1&b=1 &r=&s=l&u=0&p=05+29+ 15+54
8/4/2004
CLWCoverSheet
PLANNING & CEVElOPMENT 11 'rj N , e I \J 0
SERVICES ! (J
CITY OF Cl~! q"iATE"i I
REVISED ,:
I P ... I
, ^
, "
"
; I' I ~
DATE:
FLS2004-05033
752 ELDORADO AVE
Date Received: OS/26/2004
STEVEN CHAPMAN
ZONING DISTRICT: LMDR
LAND USE: RU
ATLAS PAGE: 249A
PLANNER OF RECORD: NOT ENTERED
-
Community Response Team
Planning Dept. Cases - ORC
Case No. /'/ ( ;) (y) C:f~ OS 03 3
Location: /S- cd .E- //0...-- c~ct!O
Meeting Date:
4tA-1/
~
/0 -r-
o Current Use:
V'a r 0 /7 7'"
o Active Code Enforcement Case (no) yes
tP-/d~dCOL/O
o Address number (yes) (no) (vacant land)
o Landscaping (yes) (no)
o Overgrown (yes) (no)
o Debris (yes) (no)
o Inoperative vehicle(s) (yes) (no)
o Building(s) (good) (fair) (poor) (vacant land)
o Fencing (none) (good) (dilapidated) (broken and/or missing pieces)
o Pamt (good) (fair) (poor) (garish)
o Grass Parking (yes) (no)
o Residential Parking Violations (yes) (no)
o Slgnage (none) (ok) (not ok) (billboard)
o Parking (n/a) (striped) (handicapped) (needs repaving)
o Dumpster (enclosed) (not enclosed)
o Outdoor storage (yes) (no)
Comments/Status Report (attach any pertinent documents)
dr I? /J / n;r::.
Date ~/;:VRevleWed ~ ,; #" h.<7J Telephone
Revised 03-29-01, 02-04-03 '
\
0&.;;; -v/<-- <0
,
, "
Case Number FLS2004-050'L -- 752 I::.LDORADO ^ VE
Owner(s) Steven Chapman
305 I Tech LJnve
St Peter<;hurg, FI 1'3716
TELEPHONF No Phone, FAX No Fax, E~MA1L No Emall
Applicant Steven B Chapman
3051 Teeh Dnve
St Peter<;hurg, FI13716
TELEPHONF , ~AX No Fax, E-MAIL No Enldil
Representative' Harry Clme
Po Box 1669
Clcarwater, H 33757
TELEPHONE 727-441-8966, FAX 727-442-8470, [-MAIL hsc@c1w macfdr com
LocatIOn 0 151 acre<; located at the north west comer of the mtcr,>ectlon of Eldorado A venue and Sohema Ci rele
Atlas Page 249A
Zonmg DI\trKt' LMDR, Low Medium DenSity Residential
Request: FleXIble Standard Deve]opment for con<;truetlOn of a new smgle famIly resIdence, <;Wl1l1mmg pool/deck, and
fence/wall, as a Re<;ldenttal Infill Project -I he request IS for reductIOn to the front (ea~t) setback from 25
feet to 10 feet to the structure, front (<;outh) ~etback from 25 feet to 10 feet to the structure front (south)
<;etback from 25 fcct to 3 5 feet to the pool deck, for reductIon to the waterfront (Coasta] ComtructlOn
Control Lme) <;elbaek from 25 fect to zero feet to the pool deck and pool, A wall of~cven feet 111 hught III
the ~etbacks, per SecllOn 2-203 C
Prop()~ed U..e Detached dwelling
Nelghhorhood No NClghborhood AssocatlOn Data
As~oclatlOn(s),
Prc!>cnter 10hn Sehodtlcr, Planner I
Attendees I nel u ded:
The DRC reviewed thl~ apphcatlOn WIth the followmg comments'
General Engmeermg,
1 1) VehIcle,> cannot be parked wlthm the dnve apron area b]oekmg the pcde~tTlan aceess to the
eoncrete <;Idewalk
2) 1<; there a Umty of TItle on thl~ property?
All of the above 10 be addressed pnor to DO
I<: nVI ro nmental
No ]<;<;ue<;
FIre
I No Issues
Harbor Ma~ter
No Comments
Legdl
No Comment<;
Land Re~()urce~
No Comments
Landscaping
No Comments
Parks and Recreation
A $200 RecreatlOn Faclhty Impact fce I!> due pnor to building permIt Issuance for each new
resIdentIal urnt
Stormwater'
] No h!>ues
Solid Wa<;te'
No Comments
TraffiL Engllleenng,
I 1 Fdce of garage must be 20' from the back euge of '>luewalk T () be addre!>,>ed pnor to DO
Traffic Impact Fee of$1 ,92310 be paId pnor to C 0
Plannmg'
Development ReVIew Agenda - ThuNldY, Augu~t ]2,2004 - Page 16
p,
, ~
Notes
Plans tndtCdlc the po", deck (,>tructure) SCLI\Wrd orlne cOd~tdl con<;lfUUlOn controllme ThIs Wll!
need to be dpproved by the Sldte of Flondd per SectIOn 3-905
2 OUbldc (front) <;talrwdYs "hall be pcnmtled to extcnd mlO a reqUIred ~ctbLKk area not more thd\1
Ihree feet provIded through dccess IS nol obslrllcted
Other
No Comme\1t~
Development Review Agenda - Thursday, August 12,2004 - Page 17
~(Cltarwater
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756
TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4576
WWW MY CLEARWATER COM
u
July 14,2004
RE: NOTICE OF FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR FLEXIBLE STANDARD
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AT 752 ELDORADO AVE (FLS2004-05033)
To Surrounding Property Owners
As a property owner wlthm 200 feet of 752 ELDORADO AVE, the City of Clearwater Planmng Department
gives notice that an application for FlexIble Standard Development for construction of a new smgle family
reSidence, sWimmIng pool/deck, and fence/wall, as a ReSidential Infill Project The request IS for reductIon to
the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet to the structure, front (south) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet to the
structure,front (south) setback from 25 feet to 3 5 feet to the pool deck, for reductiOn to the waterfront (Coastal
ConstructiOn Control Line) setback from 25 feet to zero feet to the pool deck and pool, A wall of seven feet In
height In the setbacks, per SectIOn 2-203 C
On August 12,2004, the Development ReVIew Committee (composed of the CIty'S professIOnal staff) wIll
review and determme whether the application demonstrates compliance with the City's CommuOlty
Development Code Following that review and determlmatlOn, the Planmng Director wJ!llssue a
Development Order approving, approvmg with conditIOns, or denymg the app!JcatlOn The earhest date that
the City will make a decISIon on the applicatIOn WIll be August 12,2004
The City encourages you to partlclpate III the review ofthls apphcatlon You may contact me at 727-562-4604
or John Schodtler@myc1earwater com for further informatIOn, VISIt our office to review the files and/or submit
wntten comments to be considered III the City's review of the appltcatlOn Please be advised that the applicant
may submit additIOnal or new InfonnatlOn regarding this case, which you may review dunng regular business
hours However, no further notice will be proVided to you should the apphcatlOn be amended
An appeal of the declSlon of the Planning Director may be Illltlated by the applicant or property owners WIthin
the reqUIred notice area who present competent substantial eVidence at, or pnor to, the Development Review
Committee meeting on August 12,2004 An appeal must be filed, lllc1udmg an appeal fee, With the Planmng
Department wlthlll seven days of the date of the Development Order
Thank you for your Illterest III the City of Clearwater's development review process You may access our
Planmng Department through the City'S websJte www myc1earwater com
Sincerely yours,
~~~J.t.-
John Schodtler
Planner I
Leller o(CompleleIJes; - FL)2004-0503J - 752 ELDORADO A Vlo
~'tlearwater
I- ~ r-..... r
-.............. '--...
