The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2003-09050 City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attennon Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director RE: FLD2003-09050 - .' -- - , I fll~ -l-.-=r="'-~-- . I ~: I,~ \t" II \ \1/ Gin I I i:<J--;A;;~~-lllil )j >-l, 'j fI 'I ! ,I ~ " ' I,;V J~ -, -~~~ Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of JJ c;o (0111JJ10cblf sf and I am wnttng In objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condonnmums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal is for 77 umts, whIch requires a height variance to 75 feet and a reduction in the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feeling that the denSity of this project is entirely too large for tlns neighborhood Many ObjectIOns from area reSIdents have been raised concerning the effect the requested vanance will have on thts reSIdential commuruty ). This Will become the tallest building in the area, lOOmIng over the single-fannly residences, wmch destroys the aesthetIcs of this quamt commurnty Tms also encourages future development to match or exceed this density ). The proposed 77 urnts, along With the likelIhood of 2 vehicles per urnt, wIll put additional traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Point Road and Edgewater Drive This is not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent tms area ). The overall neganve effect of the proposed development on local property values A muln- umt condonuruum located unposmgly m a smgIe-fanuly reSidential area will directly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It wIll also affect area property taxes It is my feeltng that the size of this project will do more harm than good m preserving the quality of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consIderation m tms matter SlnrKrelyrk # C~\~ ro-\k '- .. ~{Clearwater , " -~ 'J~ CASE # FLD2003-09050 DATE RECEIVED RECEIVED BY (staff initials) ATLAS PAGE # ZONING DISTRICT LAND USE CLASSIFICATION SURROUNDING USES OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES NORTH SOUTH WEST Planning Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Telephone 727-562-4567 Fax 727-562-4865 Q SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPliCATION o SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION Induding 1) collated, 2) stapled and 3) folded sets of site plans o SUBMIT APPIJCATlON FEE $ * NOTE 15 TOTAL SETS OF INFORfvlATlON REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS) (J ~ '" FLD2003-09050 AMENDED 5/17/04 ~ FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION (ReVised 2/02/2004) -PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT- A APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION (Code Section 4-202 A) Top Fllght Development, LLC APPLICANT NAME MAILING ADDRESS 1925 Edgewater Drlve, Clearwater, FL 727-278-4400 727-446-6186 PHONE NUMBER FAX NUMBER PROPERTY OWNER{S) 1925 Edgewater Drlve, Inc. (Must Include ALL owners as listed on the deed - provlde o"glnal Slgnature(s) on page 6) Top Fllght Enterprlses, Inc. AGENT NAME Harry S. Cllne, Esqulre 625 Court Street, SUlte 200 MAILING ADDRESS 727-441-8966 727-442-8470 PHONE NUMBER FAX NUMBER C8...L NUMBER &MAIL ADDRESS B PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION (Code Section 4-202.A) 1925 Edgewater Drlve, Clearwater STREET ADDRESS of subject site LEGAl... DESCRIPT10N Sectlon 3, Townshlp 29. Range 15 East PARCEL NUMBER (If not Ilsled here please nole the location of thIS document In the su bmltlal) See Attached PARCEL SIZE 2.57 acres (acres, square feet) PROPOSED USE(S} AND SIZE(S) 60 dwelllng umts lncluding common areas, e.g. covered (number of dwelling Units, holel rooms or square footage of nonresldenhal use) parklng, lobb1es, pool DESCRIPT10N OF REQUEST(S) BUlldl ng hel 9 ht to 59' from ba se flood e levat 1 on of 131-0" MSL, wlth helght calculated to mldpolnt of roof sLope. Appurtenances shaLL extend 'Ib' abov~ 591 a s a llowed by FBC. PWe ~eo,.ll~ct~IWlbl~ Rev~'rB~W,JWP~~ID-clj(1tyt<(f cp~frf~nt to a llow a dl stanc =: of 5.85' from property llne to eastward eage-bf parKing. '~ DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVEoLOPMENT RIGHTS (TOR) A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CER T IFIEO) S IfE PLAN? YES ~ NO L (rf yes attach a copy of the applicable documenls) C PROOF OF OWNERSHIP (Code Sectlon 4-202 A 5) o SUBMIT A COpy OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY DEED OR AFFIOAVll ATTESTING TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY o. WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (Code SectIon 3.913 A) o provide complete responses to the six (6) GENERAl APPLICABILITY CRITERIA - Explain b2:tt. each criteria Is achieved kI detail The proposed development of the land will be In harmony wrth tho scale, bulk coverage density and charactar of adjacent properties In which It Is localed See archltect's transmlttal letter attached for rloL propo~ed dev(.lopmerll wtll not h,nder or d.scou rage the dl-'propncllc llevdo prnerll d,,(l use or alljacenlland aHd bu,ldmgs or s'gnl~canlly IfI\p;tlr ltle IIdlue thoreof See Item 1 above. I h, pr "P<J~~ d evelol-'mefll wtll nol adve r~ely d flecl lhp Ilea I\h or 5<1 fe LY or ['LlsonJ ,e~I(JLng or work "'g In UHl ne Ighoorhood of lhe proposed - -~-~- --~--~- LJ")I_ --- ~ --~ -~ ~. See Item 1 above. 4 IIIL pro[lUsed de v"topmenl 's des'gned 10 nlln,mlze traffic ronge'tlon See Item 1 above. 5 n'e proposed development 's cons,slent wilh the communlly characler of the tmmedLate vlctn,ty of Ule parcel proposed for development See Item 1 above. (; n'e [je~'Cjn ot Ihe proposed development mlnlmrz;es adversa eff"cts ,ncludlnCj vlsudl aCQuslLC and olfactory and hours ot operal1on. ,mpacts on adliw.e nl propenles See Item 1 above. o ^dd r~ % Ihe applicable flexibololy ailena tor lhe SpeCL~C land use as 1051ed on each lonon9 O,slncllo which the waiVer 's requesled (use separale ~rlPf,' as neCf'ss."lry) - Explaon h.Q.Y! Cfllena 's 8ch leved tn d elall Pr(l\l'ct complles wlth Table 2-803 cr1tella, Commun1ty DeveLopment Code See att~~hed narrat1ve for explanatlons~~~~~~~~~ ~nder 2-803b (revl~~ 2/5/04) -~----------------~ -- --- " - ~ ---~~~~-_..---------------- --- - ~---- 'I ~.....---~~ ~--~ P a J e 2 of U ~ ~ h~ xltJlc DUo...., lo~w It ul App1L(...;HlOfl l 11 ~ Of (h. dr......dlt..r E SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (Code SectIOn 4-202 A) REVISED 2/5/04/; ~.17,'4-, teJA ~ SIGNED AN D SEALED SU RVEY (InCludIng legat descnpuon of properly) - OnO orlgtnal and 12 coplo s l{l TREE SURVEY (mcludlng eXlslmg Irees on SltO and wIthin 25 01 the adjacent SIte by spac",s SI,O (oaH 4' or greater) and \acallon IncludIng dnp lines and Indlcalmg treas to be removed) P:I LOCA nON MAP OF THE PROPERTY o pARKIN G DEMAND STUDY In conjunction With a requast 10 make dovlatlons to lhe par'Kmg slandards {Ie ReduOI3 number of SpaOl3S} Prior to the submittal of thIS epphcalloo the meUlOdotogy of sud1 study shail be approved by tlw Commumly Devtllopment Coorchnalor and shall bll In accordance wllh accepllld traffIC 6nglnOOrlng pOndpJes The ftndmgs of the study will be used In d<3termlnlng whelh6r or not dllvlatlons 10 \hll parldng sta nda rd sara apprOved, 10 GRADING PLAN as applicable o pRELIMINARY PLAT, as required {Note Bulldmg permIts WIll nol be Issued unlllevidenCll 01 recording a ftnal p1alls provldlld} o copy OF RECORDED PLAT as applicable, r SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (Code Section 4-202 A) Xl 51 I E PLAN w,tll II"" followmg mformdllon (nol !O exceed 24 x }G") All {1Inlfl'[l51un.;:; North :arrow Eng,nf.cnng tn' Sed Ie (n"n Ifnum "C3lc one Incll equ"'s 50 leLl) and ~atl pre,n,ed l or~lllon rl\Jp Ind e ( S Imel ,derenclng Indlvldual sheets ",cluded ,n pa ckage , 00' p' ,m "m] ~L'C of all EX IS TIN G tJulldmgs and strucW res f OOlllfLll1 d ",j Sll l of dll P f<.OPOSl::D bUIldings amI strUClures All requiled sd" IC~S AU L',sllng ,nll propo5ed paml" of aCcess All req u"au ~lgl1t lnanglps Ide ",',cillian of [rlv"Qnmentally unlquf' areas such dS watercnurse" welldflds tree rn"S~LS aN1 spec"n~n lre eS Indudong uescnphon and IOCdllOn of underslory ground cover vf''1el~\IOf\ and WildlIfe h ~l,,' ,,\S p lC Loc"\lon 01 ;:.11 IJut,loC and pnvale easements l OLal,on of dll ~Ir"",l (lgh\s of way wllhm and ad]acan! \0 Ihe s,le I OC ,l,on 01 a xLsllflg public and pfLvate lJIll,hes Inc\ud Ing f,re hyc!fafHS slO"" and samldry 'L wU hnL'; m;lnholes and l,fl swILons ga s and water hnes All par~"'g 5 paces dllveways loadIng areas and vehlclJlar use a(edS DeplcllOn by 5had log or crosshatch log of allwqulre<l parKIng lot miano' landscaped areas Local,on of all solId waste conlamerS recycling or tra5h handhng arpas dnd outSIde mechanical equ'iJment and dll (equlred screemng (per 5ecl,on 3 20l{O)(') and Index tt701} Location of ail landscape matena! Locallon of all onSlle and offsLle storm waler management facLhhes LocatIon of all outdoor lightIng fiKlu res arid Location of all eXISling and proposed SIdewalks X:J ~I TE OA TAT AHLE for e ~Isllng reqUired and proposed developmenl ,n wnnenllabular form Land area Ifl square feel and acres Number 01 EXISTING dwelllflg units Number 01 PROPOSE.D dwelling unIts Gross floor area devoted to each use ParkLng spaces Wlal nu ",ber presented Ifl tabular form wllh the numOO r of ,equ,red spaces T otall'aved area IncludIng all paved park,ng spaces and dflveways expressed In square fee\ and pl"rcantage of lhe paved vehlcular area SOle and specIes of all landscape malenal Off,c,al records t>oO~ a nd page nu mOOrs of all eXIsting ulll'ly easement BULld Ing a nd structure r,elghls Impermeable surface rallO (I S R) and Floor araa ra\,O (F ^ R ) lor all nomes,dent,allJses 0: REDUCED 51 TE PLAN to scale (8 y, X 11] and color rendenng If po"sLble lX ~ OR. OEVELOPMEN r5 OVER ONE ACf'l.E provlde Ihe fo\lovJlOg addItIOnal IflformallOn on slle plan One 100l COnlOurs or s pol elevatIons on srte Offslle elevallons II reqUIred to evaluate the proposed slormwatef managemenl for the pan..pl AI! open sp<lCf' a rp as LOLat,on of <ll\ "dr'll or wdter re\amlrtg walls and earth ber(11~ loll,ne~ ,H'O l)ullo"''1 Ilfles (dlmens,onul] Strel- \..... otlflti dfiV ~..... {dHnen~loned) BUII(\,ng ~ fld "ru(.tU( ~I "elt)"Ck ~ (dHHBr\S,ollf'd) .;;:; tfUc:...tur (il u..... p rll.:..l ny c; I tN' IrlVc" 0 I P' P,,(~<l toy " -CUllr,N! a,llO"~1 of all \I ~ps B 08 10' g" ,I r~f\~c!''''l >' ,0 '"I'Y lunp I,np~l ",,(1 {ond,uo" <J' "" t, tr ~- - --- . - ~------------ ~ -"""" .....------&~- - --- ------ t""" ~:I-q { 1 o~ G _ 1 h: ;(,1blc l)ev~lopn H....rH \ 11' II 1\11 ,n (.lly nt C~1; I r.. REVISED 2/5/04' 5.J7.~ K,jA G STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (City of Clearwater Design Cntena Manual and 4.202 A 21) o STORMWA TER PLAN U1cludlng the follOWIng reqUirements Existing topoglllphy extending 50 feet beyond ell property (Illes Pro po sed grad Ing lnelu ding Ii nlsh ed floor e Ie va lions of a II slructu re s All adjacent streets and municipal storm systems, Proposed lilormwat(lr d(lt(lnllonlr(lt(lnllOn BrBa Illdudlng lap of bank loa of slope and outlet control strudure Slormwater catculatlons for (IU(lnual,on and walar qualrty Signature 01 Florida reglst(lred Professlooal Engineer on all plans and calculations o Copy OF PERMIT INQUIRY LETTER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT SUBMITTAL (SWPNMD epprovalls reqUired prior to Issuance of City Building Permit), If applicable o Copy OF STATE AND COUNTY STORMWATER SYSTEM TIE IN PERMIT APPLICATIONS If eppllcable H LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (Section 4-1102 A) c.:l LANDSCAPE PLAN All e ~I sling "nd propo se d s tr U Clu re s Names of abuWng Slleets Dra,nage and relentlon a reas Including sw~le S SIde slopcs and t>ollom elevdtlUn~ Dehnealmn and dlmCH\SlOns of all requlfed perlmeler landscape buHers SIghl V'Slbllily Iflangles DellneatLon and dimenSions of all par1o;lng areas rndudlr)g landscaping ,slands and curbing Proposed and requlfed parking spaces E~Istrng trees on slle and Immediately adlacent 10 !lle Site by species SIle and locallOnS ,ncludlng dnphne Location Slle descnptlon speclflcdtlons and Quantlt,es of all e~Islmg and proposed lamlscape matenals Including botalltcal and common names TYPical plantmg details for tlces palms shrlJbs dnd ground cover planls Indudlllg tnstructlons SOil ml~es backfilhng muldlLng and prolectove measures Intenor landscaping arcas hald1ed a ndlor shdded and labeled and Inlenor land sea pe coverage expressing In both square feet and percenldge covered COndl\lons of a prevIous development approval (e g conditions Imposed by the CornmullIty Development Board) IfTlga~on notes o REDUCED lANDSCAPE PLAN 10 scale (8 Y, X 11) (color rendenng If pOSSible) o IMIGA TION PLAN (reqUired lor level two and three approval) o COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM applicatIon as applicable BUILDING ELEVATION PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. (Sectton 4-202 A.23) ReqUired III the event lhe application Indudes a development wIlere deslgn standards are III Issue (e 9 Touns! and DownfoWll Dlstnc\s) or as part of a ComprehenSive Infill Redevelopment Project or a Resldenliallnfill Project lO BUILDING ELEVA liON DRAWiNGS - all Stdes of all bUlldlllgS Including he'gf1l dlmensJons colors and malenals XI REDUCED BU ILDING ELEV A liONS - four SideS of bUltdlng With colors and matenals to scale (8 \I, X 11) (black and whrte and color re nd enng 1/ pos Sib Ie) as reqUire d J SlGNAGE (Dlvlston 19 SIGNS I SectlOn 3-1806) o All EXISTING freestandong and attached SignS PrOVide photographs and dimenSions (area height etc) mdlcate whelher they WlII be removed or to remaon o All PROPOSED freeslandillg and attached signs ProvJde details Including location Slle, height colors matenals and draWIng o Comprehens,ve Sign Program application as applicable (separate apphcatLon and fee requlfedJ o Reduced SLgnage propos,,1 (8 y, X 11) (color) If subrrllnmg Comprehen"ve Sign Program apphcatlon " Pdge 4 01 u Flpx,ble Development AppllCdhOn - City of Clea<w"'er r K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY (Section 4--801.C) , IQ\ Include as reqUired If proposed development will degrade the acceptable level of service for any roadway as adopted m the ComprehensIVe Plan \.:::.J Tnp generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportallon Engmeer's Tnp General Manual Refer to Section 4-801 C of the Commumty Development Code for exceptions 10 thiS requirement L SIGNATURE: I, the undersIgned, acknowledge that all representations made In thiS apphcallon are true and accurate to the besl of my knowledge and authcnza City representatives to VlSrt and photograph the property descnbad In thIS applicatIOn STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS "3~ SWO!Jl,. to and subscnbed before...me thiS _'=-- day of Ry::~<:(' AD 20..Q.:? to me and/or by ~y.:,\~ :aejJ~+I~ -' who 1$ personally known has produced n [L- as .-L ubllC; ISSIOn expIres Notary PubUc - State 01 Flonda ~Commisslon Eltplres ApI" 9,2004 Commission # CC925773 x~ ~ Signature of property owner or rep~ DANIEL DENNEHY Page 5 of 6 - FleXIble Development Application - City of Clearwater ..' .. M AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT 1925 EDGEWATER DRIVE, INC. [As to Parcel "A" propert:les] TOP FLIGHT ENTERPRISES, INC. [As to Parcel "B" propert:les] {Names of alt property owners) That (I amlwe are) the owner(s) and record title hotder(s) of the follOWIng descnbed property (address or general location) See attached Exhibit nAil 2 That thiS property conslllutes the property for wtllch a request for a (descnbe request) Comprehens:lve Inf:lll Redevelopment Level Two approval for attached resident:lal hous:lng w:lth:ln a tour:lst zone at a he:lght up to 75 feet. 3 That the undersigned (haslhave) appointed and (does/do) appoint HARRY S. CLINE, ESQ. as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any pehbons or other documents necessary to affed such petrtJon, 4 That thiS affidaVit has been executed to mduce the Crty of Clearwater, Flonda to oonsKler and ad on the above descnbed property- 5 That site VISits to the property are necessary by City represenlallves In order to process thiS. applJcallon and the owner authonzes City representallVes to VISit and photograph the property descnbed In thiS apPh~bon, , ~ 6 Tha: (llwe) the undetSlQned authonty, hereby certIfy thatlhe foregoing IS Irt.i nd corred ~ " \ ~ propeDXN~EeL DENNER; 0:::::--') Property Owner STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELtAS Before me the unde"Slgned, an officer duly commissioned by the laws of the Slate of Flonda, on thiS Sep t . 2u03 personally appeared DANIEL DENNEHY Deposes and says that he/she fully understands the contents of the affidaVit that he/she slg day of who haVIng been first duly sworn ;<~# My Commission Expires tary Pub!!c Page 6 of 6 - FleXible Development Appllcabon - City 01 Clearwater . , FEB-04-2004 II 39 P 03/05 TOP FLIGHT DEVELOPMENT. LLC FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR LEVEL 2 COMPREHENSIVE INFILL - TOURIST DISTRICT I SECTION 2-803 The developmel1t or redevelopment of the parcel propo.!led for development is otherwise impradic.al with out deviatioos from the us, intensity and developmen t standards Applicant seeks Q Level 2 approval ofa Comprehensive Infillfor redevelopment 6' I KJA ofproperties located north and east of the intersection ofEdgf:Woter Drive _,o/ ?11".t [Alternate 19J and Sunset Pomt Road The request lS to approve hrtlght up tof.i:J)"" feet wherelrl a Level 2 FLexible DeveLopment Helglll can be approvedfor QUQched dwellwgs from 35 feet to a maximum of 100 feet, and TO approve JnsraflallOn of balcony support columns w/t/lln the setbacks on Sunnydale DrnJe J 7 feet from the properry Lme where the code calls for a 25 foot frontyard setback Applicant submtts It meets the criterIa for ComprehenSive InFtll redevelopment prOjects The redevelopment of the parcels IS otherwise eCOIlOnttcally tmpraclIca{ wllhout the requested devlQtlon Spectmen oak trees are located on the SIte which /0 be ejfecrlvely protected reqUlres vemcal constructIOn to leave suffiCient area to pro/ect the eXIsting trees AdditIOnally. the property IS Situated on an artenal road and contiguous to an e.xlsflngfillmg statIOn / convenient store, and the vertical constructIOn will prOVide IsolatIOn from these adverse Impacts and allow a reasonable use oflhe property 2 The de'Velopment of the parcel proposed for development as a Comprehensive loml Redevelopmeot Project will oot reduce the fair market value of abuttIng properties The redevelopment should nor have any negative Impacts on the faIr market value of abumng properties The present uses conslS( of small motel operatIOns involVing some 36 units, and 9 rental apartments 3 The uses within the comprehensive jaml redevelopment project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater. Attached dwellings are permitted wlthm the TourlSl Dlstncl m the CIty of Clearwater 'f " , FEB-04-2004 II 40 P 04/05 4 Tbe uses or mill: of uses withlD th e comprehenSIve infilJ redevelopment project are compatible witb adjacent laDd uses "\ The proposed uses, being either fOwnhomes or condomInIUms, are compatIble With adjacent/and wes The property to rhe north being a moteljaclllly, to the west smgle{amily resldentJaI (wrth land uses of R.esldentlal Median and Reslderlllal Urban) 5 Suitable sites for development of tbe uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are Dot otherwise available in the City of Clearwater. At the present nme there are not sUitable Sites Jar thiS type oj development or redevelopment wJthm the northwestern sector oJthe CIty a/Clearwater, and thIS prOject wah other constroctlOn In the Immediate area should establish a pattern of development on A/temale /9 extendmg fr'om the center of the City to the Sunset Pomt Road mtersectlOn 6 The developmeDt of the parcel proposed for development as a comprehenSIVe infLll redevelopmen t pro j ec t wd I up gra d e th e 1m m ed I a te vicinity 0 r th e p a rce I proposed for development. The redevelopment does represent an upgrade The exIsting facilIties are out of dare Jrom all operatlOn as well as a constrUC/lon standpornt 7 The deSign of the proposed comprehensive iaml redevelopment project creates a form and fDDcttOD wbicb enhances tbe community cbaratter of the immediate vicinity oftbe parcel proposed for development and the Cily of Clearwater 8.5 a whole. Thefmal deslgn of the redevelopment project will create an enhancement to the northern access mto the Cuy a/Clearwater and should encourage other redevelopment along tillS corridor e:aendmg Into the City center & Flexibility iD regard to lot width, required setbacks, height aDd off-street parking are JDstified by tbe benefits to community character aDd the immedfatc viciUlty orthe parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. Fle:nblllty Ul regard to the heIght IS justtfied by benefits t6 the community character, as well as prOViding some open space and landscapmg to protect the specImen oak trees on-SHe " '1 FEB-04:2004 11 40 P 85/05 9. Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity according to the sbared parklng formula 10 Dlviston 14 of' Article 3: wiD be available to flvoid 00- street parking in the immed.iate vicinity oftbe parcel proposed for development. All required parking Will be on.site. " \cb..~ty'lhsc'ldQl;$\w ptll gb~Q nip an. doc '1 \ ~. TOTAL P 05 I~l 't r' &JfJ ..-- '1 AUDE SHAND & WILLIAMS AlA II 'i I" I ~ 7 "'''', ,j v ~ ~ I L.." I ArcMeclure I nle nor DeSign Masler Plannlrlg Programmlrlg Space Planning F aClhty Su rveys Site An alysls A D A Co nsu Itlng Co nstructlon F 0 ren SICS Conslruclion Documents ConslrUctlon Ad m [II Islra !Ion June 16, 2004 Mr Michael H Reynolds, AICP Semor Planner Department of Development ServIces CIty of Clearwater Re Application Amendment THE ASHLEIGH FLD2003-09050 Top Flight Development LLC 1925 Edgewater Dnve Clearwater, Flonda Dear Mlke Based on our May 7,2004 meetmg WIth Chip Gerlock and/Cynthla Taraparu, we transmIt 15 SIgned and sealed copIes of revised applIcation for The Ashlelgh project III north Clearwater ThIs amended applIcation includes deSIgn changes m response to Commumty Development Board heanng held on Apnl 20th. Key elements which have changed are as follows 1 Reduction in Building Height Proposed bUildIng heIght has been reduced from 75 ft to 59 ft above base flood elevation Rather than so: floors over parkmg, the applIcation IS reduced to four stones over varian!!. 2 Reduction in Project Density Instead of 77 umts, the revised deSign proVIdes for 62 reSidential UnIts, a reductlOn of 15 umts from preVIOUS appltcatIons In order to preserve monumental oak trees, the buIldmg footpnnt has remamed substantially the same Roben J A u de AlA #6659 Arthu r C Shand II DA #0003509 Donald S Wlllrams FAIA 1957.1994 AUDE, SHAND & WILLIAMS, INC AlA Flond a Co r po r al 10 n AAO 00258 7 Arbor Shoreline Office Pafk 19353 U S Hwy 19 North SUIte 101 Clearwater FL 33764 Tel (727) 535 4585 Fa~ (727) 539 0099 WWW AUOESHANO COM J I- r Page 2 June 16,2004 3 Increased Parking Ratio Although the code reqUIres I 5 cars per umt, the revised proposal provIdes for 1 93 cars per residential umt Parkmg Inventory has been Increased from 117 to 120 cars, with 2 of 5 reqUIred spaces for disabled located withIn the parkIng garage With these changes, the applIcant feels the deSIgn IS responSIve to the Commumty Development Board and their concern for compatIbIlity WI th surroundmg new development 10 thIS dIStnct All other aspects of the application remain mtact from prevIous submIttals SInce these concerns have been addressed, please be advIsed that all remamIng condItions ofprevlOus staff reports are acceptable to the developer, and comphance IS assured pnor to Issuance of a bUIldmg penm t We would appreCIate recel vmg a copy of a reVIsed staff report as soon as pOSSible, we enclose aduphcate copy ofapphcatIon forms and narrative response Our thanks to your office for ItS contmumg cooperation and assistance With thIS application Please adVise If there are questions or comments regardIng thiS amended deSign before thiS Item IS placed on CDB agenda Smcerely, & WILLIAMS, INe , AIA ~ obert 1. Aude, AlA cc Harry Clme Dan Dennehy Joe Borchers Andrew Caudell Alyson Utter Cyntlua Tarapanl ChIp Gerlock Attachments AUDE SHAND & WilliAMS AlA III Arc h Itect ure Intenor Design Masler Planmng Programming Space PlaMmg F ac,llty SUI\leys S lie Anal ys I s A D A Consulting Con st ruct Ion Fore nSlcs Conslructlon Documents Construction Administration May 17, 2004 Mr Michael H Reynolds, AICP Semor Planner Department of Development ServIces City of Clearwater Re ApplicatIOn Amendment THE ASHLEIGH FLD2003-09050 Top FlIght Development LLC 1925 Edgewater Dnve Clearwater, Flonda Dear Mike Based on our May 7, 2004 meetmg With ChIp Gerlock and Cynthia Tarapam, we transmIt 15 sIgned and sealed copies of revIsed applIcation for The Ashlelgh project In north Clearwater ThIS amended applIcatIOn mcludes design changes III response to Commumty Development Board heanng held on Apnl 20th Key elements whIch have changed are as follows I Reduction in Building Height Proposed bUIldmg heIght has been reduced from 75 ft to 59 ft above base flood elevatIon Rather than SIX floors over parkmg the revlsed apphcatlon mcludes a reduction to four stones over parkmg 2 Reduction in Project Density Instead of 77 umts, the revIsed deSign prOVides for 60 residential umts, d reductIOn of 17 umts from preVIOUS applIcatIons With thIS reVISion, you will notice the proposed bUIldmg footpnnt IS substantIally the same from prevIOus submittals, III order to preserve monumental oak trees on SIte Robert J Aude AlA 116859 Arthur C Shand IIOA #0003509 Donald S Willlems FAIA 19571994 AUDE, SHAND & WilLIAMS, INC AlA FlOrida Corporation AA0002587 Arbor Shoreline Olflee Park 19353 U S Hwy , 9 North, Swte '0' Clearwater Fl33764 Tel (727) 535-4585 Fax (727) 539 0099 WWW AUDESHAND COM Page 2 May 17,2004 3 Increased Parking Ratio Although the codc reqUires I 5 cars perumt, the revised proposal provides for 20 cars per resIdentwl una ParkIng Inventory has been mcreascd from 117 to 120 cars, wIth 2 of 5 reqUired spaces for disabled located withIn the parkmg garage With these changes, the applIcant feels the proposed design IS responSIve to the CommW1lty Development Board and theIr concern for compatJ bl IIty with surroundIng new development In thIS dlstnct All other aspects of the application remaIn Intact from prevIous submIttals Smce these concerns have been addressed, please be adVIsed that all remamIng condlttons of prevIOUS staff reports are acceptable to the developer, and complIance IS assured pnor to Issuance of a bUIldIng permIt We would appreciate recelvmg a copy of the reVIsed staff report as soon as possible, and we enclose a duplicate copy of application forms and narrattve response Our thanks to your office for Its contmumg cooperatIon and aSSIstance With thIS applIcatIOn Please adVise Ifthere are questions or comments regardIng thIS amended deSIgn before thiS Item IS placed on the CDB agenda Smcerely, ~ & WILLIAMS, INe, AIA robert J Aude, AlA cc Hany Chne Dan Dennehy Joe Borchers Andrew Caudell Alyson Utter Cynthia Tarapam Chip Gerlock Attachments i CII l:I IS g " ~ IJ:D aD f\.)I-:f o)>o::!: 'c )>0..... OJ JT1 fJI _ 0> o 0 Z . <CO I"'I~::E C~ C') -l i: -l G) ~OOJT1C::I:l012' Oi:>!~:e I JT10r 0 C fTlO ~ (;jO I o ~;{ fTlZ Z(') -l fTI 10.22' I ~31VMb1V31~ .dIO A JJO) li\!l~~1~Vd30 ~N~N~ViJd ;tj I fTI ~OOl 0 G lar ~ ~S~ ::tl:e Ul:I:)> 0)>0 :::t~rrl a3J^~3J~~i~ ~l!J~ ....,)> ::OlTlr C::tl:::t ~o~ zO< (I)....,. fTl!:fTl LO 'Q~ ~ ;;:; 3 6 ~.9v.OOS ~ .. I ;tj fTI fTI!:!J~ ~-lZ (J)::I:)> ::::p'T'I-l z::OfTI !; G')~::E ~ -10)> C ::tlfTlF :;0 ITl UJ~.fo:; N o Z Z G) 00"0 -;:0 o!ij [;10 >00 ~JT1 o tn. ..... ..... & q I ""U Q :::0 :E :J: Sfi )>F ~ fTI (') ::0--'0 -l .::::u -<....,)> C::::u:::! zO< fT13::f'Tl "",. II II Ii II r l ! l r I I (j) II cl. zl Zj -< :; 011 I :l> r !'T1 I'T1-OO XZ(5 ()---II 0 I'T1I-l fTl_ o OO:.d ;;0 I U>> _ O::UZ "l'T'I C') ->1"'1 < I Z3::r ICb r1 I JTI 00 OJ . (5-1c.. I IZI'T1 , -100 I -IUl ! , II I I II I! II 11 323 90 /' "" L - ~ + I . " ", '" J VY r x A X I T I ~ l-\ I~ ...(l "\j \/ ~ l/\ rs: \. - - -------------r--t - - -I I ! I ----+- - I ! I I t I J. t,:: VISIBILITY TRIANGLE /\ ~r;=~rr=n\\ l7rr=='rAt ~ /\~~~" ~ ,.\"". -nA!ID6IT .J :\ ~ _ 'I'~ ARWAlER 1 j ~ ~ ~ k 6' SOLID IV ~ <'~\.. "" ~ ' .~ ) GRADE BEl /+', { J /+'- 'J ~ ' - ROOTS OF / 'J",-,,/>" "'. _ _ --J I:: I) --L- ,_." ~~ v >< _____I~ ~ _'-'" -------- = '- T I 1 1 A I I 1'1' X I I X 1 r T I ) T II I _ >-< )If) IlK ~ 0 I 0 I ~ e>-< l~ II~/~ m~"" :I> 1:1I j r I>-< ~- ",- < '" /' I. t>--< CD '''"", en L - / '-- Iii ~.J1l:: ::. fill / II 53 018" -, ,/ ill 5; ~19" ~ -n i lill 51 &l'2" --8 \ Jlso@ 14" ~~ \ r jil ;' - ~ ~ --'" / \ fr 149 @ 1Q.:J // ~J I OJ ./' il!j 148 €S a.. r/ '\ 11\ I Ir" / '-rtJ I' >-< " , ~<1 n _ : I 'f'--~ -~:~ j' I .-- >-< -', ~/-- - K-/ 01 "",Lf/'-:: "'\ - - / I~ "" t:r f I >--< \ 7 ~ \ I ~ / --- __~iI 10" >-: 47 I I ~ .-L'r-=_- '_r.. L-g}, 0 ,., r ' _'1 ~":'L L. Q' i1 \J ~l_ _ r... _ t>--< = 22"" 1 1 / ~~x X I Y 'it 1 (TJ -1 -r x.'"'X 1. X X IX X iX Y 1'0/1. 0- ~, II \ ~ J\ !{S) 11::9 ~ ~ / JI \ I,' ,_ :s: \ 1" 7" 7' 15 14 I \ / "-SETBACK LINE /1 \\" /'/ " ....../ ................. r"/ ...... --~..... -..............._~~--_..-' .............. .....-- -.......~-~.-.- -I- - I I ~~ ~ , ..., l:. , /: ~ [(:1 i- _tj::::r - '-'- B , - j I- \ , ~ 7 -~ Jul 20 04 10:4Ga Aude ~~and & Wllllams Inc 72753~00SS lr VISIBILITY TRIANGLE /\ /\ '" l' -// i/h 'Jy ~ rJ ~ ~ ~ l) I 4b-<) b-. ~ L / I 323 90 \ f '\../~ ~~ ~ I _~ 1 + ~ ~, -~~~ ~ ~ J~ / ""-- ~ V / ""-- LJ ) J " " / \\. ^ -J. I ~ X II I1j 11111111) 11 l'-. ,.... "" '" , , .. ~ I)UJ k: >--' 0 .~ ~~ '-.../' OJ H ~ I- t>-<ILO b.< _ 53 ~8" 5~ @19" 51 ,12" 50 € 14" , I X I / / "-...- LJ '9% ~ "\j.-f f\ / 1 ~JtI\ In I \ r- \ ~ I- ~ 49€ 1~ CO 48~ 8" v r\: 1- \1/ ru rl. 1\ n ) \. ,...... I\.. '>-< '-~ I'>-< Vb-< .~ ~ ~ ...-. ~ I/'V >-< .. / 1./',..1 "" I/' :: \ \ I 10" 47 ~ J:..----..,".c::..fl 0 II C ' " ' \ I Q'Ir V' -y ..-... >-< ^ /;I{[XIX "tAl XT Y 'XXX y'XOCYY'YX ~22' \ _ ~ III 1 " ~ CE? ? ~ ! , I .. - ;:.: SE ACK LINE RECE~ II ), , , " p.2 6' SOLI 0 lv' GRADE BE} ROOTS OF ~ Q)CIl _4 .. - Q)n a-O - CD L ED 1\ ~ ,/ JUL 2 0 200~ lPLANN1NG DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER "" FILE COpy ARCHITECTS T'ROPOSEI.J nLuO ELEV A TTONS I'ER FLOOR 9' " " 'j'j' ROOF SLAB ~- /" L _$ 'i9' 44' 4th FLOOI< 33' 3rd FLOOR 22' 21111 FLOIIl{ 11' 1 ~t FLOOR ---.!.!:. BASE FLOOlJ ELEVATTON BUILUINei HEIeiHT THE ASHLEleiH BASE FLOOr) ELEVATION, 13.0' MSL AUDE SHAND& WilLIAMS AlA . AK. Hlfl'. TIJI{!< j LANNIN'T, 1 N fJoK l.'K "'K. HI fo.n WE fL. (lKI A Ar,r,r,25-7 172715,545, 5 t4X 1717-5 'j.Qf(J'J r - I z o ;>0 -1 :z: !!l m < :> -1 6 z ~: y L< r~ ~ L~ -1 <).~ ~ , .. .. ~ . , --..J 1-"" ~ --..... o -<: > I ~ ~~ H" u~M' i I illl g~ IIi I z ~ ~~~ I I I I ~ m VI -t m r- m < >- -t 5 z c. [ . , . 5 - .. .. ~ . o ~ ;;l !t~ J j ~ i.Q~THE ASHLEIGH A'6Q. Unit Condominium Residence ^ Project O",,,,loped By Top Flight Develop.. 1925 Edgewater Drive CI~df\Vdter, Florida . ~"'I t ~ i: ,~. Ii! e;~ U! In ~ --- ~ -.......... () " :f ;:::'" r-:J: r!1~:E~~ [';;00 pM U1 o c ::;j ".. 'i " I. ". I, ~~ ~..' ...J --...... t -...-. ~ ~ ,.." r- m < ~ 6 z :;:J I "'0; .. .' !l1,1, f!lil (P1- THE ASHLEIGH .~. > (;i i ;~~ 'il ;; <II HP~' ; · '; .. p' .- t ~ A oo..Unit Condominium Residence ~V'> 0 i!~ ~;i []~~~~ I ~ ;;:. - II Projl'Ct OC"Clorcd Ry Top Flight O<vplopmr . .~ w q~ .~~ In 00 r 1925 Edgewate< Drive ~ ~!i ..m t l ~ ~ I I Clc;l.rwJtt..'f', Florid.l ij m ). Vl -1 m r- m < ). -t 6 z ~ ~ ~ -C - , . , ... ... t ~ --- .~ ~ i ' t i III f4. THE ASHLEIGH tl~::I , . > '" , . r;l f 'F ,~! ;E r- = ~ii' "'~ .f~, s A lKl Unit Condominium Residence ;G~ r- V> .Ii Hi D>~:;> I ~~ I:P J i~. "I=,. {i f - 11 ^ Project Developed By Top flight o.,..'elopm' Ui >..,,56 0'\ 0 f~ -". r 1925 Edgl"Wdter Dri_e > ~H ..m :;.: ~ I :;: T oil ~ >' ~ I Clearwater, Florida l 'i I: AUDE SHANDa WlWAMS AlA . ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING, INTERIOR ARCHlTECfURE FL CORP. AA0002587 THE ASHLEICH - A !f Unit Condominium Residence A I'rIJect Developed By Top fllBht Development 1925 Edgewater Drive Clearwater, Flolrda rL!I ANDERSON LESNIAK LIMITED, INC, lANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS' LAND f'lANNERS 492 I 50UTH WE5T5HQRE eoULfVARD TAMf'A. FLORIDA 33G I I (813) 831-9595 fAX 83 I -5485 anderson .Iesnlak@verlzon.net I I I I /5\ \Mc:Y -/2\ \!!V Ib\ \2!:/ Ib\ \!!?I SUHNYDALE DRLYE 4 /9\ I~ I """" / 10 "T G 10 II ; I '<i~~Ir-' · ::: ~ll"!i! - ~ C I .(d.;; /5'\ Q~ I, ~~~~ c~ \ )I~~;r '15/ I! I ) L ~:: ~t' · ~ "~'J'J, II ~I ''II:'~W I . · III ~. g I. ~~~n I) IIJ~ ,~ J ( ~r}J); / I~' I ~ lII:7( I~ . 'lll I'VI-'" -1 f3\ ~7 I 4 ; I~. ... ~ i~,;t I)' I t~ ~ : f;iI~.ll 11 : ~y !"e'~!..~~ i~' .~J .I I ..~, , , ~I"~ \j~ I~.~/ I-l.~ Wi&JTY 'I'JlIANCU ~ ,,~ / \ - .. (..y+ - --I -...J I I I I I I I - - - . ~ V 15\ ;,~ ~~ \2!:/ K ROOT V" - - - '~ .ul f2Z>.. l)<:tf \@91 I · .'>c. - J l' ',,\ / I 53 ~IS' \ ( I II: 819" \ I I 01 ~12' \ I sot 14' ;( i=j '- r' 48 t! 13" / "9 V//' f", i f 41 E S'8' (/ 1"\ ..J _.. :-:'fb _\ / ,. ... ~ . \JI IX . 'I. V '...... / /50\ _ -l- '.l. L ~ /' _~ - >-~~V \ ~ft ., I,i--....--' '-'\ 1.!!.' 4722" ) , ' ~ -w '1 '1- ""iiV' I \ / ~,' . '.D- - ......--. /', / ~ ~?t:\ ~., ~ ',-----/ ......--/ (~; ~: iC~.:r ~~ -: ~) >\ · I ':-.,..~r .D ~ ~_ // ~.' j .3:( ~D 12'> " .- .,..~ ~ ~D ~ '& '.. ~ 1-1 ~ // /i:Jb7\ IW ". - - -, ~~ ~ ' ~ // fi4\ I " r ~ / \!Y' 'Ill- -.. 13\ I ~ \Mn. '- \2!:/ + I I J - I , + =,~ -e' 80L1D MA80NRY WALL. - ~~~~~ (+ I W,:V ~ ROOTS OF EXI8TlNG TREES. /~; I I x "\;{ '~I--=-- _". ( "i:; i! ~'ei~i ~ "(~ , [.;1:' . ~'M _ _ -~ ~--- .~..~~@)J-k~ + ~"\ ( + \ -@f -r. .)oJ I \ /15\ .... " ~ ......' ~ ..... IiO\ 26-'.- \ \::!V/..J ~. 50 - -- --;:..::: ~.\!3" '''r<<. I C'~8"\. ee /040\ ~f2\ 1 J'~. I ,-~...I'~ , ' '."~. . \t!gMDJ . '..Z~. I!Z\ I ,. ~y. , ; V5!:J1 Z . '" , ' , ~'~ / - -... , / - . - /. . .':, 11-...- ~ I ~ '7 ~ :)~~. ~; T\1Y/ 145\ ~ WIlI.IIY 1IIW<<UlS ~ "& l ~~ ~ ........-:::: _. _~..r......., .~. ~~'. j~il~':. -=r..r-- 8- ~,~ "- A"'l,.'A ~..... -. / ''-"'-..G' /A~ · /A, !) . . 