CITY OF CLEh.RWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756
TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4576
WWW MYCLEARW ATER COM
o
June 30, 2004
Harry Cline
Po Box 1669
Clearwater, FI 33757
RE FLS2004-05033 -- 752 ELDORADO AVE -- Letter of Completeness
Dear Harry ClIne
The PlannIng Staff has entered your applicatIon mto the Departmcnt's filing ::.ystem and assIgned the
case number FLS2004-05033 After a prehmmary reVIew ofthe submitted documents, staff has
detcrmmed that the applIcation IS Complete
The Development ReVIew CommIttee (DRC) WIll reVIew the application for sufficiency on August
12, 2004, m the PlannIng Department conference room - Room 216 - on the second floor ofthe
MUllIclpal ServIces BUlldmg The bUIldIng IS located at 100 South Myrtle Avenue In downtown
Clearwater Please call Sherry Watkms, AdmInIstratIve Analyst, at 727-562-4582 no earlIer than one
weck pnor to the meetmg datc for the approximate time that your casc will be reViewed You or your
representative (as applicable) must be present to answer any questIOns that the DRC may have
rcgardmg your applIcatIOn AdditIOnal comments may be generatcd by the ORe at the tune of the
meetIng
If you have any questlOns, please do not heSItate to contact me at 727-562-4604 or
John Schodtler@myclearwater com
SmceTely yours,
(~~t-.
John Schodtler
Development ReView SpeCialist
[ eifel 01 Completeness - FLS2004-05 03 3 - 752 ELDORA DO A VE
~rtIIC'arwater
,::~y~'
o
....
CITY OF CLEtRWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756
TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4576
WWW MYCLEARW ATER COM
May 27, 2004
Harry Chne
Po Box 1669
Clearwater, F} 33757
RE FLS2004-05033 -- 752 ELDORADO AVE -- Letter ofIncomp1eteness
Dcar Harry Clme
The PlannIng Staff has entered your appltcatlOn mto the Department's fihng system and assIgned the
case number FLS2004-05033 After a prehmmary review of the submitted documents, staff has
determmed that the apphcatIon IS Incomvlete wIth the followmg comments
1 ProvIde one sIgned and sealed survey and 14 copIes,
2 Plans mdIcate the pool deck (structure) seawaTd of the coastal constructlon control hne ThiS
WIll need to be approved by the State ofFlonda per SectlOn 3-905,
3 A SltC data table IS requIred for eXlstmg, reqUIred, and proposed development, m wntten
tabular form (See checklIst attachcd to applIcatlOn Section "G"),
4 Site Plan AS-l mdlcates "Paver Stones" located m the front (south) setback thIS should be
mcluded m the request as a reductlOn m setback,
5 Provide both SIde elevatIOns and rear elevatlOn for the bUIldmg,
6 ProVide a tree survey (mcludmg eXIstmg trees on SIte and wIthm 25 feet ofthe adjacent Site, by
speCies, SIze, and locatIOn, mcludmg dnp hnes and mdlcatmg trees to be removed), and
7 Please revise request to mclude reductIOn from the front (south) setback from Bohema Circle
SectIOn 4-202 of the Commumty Development Code states that if an apphcatlon IS deemed
mcomplete, the defiCIenCies ofthe applIcatIOn shall bc specIfied by Staff No further development
reView actIOn shall be taken untll the deficJellcles are corrected and the applicatIOn IS deemed
complete Please resubmit by FrIday, June 4, 2004
If you have any questlOns, please do not heSitate to contact me at 727-562-4604 or
John Schodtler@myclearwater com
Smcerely YOUTS,
~r~
Development ReVieW SpeCIalist
Lellel ofComplezeness - FLS2004-05033 - 752 ELDORADO A VE
--"
.. ~
March 27, 2000
J Wayne and Bndget M Phillips
2811 Saber Dnve
Clearwater, FL 33759
RE Development Order regarding case FL 00-02-07 at 970 Eldorado Avenue
Dear Mr & Mrs Philhps
ThiS letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to SectIOn 4-206 D 7 of the Commul1lty
Development Code
On Mdfcn 21, 2000, the Commumty Development Board reviewed your apphcatlOn tor FleXible
Development approval, as part of a ReSidential Infill ProJett, for a 3,586 square toot, slngle-
family dwelling with a reduced front setback from 25 feet to five feet on Jumper Street
Based on the applIcation and the staff recommendation, the Board found that the proposal IS m
compliance With the standards and cntena for FleXIble Development approval, the maximum
development potential standards and all other applicable standards of the CommuOlty
Development Code The Commumty Development Board granted approval of the applicatIon
Pursuant to Section 4-407, an applicatIOn for a bUlldmg permit shall be made within one year of
FleXible Development approv<d and all reqUired certdicates of occupancy shall be obtained
wIthm one year of the date of Issuan'-c of the date ot the building permit Time frames do not
change with successive owners The Commul1lty Developmcnt Board may grant an extensIOn of
tIme tor a period not to exceed one year and only wlthm the ongmal penod ofvahdIty
Please remember that a bUilding permit and Impdct fees will be reqUIred pnor to the constructIOn
of the project Should you have any questlOl1S, please call the Development ReView DIVISion at
562-4900 ext 2622
Very truly yours,
Gerald FIgurski, Chairman
Commul1lty Development Board
5' Ie 0 BIFf f XlPendwg AppllcallOnslEldOl ado 970 PhilllpslLldorado 970 Development Older doc
>>".
COB Meetmg Date
Case N umbcr
Agenda Item
March 21, 2000
FL 00-02-07
D3
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
OWNER:
J Wayne and Bndget M Phillips
LOCATION:
970 Eldorado Avenue
REQUEST:
FlexIble Development approval, as part of a ResIdentIal
Jnfill Project, for a 3,586 square foot, smgle-famIly
dwellmg with a reduced front setback from 25 feet to five
feet on Jumper Street
PLANS REVIEWED:
Site plan submItted by Timberlore ConstructlOTI, lnc
SITE INFORMATION:
PROPERTY SIZE:
o 15 acrcs
DIMENSIONS OF SITE:
60 feet by 1 1 0 feet
PROPERTY USE:
Currcnt usc
Proposed use
Smgle-famIly
Smg1e-famIly
PLAN CATEGORY:
RU, ResIdentIal Urban ClaSsIficatIOn
ZONING DISTRICT:
LMDR, Low MedIUm Density Density ResIdentIal Distnct
ADJACENT LAND USES: North
South
East
Vvest
Smgle-family residentIal
Smgle-famIly residentIal
Smgle-famIly residential
Gulf of Mexico
Pdge 1
""'-
.. .
CHARACTER OF THE
IMMEDIATE VICINITY: The Immedldte vlclmty IS dommated by sIngle-family
residential u')e5
ANAL YSIS:
The site IS 0 15 acres located on the southwest corner of Eldorado A vcnue and Jumper Street The
sIte mc1udes an eXlstmg sIngle-family house of about 3,900 square feet and 25 feet m height The
applicant IS propOSing to demohsh the eXIsting house and construct a new 3,586 square foot,
smgle-family dwellmg As a corner lot, the Site has two front 5etbacks Jumper Street, although
platted as a public street WIth 60 feet of nght-of-way, has been nnprovcd wIth a pedestnan access-
only to the beach Eldorado A venue IS a two-lane residential street which dead ends Immediately
north of thIS site
The request to reduce the front setback from 25 feet to five feet along JUnIper Strcct IS In keepmg
wIth other SItes In the area that adJom public access to the beach The owner seeks to mdmtam a
consIstency m the streetscape of the neIghborhood
By way of hIStOry, the applicant received approval of a vanance to reduce the front setback from
25 feet to five feet on Jumper Street (same request) m 1989 from the Development Code
Adjustment Board That vanance was never used and expIred
A. COMPLIANCE WITH MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL STANDARD IN
THE LMDR, LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:
STANDARD PERMITTED EXISTING PROPOSED IN
COMPLIANCE?
DENSITY Onc dwelling One dwclllng One dwellmg Yes
umt umt umt
IMPERVIOUS 065 o 89 (estimated) 062 Yes
SURFACE
AREA
B. FLEXIBILITY STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECTS IN THE
LMDR, LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:
STANDARD REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED IN
COMPLIANCE?
LOT AREA N/A 6,660 square feet 6,660 square Yes
minimum feet
LOT WIDTH N/A 60 feet 60 feet Ye"
minimum
HEIGHT 15 feet 25 feet 30 feet No *
maximum
Page 2
,jii:.",
STANDARD REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED IN
COMPL lANCE '?
FRONT YARD 10 - 25 fect 2 feet (Jumper), 30 feet No$
SETBACK 8 feet (Eldorado) (Eldorado ), 5
minimum feet (Jumpcr)
SIDE YARD o - 15 feet o feet 5 fcct Yes
SETBACK
minimum
REAR YARD o - 15 feet N/ A - comer lot N/A - comer Yes
SETBACK lot
minimum
P ARKlNG 2 spaces 2 spaces 2 spaces Yes
SPACES
minimum
MInimum standard and flexible standard development rcgulatlons wIthm the LMDR Dlstnct
of the Commumty Developmcnt Code permIt a maximum bUlldmg height of 30 feet for
detached dwellings The IS-foot limitation of the flexIble development regulations IS
probably an error The discrepancy will be corrected with the pendmg Code update
<p The Code permIt') vanatIons m all standards mcludmg the ::.tandards sct forth wlthm the
ResIdent131 Infill Projects reqUIrements
C. FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECTS:
1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is
otherwise economically impractical without deviations from mtensity and
development standards.
The proposal mcludes the developmcnt of a new smglc-fanl1ly dwelling The
dImenSIOns of the site are small for a comer lot, mcasurmg 60 feet m width by 110
feet ll1 depth It would be ImpractIcal to Improve the SIte without seekmg reheffrom
the sctbacks m the LMDR Dlstnct The structure wIll encroach mto the front
setback (ummproved Jumper Way) by 20 feet leavmg a five foot front sctback ThiS
request will allow the house to be located at a dlstdl1ce consistent with other houses
III the neIghborhood
2. The development ofthe parcel proposed for development, as a Resldentiallnfill
Project will not materially reduce the fair market value of abuttmg properties,
The locatiOn of the house will not matenally rcduce the fair market value ofabuttmg
propertIes The current assessed value of the property IS $343,000 The estImatcd
as')essed value after the new constructIon IS expected to be $800,000 The
Page 3
~ ~
Improvements proposed for thIS site are In keepmg with the redevelopment of the
area
3. The uses within the Residential Intill Project are otherwise permitted in the
District.
The LMDR Dlstnct permits smgle-fanl1ly dwellings The proposal meets that
cntenon
4. The uses within the Residentiallntill Project arc compatible with adjacent land
uses.
The surroundmg uses are detached dwellings and this proposal will be compatible
with ddJacent land uses The reduced front yard sctback, a5. proposed, IS consistent
and compatIble with nelghbonng Slte~ There IS substantial buffenng to the north
of the SIte wlthm the Jumper Street nght-of-way, on both the north and south sides
of the pedestnan access
5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a Residential Infill
Project will upgrade the immediate vlcmity of the parcel proposed for
development.
The applIcant IS proposmg to construct a structure similar m Size, scale and quality
to surroundmg house5. The economiC and aesthetic value of the house IS expected
to mcrease with the proposed Improvements that will compliment the neighborhood
6. 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 proposed structure WIll be of a slmdar high quahty as surroundmg houses The
proposed house WIll be three-stones WIth a first floor three-car garage The effect of
the deSIgn will be mcreased curb appeal Nelghbonng property owner5 may be
POSItIvely mfluenced to mamtam thclr eXI5.tmg hIgh standards of mamtendnce The
proposed house IS compatible With and will enhance the neIghborhood The
commumty character of the ImmedIate vlclmty and of Clearwater as a whole will be
enhanced through aesthetics and mcreased property values The proposal
demonstrates contmued confidence of the homeowners to remvest funds on the
beach
7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking
access or other development standards 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 UtIlIzatiOn of the flexIble development standards Will result m more attractIve
P dgC 4
-- ~
housc and property and a conSistent streetscape The new development will result In
111creascd property values and enhanced commumty character The proposed house
will be SImIlar m 5Ize, scale and setbdck to eXlstmg structures In the area
D. GENERAL APPLICABILITY: 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:
I. 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.
Adjacent properties are smgle-famIiy residentIal The apphcant will constmct a new
residentIal bmldmg The development will be m harmony WIth the scale and
character of 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 currently zoned LMDR Distnct The proposal will be m comphance With
that zOlllng The proposcd development may msplre other home Improvements In
the area
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 development wIll not adversely affect the health or safety or persons resldmg or
workIng III the neighborhood of the proposed use
4. The proposed development is designed to minimi.le traffic congestion.
The proposal will have no mcreased effect on traffic
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
The proposed development 15 consIstent WIth the commulllty character of the
Immedmte VICIl11ty
6. The design of the proposed development mimmi7es adverse effects, including
Visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours ot operation impacts, on adjacent
properties.