160\ \"& I IJ ~ 12\ ,~I ~ p-o / //// ~t rl\ \t!?l ~ ~ /S\ \!..!:9 /50\ ~ t: FfT' f-- - -I - --SUNSET PGIN~ROAD-(CR-11.) - - - - - - - L 0 /ir 6 fS'(C) /ie, /..... /..... /4i' \ 81s' \~'/ \ 81~ ~81~ 8 o T 9 LOT 5 ~/ L......rVT '~/ \~) LOT 8 I LOT 4 -- I ~ ----- .. -- .-' ..~'.:::::=:::~:=:= L-- . - , _ . .. ~"'~ . _ .. _ . _ .. --" - _' - . . __ 'ELEV 1.27' _. - , - ~ ~ -- . CQIIC.... . --- .. ",.-- . ~ '. ...- .. - . - ' eRE E ........ N SON K MAY 17, 2004 T" ;: V E MASTER 11@EX TO DRAwINGS A. Site Survey, One Sheet B. Civil Engineer (Cover) Drawings 1. Existing Conditions 2. Site Plan 3. Paving & Grading Plan 4. Utility Plan 5. Details C. Landscape Drawings ]. LA-I, Tree Survey Plan 2. LA-2, Landscape Plan 3. LA-3, Irrigation Plan D. Architectural Drawings 1. A-I Site Plan 2. A-2 Ground Level Floor Plan 3. A-3 South Elevation 4. A-4 West Elevation 5. A-5 North Elevation 6. A-6 East Elevation RlECE~VED FEB n Ii 70D4 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF ClEARl'VATER Note to Reviewer: See Also 8-1/2" x 11" reduced plans for Landscape and Architectural Floor Plans and Elevations (colored). -I b. b. b. b. W W W W W W W W W W N N N N N ~ N N N N ->. -" -" -" -" -" -" ...... ...... ...... CD CD .....,. 0) 01 b. W N -" ~ W N ->. 0 to 0) ....,. CD 01 b. W N ->. 0 to CO .....,. CD 01 W N ....... 0 (0 (l) ....,. CD en b. W N ->. 0 ~ ("") ("") ~ ("") ("") ("") j! ("") ("") ):0 ):0 ):0 ):0 ):0 ):0 ):0 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z )> ):0 ):0 )> )> ):0 )> ("") )> ):0 0 ("") 0 ~ ::0 ::0 ::0 ::0 0 ("") ("") ~ 0 0 ::0 ::0 ("") ("") ("") ("") 0 0 ("") ("") 0 ~ I ::0 ::0 I () :t: I -< -< -< -< )> )> ):0 ):0 I -< -< D D I I }- I :t: }- }- }- > D D -< -< m rn m m m m m z z 0 ::0 :;;0 tII en en en en OJ tII tII r- . . m ::0 00 00 r- C C r- r- ::0 ::0 m ::0 ::0 OJ m m .. r- r- OJ C C r- oo m 00 Ci.i m ~ ~ ~ m m <: 0 <: <: ~ <: m m <: <: ~ m m m <: <: <: m m m <: en en ::0 ::0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ):0 ):0 )> ::0 ~ ~ ::0 ::0 ::0 :::0 )> )> ~ > s: s: ~ -< -< G) G) (j') (j') m CI m m -< m m m m m -< -< (j') -< -< Ci) m m m m m m m m z z z z z z z z (j') Ci) z z z z z ~ 0 0 0 g 0 g -n -n Z s: s: m 0 CI 0 0 m m m m s: 0 0 " ~ s: s: m s;: s;: m m m 0 0 0 m ~ " 0 0 )> 0 0 )> " 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " -i )> ):0 " ~ ~ > ):0 ~ ~ ~ " ):0 )> ):> " )> )> g z 0 ~ z z c c )> }- ^ :::0 ^ ^ )> c ^ . r- ^ ^ c c c c }- " ^ ^ )> ^ i ::0 ::0 )> ::0 ::0 ::0 ::0 ::0 r- r- ~ )> " r- -I -I -I -I r- r- r- m r- -I -I 3: s:: r- r- r- r- r- s:: s:: -I -I -I )> m m s:: 3: s:: s:: s:: m m m s:: m m s: s:: s: s:: r- r- m m m m m r- m m r- r- r- r- m r- m m r- ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ s:: ""tJ -u s:: )> )> )> r- r- r- r- r- r- r- r- r- s:: s: s: s: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: "tI "tI "tI "tI "tI " 0' D 0 " " " 0 ~ !f D 0 " " " " 0 !f fR 0 " r- " " r- ~ J ::T J ::T " ::T ::r ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ :;T :;T :J'" 2 2 CD .... .... .... 2 .... <: <: 00 0 0 0 0 en en 00 c c c en c 0 0 c c c c c en c en en en c c c (JJ c 0 0 0 CD m (1) CD .... .... CD CD CD CD CD .... .... Iii ~ ::J ::J llJ CD CD (1) Q) llJ I>> I>> CD III ::J (1) CD C C ::J ::J I>> ::J ::J I>> tl) II) II) c c CD (II CD Q) c C 0" ::J ::J ::J ::J 0" 0" 0" 0 0 0 0" C ::J ::J 0 01 01 .... 0 c C 0" C C 0- 0" 0" 0 0 0 0" 01 01 0 ::J 0 ::J ::J 0 01 U) at X X- X X ~ at at c m c. c III U) X X c ::0 ::0 c C. 01 III at III III ~ at at c c c II) ::0 ::0 c. X ::J X X ::J 0 0 i 0 0 0 ("") rg ~ i U) ):0 U) U) .g- o 0 0 01 0 0 01 U) ("") ("") i 0 0 "2 rg ~ U) UJ UJ g- o 0 VI 0 I>> 0 0 m ~ m m m tl) I>> m < 3 < > I>> tl) < 3 3 < > I>> lU lU < < < 3 3 > 0 I>> III 0 Q. Q. 3" :) ::J ::J ::J 3" ~ a a- 3" .... ::J ::J ~ m ~ ~ Q. Q. Q. a 3 3" 3" ~ ca ~ Ql m ~ :) :) :) 3 3 Q) Q. Ql 3 3 :;T :;T I>> tl) I>> I>> .... III III ::J ::J ::J ::J m :5 I>> III :5 5 5 ~ .... .... .... .... CD Q) CII 5 ~ 5 5 ~ S'" .... .... ::J N N ::J ::J 5 5 CD 5 S'" ~ m: CD ::J ::J ::J (1) N N 5 .... .... .... z m Di m m m m ff s: ff iii Iii Di Iii m m iD 0 0 ii iii iii iii g m iii ff iii iii iii if ~ 8: iii ijj CD m ij CD ~ 0 :::I :::I :::I :::I 0 :::I :::I :::s: :::s: 0 0 :) :::I :j :j :j ::J :j :j :j :j :j :j ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J :j ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J 01 VI VI VI U) 01 VI U) iii Q) iii VI 01 VI I>> I>> Iii Iii en Iii II) tl) III I>> III Iii Iii OJ III I>> m III I>> I>> m III m I>> I>> c;; c;; iii in iii m ::J ::J ::J ::J 1>>1>> mm (I) R ~ ~ ...... ->. ....... ....... ->. ...... ...... ->. b. ....... ->. ....... ....... N ....... ....... en w ->. ...... ...... ...... N ....... ...... .... m ->. ~ co CD 01 ....... en ->. 0 N ...... N ...... 0 01 N N ....,. U) (1) CD to en OIl (0 01 ....,. CD CD 0) U) b. (1) to N OIl CD OIl W to to C m ::I: to) w en en en <.n 01 en en en en ->. b. t>.) en w w N en w N W 01 to) W en w (.oJ en 01 01 b. b. en 01 N W N b. W b. b. W ~ Z Q :;a !U -" ->. ....... ....... N (1) to en ->. ->. U1 -" ...... ->. (1) (0 N -" co ~ N 0 CD b. m i: m ~ :::0 ::0 ::0 :::0 ::0 :::0 ::0 ::0 ::0 :::0 :;:0 ::0 :::0 ::0 ::0 ::0 :::0 ::0 ::0 ::0 :::0 ;;0 ;;0 ;;0 ;;0 ;;0 ::0 ::0 ::0 ~ en en en en en en en en (1) CD en ~ en CD CD CD en CD en lD CD en en CD CD CD CD CD CD CD ~ CD CD CD CD CD CII CD CD CD CD CD CD I>> ~ I>> m Il) I>> ~ I>> 3 3 ~ I>> 3 3 3 Il) 3 m 3 3 Il) Il) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ~ < < < < < < 0 ~ 0 < 0 ~ 0 < 0 < ~ ~ < < 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ S! S! S! ~ S! 0 S! S! S! ~ 0 Ql Q) Ql m CD (I) CD (I) < Ql < CD < < CD < (I) CD (I) < < < < < < < c: CD Q) CD ell (I) CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD (l) ell CD (I) CD CD (l) CD CD CD ell (I) CD en 0 0 I m z -I en -I :J: m )> en :::I: r m G) :::I: () o z o o ~ z c s: -I :::0 m m )> (j) (j) m (J) (j) s: m z -t ~ CD r m " m CD ;c C )> ;c -< UI I\) o o ~ ...~ z o :::I: m en ::u m "'0 > () m s: m z -i -I CD ~ CD ~ CO CD ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ~ ..... ..... ..... ..... 0> 0> m OJ m ~ OJ ~ 0> m 01 01 U1 m 01 UI 01 01 01 01 .J>. .J>. .J>. .to- .to- t II 01 (.t,) -" 0 (D OJ ..... (J) 01 W I\J .... 0 <<> (J) ..... m 01 (.t,) ...... 0 CO CD ..... 01 .J>. W I\J ..... 0 CO CD ..... m Ul =M: () 0 0 :::I: :::I: 0 0 (') 0 0 0 0 )> Z Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C- C- en :::I: :J: 0 m m c: c: c c m m m c: c: c: c c: c: c: c: c: c: c c c c c: c: c: c c c: c: )> ~ ~ r- r- ::u r- r- r- ::u r- r- r- r- g m m m m ~ en en m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 0 <: <: <: <: <: <: <: <: <: m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m )> )> en ::u ~ m m -< m m m m m m m z z z z (j) > ~ z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z ~ ~ :J: 0 Z m ~ ~ ~ g 0 ~ 0 0 ~ g g 0 0 ~ ~ j! ~ ~ ~ ""D "'0 "'0 "'0 "'0 "1J ~ j! ~ "'0 "'0 ~ ""D "1J ~ ~ z Z "'0 )> )> )> )> )> )> I -0 Z Z )> )> )> )> )> )> )> )> )> )> r r r- r )> r r- r- r r- r r ~ r- .... r- r- r- r r r r r r- r- r ~ ~ Z " " c: " " " C " " " " s: s: s: s: r- "'0 ~ s: s: :s: s: s: s: s: s: s: s:: s: s: s: s: s:: s: s: s: s: s:: m ::u ::u s: )> m m m r- .- r r s: s: en ff ~ !f !g ff ~ !g ff ~ !f !g !f !R fR !f fR en en en fR en en en {f c... c... '< r r (U Q) -0 0 0 m Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ m m OJ ~ OJ (U m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tJ g 0 0 0 "1J 0 0 0 0 (Q en <: <: !:: !:: ~ !:: !:: c: ~ !:: !:: !:: !:: 0 2 .... 2 2 iii iii .... .... .... ~ .... .... .... 2 2 2 .... .... .... .... .... ~ .... .... 2 ..... ..... m m "'0 CD CD !:: CD CD CD c: CD CD CD CD i !:: (U !:: !:: !:: c: !:: C C C c: !:: !:: e c: c: c: !:: !:: :l :l fII Ul fII (JI tT 6' 6' (JI (JI Ul (I) (JI (II (II (JI fII fII (I) (j') fII (II (j') (I) (j') (j') III III (II :; a a !:: a a a c ..... a a a :l :l 0 ::0 ::u :::0 ::u !!!. :l ::J ::u :::0 ::u ::0 :::0 ::0 :::0 :::0 ::u ::0 ::0 ::0 :::0 :::0 ::u ::0 ::0 :::0 71 ::u ::u a. a. !:: !:: !:: In !:: !:: !:: (j') C c: C !:: 0 0 0 0 ~ OJ OJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OJ m III en Ul 0 (JI (0 fII () fII III Ul Ul n 3 3 3 3 () 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 s: s: !1! < < ID < :5 < ID < < < < ~ 1IJ m m m 3" =r :::T m m 1IJ ID l>> l>> m III OJ m m m 1IJ III ID ID ID III III III II) 3 :3 & :q :Q Q. ~ g ~ a ~ ~ ~ re ::J ::J ::::l ::J :; 5' ~ ::J ::J :::::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ~ ~ ~ ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J N N N N ~ CD CD f:; N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 :; :r :; :; :; ::J :; ::J ::J ::J ::J I 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ fII III W iD Qj Qj ii.i Pi w iii m iii iii ::If ::Jj 31 0 ::J ::::J ~ ~ ==: ::If ~ 3i ::If ::If :Ii :Ii =1l ::::: ::::: ::::: ~ ::I; [ [ In Ul ::J ::J :::I ::J ::J ::J ::J ;:s ;:s ::J ::J III ID III w' Vi c;r iii m iii OJ ii.i III III III m II) iii iii iii iii iiJ iii iii iii OJ m iii ID III ID III III m ID m m III III m ::J :::I ::J :l ::::J ::::J ::::J ::J ::J ::J :::J ::J ::::J ::J ::::J :::J :::J :::J ::::J ::::J ::J ::J ::::J ::::J ::J iii Pi III m m m m IU to OJ m 1IJ ID m ID m 1IJ ID m ID l>> l>> to m m m m 0') N .... ..... ...... ...... ..... Cx;l ~ ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... -" -" .... ..... ..... cq ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ...... cq ~ ..... (.oJ (.oJ ..... -" ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... I\J ..... ..... ..... m ~ ...... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... ~ ~ ~ ..... ~ ..... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -" q ..... q ~ ~ "i ~ cq ~ ~ "i: ~ ~ q ~ OJ C lD :E: .J>. .J>. .J>. .to- U1 I\J I\J .to- .to- .I!l- .J>. (.oJ W (.oJ to) (.oJ (AI I\J (.oJ (.oJ (.oJ I\J (.oJ (.oJ I\J I\) W I\J I\J I\J Ul .J>. .J>. (.oJ (.oJ (.oJ (.oJ (.oJ .J>. (.oJ (.oJ (.oJ ~ z Ii) :::a m "'tlI ..... ..... ..... ~ (J) ..... i z -I :::0 :::0 ::u :::0 ::u :::0 ::0 ::u :::0 ::0 ::u ::u ::u ::u ::u ::0 ;;0 :::0 :::0 :::0 :::0 ::0 ::0 ::0 :::0 ::u ::u :::0 ::u ::u :::0 ::u ~ CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD ~ CD CD CD CD (I) CD m m CD CD m CD CD m CD en en en en Cf) Cf) en en en en 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 II) II) II) ID Q) II) ~ ~ ~ II) ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ S! S! S! ~ ~ ~ S! ~ ~ ~ ~ S! 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < CD m CD (D CD CD CD m CD m C m CD CD dl m m CD CD CD dl CD CD CD CD m CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD m (D CD CD 0') (') 0 I m z -i en -I o ;b! r- Z () :::I: m CJ) U1 01 <<> -" CD (D MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMuLLEN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 1501 SOUTH FL-ORI[:)AAVC;:NUl:: 400 NORTH TAMPA STREE::T SUITEi::~OO oF' 0 E10X 15:3.1 C:ZIP ~.:3601} TAMF>A F'LORIDA .3.:360~ fal~).t;:7~ 4;;eOO rAX(BI~).2"'3 -4~95 !!;iZS COURT $TRE:;:;P!:T F' 0 BOX L669 (ZIP 337S7J L-^KE::~N[:) FL..ORIOA, 3360.3 fB63} 680 9908 FAX (853) 683 '=:649 CLEARWATER FLORIDA 33756 (727) 441 8966 F'IV<. (727) 442 8470 www mfmlegal com E:MA'~ ,ofo@mfmlegal com 'N REPLY REFER TO Clearwdter September 24, 2003 CIty of Clearwater State ofFlonda CERTIFICA TE OF TITLE The undersigned, H i\RRY S CLINE, a hcensed attorney at law, does hereby cerilfy that d~ of the date of thiS eerhhcate that fee sImple title to the propertIes de~(,nbed 111 attached Exhrbll "A", arc presently vested In 1925 EDGEWATER DRIVE INC [Parcel "A'1 and TOP FLlGHT ENTERPRISES,INC [Parcel "B"] EXECUTED thiS ~ay of September, 2003 By h \dJla\Jlv\hs~\WTTe,p '03\lOptl'gj!CCI! 925 doc ~ EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS PARCEL "A" - Owner: Parcel LD. Number: 1925 Ede:ewater Drive. Inc. 03- 2 9~ 15~86778-000-00 1 0 Lots 1 and 2, and the West 34 feet of Lot 3, of SUNNYDALE SUBDIVISION, according to the map tlr plat thereof as record ed In Plat Book 31, page 12, of the publ Ie records of Plnellas County, Florida, LESS AN D EXCEPT the Westerly 17 08 feet of Lot 1, more partIcularly descrIbed as follows' Beglnnmg at the Northwest corner of said Lot 1, thence run East along the Northern boundary thereof a distance of 1708 feet, thence Southwesterly ant;! parallel to the Westerly boundary of said lot to the Intersection \o\:'lth Its South boundary at a poInt whIch Is 17 08 feet from the Southwest corner of said lot, thence West along the South boundary of saId lot, a distance of 17 08 feet to the Southwest corner of saId lot, and thence Northeasterly along the Westerly boundary of said lot to the Point of BeginnIng PARCEL "B" - Owner: Parcel lD. Number: Top Flight Enterprises. Inc. 03-29-15-88092-000-0020 Lo~s 2, 3; the East three fest of Lot 4, Block A, lying North of Sunset Point Road, Lot 5, Block A, lying North of · Sunset Point Road; Lots 6, 7, toge~her w~th the West 15 feet of Lot 8; Sunset Point Subd~v~s~on, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded ~n ?lat Book I, Page{s) 58 and Plat Book 4, Page 56, Publ~c Reco=ds of P~nellas County, Florida LESS AND EXCEPT: 1. Road Right of Way for Sunset Po~nt Road, also known as Coun~y Road 154. 2. That portion of tne descr~bed property taken by the Department of Transportation pursuant to Final Judgments and Orders of Tak~ng recorded in O.R. Book 5399, Page 2128; O.R. Book 5398, Page 2132; O.R. Book 5:87, Page 904; O.R. Book 5239, Page 770; O.R. Book 5242, Page 607. "I C'l ::E "CI "CI e- o ;; 0 0 ;; 0 <:> 0 ~ 0 = 0 0 1>. !::! Q.. o.ri Q.. o.ri t; 0 ... '" 'E '" g '" = 0 Q 0 <=> N = Nn N~ = Nn '"t ~ -- N <;> <;> " 0'\ ...... ,..; ,..; N 13 ~ 13 ~ ...... -< -< -; '; '0 ..... "CI Q E- O> ~ 13 ;;. 0:; ~ ..... '" ... = .= '" 0 '" " '" e '" .... <;> = ~ ~ .... I: ;Z .:i Q.. C'l 0 <;> ~ -= X C Q.. >-< ~ :l Q ... N c.. ... \0 <: N c.. '" ...... ltl = "<t (ll = M :E '" , ;;. 0 ~ ...... '5 0 Q) <;> E z 0 13 u \C - +" .. E :J r-... c 0 r-... = .... Q (ll w Q"\ u c..:E Q ltl 0 Q ....- Q .QUl Q CO <;> !:::C'O Q t'f") Z Q 0 :i!:2Q) 0 ..... 0::<6; Q = ~ :l Wu""'" Q ........ <;> t- 11.=0 Q lrt ... \0 o.C ..... N ... 0 <( c.. .2l 0 Q ........ -< I-CO t'f') 0'1 W Q 0 01:= Q Z co - ... 00....:::: Cl- N - -,E:::I - e;j <;> (1)_0 ~ Z -0.>- ~ "@ .:.: :I:-'O I-Q)I: -- G = ~ CO Q., .... ... ~ Q:l ....'0 .... o:u CO Q) I:,J !Q ~ Q,) = 0 c=: =: u Ul - - :> E. CI.> ~ ~ i: ::a ... ;;; (ll '" ~ ..c '" Q ~ j C 0 '" iii 'C ~ <;> E- 0 z 0 '0 N <;> ~ '" :3 -= u '" '" r;; il e E ... u u.. ..... ::E ~ = '" '" e = .... .J C'l Q.. -,"" '" FLD2003-09050 1925 EDGEW ATER DR Date Received: 09/25/2003 TOP FLIGHT DEVELOPMENT INC ZONING DISTRICT: T LAND USE: RFH ATLAS PAGE: 251A RECEJVED PAl D CK.NO. /t;6'7 DATE q--~b-Q3 SEP 2 5 2003 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CHY OF CLEARWATER ~ CL WCoverSheet t. __ '" r..' () :r. cO, AUDE~, SHAND & WilliAMS, INC. AlA ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE March 23, 2004 Mr MIchael H Reynolds, AICP Semor Planncr Department of Development ServIces CIty of Clearwater ~R23'-~~ 1 f-J\ iNIN(~&r~ d 61Jr'imr svCl:! \ C1TVOf- ClE'EY'JA1ER __ __ .... .-.:IP_______ Re ApplicatIon Amendment THE ASHLEIGH FLD2003-090S0 Top Fltght Development LLC 1925 Edgewater Dnve Clearwater, Flonda Dear Mike This Will confirm our meetmg wIth CynthIa Tarapam and the applicant m your offices on March 22, 2004 Dunng this meeting, we reViewed changes to the desIgn which respond to Condltwn 1 lIsted m your March 16lh recommendatIOn to the Commumty Development Board ThIs condItion relates to bUIldmg height and setback at the eastward most property line Based on our meetmg, It IS our understandmg that these proposed changes satisfy reqUIrements stIpulated under Condition I For thiS reason, we submit 15 signed and sealed copIes of aInended site plans and elevatIOns accordmgly ThiS letter WIll further amend our applIcatIOn as follows 1 In response to CondttLOn #1, the eastern most segmcnt of the buIldmg has been modIfied to create a "stair step" effect The east wall nses 52 5' to roof mid pomt, provldmg four levels of IIvmg umts over parkmg At 52 5', the structure will offset 30' to the west, extendmg to the next adjacent umt wall at level 5 2 As we discussed, terraces, balcomes, and roof overhangs are mcorporated mto thIS desIgn to remam compatible with the architecture These elements extend outward (easterly) from the 5th and 6lh floor DImensIOns are mdlcated on the attached drawmgs 3 A blllldmg stairwell at the south and east comer has been moved west approXImately 18' ThiS Will allow additIOnal buffenng m thIS comer of the property ROBERT J AUDE. AlA #6859 ARTHUR C SHAND, IIDA #0003509 DONALD s: VV1Ll1Al15 FAt<1 /957-/994 AUDE, SHAND & WILLIAMS, INC FLORIDA CORPORATION, MO002587 ARBOR SHORELINE OFFICE PARK 19353 U S 'rfNY 19 NORTH, SUITE I 0 I CLEAAWATER, Fl 33764 (727) 535-4585 FACSIMilE (727) 539-0099 .. l\1A.CFARLANE FERGUSON & McMuLLEN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW l..AKC:'-AND FLORIDA 33803 ONE; TAM~A CITY CENTER SUITE 4::000 20!NaRTHFRANK~INST~EET POBOX 1531 (ZIP 3~QOI) TAMPA FLORI[:)A .33t";.O!::: 1Q2~ COU~T STREET '50~ SOU'lM FLORIDA AVENUE POBOX 1669 (ZIP 337;i7) (B6.3} 680 990a F...tI.J<. (863) 683 2849 CLEARWATE::R FL.ORrOA 33,.55 (7:='7) 441 8966 FAX ~7a7l 44Z a4?O Cal~) 273 4200 FAX (813) :3:73 4~!;II6 IN ~E::F>LY REFER TO www mlmlegal com "'MAIL mta@mfmlegal com Clearwater March 17, 2006 . \',-', Via Fac:Jimile and U.S. Mall Mr MIchael Delk Planmng DIrector CIty of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33758-4748 Re Extension of Development Order / Case # FLD2003-09-050 Property 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Dunedm, FL 34698 Dear Mr Delk The eXlstmg Development Order In the above referenced project explfes Apnl 26, 2006 On behalf of our clients. we would request an extensIOn of the current Development Order for an additional one (l) year By way of background, thIS matter was approved by the CDB That approval was appealed The mltIal Development Order, after the appeal, was scheduled to expire on Octobcr 26, 2005 We requested, and received, an admmlstratIve extenSIOn of SIX months We did not request the full one year authonzed admlmstratIVely smce at that tImc we h1d scheduled l'iildt.;:llig in plavc However, as a result of the do\VI1 turn m the economy, as It relates to re5.ldentIal housmg, and condommlUill development m partIcular, our clIents' ongmally planned financmg IS no longer available In addition to the economy generally, this project, ongmally concclved In 2003, has also been adversely affected by nsmg costs, dnven m part by the sIgmficant hurncane seasons over the last summers We oeheve the cntena set forth m SectIon 4-404 of the Clearwater Development Code IS suffiCiently met and we would ask that the Development Order be extendcd for one (I) addItIOnal year, to expire on AprIl 26, 2007 ..., March 17, 2006 Page 2 Would you please place this on the agenda for the next Commumty Development Board Meetmg consistent With SectIOn 4-407 Thank you for your assistance m this regard Smcerely yours, ~e HSC sp cc Top Fhght Development, LLC h \d a tala ty\h se leorrcs p '06 Idel k 3 17 doc PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF CLEARWATER a ... l~ FLD2003-09050 1925 EDGEW A TER DR Date Received: 09/25/2003 TOP FLIGHT ENTERPRISES., INC ZONING DISTRICT: T LAND USE: RFH ATLAS PAGE: 251A PLANNER OF RECORD: MHR October 3,2006 Mr Harry Clme 625 Court St Clearwater, FL 33756 RE ExtensIOn of Development Order ~ Case FLD2003-09-050 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Dunedm, FL 34698 Dear Mr Clme I am m receipt of your letter requestmg an extensIOn of time relative to the above referenced Development Order and hereby approve of a SIX month extenSIOn to Wednesday, Apnl 26,2006 In grantmg the SIX month extenSIon, It IS our hope that the addItional tune WIll be sufficIent to obtam the permIt that IS pendmg and commence work on the project Please be adVIsed that any subsequent request for an extensIOn of tIme must be made to the Commumty Development Board In the event that such a request IS made, establIshed time lInes m gettmg before the Board must be observed Sincerely, MIchael Delk, AICP Plannmg DIrector cc FIle S !Plannmg Department/CDB/Flex (FLD)/InactlVe or FIOIshed ApphcatlOns/Edgewater 1925 Top FlIght DevelopmentlEdgewater 1925 ExtenSIOn Letter . ---" vr1!l'rJ7Q~o: 1uP~\AL OF 7IirA-<" .\f.;;:~_\ ~..,^'..r,,)b)'.fr~ 10.:"1 ::~1t ...- , ~~ ~"~ " I r~-P>=Q f:l~'" ,\ /,r.,;;'{fT'I'::. ~ ~ '" ''''/''[ \ , ,,=, ,- ::-1"-"'" ","""'- = Ci:" .......1:) Un:;;.':. ===- ........ Q~ e><;'U' ':. -=-- ~\\~/:j <;,.1?~":.~- - "~~ll '0 ".....-f. ~ "'", '/f/;t:T""~'\:;~~" ~q#f,l E~. ~.. Q-Lr.g p.d g f) CITY OF CLEARWATER LONG RANGF PLANNING DEVfIOPMENT RI=.-VIEW PLANNING DEPARTMENT POST OHICE Box 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SFRVlCES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTI E AVENUE, CT EARWA,TCR, FLORIDA 33756 TFLEPHONr (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4576 July 26,2004 Mr Harry S Clme, Esg 625 Court Street, Smte 200 Clearwater, FL 33766 RE Development Order - Case FLD2003-09050 - 1925 Edgewater Dnve Dear Mr Clme I I \ ThiS letter constItutes a Development Order pursuant to SectIOn 4-206D 6 of the Community Development Code On July 20, 2004, the Commumty Development Board revIewed your FleXIble Development applIcatIOn to permIt a reductIOn m the SIde (east) setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet (to pavement) and, an mcrease of bmldmg height from 35 feet to 59 feet from base flood elevatIOn of 13 feet MSL (with height calculated to the mldpomt of the roof slope) to construct 62 multI-fanuly resIdential (attached) umts, under the provISIons of SectIon 2-803 B for the site at 1925 Edgewater Dnve Based on the applIcatIOn and the Staff recommendatIOn, the Commumty Development Board (CDB) APPROVED the applIcatIOn wIth the followmg bases and condItIOns Bases for Approval 1 The proposal complIes WIth the Flexible Development cntena per SectIOn 2-803 B 2 The proposal IS m complIance WIth other standards m the Code mcludmg the General ApplIcabIlity Cntena per SectIOn 3-913 3 The development IS compatIble With the surroundmg area and wIll enhance other redevelopment efforts CondItIOns of Approval 1 That the separate SIte plans be consohdated to one SIte plan set wIth one SIte data table, statmg the proposed number of reSIdentIal Units, 2 That the site data table mdlcate both the maximum and proposed ImpervIOUS surface ratiO, 3 That the site data table state the number of motel rooms eXlstmg on SIte, 4 That a lO-foot Sidewalk, drainage and utility easement along frontage of Edgewater Dnve be granted, 5 That a reVised landscape plan be submItted satisfactory to Plannmg staff, pnor to bmldmg penrut Issuance, 6 That Open Space, RecreatIOn Land and RecreatIon Facility Impact fees be satIsfied pnor to the Issuance of bUlldmg permIts or fmal plat, whichever occurs first, BRI,\N J AUNG~r, 1\1,,)OR COMMI~SIONFR HoYT HM1II10N, VleF ~n Oil COM,\II\"ONI R \VHITNl:l GRA), CO\I.\II~~IO!\1 R FR.\j>,1\ HII31l,\RD, COMMI~SIONI:R * 13111 JON~ON, CO\IM"~IOj>,1 R "EQUAl EM!'I OYMrN rAND AH IRMA IIVI Ac liON EM!'I OYFR' July 26,2004 Harry Cline, Esq , Page Two 7 That a tree preservatIOn plan be provIded pnor to bUIldmg penrut Issuance, 8 That Plan Sheets 2,3,4, LA-2, and A-I be revised (to the satisfactIOn of Planmng staff) to be consIstent With Sheet LA-l and the tree preservatIOn plan m showmg trees on site, pnor to bUlldmg permIt Issuance, 9 That all FIfe Department reqUirements be addressed pnor to bUlldmg penrut Issuance, 10 That a vacatIon of alley and/or easements be completed pnor to Issuance of a bUlldmg permIt, 11 That the mstallatlOn of samtary sewer malO be completed pnor to Issuance of a bUlldlOg penrut, 12 That a copy of the SWFWMD permit be provIded pnor to bUlldmg perrrut, 13 That all nght-of-way penruts be obtamed pnor to Issuance of a bUlldmg perrrut, 14 That a sediment and erosIOn control preventton plan be submItted pnor to any demolItton and bUlldmg pemuts, 15 That Traffic Impact Fees be determmed and paid pnor to CertifIcate of Occupancy Issuance, 16 That a CondommmID plat be recorded pnor to Issuance of the first CertifIcate of Occupancy, 17 That all proposed utIhtles (from the nght-of-way to the proposed bmldmgs) be placed underground and mstallatton of condUlt(s) along the entire length of the site's street frontage be completed pnor to the Issuance of the fIrst certIficate of occupancy, and 18 That all sIgnage meet Code, conSIst of channel letters for any attached SIgns, and be architecturally mtegrated to the deSign of the bUlldmg and SIte Freestandmg slgnage wlll need to meet code and be monument-style m deSIgn Pursuant to SectIOn 4-407, an apphcatIon for a bmldmg pernut shall be made wlthm one year of FleXible Development approval (by July 20, 2005) All reqUIred certificates of occupancy shall be obtamed wlthm one year of the date of Issuance of the bUIldmg permIt. TIme frames do not change WIth successive owners The Commumty Development Coordmator may grant an extenSIOn of time for a penod not to exceed one year and only wIthm the ongmal penod of vahdlty The Commumty Development Board may approve one additIOnal extenSIOn of ttme after the Commumty Development Coordmator's extensIOn to ImtIate a bUIldmg penrut applIcatton The Issuance of thIS Development Order does not relIeve you of the necessity to obtain any bUlldmg permtts or pay any Impact fees that may be reqUIred In order to faCIlitate the Issuance of any permIt or ltcense 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 Addlttonally, an appeal of a Level Two approval (FleXIble Development) may be InItIated pursuant to SectIOn 4-502 B by the applIcant or by any person granted party status wIthm 14 days of the date of the Commumty Development Board meetmg The filing of an applIcatlOn/nottce of appeal shall stay the effect of the declSlon pendmg the fmal detenrunatlOn of the case The appeal penod for your case expires on August 3, 2004 July 26,2004 Harry Clme, Esq , Page Three If you have any questIOns, please do not hesitate to call Michael H Reynolds, AICP, Planner III, at 727-562-4836 You can access zomng mformatton for parcels wIthm the CIty through our webslte www clearwater-fl com Cynthia H. Tarapam, AICP Planmng Director 5 \Plamung Departmenf\C D l!\FLEXIlnacllve or FinIshed Appllcalwns\Edgewater 1925 lop FlIght Development (T) - ApprovedlEdgewaler 1925 Development OrderJltly 26 2004 doc ~ ,,' ~ r ,- ... /' t~Clearwater -- u FAX COVER MEMO CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVE., 2nd Floor CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 TO: D~ .o~ FAX: Phone: FROM: fl1 f /~ ~ ~ Phone: S-t.. 2 - 't4f':1 , DATE: J- - 3 - 0 tf SUBJECT: Pt-IJ J-rJ{)~ - tJ f t) r 0 17'2 r ~-ef..{/'~ tJr: 'V..JL- MESSAGE: lflc& (0 I tfo NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) Y Jul 20 04 lO:46a Aud~ Shand & Williams Inc 727~3S00SS p. 1 AUDE, SHAND & WILLIAMS INC. AJ.A. ARCHITECTURE INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE PLANNING CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION 19353 U S IDGHWAY 19 NORTH SUITE 101 CLEARWATER FLORIDA 33764 FL CORP #AA002587 CONFIDENTIAL FAX MESSAGE DATE 1/2-G/o4 5{j~ -4f(b WE ARE TRANSMITTING 2--PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET CALL IMMEDIA TEL Y IF ALL PAGES ARE NOT RECEIVED TELEPHONE NO 727-535-4585 F AX NO 727-539-0099 ~ ./ , - LL ,,(~ J!I' ~II, :;. t o 11U:v ~ II ~ --r r'" ,-,I~ fftrwa er J-- _;,,:;.... I _-= - , - u TO: FAX COVER MEMO CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVE., 2nd Floor CLEARW A TER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 Ib rJl!J Au ~ / L/ (~ .t!.- Llo t,dA.d' ~ I . 0:7 r - () 0 17' FAX: Phone: - FROM: MI iU UY.A/D ~f Phone: J'6 Z. --c.r~;; t 7/ /1/ D r SUBJECT: .l7';l r B.JWi~n~A...-- DA TE: MESSAGE: rAte- /<l~ .$LAA/t?- /),d/,L, ~ 7J Q..u M/'-~ _. ..J #~ (71( tf~~ 4:>Allq/;~ dAi Q~A/ 7/ /t /tJr~ NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) 7 ~~ilrwater -~ u~ 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 EAST o SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION o SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION including 1) collated, 2) stapled and 3) folded sets of site plans o SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE S * NOTE 15 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS) FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION (Revised 2/02/2004) -PLEASE TYPE OR PRlNT~ A APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION (Code Section 4-202.A) APPLICANT NAME MAILING ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER FAX NUMBER PROPERTY OWNER{S) (Musllnclude ALL owners as listed on the deed - provide onglnal slgnalure(s) on page 6) AGENT NAME MAILING ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER FAX NUMBER CELL NUMBER E-MAIL ADDRESS B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION. (Code Section 4-202 A) STREET ADDRESS of subject site LEGAL DESCRIPTION (If not listed here, please note the localion of this document In the submittal) PARCEL NUMBER PARCEL SIZE (acres, square feet) PROPOSED USE(S) AND SIZE(S) (number of dwelling Units, hotel rooms or square footage of nonresidential use) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST(S) Attach sheets and be speCific When Identifying the request (Include all requested code devl<lMns e g reduction In reqUired number of parking spaces speCific use elc) Page 1 of 6 - Flexible Development Appllcatlon- City of Clearwater DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TOR), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPM ENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTI FI ED) SITE PLAN? YES _ NO _ (If yes, attach a copy of the applicable documents) C PROOF OF OWNERSHIP' (Code Section 4-202 A.S) D SUBMIT A COpy OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY, DEED TO THE PROPERTY OR SIGN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING OWNERSHIP (see page 6) O. WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 3-913.A) D Provide complete responses to the SIX (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA - Explain how each crltena IS achieved, In detail 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 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 3 The proposed development Will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons reSiding or working In the neighborhood of the proposed use 4 The proposed development IS deSigned to minimize traffic congestion 5 The proposed development.s cons.stenl WIth the community character of the Immediate VICinity of the parcel proposed for development 6 The deSign of the proposed developmerlt minimizes adverse effects, Including Visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operalion Impacts, on adjacent properties o PrOVide complete responses to the applicable fleXibility cnterla for the speCific land use as listed In each Zon Ing District to wh Ich the waiver IS requested (use separate sheets as necessary) - Explain how each criteria IS achieved, In detail Page 2 of 6 - Flexible Development Appllcatlon- City of Clearwater I E STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (City of Clearwater Design Crltena Manual and 4-202 A.21) o STORMWATER PLAN Includmg the following requirements EXisting topography extending 50 feet beyond all property Imes, Proposed gradmg including finished floor elevations of all structures, All adjacent streets and municipal storm systems, Proposed stormwater detention/retention area Ineiudmg top of bank., toe of slope and outlet control structure, Stormwater caJculalions for attenuatIOn and water quality, Signature of Flonda registered Professional Engmeer on all plans and calculations o COpy OF PERMIT INQUIRY LETTER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT SUBMITTAL (SWFWMD approval IS required prior to Issua nee of City BUild Ing Perm It), If applicable o COpy OF STATE AND COUNTY STORMWATER SYSTEM TIE-IN PERMIT APPLICATIONS, If applicable F SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (Code Section 4-202.A) CJ SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (including legal description of property) - One original and 14 copies, CJ TREE SURVEY (mcludmg eXlstmg trees on site and Wlthm 25' of the adjacent Site, by speCies, size (DBH 4" or greater), and location, mcludlng drip Imes and indIcating trees to be removed) - please design around the eXlstmg trees, o LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY, CJ PA RKING DEIIIIAND STU DY In conJ unct Ion Wit h a req uest to make deviations to t he parking st andards (Ie Red uce n um ber of spaces) Prior to the submlllal of thiS applicatIOn, tile methodology of such study shall be approved by the Community Development Coordinator and shall be In accordance with accepted traffiC englneenng pflnClples The flndrngs of the study will be used In determrnrng whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved, o GRADING PLAN, as applicable, o PRELIMINARY PLAT, as reqUired (Note BUilding permits will not be Issued until eVidence of recording a final plat IS provIded), D COPY OF RECORDED PLAT, as applicable, G SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (Section 4-202.A) D SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" X 36") All dimenSions, North arrow, Englneenng bar scale (minimum scale one Inch equals 50 feet), and date prepared, Location map, Index sheet referencmg indiVidual sheets Included m package, Footprint and size of all EXISTING bUildings and structures, Footprint and size of all PROPOSED bUildings and structures, All reqUIred setbacks, All eXlstmg and proposed pomts of access, All reqUired Sight tnangles, Identification of environmentally unique areas, such as watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, and specimen trees, mcludlng descnpl10n and location of understory, ground cover vegetation and Wildlife habitats, etc Localion of all public and private easements, Locallon of all street rights-of-way within and adjacent to the Site, Location of eXisting public and private utilities, Includmg fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes and 11ft stations, gas and water Imes, All parking spaces, driveways loading areas and vehicular use areas, Depiction by shading or crosshatching of all reqUired parking lot interior landscaped areas, Location of all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outSide mechanical equipment and all reqUired screening {per Section 3-201 (0)(1) and Index #701}, Location of all landscape material, LocatIOn of all onslte and off site storm-water management faCIlities, LocatIOn of all outdoor Ilghtmg fixtures, and Locallon of all eXisting and proposed SIdewalks o SITE DATA TABLE for eXisting, reqUired, and proposed development, In wIIlIen/tabular form Land area In square feet and acres, Number of EXISTING dwelling units, Number of PROPOSED dwelling units, Gross floor area devoted to each use, Page 3 of 6 - FleXIble Development Appllcatlon- City of Clearwater Parking spaces total number, presented m tabular form With the number of required spaces, Total paved area, mcludmg all paved parking spaces and driveways, 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 suliace ratio (I S R ), and Floor area ratio (F A R ) for all nonresidential uses o REDUCED SITE PLAN to scale (8 'h X 11) and color rendenng If possible, o FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the follOWing additional information on site plan One-foot contours or spot elevations on site, Off site elevallons If reqUired to evaluate the proposed stormwater management for the parcel, All open space areas, Location of all earth or water retamlng walls and earth berms, Lot lines and bUlldmg Imes (dimensioned), Streets and dnves (dimensioned), BUilding and structural setbacks (dimensioned), Structural overhangs, Tree Invento re ared b a "certified arbonst" H LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (Section 4-1102 A) o LANDSCAPE PLAN All eXlstmg and proposed structures, Names of abutting streets, Drainage and retention areas mcludmg swales, side slopes and bottom elevations, Delmeatlon and dimenSions of all required penmeter landscape buffers, Sight vIsibility tnangles, Delmeatlon and dimensions of all parking areas Including landscapmg Islands and curbing, Proposed and required parkmg spaces, EXlstmg trees on-site and Immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and locations, including dnplme (as mdlcated on required tree survey), Plant schedule With a key (symbol or label) Indicating the Size, deSCription, specifications and quantllles of all eXisting and proposed landscape materials, Includmg botanical and common names, Locallon Size, and quantities of all eXisting and proposed landscape matenals, mdlcated by a key relating to the plant schedule, TYPical plantmg details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants mcludlng mstrucllons, 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), 1 rrrg a tl on notes o REDUCED LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8 'h X 11) (color rendenng If pOSSible), o IRRIGATION PLAN (reqUired for levellwo and three approval), o COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, as applicable 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 9 Tourist and Downtown Dlstncts) or as part of a Comprehensive Inflll Redevelopment Project or a Resldenllallnfill Project o BUILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS - all Sides of all bUlldmgs mcludlng height dimensions, colors and matenals, o REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATIONS - four Sides of bUilding With colors and matenals to scale (8 'h X 11) (black and while and color rendenng, If pOSSible) as reqUired J. SIGNAGE (DIvIsion 19. SIGNS I Section 3-1806) o All EXISTING freestandmg and attached Signs PrOVide photographs and dimenSions (area, height, etc), mdlcate whether they Will be removed or to remam o All PROPOSED freestanding and attached Signs PrOVide details Includmg location, size, height, colors, matenals and drawmg, freestanding signs shall mclude the street address (numerals) o Comprehensive Sign Program application, as applicable (separate appllcallon and fee required) o Reduced slgnage proposal (8 'h X 11) (color), If submitting Comprehensive Sign Program appllcallon Page 4 of 6 - FleXible Development Appllcatlon- City of Clearwater K TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4-202 A 13 and 4-801 C) o Include as required If proposed development will degrade the acceptable level of service for any roadway as adopted In the ComprehenSive Plan Trip generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip General Manual Refer to Section 4-801 C of the Commun Ity Development Code for exceptions to this requ Irement l SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made In this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize City representatives to VISit and photograph the property described In this apphcallon STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Sworn to and subscribed before me this _ day of A 0 20_ to me and/or by , who IS personally known has p~ured ~ Identlficallon Signature of property owner or representative Notary publiC, My commiSSIOn expires Page 5 of 6 - Flexible Development Appllcatlon- City of CleaIWater .' AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT (Names of all property owners on deed - please PRINT full names) 1 That (I amlwe are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property (address or general location) 2 That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a (desCribe request) 3 That the undersigned (has/have) appOinted and (does/do) appoint as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petlllons or other documents necessary to affect such petlllon, 4 That thiS affidaVit has been executed to Induce the City of Clearwater, FlOrida to conSider and act on the above deSCribed property, 5 That site VISitS to the property are necessary by City representatives In order to process thiS application and the owner authOrizes City representatives to VISit and photograph the property deSCribed In thiS application, 6 That (I/we), the underSigned authOrity, hereby certify that the foregOing IS true and correct Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINB...LAS Before me the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned by the laws of the State of Florida, on th IS day of personally appeared who haVing been first duly sworn Deposes and says that he/she fully understands the contents of the affidaVit that he/she Signed Notary Public My CommiSSion Expires S IPlannmg DepartmenllAppllcatlon Formsldevelopmenl feVlew1rlexlble development application 2003 doc Page 6 of 6 - FleXible Development Appllcatlon- City of Clearwater ~ ~ I J :;EI,JD II,jG F'EPCiF'T Jul, 19 2004 11'22RM YOUR LOGO YOUR FRX NO Clt~OfClearwaier-Plan Dept 727 562 4865 NO. OTHER FRCSIMILE 01 95390099 STRRT TIME USRGE TIME MODE PRGES RESULT Jul 19 11:19RM 02'25 SND 07 OK TO TURN OFF REPORT. PRESS ' MBIlJ' ~. THEN SELECT OFF BY USING '+' DR '-'. FOR FAX RDl.lANTRGE R5S I STRNCE, PLEASE CALL 1-800-HELP-FAX (435-7329). .. J ",' ~ iri~l'll'~~arwater I-- ~~,_ ~ - u FAX COVER MEMO CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVE., 2nd Floor CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 ~/f.. ~y& 8ft!.. ~f'?- - tFtn 0 TO: ~p{} ~4.e, #/:4 ~ J39 - dd1''l ~ - Pb...we. FROM: ;1f/;~.... My'A/OI#J Phone: r62 -~~.:7 (, DATE: '7 - /l../- "V SUBJECT: PiA? :2-003- c1 ?oro . /7:2-.r G?:?~~ ~ld MESSAGE: Jj,~ ~Lfr:f!;;t:,.:r/ ~~/ ~~-9€7/r -le/~~ h/ ~ 7- 24'.> - 6 ~ e~LJ /7I~-'AS ~ NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) 6 r; , ^ ' ~ TO: FAX COVER MEMO CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVE., 2nd Floor CLEARW A TER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 I!J 0 b Au- r/..e- 0":J7'- 00 11 FAX: - Phone: FROM: 1%, ~ <L /&2y A..o ( c/s F Phone: U-b 2 ~ V/'::Jt DATE: ~ - 21- 0 V SUBJECT: ~ ~ o~- 0 105-'0 MESSAGE: c.&~ ~... /J~ c-d/ tyL ~ M.L- MK b7A-r~J dt/ /;C o~_ -::::;..- 17t. ~<f.,~ /Zr_t.~ ---- , ---- / r ~~ NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) r- [,I " E. 1. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: June 15, 2004 D. CONTINUED ITEMS (Item 1) 1. Case: FLD2004-02006 - 1315 South Fort Hamson A venue Owner/Applicant: Corbett Development, Inc Representative: F Blake Longacre (phone 727-446-5846, fax 727-446-1296, emaI! fbldev@tampabay IT com) Location: 0 34-acres located on the east sIde of South Fort Hamson A venue, approxImately 300 feet north of Lakevlew Road Atlas Page: 305B Zoning District: Industnal Research Technology (IRT) Request: FleXible Development approval to reduce. the mmlmum lot SIze from 20,000 square feet to 14,850 square feet, the front (west) setback along South Fort Hamson Avenue from 20 feet to 15 feet to pavement, the front (south) setback along "B" Street from 20 feet to 13 feet (to bmldmg) and zero feet (to pavement), the side (north) setback from 15 feet to five feet (to pavement), the sIde (east) setback from 15 feet to zero feet (to pavement), for an offIce, under the provIsIOns of SectIon 2-1304 C as a Comprehensive Inhll Redevelopment Project Proposed Use: A 2,044 square feet offIce Neighborhood Association: None Presenter: Bryan S Berry, Planner II 2. DRAFT Case: FLD2003-09050 - 1925 Edgewater Dnve Owner/Applicant: Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc Representative: Harry S ClIne, Esq (625 Court Street, Clearwater, FL 33766, phone 727-441-8966, fax. 727-442-8470) Location: 257 acres located at the southeast comer of Sunnydale and Edgewater Dnves Atlas Page: 251A Zoning District: T, Tounst Request: Flexible Development approval to permtt a reductIOn to the SIde (east) setback from 10 feet to 585 feet (to pavement), and an mcrease of bUIldmg height from 35 feet to 59 feet from base flood elevatIon of 13 feet MSL (with height calculated to the mldpomt of the roof slope) to construct 62 multt-famIly resIdential (attached) Untts, under the proVISIOns of SectIon 2-803 B Proposed Use: A 62-umt development of attached, multI-family unIts Neighborhood Association: Edgewater Dnve Homeowners AssocIatton (Chip Potts, 1150 Commodore St, Clearwater, FL 33755, phone 727-448-0093), Clearwater NeIghborhoods Coahtton (Doug Williams, PreSIdent, 2544 Fnsco Dnve, Clearwater, FL 33761, phone 727-725-3345, em3l1 D1W@gte net) Presenter: Michael H Reynolds, AICP, Planner III LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items all) Case: FLD2004-02009 - 1455 and 1459 Court Street Owners: Lmda S Gnffm, Trustee, and McDowell Holdmgs, lnc Applicant: Lmda S Gnffm Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northslde Engmeenng Services, Inc (601 Cleveland Street, SUIte 930, Clearwater, FL 33755, phone 727-443-2869, fax 727-446-8036, em3l1 nestech@mlndspnng com) Commumty Development Board Agenda - July 20, 2004 - Pd.ge 2 of 6 ~ '::am II~G F'EPORT Jun 21 2004 03:12PM YOUR LOGO YOUR FAX NO Clt~OfClearwater-Plan Dept 727 562 4865 NO OTHER FACSIMILE 01 95390099 START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT Jun.21 03'10PM 01'08 SND 02 OK TO ~ OFF RfflORT. PRESS · MENU' **04. ll-IB'-l SELECT OFF BY US I NG · +. DR · -' . FOR FI=lX ADVANTAGE ASS I STPINCE, PLEASE CALL 1-800-HELP-F1=lX (435-7329). AUDE SHAN D & WILLIAMS AlA iii o lE~[E~wlEl 0 \ .AJN I 1 2004 \i L--~-~-- _.J PLANNING'::' r'LVCLOFMENT SERviCES CITY OF CLEI\AWATER Architecture Intenor Design Master Pia nn I ng Programming S pace Plan mng Faclllly Surveys Site Analys I s A D A Consulting GonstrucliOn ForensIcs Con st ructlon Documents Construction Adm I mstra tlon June 16, 2004 Mr MIchael H Reynolds, AlCP Semor Planner Department of Development Servlces CIty of Clearwater Re ApplIcatIon Amendment THE ASHLEIGH FLD2003-09050 Top Fhght Development LLC 1925 Edgewater Dnve Clearwater, Flonda FILE COpy Dear MIke Based on our May 7,2004 mectmg wllh ChIp Gerlock and Cynthia Tarapam, we transmIt 15 Signed and sealed caples of revIsed applIcatIon for The Ashlelgh proJ eet In north Clearwater ThIs amended applicatIon mcludes deSIgn changes III response to Commumty Development Board heanng held on Apnl 20th Key elements whIch have changed are as follows 1 Reduction in Building Height Proposed bUlldmg heIght has been reduced from 75 ft to 59 ft above basc flood elevatIon Rather than SIX floors over parkmg. the applicatIon IS reduced to four stones over parkmg 2 Reduction in Project Density Instead of 77 umts, the revIsed deSIgn prOVides for 62 reSidentIal UOltS, a reductLOn of 15 Units from prevIOUS applicatIons In order to prcscrve monumental oak trees, the bUlldmg footprmt has remamed substantJally the same Roben J Aude AlA #5859 Arthur C Shand II DA #0003509 Donald S Williams FAIA 1 957 1994 AUDE, SHAND & WILLIAMS, INC AlA FlOrida CorporaUon AA0002567 Arbor S ho r..11 ne Off Ice Park 19353 U S Hwy 19 North, SUite 101 Clearwaler FL 33764 Tel 1727) 535-4585 Fax (727) 539-0099 WWW AUDESHAND COM Page 2 June 16,2004 3 Increased Parking Ratio Although the code reqUIrcs 1 5 Cdrs perumt, the revised proposal provIdes for 1 93 cars per resldentlal unit Parkmg mventory has been Increased from 117 to 120 cars, with 2 of 5 reqUIred spaces for disabled located wlthm the parkmg garage With these changes, the applIcant feels the design IS responsIve to the Commumty Development Board and theIr concern for compatIbIlIty with surroundmg new development m thIS dIstnct All other aspects of the applicatIOn remam mtact from prevIOus submittals Smce these concerns have been addressed, please be advIsed that all remammg condItIOns of prevIous staff reports are acceptable to the developer, and compliance IS assured pnor to 1 ssuance of a bUIldmg penm t We wou ld appreciate recel vmg a copy 0 f a revised staff report as soon as pOSSible, we enclose a duphcate copy of application forms and narrative response Our thanks to your office for ltS contmumg cooperatIOn and assIstance WIth thiS applicatIOn Please adVise If there are questIOns or comments regardmg thIS amended desIgn before thIS Item IS placed on CDB agenda Smcerely, & WILLIAMS, INC , AlA cc Harry Chne Dan Dennehy Joe Borchers Andrew Caudell Alyson Utter CynthIa Tarapam ChIp Gerlock Attachments .... ....: ........ .::..~:..:.\). ........ .. >:":'. ........:..:~.::.'.:...' ".'; .::.. : Au D.E, 5 H A N Q &,. WI L'L I A M 5, IN C. A I A IIROUrrCIUJl= PI ANNING IN TI RlOR ARCln fEC I URr February 5, 2004 Mr Michael H Reynolds, AICP Seruor Planner Department of Development ServIces CIty of Clearwater Re THE ASHLEIGH FLD2003-090S0 Top Flight Development LLC 1925 Edgewater Dnve Clearwater, Flonda Dear Mike In accordance With CIty Staff comments and our January 29, 2004 meeting WIth DRC, we are pleased to proVIde thIs response to support a development application for The Ashlelgh project In north Clearwater With tills transmtttal, please accept 15 duplIcate copIes for review We request placement on the Commumty Development Board agenda scheduled for March 16, 2004 Below IS an Itemtzed response to comments ISSUed dunng the DRC meeting Drawmgs and tables have been amended, where reqUIred, to reflect comments or correctIOns requested through the staff report Responses follow the same sequence and numencal order found In the January 29lh staff memorandum O. Parks and Recreation a. Open soace a recreatIon Impact fees Will be paid pnor to Issuance of a bulldmg pernut It IS acknowledged that credit wIll be prOVided for eXisting motel rooms where 4 guest rooms equal 1 residentIal urut Open space form proVided by Ms Debra Richter Will be submttted and processed pnor to Issuance of a bUlldmg pernut ROBERT J AUDE NA 16859 ARTHUR C SHAND IIDA i0003509 DONAlD S W1LLW'1S rAJA 19571994 'r- AUDE, SHAND & WILLIAMS INC \; FLORIDA CORPORATION 'MOOO2581 ' r ARBOR SHORELINE OFFIcE PARK 19353 U5 ~ 19 NORTH 5UITE 101 CLEARWATER. FL 33764 (727) 535 4585 FACSIMILE (727) SJ90099 February 5, 2004 Page 2 1 Storm Water a Water quality detentIon area 5' clearance to ROW IS acknowledged b Pmellas County ROW permIt For storm Ime crossmg Sunset Pomt IS acknowledged 2. Traffic Engmeermg a SIght Tnangles SIght tnangles are mdlcated on the cIvil and landscape site plan b Parkmg Space DimenSions DImenSIons comply With current cIty standards WIth 19' stall depth Drawmgs have been revised accordmgly c Handicap Parkmg Stall DetaIls are prOVided on the submItted CIVil site plan d Dnveway RadII 28' radIUS at dnveway entnes have been mdlcated on the attached drawmgs e AccessIble Route These are mdlcated on the attached sIte plan, m conformance WIth ADA f Not applicable g Traffic Impact Fee Acknowledged by the applicant 3. General Engineenng a Edgewater Dnve Right of Way Per comments dunng DRC, Sidewalk easements WIll be proVided b Vacation of Alley and Easements Acknowledged c Samtary Sewer ConstructIon Acknowledged d Condo Plat Recording Acknowledged e Right of Way Permits Acknowledged f Sunset POint Road Sidewalk Acknowledged and WIll comply 4. Plannmg a FleXibility Cntena Section 2-803B Responses are proVided by attachment to this letter b Application Form. Pages 3 and 4 Entnes have been proVided Within each page, updated caples attached WIth thiS transmittal letter c SIte Plan Index DraWings have been Indexed to reflect this submittal attached, CIVIl Site Plans, Landscape Plans, Architectural Plans and Elevations d Sight Tnangles See amended site plan, drawmg IS m compliance e Easements In compliance See amended site plan ) I fcblUdry 5, 2004 Page J f& g DimensIOnal arrows and Sidewalk dimensions In compliance h Outdoor Llghtmg, See revised civil site plan Llghtmg IS aimed Inward Colored BUilding Elevations (n compliance Please see attached bUlldmg elevations attached herewith Slgnage Project slgnage IS proposed for south entrance to be placed on a 6' high decorative wall See cIvil and architectural plan k Interior Landscaped Areas In compliance, please see amended site plan 5. Solid Waste a Solid Waste and Recycling Responding to comments during ORC, the applicant will proVide compartments for recyclmg In addition to dumpster enclosure See amended Site plan for layout and detaJis 6. Land Rcsources a Tree lnvcntofY Attached herewith, please rind copies of reqUired tree Inventory based on comments received dunng ORC meetmg of January 29,2004 b Trees and Canopies [n compliance c Tree Preservation Plan such plan shall be proVided prior to Issuance of a bUlldmg penrut 7. Fire a b c d e f g h 't Emergency Access. NFPA-IJ-6 This Item IS acknowledged and Will be proVided pnor to a Certificate of Occupancy Fire Alarm System Such a deSign shaH be proVided by a registered engmeer pnor to Issuance of a bwldmg permit Code Comollance Pnor to Issuance of a bwldmg penrut, plans WIll be Issued with declarations of code compliance so mdlcated NFP A-13 1999 Edition Compliance IS acknowledged Water supply shall be verified pnor to a development order [ngresslEgress 28' turn1l1g radiUS for emergency vehicles has been proVided, see site plans attached Fire Department Connection thiS Item IS acknowledged, with compliance pnor to Issuance of a bUlldmg permit Fife Department Connections Slgnage required shall be proVided In accordance with FOOT reqUirements pnor to bUilding permit NFP A 24 t Clearance reqUlrements WIll be honored 111 the final deSIgn '1 '. I February 5, 2004 Page 4 Fire Protection Systems In High Rise Structures Proposed design for the project will place the highest occupied floor level at less than 75' above lowest fire department fire access As such, the proposed design will Incorporate fire protectIOn systems which are apphcable to residential occupancy for structures 75' or below For reView, we attached a diagram which Illustrates the method of calculating bUilding height to the highest occupied level Please note that other declarations of bUlldmg height contained wlthm thiS application pertam to the maximum allowable height above base flood elevatIOn under current city zomng cntena As such, the proposed bLllldlng IS not a high nsc structure as defined by SectIOn 412 Flonda Buddmg Code 200 t 8. EnVironmental a Sediment and ErOSion Control A plan for control shall be submitted pnor to c1eanng grubbing or demolition permits 9. Community Response a No comments mdlcated 10. Landscaplllg a Plant Quantities ThiS Item IS acknowledged b Landscaping Scope It IS acknowledged that alternate planting quantities will not be conSidered We thank you for your review of the above matenal together With 15 caples attached On behalf of the appllcant, we believe thIS submittal comphes With City reqUIrements, thereby belllg suffiCient for submittal to the Commumty Development Board We appreciate the high level of cooperation III your admmtstrahon of thiS project If any questions anse, please contact thiS office as soon as pOSSible to arrange for follow up and response pnor to public heanng III March Smcerely, & WILLIAMS, rNC , AlA cc Dan Dennehy, Joe Borchers Andrew Caudell, Harry Cline, John Lesmak Alyson Utter, Chip Gerlock 'I Attachments .,>'- \.: ~ :CIearwater 0~ Planning Department 100 South Myrtle AVff1ue Clearwater, Flonda 33756 Telephone 727-562-4567 Fax 727-562-4865 CASE #, FLD2003-09050 DATE RECEIVED RECEIVED BY (staff Initials) ATLAS PAGE # ZONING DISTRICT LAND USE CLASSIFICATION SURROUNDING USES OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES NORTH SOUTH WEST a SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION CJ SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF TI1E ORIGINAL APPLICATION Indudlng 1) collated, 2) stapled and 3) folded sets of Site plans CJ SUBMIT APPUCATlON FEE $ * NOTE 15 TOTAl... SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUs. SIlE. PlAN SETS) t;z;r- FLD2003-09U50 AMENDED 6/16/04 FLEXIBLE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION (ReVIsed 11/18/03) ~PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT~ A APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202 A) APPLICANT NAME Top Fll g h t D eve lopment, LLC 1925 Edgewater Orlve, Clearwater, FL MAILING ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER 727-278-4400 FAX NUMBER 727-446-6186 PROPERTY OWNER(S) 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. (Must Include ALL owners as listed on the deed - prOVide Original slgnature(s) on page 6) Top Flight Enterprlses, Inc. AGENT NAME Harry S. Cllne, Esqulre MAILING ADDRESS 625 Court Street, Suite 200 PHONE NUMBER 727-441-8966 FAX NUMBER 727-442-8470 C8..L NUMBER E-MAIL ADDRESS B PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION (Code Section 4-202 A) 1925 Edgewater Drive, Clearwater STREET ADDRESS of subject site LEGAL DESCRIPTION Sectlon 3, Township 29, Range 15 East PARCEL NUMBER (If no! listed here, plea se n ole the I ocat,o n of thiS docum e nt In! he su bm,Ua I) See Attached PARCEL SIZE 2.57 acres (acres, square feel) F'RCFOSEDUSE{S)ANDSIZE(S) 62 dwelling umts includlng common areas, e.g. covered parklng, (number of dwelling units, hotel rooms or square footage of nonresldenbal use) lobbles, pool BUlldlng helght to 591 from base flood elevation of 131-0" MSL, DESCRIPTIONOFREQUEST(S) with helqht calculatea to midpolnt of roof slope. Appurtenances shall extend 16' above 591 as allowed by FBC. A reductlon In sldeyard setback to Pa9f 1 of 6 - FleJSJblil Sw~ard Development Ap'pIICa~IQn- Cltv of Clearwater , pavement to allow a alstance or ).~) trom property llne ro eastward edge of parklng. !or ;; oOe S f HI S I\PPLlCA TION INVOLVE THE TfW"SFER OF DEVELOPMEN T R IGf-! f S [fOR) A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UN I T DEVELOPMENT OR A PREVIOUSL Y APPROVED (CER lIFIED) SI TE PLAN7 YES _ NO L (rf yes, attach a copy of the o.pphcabta documents) C PROOF OF OWNERSHIP (Code SectIOn 4.202 A 5) o SUBMIT A COpy OF THE TITLE INSURANCE pOLICY DEED OR AFFIDAVIT ^TTESTlNG TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY o WRITIEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (Code Section 3.913 Al o provldo. oomplete respoclsos to thll six (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA - Explatn h2:t! each crtterta Is achieved In delaU The proposed development of the land WIll be In harmony WIth the scale, bulk cova rage, density and dlarad6r of adJllCOnt propertl8s In which II Is 1ocatoo See architect's transmlttaL Letter attached for ~-~~----- T I,,, D'oposed developrneflt wtll not htnder or dIscourage the appropna Ie devLioprnent dnd use 01 adlacent (ilnd ilad bUIldings or stgmflc'Hllly ,n'",'" !loe vdlue thereof See Item 1 above. - ----.----" ~..-~-~-~ T I,~ I'roi>u~ed developmfJnt wtll not adversely alfec, tlie health or salely or r>er50fl~ re~ld,n9 or wa"",ng In ,he neIghborhood of n'8 proposed uc:,~~ See Item 1 above. 4 t lot! pWDOseel developmentls desIlJned to mInimIze tfaffic congestiOn . - _.~--- See Item 1 above. 5 The proposed development IS conSIStent w,th the commurllty characler of the ImmedIate v,Clnlty of the parcel proposed for developmenl See Item 1 above. Q fhe de~lgn 01 the proposed development mInimizes adverse effeels Includmg vl'.iuat acoustIc anel Olfactory and hours 01 operatIon tmpacls on adlaccnt propert,es See Item 1 above. II Address lile applicable fleXIbility entena for the speafle lanel use ilS listed In each Zoomg Dlslnct to whIch the waIVer IS requested (use sepam,e sl,eel~ a'i neC8<<sary) - Explam h2t! cntena IS ach,eved on detail PrOlcct compLles wlth TabLe 2-803 crlterta. CommunIty DeveLopment Code. See att~~~ed narratlve ~~~~pLanatl~_~e<::!~~ste_d" ~nder 2-803b (revl~ed_ ~/5/04) --~ 'I , - ..............-......----...--~& - - - ~~ -~-----~ - ~-- ~-- ....~ , - ~. -------------------- ~- P c~f.J e '2 or G _ Hp ;(Lb~e LJcvp~orH I H~(Lt Appi,wlLon (~Il' of rlt dfW lH.H ... E SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS {Code Section 4-202 A} REVISED 2/5/04,; ,:;.t7.P4-/ r<JA ~ SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (,neludlng lagal des.cnpUon 01 property) - 000 original and 12 coplo" II) TREE SURVEY (,nelud,ng eXlslmglroOS on slle and Wlthm 25 of l!1e adJacenl sole by speeLoS StZO (DSH 4 or greater) and Iocat'on ((ldud,ng drIP hnos and Indlcatmglreas to be ramoved) ~ LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY. a pAfU<ING DE/YW'.lD STUDY In oonjuncllon w,th a request 10 make devla\lOOs 10 l!1e parl<'ng slandards (10 Roduoo number of spaoos) Prior to Ihe submlltal of Ih's applicatJon, ilIa melhodology of such study &hall be approved by lI,e Communl1y Development Coordinator and shall be in oCDJl'dance with aCCl.lpted ttaffk; englnoorlng pr10clples The flnd'ngs of tho &ludy w,1I be usad In determlnlng ....nether or not deviations 10 Ihe parldng 1i1andards are approved. . 10 GRADING PLAN oS epplicable a PRELIMINARY pl.-AT liS required (Nole Bul1d'ng p<:Itmrts WIll nol be ,ssued unl,l evidenC6 of record,ng a final plat Is provided) a COpy OF RECORDED PLAT as appl,cable, F SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS {Code Section 4-202 A) XJ 51 fE PLAN wLth II'" followmg onformatlOn (nollO exceed 24 x J(t) ^ll {hfneu~loos Nont, arrow Englnocnng bar scale (mmLmum scale one Inch equats 50 leel) and dalo prep,,,ed LOC.L\1LOl1 mJp I"de' slleLl rderenelng mdlV,dual sheels meluded In package , (lO'p"nl "ml ~,zo 01 all EXIS TlNG building sand strucllJres , uOIIl"nl "fld Sole 01 all PROPOSED ou,ldlf1gs and struelure, MI rLQulfed set',,,cks MI "<lsl"'9 arId proposod pOlnl~ of access 1\11 requICLd ~LQhl t[\anglos Idcn,I"calLon of envLromTlenlally umque areas such as watNrourses weUdnds lrLe mas;es and spen",en IreLS Indudlng d(!scnplion and loca\lOfl 01 urlderslory ground co"er ve<J elat'on and w,ldt'! e flab" "ts elr Loea\ion of "II puhliC and p"vate easements t oc.<ll,on of all s!reel "ghls -of way w,'hlf1 and adlacentlO the s,te lOc,11,on of eXlSt,ng pubhc and prIVate ul1ll\leS mClud,ng fire hydranls storm and sa nLlary spwor 1,(\05 manhOles and hft stal,ons ga s a"d waler hn es All parklf1g spaces driveways load,ng areas and veh,cular use aredS Oep<cl,on by shadmg or crosshatch,,'g of all requned parl<mg lot mtenOf lalldseaped areas Locahon of all sohd waste oontamers reCYCling or trash handhng areas and outs,de mechan,cal equl"ment and all required screem"9 (per SectIon J 201(0)(') and Indet 11101) LocallOn of all landscape malenal Location of aU onStle and olls,le slorm-waler management laell,lies Location of all ouldoor 11ghl<Og flx'lures and LocatiOn 01 all e~lsl,ng and proposed s,dewalks }b 51 IE DA I A I ABLE for ex,stmg requ,red and proposed development In wnltenltabular fonn Land area m square feel and acres Number of EXISrlNG dweflmg un'ts Number of PROPOSED dwelhng uMS Gross floor area devoled 10 each use Park'ng spaces 10lal number presented ,n tabular lonn .....Ih the numbel of reqUIred spaces r otat paved afe a ,nclud,ng all paved park,ng spaces and dnveways e <pressed In sQuare feet and percentage of the paved veh,cular area S'le and spec.es of all landscape malenal Off,e,al records bOOk and page numbeffi of all etlsling ul,hlY easemenl Build Ing and s true\ ur e he 'g h ts Impermeabte surface rallO (I S R) and Floor area rat'o (F A R ) for all nonresldenl,al uses 0:. REDUCED SITE PLAN 10 scale (8 y, X 111 and color rendenng If poss'ble ex ~OR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE prov'de the follOWIng addll,onal mlormal,on on S,le plan One fool oonlours or spot elevahons on srte Dffslle etevatlons ,f "~Qu"ed 10 evaluate Ihe proposed stormwaler management lor the parcel AU open sPilce aroas Lo<..allon of 111 e"'l!' 01 waler relalnlng walts and earth berms LO! ~"es 3f1(j UlJll,I<"9 lines (d,me "s,on tel) SHeel~ (lnd (lrloJt=s (dLfnl.OSLoned} 8ulto"''I 0111(1 SlruLlur,,1 sm1>acks (~lLmellslo"ed) SUUrlUr.;-l1 U\I't 4 h..HH.rs. ') I r<",' Invell'O'V (lr _jlaf"~ I1V" Certi~"<1 ar\)o"~\ of all tr"", 8 0811 or <J" II , r~II~C\""J ,,, " "'I" \~fLp I,,'''~l "nd <,,,,,<1,10"" "I ""i' lr ~> 'I ------------.....------'- ______--- r~-- ~-~- ~ -----~- - .-.-""~ ~------------- - ~ ......- Pidgt 1 uf G _ fll. ;(1t)lc Oevetormcnl 'PI II ....1111111 c..1~Y or r II:'" ~(.... I '. REVISED 2/5/04' 5.I1.P4- {(vA G STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (City of Clearwater Design Cntena Manual and 4.202 A 21) a STORMWA TER PlAN Ifldudlng lhe folloWIng reqUIrements Exlstmg topography extendIng 50 feel beyond all property lines Propo!i6d gradIng lncfudlng fimshed Roor elevatIons of all structures All adJacent streets and munlclpal storm systems, Propo!i6d stomlwater detenlionfrelenbon araa Indudmg lop of banI<: toe of slape and outlet oontrol structure, StOllTl wate r calculallons for e tte nu atlO{\ and water qua Illy SlgrlSture of Florlda regIstered Professional Engineer all all plans and calcula!lons o Copy OF PERMIT INQUIRY LEITER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT SUBMI IT AI.. (SWFWMD 8pproval1s requIred prlor to Issuance of Crty Bulldmg Pllmlll), If applicabla o Copy OF STATE AND COUNTY STORMWATER SYSTEM TIE-IN PERMIT APPLICATIONS, If appDcable H LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (SectIOn 4.1102 A) OQ LANDSCAPE PLAN Alle",sll/lg and proposed structures Names of abuttmg streets Dramage and relen\loo areas mcludmg swales Stde slopes and bOlIom elevabons DelineatIon and dImensIons of all mquLred perlmeler landscape buffers Slghl VISIbility trIangles Dellneallon and dImenSIons of all parl<1ng areas Indud.ng landscapcng Islands "fld curbing Proposed and requlled parking spaces EXlshng trees Oil s,te and ImmedIately adJacenl 10 Ihe slle by species Slle and locat.ons Includmg d"phne LocatIOn SIle descnpllon speCIfications and Qua nt'lles of all e~ls\lng and proposed land scape matenals InclUdIng botamcal and commorl names TYPical plantl!lg detaIlS lor Irees palms shrubs and ground cover planls Indudlng instructIons sotl ml~es backfiltlng mutchmg and prolectlve measures lnlenOf landscaping areas halmed and/or shaded and labeled arid mtenor landScape coverage e~pressl!lg m both sQ<lare feel and percerltage covered Condlllons 01 a prevlQUs development approval (e g CQrldltlOns Imposed by the Community Development Board) tmgaboll noles a REDUCED lANDSCAPE PlAN 10 scale (6 y, X 11) (color refldenng If poSSIble) a IRRIGATION PLAN (reqUIred for level two and three approval) o CQMPREHENSrvE lANDSCAPE PROGRAM applll;allOn as appllCilble BUILDING ELEVATION PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4.202 A 23) ReQUired In the event the appllcallon lndudes a development where deSIgn standards are In Issue (e 9 Toltflst and Downtown DISlnets) or as part of a ComprehenSIve lnfil1 R.edevelopmenl Project or a Resldentlallnfill Prolect )0 BUILDING ELEV A nON DRAWINGS - all SIdes of aU buddlngs Indudlng heIght dimenSIons colOrs and matenals )0 REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATIONS -lour Sides of buddIng wllh colors an[j matenals to scale (8 Y, X 11) (blacl<: and while and color rendenng If pOSSIble) as reqUired J SIGNAGE (DJvlsion 19 SIGNS f SectIOn 3.1806) o All EXISTING freestandmg and attached sIgns Provide photographs and d,menslQ(lS (area helQhl elc) uuflCate whether !hey WIll be removed Of to remam a All PROPOSED freeslandlllg and attached SIgns Provide details including 1ocallOO, SQS, hSlght, colors matenals and draWIng o Comprehe"slVe $Ign Program appllcahon as applIcable (separale appllcahon ami fee reQUIred) a Reduced stg"age proposal (6 y, X 11) {color I ,I submlttmg ComprehenSIve 31g" Program applLcatlon ) '. 1 Page" of u _ Fle~Il>le Development Applocabon - Clly of Clearwater ~ K TRMFIC IMPACT STUDY (SectIOn 4-801 C) o Inell1da as rOQl1110d If proposod do"olopmenl ""II dll\lrade lhe acceptablo le"el 01 $61"V1Ce fo< any roa.:lway as a.:lopled ., the Comprehenslvo Plan Tnp IIO,,,,'aIIOn shall 00 based on the most rocenl adll\On of the Instdule of Transporta~on Englr'\66r s Tnp General Manual Rafer to SedlOn 4 801 C of lho Communlly De"olopmenl Code for 6~oep~Ons \0 th,s reqUIrement L SIGNATURE I tha unoors"Jned acknowledge thal ell represenlabons made In thIS ap plica lKlll a ra !NO iI n d 6 ccu ra to to th e be sl of my knOwledge ilnd ellthorile ()ty represonlab"es to viSIt end pholograph the property de scribed In lhls a ppllca lIon STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY or PINELlAS S,...:lrn to and subscnblld before me thIS _ day of A.O 20_ to me end/Q( by , who Is pars onally MOWIl has as produced Ide ntlflC3lLon Slgnalure of p(Or>"rly owne' or reprase "lall"" Notary pubhe My commISSIon e<p"es I 1 P (lqc 5 or b ! ~e ~Iule Oevclopme.ol ^pphca\u,,'lf'L CIty (II r 1t....11"!l'l ~Hf ~. ...... M AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT FILED PREVIOUSLY (Names of an property owners) That (I am1we are) the owner(s) and record ~lIe holder(s) of the followlIlg descrlbed Pfoperty (address or generallocallOn) 2 That this property constitutes the property for which 8 request for 8 (descrlbe request) J fhatlhe undersIgned (has/have) apPOInted and (does/do) appomt as (hls^helr) agenl(s) 10 elccute any pehttons or olher documents necessary to affect such petdlon 4 fhat Ih,s affidaVIt has been eleculed 10 Induce Ihe Clly of Clearwater FlorIda to conSIder and act on \he above descflbed property S fhat sIte VISItS to Ihe property are necessary by CIty representattves 10 order to process Ih,s applocahon and the owner authonl.es CIty rePfesentahves to VISIt and pholograph Ihe property descnbed In IhlS applocahon '''"''- G '"" ,...., '" """""'0'" '"""0" ,,,,,", reMy "" '" '~""~; ~ -6, ~ ~/f~ --- Property Owner pllJ~\~ t\..Q. ~ STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS dY.