Page 5
_--.!O
There will be no adverse effects generatcd by the proposed development The
design of the proposal IS sImilar to other parcels In the area and will blend Into the
rest of the neighborhood
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The application and supporting materials were reviewed by the Development ReView Committee
on February 24, 2000 The proposal mccts the standards and CrItena for Flexible Development
approval, wIth the maximum development potential, reqUirements of ReSidential Infill ProJects,
and wIth all applicable standards of the CommunIty Development Code
PlannIng staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for fleXible Development, as a
ReSidentIal Infill ProJect, wIth a reduced front setback from 25 feet to five feet on JUnIper Street,
for the sIte at 970 Eldorado Avenue
Prepared by Mark T Parry, Planner
A TT ACHMENTS
Aenal Photograph of Site and VICllllty
Location Map
Future Land Use Map
Zonlllg Atlas Map
Application
) Ie D mrLEx\Pelldmg Applu:allOtls1Eldorado 970 Phillip; \Fldorado 970 STA F F RIoPOR! d,;c
P dgC 6
July 24,2000
Mr Alex Phsko
Myers Pliska Architects
800 Drew Street
Clearwater, Flonda 33755
RE Development Order regarding case FLS 00-05-20 at 800 Eldorado A venue
Dear Mr Phsko
This letter constItutes a Development Order pursuant to SectiOn 4-206 D 7 of the Community
Development Code On July 18, 2000, the Copmun!ty Dey_~lopIT~e_~ Board rev~e\~ed the
apphcat}OI~ f9J l'lexI'p!~ pel,l~lopment app_roval of a_~l;':d}lctI9n_ In the front setback from 25 feet to
\ seven feet on Maqgo Street, a reductIOn of the front setback from 25 feet to 15 feet on Eldorado "
'1 - - - - -- - - --
,-Avenye apd an Illcrease III height from 30 feet to 32 feet for a proposed single-famIly dwelllllg as r'
pdrt of a Resldentwllnfill Project Bd~ed on the apphcatIon and the staff recommendatIon, the
Board found that the proposJlls In compltance WIth the standards and CrIterIa for a Re~ldentlal
Infill Project, the maximum development potential standards and all other applicable standards of
the Commumty Development Code The CommunIty Development Board granted approval of
the apphcatlon
Pur')Udnt to SeGtlOn 4-407, an dppltcatIon for a budding permit shall be made WIthin one year of
FleXible Development approval and all reqUIred certtficates of occupancy shall be obtamed
wIthm one year of the date of Issuance of the date of the bUlldmg permit Time frames do not
change With successive owners The Commumty Development Board may grant an extensIOn of
tIme for a perIod not to exceed one year and only WlthlO the onglOal penod ofval1dlty
Please remember that a bUlldlOg pem11t and Impact fee::. wIll be reqUired pnor to the construction
of the prOject Should you have any questlOns, please call the Development ReView DlvlslOn at
562-4900 ext 2622
Very truly yours,
Gerald Figurski, ChaIrman
Commumty Development Board
cc Thomas & Paulrne Deal
S IPlwll1l11g Deparlmell/\C D BlrU;.A1111I1GCIlVe 01 IlIllshed ApplicGlwlJ \ IE/dOl ado 800 Deal - App/ oved\rldol ado 800
DFVF! OPMFNT ORDER2 doc
July 24, 2000
Thomas & Kathleen Sherman
850 Eldorado Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33767
RE Deve lopmen t Order regardmg case FLS 00-05-15 at 850 Eldorado Avenue
Dear Mr & Mrs Sherman
This letter ton!>tItutes a Development Order pursuant to SectIOn 4-206 D 7 of the Commul1lty
Development Code On July ] 8, 2000, the Commul1lty Development BoareL IevleY.ieci the
r - - --- - - -
applicatIOn for FlexIble Development approval of €I reductlon Il1 front ')etba,,"kJrQ~n25 f~et t9 ]2
~, ------ -- -~
Ci~t:and Il1crease the amount of Impermeable surface ratio from 065 to 075 for a proposed
addItIon to a sIngle-famdy dwelltng as part of a Residential Infill Project Based on the
applicatIOn and the staff recommendatIon, the Board found that the proposal IS Il1 compliance
with the standards and cntena for a Residential Infill Project, the maxllnum development
potential standards and all other applicable standards of the Commul1lty Development Code The
CommuOIty Development Board granted approval of the applrcatlOn
Pursuant to SectIOn 4-407, an application for a buildll1g penmt shall be made within one year of
FleXible Development approval and all reqUired certificates of oc(,upancy ')hdll be obtall1ed
wlthll1 one year of the date of Issuance of the date of the bUlldmg permit Time frames do not
change with succe')Slve owners The Commumty Development Board may grant an extenSion of
tIme for a penod not to exceed one year and on ly wlthm the ongll1al penoel of vahellty
Please remember that a buildmg permit and lmpact fees wlll be reqUIred prIor to the construction
of the project Should you have any questIons, please call the Development ReView DIVIsion at
562-4900 ex! 2622
Very truly yours,
Gerald Figurski, Chamnan
CommunIty Development Board
:, \l>lanl1lng DcpartmLmlC D mfLhX\lnnacllvc or fllllShcd Appl1callons\Eldorado 850 )hLnnan - Approved\Eldofado 850
DEVELOPMFNl ORDER dOL
CDB Meetmg Date
Case Number
Agenda Item
Julv 18. 2000
FL 00-05-15
D2
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANN I NG AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
OWNER:
Thomas & Kathleen Sherman
LOCA TION:
850 Eldorado A venue
REQUEST:
Flexible Development approval to reduce the front setback from 25
feet to 12 feet and mcrease the maxImum ImpervlOus surface ratIo
for the SIte from 0 65 to 0 75, as a ResidentIal Infill Project
PLANS REVIEWED:
SIte plan submitted by FalIm Design
SITE INFORMATION:
PROPERTY SIZE:
o 15 acres
DIMENSIONS OF SITE:
60 feet wide by 110 feet deep
PROPERTY USE:
Current use
Proposed use
Smgle-famIly reSidential
Smgle-famIly residentIal
PLAN CATEGORY:
RU, ResIdentIal Urban ClassrficatlOn
ZONING DISTRICT:
LMDR, Low MedIUm DenSIty ReSIdentIal Dlstnct
ADJACENT LAND USES: All adjacent uses are smgle-famJly reSidentIal The Gulf of MexIco
]S to the west
Page]
CHARACTER OF THE
IMMEDIATE VICINITY: The Immediate VICllllty IS dominated by resIdential uses
ANAL YSIS:
The SItC IS 0 15 acres located on the northwest comer of Gardema Street and Eldorado Avenue
The site IS located m an area of thc beach for whIch redevelopment requests are common
Eldorado Avenue IS a two-lane residentIal street with a 50-foot nght-of-way Gardema Street IS
an unImproved public nght-of-way from which public access IS provIded to the beach The SIte
contallls an eXlstmg 3,000 square foot slllglc-famIly dwellmg with an attached, two-car garage It
wac:; bUilt m 1968
The house IS currently setback 10 fcet from Eldorado Avenue and IS about five feet from the
north (side) property lIne The apphcants are propOSlllg to add 89 square feet to an eXlstmg
master bedroom and 26 square feet to the cntryway, totalmg 115 square feet The master
bedroom addltlOn wIll be 12 feet from the front setback on Eldorado Avenue
The reqUired front setback along Eldorado Avenue IS 25 feet, WhICh appears extraordmary given
the narrow width of the road However, the request to reduce thc front setback (Eldorado
Avenue) from 25 feet to 12 feet IS III keepm g with the estab hshed character of the area A
maJonty of the houses III the arca have been bUIlt at approxImately thiS setback The proposed
addItIon wIll not encroach any farther mto the front setback than currently eXists The request
also meludes an mcrease III the maXImum ImpervIOUS surface ratIO (ISR) IS from 65 percent to 75
percent The eXlstlllg ratio already exceeds Code reqUirements by eIght percent (0 73)
A. COMPLIANCE WITH MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL STANDARD
IN THE LMDR, LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:
STANDARD PERMITTED/ EXISTING PROPOSED IN
REOUIRED COMPLIANCE?