~ day of who havmg been first duly sworn ~ mELll).eA'ndersIQned an officer duly commissIoned by the Ia thA'Slate f Aonda on thiS IA fI/1Jf.>eK. ?-00:3 personally appeared title. Deposes and says that helshe-fuUy understands the contents of the affidaVIt Uta ."'-.~~''ii:. "" lJnda N. Solan {.~"C'KIfi;:: MY COMMISSION I 00121850 OOlRES ~~!l:.f June 6, 2006 My CommisSIOn Elql4res ~ ~..rf' 1000000D IHl\J flO"( FAIl WlSUWO. tlC '11StrfoJvL Nolaty Public lOfI 'I" \ 'j- '> Paq<. G ollJ - Flel,ble Developmenll\pploca\lon - CIty of Clearwater , 'I , ~ '"' - ....... AUDE SHAND & WilliAMS AlA II Architecture lnlenor Deslg n Maste r Planning Programming Space Plann Ing Facility Su "'eys S ,Ie AnalYSIS A 0 A Consu~lng Construcllan Farenslcs ConsllUctlan Docume nts Constructla n Ad m In Istrallan May 17,2004 Mr Michael H Reynolds, AICP Semor Planner Department of Development Services CIty of Clearwater Re Application Amendment THE ASHLEIGH FLD2003-09050 Top Flight Development LLC 1925 Edgewater Dnve Clearwater. Flonda RECEUVEID MAY 2 Dear Mike p 0 2004 lil "\ 'I - G. ,liNG flf;:t? Based on our May 7, 2004 meetmg with Chtp Gerlock anii' l(1yntma CawPafu~Y1$i1t!ansmlt 15 signed and sealed COpIes of revIsed applIcation for The Ashlel~Jlp;oJ~r!~ntrth Clearwater Thts amended applIcation mcludes deSign changes m response to Commumty Development Board heanng held on Apnl 20th Key elements whtch have changed are as follows 1. Reduction in Building Height Proposed butldmg height has been reduced from 75 ft to 59 ft. above base flood elevatIon. Rather than SIX floors over parking the revised application mcludes a reduction to four stones over parlang 2. Reduction in Project Density Instead of 77 uruts, the revIsed deSign proVIdes for 60 reSidential umts, a reductwn of 17 umts from prevIOus applications With this reVISIon, you Will notice the proposed bUlldmg footpnnt IS substantially the same from preVIOUS subtruttals, m order to preserve monumental oak trees on SIte. , , Robe rt J ALlde AlA 16859 Arth ur C Shand 1I0A 10003509 Donald S Williams, FAIAf957-'9W AUDE, SHAND & WilliAMS, INC AlA Flor Ida Cor po, alia n AA0002587 Arbo, Shoreline Office Park 19353 U S Hwy 19 Nonh Suite 101, Cleerwaler Fl33764 Tel (727) 535-4565 Fax (721) 539 0099 'I WWW AUOESHANO COM '/ 1 '. , A_ Page 2 May 17,2004 3 Increased Parking Ratio Although the code reqUires I 5 cars per umt, the revised proposal provides for 2 0 cars per reszdentwl una Parkmg mventory has been mcreased from 117 to 120 cars, with 2 of 5 reqUired spaces for disabled located wlthm the parkmg garage With these changes, the applIcant feels the proposed deSign IS responsive to the Commumty Development Board and their concern for compatibilIty with surroundmg new development m thIs dlstnct All other aspects of the applIcation remam mtact from prevIOus submittals Smce these concerns have been addressed, please be adVised that all remalmng conditions of prevIous staff reports are acceptable to the developer, and complIance IS assured pnor to Issuance of a bUlldmg permit We would appreciate recelvmg a copy of the revised staff report as soon as pOSSible, and we enclose a duplIcate copy of applIcation forms and narrative response Our thanks to your office for Its contmumg cooperation and assistance With thIs applIcation Please adVise If there are questions or comments regardmg thIs amended desIgn before thiS Item IS placed on the CDB agenda Smcerely, te & WILLIAMS, INe ,AIA t~bert J Aude, AlA cc Harry Clme Dan Dennehy Joe Borchers Andrew Caudell Alyson Utter CynthIa Tarapam Clip Gerlock Attaclunents } ,- ) ) MRY-05-2004 11:35 ~r~~ARlRNE FERGUSON MACFARLANE FBRGUSON &. MOXOLLE1Il1 727 442 8470 P.01 ;Dl'l'I;RVJIS'l' :MINK Bt1I~:DIG '25 eouu !l 'l'REE'J' /5U11'B 20 0 P O. BOX l6'~ (ZZF 33'5?) Cr.EU.W1I1'D.. n.Oll.!1lA ]3756 Otup 1111 '/<fL. It1k ...~a 5. COtINSBLOllll AT y>,Wl p27) Ul-BS55 FAX TRANSMITTAL FORM DATE; May 5, 2004 NUMBER OF PAGES; (Including cover page) (Y ATTENTION: CYNTHIA TARAPANI FI~ N"AME: CITY OF CLEARWATER FAX NO.; 562~45'6 TELEPHONE NO.: 562-4547 PAX NO.: (727) 442~8470 @ ~~~OW~ ~~ ~t MAY - 6 2Dll~ WI Pl.AJ~!\'.. ":e, ') \,'ElOo;.\lt:_NT5\fCSj f ~ J ~'~ ~ 1 ;- f ~ .. : r li I PROM: HARRY S. CLINE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: , IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS IN RECEIVING, PLEASE CALL OUR OFFICE AT (727) 441-8966 THE INFORlllA7ZON eoNTAINel:I IN nae FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS A'M'(l~-CLI2NT PRIVILEGEIl A!/tI eoNl'ICOI::."I'IAL INFORMATION INTl!:m:lm;! ONL~ FOR TIm USE OF THE ADDRE55X5 H' 11IB IlIlADER OF THIS MESSAGE Ie l'l'OT TYIi! INTENDED RECIPlIlJlT. COMMUNICATION OF THIS 1'!1\TER.AL IS S'NlICTLY <'ROlUBITED, IP YOU HlWE RI;;e2XVl!:O 'I'IHS COMMUNlCAUON IN saaOl'!, I'LEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY VS BY TIU.EPIlONE (COLLECT IF NECESSARY I ~ ~URN 1'RE ORIGINAL MElsSAGl> TO !,TS 11.7 THE IIIlOVE U1DR.r.9S VIIl. THB U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, ~ 1'OV MAY-05-2004 11:35 ~~~FARLANE FERGUSON 727 442 8470 P 02 1 . .' MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMuLLEN ATTORNEYS AND eOUNSE:~OR5 AT I,.AW 1 GOI eoUTI-I. =-LCl=iIIlDA A"VI:.NWe dOO NQRT;IIII T"A.....PA 5T'REI::"1 SUITe .e~CIO PO eo>: L531 'ZIP 3360<> T"MP" FLORIO'" 3300;;: '8131 t7:1 "4.:'QQ r"AX lal~l ;e":!1 4.!ioo, G~G C::::O"'RT ~TRICII:"'" P Q ~OX.l~ (ZiP ~:!I?S.7) OLf:ARW....TER FLORIDA 331&6 ."2"'~ 44~-aD1'6G FA>:: l'7"iii: 7~ 44oZ: 1:1.7"0 LAKe......NO FLOR,O" 53El05 laS31 aac 960a FAA (aO:;3\ "03-..:0..... www mlmleg51 com ........IL Inroamlmllllllll com IN FlEPL'r' REFER TO Clearwater May 5, 2004 Ms. Cmdi Tarapanl CIty of Clearwater 100 S Myrtle A venue Clearwater, FL 33756 VIA FAX # 562-4576 Re 1925 Bdgewater Drive, Clearwater, FL 33755/ FlexIble Development ApplicatIon Dear Cmdl: We would ltke to fonnally request that the above-referenced matter be scheduled for heat1Ilg at the June CDB meeting. Our arcIntects bave been able to come up WIth a redesign for the project sooner than we antlc.pated, and therefore we would hke to have the matter heard at the earliest possIble meetmg I have dlSCUSSed this WIth the City Attorney and am advised that this will be dtscussed and detentllned at the May CDB meeting. fvj always, thank you for your asSIstance. Sincerely yours, ~l::-~ ~~ I~ i . ";=';""-"'" i- r< f C Ir ;'f;: S"JCC'i h roL,A.'t . _ ~1.. 1I'-1> l....:;.. ~-'~ , iT" -, 'I f"\f: ,f' (; l r " , ~-=-" ~___4 ~ ~ HSC koh cc Mr. Dan Dennehy Mr Joseph Borchers Leslie Dougall-Stdes, Assistant City Attorney Mr Andy Caudell Mr. Bob Aude ~e h \d31.ll \aty\h ~\l:OtlC$p 'Oilw.n pull S05 do<; TOTAL p" 02 ill I , ~ , . - U FAX COVER MEMO CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVE., 2nd Floor CLEARW ATER, FL 33756 (727) 562..4567 FAX: (727) 562..4865 TO: ~ GJ,rieo 0J;b~ FAX: '1J..{N -8410 Phone: FROM~ ~.bUa Phone:.5 {fJ;;( -4,sw1 J-l/--1I..:J8:< DATE:~_- SUBJECT: !9~ ~12Ji)1Jv MESSAGE: FLb ~[x)3 - ()9'OsO NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS P AGEl--Lj f \ 11. " o 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 TO: <<~ ~ ~ ~. FAX: Phone: FROM:~~~ Phone: 51.o~ -t.{..5(l) I ~t.j.:s82- DATE: L\-\13~ Y SUBJECT: \q~5~clCf-loJlWlkD. MESSAGE: NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) 1 ;;..- ~ Clearwater o Interoffice Correspondence Sheet TO: Commumty Development Board FROM: Michael De PlanIDng DI RE: Request for ExtenSion - FLD20OJ-0905011925 Edgewater Dnve DATE: Apnl13,2006 Attached IS Information related to the request of Harry S Chne, on behalf of Top Fltght Development, LLC, for an extensIOn of time relatIVe to the above referenced project located at 1925 Edgewater Dnve A one-year extension IS bemg requested whIch would expire on Apnl 26, 2007 Pursuant to Sectlon 4-407 of the CommuIDty Development Code, extensIOns of tIme "shall be for good cause shown and documented m wntmg" The Code further delIneates that good cause "may mclude but are not limited to an unexpected natIOnal CriSIS significant downturn m the nahonal economy. etc "In thiS particular case, the applicant has mdIcated that the project IS bemg delayed for economic reasons as it relates to housmg, further complicated by riStllg constructlon costs, which have occurred for a variety of reasons It should be noted that, pursuant to Section 4-407, a six-month extension has preViously been granted The Code further directs that the Commumty Development Board may consider whether Significant progress on the project IS beIng made and whether or not there are pendmg or approved code amendments wmch would slgmficantly affect the project It should be noted by the Board that 10 the intervenmg penod subsequent to the ongmal approval, the CIty has adopted a new parklOg standard for multi-family development gOIng from a mlmmum of 1 5 spaces per reSIdentIal umt to a mlmmum of 2 spaces per reSidentIal umt f \, . 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 TO:~~ -~ CJ\U ~ FAX: Phone: FROM:~~lMt~ \J.) &JDe.U,o Phone: 5W-4S{o1..LjL~458< DATE: "-i [ I ~D SUBJECT: \ C815 ~iJ~ En ' MESSAGE: NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) ... Reynolds, Mike From: Sent: To Cc: Subject. Reynolds, MIke Friday, April 09, 2004847 AM 'hsc@clw macfar com', 'raude@audeshandcom' Gerlock, Chip, Watkins, Sherry FLD2003-09050, 1925 Edgewater Drive, The Ashlelgh, Proposed 77 attached residential units To Harry S Cline, Esq Mr Cline, Sherry Watkins of our office IS arranging with your office to pick up a group of correspondence copies that were delIVered to us yesterday Mike Reynolds, AICP Senior Planner City of Clearwater Planning Department Tel # 727-562-4836 mike reynolds @ MyClearwater com I " I..L o u FAX COVER MEMO CITY OF CLEARW A TER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVE., 2nd Floor CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 CL,j1/6;. e09. - $'41''- - .PY7 '0 TO: ~~IJ..#':/ /J ',4 PIty -- - n 9' - OD 77 PA.i:a.:~ .-- PJJ.SB.C;- FROM: PlI i{ <e ~ Ao / tlJ Phone: r, 2-- - <(;> .7 b DATE: 7/-7 - tP 4/ SUBJECT: h4:1.h;o.J -- t>" 0 r 0 I 9':2-.r ~.g w~ ,l?1'l;"'-L MESSAG~: ~L~ if' /1' ~ v d/ (AWyL./p oA...tR~ i1 - NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) 7' " A U 0 E, S ~O N 0 & W ILL I A M S, IQC: A I A ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE Apnl 7, 2004 Mr MIchael H Reynolds, AICP Senior Planner Department of Development ServIces City of Clearwater Re ApplicatIOn Amendment THE ASHLEIGH FLD2003-09050 Top Flight Development LLC 1925 Edgewater Dnve Clearwater, Flonda o~ 1]' UU Dear MIke Based on our March 22,2004 meetmg With CynthIa Tarapanl, we transmIt 15 Signed and sealed copIes of reVIsed applIcatIOn for The AshleIgh project m north Clearwater DeSIgn changes resultmg from the March 16th staff report under CondItLOrl No 1 have been mcorporated With these drawmgs As you know, the Commumty Development Board contmued thIS case from Its March 16, 2004 agenda Based on the attached documents, the applicant requests thIS Item return to the CDB agenda for heanng scheduled on Apn120, 2004 To accompany the reVised drawmgs, we mclude copIes of relevant correspondence from preVIOUS applIcations, mcludmg transmlltalletters dated February 5, 2004, and duplicate COplCS of the Flcxlble Developmcnt ApplicatIOn SIgned by representatives of Top Flight Development Smce Condition No 1 ofthe March 16th staff report has been satisfied, please be adVised that all remaInIng conditions are acceptable to the developer and complIance IS assured pnor to Issuance of a bUIldmg pern11t We would appreciate reCeIVIng a copy of the reVised staff report as soon as pOSSible ROBERT J AUDE AJA #6859 ARTHUR C SHAND 1l0A #0003509 OONALD S IMLL/AM5, FAA /957-/994 AUDE, SHAND & WilLIAMS, INC FLORIDA CORPORA.TION, MO002587 ARBOR SHORELINE OFACE PARK 19353 US HWY 19 NORTH SUITE 101 CLEARWATER, FL 33764 (727) 535-4585 FACSIMILE (27) 539-0099 Page 2 Apnl 7,2004 Agam our smcere thanks for your cooperatIOn and aSSI stance Please ad vise If there are questions or comments regardmg thIs appl1catlOn cc Harry Clme Dan Dennehy Joe Borchers Andrew Caudell Alyson Utter Cynthia Tarapam Chlp Gerlock Attachments ~ " LL ~r t o ,t., ~l ~f~ '~' ! ,~i, rwa er I-- "'''',.! ,,," ~ ~I" I" I _ P ~hiM o TO: FAX COVER MEMO CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVE., 2nd Floor CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562..4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 (3 () I?/ ,,4uttJ ?- <yt11- &oj7~ FAX: Phone: - DATE: M (/(6 ~A-'0 /-t:IJ Phone: r <:. ;2 - c.,cP:7 It, ~. - ff /"6 tf SUBJECT: /~iJ- r ~~~ FROM: MESSAGE: 'f:~n:r~ t'h>/'-( /~~~~~ ./~~~,,/ ~ ~<:,~ €'- . ~fAJ2 '7 /' / NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) :/-- )/ t}Jl Case: APP2004-0~OI- 24 North Fort Hamson Avenue Owner/Appellant: Josee Goudreault (28 North Fort Hamson Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33755, phone 727-446-7248, fax 727-446-8407) Location: 0 10 acres located on the southwest comer of Laura Street and North Fort Hamson Avenue Atlas Page: 286B Zoning: D, Downtown Dlstnct '1' Request: Appeal of a Level One applIcatIon (FlexIRle Standard Developm~nt case FLSZ003-12066) that reqUIres the bUlldmg be repamted a neutral color, unger the provISIons of Section 4-501 c Proposed Use: An eXIstmg bUIldmg that has been pamted lIght purple (mam portIon of the extenor of a bUIldmg) and dark purple (base of the bUIldmg and,mm). Neighborhood Association: Old Clearwater Bay Neighborhood Assoctat!OI1' JVlclae Morgan, 301 Cedar Street, Clearwater, FL 33755) Pres<<;nter: Mark Parry, Planner Case: FLDZOOJ-09050 - 1925 Edgew~ter Dn've Owner/Appli~ant: Top FlIght Enterp';ses, Inc RepJ;es~n~t~ve: H~I!Y ,? ~~~?~, Esq (625 Court Street, C:learwater, ~)3766, phone 727-441-8966, fax: 7Z7-4~2-8;470) _ " ',. \ ~ -'" l ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ :- of'; I) t ~ It.... j I f~' ~ ~ ' !:... .r Location: 2 572 acres located at the south~3$~ "C,9WI~r., of. ~,~rpy.~~~r, .~Rd Eggewater Dn;ves C. ~ ~JZ,;,w,;J'-) ; . """; !l" Atlas Page: 25 lA ~ / Zoning: T, Tounst DIStnct " ')l; ~ Request: fleXIble Devel ment approval to pennIt a reductlOnJo the,sIde1.(east) setback ; r e-- "'-;'l....t ~ ":~~....,h$rl' '"" from 10 feet to 5.85 fee, ,!nd ~n mcrease of bUIldmg heIght f~~~ 3,5 "t;~~htP. 75 !~~t from base flood elevatIon of 13 feet MSL (With hetght calculated to ,thy, mldpOl~t of the roof slope) to ,construct 77 multt-farruly reSIdentIal (attached) y.n~ts, under ,~he pr<?vHlOns of SectIOn 2-803.B at 1925 Edgewater Dnve - ~ ,~- J ~ l l \t..)'" l ""'t f P Proposed Use: Attached multl-fmmly residential umts , " Neighborhood Association: Edgewater Dnve Homeowners ASSOCIation (Chip Potts, 1150 Commodore St, Clearwater, FL 33755, phone 727-448-;OO~3) - Pr~~~nter,: ~lcQaetH Reynolds"AIC~,.SeIvorlP,lll~,n.er " 5. Case: FLD2003-11061 - 117 McMullen Booth Road Own~~1 Applicant: Mas~oud Dabin' < Representative; KeIth Zayac & ASSOCiates, Inc. (101 PhilIppe Par~way: SUite 205, Safety Harbor, FL 34695, phone 727-793-9888; fax. 727-793-9855) Location: 067 acres loc_ated on the southeast comer of Drew Street and McMullen Booth'Road Atlas Page: 292A Zoning: 0, Office Dlstnct Request: FleXible Development approval to reduce the number of park}ng spaces from 34 to 32 spaces, to reduce the front setbacks (north and south) from 25 feet to 10 feet (to pavement), reduce the side setback from 20 feet to 10 feet (to pavement), and a bmldmg height mcrease to 395 feet, as a ComprehenSive Infill Development under the proVISIons of SectIon 2-1004 B Proposed Use: Office bUIldmg Neighborhood Association: Harbour Towne Condomimum ASSOCIatIon (Joan Hennly, LCAM, 350 Bayshore Blvd, Clearwater, FL 33759, phone 727-725-2440, e-mail lhennly@plOgreSSlvem com) Presenter: MIchael H Reynolds, AICP, Semor Planner l__ 3. 4. \\MS5c\PDS\Plarmmg Departmenf\C D lAlgendaJ DRC & CDlI\CDB\2004\D3 March 16 2004\CDB Comenl Agenda March J 6 2004 doc Commumtv DeveloDment Board Consent Agenda - March 16, 2004 - Page 6 of 6 ~ f t ~ I II I I i e~ r- -. FAX COVER MEMO CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVE., 2nd Floor CLEARW A TER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 c t.-, A/~ Eh/" P. - if" 1- ?'170 TO: ~ ~/.Je/ .4,:4- rA-;C - <T3CJ - 00'/1 -FAX; - --Fk9Bt; FROM: NI a ~ No W if Phone:;-6 1,...- ~ i';? (; DATE: J -10- tJ '/ SUBJECT: fi-tj 206:J -- 0 7' (j J C> It~ ~Mw'..J~ 44V~ MESSAGE: ~ t:) ~fJ cfJk#- ~~/I- - h/!/~ ----- NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) S- ...~ SEHD 11'1G REPIJRT Mar. 10 2004 04:39PM YOUR LOGO YOUR FAX NO. Clt~OfClearwater-Plan Dept 727 552 4855 NO. OTHER FACSIMILE 01 94428470 START TIME USRGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT Mar. 10 04:37PM 01'53 SND 05 OK TO TURN OFF REPORT, PRESS 'MENU' lt04. THEN SELECT OFF BY USING '+' DR '-'. FOR FAX ADlJI=lNTRGE ASS I STANCE. PLEA'3E CALL l-El00-HB...P-FR>< (435-7329). FAX COVER MEMO TO: ;Htrry ell;".p / E!J" (1)6 ~P-'L/ Ih CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVE., 2nd Floor CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 1?4-x Y'I/J. - P~7 0 ~rJ7 - {)op7 - FAX: Phone: FROM: /4/it< Il.e Y' A.o /(/.5' , Phone: rt,'2-lfPJb DA TE: 3 - .s- - D Y SUBJECT: H-LJ ~tJ 3- 0 70 ..s- D /f',;LJ ~.LtA/d'./Ly .tPn~ MESSAGE: (/J..e~ ~.M 7 /-I-~..r dJ~ car/Ur'tJAd1-?1a?.. NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) f1 , . JI .... FAX COVER MEMO CITY OF CLEARW A TER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVE., 2nd Floor CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 TO: ~rt <1~~ ~ f714-;o r~ - {JY7 0 /J-01J ~dz / ;:t-, V J '1- & 09'? FAX: - Phone: - FROM: ;ttli~ ALy/iAld../ Phone: ~b2-yr?;J' DATE: "3 '- /.... 0 ~ SUBJECT:.eL../J .2-.c.n3 -- 0 f 0 S- 0 r /f':tr ~u/~ .-1t7ke- l\1ESSAGE: (fJR.f? a~~/W'~ ~-n6/( ~ ~'*l~.r re eRr 2/ fl-.tI. io a'~71 ~!"_U -fa you .p 4-f/ I, Pu; fi5f:>;;,fi;"i~h~:~~J NUl\1BER OF PAGES(INCLUDING TfIIS PAGE) ;L " . ., L.L ~ ~t~_", M \ I rwater I-- -"_~"'''''' T r--.....,,~ "1.. - ~JA1l>> u Phone: - FROM: N/ra /~v&/d.r Phone: r(. 2 -'I'd?" DA TE: J ~ / - 0 i SUBJECT: rL/} z..., b"'] -- 6 .9 0 ro /~;;lr ~w~ 4t-/VL MESSAGE:) ~ d.b..e .Q. pA) /J v...., do Ca~f /1!? c~/.r L.r:f' Ie d4y / NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) /8 I " , : I c, .~~ 0 \ ~...( ,~ .r?l Y- ~ , I .~,,~~~FAX COVER MEMO ~}~l. ~~:~ ~j..~ "'m~ 1 ....- ,;. ~ <' 1~~, '1, ~>~" CITY OF CLEARWATER , r, .c ~ '<:'fl :' PLANNING DEPARTMENT ""',<-; 100 S. MYRTLE AVE., 2nd Floor CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 TO: ~ C. 0;J~&/ heJ'fJ I 9 ~;O~r A<<tJ$/ .4 1:'+ FAX: 9~~ - F'~7 0 ~ ~y C4;Ne. r,):J9 -- tOD '7 f - tJD() ,4uAe- [ ~ I 1 I 1 J Phone: FROM: .Aft /U MyNa L#J Phone: rL L - Y'F'..?~ DATE: ~-I' - 6Lf SUBJECT: ~ .2-00:3 - 010 ro 1 I , I . , MESSAGE: ,/0 .ofOfJ Au tJ&__ 4-f1\4- t:-fJ.~ ./H't-,A. ?t /fJ;!J~.f dF ~ C~fl~&A/TV: "~;;:;,, A/DT12- ~ tr1tn A/Lu.//~JL- ~A4'~ ~ cx:..r ~ 6-l-I'7 I) /'ClJ!hV Lk.. 77l4' 4-A/ erU.. , 1 /Jt/&- /(RyA/bUJ ~ - , I , I 1 , I i NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) S- I , , fl ~ ~ 0 ~ t:I ..... 0 0 '" 00 -.l ~-~ VI 0 0 ~c ~t:I ~ ~ -< ;m -?l IJ'Q ll> '" ll> ~ :; ...,., :::l 8 ::;or ~3: g n ~:~ ~ -. tr1 '5 :::l '" IJ'Q IJ'Q II> ;:0 ~ ..... z .... '" II> (>> <: :lIl:: n <: ::r 0 r; (>> :E Po :E :; \0 i3 !:€ tJ N VI VI VI tJ tJ N 8 8 8 u.> u.> u.> ~ ...... -- ...... 0\ ~ g N 52 ~ z z z 0 g 0 :::l 5 ("0 ("0 t:I ::r: 0 G "tl ~ rffl 0 0 ...., "'" en o:i l:;c 1m !:€ ~ ~ enN en~ en~ t"'~ l:;c ~ 1;:0 N ZN 8 52 52 u.> o ~ " :;: .:;; l" 0\0"V1;>-'fi;'-4:>->"" ""'6" N:S:: t::/>.... 0" *0\V11l> -4:>-~ <.o>s N'='''909oO I>> g..... "O""'-"s:;:"'-'" -"'-"n:1"-" '-"~o"""-"'~ * n oq Ei: ;:::"0 G i"""t".:I::I n g~~~R~Qx~~~<~~~&~~no8~~~~~~~~Q~~;>- ~5 z'<::lz....~,::g'(JQgo....-- 3p-ool>>--l<:(IQ ,::0'0 g ~IJ'QrRl oe=..g-o~ 5 g ....ttlo.....I!j -lo 3:8 2 g:e 8..'0 to,,::r~ ~"" E: g.5""C"~:>;"",,~~~gomo....,-'O;~~~tIl_o~~m8~mC"~0~ G~n7rn ~~~ ~~ o~~~m~~~~~~ 9 ~O~ fig3~m~~mg~~~:;:tlo~~g~~z~Q~@~~~~;~~tIl~ ~l>>~~8~gg8gl>>e=.. lJ'Qa~-O"-l~~~a~ ;>-~@"'o~q :;J ;.~.9! mag tI1 ~:::l 6" ~ ~ ~ 6. .g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $:! I ~ ~ ~ <=t ~ ~ " ~ ..g 0 0'0 o....@ Oil> ~ s: l>> m ~" ill 0.... r 2 :e . ~ :?::: g :>::I -4:>- j;; p.. Ia [ q ~:e-4:>-" 0 O"Kl5::l0"'~ - mn"'Z",I:Tl~m,::lO - q~.~ gQ ~:::l(JQe: ~~ lfg;l1r~og-laoz~~~€..J; _ >!it ~~ P-~]Q ..:a ....l>>ONa-lp.. gj'TlOtllOl>>gS1: s!5-n"" ",p- 5..':;! 0 oP- 0:5: 0;;,::3:~ "':>::I-l80~ee- "::l~o ::I"" IJ'Q l>> e 0"... -~mp.. oO~o::'O o~ NIJ'QZg [9 'O~~~~ ~::l ~~ ~g-l~ ~3:m~g~3g 0; (Il 0 0 ~ ~ 3 ---J8 '" 'lil I '::1 ...,-l::l :::l g n as~O" s:::. _~O\g 20 rtP- 3:aze- ~;:c:.an::;~n V1"'rg ",0 ~3o!it .g :~ m On "'m(lloog~<=t I~m:::l ~~ ~E:-4:>-a 3:P- [0 -l80~ 8....~Ox[P-8"j;; :?:::a'ga ~5i g;:::l '!;; m~ ~:::. 3 m'R ;>;l:C 0 ll?.o.~ ~_ ~ ~ oa>.... -l~::Io ~-l~ 30-l ~~~n -l aM::! t::' fi -4:>- ~ 0 0" . ,:; P- n 3 2:: ~ 'E.. "'C -l "'" 0 - oa a .,.., 0 0 0\ I '" ~, " M "" ~ 0 0 t-< l!i '< m 'Xl 0 :>;" <: ",. ... 2:;0 .....z8;>-0 e: ....,:>;" '<i:>::l~ :--~....e; @ 0 -4:>-~ ~o ~~ p-ttl N~; ~~>5 ~~- ~ ;;; ,::; n ~a m!1: "" ~O~ g.><z::ro,<~ 0- ~.... '" ~ o~~ ~a g g:>::l~ nra2~"'a~ III ~ n .g m....a mg... ~e. E; :::JCIJ'Q g?l~::ro o ~ -0 z.... g 0- @~,.,~~~o ...., g 0 ~Cl"" -l!5- n z~ atTl(ll:;p;gna~ go 0 P-f:jS:::l 0 ~ 8 as-q=-o ~ ;: ... IJ'Q q::; g::l -a t""'ln ~ ~ = :3 ttl rIl U'I :I!= ~ m~ > c t') G) b e: ~ N ~. ....gq -I t:.H ~ ~ Q -. ".. I.C rIl C '= e: ;:u Ul :s '=1J(l N :d ~ w :;: t::3 '1::l 0 ~ i "'0 JIl o N o ...... ..... ..... ~~ 2 ~ " )> n a :S Q '" 't:l "'0 0; S '" S Q ::l ::l '" :3 ::!sSlo::rSl .=:t _ ...... (:I 0 "....,. 5~oo:Eo o....o;~g.!;; ~ 0 ~ .... I>> ~ 00-1>>9'....1>> Q",::lI>>9'::l o 0 8 ::l 0 @ ~g'OVlSo UJ E!1 ...... '='> 't;I ..., 0:: ;:l l>> 0 0 l>> ::l2.o-S......o- '" 0::....0"0:: g=:>::..og::.. ",00.9':>;"0- o S 5 "' 0 5 5 "do<! .... ..,o<! .... 5't:l 0 .... 't;I ~~~~g-~ eJ~-~::;' n~~~g. gliQ ';;0 ::l =- <:: 't;I .:<1:;; ~g 0''''''' .:<1:- .... ~ 0. '" =r~ g.o ;~ ~if :! ~ (5 @ <....... ::::J-< ~(5 ell;; ::l g 8.. '2 f1 t;l t;I o ..... o Vl ~ a ~ ~ !:!l :;tl' {l) <: Cii ~ ~ U'I t;J 8 w - ..... 00 g i: ~ ::l {l) t;I o ~ ~ - ::tit;J 1 ~ >N 8 ~ ~ o U'I o t""" ~ Q. ~ '" o <:: (1 {l) ::ti {l) <: ~ ~ U'I ..... N 8 w - ..... N N t;J :3 ~ z o ::l {l) S t""" t;I I~ \D Vlt;J t"""~ ZN 8 ..... UJ ,." ,." n o ::l 0- s- o :::> ~ ~ t;I o 0\ o b Otl ~ ::ti ~ Cii ~ ~~ en 0 ~ >-3 j;i 3i {"> - a '0 ~ ~ ~ 8 ....., z o ::l {l) :::e UlN t"""~ ZN :3 ....., f1 t;I E; - U'I ::tit;l g j;i Q.8 ~ n l>> n c a- s ::l ~ N U'I ..... N :3 w ~ o \D Ult;J t"""~ ZN 8 ....., ~ E; - 0\ \D t;J U'I t;J :3 ....., ::r: ~ o ~ > - w o is:: ~ n a I>> &. ~ VI t;J 8 t,;.l z o ::l {l) ~ cnN t"""~ ZN :3 t,;.l - ;:oiJi I> ~ ~ ~Sg.'~W III ~ 0 "" a ~~~[g -i!-~ ~~ ~~ ~ifg8..s ~g.~a.)> Q..l".l:l 0-.. I>> ri1i -3 til p =' ::::Ii :=r" ........ ~~U5~~ ifg.@~.2 o-...g~o:: g "Sl ::; 5 ::i -OOOQ", 8::s-~~9';' ~ ::l .. I>> ~g;~; @5i5fl...., !Jjlf:!s..a~ @@~gS' ....g.o~<: 13iag-;"g Sl if~~~ 8.. ::r 8.. ....., a ~eJ g"Sl 5"1>> o.g '<:o~~ S'.. 8.. fl t;l > o ..... 00 >-3 g Ul ~ ~ ;:0 g Q. \D t;J U'I t;J :3 ....., ::r: ~ o ::r: o l' t;l I~ ~ UlN l'~ ZN :3 <..oJ ~ ~ t t;l o s: 1:: [ o S ~ N U'I ..... N 8 <..oJ z g {l) ~ ~;:; ~t;J 2 f1 t;I ~ <..oJ o b ~ .... o ..., n o .g 0' 0- o o '" '" - ..... 0\ t;J o ~ - ~ tv o ~ ~ ::s \'II t;l ~ fl t:l > N <..oJ U'I o~ ~ .... ::l .... \'II !:!l .... >-3 o >- cr' a 8 Otl ""d a '0 ~ N VI t;J 8 ....., z o o {l) ~ UlN l'~ ZN 8 <..oJ -I .... ~;;~ ;m~ ~:~ z ....'" r':l(j .... ~ ~ co ro Vl ~ ~ ('tl m ~ >- c ~ t':l ~ e1 ~ :e ~ :=: ~=~ m ~ r:- ;;u .:, """. I"C fI) C <:I e ;;u I.A = =(JQ N ~ ~ VI~ ~ N is:: ~ "0 ~ <...> o ...., \.o.l \0 cnN, l"""~ Zs <...> Q ~ " '" <: Q it t!J o tl ~ o ::r: a. o .., s: e; @' .., :;d (0 <: (ii ~ ~ U'I N 8 UJ Z o :::l (0 .- - enN ~ l:;d N ~ o 'ti '1:1 ;'5ff ~ .... ~ o 6"0 =- ~ a =- ~ < o _ ~ 8 ~ R g ~ 9 ~ 0.. :::. 0 a ~ C" (tl o :: e....... o..~ ... 0.. g ... o a ..... I;i <5 0 ? :::I - n ~ g 0.. .... n a ff~ - R :: <: lJtl g ~ !:t 0..0 a-e. O"P:> 0":: 5 lJtl fl o o ~ trl :: <: a :::l 3 (l> :: e :;d {II <: ~ ~ VI N, 8 w ..... - .... ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ - - >00 IN, 00 52 g o ...... +>- t"'" P:> :::l 0.. VI ('"> .g a lJtl :;d {II <: (ii ~ \0 - N VI N, 8 w ..... - 00 - N o 52 Z o 5 ::r: o l""" o > b ~ ~..... ~;:J ~ '" f8 n o :::I 0.. a 2 '" ~ o o .- N t;l 2 :::l (JQ :;d ~ (ii ~ ..... - ~ N o S2 ..... N, ~ ~ ..... N, ~ N ~ z o :::l {\l ::r: o r:; ~ enN r'~ ZN 8 <....> ~ o .... o > 'C 'E. n ~ 6 ;:l @ o (0 :;;: l1> 0.. ~ -. N g <....> z g l1> en ~ ~ enN r'VI ZN, g w ~ o o ..... 0\ n ~ ~ <: o ~ ~ VI N, g W z o :::l l1> ..... enN, ~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ s:: !! 5 (JQ ~ VI N g w is ~ ~ Z o ;:l {II t;I o ~ '-< <: en \0 V)N l"""iS Zg w fl o > ..... .j>. o f!l @' <: ~ ~ VI N g UJ ~ ;:l {II ~ ..... '"":l- ....- O~ :J:: ~ ~ '" 9- ;;. ~ f[l. (0 ~ 0.. (t <> '< !l. 5 lJtl 0" R ::r ~ c.. 8: ..., fl o o o 8 en g. c.. :E! "" VI ft ~ <: o ~ ~ VI N g w ~ ..... ..... - N ~ Z o :::l {\l o ~ ::j o tlSi ~g 52 g o w o fl o o o N o ff ~ R> W ~ <: CD ~ ~ @ ~ <: CD ~ \0 N VI -. N g W ..... Vi N ~ Z g (1) ~ 5 o o ~ :c o r:; tl ~ ..... - tlw >N ~ Vl R R .., o :::I c.. :=. <5 ::> .... n ~;;~ ~m~ .. ~3: ~:~ :z n ::llIl: nn .... ~ c.:l :s ~ {Il fJI~~ m _ >- C~J !":l ~ b ~ N .... ~-1g~ ~~ ~ b .... \C {Il c= =: ;:u tJI ::I =(J'Q N N ~ ;::: VI ~ w N '1:1 0 s: S2 :-, 01/13/2004 landscape 01/08/2004 Conditions Associated With FLD2003-09050 1925 EDGEWA TER DR Joe Colbert 562-4567 xt 3548 Where underground water mains and hydrants are proposed, they shall be Installed, completed, and In service pnor to construction as per NFPA 241 Clearances of 71/2' ft In front of and to the sides of the fire hydrant, with a 4' ft clearance to the rear of the hydrant are reqUired to be maintained Not Met Arden Dittmer 562-4604 The plan submitted show "CODE QUANTITY" & "ALTERNATE QUANTITY", where some of the Not Met "alternate" matenalls actually required to meet Code Revise plans to show "PLANT QUANTITY", or resubmit the true proposed landscaping to be Installed for review with a matching list The total picture of all plant material IS qUite nice and would be approved as submitted with the above change In the plant material list Alternate quantity plantlngs wIll not be considered In the landscape plan and should be removed from thiS application plan set Rick Albee 562-4741 01/22/2004 land Resource Condition Show ALL trees and there actual canopy's on ALL plans Not Met 01/22/2004 01/22/2004 02106/2004 02/06/2004 02/06/2004 02/06/2004 02/06/2004 All of the above reqUired pnor to COB Not Met Provide a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by a certified arbonst, consulting arbonst, landscape Not Met architect or other specialist In the field of arbonculture ThIS plan must show how the proposed bUilding, parking, stormwater and utilitIes Impact the cntlcal root zones (dnp lines) and how you propose to address these Impacts Ie, crown elevating, root prumng and/or root aeration systems Other data required on thiS plan must show actual tree barricade limits (2/3 of the dnp Ime and/or In the root prune hnes If required), and the tree barricade detail And any other pertment Information relating to tree preservation Provide prror to bUilding permit After receiving the Inventory I was able to conduct a thorough review Relocate the landscape Not Met Island at tree #32 tl thr tree #31 Remove one parking stall at tree #33 Not Met Revise Sidewalk and pond top of bank to save tree # 7,63,73,75-78 and 81.85 Not Met Redirect outfall pipe away from tree # 9, the two oak trees south of # 9 and tree # 40 Not Met Jack and bore samtary hne at tree # 31 A 10% reduction of the tree defiCit can be achieved by Not Met performing such tree preservation techmques Parks & Rec Impact Fees Open Space and Recreation Impact Fees are due prror to Issuance of bUlldmg permits or final plat Not Met (If applicable), whichever occurs first Credit Will be given for the eXisting 48 motel rooms 4 motel guestrooms = 1 residential umt 77 proposed units less credit of 12 eXisting = 65 net new unIts Please contact Deb Richter at 727-562-4817 CaseCondllons Pnnt Date 02/1312004 1 of 1 -RANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME 02/13/2004 15'32 NAME PLAN FAX 7275624576 TEL 7275624557 DATE, TIME FAX NO,/NAME DURATION PAGE(S) RESULT MODE 02113 15' 30 94428470 00:02'37 05 OK STANDARD ECM ~RANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME 02/13/2004 15 44 NAME PLAN FAX 7275624576 TEL 7275524567 "l DATE,TIME FA'x; NO.!NAME DURA TIm~ PAGE(S) RESULT MODE 02/13 15.41 95390099 00:02:36 05 OK STANDARD ECM " A U DE, S f() N D & W ILL I A M S, IOC ': A I A ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE ORIGINAL February 5, 2004 r2 [~JLm___ : FEB - 5 2004 ~ II f'LAI'4t.IlN & m:. .rELOPMEN ""vc~l' CITY OF CLE.ARWATER Mr Michael H Reynolds, AICP Semor Planner Department of Development ServIces City of Clearwater Re THE ASHLEIGH FLD2003-09050 Top Flight Development LLC 1925 Edgewater DrIve Clearwater, Flonda Dear Mike In accordance With City Staff comments and our January 29, 2004 meetmg With DRC, we are pleased to proVIde thiS response to support a development applicatIon for The Ashlelgh project In north Clearwater With thiS transmittal, please accept 15 duplIcate caples for review We request placement on the Commumty Development Board agenda scheduled for March 16, 2004 Below IS an Itemized response to comments Issued dUrIng the DRC meetIng DraWings and tables have been amended, where reqUired, to reflect comments or correctIons requested through the staff report Responses follow the same sequence and numencal order found III the January 29th staff memorandum O. Parks and Recreation 3. Open space a recreation Impact fees Will be paid pnor to Issuance of a buddmg permit It IS acknowledged that credIt will be proVided for eXlstIng motel rooms where 4 guest rooms equal 1 reSidential umt Open space form proVIded by Ms Debra RIchter Will be submitted and processed pnor to issuance of a bUlldmg permIt ROBERT J AUDE, NIl 116B59 ARTHUR C SHAND, IIDA #0003509 WNALD s: 'MliW1S, FAt4 1957-1994 AUDE, SHAND & WilLIAMS, INC FLORIDA CORPORATION AA00025B7 ARBOR SHORELINE OFACE PARK 19353 US H\NY 19 NORTH, SUITE 101 CLEARWATER., FL 33764 (727) 535-4585 FACSIMILE 027) 539-{lO99 February 5, 2004 Page 2 1. Storm Water a Water quality detention area 5' clearance to ROW IS acknowledged b PmeUas County ROW oermIt For storm line crossmg Sunset Pomt IS acknowledged 2. Traffic Engineering a Sight Tnangles Sight triangles are mdlcated on the cIvil and landscape site plan b Parkmg Soace Dimensions Dimensions comply With current city standards With 19' stan depth Drawmgs have been revised accordIngly c HandlcaD Parkmg Stall Details are provided on the submttted CivIl sIte plan d Dnvewav RadII 28' radIUs at dnveway entrIes have been mdlcated on the attached drawmgs e Accessible Route These are mdIcated on the attached Site plan, m conformance WIth ADA f Not applicable g Traffic Impact Fee Acknowledged by the applicant 3. General Engineermg a Edgewater Dnve RIght of Wav Per comments dunng DRC, Sidewalk easements will be provided b Vacation of Alley and Easements Acknowledged c Samtary Sewer Construction Acknowledged d Condo Plat Recordmg Acknowledged e Right of Way Permits Acknowledged f Sunset Pomt Road SIdewalk Acknowledged and will comply 4. Planning a FleXibility Cntena Section 2-803B Responses are provided by attachment to thiS J'~ttef b ApplicatIOn Form, Pages 3 and 4 Entnes have been provided wlthm each page, updated copies attached With thiS transmittal letter c Site Plan Index Drawmgs have been mdexed to reflect thiS submittal attached, CivIl Site Plans, Landscape Plans, Architectural Plans and ElevatIons d Sight Tnangles See amended site plan, draWIng is in comphance e Easements In compliance See amended Site plan February 5,2004 Page 3 f& g DlmenslOnal arrows and Sidewalk dimensions In complIance h Outdoor LightIng, See revised cl~Il site plan LlghtlOg IS aimed Inward Colored BUlldmg ElevatlOns In complIance Please see attached buddIng elevations attached herewith J Slgnage_ Project slgnage IS proposed for south entrance to be placed on a 6' high decoratIve wall See Civil and archttectural plan k Interim Landscaped Areas In complIance, please see amended site plan 5. Solid Waste a Solid \Vaste and Recycling RespondIng to comments dUrIng DRC, the applIca nt will provide compartments for recycling 10 addl tIon to dumpster enclosure See amended site plan for layout and details 6. Land Resources a Tree Inventory Attached hereWith, please find caples of reqUIred tree Inventory based on comments received dUrIng DRC meetlOg of January 29,2004 b Trees and Canopies In compliance c Tree Preservation Plan such plan shall be provided prIor to Issuance of a bUlldmg permIt 7. Fire a b c d e f g h Emergency Access. NFPA-13-6 ThiS Item IS acknowledged and will be provided pnor to a Certificate of Occupancy FIre Alarm System Such a deSign shall be provided by a registered engmeer prIor to Issuance of a bUIldmg permit Code Compltance Pnor to Issuance of a bUlldmg permit, plans wlil be Issued With declarations of code compliance so mdlcated NFP A-13 1999 EditIon Compliance IS acknowledged Water supply shall be venfied prIor to a development order Ingress/Egress 28' turnmg radIUS for emergency vehicles has been prOVided, see SIte plans attached Fire Department Connection thiS Item IS acknowledged, With compliance pnor to Issuance of a bUildIng permit Fire Deoartment Connections Slgnage reqUlred shall be proVided In accordance WIth FDOT reqUlrements pnor to bUlldmg permit NFP A :~4 I Clearance reqUirements will be honored 10 the final design .. . February 5,2004 Page 4 Fire ProtectIOn Systems In High Rise Structures Proposed design for the project wdl place the hIghest occupIed floor level at less than 75' above lowest fire department fire access As such, the proposed design will incorporate fire protection systems which are applicable to residential occupancy for structures 75' or below For reVIew, we attached a dIagram which Illustrates the method of calculatmg bUlldmg height to the mghest occupied level Please note that other declarations of bUIlding height contamed wlthm thiS applIcation pertam to the maximum allowable heIght above base flood elevatIOn under current city zonmg cntena As such, the proposed bUlldmg IS not a high nse structure as defined by Section 412 Flonda BUlldmg Code 2001 8. Environmental a Sediment and Erosion Control A plan for control shall be submitted pnor to clearIng grubbmg or demolition pefmIts 9. Community Response a No comments mdIcated 10. Landscaping a Plant Quantities ThIS Item IS acknowledged b Landscapmg Scope It IS acknowledged that alternate plantmg quantities will not be conSidered We thank you for your reVIew of the above matenaI together With 15 caples attached On behalf of the applicant, we belIeve thiS submittal complies With City reqUirements, thereby bemg suffiCient for submittal to the Comrnumty Development Board We apprecmte the high level of cooperation m your admmlstratlOn of thIS project If any questions anse, please contact tills office as soon as pOSSible to arrange for follow up and response pnor to public heanng m March Smcerely, & WILLIAMS, INC, AlA cc Dan Dennehy, Joe Borchers, Andrew Caudell, Harry Cline, John Lesmak AIyson Utter, Chip Gerlock Attachments II MASTER INDEX TO DRAWINGS A. Site Survey, One Sheet B. Civil Engineer (Cover) Drawings 1. Existing Conditions 2. Site Plan 3. Paving & Grading Plan 4. Utility Plan 5. Details C. Landscape Drawings 1. LA-I, Tree Survey Plan 2. LA-2, Landscape Plan 3. LA-3, Irrigation Plan D. Architectural Drawings ] . A-I Site Plan 2. A-2 Ground Level Floor Plan 3. A-3 South Elevation 4. A-4 West Elevation 5. A-5 North Elevation 6. A-6 East Elevation Note to Reviewer: See Also 8-1/2" x 11" reduced plans for Landscape and Architectural Floor Plans and Elevations (colored). /, FE8-04-2004 11 39 TOP FLIGHT DEVELOPMENT. LLC FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR LEVEL 2 COMPREHENSIVE INFILL - TOURIST DISTRICT I SECTION 2-803 The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development Is otheTWIse impractical with out deviations (rom the us, intensity and development standards Applzcanl seeks a Level] approval of a Comprehensive Infill for redevelopment of properties located north and east of the mtersectlon of Edgewater Dnve [Alternate 19) and Sunset Pomr Road The request zs to approve height up to 75 feet wherem a Level] FleXible Development Height can be approvedfor attached dwellings from 35 feet to a maximum of 1 00 feel, and 10 approve installatIOn of balcony support columns Within the setbacks on Sunnydale Drive 17feet from the property lme where the code calls for a 25 foot frontyard setback Appltcant submtt.s It meets the cnterlafor Comprehensive InFlll redevelopment projects The redevelopment of the parcels IS O(he~'ISe economically Impractlcal wllhout the requested deViation Specunen oak trees are located on the site which, 10 be effectively protected, requires vertical constructIOn to leave suffiCient area to protect the eXlstmg trees AddlllOnally, the property IS Situated on an arterial road and contIguous to an exisrzngfillmg statiOn I convenient store, and the vertIcal constructIOn WIll prOVide Isolation from these adverse Impacts and allow a reasonable use of the property 2 The development of the parcel proposed fOI" development as a Comprehensive Inflll Redevelopment Project will not reduce the fair market value of abuttIng properties The redevelopment should not have any negatlve Impacts on the faIr market value of abutting propertIes The present uses consISt of small motel operatIons involVing some 36 !Jl11tS, and 9 rental apartments 3 The uses within the comprehensive iofill redevelopment project are otherwise permItted in the City o( Clearwatel". Attached dwellmgs are permitted wlthzn the TourISt Dlstrrct zn the CIty of Clearwater P 03/05 FEB-04-2004 11 40 4 The uses or mix oruses withlD the comprehensive in fill redevelopment project are compatible with adJacent land uses. The proposed uses, bemg either rownhomes or condominIUms, are compatlble with adjacent land uses The property to the north bemg a motel facIlity to the west Slngle.[amily res I denlza I {wzth land uses of ReSidential Median and Reslde71l1al Urban] 5 Suitable sites for development of the uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infiH redevelopment project are not otherwise available in the City of Clearwater. At the present time there are not SUitable SItes for IhlS type of development or redevelopment wllhm the northwestern secrOr of the elly of Clearwater, and (hIS prOject with other constructIOn In the Immediate area. should establish a paltern of development on Alternate 19 extendlllg from the center of the City to the Sunset Pomt Road mterseetW/1 6 The de"elopmeut of the parcel proposed for development as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project WIll upgrade tbe immedIate "lcu:Hty of the pa reel proposed for development The redevelopment does represent an upgrade The existing faci/tlles are out of dare from an operatIOn as well as a constructIOn standpOint 7 The deSign of the proposed comprehensive inml redevelopment project cnates a form and fUDchon which enhances the community character of tbe immediate viciDlty of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. Thefinal deSign afthe redevelopment project will create an enhancement 10 the northern access Into the City o/Clearwater and should encourage other redevelopment along thiS corndor eXlendmg Inro the City center 8 Flexibility ID regard to lot widtb, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified by tbe benefits to community character and tbe immediate vicinity oftbe parcel proposed for development and (be City of Clearwater as a whole. Flexlbdl/y In regard to rhe heIght IS JustIfied by benefitS to the CQmmunlly character, as well as prOVIding some open space and landscapmg to proleel the speCimen oak trees on-SHe P 04/05 FE8-04-2004 11 40 9 Adequate off-street parkiug in the immediate vicinity according to the shared parking formula 10 Division 14 of Article 3 wiU be available to avoid on- street parking io tbe immediate VIcinity of the parcel proposed for development. All required parking will be on-site h \(bta"ty\Iu~on\lOpnlgtucQmp an.doc P 05/05 TOTAL P 05 A~~ ~~5~iA~ D... &. VII L:I A M' ~ C. A I A ARCHil ECTURf PLANNING INTERIOR ARCHil EC rURl: +. ,<' N'J; .do) _ . .... t_"1o} ~ j ".. ( 4.... .... -,; -' ~ neceinb-er~22.'2003:. J\ ; J :;;; J) I \~~ -~{<~\~~J ~::~"'~:E rj__~k--__r: t 1 ~r I' ~ .... ~\yl...!.!.lI' ;;-f Jt ........-.#' ..S.... 1:'-", ~l't,,, ~.z.}%~~'1."'~~.lo~.....~\....,......3,/"f:"';.~-.I/~.J <_ ..':i"}~.1 .}-;1 ~ .. ~'...,. ... f r _ _.. t..... ~ .... ~ IHl _"';1 i: ........ j , , r ... J l t ~ Y j '" ,,) .; ~ .of'- ~.I" / ~ " ~ 1'"- \ - ....~~... 1. .J' I ;- It .;: ,. - " ' ,~ Mr Frank "Chip" Gerlock Development ReView Manager Department of Development ServIces CIty of Clearwater Re ApplicatIOn Submittal THE ASHLEIGH fLD2003-090S0 lop Fbght Development LLC 1925 Edgcwdter Dnve Clearwater, rlonda Dear ClllP WIth thIs letter, we transmIt a completed applicatIOn and supporting documents for a proposed 77 unlt condominium residence located at 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Clearwater, FL You may regald this transmittal as amended apphcatlOn for Case No FLD2003- 09050 which was filed in September 2003 by the developer's agent, Mr Harry Choe The proposed development IS located to north Clearwater wltluo a Tounst dlstnct Subject property IS 257 acres within the eXisting location of the Bay Queen and Edgewater Inn which together, compnse 48 Units As you recall, we met with Gma Clayton and the Developer on September 26, 2003 to dISCUSS an amended appltcatlon for thiS project To support that dISCUSSion, we prOVIde the following narrative wluch appears under Section D of flexlbdlty cntena Please accept responses provided to satisfy the reqUlrements of Section D on the followmg pages R06fRl I AUDE A!A 16359 NUHU R C 51lf1ND IIDA of 000 J 509 DONAlD :; VVlII wr:; rAJA 195/ I 991 AUDE SHAND & WILLIAMS INC ;lO,~l)A LOI~'OllAliON AA0002~M NIllOI'. ~IIOru:lINE OFnCE rARK 19J'J u~ IIWY 19 NORIIl ,>Ullc 101 rI [ MWA lEft. fI n 104 (!) I) " JS ,"8) , ACSlHILE (11/1 \ 1'1 OO'N Page 2 December 22,2003 1 The proposed development of the land will be En harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, densrty and character of adjacent propertJes En which it IS located , , ResJ:!onse -' -' ;. '''", ; . <" " ';', ~ "I- 'I 1 ~...... :t'" :~ ~ ) L ~ ;. J l ; I tr\"',,/ (1...~ -I. ~~..; <:'"lI" \ 1 J~""~ 0: 7'... ~~-'"; <J....:t .... r ~t.... ",w..1~~" ~ I~~E-i" l~ J.... f , 1 "'"<.. ~.. .::,..;( J'" 1...... "t.;"'" ~ l ~ ~ ...... ~ ~... t ~1 tr~ -i-t...:'.....o' k ~l""'H .. "- The Ashlelgh_'proJ ect; confonns Wlth patterns <;:If emergt?g < developwenr along Edgewater Drive- witlun recent years Within this area, new mofel and condomiruum projects have been developed, such as the Comfort Inn, and Villa Del Mar Condominmms The Ashlelgh has been developed wIth sensItIvIty for the surroundmg context of commerCIal, tounst, and resIdential bUildings The bulk of the project has been developed to a110w strong buffenng between resldentlal propertIes to the cast Scale of this development has been deSigned to favor those elements whIch appear reSldentlalln character, such as porches, balcol11es, and projected rooftop gables r ul1hcrrnore, the developer pI oposes extensive landscaplllg wIthin pedestnan and automobIle courts to reInforce thIS pattern of resIdential scale 2 I he proposed development will not hl!lder or dIscourage the appropriate de velopme/lll!l use of adjacent lalld III hili ldmgs or significantly fmpGlr the value the! cof Response The proposed development should sustalll and encourage new development Wit hill the surroundIng commumty Agam, with the contlllued emergence of property Improvements In thiS area of Clearwater, It IS anticipated that the Ashlelgh may Improve values of adjacent properties In the long term 3 The proposed development will not adversely affect health or safety of penon>; 1 eSldmg or IVorkmg 111 the neighborhood of the proposed use Response ThiS development IS mtendcd to Improve condItions wlthm the eXlstmg residential area There IS Virtually no element of the proposed development wluch will create adverse affects ReSidents of The Ashlelgh will be offered a secure bUlldmg wIth I1fe safety and security systems whIch meet or exceed current bUlldmg codes, particularly Impact reSistant features adopted by the Flonda BUlldmg Code In March 2002 " Page 3 December 22, 2003 4 The proposed development IS designed to mlmmtze traffic congestIOn. Response ... _ - ,.. ~ ~ ... _ ...... J :...~ I'l{~il~~~~"" ~ . '- ,-l - -.... ..,....-J ~tT<1,.jJ}l_/ Layout' m;a^'~~g~~e~t'( ~{II;te'~~r, traffic withlO The \~sh1ei~ll-i~:,d~~ii~~;;~o\ - ~ ....""...:....;; \. '"l- ':J" l......~i..,...'fo:: ' ~ 1.1 i(~"..1' _ "l.......... 1~ "'l~~tf ....,~....-;: \~ ~ ,01. ~ nunumz~}~c'lffipa~ttto'the surroundmg street network ' C~efu.~~n!rQI:of, incoming and outgoing tniffic lanes will be maintamed WIth signage,' pavement - markers, and other visual safety devIces provIded accordmgly As planned, the proposed vehicular entrances to thiS project have been placed at a safe distance eastward of Edgewater Dnve, to a110w safe Ingress and egress to the development 5 1 he proposed development I.'> comfstel/t wIth thc Lommumty character of the ffllmcdw[e VIClluly of the parcel prop05edfo( development Response The scale and use of matenals proposed for The Ashlelgh IS consIstent WIth sImIlar matenals used In well desIgned multl family developments throughout Clearwater The project IS located In a transItional area between resIdential usage to the east and tOUrist use to the west Thus, It IS 'ilgmGcant that The Ashlelgh will Incorporate clay tIle roofing, open and closed balcony ralls, tile Insets and other details whIch are conSistent WIth miSSIon style arcllltecture Developers Intend to attract residents who Will feel part of a largcr commumty context Thus, It IS Important that materials and charactcr of 011$ project provide a sense of commumty for these reSidents 6 The design of the proposed development mlfunmes adverse effects. mcludmg Visual, acoustIc and o!faUOlY and hours of operatIOn Impacts on adjacent propertIeS Response The proposed desIgn IS llltended to create benefiCial effects, mcludlllg posltlve aesthetIC and cultural Impacts withm the ImmedIate area Slllce the proposed use IS attached dweUmgs, reSIdents of The Ashlelgh Will be provided WIth a hVlllg envIronment m close proxImity to both commercIal and recreational dlstncts wlthm north Clearwatcr The applicant antIcIpates only posltlve effects from thIS project " " /" Page 4 December 22,2003 WLth thIs letter, we mclude 12 copies of proposed site plan elevatIOns and other documents reqmred for review by the Department of Development Services Please advLse If there IS additional mformatlon reqUired to make this project suffiCient for DRC heaong scheduled on January 29,2004 Please accept our sincere appreCtatlOn for your contlOumg assistance WIth this project If there is any additIonal mfonnatlon required, please contact thiS office at your convemence SLncerely, Zobelt J Audc, A!A c-c Dan Dennehy Joc Borchcrs Dan Buc.klngham Andrew Caude11 Harry Clme --.:~ -- ~ ~ ~ THE RISE OF CONDO~ De~and t d' h h G d . - ' , u~: ,,\'. ,.'1',' \. ' Times photo-KATHLEEN FLYNN a con os, sue as t e ran e In Sand Key, IS propelled by mterestfrom empty n~s;ers and younger buyers' '" < Condos ,arrive as Housing market extends streak of strong growth Bloomberg News EXlstmg home sales contInued then UPWal d climb III rebruruy, wIth dn espe- cmlly strong "howing m Flonda and the Tampa Bay area as Nollhelners es- caped cold wmtel weather In the Tampa-5t Petersburg-Clear- walel mea, home sales shot up 28 per- cent, WIth 2,561 homes sold last month vel sus 1,993 a yeal ago Florida's ex- Isting home sales 111Cl eased 18 pel cent, lu .16,127 compclred wJth 13,642 111 Feb- ruary 2003 Ndtionvnde, 371.000 11l11Ls changed ownel s last 1110nth, up 7 5 pel cent over the 345,000 homes sold a year ago Resale!:> dllnbed to a 612-rlll1110n annual rate last month from &-mil\1on in Janu- my, the National Assoddtiol1 of Realtcl1 s Said 1ll W dshl1lgton The pace of house pUl chases hRs helel at or exceeded 6- mll\1on f01 eIght months straight , The dccll11c Il1 mortgdge rates last month 1u almost the lowest ever has Please see HOME SALES 6D I investments ! ' . For, the :first time: the median sales price of condominiums surpasses single-family homes. But that could slip, analysts say. . People In the 20-to-35 age bracket are really Jumping Into tHe condo market, lured by the rapId appreciatIon rates, says saleswoman Barbara Izzi of Smith & ASSOCIates, Wall Street Journal A condominium ha7e thafs stletchmg acro"s the country IS resultmg m sharply "There's a demand for condos from the hIgher pnces - and castmg doubt on the '20-to-35-ycm-old market as well as the cmp- , long-held behef that they're a ba'd'lnvest- ty nesters who Ically "'ant to change a ment -' - ~ " hfestyle," sald Barbara ILZI, a saleswoman F01 the first lime sif1ce such numb~ers " wlth 5Imth & Assocmtes 111 Tampa who has were tracked beg1l111lng In the 19805 the', I ecenl1y handled condo sales I angmg Irom median sale's pnce of a condo m'thlU S $219,000 to $~OO,OOO "Young people see exceeded that of a sll1g1e-family home _ n~w constructIOn condos as somethl11g that and rose at a faster pace - 111 the fourth wlil ~ppreclate Iastel than an old house and quartel of 2003 t they re also lookll1g for commumly Thcy're The medlan pI Ice of a condo was really Jumpmg wto the mdrket ' $174,700, up 14 9 pel cent Ilom $152 000 in ^ TI ad ltlOn ally , sl1lgle- fdlTIlly homes have the fourth quartel of 2002, accord 1 ng to 'the I been seen ciS a be~el.long-term wvestment National Assouatron,of Realtors m tel 1115 of appl celatIOn B_ut on a nauondl Demand lMs been fueled by a number of baSIS, condos have actually apprecldted factors A gl oWll1g nym ber qf ~mpty nestel s" . a bOll t ~3 perCel? t slI1ee 2001" com pared With are downsmng [10m houses and cHoosmg - ,15 pel cent for s111gle-famrly homes In some to hve 111 Ul ban centers, condos are often areas, such as Los Angeles, Boston and the most affordable way to buy property in a' Phoel1lx, demdnd - and thus pllces - has CIty Low 111 tel est rates are dnVlI1g younger partrcularly surged In the Los Angelcs- people to buy condominIUms rather than Long Beach mal ket, for example condo rent apartments' And hIgh costs for smgle- Pi lees have soared 79 percent 1fJ the past famIly housing"had pI lced/mdny buXeJ:s out ,three y~ars ofthat n1drKe(U1,1~c.~qt.xe,ar~, f2r~~lg them , Until recently, the plIce advant:?ge of to turn to'Clmdos < '" ...~___:< _____.. _ Please see CONDOS 60 .,' ,. -, "!fQ1'~ rr'- k II \1J] e -, J U~ ------- UlJl APR 0 8 2Q01j PtlW.lNING & Of.:, tLOPMcNT SvC~ CllY OF \,! !: r,PWA 1 ER ...- ---..J CondQ'S frq~ 1D n [J \! condos helped them generate more rapId pnce ga1l1s, says Cella Chen, dIrector of housmg eco- nomICS, at econonllC-1 esearch firm Economy com "Ev}denUy, the strong demand for home O\'\<- net shm IS llfung all boats, but some arc llSll1g h1gher than oth- el s,'! she says Condo,> bUllt in the last few yeals tend to command the high- 'est pnces, says Damela Kunen, managmg dlrectOl at real estdte flrm Douglas Elhman III New York, largely because they are typ- lcally bettel constructed and have touches such as mahogany fin- Ishes, hIgh celimgs ,md marble bathrooms Condus 111 build1l1gs WIth fevvel apallments per floor have also been m high demalld--- And townhouse condos - whICh offel more pnvacy as well as sometimes back yal ds and ga- lages - tend to appreciate more than apartment-style condos Wtllle the median pi Ice for condos SUI passed that of smgle- famlly homes only fO! the final quarter o~ 2003, appl eClation was faster i9\ condos throughout the enUre x"car The median eXlstmg condo :;pnce rose 15 2 percent to $163,800 ,111 2003, the tYPical sm- gle-family resale home pnce rose 75 percent to $170,000 ~ The strong nallOnal pnces may be skewed somewhat by condo- heavy markets, such as New York and Chicago, where condos tend to be more cxpen"lve loWS nut that Ule average condu IS worth more than the average house," says MI- chael Schill, dll ectOl of the Fur- man Center for Real Estate and Urban Pullcy at New York UnlVer- Slty School of Law It's that condos may represent a ldrger shat e of housmg sales in those markets, he exp1ams Indeed, median condu pnces exceeded those of median single- famtly home pI Ices in markets such as the Santa Barbm a, Calif, met! opohtan area and Philadel- phia, but not m most of the 37 metro areas 111 whIch research company Flser~' CSW of Cam- bndge, Mass, tI acks condo pllCCS The NatIOnal Association of Realtors reports that medmn con- do pI Ices rose the most 1I1 the Northeast, ionowed by the West, the South and the Midwest But the fast growth 1S not WIth- out risk fOI buyers who chuose to ll1vest 111 condos Condo develop- ment rose 1I1 the 19705 and 1980s leadmg to ovet bUlldll1g followed by steep dechnes trl value This time around, developer,> are aiJ eady voting WIth their bncks Condo construction stam mCI eased to 86,000 UDltS m 2003, compared with 71,000 umts the yeat before Anothel potential problem IS that condo ownelS, unlike home- owners, have to worry about U1e solvency and behavlOr of their neighbors, says NIcolas Retsmas, dlrcctor of the JOint Center for Housmg Studtes of Harvard Uni- versIty If a few Ulllt owners iall beh1l1d on theIr assoCIation fees or are careless about mall1tenance, the value of the whole complex could 'luCfet Some of the beUel opportuni- bes for potential condo buyers are . r~~ r"'l__ _...~ _~1 tll,.,............_..~ n EJ " ~ome sales ','.~ from 10 Home sa._d" I, ' '. ,~ , Here IS a look al sales of eXisting' \ i, single-famIly homes lapt month" : d' Seasonally adjusted annualized rete : ~~ l I .. J. ~ (I \ l ~ 7 M!/Ilons of umts "6 ~ 1111' ~" - - -, ,,2-m on'- - , j "I' . ~) ~....1.! r ,r \ I ~ ,.... ~ spun ed home buymg, whIch has helped underpm economIC growth the past two, years FreddIe Mac, the No '2 pur- 0 6 chaser of home loans, predict- ed last week, that this,year WIll < 5 be a fourth straight for record sales of 1~t;W and eXlstmg hO!15- es combmed ,,;'~' ' . "It's going to be another real: ly strong year m 2004," Said Jacob Stepan, thief operating offlcel for Cendant Corp's Century 21 Real Estate Corp umt "With the mterest rales as low as th~y are, 1t's allowmg 0 M A M J J A SON O.,J' F, people to 'buy houses that 2003 ',' 2004 weren't able to in the past The Source Natlonal AP. entll e economy 1S on the re- Association of,~~alt?~s",' ':'-- ' bound, and .real es~~te is a key" vem b~r 20G l":N e~ 'chums for component of that Jobless oenefits rose by 1000 " 'The Realtors assoclatlon'wllI, ,,' to 339,000 last _week, clos~ to probably; reVise our fOl ecast die pi evlOUS week's three-year upward agam" flom the 'CUl-, Jow' '. rent proJectlOn that resale" will ' j' ease this year to 5 9-mllhon Lenn$lr Corp, the lal gest ' " from the 2003 record 61-m1l- US homc bUllder by stock Iron, Said ,DaVId Lereah the 'market value, sald last week, group's ch1ef economIst: "It's, that hon1e sales ',ln6reased) 15' Jt, 1 :Jl~~t'" ~ I - ~"".,""'t<tl tl~:;f',.\tl,,<"'-~~;I~'~""'h;"It'l c ear to me~'f.we, Have a very' percen ";111... Ie', lfee"'lllont SI'I,I) c;, favorable "ba6i{drop for hous- -:, endre"d'~'IYeb';- 29' \\Orderslt for 01>.',1" mg," he saId ' , ' ; homes ro_se 30^J)cr~ent;\vhlleWr" ~ Last ,month's ll1crease 'the backlog'ofhouses ordered' , matchcd'"economlsts' esttmate and not -ye~ qehyered' fose"21.;- of a 6 12-nltlhon pace, after J an- percent - ~\ .' < ~ :, , ' ,:",' uary's P1}~~lOllslyreported 6,04- ':; "It's cl~all,"thab low\ht rcst}', 111l1hon, based on'the medmn at rates 'tax~ r c "ft<"I"I""d' '1-' 1 '''J fe""-"a' '~f'~, h10' 58" I -, u s",an "ax ,re un s ,,'~ " es~mates ~n ~ B oomberg helped to 'fu-er'sp\ench'n!(:bY'~-; i,"~: News survey I<or.ecasts ranged households,': Fedela1,Reserve ' fr?m a 58-nlllhon rate to 63- Bimk oU\l1~nfu Bf~sident"Jack' mtlllOD The highest ever was a Guynll "sald'-lIl, a"- speech to stu~'-' l 668-mtlhon annual pace last de'ntS at' East',Tennessee"State~ September U" 'J h "C'- IllVerslty '111' 0 nson 'Ity,,' Tenness'ee' ;,'vVh1le I see no rea- , sCllJ'tb _expect'a sharp falloff III j hOUSing ,and durable' good "'0 ' 'spendlllg tlw3:' year,' F Gan't ':' th111 k we,' d'n expect. to:' ~ee . ,\ 'those sector's :'c.,o'ntllluc1; to~'t " "',; ~r.oWth_ at;'the;:rates; we s'a~L 111 :(,~, ~~" ~' some'quarters',hist"-yea'r "u'::'~r:~ /' .,..... ~"l. ~ L r _ .-;.~! ... ~t'" 1 ~....\.J ...- , !r"'- 1 1'( _ j q J Mortgage rates.",' ':' (\,' ,~ , ' . 1'he a~erage'~30-year~flxed r " .; mortgage late 'eased to 564 ' I percent In February, frpm,? 74':, ", percent the month before, ac-;" cOldmg ,to Freddle',Mac The'; rate was 5 4,percenUhls week , ' , WIth borrOWing costs decline" , mg, more 'Amencans 'are' plan: ' , I1lng to buy a house An mdex /oLhome Quymg plan~ in. the '7, -next SIX months rose to 3 4 " percent last month from 3 3 percent III January,' accordmg' to the New York-based Cortfer- ence Board Freddie Mac Said last week that 11 expects sales of new and eXlslmg houses thl'> year to reach 73-ITIllhon, up from last year'" 7 19-m1Ihon, the highest ever The Mortgage Bankers' ASSOCiation last week raised ItS prOjections for lending thiS year bv 25 percent to $2 5-tril- lion . 4 ~ ~~.. ~ '\ ~ ' I \ \ I WI ~r \:;'1'" ~lJ..r ~~ ~!r~ t..../ ~ t... 't , ' , .\ 3 2 Jan 2004 6 Oo-mllllon Feb 2003 5 79-mllllon Median house price The nabonal median selllllg pI Ice In February was S168,100,.57 percent higher than 10 February 2003, Thurs- day's repOl t Said That com- pates WIth a year-aver-year ga1l1 of 5 3 percent Jl1 J anual)' and as much as 11 8 percent 111 July In Flollda, the median home pnce 111 Februdry, was S162,300, up 13 pel'cent from '$143,400 a year ago ,Iii' the Tampa-St Petersburg-Clearwa- ter area, the median pI Ice was $147,100 compared to $135,100 a year ago, up nearly 9 percent Sales rose 143 percent in the Northeast 10720,000 houses 8t an annual rate, 7 6 percent 111 the Mldwest to 1 27-milhon and 3 1 percent l'n'the We"t to 1 64- million Sales fell 4 2 percent m the South to a 2 49-milhon pace The supply of homes for sale rose to 4 6 months' worth m February from 44 months' worth 111 January, Thursday's rcport Said ' Sales of new homes in Feb- - ruaty unexpectedly rose 58 percent'to a 1163-mllhon annu- al rate, the fastest since Au- gust, the Commerce Depart- ment Said Wedncsday ''We're pi obably gomg to see a new pIckup now that mort- gage rates have fallen dgall1 and the weather IS gett1l1g bet- ter," said Henry Willmore, chIef U S economist for Bar- clays Capltallnc 10 New York, before the report HOUS111g "Will grow along With other 1l1- ... .. . ~ t Job market Lereah ~ald the Job marke~s weakness makes It unhkely that the Federal Reserve WIll ralse intel est rates soon The U S economy has generated an average of 69,000 new jobs \ q a~r:-..I t::.d!f' WMer r- t \ > , " I WEDNESDAY. APRil 21,2004;-- 1 -- ---~~- --~ - - --~- - ---~.----~------ - 1 J , Condo, project . given 90 days . Most Community Development Board members agree that 75 feet is too tall, but the developer gets more time to fine-tune the project BV MEGAN SCOTT Times Stafl Writ". CLEARWATER - The developer of a proposed 75-foot-high condommium on the east sIde of Edge- water Dnve IS gOlllg back to the 'drawlOg board for the second tlme After a three-hour hearing on Tuesday, Top Fhght Devel- opment was granted 90 days to reVIse a proposal to build the L- shaped con. dommlUm on the sIte of the eXIsting Bay Queen and Edgewater motels The decision came after several board members and reSidents VOiced concerns over the height ~ ,-, -;:" '~1' r""''''''''~'"''-~-- =p'-j , ' _, lrq- - 'J "~ , bw Granada 5t ~ ' I \ ~ f:7"f"A: -"'t1 - J ~ ~ !~r:;:posedj- ~;"-: CQarlas1 ~I ~~~ f t r ru lilt ,I ;'0'.P '11 ~ 19 _u\, r condos ~~,_ =~e'{a_S!_- ,Ill v "I' ,'I ~ ~,' ': :;:;ij, If ,,_ .5unflydale Dr ~ 1, 'Clelirwal6r , ,., '<~ ' 11 ~ " Harbor ~ !~-'';:h$Sunset Po hi 10 ~ ~ ,fV ~~~~ r~"',)~- ~1f~'" ~ .... t r(" J5f:_t" / (' ",.FMjU10, >> 1 ^ ! ~"15 j;;;Stavansons ~~'<i' I' 'r I ~,1f~~~ ~r':F::;' _Creek .-' \;\\\\ : ,: =1;;/. ~. ~"1 I, --- oj / ~~ H:! 1 '\ ~~t 1 /'~ 1l 1S]~Y~~ ~L_~_ ~ 'L~' f: ~ f ;-'\~ 4t~ illj ,.- ;~ ;1i '\ ".: d(' vll it ~.:.. _ iALr::-..:-J. --.~~~L y .J.~~ '..-..L!L \\ Source ESRI, GDT Times mllp "TIllS IS not a defeat," saId Dan Dennehy, who owns the motels and IS a pnnclpal With Top Flight Development "IJust hope that our profeSSIOnals are given the approprIate amount of time to come back WIth somethmg'that is more sensitive Ultimately what gets bUIlt WIll be the best thlllg " I It was, the second orne reSidents packed the r.; council chambers for a Community Development Board hearing The board granted the developers a contllluance last month so they could revise the plan Developers used the month to make changes such as a 6-foot-high bamer wall from Sunnyda1e Dnve to Sunset POlllt Road, Illcreaslllg parklllg from 1 5 to 1 7 spaces per Ulllt and maklllg an openmg off the Sunnydale Dnve entrance only, They even staIr-stepped the bUlldmg so all of It wouldn't be 75-feet high Please see CONDO Page 4 -~- - - -~ -- -- --~ -- -~- ~- Condo from Page 1 On Tuesday, Rick Porraro btood outside Clearwater City Hall With a bag of fans m one hand and a bunch of white T-shirts draped over hIS arm Both the fans and T-shirts bore the face of a smiling sun holdmg a sIgn that read "No Tall Condosl" ReSidents waited more than an hour to speak, some c1applllg and [, cheenng when board members questIOned the architect about the - proposed development Some were so fired up that Chairman Ed Hooper had to stop the heanng to ask them to qUIet theIr outbursts, When it came tIme for them to have theIr say, they lmed up ''The proposed buildmg's sole purpose IS to place more reSidents stacked atop each other overlook- mg the water to maxml1ze profits to the tranSItional developer," said Jason Kuehn, a member of the reSIdents' Edgewater Preservation Project ''That's at the expense of all the eXlstmg families already Iivmg m the neighborhood" The motels arc III a tourism dIstrIct where the heIght of build- lllgS IS limited to 35 feet Develop- ers can seek permISSIOn from the planlllng department to budd at 50 feet A shorter butldmg, however, would mean that large oak trees estunated to be more than 100 years old would have to be cut down III order to mallltam the complex at 77 UllltS Most of the reSIdents said they want to see some kind of develop- ment on Edgewater' But they are concerned about the mcrease in traffic, loss of privacy and nOIse that such a tall butldmg would generate They also complam that the condomllllUm would block their views of the water and hmlt theIr sunsets "I feel it is too hIgh and entire- ly too large for our neIghbor- hood," said Velma Andrews, who has been a reSIdent smce the 1970s "It WIll only be a short tJ.me before Edgewater Dnve IS another Sand Key" In the end, most of the board " agreed WIth the reSIdents The I building was too tall 1 But before a vote could be taken, developers I cquested more , tIme to revise the plan "} would like to see a condo- mimum development in that loca- tion," satd ShIrley Moran, a com-l mUllIty development board mem- " ber "I thmk it would tJ.e m with the I neighborhood But I helve a prob- I lem WIth the height } thmk It'S out I of character for the area" At least two board members were III support uf the proposed I condominium because it is more aestheocally pleasmg than a flat, 1 box-shaped condommium I And there were reSIdents pres- ent who supported the plan I One woman held so) much to l say that when the buzzer rang I Signaling the end of her three ,minutes, she asked if she could I have her husband's three nl1nutes, Her husband was not present at I the hearing' I "I would much rather have per- I manent residents than to have I tranSient reSIdents," said Janet 'Gray, an Edgewatcr reSIdent 'The way the plan IS mamtams some of the natural beauty of the area " Mary Kate Belniak conSidered the contJ.nuance a mmor VlctOry She saId her orgamzation Will con- tlllue meeting over the next 90 days "We haven't been discredited completely," she satd ''We would have hked them 10 say no all the way around We're Willing to look at the revised plan' I Dennehy IS unsure what kina I of change~ the archIteet will makel to the plan The complex is a mIX of Londo U111tS and a couple ofl townhomes that WIll stati around'l $450,000 He says support for the project will only mcrease, ; ~'The responSibIlity of thisl board is to maKe sure the best, ,bUlldmgs 'get built m the CIty o/i Clearwater," he said "Ultimatel~ that's what WIll happen" I I -1 r' _____--J , . MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMuLLEN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW '501 50UTH FLORIDA A\lE:NUE: LAKE:LAND FLORIDA 33801 (863) 680 9908 FA)( 18631 683 2849 400 NORTH TAMPA sn'E:E:Y SUIYE: 2300 PO 90X 1531 (ZIP 336011 TAMPA FLORIDA 33S02 (813) 273 4200 FAX (8'3) 273 ..396 625 COURY 5TREE:T POBOX 166S (ZIP 33757) CLEARWATER FLORIDA 33756 (727) ...., 8966 FAX 17271 442.13470 (N REPLY REFER TO Clearwater February 5, 2004 Mr Michael Reynolds, AICP Senior Planner CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Dept Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33757-4748 VIA HAND DELIVERY Re 1925 Edgewater Dnve, The Ashleigh FLD 2003-09050 Dear MIke Forwarded herewith please find fifteen (15) copIes of our response to the cntena [rom Scctlon 2-803 (B), Attached DwellIngs Mr Aude wIll be filing separately the other requested Items Thank you for your assistance to date and If you need anythmg fUlther at thiS time, please give me, or Mr Aude, a calt Smcerely yours, HSC koh Enclosures ~ ee Top Fllght Development, LLC w/enc [Attn Mr Damel Dennehy and Mr Joseph H Borchers} Aude, Shand and Wll1Jams [Attn Mr Bob Aude} D-Mar General Contractmg and Development, Ine w/ene [Attn Mr Andrew J Caudell} h \data\aty\hsL \wrresp '04\reynolds 205 doc 1925 EDGEW A TER DRIVE FLD # 2003-09050 FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR LEVEL 2 COMPREHENSIVE INFILL - TOURIST DISTRICT I SECTION 2-803 B. B. Attached Dwellings 1. Lot area and width: The reduction in lot area will not result In a buildmg which is out of scale with existing buildings in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The Ashlelgh Project conforms wuh patterns of emergmg development along Edgewater Dnve wuhm recent years Wlthm this area, new motel and condommlUm projects have been developed, such as a Comfort inn [unmedwtely adjacent) and Vdla del Mar condominIUms 2. Location: The use of the parcel proposed for development will not involve direct access to an arterial street. No access IS projected on Edgewater Dnve, at the present llme there are multIple access pOints that wIll be removed 3. Height: (a) The increased height results in an improved site plan or improved design and appearance. (b) The increased height is necessary to allow the improvement ot off- street parking on the ground floor of the residential buildmg. Height o/the buddmg IS Intended to allow strong buffermg between resIdential properties to the east, and to preserve and protect mature oak trees to the south and east 4. Setbacks: (a) Th~ reduction in front setback contributes to a more active and dynamic street life. (b) Thl reduction in front setback results in an improved site plan or improved design and appearance. (c) The reduction in side and rear setback does not prevent access to the rear of any building by emergency vehicles. (d) The reduction in side and rear setback results m an improved site plan, more efficient parking or improved design and appearance. The only setback requested IS along Sunnydale Dnve, to allow balcony support columns at 17 'from the property line where the code callsfor a 25' setback These columns allow for porches or balcomes to enhance the exterIOr of the bUlldmg 5. Off-Street Parking: (a) The physical characterIstics of a proposed bUlldmg are such that the lIkely uses of the property will reqUire fewer parking spaces per floor area than otherwise required or that the use of significant portIOns of the bulldmg for storage or other non-parking demand-generating purposes or that the nature of the mdividual dwelling units and their location is lIkely to lead to dependency on non-automobile modes of transportation. (b) Off-street parking within the footprint of the residential buildmg is designed and constructed to create a street level fal;ade comparable to the architectural charter and fiDlshes of a residential bUlldmg without parking on the ground level. The layout and arrangement of mtenor traffic WIthm The Ashlelgh IS deSIgned to mlmmIze traffic Impact the surroundll1g street network Careful control of mcomll1g and outgoll1g traffic lanes will be mmntamed WIth slgnage, pavement markers, and other Visual safety deVIces prOVIded accordmgly as planned The proposed vehIcular entrances to thiS project have been placed at a safe distance eastward of Edgewater Dnve to allow safe mgress and egress to the developmelU 6. The design of all buildings complies with the Tourist DistrIct design guidelines in Division 5 of Article 3. The proposed deSIgn IS Intended to create benefiCIal effects, mcludmg pOSItive aesthetIC and cultural Impacts wuhm the ImmedIate area The scale and use of matenals proposed IS consistent WIth Similar matenals used and well deSigned III multIfamdy developments throughout Clearwater The project IS located m a translllOnal area between ReSidentIal usage to the east, and TOUrist use to the west Thus, illS sIgmficant that The Ashlelgh wlilmcorporate clay ttie roofing, open and closed balcony rads, tde msets and other detmls WhICh are consistent wah mlsslOn-style architecture h \Jatalatylhsc\docs\topfllght2-803b doc . FEB-04-2004 11 39 p 0J..r05 TOP FLIGHT DEVELOPMENT. LLC FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR LEVEL 2 COMPREHENSIVE INFILL - TOURIST DISTRICT I SECTlON 2-803 The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise Impractical with out deviations from the us, intensity and development standards Appftcant seeks a Level 2 approval of a Comprehensive lnfi/l for redevelopment 6" f(JA A- of pr'opertles located north and ease of the mtersectlOn of Edgewater Dnve ..