DENSITY t dwellIng umt 1 dwelling umt 1 dwelhng umt Yes
IMPERVIOUS 065 073 075 No*
SURFACE
RA TI 0
" The site was dcveloped III 1968 WIth an ImpervIOUS &urface ratIO of 73 percent The
addition will Illcrease the ISR by two percent
P dgL 2
B. FLEXIBILITY STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECTS IN THE
LMDR, LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:
-
STANDARD PERMITTED/ EXISTING PROPOSED IN
REQUIRED COMPLIANCE?
LOT AREA N/A 6,600 square 6,600 square Yes
minimum feet feet
LOT WIDTH N/A 60 feet 60 feet Yes
minimum
HEIGHT 30 feet 12 feet 12 feet Yes
maximum
FRONT YARD 10 - 25 feet 1 0 feet 12 feet (wIth Yes
SETBACK new addItIOn)
minimum
SIDE YARD o - 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet Yes
SETBACK
minimum
PARKING 2 2 2 Yes
SPACES
minimum
C. FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR RESIDENTIAL IN FILL PROJECTS:
1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is
otherwise economically impractical without deviations from intensity and
development standards.
The proposed master bedroom/study additIon wIll encroach Into the reqUired front
setback along Eldorado Avenue by 13 feet Other optIOns avaIlable to mcrease the size
of the house mclude demolitIOn and reconstruction or addmg a second :::.tory These
alternatIves are Impractical for the applicants and may have a greater (negative) Impact
on nelghbonng property owners PortlOns of the housc currently encroach IOto the front
setback on Eldorddo A venue by 15 feet The ImpervIOUS surface ratIo currently exceeds
the maXImum permitted by Code The request mcludes an ISR Increase by two percent
The Increase III ISR IS mlmmal and comparable to other properties III the neighborhood
Page 3
~
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.
The additIon to the house should not matenally reduce the fair market value of abuttIng
propertIes The Improvements proposed for thIS sIte are In keepIng wIth the
redevelopment of the area The current assessed value of the property IS estImated to be
$387,900 After the proposed Improvements are made (m additIon to other
Improvements not mcluded In thiS request) the value IS expected to bc $406,900
3. The uses within the Residential Inml Project are otherwise permitted in the
District.
The LMDR Dlstnct permits smgle-farnIly dwellmgs The proposed use IS an additIon to
a permitted use
4. The uses within the Residential Infill Project are compatible with adjacent land
uses.
The surrounding U6es are smgle-famlly dwellings and thiS proposal wIll be compatIble
with adjacent land uses The expanded smgle-famIly dwelling, as proposed, will
contmue to be compatIble with neIghbonng SItes
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.
The proposed Improvements will be an attractIve addItIOn to the eXIstmg smgle-story
house The architecture and matenals wIll be coordmatcd wIth those planned as part of
other Improvemcnts to the eXlstmg structure The economIC value of the house IS
expected to Increase with the proposed enhancements dnd will compliment the
nel gh borhood
6. 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 mvestmcnts made to thlS house will benefit the ImmedIate neighborhood through
aesthetICS, mcreased property values, and potentIal "spm off' effects The eXlstmg
landscapmg along the side property lines will mamtam pnvacy between adJommg
neIghbors The City of Clearwater will bencfit through enhanced community character
Page 4
ii
7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking
access or other development standards 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 Improvements to the house and property wIll result In Increased property
values and enhanced communIty character The proposal wIll be m keeping WIth the
character of the: area The Improvements to thIS 51te mIght promote contmued
remvestment m the nCIghborhood
D. GENERAL APPLICABILITY: 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 proposal Includes a small addItIOn to an eXistIng detached dwelhng It will have no
Impact on denSIty and minImal Increase In ImpervIOUS surface ratIO The developmcnt
will bc In harmony WIth the scale and character of 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 zoneG LMDR Olstnct and the proposcd use Will be III compliance WIth that
zonmg The proposed development IS conslstcnt WIth the eXIsting sctbacks established
on the property and m the neighborhood m general and should not discourage
appropnate development and use of adjacent land bUlldmgs
,
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons
I
residing or workmg in the neighborhood of the proposed use.
The use WIll not change WIth thiS proposal The development WIll not adversely affect
the health or safety or persons resldmg or workIng m the neighborhood
I
I
I
4. The proposed d~velopment is deSigned to mimmize traffic congestion.
I
The proposal Will not generate any mcrease In traffic
Page 5
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
The proposed development IS consIstent WIth the commumty character of the ImmedIate
VICInIty that mcludes an emergIng redevelopment pattern of upscale smgle-famIly
dwellings
6. The design of the proposed development mmlmlZCS adverse effects, including
Visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent
properties.