-.. ~/ ?f1'O'l {Alternate 19J and Sunset Pomt Road The request 15 to approve heIght up t~ feet wherem a Level 2 FleXible Development Height can be approved for at/ached dwellings from 35 feet to a maximum of 100 feet, and fO approve mstallatlOn of balcony support columns wlthm (he seibacks on Sunnydale Drive 17 feel from (he property lme where the code calls for a 25 foot frontyard setback Applicant submits If meets the crtterta for Comprehensive InFdl redevelopment prOjects The redevelopmeni of (he parcels IS otherwlSe economtcally Impractical wlthow the requested devratlOn Specimen oak trees are located on the slie whIch 10 be effectIVely protected reqUlres vertical constructIOn to leave suffiCIent area to protect the eXIsting trees Addltwnally, lhe property r$ SItuated on an arterral road and COTlllguous to an exlstlngfillmg statton / convement store, and (he vertical constructwn WIll proVide Isolation from these adverse Impacts and af/ow a reasonable use of the properly 2 The development of the parcel proposed for development as a Comprehensive Inml Redevelopment Project will not reduce tbe fair market value of abuttIng properties The redevelopment should not have any negative Impacts on the fatr market value of abutting propertIes The present uses consist of smaf/ motel operatIons involVIng some 36 unlts. and 9 rental apartments 3 The uses within the comprehensive iafiJl redevelopment project are otherwise pennitted in the City of Clearwater. Attached dwellmgs are permItted wlthm the Tormst Dlstnct lfl the CIty of Clearwater '1 , 1---r FEB-04-2004 11 40 P 04/05 4 Tbe ll~ or mix of uses withm the comprebensive infill redevelopment project are compatible witb adjacent land uses The proposed uses, being eaher townhomes or condommlums, are compattble wIth adjacent land wes The property ro the nonn being a motel facIlity, to the west smgle{amily resldenttal {wllh land uses of Rcmdentla/ Median and Residential Urban} 5 Suitable sites for development of the use&: or mix of uses witbin the comprebensive infill redevelopment project are not othen\'ise available in the City of Clearwater. At the present rIme there an~ not SUitable Sites for thtS type of development or redevelopment wuhm ihe nonJrwestern sector of the CIty ofCleatwater, and thLS project with other construe/ton If! the Immediate area should establish a pattern of development on At/emate 19 eXlendmg from the center of the City to the Sunset Poml Road wtersectlOn 6 The development of the parcel proposed ror development 9S 9 comprebenslVe tofUl redevelopment project will upcrade tbe lmmediate vlcinkty or the parcel proposed for development, The redevelopment does represent an upgrade The exlstlng/acilllles are out of date/rom an operatIOn as well as a constructIOn standpOint 7 The deSign of the proposed comprehensive ioml redevelopment project crea tes a form and fUD ction which enhances tb e community cb arader of tbe immediate vicinity oftbe parcel proposed ror development and the City of Clearwater 85 a whole, Thermal deSign Dlthe redevelopment project wIll creale an enhancement to the Monhern access mto tM Cuy a/Clearwater and should encourage other redevelopment along tfllS corridor extendmg mro the Cay center 8. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, beight and off-street parking are justified by tbe benefits to community character and tbe Immediate vjdnity oftbe parcel proposed fOI" development and tbe Ctty of Clearwater 35 a wbole. Fle:xlblllty Ul regard to the helghllf Juslfjied by benefits to the commuMlty characier, as well as provldmg some open space and landscapmg to protect lhe speCimen oak trees on-sHe '1 r '~ .FES-04-2004 11:40 P.l35/r;lS 9 Adequate off-street parJdng in the immediate vlciuity according to the shared parktog formula ID Division 14 of ArtIcle 3 will be available to avoid ODa street parking In the Immediate vicinity of the pan:el proposed for development All required parking will be onasite, 1I.\d....\J.~\wpfb~mp.a1t.6oe i- )- '1- TOTAL P 135 'I- ! Reynolds. Mike From. Sent: To Cc: Subject: Reynolds, MIke Thursday, February 05,2004843 AM 'hsc@clw macfar com', 'raude@audeshand com' Gerlock, ChIp, RIce, Scott FW FLD2003-09050 - 1925 Edgewater To Harry S Cline, Esq Robert J Aude, AlA Mr Chne and Mr Aude, I am fOlwardlng the attached e-maIl to you Please call me wIth any questions Mike Reynolds, AICP SenIor Planner CIty of Clearwater Planlllng Department Tel # 727-562-4836 mIke reynolds@MyClearwatercom -----Onglnal Message----- From: Rice, Scott Sent: Wednesday, February 04,2004 3 24 PM To: Reynolds, Mike Cc Melone, Donald Subject FlD2003-090S0 - 1925 Edgewater MIke Per our dIScUSSIon on the addItIonal ROW request for the subject application, comment a) under General Englneenng has been revIsed to "Grant 1 O-foot sIdewalk, drainage and utlhty easement along frontage of Edgewater Dnve" ThIs reVISion has been made In PermIt Plan Let me know If you have any questIons Scott Rice Land Devel. Engr. Manager 727..562-4781 srice@clearwater-fl.com 1 Reynolds, Mike From Sent To: Cc. Subject: Reynolds, MIke Wednesday, February 04,2004904 AM 'hsc@clw macfar com', 'raude@audeshand com' Gerlock, ChIp FLD2003-09050, 1925 Edgewater Drive, The Ashlelgh - Proposed 77 Resldentlal Dwelling UnIts To Harry S Cline, Esq Robert J Aude, AlA Mr Cline and Mr Aude, At last week's Development RevIew CommIttee meetIng, I saId that I would look at your September 2003 submIttal to see If my comment (# 5 a 111 the DRC ActIon Agenda Address (respond to) the fleXIbIlIty criteria as specIfIed In SectIon 2-803 B of the CIty of Clearwater CommunIty Development Code (See page 2 of the applicatIon form) ) was already addressed What you submItted 111 September was a response to fleXIbIlity criteria for comprehensIVe Inflll redevelopment projects The Criteria that needs to be addressed IS on page CD2 74 of the Community Development Code (Sectlon 2-803 B Attached dwellings) ThIS section IS qUIte brief Please let me know If you have any questIons MIke Reynolds, AICP Senior Planner CIty of Clearwater PlannIng Department Tel # 727-562-4836 mIke reynolds@MyClearwater com 1 Reynolds, Mike From: Sent: To' Cc: Subject Reynolds, MIke Thursday, January 22,2004253 PM 'hsc@clw macfar com', 'raude@audeshand com' Gerlock, ChIp FLD2003-09050, 1925 Edgewater Drive, The Ashlelgh - Proposed 77 ReSldentlal Dwelling UnIts To Harry S ClIne, Esq Robert J Aude, AlA Mr Cline and Mr Aude, Reference to my letter dated January 6,2004 to Mr Cline Item 2 The prOVIsIon of signatures on page 5 of the appllcatlon form receIved by the City on December 24,2003 IS no longer necessary, as sIgnatures were proVIded on your applIcatIon form receIved by the CIty on September 25,2003 As soon as we receIve the tree Inventory, It can be reviewed by CIty of Clearwater Land Resource SpeCIalIst RIck Albee I WIll e-maIl a prelIminary copy of the Development RevIew Committee Action agenda, whIch Will contain staff comments, by Monday, January 26,2004 Your applIcatIon IS scheduled to be revIewed by the Development RevIew Committee on Thursday, January 29,2004 at 305 pm Please let me know If you have any questIons MIke Reynolds, AIC? SenIor Planner CIty of Clearwater PlannIng Department Tel # 727-562-4836 mIke reynolds@MyClearwatercom 1 ). . --"- ~ ~ 1-p)1J!ll;QQQ-#;. e~~~LOF 'Hi: "'Q \~~'_\ ~,'''V''j''",,;e'J~~... 11, C"'\.. ~....- .. Ill~" '" ollc..:ii:~,\II/ p ~ ~ ':. flle'3~ ' --=:[.... ~I!'""':; - ~ Q~ ..irfl>'":. ~ ~~~ .. ~-- . ...~ -.... ,,~, ...... '!f.--"'EJ""~~"I\ ................~rE~,tl11.e -<<'IDlfJ1~ CITY OF CLEARWATER PmT OFFlCF Box 4748, CI b~RWATFR, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYR11.E AVFNUE, CU,.ARWAl ER, FLORIDA 33756 fELFPHONh (}27) 562-4800 FAX (727) 562-4825 PARKS AND fuCREATION DFPARTMFNT January 22,2004 Mr Harry S Chne, EsqUIre 625 Court St , SUIte 200 Clearwater, FL 33756 Re The Ashlelgh, FLD2003-09050, 1925 Edgewater Dr Dear Mr Chne Accordmg to the current RecreatIon and Open Space Land DedIeatlOn Ordmance, the above referenced project WIll be reqmred to satIsfy the Open Space, RecreatIon Land and ReereatlOn FacIlitIes dedlcatlOn reqUIrement pnor to Issuance of any bmldmg permIts or final plat (If applicable), whIchever occurs first In ordcr to determme the amount owed, the developer or representatIve should complete the top portion of the attached form and return It to the CIty of Clearwater Parks and RecreatIOn Department with venficatlOn of the Just value for the land only accordIng to the CUrrent year's property tax assessment Please note, thIS dedIcatIOn reqUIrement could be a substantIal amount and an impact to your project Therefore, you're encouraged to contact me at (727) 562-4817 as soon as possIble to estImate the assessment and to answer any questIons Smcerely, 1:L~1 t'J', t~, /Z~. (JL-tc", Deborah W Richter Management Analyst f[S)!C" - lJ\SLc, '-"') ='1 'I ':::::::::,L....1 Attachment Open Spaee/RecreatIon Impact Worksheet JA>.I~ ~J -) LUU4 cc Art Kader, AssIstant Parks & RecreatIOn Director Frank Gerlock, Planmng Manager MIkc Reynolds, Senior Planner ~Ll;,D, "\ IC~~ --"\ "~'\'T - - ~ , ," ~-'11 _ J ~ ..J~ BRIM J AUNG<;T, MAYOR CmlMI"~IOMR Hon H^~tIITOI\, Vln M.\\OR-(OMMI,,"IONI R \V~II1NEY GRAY CO\lW,SIO;>.tR rfV\NK H[ljIIARD, COMMl'SIONtR @ Bill JON~O\, COW'U""IUMR "[QU ~I F M PI GYM I N I ANll Al 1 IRMA IIVI AC1IO~1 [\WI OYER" vi- '1 1 I I I 1 ~ " .r '-- , ~\. ..../ ~ FAX COVER MEMO , " , \ >" ' , .' CITY OF CLEA'RWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 s. MYRT~E AVE., 2nd Floor CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 > - , , I 1 \., -,\ TO: /fturj/y J:, cl//lce" &v:fv//-e- tr]/;J.- rf'L/7o FAX: Phone: - FROM: /111,t'e l?eyJ"LO Ie/v Phone: cS62 - tf eP.7t / - 7 - () tf SUBJECT: ~() 2-0 () J- & 1os-o / ~ ~r ~..4/ /.//'?v.e DATE: /J/M C/ ~tr'.e./0 04' <J: / tJ -fJ7VA/< f'htt'- I , ! I I l] I , NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) J r I , , ! I I I I J I * .......~ , - ,'1 TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT I' TIME 81/81/2884 18'84 NAME PLAN FAX 1275524575 TEL 7275524567 DATE, TIME FAX NO INAME DURATION PAGE(S) RESULT MODE 81/1217 18.83 '34428478 80 01 29 1213 OK STANDARD ECM '- CITY OF CLEARWATER loNG RANGE Pl.ANNING DEVELOPMENT REviEW PIANNING DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLEARWATER, FWRlDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTIE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FIORlDA 33756 TELEPHONE (27) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562.4576 January 6, 2004 Mr Harry S Chne, Esq 625 Court Street, SUite 200 Clearwater, FL 33766 RE FLD2003-09050, 1925 Edgewater Dnve Dear Mr Chne The Planmng staff has revIewed your applIcation for FleXIble Development approval to pe1TIl1t a reductIon of the front yard setback on Sunnydale Dnve from 25 feet to 17 feet to allow balcony support, an mcrease of bUIldmg heIght to 75 feet from base flood elevatIOn of 13 feet MSL (wIth heIght calculated to the mldpomt of the roof slope) With appurtenances extendmg 16 feet above the 75 feet (as mdlcated on the elevatIon plans), under the proVIsIOns of SectIon 2-803 B at 1925 Edgewater Dove After a prehnunary reVIew of the submitted documents, staff has determmed that the applIcatIon IS complete, but wIth the followmg submissIOns or revISIOns necessary 1 Address (respond to) the fleXIbIlIty cntena as specIfIed In SectIOn 2-803 B of the CIty of Clearwater Commumty Development Code (See page 2 of the applIcatIon form) 2 Complete pages 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the applIcatIOn form, mcludmg provIsIOn of SIgnatures 3 ProvIde an mdex to the site plan set 4 Show vISIbilIty tnangles on the SIte plan 5 Label any easements on the SIte plan 6 Label WIth rumensIOnal arrows the setback dIstance at the southwest comer of the lot 7 Indicate WIth dimenSIOnal arrows the WIdth of the SIdewalks 8 Label all outdoor hghtmg 9 ProvIde color bUlldmg elevatIOns 10 lnrucate on the SIte plan the location of any proposed slgnage 11 For any vehIcular use areas not under the bUIldmg, show by shadmg or crosshatchmg all reqUired parkmg lot mtenor landscaped areas proposed 12 Address the Stormwater Plan subnuttal reqUIrements (see page 4 of the applIcatIOn form) The Development ReVIew Conumttee WIll review the apphcatlOn for suffiCIency on January 29, 2004, 10 the Planmng Department conference room - Room 216 - on the second floor of the MUnICIpal ServIces BUlldmg, 100 South Myrtle Avenue, m Clearwater Please eall Sheme NIcodemus at 562-4582 no earlier than one week poor to the meetmg date for the approxImate tIme BRIAN J AUNGS1, MAYOR-COMMIS,IONER IIOIT H.AMII TON, VI( F MAYOR-COMMISSIONER WHITNEY GRAY, COMMIS~IONFR FRANK HlI:IlJARD, COMMISSIONFR * Bill jON,ON, COM~l1SSI0NER "EQUAL EMI'LUYMI N rAND AflIRM-\1IV!,. Ac liON EMPIOYrR" Harry S Chne, Esq January 6,2003 Page 2 that your case will be revIewed You or a representative must be present to answer any questions that the comrmttee may have regardmg your apphcatIon Both the above stated comments and the DRC meetmg comments must be addressed and any reVlSlons submitted to the Planmng Department by February 5, 2004 no later than 12 noon (provIde 15 coptes of all submIttals, whIch mclude all plan set matenals) If you have any questIOns, please do not heSitate to call me at 727-562-4836 zomng mformatIon for parcels wIthm the CIty through W ww ill vc learwater corn! gov I depts/p lann 1 n g. You can access our websIte Smcerely, ht(.~ 1"/. ~ Michael H Reynolds, AICP Semor Planner S \Planntng Depanmenf\C D l!\FLEXlPendmg cmei\Up fOT the next DR(),Edgewater 1925 Top Fl<ghl Development (Tf',Edgewaler 1925 Complele Lefter doc (/ I l/ ~' ~ j ~ J ~ ~ ~ , - olfLk hL- . E p/ SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (Code Section 4-202 A) SIGNED AND SEAlED SURVEY (mcludlng legal descnptlon of property) - Ona orIginal and 12 copies a TREE SURVEY (Including eXisting trees on slle and WIthin 25' of the adjacent slle, by species, size (DBH 4" or greater), and location Includmg dnp lines and mdlcallng trees to be removed) v ;< LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY, PARKING DEM/,'J'lD ,RWD:( In conjlJ[I~lon wrth a request to make deViatIOns 10 the parkIng standards Oe Reduce number of spaces) Prior to the submittal of thIs application, the methodology of such study shall be approved by the Commumty Development Coordmator and shall be in aooo~nCe y..lt~ a~pted,tra~c englneenng pmlclples The findmgs of the study WIll be used)n determlplng Whether or not devlallons to the parldng standard s are approved, ~ ' J - ) ";. -......1 {: ~ ~) ... fIif' ~ GRADING PlAt:I, as lilPpllca~I~, , /- PRELIMINARY PL.AT, as requued (Nota BUIlding penmts WIll not be Issued unbl evidence of recording a'final plat Is provided), COpy OF RECORDED PLAT, as applicable, F SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (Code SectIon 4-202 A) ~ITE PLAN With the folloWing Informabon (rmt to ellceed 24" Il 36") All dimensions North arrow; ~ Englneenng bar scale (mmlmum scale one lOch equals 50 feet) and dale prepared, LocatlOfl map Indell sheet referencmg IndiVidual sheets Included In package Footpnnl and size of all EXISTING bUildIngs and structllres -V Footprint and size of all PROPOSED buildIngs and slructures ~ All reqC'lred selbacks V All elllstlng and proposed pOInts of access, V All reQ~lred slghttnangles, Idenllficallon of environmentally unique areas such as watercourses, wetlands, tree masses and specimen trees, Including descnptlon and localion of understOl)' ground cover vegetation and WIldlife habItats etc, LocatIon of all pubhc and pnvale easemerlts Location of all street rights-of way WithIn and adjacent to the site LocatiOn of eXlsllng public and private utllliles including fire hydrants storm and sarulary sewer lInes, manholes and lift StationS, gas and water lines, All parking spaces, dnveways loading areas and vehicular use areas, DepIction by shading or crosshatching 01 all reqUired parking lotlntenor landscaped areas, Location of all saM waste containers, recycling or lrash handling areas and outSide mechafllcal eqUipment and all reqUired screenmg (per Seellon 3-201(0)(1) and Indell #701} ~ Localion of all landscape matenal, Locallon of all onslte and offslle storm water management faCilities ~ / Location 01 all ouldoor lighting fixtures, and ~ Location of all eXlsbng and proposed Sidewalks <? ~ o ~TE DATA TABLE for elllstlng, reqUired, and proposed development In wntlenftabular form ~/ land area In square feet and acres, ~ ./ Number of EXISTING dweJling units, ~ Number of PROPOSED dwellmg units, _ Gross floor area devoted \0 each use, -V- Parkmg spaces total number, presented III tabular form With the number of required spaces, Total paved area Including all paved parkIng spaces and dnveways expressed Ifl square feet and percentage of the paved vehIcular area Size and species of all landscape matenal OffiCIal records book and page numbers of all eXlsllng utIlIty easement BUilding and slructure heights, Impermeable surface raba (I S R ), and Floor area ratio (F A R ) for aU nonresidential uses ~ REDUCED SITE PLAN to scale (8 Yo X 11) and color rendenng If pOSSible <5> ~ o FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE prOVide the follOWing add Illonallnformatlon on Slle plan One-Iool contours or spot elevatIons on srte, QffSlte elevatIons If reqUired to evaluate the proposed stormwater management for the parcel All open space areas, Location of aU earth or water retaining walts and earth berms Lot lines and bUlldmg hnes (dimenSioned) Streets and dnves (dImenSioned) BUilding and structural setbacks (dimenSioned) Structural overhangs Tree Inventory prepared by a .certlfled arbonst" of atltrees 8" DSH or greater reflectIng SIze, canopy (dnp hnes) and condlllon 01 such lrees Page 3 of 6 _ Flexible Development Application - CIty of Clearwater / / // , , ;? G STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (City of Clearwater Design Criteria Manual and 4~202 A 21) Cl STORMWATER PlAN including the follOWing reqUirements ExIsting topog ra phy extend Ing 50 feet btiyond all prope rty Imes. Proposed gradmg Including fimshed floor elevations of all slructures, All adjacent streets and mUnicipal storm systems, Proposed slormwater detentumlretenllon area mdudlng top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure, Stormwater calculations for attenuatIOn and water quality, , S_lgr;lature of,Florlda.r~lstered ProfesSional Engmeer on all plans end calcuJaIlO,ns , I~ C<:" ~, ??- ".; "'- ..t 1~(' :J...~ ~ "I .. -...... y.... ?" o(O'} ~ ,coPy Of'PERMIT-INQUIRY LETTER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (Sy..rFWMD) PERMIT SUBMITTAL (SWFWMD approval Is required pnor 10 Issuance of City BUilding Permrt), If appllcable,. ." - ~ ..... ~... ~ I . J ~ ~ , .., ... \ t COpy OF STATE AND COUNTY STORMWATER SYSTEM TIE-IN PERMIT APPLICATIONS, Ifapphcabla a a H ~ LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. (Section 4-1102 A) LANDSCAPE PLAN All eXlslmg am! proposed structures Names of abutllng slreets Dramage and relenllon areas mcludlng swales Side slopes and bottom elevallons, Delmeatlon and dimensions of all requ.red perimeter landscape buffers, Sight vlslblllly triangles, Dehneatlon and dimenSions of all parkmg areas Including landscapmg Islands and curbing Proposed and required parkmg spaces EXlsling trees on-site and Immediately adjacent 10 the slle by species size and locallons Including drrpline Location Size, descnpllon speclficatlo!1S and quantities of all eXisting and proposed landscape matenals, including botanical and common names, Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cOl/er plants Includmg Instructions sorl mixes, backfilling, mulchmg and protective measures, Intenor landscaping areas hatched and/or shaded and la beled and Intenor landscape coverage expresSing In bOlh square feet and percentage covered, Condlllons of a prevIous development approval (e g conditions Imposed by !he Community Development Board) Irngatlon notes fl REDUCED LANDSCAPE PLAN 10 scale (8 y, X 11) (color rendenng If pOSSible) o IRRIGATION PLAN (reqUired for level two and three approval) o COMPREHENSNE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application as applicable /0 (,;: if BUILDING ELEVATION PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (Section 4-202 A 23) ReqUired m the evenl the application mcludes a development where deslgfl standards are mlssue (e g TOUrist and Downtown Dlstncts) or as part of a ComprehenSive Infill Redevelopment Prolect or a Resldentlallnfill Project BUILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS - all Sides of all buildings Includmg height dlmensle9d matenals REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATIONS - four Sides of bUlldmg wllh colors and matenals to scale (8 Y; X 11) (black and white and color refldenng If pOSSible) as reqUired o SIGNAGE (DIVISIOn 19 SIGNS I Section 3-1806) All EXISTING freestandmg and attached signs ProVide photographs and dlmenSIOl1S {area, height, etc) Indicate whether they Will be removed or to remain Cl All PROPOSED freestanding and attached signs ProVide details mcludmg locatron, SIZe, height colors, matenals and draWing o ComprehenSive Sign Program appllca\lon as applicable (separate applicat<on and fee requued) Cl Reduced Slgnage proposal (8 y, X 11) (oolor) If submitting ComprehenSive Sign Program application Page 4 of 6 - FleXible Development Application - City of Clearwaler J J ' " . .. II 1/ ~ I K TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY (Section 4-801 C) Cl Include as required If proposed development will degrade the acceptable level of service lor any roadway as adopted In the Comprehensive Plan Tnp generatIOn shall be based on the mosl recent editIOn of the lnstrtute of TransportaMn Engineer's Tnp General Manual Refer to Section 4-801 C olthe Communlly Development Code for exceptions to this requirement L SIGNATURE I, the undersIgned, ecl<nowledge that all representations made In thiS application are \rue end accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize City representatives to VISit and photograph Ihe property d eSC[lood In thiS application STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Sworn to end subscnbed befora me thiS _ day 01 AD 20_ to me and/or by , who IS personally known has produced as IdenbflcatlOn Signature of property owner or representative Notary pubhc My commiSSion expires Page 5 of 6 _ FleXible Development Application - City of Clearwater ,.. .... AUDE, S. AND & WILLIAMS,()JC. AlA ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE RECE~VED pf..:r 2 fl tuU.1 December 22, 2003 PLANi41NG DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Mr Frank "Chip" Gerlock Development Review Manager Department of Development Services CIty of Clearwater ORIGINAL Re Apphcatlon Submittal THE ASHLEIGH FLD2003-090S0 lop Fhght Development LLC 1925 Edgewater Dnve Clearwater, Flonda Dear ChIp With thiS letter, we transmIt a completed apphcatton and supportmg documents for a proposed 77 umt condommlUm residence located at 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Clearwater, FL You may regard thiS transmittal a!:. amended apphcatJon for Case No FLD2003- 09050 WhICh was filed 10 September 2003 by the developer's agent, Mr Harry Chne The proposed development IS located in north Clearwater wlthm a Tounst dlstnct SubJect property IS 2 57 acres within the eXIsting 10catlOn of the Bay Queen and Edgewater Tnn whIch together, compnse 48 UllltS As you recall, we met with Gma Clayton and the Developer on September 26,2003 to dlswss an amended apphcatlOn for thIS project To support that diSCUSSIon, we proVIde the following narrative which appears under SectIOn D of fleXIbilIty cntena Please accept responses proVIded to satisfy the reqUirements of SectIon D on the followmg pages ROBERT J AUDE AlA #6359 ARTHUR C SHAND IIDA #0003509 OONALD 5 VV1LLIAI1S FAJA /957-/994 AUDE, SHAND & WilLIAMS, INC FLORIDA CORPORATION AA0002587 ARBOR SHORfUNE OFFICE PARK 19353 US H\NY 19 NORTH SUrTE 10 I CLEARWATER, FL 337M (727) 535-4565 FACSIMILE am 539-D099 Page 2 December 22, 2003 J The proposed development of the land will be In harmony with the scale, bulk, covel age, densfty and chm acter of adjacent propertIes In 'rlihlch lliS located Response The AshleIgh project conforms with patterns of emergIng development along Edgewater Dnve wIthIn recent years WithIn tlus area, new motel and condomInIUm projects have been developed, such as the Comfort Inn, and Villa Del Mar CondominIUms The Ashlelgh has been developed wIth sensItIvIty for the surroundmg context of commercial, tounst, and reSidential bUlldmgs The bulk of the project has been developed to allow strong buffenng between resldentJaI propertIes to the east Scale of thIs development has been designed to favor those elements whIch appear resldentIalm character, such as porches, balcomes, and proJected rooftop gables Furthermore, the developer proposes extensive landscapmg wlthm pedestnan and automobile courts to reinforce thiS pattern of reSidential scale 2 The proposed development wIll not hInder or dIscourage the appropnate de ve lopm em 111 ff\e ofadJacent land In hwldmg\ or SIgnificantly Impmr the value thel eof Response The proposed development should sustam and encourage new development wlthm the surroundmg commumty Agam, WIth the contmued emergence of property Improvements in this area of Clearwater, It IS anticipated that the Ashlelgh may Improve values of adjacent properties m the long term 3 The propo_\ed development wlll not adversely affect health or safety afpersons res1dmg or lVOI kll1g /If the lIelghhorhood of the propo'led 11 'Ie Response ThIS development IS intended to improve conditIons wlthm the eXIstmg reSidential area There IS vlliually no element ofthe proposed development whICh WIll create adverse affects ReSIdents of The Ashlelgh wJll be offered a secure bUlldmg WIth life safety and secunty systems which meet or exceed current bUlldmg codes, particularly Impact resistant features adopted by the Flonda BUildIng Code in March 2002 Page 3 December 22,2003 4 1 he proposed development is de51gned to mmm1lze traffic congestIOn Respon:.e Layout and arrangement of mtenor traffic wlthm The Ashlelgh IS designed to minimize traffic Impact to the surround1Og street network Careful control of meommg and outgomg traffic lanes will be mamtamed with slgnage, pavement markers, and other visual safety devices proVIded accordmgly As planned, the proposed vehl.:ular entrances to thiS project have been placed at a safe distance eastward of Edgewater Dnve, to allow safe mgress and egress to the development 5 The propmed development 15 C011J15tent with the commumty character afthe mmwdwte Vlclmty of the parcel propo5ed fOl development Response The scale and use of matenals proposed for The Ashlelgh IS consIstent wIth SimIlar matenals used 10 well desIgned multI family developments throughout Clearwater The proJect IS located 10 a transItional area between reSidential usage to the east and tounst use to the west Thus, It IS slgmficant that The Ashlelgh wtll mcorporate clay tile roofing, open and closed balcony ralls, tile msets and other details whIch al e conSIstent wlth miSSIon style architecture Developers mtend to attraGt reSidents who will feel part ofa larger commumty context Thus, It IS Important that matenals and character of thiS project prOVide a sense of commumty for these reSidents 6 The deMgn cj the proposed development n1llnmlZeS adver5e effects, mcludmg VISual, acoustic and olfactory and hour5 of operatiOn Impacts on adjacent properties Response The proposed design ]S mtended to create benefiCial effects, mcludmg pOSItive aesthetiC and c.Jlturallmpacts wlthm the ImmedIate area Slllce the proposed use IS attached dwelhng::., reSIdents of The Ashlelgh will be provlded with a hvmg environment 10 close proXIll11ty to both eommerclal and recreatlonal dlstncts wlthm north Clearwater The applicant antIcIpates only pOSitIve effects from thIS proJect . ' Page 4 December 22,2003 With tms letter, we mclude 12 caples of proposed site plan elevatiOns and other documents required for review by the Department of Development ServIces Please advlse lfthere IS additIOnal mformatlon reqUired to make this proJect sufficient for DRC heanng scheduled on JanualY 29,2004 Please accept our SIncere appreciatIOn for your contmumg aSSistance With this project If there IS any additIonal mformatlon reqUired, please contact thiS office at your convemence Smcerely, & WILLIAMS, INC , AlA Aude, AlA cc Dan Dennehy Joe Borchers Dan Buckmgham Andrew Caudell Harry Chne ,~OV-14-2003 11 48 M?~~arlane Ferguson Clw P.02/02 ,0\> MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMuLLEN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 1:)-01 $Ou't'rl "LO~I~AA\lf!.NUE I=' '0 ~OX 1~.:U (.%I-=' ~::!IGOn "'~"'I COUI'l'T BTFOEET I" 0 80X ,eea ,ZII" 33157' CLI:J>RW,",TER, F"ORI~ ,,':'7=<!: r7~7~ ""'''''. B'aCii:;l FAA ~"'.i::") 044~ a...,rO GOO NORTH TAMP"'" &TREE"Tj GI,JITC '2:~OO LA..EL,",ND FLOFO'O,", 33e03 166316eO-9&Oe ,N< 'eu.;!' ueJ 26-<'" '-AN".o., FLORIDA :3:3!l02 '61:3' e7:3 ..eoo FNUe I 31 27:3 4396 www mrmle!>lsl Gom ""'AIL IntoGlmrmlegal com .......-;: =------"'-~~ ~ I --~ f? (') '? !! nn r;:::. rn I II n J": I INIREP~Y REF!:" 'It;> n I i ":' '_' tJ ~I ~J , ,j)","",,-~~~~-~ I , \ \: ClearyN ater 1~:U NOV I 4 2003 IW! ,j - ! - ~~- ,"';r cr;.-o' ,-...-;1 I -- j (....I~ ,:, Cl L t -" It:..J ~~ - -- November 14) 2003 AttentlOn Mr Wayne Wells City of Clearwater, Plannmg Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwdter, FL 33756 VIA FAX # 562A865 Re Property FIle FDL # 1925 Edgewdler Dnve) Clearwater, FL 2003.09050 Dear Wayne Followmg up on my comments a day or so ago, I wanted to schedllle a meetIng to reVleW the revlsed site plan and elevations m the above-referenced project We were trymg to get the reqlmed documentatlOn finalIZed by November 20lh We are still revlsmg the overall deSIgn so 1 would lIke to defer any meetmgs on trus proJect for tvv'o or three weeks, and now work towards filln.g the documents on or before Dccember 20111, which 1 belIeve IS the next deadhne Accordmgly, if I do not hear back fiom you 1 wl11 slmply try to schedule another meeting once the plans and elevations are revised and we wlll PiOJcct filing all of the new documentation on or before December 20th As always, thank you for your assIstance Smcerely yours, HSC koh cc Top Fhght Development, LLC City ofClcarwatcr [Attn Cmdy Tal'apam] D-Mar General Contractmg and Development,!ne [Attn Mr Andy Caudell] Auue, Shand and WIllIams [Attn Mr Robert Aude] h \dala\my\11SC\COrl-esp 'OJ\wclls n 14 d{lC TOTAL P 02 ~NDV-14-2003 11,48 ~~~Farlane Ferguson Clw P 01/02 4, ~ , MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMULLEN INTERVEST BANK BUILl.1lNG 625 co~~ 5~~~/5V1T~ lOO ~ 0 BOX lS.~ {ZXP 3J151) ~~WA~~, PLORICA )]756 I 17~ Gs 1 ~ rJ \Yl ~ '\ I NOV 1 4 2003 --l~l __. -.J AT70~S & COUNSELORS AT LAW (121) HI-B~66 , W:;::2, O::P1" ,~'\nr FAX TRANSMITTAL FORM DATE~ November 14, 2003 NUMBER OF PAGES: (Includ~ng cover page) ;;.- ATTENTION: CYNTHIA TAR.Zl..PJI..NI FIRM NAME: CITY OF CLEARWATER FAX NO.: 562-4576 TELEPHONE NO. - 562-4547 FROM: P.ARRY S CLINE FAX NO. : (727) 442.8470 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS IN RECEIVING, PLEASE CALL OUR OF~lCE AT (727) 441-89~6 THE INFORMATION CO~TAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MEgSAa~ IS ~1TORNEY"CLl~~ P~.VILEQEO ~ CONPIDENTIAL IN?ORMATION INTE:NDED aNL'l FaR THE USE CF THE ADDRESSEE IF THE REJ\!lo:!!. aF THIS >;fESSME IS NOT T".tlE !NTBNllED ReCIPIENT. CCMMUNICJ\TIaN 1.11' TIllS ~TER11\.L IS STRICILY E'ROIlI:e::rro IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED '!'HIS C'OM.'lUN!CATIO', I'l ERRCR, PLEASE .~~DI~T~LY NOTIFY US 6Y TELEPHCNE (COLLECT IF NECESSARY) AND RCTrnill T~E OR1GINAL MESSAGE TC US ~T ~~ A~~h ADDRESS VIA THE U S POS':'I>.L SERVICE THNlK YCU ~,~~~~ ~~~ozr~~~ !~~)I/~\ ;; ~e.iW-L:::i.= <!!\ ..c;,t =-==- ~~ \B.~~ ---=- ?$/ \.~~~.~;,j~.."~ ~~~4Jl~~~. CITY OF CLEARWATER loNG RANGE PlANNING DEVELOPMENT RFVlEW PlANNING DEPARTMENT POST OFFICF Box 4748, CLFARWATER, FWRlDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUilDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTIE AVENUE, CLEARWATFR, FlORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4576 November 3, 2003 Mr Harry S Clme, Esq Post Office Box 1669 Clearwater, FL 33757 Re FLD2003-09050, 1925 Edgewater Dnve Dear Mr Chne An applIcatIOn for FlexIble Development approval for attached dwellmgs has been filed WIth thIS office involvmg 1925 Edgewater Dnve, 1919 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012 and 1020 Sunset Pomt Road (Case No FLD2003-09050) ThIS letter serves to notIfy you that the applIcatIOn filed IS mcomplete Based on our telephone conversatIOn thIS monung, a complete applIcatIon IS expected to be filed WIth thIS office by noon, November 20, 2003 Should such a complete applIcatIOn be filed, the case would be scheduled to be revIewed by the Development Revlew CommIttee (DRC) on December 23,2003 Also, assummg the applIcatIOn IS deemed suffiCient by the DRC, the case would be scheduled for the February 17, 2004, Community Development Board meetmg Should you have any questIOns, feel free to contact me at 562-4504 Smcerely, ~ h.A1~ H. JJ~ /Na';:e/A Wells, AICP SeOlor Planner IIMS5c!PDSIPlannmg Depar/men/IC D B\FLEXllncompleleIErlgewa/er 1925 Top FlIght Development (1)\Edgewmer /925 incomplete Leller 1/ 3 03 doc BRIAN) AUNGS I, !vIA YOR COMMISSIONER I iOYT li"MlLTON, VlCL /l.1A VOR-COMMI'iSIONFR WHITNEY GRAY, COMMISSIOI\ ~R FRANK HIBHARD, COMMISSIONFR * BIIL)ONSON, COMMI~SIOI\FR "EQUAl EMPLOYMr,NT M'D AFrIRMArrVIo. ACTION fMPIO'ffR" II TO: FAX COVER MEMO CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVE. CLEARW A TER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 ~~ C\~~ J 1-'\-2- - ~ +70 FAX: Phone:~ + ,- a ~ 11 l, FROM: \.......J ~ v---S- \-.J,e.\ ~ Phone:~lo2....4- S-ot . \ DATE.~ JJ I~03 RE:---FL\> 'Z-eo 3 -- ()~lD~--o 19 LS t$~Q.\.ooJclv- br. MESSAGE: \ ~t.o--..~ \~~ ',,\\e;- CJt- ", t:! ':~\ ~..e...--.~ ~.\ad.. y NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) L 5EP-29-2003 16,46 ~arlane Ferguson Clw P 01 ... MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMULLEN 1\.TTORN'EYS , COUNSIH.,(IxS AT LAtl INTERVEsr BANK ~V1Lb!NO 625 COURr sr~/SUItE 200 p 0 BO~ 1659 (l!~ 33157) CLEAR"'I\.TlI'R JLOlUllA H75S (n~ I Ul-Q966 FAX TRANSMITT~ FORM DATE: September 29, 2003 NUMBER OF PAGES: (rnclud~ng cover page) 3 ATTENTION: FRANK GERLOCK iIRM NAME: CITY OF CL~ARWATER FAX NO.: 562-4576 TELEPHONE NO.: 562-4567 FROM; HARRY S. CLINE FAX NO. : (727) 442-8470 1fD] ~ ~ ~ 0 W ~ ,nil UU SEP 3 " lil:i3 @I ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, o EV ElOPM E NT S E R VICESOEPT CITY OF CLEARWATER I IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS IN RECEIVING, ~LEASE CALL OUR OFFICE AT (727) 441-8966 TH~ INFORi'lAilON CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIM:LE MESSAGE 1 ~ AT'rOR'jI>Y CLIENT PRIVILEGED AND CONl'lornrIr.L INFORMATION INTr:Nll<:D ON"Lt FOR T~E USE OF THE AIll!R~Sl;>ICf. tF THE llSAIlE:R OF TH I S MESSAGE ;$ NO':' THE INTEl;DED REel PI E:r, COM~~lrATION OF 1Hl$ MA~~~l^L IS STRICTLY ~ROJlIBITE~, IF YO~ HAVE ~~CErvrn ~HIS ~IC~TI~~ IN SRRQR, PLEASE lMM~!A1EL~ NOTIFY ~S 8Y tELEPHONE ICO~LECT If ~ECESS~~l Nm ~~TURN ~HE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO VB AT THE AOCVE ADDRESS VIA THE V S POSTAl.. SlilWICll THANK 'tOU 6EP-29-2003 15'46 M~'~~rlane Ferguson Clw P 02 MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMULLEN ATTORNE.YS AND COUNSELOFi5 AT ..AW 400 NO"lTH TAM~A 5TFlE:E:T, SUITE """0 e~~ COUFlT ST"lE:E:T I=:CI =CUTr-t .....L..OiIQICAA\I~NUE P Q I::Ic;I:iIC. I~'::U (zu:" .:lI~eOI' p 0 BO~ Ul6B ~Z.P 33?5?t CL~"lWATE:"l FLO"lIOA """!KI (72'7~ -'I". GreJM ~AA ~ii":;:7) 4-4-= &4)'0 LAKE:U,NO FLORIDA :n503 ~B63J 6ao BEJOB F~ IBG.;}. tUB,'] C:6""'9 TAMPA, ~LOR:jO.A ~~aoa 151~12?~ ".0" FN< ,e"" "?3 "3S6 www.rnfrnIQo~1 ~om E:M"IL InloC'TlfmlllllBI nom 1"\1 AIl;iiP"'v RI;:C"r.::'~ TO Clearwater September 29, 2003 Mr Frank Gerlock, Planmng Manager CHY of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33757-4748 VIA FAX # 562-4576 Re Flexible Development application I tiled by Top Fltght Development, LLC Property 10cllted at 1925 Edgewater Dn ve, Clearwater, FL Proposed cOndOmInIUm development in NE corner of mtersectlon of Sunset Point Road and Alternate 19 Dear Chip Followmg up on our meetmg with you and Gma Clayton on Fnday afternoon, please accept tills letter as our request to extend our DRe meetmg until December 4,2003, whIch would result m our earliest CDB meetmg betng January 20,2004 As we discussed, we want to do addltlonal detail relative to the slte plan, to prepare elevations and landscapmg plans for the Clty Also, bdSed upon our dIS~usslons, It appears that thiS can be processed as sunply a request for Increased heIght for ilttdched dwellings, rather than as an mfill applIcatlOn To the extent that lS permlss1ble, please accept thlS letter as an amendment, requestmg a dIfferent review from mfill developmenL If there IS any filing fee dIfferentIal pleasc let me know If there IS an mcreased fee, or If the fee IS actually less than we have paId, I would request that the CIty give us a refund Thank you for takmg the time to meet wIth us on Fnday I th~nk 1t was beneficial to all r--~ concerned, and we wIll address your concems reLative to modIfYlIl;g-anp 9~Il1pretl!Jg-th@~fi1e~o.Y~J_ the next several weeks I,.: "'~, '- j J..; U ~ J 'I !," j :: "'< ~- ~ =-:_.,11 .' 1~4: SEP ~ c 0 I~'! f :).:Vl:::L~?,,f,E,\i1- S'=t'\~~ ' : cJ"rl[,-,t':C' ,..'-OIvo:..ES CEO-: v L::AR~if.i'-""" (, I ., ; . 2-i-=-.J SEP-29-2003 16:46 -arlane Ferguson Clw September 29) 2003 Page 2 If you have any queshonS regardmg the above, or at any nme, please gIve me a call. Agam, thank you for your assIstance Smcerely yours, HSC'koh cc Top Fhght Development, LLC D-Mar General Contracting and Development,lnc [Attn Andy Caudell] Aude, Shand and Wllliamis [Attn. Mr Robert Aude] h. \dll t3 \a ty\hs \, \corresp '03 \&erloc k ;29 do.: ~w "rco "rJ rD]r~ Cf UUI SEf p Ii DEVElOP,,1[ CiiV C P 03 TDTRL P, 03 ::MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMuLLEN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 1501 SOUTH FI..ORIOA AvE:NUE 400 NORTH TAMPA STREET SUITe: ;a~oo pOBOX 153l (ZIP 3~I!;iOLl TAMPA FLORIDA .3~QO.e ~813l ~7~ 4;eOO FAX 1813) a7.3 4~Sa e.z5 COURT 5TRE::E.T F> a BOX 1669 (ZIP :J..3?'S?) LAKELANO F"l..O~IDA 33803 lSE;:i.3l seo 9908 FAX (.ee.~l 6e3 2849 CLEARWATER F'r,..ORI[:JA 33756 (727.. 441 8966 FAX {7~7) 442 8470 www mfmlegal com "'MAIL Illfo@mfmlegal com RJEe~~VTE\D Clcar\vdter SEP 2 5 2003 PLANNING DEPARTiV1ENT erN OF CLEARViJATIER September 25, 2003 Ms Cl11dl Tarapam City of Cleaf\vater 100 S Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 VIA HAt,fa DELIVER Y Re 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Clearwater, FL 33755 / FlexIble Development Appl1catlon Dear Lisa Enclosed herewIth please find the fol1owll1g 111 connection with the above-referenced matter 1 Ongll1al and twelve (12) Caples. of Flexible Development Appl1cdtlon, togethel wIth A ffidavI t to Authonze Agent, 2 Ongll1al CertJ ficate 0 f Title, and 3 Our client's check 111 the amount of S 1,205 representll1g filing fees Our client will be dellvenng Site pldns as required under the apphcatlOn If YOll hd ve any questIOns, or I f we need to prOVIde further ddta, please ddvlSe As always, thank YOll for your assistance and consIderatIOn .ZU~'j Harry S 'int. ~k HSC koh Ene losu res cc Top Fltght Development, LLC h \dalaIJly\hsclcorresp '03\lampam 925 dOl \ r ~.. . , ~- /' CDB Meetmg Date Case Number Agenda Item Applrcant' Address July 20, 2004 FLD2003-09050 D2 Top Flight Development, LLC 1925 Edgewater Dnve ORIGINAL CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: FlexIble Development approval to permIt a reductIOn m the sIde (east) setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet (to pavement) and, an Increase of bUIldmg heIght from 35 feet to 59 feet from base flood elevatIOn of 13 feet MSL (with heIght calculated to the rrudpomt of the roof slope) to construct 62 multI-farruly residentIal (attached) umts, under the provlSlons of SectIOn 2-803 B EXISTING ZONINGI LAND USE: Tounst (T) Dlstnct, Resort Facilities HIgh (RFH) Category PROPERTY SIZE: 2 572 Acres PROPERTY USE: Current Use Motels (two) Proposed Use MultI-family reSIdentIal ADJACENT ZONINGI LAND USES: North Tounst DIstnct (T), Overmght accommodatIons West PreservatIOn (P), Clearwater harbor East Med1Um DenSIty ReSIdential (MDR) and Low MedIUm DenSIty ReSIdentIal (LI\.1DR), Smgle Farruly ResIdentlal South Tounst DIstnct (T) and OffIce DIstnct (0), Gas statIOn and Smgle Fanuly ReSIdentIal CHARACTER OF THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY: ScenIC north-south comdor, overnIght lodgmg, smgle-farruly reSidentIal and commercial ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: ThiS 2 572-acre sIte IS located on the southeast comer of Sunnydale Dnve and Edgewater Dnve, and north of Sunset Pomt Road CommercIal and resldent18lland uses dommate the Immed18te VICInIty At present, there are two motels on the property proposed for redevelopment Corrccled Staff Report - Commumty Development Board - July 20, 2004 - Case FLD2003-0905Q- Page 1 yo The allowable denstty for overmght accommodatIOns on this site IS 102 hotel/motel umts Proposal: The proposal IS to completely raze the eXlstmg site, mcludmg the two motels, conslstmg of 36 motel UnIts, nme rental apartments, and ancillary structures and construct 62 attached dwellIngs All applIcable Code reqUirements and cntena mcludmg but not lImIted to General ApplIcabIlity cntena (SectIOn 3-913) and the fleXIbility cntena for attached umts (SectIOn 2- 803 B) have been met The applIcatIOn as advertIsed IS seekmg FlexIble Development approval to penUlt attached dwellmgs wIth a reductIOn of the sIde (east) setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet (to pavement), an Increase of bUIldmg heIght from 50 feet FLS (FlexIble Standard, Level One) to 59 feet from base flood elevatIon (BFE) of 13 feet MSL (wIth heIght calculated to the mIdpOint of the roof slope) The request for additIOnal bUIldmg heIght IS to allow for the density to be desIgned wlthm the bmlts of the property The Side setback request Will allow for the parkmg space reqUirement to be met Both a Six-foot high decorative wall and heavy landscapmg are shown along the east property lme where the setback reductIon (to pavement) IS bemg sought In March and Apnl 2004, the Community Development Board conSIdered proposals to develop thIS site with a taller bUlldmg (75 feet above BFE) and a greater number of reSIdentIal umts (77) The Apnl 2004 review was of a buIldIng slightly tapered from the northeast comer of the structure to the northwest To lTIltIgate the proposed SIde setback reductIOn and to better mtegrate the development wtth the abuttmg predommantly smgle-famIly reSIdentIal land use, the proposed bUlldmg was redeSigned to mcorporate a "stair steppmg" effect with a sectIOn of the bUlldmg at the northeast Side nsmg to 52 5 feet and tranSItIOmng to 75 feet to the west The plan has been further revIsed wIth a bUlldmg height of 59 feet above BFE (no tapenng), and a decrease m the requested number of dwellIng UnIts to 62 The applIcation IS still seekmg a SIde (east) setback reductIon from 10 feet to 5 85 feet (to pavement) and an Illcrease III buIldmg height from 50 feet (FLS level) to 59 feet above BFE The number of parkmg spaces has mcreased from 117 to 120 spaces (Code requITes 1 5 spaces per unIt or 93 s paces) Two spec I men It ve oak trees, wlthm close proXimIty of each other and located on the south Side of the Site, WIll be saved Along the eastern property hne, 16 eXIstmg trees Will remam CODE ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS: There are no outstandmg enforcement Issues assocIated wIth thiS site Corrected Staff Report - Community Development Board - July 20, 2004 - Case FLD2003-09050- Page 2 STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: (Section 2-301.1 and 2-304): STANDARD PROPOSED CONSISTENT INCONSISTENT MAXIMUM 62 dwellmg umts X DENSITY IMPERVIOUS 060 X SURFACE RA TIO (ISR) LOT AREA 257 acres, 111,949 square feet X LOT WIDTH 210 feet at nearest pomt X FRONT SETBACK 15 feet at closest pomt X REAR SETBACK None (no rear setback) X SIDE SETBACK East. 5 85 feet X* HEIGHT (35- 100 feet 59 feet above BFE X* allowable FLD range) PARKING SPACES 120 spaces, 1 93 spaces per umt X (1.5 per unit required) * See analysIs above for discussIOn FLEXIBIL Y CRITERIA (8 2803 B) r bl b 'ld h' h d'd k IT echon - . app, Ica e to Ul ine eiel t an SI e setbac : Consistent InconsIStent 1 The Increased heIght results In an Improved site plan or Improved [X] [ ] desIgn and appearance, and 2 The mcreased heIght IS necessary to allow the Improvement of off- [X] [ ] street parkmg on the ground floor of the reSidential bUIldmg 3 The reductIOn m side setback does not prevent access to the rear of [X] [ ] any bUIldmg by emergency vehicles 4 The reductIOn m side setback results m an Improved site plan, more [X] [ ] effiCient parkmg or Improved desIgn and appearance Corrected Staff Report - Commumty Developmenl Boarrl- July 20, 2004 - Case FLD2003-09050- Page 3 GENERAL STANDARDS (Section 3-913): Consistent Inconsistent 1 Development of the land WI n be m harmony WIth the scale, bulk, [Xl [ l coverage, denSIty and character of adjacent propertIes 2 Development wIll not hmder or dIscourage development and use of [Xl [ ] adjacent land and bUI1dmgs or slgmficantly ImpaIr the value thereof 3 Development will not adversely affect the health Of safety of persons [Xl [ ] resIdmg or workmg m the neIghborhood 4 Development IS desIgned to mmllDlze traffic congestion [X] [ l 5 Development IS conSIstent WIth the commumty character of the [Xl [ ] nnmeruate vIclmty 6 DesIgn of the proposed development mmlmIzes adverse effects, [X] [ J mcludmg Visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operatIOn Impacts on ad1acent propertIes SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development RevIew CommIttee revIewed the applIcatIOn and supportmg matenals on January 29, 2004 Smce the January DRC meetmg, the Commumty Development Board has reVIewed two vanahons of proposed development at 1925 Edgewater Dove The Plannmg Department recommends APPROVAL of the FleXIble Development apphcatlOn to pernnt attached dwellIngs wIth a reduction of the sIde (east) setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet (to pavement), and an Illcrease of bUIldmg heIght, from 35 feet to 59 feet from base flood elevation of 13 feet MSL (WIth heIght calculated to the midpoInt of the roof slope) to construct 62 multi-fanuly residentIal (attached) umts, under the provISIons of Sections 2-803 Band 2-303 With the followmg bases and condItions Bases for Approval 1 The proposal comphes With the FleXIble Development cntena per SectlOn 2-803 B 2 The proposal IS III comphance WIth other standards III the Code mcludIllg the General ApphcabIltty Cntena per Section 3-913 3 The development IS compatIble WIth the surroundmg area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. CondItIOns of Approval 1 That the separate site plans be consohdated to one SIte plan set With one SIte data table, statmg the proposed number of reSidentIal umts, 2 That the SIte data table mdlcate both the maximum and proposed ImpervIOUS surface ratIO, 3 That the sIte data table state the number of motel rooms eXIstmg on SIte, 4 That a lO-foot sIdewalk, dramage and utilIty easement along frontage of Edgewater Dnve be granted, 5 That a reVIsed landscape plan be submltted satisfactory to Plannmg staff, pnor to bUlldlllg pernnt Issuance, Corrected StJff Rcport - Commumty Developm~nt Board - July 20, 2004 - CdSe FLD2003-09050- Page 4 6 That Open Space, RecreatIon Land and RecreatIOn FacilIty Impact fees be satIsfIed pnor to the Issuance of bUIldIng permIts or fmal plat, whIchever occurs fust, 7 That a tree preservatIOn plan be provIded pnor to bmldmg permIt Issuance, S That Plan Sheets 2, 3, 4, LA-2, and A-I be revIsed (to the satIsfaetlOn of Planmng staff) to be consIstent WIth Sheet LA-l and the tree preservation plan m showmg trees on SIte, pnor to bU11dmg pemut Issuance, 9 That all Fife Department reqUIrements be addressed pnor to bUlldmg permIt Issuance, 10 That a vacatIon of alley and/or easements be completed pnor to Issuance of a bmldmg permIt, 11 That the mstallatIon of samtary sewer mam be completed pnor to Issuance of a bU11dmg pemut, 12 That a copy of the SWFWMD penmt be proVIded pnor to buildmg pemut, 13 That all nght-of-way permits be obtamed pnor to Issuance of a bUlldmg permIt, 14. That a sedIment and eroSIOn control preventIon plan be submItted pnor to any demolitIOn and bmldmg permIts, 15 That TraffiC Impact Fees be determmed and paId pnor to CertIfIcate of Occupancy Issuance, 16 That a Condomm1Um plat be recorded pnor to Issuance of the fust Certificate of Occupancy, 17 That all proposed utlhtles (from the nght-of-way to the proposed bUlldmgs) be placed underground and mstallatIon of condUlt(s) along the entue length of the SIte's street frontage be completed pnof to the Issuance of the flfSt certIficate of occupancy, and 18 That all sIgnage meet Code, consist of channel letters for any attached SIgns, and be archItectural1y mtegrated to the deSIgn of the bUlldmg and SIte Freestandmg sIgnage WIl1 need to meet code and be monument-style III desIgn /I11'~ M. ~ MIchael H Reynolds, AICP, Planner ill Prepared by Planmng Department Staff ATI ACHMENTS Aenal Photograph of SIte and VleImty LocatIOn Map Future Land Use Map Zomng Atlas Map ApphcatIOn 5 \Plannmg Deparlmen!\C D lJ\FLEX\Pendmg cases\Up for the next CDB\EdgewQter 1925 Top Flight Development (T'/IEdgewa/er 1925 Corre( ted Staff Report - Community Development Board - July 20, 2004 doc Corrected Stdff Report - Communlly Development Board - July 20, 2004 - Case FLD2003-09050- Page 5 Aerial Map Owner: I Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. I Site: 11925 Edgewater Drive I Case: FLD2003-o9050 Property Size(Acres): I PIN: I I I Atlas Page: 2.05 acres 03/29/15/86778/000/0010 03/29/15/86778/000/0010:01 03/29/15/86778/000/0010:02 03/29/15/86778/000/0010:03 251A View to the west View to the north Views to the east 1925 Edgewater Drive, FLD2003-09050 Page 10f2 Reynolds, Mike ORIGINAL FILE t'~~ t '-'; From. Reynolds, Mike Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 3 39 PM To. 'Gallo, Bob' Cc: Gerlock, ChIp Subject. RE Case #FLD2003-09050 Mr Bob Gallo Manager of State OperatIons MRP Flonda Mr Gallo, Thank you for your e-maIl In answer to your questIons, I am respondIng here Any sIte plan revIsIons WIll be revIewed by CIty of Clearwater staff The staff revIew WIll Include Plannll1g Department and any other applicable department Input There WIll also be an updated staff report whIch wIll be completed prior to a plan presentatIon at a Community Development Board meeting Should anyone from the general pubhc have a question about how staff revIews take place and how staff reports are wntten, I am happy to meet wIth that person or answer questIons by telephone The public has an opportunity to attend and participate at the CommunIty Development Board public hearing on the development plan proposal AgaIn, thank you for your e-maIl Please call or e-maIl me WIth any other questIons that you might have MIke Reynolds, AICP Senior Planner CIty of Clearwater Plannll1g Department Tel # 727-562-4836 mIke reynolds@MyClearwatercom nmOngmal Message----- From: Gallo, Bob [mallto:BGallo@aarp,org] sent: Wednesday, Apn121, 200410:52 AM To: Reynolds, MIke Subject: Case #FLD2003-090S0 Dear Mr Reynolds, Thanks agaIn for the background II1fOrmatlon on how you arrived at your recommended approval In your "staff report" for the Apnl20th meetll1g of the CommunIty Development Board meetIng WIth regard to the request submItted by Top FlIght Development, LLC concernIng theIr condomll1lum project on Edgewater Dnve 111 Clearwater It IS my understandIng that the CommunIty Development Board has granted a contll1uance to the developer and asked them to resubmit their plans WIthIn 90 days WIll those plans be reviewed agam by your department With an accompanYIng staff report reflectmg possIble changes by the developer? WIll there be meetlngs WIthIn the PlannIng Department that CItIzen's may attend to better understand the process you WIll undertake In amvmg at your recommendation III the next staff report? apprecIate and anticIpate your answer to these questions Best, Bob Gallo 4/26/2004 Page 2 of 2 o;f Manager of State Operations AARP Flonda 400 Canllon Parkway, SUIte 100 St Peters burg, Flonda 33716 7275928003 bgallo@aam org www adrp orglfl MRP The power to make It better 4/26/2004 FILE COpy Member Mazu r moved to app rove Item # 1, Case F LD2003-11-58 fa r 1 61 Brig htwater Drive, and recommend approval of Item #3, Case ANX2004-01001 for 2135 Burnlce Drive The motion was duly seconded and carned unammously ActIng Member Dennehy dId not vote F. LEVEL TWO APPLICATIONS (Items 1-2) 1 Case: FLD2003-09050 -1925 Edgewater Drive Owner/Applicant: Top Flight Enterprises, Inc Representative, Harry S Cline, Esq (625 Court Street, Clearwater, FL 33766, phone 727 -441-8966, fax 727-442-8470) Location: 257 acres at the southeast corner of Sunnydale and Edgewater Drives Atlas Page 251A Zoning District: T, Tourist Request: FleXIble Development approval to permit a reduction to the Side (east) setback from 10 to 585 feet (to pavement), and an Increase of bUIldIng heIght from 35 to 75 feet from base flood elevatIon of 13 feet MSL (WIth height calculated to the midpoint of the roof slope) to construct 77 multi-famIly reSIdentIal (attached) umts, under the provIsIons of SectIon 2-803 B Proposed Use, A 77-unlt development of attached, multl~famlly unIts Neighborhood Association' Edgewater Drive Homeowners ASSocIation (ChIp Potts, 1150 Commodore St , Clearwater, FL 33755, phone 727-448-0093) Presenter: Michael H Reynolds, AICP, Senior Planner Acting Member Dennehy recused hImself ThIS 2 572-acre sIte IS on the southeast corner of Sunnydale Drive and Edgewater Drive, and north of Sunset POint Road CommercIal, and resIdentIal land uses dommate the ImmedIate vIcInity Two motels are on the property proposed for redevelopment The proposal IS to completely raze the SIte, includIng the two motels and all anCillary structures, and to construct 77 (attached) multI-famIly reSIdentIal dwellIngs All applIcable Code requirements and criteria Including, but not limIted to, General ApplicabIlIty criteria (Section 3- 913) and the fleXIbIlIty criteria for attached unIts (Section 2-803 B) have been met The application as advertised IS seekIng FleXIble Development approval to permit attached dwellIngs With a reductIon of the SIde (east) setback from 1 0 to 5 85 feet (to pavement), a n I ncrease of bUIldIng heIght from 50 feet (FLS level) to 75 feet from base flood elevatIon of 13 feet MSL (With heIght calculated to the mIdpOint of the roof slope) The request for addItIonal bUIldIng heIght IS to allow for the densIty to be desIgned WIthIn the limIts of the property The SIde setback request WIll allow the parkIng space reqUIrement to be met The plan mdlcates heavy landscapIng WIll be Installed along the east property lIne, where the setback reductIon IS sought The Development RevIew Committee revIewed the applIcatIon and supportIng matenals on January 29,2004 The Plannmg Department recommends approval of the FleXIble Development applicatIon to permit attached dwellings WIth a reduction of the SIde (east) setback from 10 to 5 85 feet (to pavement), and an Increase of bUIldIng heIght, from 35 to 75 feet from base flood elevatIon of 13 feet MSL (WIth height calculated to the mIdpOInt of the roof slope) to construct 77 multI-family residential (attached) umts, under provIsIons of SectIons 2-803 Band 2-303 With the follOWIng bases and condItions CommunIty Development 2004-04-20 9 Bases for Approval 1) The proposal complies with the FlexIble Development criteria per Section 2-803 B, 2) The proposal IS In complIance with other standards In the Code IncludIng the General Appllcabllrty Criteria per SectIon 3-913, and 3) The development IS compatible wIth the surroundmg area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts CondItions of Approval 1) That a revised landscape plan be submItted satIsfactory to Planning staff, prior to bUIlding permit Issuance, 2) That Open Space, RecreatIon Land and RecreatIon FaCIlity Impact fees be satIsfIed prior to the Issuance of bUIldIng permIts or flnal plat, whIchever occurs fIrst, 3) That a copy of the SWFWMD permit be proVIded prior to bUildIng permIt, 4) That TraffiC Impact Fees be determined and paid prior to CertIficate of Occupancy Issuance, 5) That a tree preservatIon plan be proVIded prior to bUIldIng permit Issuance, 6) That all Fire Department reqUIrements be addressed pnor to bUIldIng permit Issuance, 7) That a 10- foot sIdewalk, drainage and utIlity easement along frontage of Edgewater Drive be granted, 8) That a CondominIum plat be recorded prior to Issuance of the first CertIficate of Occupancy, 9) That all proposed utIlitIes (from the right-of-way to the proposed bUildIngs) be placed underground and Installation of condUlt(s} along the entIre length of the site's street frontage be completed prior to the Issuance of the fIrst certIfIcate of occupancy, 10) That a vacatIon of alley and/or easements be completed prior to Issuance of a bUIlding permIt, 11) That the installatIon of samtary sewer main be completed prior to Issuance of a bUilding permit, 12) That all nght~of- way permIts be obtaIned prior to Issuance of a bulidmg permIt, 13) That a revIsed sIte plan be submItted prior to bUIlding permIt Issuance, correctly shOWing VISIbIlity triangles measured from the property lines, 14) That a sediment and erOSion control prevention plan be submItted prior to any demolition and bUlldmg permIts, 15) That the separate site plans be consolIdated to one sIte plan set WIth one sIte data table, 16) That the sIte data table Indicate both the maxImum and proposed ImpervIous Surface Ratio, 17) That the site data table state the number of motel rooms eXIstIng on SIte, and 18) That all slgnage meet Code, conSIst of channel letters for any attached signs, and be arChItecturally Integrated to the desIgn of the bUilding and site FreestandIng slgnage WIll need to meet code and be monument-style In design SenIor Planner Mike Reynolds saId thiS Item was contInued on March16, 2004, to proVIde the applicant tIme to redesIgn the project to reflect the character of the neighborhood The buildIng's desIgn Includes a stair-steppIng effect whereby a section of the bUilding rises to 525 feet and then tranSItIons to 75 feet In heIght The redesign meets sIde setback req U I rements It was questIoned how staff determmed thIS project IS consIstent WIth the FleXIble Standard criteria Mr Reynolds said staff determIned the four criteria have been met The Increased heIght Improves sIte plan The bUlldmg's 75-foot heIght wIll result In a better layout of the sIte WIth respect to landscapIng and offstreet parkmg A sIde setback reduction WIll not prevent access to the rear of any bUIldIng by emergency vehicles, and results In an Improved appearance Mr Reynolds saId staff feels the sIte plan IS consIstent WIth Code Concern was expressed the staIr-steppIng porposed consIsts of only one step, which IS 40 feet hIgh It was remarked the proposal IS not consIstent WIth the reSIdentIal area and nearby developments It was mdlcated the flood zone lines on the boundary survey dIffer from elevatIons depIcted In the applicatIon by one foot It was suggested staff verify those numbers Harry Chne, representatIve, saId thIS site IS at one of the CIty's gateways ThIS property contaIns outdated bUIldmgs which are margmally functIonal The property IS nonconformmg In a host of ways and IS unmarketable He saId LMDR zomng to the west allows for Increased densIty He saId the area IS a transIent rental environment In a flood zone He CommunIty Development 2004-04-20 10 said the applicant has proposed a quality development that wIll save oak trees, raze old structures, and reconstruct the project on the north end of the property The applIcant seeks an Increase In heIght between 50 and 100 feet, not between 35 and 75 feet Robert Aude, archItect, saId the FlexIble Development criteria permits a heIght of 50 to 100 feet under a Level Two approval He saId the site's promInent trees greatly Influenced the placement of the structure Site Ingress/egress has been reduced from SIX to two with Ingress only off Sunnydale Drive The developer and applicant held communIty meetIngs to obtaIn publiC Input whIch mdlcated OpposItIon to Ingress from Sunnydale, and support of a slxd-foot high, contInuous wall along the east property line, and a change to the landscaping All of those concerns Influenced the desIgn The north and south portIons of the bUIlding are 120 feet from the east property line, whIch IS buffered by large trees The proposal to tranSItIon the bUIldIng was dIscussed With staff The desIgn IS of a miSSion style archItecture Mr Aude said the trees cannot be preserved If the desIgn IS changed, the trees could not be preserved In response to a question, he said the 77 Units vary m size from 2,200 to 4,200 square-feet Larger townhome unIts are to be located on the west sIde He said the developer and applicant are In the process of performing a marketIng study related to pricing, but estImated the units wIll be priced from $450,000 In response to a question, Mr Aude said changing the bUilding hOrizontally would place the project closer to resIdentIal property lines and Impact traffiC CirculatIon In response to a questIon, AssIstant PlannIng DIrector Lisa FIerce revIewed Level One FleXIble standards Mr Aude said limItIng the project's heIght to 50 feet would cause the project to cover most of the sIte He said the large oak trees provIde a great buffering element to the east where parking will be located He saId the combination of landscapmg, parkIng lot, and sWImmIng pool wII prOVide a 120-foot buffer Ten persons spoke In support of the applicatIon, eIghteen persons spoke In OppOSitIon The meeting recessed from 4 52 to 5 01 pm I In response to a question, Mr Reynolds said the bUIlding heIght IS speCIfIed In the Code Engineering Director Mike QUillen said the LOS (level of servIce) on Edgewater Drive between Sunset POint Road and UnIon Street IS F, however peak hour tripS are 1 % of the total, which makes It dlmenlmous He saId changes to Alternate US19's desIgnatIon wIll not Impact thiS sIte Mr Gerlock said the maximum height allowed for a Level One applicatIon IS 35 to 50 feet, WIthout a public hearing There are no "automatIc" approvals Mr Aude saId as some Level Two development was anticipated to be up to 100 feet In heIght, the applicant feels 75 feet IS WIthIn that cnterla He saId scale IS a matter of proportion and artIculatIon He saId to fit the archItecture mto the commumty, proportIons, dormers, recessed balconIes, and appropriate use of materials have been Incorporated Into thiS deSIgn Mr Aude saId the buildIng's shadow wIll rarely reache the eastern property hne Mr Cline saId of 40 property owners who received notIce of thIS hearing, 36 SIgned a petition In support of thIS applIcation He saId the condomIniums and the traffIC are not at Issue, the heIght IS He saId the applicant has addressed the scale, shadows, maximum separation, oak trees, and Improvement of thIS declinIng property DISCUSSIon ensued It was remarked the CDS often had dIscussed the Issue of heIght versus bulk It was remarked the applicant's team had worked dIligently to address the sIte plan Community Development 2004-04-20 11 creatively It was felt that while residentIal uses are best for this sIte, concerns were expressed regardIng parking, the bulk, and the height of the project It was remarked the oak trees already block the water VIew, therefore thIs project would not Impact those vIews It was remarked the applIcant IS not askIng for rezonIng, a land use change, addItional densIty, or zero setbacks, and that thIs desIgn IS better than a shorter, box-type development Mr Cline requested a 90-day contInuance Member Doran moved to contlnue Case FLD2003-09050 for 1925 Edgewater Drive, to the July 20,2004 meeting The motion was duly seconded DISCUSSIon ensued and It was remarked that the proJect's heIght and parking are the major Issues It was remarked that although the applicant has the right to request a height of 75 feet, the CDS IS not obligated to grant It A concern was expressed limitIng parkIng to 1 5 spaces per unIt, could cause parkIng to spIll Into the surroundIng area Upon the vote being taken, Members Doran, Gildersleeve, Moran, Pllsko, Mazur, MIlam, and Chair Hooper voted "Aye" Member Dennehy abstained Motion carried 2. Case: APP2004-00002 Applicant/Appellant: Housh Ghovahee, Northslde Engineering ServIces, lnc (601 Cleveland Street, SUIte 930, Clearwater, FL 33755, phone 727-443-2869, fax 727-446- 8036, emall nesadmln@mlndspnnq com) Request: Appeal of an Interpretation of Section 4-1402 wIth regard to how to calculate the maxImum 20 percent of the permitted development potentIal of any gIven sIte Presenter: Lisa L FIerce, ASSIstant Planning Director The PlannIng DIrector met WIth Housh Ghovaee of NorthSlde EngIneering ServIces, lnc (agent for appellant) to explaIn an InterpretatIon of the Code With respect to calculatmg denslty/mtenslty A letter was later submitted to the PlannIng Department by Debra Hams of Northslde EngIneering SerVices, Inc requestIng an Interpretation of SectIon 4-1402 of the Code (Allocated Development Rights are Freely Transferable) (The PlannIng Department's InterpretatIon letter was prepared after the appeal was submitted, but IS consIstent WIth the conversatIon WIth the applicant) ThIS appeal IS not specIfic to a subject sIte SubsectIons 4 and 5 are applIcable to thIS case as follows 4-14024 For parcels receivIng denslty/mtenslty transferred from a deSIgnated environmental, open space, archaeological, hIstorical or archItecturally slgnrflcant SIte, denslty/mtenslty may not exceed 20 percent of the permitted development potential of the site prior to the transfer 4-14025 For parcels located wlthm an area deSignated Central BUSIness Dlstnct (CBD) or Communrty Redevelopment Dlstnct (CRD) on the CountYWide Future Land Use Plan map or parcels governed by approved redevelopment or special area plans, a site may only receive denslty/mtenslty transferred from wlthm the CBD, CRD, redevelopment plan area or special area plan dlstnct, and may not exceed the otherwise applicable maximum denslty/mtenslty by 20 percent proVided that the governIng plan makes specifIC prOVIsIon for the use of transfer of development rights Community Development 2004-04-20 12 Best-Copy ~r\-va ila-bl-e # Best Copy , \ Available UU~=_~~._~~ _-~, -"~';~~~=ihr;;-q;~I;;;=iui:\ ".