There will be no adverse effectf:> generated by the proposed development
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The applIcatlOn and f:>upportmg matenals were reviewed by the Development RevIew Commlttec
on June 8, 2000 The proposal IS III compliance WIth the standards and cntena for FleXIble
Developmcnt approval, WIth the maximum development potential, reqUlremcnts of ReSIdentIal
Infill Projects, and WIth all applIcable standards of the Commumty Development Code
The PlannIng Department recommcnds APPROVAL of the FleXIble Development approval to
reduce the front setback from 25 feet to 12 feet along Eldorado A venue and Increase the
maXImum ImpervlOus surface ratlO from 065 to 075, as part of a ReSIdentIal Infill ProJect, for
the SIte at 850 Eldorado A venue
Prepared by Mark Parry, Planner
ATTACHMENTS
Aenal Photograph of Site and Vlcmlty
Location Map
Future Land Use Map
Zomng Atlas Map
ApplIcatIon
\ IM)2IPDS\Plollnmg Depar ImemlC D BlrLEX\pI!tlJulg Application ,If !dOl ado 8jO SilermolllEldol ado ,UO Sf Al r RCl'OR f doc
P dgC 6
September 19,2003
Mr Shawn MOfflson
1140 East Bay Dnve
Largo, FL 33770
RE Development Order regardmg case FLS2003-08044 at 720 Eldorado Avenue
Dear Mr MOfflson
ThIS letter constItutes a Development Order pursuant to SectIon 4-202 E of the Commumty
Development Code On September 18, 2003, the Development RevIew CommIttee (DRC) reviewed
y~u~ applic_atlOn for FleXIble Standard Development approval~oJ~ajIce_ th_e -froflt east setback from 25;
~ fe~t!o 10 feet for -it single family d'vvellmg as a Residential Infill ProJ ect under the provIsIon of Section
2-203 C The DRC recomm-ended-approval of the applIcatIOn WIth the followmg bases and conditIons
Bases for Approval
I The proposal complIes With Resldent131 Infill Project cntcna under the provIsions of Section 2-
203 C,
2 The plan complIes WIth General ApplicabIlIty Cntena under the proVIsIOns of Section 3-913, and
3 The proposed development IS compatible With the 5urroundmg area
CondItiOns of Approval
I That parkmg IS prohIbited III the 10-foot dnveway between the garage and property line
I concur With the findmgs of the Development ReView Committee and, through thiS letter, approve
your dpphcatIon for FleXIble Standard Development With the above one condItIOn The approval IS
based on and must adhere to the site plan and application dated received August 20, 2003
Pursuant to Section 4-303, an application for d buildmg permit shall be made wIthm one year of
FleXible Standard Development approval (September 19, 2004) All reqUired certificates of occupancy
5hall be obtamed wlthm one year of the date of 15suance of the bUlldmg permit Time frames do not
change With successive owners
The Issuance of thIS Development Order does not relieve you of the necessIty to obtam any bUlldmg
perm I ts or pay any Impact fees that maybe req U 11 ed In order to faCIIl ta te the I ss uance of any penm t or
September 19,2003
Mr MOff].')on - Page Two
license affected by thls approval, please bnng a copy of this letter with you when applymg for any
penmts or IIcenscs that reqUIre this pnor devclopment approval
Pursuant to Section 4-502 A, an appeal may be InItIated wlthm seven days of the date the Development
Order IS Issued by an applicant or property owncrs within the reqUIred notice area and who presented
competent substantial eVidence III the Lcvel One review A copy of the Development Ordcr IS bemg
sent to those surroundmg property owncrs who presented competent substantIal eVIdence 111 the Lcvel
One reVIew The filing of an applIcatIOn/notice of appeal shall stay the effect of thc dcclslon pendmg
the final determ1l1dtJon of the case The appeal penod for your case will explrc on September 26, 2003,
(seven days from date of Development Order)
If you have any questIOns, please do not he.')ltate to call Bryan Berry, Planner, at 727-562-4539 You
can access ZOnIng for parcels wlthm the CIty through our webslte www e1earwater-tl com * Make Us
Your Favontc'
Sincerely,
Cynth13 H TarapanI, AICP
Plarullng Dlfcctor
S \Plannlng Dl.-pMtmwt\C D B\"landard I'kx\Pendmg Case,I, - Up fo] the Ntxl DRC\Eldor<ldo Ave 720 - Bollca (LMDR)\Lldowlo 720 Developmenl
Order doc
September 9, 1999
Steve Wydro
1135 Pierce Street
Clearwater, FL 33756
RE A devdopment order approvmg a flexIble standard development applicatIOn to construct an
addItIOn to a smgle-famlly dwelhng wIth a front setback of fifteen (15) feet on (L)Aurel Street
Dear Mr Wydro
On SeptembCT 9th, 1999, the Developme1!t ReVIew CommIttee rtvKwed your apph~atlO_n_ to construct an
additIOn to a slngle-fdmlly dwellIng wltb a fTont setba-ck-offifken (15) Teet on (i~)~u~1 St~eet a_t 941)
Eldorado Avenue and has unammou<;ly recommended approval to the Planmng DIrector
The Plannmg DlTector concurs with the findmgs of the Development ReVIew Committee and, through thIs
letter, approve!> your appheatlOn for flexible standard development
Please be aware that the Issuance oftlllS development order does not reheve thai applIcant of the necessIty
to obtam any bUlldll1g permIts that may be rcquIred
In order to facJ1ltate the Issuance of any pem1lt or hcense affected by thIS approval, please bnng a copy of
thiS letter WIth you when applymg for any permits or Ilccn~es which rcqulTe th]~ pnor development
approval
[fyou have any questIOns, plcase do not heSItate to call Mark Parry at 562-4558
Smcerely your,>,
Ralph Stone
Planning Director
May 23,2002
Mr & Mrs David Boos
844 Eldorado A venue
Clearwater, Flonda 33767
RE Development Order regarding case FLS 02-04-31 at 844 Eldorado Avenue
Dear Mr & Mrs Boos
ThIS letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to SectIOn 4-202 E of the CommunIty
Development Code On Apnl 11, 2002, the Devclopmcnt RevIew Committee (DRC) reviewed your
applIcation for FleXIble Development to mcrease the permitted helgh_~fn)m}O fee! JO 32 feet~reduce 1
\- thc_-front (east) setback from 25 -feet to 17 5 fcet (to house) -and to ~eVeI! feet _ (~o staircase) along'
\Eliiorado Aye_nye, is part ora Res-I dentJa I Infill Project under the provISIOns of SectIOn 2-203 The-
applIcatIOn mcludes the demolItion of dn eXli:>tIng one-story, smgle-famIly dwellmg and the
construction of a two-story, smgle-famIiy dwellIng The DRC recommended approval of the
applIcatIOn With the following bases and condItions
Bases for approval
I The proposal complIes With the FleXIble Development cntend per SectIOn 2-203
2 The proposal IS In compliance With other i:>tandardi:> In the Code mc1udmg the General ApplicabIlIty
Cntena per SectIOn 3-913
3 The development IS compatible WIth the surroundmg area and wIll enhance other redcvelopment
efforts
CondltIon::- of Approval
That all Code reqUIrements not specIfically Waived through thIS applIcation to be met pnor
issuance of any permits, CertIficate of Occupancy and/or OccupatIOn License as applIcable,
2 That all applicable reqUirements of Chapter 39 of the BUIldmg Code be met related to &edwall
sctbaeks, and
3 That the SIte planlclcvatIOl1S be reVised to show that any structure in the Sight tnangle at 30 mchcs
m heIght or above have mmimal opaqueness, as acceptable to the Traffic OperatIOns Manager,
pnor to Issuance of bUlldmg permit
May 23, 2002
Boo,> - Page Two
I concur with the findmgs of the Development Review Committee and, through this letter, approve
your applicatIon for FleXible Standard Development The approval IS bascd on and mu.'>t adhcre to the
site plan dated Apnl 22, 2002
Pur.'>uant to SectIon 4-303, an application for a bUlldll1g permit shall be made WIthIn one year of
FleXIble Development approval (May 23, 2003) All reqUired certificates of occupancy shall be
obtamed WithIn one year of the date of Issuance of the buildll1g permit Time frames do not change
With successive owners
Please be aware that the Issuance of thiS Development Order docs not relieve you of the neccsslty to
obtam any bulldll1g 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 tetter With you
when applYIng for any permits or licenses that reqUIre thiS prIor development approval
In addItIon, please be aware that an appeal of a Level One dpprovdl (FleXible Standard Development)
may be InitIated by a property owner abuttIng the property which IS the subject of the dpproval WIthIn
seven days of the date the Development Order IS Issued A copy of the Development Order IS bemg
sent to the surroundll1g property owners The filmg of an apphcatlOn/notIce of appeal shall stay the
effect of the deCISion pendmg the final determInation of the case The appeal perIod for your case wIiI
expire on May 30, 2002
If you have any questions, please do not heSitate to call Mark T Parry, Planner, at 727 5624558
Smcerely yours,
Cynthia H T drdpal1l, AICP
PlannIng DIrector
CC Surroundmg Property Owners
Mr Alex Pliska, Phsko Architecture, P A
S \PIJnnmg O'pdrtm'nIIC 0 BlStandard Flexllnnact,ve or F,n,shed Ca"s\Cldorado 844 800s - Approvcd\Eldomdo 844 DEVELOPMCNT ORDCR doc
August 9,2002
Dr & Mrs John McClure, 111
724 Eldorado A venue
Clcarv.iater, Flonda 33767
RE Development Order regardIng case FLS 02-03-25 at 724 Eldorado Avenue
Dear Dr & Mrs McClurc
ThlS letter constitutes a Development Order pur~uant to SectIon 4-202 E of the Commumty
Development Code On Apnl 11, 2002, the Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed your
,-- -- - - -- ~ - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -
rapplicatIon for F1cxlbl~ ~tandar~ pevelopment to reduce the front ~east) s_etback from 25 feet_to 10 feet}
~(tQ house) aQd to one foot (to staircase) along Eldorado Avenue~ as part of a ResidentIal Infill ProJcct
- - - - - ..i-
under the provlslons of Section 2-203 The applIcatlOn ll1c\udes the demolitIon of an eXisting two-
story, sll1gle-family dwellIng and the constructIon of a two-story sll1g1e-family dwelling with an open
front staIrcase The DRC recommended approval of the applicatIon With the followmg bases and
conditIons
Bases for approval
I The proposal complies WIth the FleXible Development cntena per SectlOl1 2-203
2 The proposal IS Il1 compliance With other standards Il1 the Code Il1cludll1g thc Gencral ApplicabIlity
Cntena per Section 3-913
3 The development IS compatlblc With the surroundll1g area and will enhance other redevelopment
efforts
Conditions of Aoproval
That a four-foot Wide Sidewalk along Eldorado A venue be shown on a site plan pnor to the
Issuance of any permits and mstalled pnor to the Issuance of a CertI ficate of Occupancy,
2 That a nght-of-way permit be obtaIned pnor to the commencement of any work III the nght-of-way,
3 That the front staircase be mamtall1cd With an open, non-opaque design (With low plantmgs) for
VISlblhty ofpcdestnans by dnver), and
4 That all applicable reqUirements of Chapter 39 of the BuIidlllg Code be met related to seawall
~etbacks
Augu,>t 9, 2002
McClure - Page Two
1 concur with the findmgs of the Development Review CommIttee and, through this letter, approve
your application for FlexIble Standard Development The approval IS based on, and must adhere to,
the site plan dated receIved July 26, 2002
Pursuant to Section 4-303, an apphcatlon for a bUlldmg permIt shall be madc wlthm one year of
Flexible Standard Devclopment approval (August 9, 2003) All reqUIred certificates of occupancy
shall be obtamed wlthm one year of the date of Issuance of the bUlldmg permit Tune frames do not
change With successive owners
Pleasc be aware that the Issuance of thIs Development Order does not relIeve you of the necessity to
obtam any bUlldmg permits or pay any Impact fees that may be reqUlred In order to faCIlitate the
Issuance of any permIt or license affeetcd by thIs approval, please brIng a copy of thiS letter With you
when applymg for any permits or ltcenses that reqUIre thiS pnor development approval
In addItIOn, please be aware that an appeal of a Level One approval (FleXIble Standard Development)
may be mltlated by a property owner abuttmg the property (which IS the subject of the approval) wlthm
seven days of the date the Development Order IS Issued A copy of the Dcvelopment Order IS bemg
sent to the surroundmg property owners The filmg of an applicatIOn/notice of appeal shall stay the
effect of thc deCISIon pendmg the final determmatlon of the case The appeal penod for your case wIll
expIre on August 16, 2002
If you have any questIons, please do not heSitate to call Mark T Parry, Planner, at 727 562 4558
Smcerely yours,
CynthIa H Tarapal1l, AICP
Planl1lng Director
CC SUlroundmg Property Owners
') \Plannlng Dcpal1mCnl\C D B\Slandard 11cx\lnnachve or rlnlshcd Cd,c,\I:ldur,ldo 724 McClure - Approvcd\EldorJdo 724 DEVCLOPM[NT
ORDER dol.
June 16,2000
Robert and Cyntllla Chapman
712 Eldorado Avenue
Clearwater, FL 34630
RE Development Order regardmg case FLS 00-05-34 at 712 Eldorado A venue
Dear Mr & M rs Chapman
On June 8, 2000, the Development Review CommIttee (DRC) reviewed your application
to allow a reductiOn of the\f~o-nfsetback on-Bfdorado A venue from 25- feet to I5 fe_~tl The
DRC unammously recommended approval of the proposal
I concur with the findmgs of the Development Review CommIttee and, through thiS
letter, approve your applIcatIOn for fleXible Standard development
Please be aware that the Issuance of thIS Development Order docs not relieve that
applicant of the necessity to obtam any bUlldmg permits 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 applymg for any permits or lIcenscs which reqUire thiS
pnor development approval
If you have any questIOns, please do not heSitate to call Mark T Parry at 562-4558
Smcerely yours,
Ralph Stone
Planmng Director
S \P!anllll1li Deparlnwn/\G D BISwndard Fler\Pelldlllg Case,IE./dOlado 7! 2 Chapman - ApplOvedlEld01ado 712 DFVLLOPMLN 1
URDLR doc
S IENGINIAUTOCADIATLAS\249A dwg 02113101 033627 PM MereU", eng.n_5-merge pe3
..
. ..
fI)~
~~ ~4
4 ~ Jlewi0CJ-
------
------------~---s
:S
~
....
lO'fllO
T~ I:: I ~~'~ ~ ': I ;~:l'",- L:m ~~ t I ;$ ~ r i~ r'l~ r;\ t ;$ ~ "3 ~~ =~ I~ ~ ~J! ~y atG1;/n'i I<F!.."~" ==
~ . j ~ II~~~ \ ~ fflllllJ,. AVI:. r-, EUl<IlAOO A\ENUE: ~ 'A
[:_ ,sa =: ~~~ \,t,~r\i!1i i,\; ~ ~ i~ 1. !Il:.,,: ~ ~'I~J ~~a: ~ ~ ! ! ~ i ~
Ia.,........ 11I".... ...t."lb.!....5!2..Q1-...,;ICf......., _ ,;a.. _ ~"I\)I ~
~ .c- "-'" (:1'1 "<I ~ <J. .0 .... I~ _... - w '=7 jE; - (J)
- ,.~ ~~ .;; u. :; C IN- I'" '0 ( 0 'ItI m ..., d10 0 ~ is ttlICl :I:
It~H ~ : ~;;, : : 1 a; "~ ;;; ~ \{ i l :" lA;= i"", I! I! !I i ; ~"":r! ~ 'Al""u"'s ~ ~~\ i! @ ~
S 1WIll....... . 13 N ~ _ C~ I: ~ i! ..i! : ! -! I~" .~ ... ;")..9 _~ N ~e a.~ 3'! ~ ~ ! U H ~ \ ~ T ~
>-J ~~i!: a' : ~~ ~~ '"'f%U~~!~J"~ ~ t'l" ~I~;~ ~:I~ : ~"o : :~v~ (f~.a~ _ ~ ::!:: ~: : : ~~IlJ::: . ~ -Lklli...-
__ ~ ;:: ~ ~ I,! .. Iil, - <> ",,, 0> I} ----- ___I...j I E.L1--~ (~. ~ hii ~ ;- i;! ~ ~! i! III I ~ I ~ _ ~ 'f,..
i ~ ~ L ~ ;; il i! i ii ! i:i il ! '" '-- l-:if ~ r:::, ~ ~ IQICI: A~ i;J.. .. '" i H
... fIl'Jef: ~ AVE ~, ". ~ ... ~ e! ~! I. .l.i.~ ; ! r!.. t = 0 ..
N H l ~.. 0 ~1i 1 I ~ I ~ .. ~ ~ ! ~~: i ~~: :. · '" ;; i~ 11': ~.. " ~ I " .. ~,.::. !a...l.. '-:. ~ ! ~ : !' ~ ~ ~ ~
~\'r .. ~ ;:, "'<V",T~KIEi - - .. ... ~...I":!' rr." ~;:; "":r "'" tia~ ! ~ en
:> f.. '".. a I .. 1I ~ :;; ~ I." { ; {" ... ~~ Ill- :ti\>-: "~"t ~" i~ '5 ! !"';!!" !;~ ~ Ie; ! ,'" ~ ~ '-"'-- " ~:>
.. - - -.l;:; - - ,; i!! - I ~ -. a , ~ ......r.... · ! ~ -----.l:...
f.. .... .. 'ij!!. _ _ ......rAll. .VI:. iii '''''''''-1: ~
~ ~~ --- r .. I [~ I it ~ ~ ~ ~,~ ! ~ l! ~ .. s" s a I ~ ! ..~.. ~ ! ~. e 1 ....Ilf' '" Ig
.1 /- 0, Ij '" ~ .. ~~r i ~! ~ \ '" ~ : ~ .0 m : .. !~a '^.. -la ... .. j;l -.. ~~. ~ ~ ti.~
~: Ii ii i! -1L .. - ':'" Co : ~ I:; _ -< _ II <::1" '" ~ - /"'0 ~ ~a '"I "" .. _ '::' ~ 0 ~ ~ :
~rn~moo~r~~.'~~:- .~':'~B~ ~;ilfl'f;t[fiJf-. ,,~ '89":::
~ \ '^($>; I ~ '" ~ !. i! - f ! ~ ... lI.O.y a: ":! S ~ .. ,- ~
,,- · ~"m ~~. ~ .. ~'-",
l-..) ~.... ~ iii ;:; i ~..... Q 100....1
IJI ..... lo..Jo ; ~D ~ iil
y .... ~ a ! :fS;!
-- N Li ~ ... !! ~,~ o.a~::-l-T1iF
..,. m ~:b '"" r~~1
~ L4 ja- ~!
-1~'Nji
~~~ III
~ I
~ 1
; \
--~. -- -----------=/: \
~ 1~~/g~~1
il:
)>
z
a
)>
,-
l>
-<
~/~
CUcat(01.
,Jf~~
~
1700
\4:~'
1I~1--
N
U1
gj: I
~
~
., 86VG
a::: r"," ;;:; @ <i' ~~J~~~[!~~
l::; . .. t:J ~ ~ loH: H &....
l@J <-0 r ~'i' ~g~~.6.~ [~i
:= .... 1'1
C) l" ..I.i~.i::~
N ,. gill ('} ,.. ~ 1'1 -.. L i"j!!"if
g Q ~ :
0 '" :; S Z Q
Z -< " -<,. -< 0 Ji ~~:~!~~~~~
z '" <II'" ,. '" 0
'" 0 ,., 0'" r a ^ <II ~ Q~;i:~ -;i~
'" " ,.,0 ~
'" a z r) g ~!<. ~~~~:~;f"
a ~ ~ ~~ ill c::; ~ EBZ
M <II '" ~ : ! :If:::'G!l!'':;;;~~
<II '=' '"
5 -" 0 >0-,. r" <II ~ ~ii~ ~ ,ll~~':: -.. "-
z '" '" L " -, ~~-<~ -~ ~;~
~ 0 >0- ",I M ~~" i :;: Si: j~ I;t '! ~ 17
~ ,.
6 z -<" ~ g i1':~ : 5"l:!!-2:~I:
z ~ ~ ,.,,, c
"'0 c H It ~8~"'" ;=-g i:
--< x ('}~ ~2~f:I!a.!IIII~~Q
~ .-
::;" ~l _..-<~n!;.~.,.
0( ... u",J~:~"
r 0(
~.. ! a;-.,..~.I;l ~1IlI" n
~ ~. :T ~ ij",Q i (l $!.- ~
~.
Vi '" ;:, 1!~i"PJ1;f~~
"
" ~ .~o ~Lo"-'
: ~ lo"~&-
:!~o ~ "'G B
::.;~ ~ ~ -<
.......Clr::: n
! i} '" E 0
i! :~g 1il 5 "'J
i~i~1;i~ ~8,;n
.~:I:;:>o- ~ .,1:""
llillll~OO 3l1'l
~- I'zll:.l=lI >
1~!-c-.3o( ::a
N-~ ~ 5 =-l
"l!~ ~ ~ ~
; ~~ <5 ... l1'l
.......3 ~ :c
V>z
::;;
I- N
,
"," 0
"'0 Z
VITI
IVI Z
1'1
_0 G)
<.n:::!
a
I'1Z
)>
--I
N r
)> DO;o
~ ''''
(/) "'s;
to "'VI
3'"
)> 00
/'
I
t
,
730 61
3'w-0...L2
, o' sa"'6A~
(AS~Swa. )
B~I+.
As~a ~
'0'
A'c..6-5S
R .0 . W ·
z.
3
i3..q ~\Ac~
NO ~c.e 0" ~h )
"0' sarti "'I' ( ~
~ 6.A
7s-'o &1.,.."
4\' 'CI~ ~
411 10' -"'0&.
/
,
!>oh~ ~ S
I
I -a. A .
, ~' ".0. w
780 f.\~
t.' ~LL. 5' sereAC-. (NlfN,.,"-'
, /,# Ser6~ 6.,41.
Mt4tJ6to
B.A
7 ~IJ' If.,. I4J .
f
StJo
AI'serel1tC,J4. fM.t4t:J J
, fL~O -os-- 6--
~ID~
NlJrJ CA4e-r8fLF-.o...,.
N f c..oll-f-) ate.
9 lAY. ~"tJ .11' "T6"'"
7fl
NOt-J ~IIL ,"'.."
51 ~1tC.
/1 10' s'r."~Jc.
ILl' t.l~~ L. ftJ
.,' MIl.&- (.......A ~
II ~O' ser."(J(. ItA A.
I'Z,
1J2..
'S.~
I.' ser...
JJ
.......A
~".
~
I~
~3) t:.(~
NOtJ ..~~
'"IJJ ~ c.o.e.H' C.
~ 11f,,"" I.'