~ ~-~ ~ -- ~ ---= ~ -~ o _~ ~-6 <<aD:: ~ Y'-- - _LLO~ a,~ ~ .~~_~.~~_ _ 0 , ~~ '_ -JYMufll/ ~ Q ? Q~~~ci~~ _ h6L0:<< s ()y,'~ _~~~_ -=~_ -~ ~u. ~j~fiif~7i-ro~J~!-1JL_qj.~/fld ~ =-- 1 -'tf%dTff~~1~JW--~.~ --~_.,- (~ \3#tii!igtg~~. t-~}S?::4ro -- ~ ~--~~. .--. ;::-,: 0 . ~- y--~cc'-o-"t'~O)Ufln ~ ~ . -- -- .~-~~_[!-_ . ---.J:]Lcc ~--"t~~~__/,::L~ -' ~~___~~~_u .~- -. ~~.. 'c ~~It~-Zf.J1:t0!~ / ~ ~rw.~'~~~7---- ~--- --D.'-~~ ~~--:m _~~~- 0q-L!:O_QT-~ __=~~ ~~6~ ~~.JQ~__--~~---~ =~E_~__-~= ~__~_ ~ 0~ :!):;;J;[:-1k ~f~~&g __~ .. ~g~~-!v ~hJ'-.J . _~ _._ ~ J<{~ct m6Jjil'j.!'J~~~~.!!f/ rz~ ' ~_ . j~,{2~~ ~ fA~kE W\_~~~~ ~-~.J)4 \_7 01'5- ~Q . ~ " . .fJ~.~ .}ki~~~ .' ~~ -- -_oW :~~~ le1i<-jll1~~c-__j 6 --_lL-SJJ.L{Jtl~ji.~~,- ~- .-' .------.- ---,f~l1P~95h~ :::~_2-:l11_____, ~01t{).-------- '-' -'~ "-~ -f-~~~~SJ~tfl~::j~(~-~- --'U - , ?t offtJ?; I 17 r:i . " Jf0v. ~-WfD ~ .. ~~ . tJrJfL - ~ trwAcL- 11l/;J~J!f~ . !J~~ lOLl- SJ/7I2~~ '_ blal.lu/~f-~ /'?JCf /)/~ - - ,( 1;1J..9. !l.~~~:, to?Jl 5e(j~rA.. , ':: -~ A ~ 7 / / ~A1[0A ~7l!Jl1 j <- -c -- 41- - Best-copy Avai-I-a b'-e mILl JG ~,,-tb- l P06 rQ f- /t:. HQ . [;{1 --OY} - ~/~ <:: 'p . ~ U'llft-et' ~ d~r 160ft' Cy~1 ~ 1- ~ . - / PL~ D-n ~o&frJi ~ rat~ hJ1-z~/jJ~~ (/Y)~ C4dc./ {' ~~ ~-~ (~ ~ VVL-C /IU\t- fk- t~ ~l ik k~f/ J:~ ~ , I 'I a~r:~' Copy ~...",-~ -=l'!..... "" ~ , . e -r '""... ~ . - '"' r'7 .J vG I J, 1d- lfS uJk,-a~ WJL ~ r w~ UjI) ~ (~ ,-1-dJ1vv . is-/sf - F u htf ~ fiJlu-ej.. ~ -' Mu! Z-- J II H1I _ ,..;..-J P /J A A -r: . '" .J- d. ",-'" I ~:Ju.// f-L'V( J U~ ~ tJvl ft.-; 1J!!g-::i ~~Jb ~~4b ~~fJ flit ~ +r;o ~ (~ wi ~~'frV ;jcU{7J- ~t1 -~ ,) f ~' bLc~ j S b t-U ~+ / !ouJJi0!ih~ ' y fP-<- 6 - I9!U~ 1~ t ~ ~~ ( ct tilJ IjL~ ~iM~ flAJ; ~ fLMJ -{.& do d; Jj tun UiW o ~ ~ldU t;f3 ~ 0 ~ 'I1Lr./J ~ r J eLL l01dv if 1M .f 1L~ < . , . I 3(L1L, v UJuL CMcLo , clip I Best CC~jl AVClilab3e -~ ~ I , r)~v Ci.-ct · f/vl) (r!!.f PI QfP 1 ~ ()~ On-vd UU ~ (~Jk \ : r----o vi o~~) ! !SJ ~ fttdl,tb~ CIJJ1h~ JodLtlJtJJ?mtF ~ J /7;~ 41J /~ ~ · ~ ~ " ~/ iii/lilt V-Oj:;' D ---- 6lJ~~JtiJH/I . ~~~l ~ ~SP4Y~8hl/h ~ 'CDB Meetmg Date Apn I 20, 2004 1/1,-,,, '~-"... ~ ~ilf.. l-/JIohrt mblt/ Case Number FLD2003-09050 "'l/vunt '7'Ulr~q Agenda Item E3 /1l~-~M-,)~ Apphcant Top Flight Development, LLC Address 1925 Edgewater Dnve ~ ~);I<<iItN CITYOFCLEARWATER ~-/lUd~ fJl'(iJf(j(ILJ - t d)'1.~/(/hirPLA~~~D'::~.i:rnNT }?~.. ~& -lttii!J;!odtAb j/lJnlJ/&. ~-gt;t:Wt?I~ ~ "?M WA::m~ GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to perrmt a reductIOn m the Side (east) setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet (to pavement) and, an mcrease of bUIldmg heIght from 35 feet to 75 feet from base flood elevatIOn of 13 feet MSL (wIth heIght calculated to the rmdpomt of the roof slope) to construct 77 multI-family residential (attached) umts, under the prOVISIons of SectIOn 2-803.B EXISTING ZONINGI LAND USE: Tounst (T) Dlstnct, Resort Faclllttes HIgh (RFH) Category PROPERTY SIZE: 2 572 Acres PROPERTY USE: Current Use Motels (two) Proposed Use- Multi-famIly reSIdential ADJACENT ZONINGI LAND USES: North Tounst Dlstnct (T), OvernIght accommodatIOns West PreservatIOn (P), Clearwater harbor East Medmm Density ReSidentIal (MDR) and Low Medmm Density ReSIdentIal (LMDR), Smgle Farruly Restdenttal South Tounst DIStnct (T) and Office Dlstnct (0); Gas statIon and Smgle FamIly ReSIdentIal CHARACTER OF THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY: Scemc north-south comdor, overnIght lodgmg, smgle farruly reSIdential, and commercial ANAL YSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: ThIS 2 572-acre SIte IS located on the southeast corner of Sunnydale Dnve and Edgewater Dnve, and north of Sunset Pomt Road CommercIal, and reSidentIal land uses dorrunate the ImmedIate VICIlllty At present, there are two motels on the property proposed for redevelopment Staff Report.CommuOlty Development Board - Apnl 20, 2004 - Case FLD2003-090S0- Page I >\ The allowable densIty for overnight accommodatIOns on thIS site IS 102 hotel or motel umts Proposal: The proposal IS to completely raze the eXlstmg SIte, mcludmg the two motels, conslstmg of 36 motel Units, mne rental apartments, and ancIllary structures and construct 77 attached dwellmgs All applIcable Code reqUIrements and cntena mcludmg but not ltnuted to General ApphcabIl1ty cntena (SectIOn 3-913) and the fleXIbIlIty cntena for attached umts (SectIOn 2- 803 B) have been met The appltcatIOn as advertised IS seekmg flexible development approval to perrrut attached dwellIngs WIth a reductIOn of the sIde (east) setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet (to pavement), an Increase of bUIldmg heIght from 50 feet FLS level to 75 feet from base flood elevatIon of 13 feet MSL (wIth height calculated to the nudpomt of the roof slope) The request for addItIOnal bUlldmg heIght IS to allow for the denSIty to be deSigned wIthm the lInuts of the property The Side setback request Will allow for the parkmg space reqUIrement to be met Both a six-foot hIgh decoratIve wall and heavy landscapmg are shown along the east property hne where the setback reductIOn (to pavement) IS bemg sought To mItigate the proposed Side setback reductIOn and to better mtegrate the development With the abuttIng predommantly smgle-farmly residentIal land use, the proposed buddmg has been redesIgned to mcorporate a "staIr steppmg" effect With a sectIOn of the bUlldmg at the northeast SIde nsmg to 525 feet and translllomng to 75 feet ThiS redesIgn accomplIshes both bUIldmg heIght reductlon and Improved deSign CODE ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS: There are no outstandmg enforcement Issues associated With thiS site STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: (Section 2-301.1 and 2-304): STANDARD PROPOSED CONSISTENT INCONSISTENT MAXIMUM 77 dwellIng umts X DENSITY IMPERVIOUS 060 X SURFACE RATIO (ISR) LOT AREA 2 57 acres; 111 ,949 square feet X LOT WIDTH 210 feet at nearest pomt X FRONT SETBACK 15 feet at closest pomt X REAR SETBACK None (no rear setback) X SIDE SETBACK East 5 85 feet x* HEIGHT (35-100 feet 75 feet X* allowable FLD range) PARKING SPACES 117 spaces, 1 5 spaces per umt X (1.5 per unit required) * See analysls above for dlscusslOn Staff Report-COmmUnlly Development Board - Apnl 20, 2004 - Case FLD2003-09050- Page 2 I ., ! .. EXI ILITY CRITERIA (8 2 803 B) r bl b oldo h FL B echon - 0 applIca e to UI IDe: eie:ht and side setback: Consistent Inconsistent 1 The Increased heIght results In an Improved sIte plan or Improved [X] [ ] desIgn and appearance, and 2. The Increased heIght is necessary to allow the Improvement of off- [X] [ ] street parkmg on the ground floor of the resldenttal bUIld10g 3 The reductIon 10 Side setback does not prevent access to the rear of [X] [ ] any bUlldmg by emergency vehicles 4 The reductton m SIde setback results In an Improved SIte plan, more [X] [ ] effiCIent parkmg or Improved deSign and appearance GENERAL STANDARDS (Section 3.913): Consistent Inconsistent 1 Development of the land WIll be 10 hannony With the scale, bulk, [X] ( ] coverage, denSity and character of adjacent propertIes 2. Development WIll not hmder or dIscourage development and use of [X] [ ] adjacent land and bUIldmgs or sIgmflcantly Impmr the value thereof. 3 Development WIll not adversely affect the health or safety of persons [X] [ ] resldmg or workmg III the neIghborhood 4 Development IS deSIgned to rrummlZe traffiC congestIOn [X] [ ] 5 Development IS consistent WIth the commumty character of the [X] [ J Immedtate VICInIty 6 DeSIgn of the proposed development rrummIzes adverse effects, [X] [ ] mclud10g Visual, acoustIc and olfactory and hours of operatIOn nnpacts on adJacent properties SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development ReVIew COIllll11ttee reViewed the applIcatIOn and supportmg matenals on January 29, 2004 The Planmng Department recommends APPROVAL of the FleXible Development applIcatlOn to penrut attached dwellIngs With a reductIOn of the Side (east) setback from 10 feet to 585 feet (to pavement), and an mcrease of bUIldmg heIght, from 35 feet to 75 feet from base flood elevatlOn of 13 feet MSL (WIth height calculated to the ITlldpomt of the roof slope) to construct 77 multI-famtly reSIdential (attached) umts, under the proVISIOns of SectlOns 2-803 B and 2-303. With the followmg bases and conditions Bases for Approval 1 The proposal complIes With the FleXible Development CrIterIa per SectIOn 2-803 B 2 The proposal is m complIance With other standards In the Code mcludmg the General ApplicabIlity Cntena per SectIOn 3-913 Staff Report -Commumty Development Board - A pnl 20, 2004 - Case FLD2003-09050- Page 3 , , j. ." .. "" 3 The development IS compattble WIth the surroundmg area and wIll enhance other redevelopment efforts Prepared by- Planmng Department Staff ConditIOns of Approval 1 That any bUIldmg elevatIOns and SIte plan set changes subnutted, wlthm the ltmIts of Commumty Development Code SectIOn 4-406 A, wIll need to be found satIsfactory by Plannmg staff pnor to bUIldmg permit Issuance, 2 That the separate SIte plans be consolIdated to one SIte plan set with one SIte data table, 3 That the site data table mdtcate both the maxImum and proposed ImpervIOUS Surface RatIO, 4 That the SIte data table state the number of motel rooms eXIstmg on SIte, 5 That a lO-foot SIdewalk, dramage and utIlIty easement along frontage of Edgewater Dove be granted, 6 That a revised SIte plan be subnutted pnor to bUIldmg permIt Issuance, correctly showmg ViSIbIlIty tnangles measured from the property hnes, 7 That a reVised landscape plan be subnutted satisfactory to Planmng staff, pnor to buddtng penmt Issuance, S That Open Space, Recreatton Land and RecreatIOn FaCIlIty Impact fees be satIsfied poor to the lssuance of buddtng permIts or fmal plat, whIchever occurs first; 9. That a tree preservatIon plan be proVIded pnor to bUIldmg penmt Issuance, 10 That all Fue Department reqUIrements be addressed pnor to buddmg pernut ISSUanCe;! 11 That a vacatIOn of alley and/or easements be completed pnor to Issuance of a bUIldIng penmt; 12. That the mstallatIOn of samtary sewer mam be completed pnor to Issuance of a bUIldmg penrut; 13 That a copy of the SWFWrvID pernut be proVided pnor to bUIldmg penrut; 14 That all nght-of-way pernuts be obtamed pnor to Issuance of a bUIldIng permIt, 15 That a sediment and erosIOn control preventton plan be subnutted pnor to any demohtJon and butldmg penmts, 16 That TraffIC Impact Fees be deterrruned and patd pnor to Certtficate of Occupancy Issuance, 17. That a CondommlUm plat be recorded pnor to Issuance of the fust Certificate of Occupancy, 18 That all proposed utIlItIes (from the nght-of-way to the proposed bUildIngs) be placed underground and InstallatIOn of condUlt(s) along the enure length of the site's street frontage be completed pnor to the Issuance of the fIrst certtficate of occupancy, and 19 That all slgnage meet Code, consist of channel letters for any attached SignS, and be archItecturally mtegrated to the deSIgn of the bUIldmg and site Freestanding slgnage Will need to meet code and be monument-style In deSign A/~ k/ ~ MIchael H Reynolds, AICP, SenIOr Planner A IT ACIDvIENTS Aenal Photograph of SIte and VICInIty LocatlOn Map Future Land Use Map Zomng Atlas Map ApplIcatIOn S \Plannmg Departmenr.C D B\FLEX\Pendmg casc,\Up for the next CD8\Edgewarer 1925 fop Fhght Development (T]\Updared Edgewarer 1925 Staff Report doc Staff Report-Commumly Development Board - Apnl 20, 2004 - Case FLD2003-090S0- Page 4 __ ?#Jn1/Jer';fh7d -r?r~~15 -.mae~ /1/;I}v j11fll71Hn>> /0[ _ ~~" .' ffi;tn t ~ ~M;;7 81mlar [Fl1li1tmd_#~ ~-r-- /1J be In)); 4.k:;::/ .: I?~~ ~ .!!:!!JJ1 ~c;/ 'UU,",/~ -- .k0~_~?f7~ /-?~/~..:i-- ~ ~j2!7/!~!f:- ~ :1V -~~~~~&i~ .. ~--~ ~dt ~ --~-4---. v I ~ ~ A/br>>J :::; #~ ~~ ~MW~ : ~ ?Pt#5 ~dc? -- ,/ 'tJl7):::J - 40' - (jo}JtUt? -:_~///.(ll/l ~ - <ll1aJb 1~~"{2/U'J4Ah' - ._-~. t L ~- . ~cr;;;j& ~ a~~ '---7h-P/J- -~- 1!la'<< .- !jpt!t~ -rf) / ~1~tJuiM;? /7l~~ 4;Pj?l/t " 7'~ 'I tJI2)3~- A~i;)& ~ I hv-;, 1Jj.. ~/tPDI B"est Copy- ;)I, ----" Avatrabh:! - ~ ~~ -.' -- - CITY OF CLEARWATER NOTICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD PUBLIC HEARINGS The Commumty Development Board of the City of Clearwater, Flonda, will hold pubhc heanngs on Tuesday, July 20, 2004, begll1mng at 200 pm, Il1 the CIty Council Chamber!>, Il1 City I-Iall, 3rd floor, 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clea(i.vater, Flonda, to Lonslder the following requests. NOTE> All persons wlshml! to address an Item need to be present at the BEGINNING of the meetml!. Those cases that are not contested bv the applicant. staff, "ell!hborlnl! property owner~, etc will be placed on a consent al!enda and approved bv a ~ml!le vote at the bel!lnmne afthe mectml! I Corbett Development. Inc. are requestll1g a Flexible Development approval to reduce the minimum lot "Ize from 20,000 "q n to 14,850 ~q ft, the front (we~t) !>ctback along South Fort Ham"on Ave from 20 ft to 15 ft to pavement, the fronl ("outh) setback along' B" St from 20 ft to 13 ft (to bUlldmg) and 10 ft (to pavement) the SIde (north) setback from 15 ft to 5 ft (to pavement), the "Ide (east) setback from 15 ft to 5 ft (to pavement) and to permit an office use In the IRT dlstnct, under the proVISIOns of SectIOn 2-1304 C as a ComprehenSIve 1 nfill Redevelopment Project (Proposed Use' A 2,044 sq ft office) at 1315 S Fort Harmon Ave, Bellealr, Blk 13, Lots 9-11 & W V. vacated alley FtD2004-02006 ':. 1912,s Em cMlafer",Drive ~Inc .%lUO Eh "fitfE~er.'''''r~~cs Inc (Top Fhght Development, LLC) are reque~tmg a FleXible Development approval to permIt a reduCtlon to {he ~~oc(Ca"t) setback from 1 0 ft to 5 85 ft (to pavement), and an Il1crease of bUlldmg height from 35 ft to 59 ft from ba!>e flood elevatIOn of 13 ft MSL (with heIght cdlculated to the mldpomt of the roof slope) to construct 62 multI-family resldent131 (attached) umts, under the proVISIOns of SectIOn 2-803 B (Proposed Use A 62-umt development of attached, multl-fdmlly umts) at 1925 Ed2'ewater Dr., Sunnydale Sub, Lots 1, 2 and W 34 ft of Lot 3, Sunset Pomt and Replat Lots 2 & 3, Blk A, the E 3 ft of Lot 4, Lot 5,6,7, together WIth the W 15 ft of Lot 8 FtD2003- 09050 3 Lmda S Grim", T R E, / McDowell H 0 Idm2'~. I nc. are reque~tmg a Flexible Development approval (I) to retam an eXI"tmg office use With proposed parkmg Improvements at 1455 Court St With a reductIOn to the front (north) !>etbdck from 25 ft to 5 ft (to eXI"tmg/proposcd p,wcment), a reductIOn to the side (east) setb,lck from 20 ft to zero ft (to eXlstmg/proposed pdvement), a reductlOn to the sIde (west) setback from 20 ft to 12 ft (to eXlstmg/proposed pavement) and a reductIon to the rear (south) setbaGk from 20 ft to 95ft (to eXlstmg/propo~cd pavement), as d ComprehenSive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the proVISIOns of SectIOn 2-1004 B, dnd a reductlOn to the land~cape buffer along Court St (north) from 15 ft to 5 ft, a reductIOn to the landscape buffer dlong the rear (south) propcrty Illle from 12 ft to 95ft and a reductIOn to the foundatIOn landscdpmg from 5 ft to 3 ft (exlstmg), as pdrt of a ComprehenSIve Landscape Program, under thc proVISIOns of SectIon 3- 1202 G, and (2) to amend a prevlOu"ly approved FleXIble Development requc!>t to penmt office~ dt 1459 Court St to additionally reduce the side (we!>t) setback from 20 ft to zero ft (to proposed pavement), a~ d Comprchenslve Infill Redevelopment Project, under thc provlslOn~ of ScctlOn 2-1004 B (pnor approval under FLD2003-01 002 on Apnl 15, 2003, was to permit offices with a reductIOn to the front (north) !>etbaek from 25 ft to 17 ft (to pavement and bUlldmg), a reductIOn to the sIde (ea!>t) setback from 20 ft to 10 ft (to bUlldmg), a reductIOn to the ~lde (wcst) setback from 20 ft to 7 ft (to pavcment) and a reductIOn to the redr (~outh) setback from 20 ft to 11 ft (to bUlldmg) and from 20 ft to 3 ft (to dumpster ClldO~llre), as part of d Comprehen~lve Infin Redcvelopment ProJect, under the prOVI<;lOns of Section 2-1004 B, dnd d reductIOn to the landscape buff<.r along the redr (~outh) property lme from 12 ft to 3 ft, a<; part of a Comprehenslvc Ldmhcape Program, under the proViSIOns of SectIOn 3-1202 G] (Proposed Use: Offices) at 1455 & 1459 Court St, Breeze H1l1 Sub, Blk A, Lots 5-7 FLD2004-02009 4 Harbor~lde Townhomes. LLC are requestmg a FleXIble Developmcnt to permit a mu1tl-u~c dock, under the provl!>lon<; of SectIOn 3-60 I (Proposed Use. MultI-use dock for 6 slips totdlmg 540 sq ft, WIth each dock measurmg 60 ft III length from the seawall, m conjunction WIth d 6-umt townhome development) at 144 Brll!htwater Dr., BdY~lde Sub No 2, Lot 47 & npdnan nghts & Lot 48 FtD2004-04021 5 Goral Tov, LTD (Jo"eph Chouclfan) are requestmg a FleXIble Development approval to pcrmlt an a\coholtc beveragc "ale" e"tabltshment 10 the IRT Dlstnct, as a Comprehen~lvc Infill Redevelopment ProJcct, under the proVI<;IO"" of SectIOn 2- 1304 C (Proposed Use. Akohohc beverage sale,,) at 1550 McMullen Booth Rd.. Umt n, South Oab Fa!>hlOn Square, Lot I 1"1 1)2004-04024 " -- - 6 Joann A. Palmen ]~ rcquc~tlng a FlexIble Dcvdopment approval to pcrmlt thc conversIOn of a single-famIly detached dwelhng Into an attached dwelling (duplex) under the provl~lon~ of SectlOn 2-204 E as a ResidentIal ]nfill Project (Proposed Use Duplex In aSSOCiatIon with an CX]stlng smgle-family home) at 517 Sk",vlew Ave, Boulevard Pmes, Blk A, Lot5 17-18 & part of Lots 16 & ] 9 FL.D2004-04030 7 Mt Carmel Commumtv Dev Corp I Cltv of Clearwater are requesting a Flex]blc Dcvelopment approval to permIt attached dwelhng~ (eight umts) entIrely wlt]nn thc 0 55-acre portlOn of the parcel zoned MDR, MedIUm DenSity Re~ldentlal Dlstnct and a reductlOn to the front (north) sctback along LaSalle St from 25 f't to lOft (to pavement) III the 0 55-acre portlOn of the parcel zoned MDR and the 0 27-derc portlOn of the parcel zoned C, Commercial Dlstnct under the provI~]ons of SectlOn 2-304 G (ResIdentIal ]nfil1 Projcct) and Section 2-704 C (ComprehenSIve ]nfil1 Redevelopment Projcet) (Proposed Use: Attached dwell111gs [8 ullIt5]) at 1009 LaSalle St., Greenwood Manor, Lots 6-10 FL.D2003-09052 8 Patnck E & Tom V. HIckey .Ire requesting a FleXible Development approval for an officc WIth a reductlOn to the sIde (north) ~etback from 20 ft to 6 ft to pavement, and a reductlOn of the sIde (south) sctback from 20 ft to 7 I ft (to eXlstmg bUlldmg), and a reduetlOn of the mllllmum lot width of 100 ft to approxImately 65 ft under the proVISIons of SectIon 2- 1004 B (Comprehcm]ve Infill Redevelopment Project) and d~ part of a ComprehenSive Landscape Program under thc prov1S1ons of SectlOn 1-1202 G (Proposed Use An 840 sq ft office) at 107 M eM "lien Booth Rd., See 16-29-16, M & B 21 05 FLD2004-04028 9 VlrC1ll1H B. Franks (RadclIffe Development Company, LLC) are reque5tlng a FleXIble Development approval to dcvclop 4 re~ldent1al attached dwelhng umt5 on a 6,479 sq ft lot (10,000 sq ft IS reqUIred), with a mllllmum lot wIdth of 60 ft (] 00 ft IS reqUIred), a reductIOn In the front setback from 15 ft to 6 ft to pavement, .I rcductlOn In the ~]de (~outh) setback from 10 ft to zero ft to wooden deck w,llkwdY, a reductlOn of the sIde (north) setback from 10 ft to 8 ft (to bUIlding), a reductlOn of the rear setback from 20 ft to 10ft to wooden deck, and a bUlldmg heIght lllerca~c from 35 ft to 51 83 ft from FEMA to roof mIdpoint under thc proVISIOns of SectIOn 2-803 B (Proposed Use Attached dwel1mgs) ,lt 669 Sa", Esplanade, Mandalay Ulllt No 5 Replat, Blk 77, Lot 8 FLD2004-03018 10 Allison V. Thompson & Eric Held ,lre rcquestmg an appeal of Flex]ble Standard Deve]opment apphcatlOn denymg a reductIOn to the rear (east) accessory ~etb,lck from lOft to zero ft (to deeklllg) for an eXlstlllg wooden dcck as a ReSIdential Infill Project under the provIsIons of SeetlOn 2~203 C (Proposed Use: EXIsting wooden deck to rcm,llll) at 2271 Sprme:ram Dr., Spnng Lake ofClcarwater, Lot 7 APP2004-00004 Interestcd parlles may ,lppear and be heard at the he,lnngs or file wntten nOllce of approval or objecllon With the Plannmg Duector or CIty Clerk pnor to the hearlllg~ Any person who declde~ to .Ippeal any decl~lon mddc by the Board, WIth rcspect to any mattcr conSIdered at such he.Inngs, wIll need to requc5t and obtalll p,lrty ~t,ltu~ by the Board dunng the case dlscu~~lOn, a record of the proeeedmgs and, for such purpose, may need to enwre that a verbatIm record of the proceedlllgs ]S made, whIch record lllc\udes the te~tlmony and eVIdence upon whIch the appeal l~ to be based per FlOrida Statute 2860105 Communlty Development Code SectlOn 4-206 ~tates that party St,ltuS ~hall be granted by the Board If pcr<>on requesting such demon~trates that slhe IS sub~t,lntlally affected Party ~t,ltU<; entItles partlCs to personally testIfy, present eVIdence, argument and WItnesses, cross-ex,lmmc WItnesses, appeal the dcc]~lon and speak on rewll5lderatlOn requests An odth w]ll be admllllstercd ~weanng all partlclp,lnt~ m pubhc heanng C,l~es If you WIsh to spe,lk ple.I5c wmt to be recogmzed, then ~t,lte and spell your name and proVIde your addres~ Persons speaklllg before the COB shall be hmlted to three mlllutcs unless an md]v]du,ll ]~ representmg a group m whIch case the Chdupcrson may authonze d rea~onablc amount of tIme up to I 0 mmute~ FIve days pnor to the mectmg, staff reports and recommendatIOns on the above requests w]1I bc avallable for revIew by lllterested p,lrtlCS between the hour~ of 8 30 a m and 4 30 pm, weekdays, at the CIty of Clearwater, Pl,lnlllng Department, 100 S Myrtlc Ave, Cle,lrwater, FL 33756 Please contact Frank Gerlock, Development ReView M.Inager at 562-4557 to dISCU~~ ,lny questIOns or concerns about the project ,lnd/or to better underst,lnd the proposal and revlCW the Slte plan Thl~ notIce wa~ sent by the OffiCial Records and Legl~latlvc ServIces Dep,lrtmcnt, Cynthia E GOUdC,lU, CMC, CIty Clerk L]sa FlCree Pl,lnnlllg Dcpartment Cynthl,l E Goudeau CMC City Clerk CIty of Clearwater POBox 4748, CleanVdler, FL 33758-4748 NOTE Applicant or reprc~entat1ve must be pre<;cnt at thc heanng . ~ SANDONA TO, WILLIAM 5ANDONA TO, HELEN A 1051 SEDEEVA ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1426 SHERRY, ROBERT J 1026 SUNSET POINT RD CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1441 C:-~l~'~~ SANDAKER, ROSE M EST C/O SANDAKER, CARL B PR 260 LYNDHURST ST DUNEDIN FL 34698 - 7578 ~LDaco~ -690~D MAHER, CATHLEEN J WEBB, MICHAEL C 1034 SEDEEV A ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1425 BHULA, RAMAN 1941 EDGEWATER DR CLEARWATERfL 33755 - 1417 GROTH, VERONICA W TRE 1034 SUNNYDALE DR CLEARWATER FL33755 - 1437 STRANGE, STEVEN M ZAGELBAUM, BENJAMIN TRE TOP FLIGHT ENTERPRISES INC 1030 SEDEEV A ST ZAGELBAUM, ADELE TRE 19309 PIER PorNT CT CLEARW ATER FL 33755 - 1425 1039 SEDEEV A ST LUTZ FL 33558 - CLEARW A TER FL 33755 - 1426 ZAGELBAUM, NEIL ZAGELBAUM, BENJAMIN TRE CLEARWATER, CITY OF 1035 SEDEEV A ST ZAGELBAUM, ADELE TRE PO BOX 4748 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1426 1039 SEDEEV A ST CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 4748 CLEARW ATER FL 33755 - 1426 TOP FLIGHT ENTERPRISES INC DA VIS, PHYLLIS J TRE MC CULLOCH, GRAHAM H 19309 PIER POINT CT 1058 SUNSET POINT RD MC CULLOCH, HELEN W LUTZ FL 33558 - CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1441 445 PINE WARBLER WAY PALM HARBOR FL 34683 - 6115 CLEAR WATER, CITY 0 F LANNING, THOMAS L BA TSFORD, EDWARD T JR PO BOX 4748 LANNING, SUE A BATSFORD, BARBARA A CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 4748 1040 SUNSET POINT RD 1018 SEDEEVA ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 -1441 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1425 FARRELL, DANIEL TRE DEL MAR DEV CLEARWATER, CITY OF 1352 WILLIAMS DR 162 BRENT CIR PO BOX 4748 CLEAR WATER FL 33764 - 2880 OLDSMAR FL 34677 - 3342 CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 4748 MABEE, RICHARD D BELNlAK, MARY K 1039 SUNNY DALE DR CLEARWATERFL33755 - 1438 & R COMFORT SUITES LEARWATERBAY 41 EDGEWATER DR EARW A TER fL 33755 - 1417 CHRAN, DONALD D JR HRAN, EVELYN C STEVENSON AVE ARW ATER FL 33755 - 1854 1925 EDGEW A TER DR INe 1925 EDGEWATER DR CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1416 MILLS, FRED E 1028 SUNNYDALE DR CLEARWATER fL 33755 - 1437 STAUFFER, ROBERT R MONTGOMERY -S1 AUFF ER, TONYA 1015 SEDEEVA 5T CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1426 Me MULLEN, D GUY PROPERTIES INC PO BOX 91 CLEARWATER FL 33757 - 0091 MC CLAIN, REGINA 1031 SUNNYDALEDR CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1438 KEMPER, BETTY J 1022 SUNNYDALE DR CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1437 . ~C GRATH, SHAUN -ANDREWS, PAUL L GRACE, GERARD GRACE, TERRIE MC GRATH, SUZANNE ANDREWS, VELMA C 1057 SEDEEV A ST 1959 EDOEW A TER DR 1040 SUNNYOALE DR CLEARWATERFL33755 - 1426 CLEARW ATER FL 33755 - 1417 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1437 HASSIG, JUDY V R & R COMFORT SUITES HARRlS, STEPHEN W 1042 SUNNYDALE DR CLEAR WATER BAY HARRIS, SHERRY R CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1437 1941 EDGEWATER DR 1963 EOGEWATERDR CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1417 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1418 SANOAKER, ROSE M EST SANDAKER, ROSE M EST CLEARWATER, CITY OF CIO SANDAKER, CARL B PR CIO SANDAKER, CARL B PR PO BOX 4748 260 LYNDHURST ST 260 LYNDHURST ST CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 4748 DUNEDIN FL 34698 - 7578 DUNEDIN FL 34698 - 7578 EPPS, VERNON TOP FLIGHT ENTERPRISES INC LAMBRIANAKOS, V ASILIOS EPPS, DOROTHY H 19309 PIER POINT CT LAMBRIANAKOS,DIMITRA 1045 SEDEEV A ST LUTZ FL 33558 - 376 VENTURA DR CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1426 OLDSMAR FL 34677 - 4600 MC DUFF, CAROL S MEYER, SUSAN L TOP FLIGHT ENTERPRISES INC 1031 SEDEEV A ST MEYER, LARRY 19309 PIER POINT CT CLEARW ATER FL 33755 - 1426 1020 SEDEEV A ST LUTZ FL 33558 - CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1425 CLEARWATER, CITY OF SANDAKER, CARL JR SNYDER, JUNE H PO BOX 4748 1028 SUNSET POINT RD 1047 SEDEEV A ST CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 4748 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1441 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1426 GRAY, WILLIAM L GRA Y, JANET C 1951 EDGEWATER DR CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1417 FALK,DEAN F ALK, MARIA 9880 LOWER l67TH ST LAKEVILLE MN 55044 - 8186 OSCHOS, STEF ANOS OSCHOS, BETTY o CARLYLE CIR LM HARBOR FL 34683 - 1803 NCINI, C LILLIAN 8 SUNNYDALE DR ARW ATER FL 33755 - 1437 WEIGAND, STEVE 1957 SEVER DR CLEARWATER FL 33764 - 4713 D'AMICO, RONALD S 1027 SUNNYDALE DR CLEARWATERFL33755 -1438 HA WTHORNE, AUDREY M 1013 SEDEEVA ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1426 LANNING, THOMAS L LANNING, SUE A 1040 SUNSET POINT RD CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1441 COOMES, MICHAEL J 1014 SEDEEVA ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1425 PRANJIC, NlKO PRANJIC, VIDA 1025 SEOEEV A ST CLEARWATER FL337SS - 1426 SUNSET OAKS INC PO BOX 1992 LARGO FL 33779 - 1992 Edgewater Dnve Homeowners AssocmtlOn - Chip Potts 1150 Commodore St Clearvvater, FL 33755 ~ r' _ Clearwater NeIghborhoods CoalItIOn Harry S Cline, EsqUire Doug WIlliams 625 Court St , SUite 200 2544 Fnsco Dr Clearwater, FL 33756 Clearwater, FL 33761 - Top Fhght Development, LLC 1925 Edgewater Dr Clearwater, FL 33755 CITY OF CLEARWATER NOTICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD PUBLIC HEARINGS The Commumty Development Board of the CIty of Clearwater, Flonda, 'Wlll hold pubhc heanngs on Tuesday, April 20, 2004, begllllung at 2 00 pm, ill the City Counctl Chambers, lU CIty HaU, 3rd floor, 112 South Osceola A....enue, Clearwater, Flonda, to conSider the followmg requests: NOTE: All persons wlshme: to address an Item need to be present at the BEGINNING of the meetmll. Those cases that are not contested bv the applicant. staff. neillhborm2 property owners. etc. wIll be placed on a consent agenda and approved bv a sme:le vote at the be2innine: of the meetine:. 1 (cant from 2/17/04) Clearwater Townhomes. Inc. (Paul Camp Lane, Esqmre) are requestmg a fleXlble development approval to pemut the constructIon of 5 multI-use docks provldmg 10 shps for a lO-umt townhome (FLD2002-11042), With each dock measunng 54 ft m length (25 percent of the waterway Width) from seawall and 1,080 sq ft of total decking for the 5 proposed docks, under the prOVIsIons of SectIon 3-601 (Proposed Use: 5 shared multI-use docks) at 161 Brlllhtwater Dr., Bayslde Sub No 2, Lots 14, 15 &;d6 FLP2003-11058 . ,1 2 (cant from 3/16/04) Marla Winner IS requestIng a fleXible development approval to penmt a reduction to lot SIZe from 5,000 sq ft to 4,040 sq it, a reducbon m: tfle sId~ (south) setback to 05 ft (to buIldmg) and zero ft (to pavement), a reduction In the front (west) setback to three ft (to bmldmg) and zero ft (to pavement), a reduction m the SIde (north) setback to 0 9 ft (to butldmg) and zero ft (to pavement)\ a reductIon ill the rear (east) setback to 0 5 ft (to bUlldmg) and zero ft (to pavement), a reduction m requued parkIng'from"i5 spaces' per 1,000 sq ft to zero for a restaurant and to penmt 3 dwellmgiumts, as a , - y Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the proVISlOns Of SectJ.on 2.803 C and ternunatlon of status .of non- confonruty regardmg densIty (Proposed Use: Restaurant and 3 reSidential uruts) at 395 Mandalav Ave., Barbour-Morrow Sub, Blk A, Lots 21 & 22 FLD2003-12070 G)(cont from 3/16/04) Top Fh2ht Enterprises. Inc. & 1925 Edeewater Drive. Inc. are requesting a fleXible development approval to penmt a reductIOn to the Side (east) setback from 10 ft to 5 85 ft (to pavement), and an mcrease of bUlldmg heIght from 35 ft to 75 ft from base flood elevatIOn of 13 ft MSL (With heIght calculated to the rrudpomt of the roof slope) to construct 77 multI-fanuly reSIdential (attached) umts, under the prOVISIOns of Section 2.803 B (Proposed Use: A 77-umt development of attached, multI-fanuly umts) at 1919 & 1925 Edeewater Dr. & 1010. 1012 & 1020 Sunset Pomt Rd., Sunnydale Sub, Lots 1,2 and W 34 ft of Lot 3, Sunset Pomt and Replat Lots 2 & 3, Blk A, the E 3 ft of Lot 4, Lot 5,6, 7, together 'Wlth the W 15 ft of Lot 8 FLD2003-09050 4 Patrick J. ShaU2hnessv & Shervl M. Havnes are requestIng a fleXlble development approval to pemut a rruxed use development WIth a proposed medical chmc and an eXIStIng congregate care facIlity, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment ProJect, under the provISIons of Section 2.704 C (Proposed Use: A 7,971 sq ft medical clmlc m aSSOCIatIon With an eXlstmg 32-bed congregate care faClbty) at 926 South Mvrtle Ave., Magnolia Park, Blk 31, Lots 2-9 FLD2004-02008 5 Roland R02ers - TWID Palms of Clearwater, LLC (Housh Ghovahee, Northslde Engmeenng SefV1ces, Inc) are requestmg an appeal of an mterpretatlOn of SectIOn 4-1402 With regard to how to calculate the maxunum 20 percent of the pemutted development potentIal of any gIVen site APP2004-00002 Interested partIes may appear and be heard at the heanngs or file wntten notice of approval or objectIon With the Planmng Drrector or City Clerk pnor to the heanngs Any person who deCides to appeal any declSlon made by the Board, "With respect to any matter consIdered at such hearuigs, wIll need to request and obtain party status by the Board dunng the case dISCUSSIOn, a record of the proceedmgs and, for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatun record of the proceedmgs IS made, whtch record Includes the teSbmony and eVIdence upon whIch the appeal IS to be based per Flonda Statute 286 0 105 Cormnumty Development Code SectIon 4-206 states that party status shall be granted by the Board If person requesting such demonstrates that slhe IS substantIally affected Party status entitles parttes to personally testIfy, present eVIdence, argwnent and Witnesses, cross-examme Witnesses, appeal the deCISIOn and speak on recollSl(leratlOn requests An oath Will be adnnmstered sweanng all partiCIpants m public hearmg cases If you Wish to speak please wait to be recogmzed, then state and spell your name and prOVIde your address Persons spealang before the CDB shall be luruted to three mmutes unless an mdlvldualls representIng a group m which case the Charrperson may authonze a reasonable amount of tune up to 10 mmutes CITY OF CLEARWATER NOTICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD PUBLIC HEARINGS The Community Development Board oCthe City of Clearwater, Flonda, will hold public heanngs on Tuesday, March 16, 2004, bcglllnmg at 200 pm, m the City CommISSIOn Chambers, In City Hall, 3rd floor, 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Flonda, to consIder the followmg requests: NOTE: All persons wlshm2 to address an Item need to be present at the BEGINNING of the mectm2. Those cases that are not conlested bv the applicant, staff. nel2hbonnl! property owners, etc. Will be placed on a consent al!enda and approved bv a smele vote at the beemmnl! of the meetml!. I (cant from 12116/03) Michael & Stefame Markham are requesting an appeal of the decIsIOn of a Level One (FleXible Standard Development) that approved an applicalion reducmg the Side (east) setback from 15 feet to 10 feet for a two-story addItIOn to an eXlstmg smgle fanuly dwelling, as a ReSidential Infill Project, under the prOVISions of SectIOn 2-103 B (FLS2003-08038) (Proposed Use. A 1,528 square-foot, two-story addItIOn, mcludmg a third car garage (With a dnveway extensIOn) m assocmtlon With an eXIstmg smgle-famlly dwelhng) (Owners. Jeffrey and Ambryn Fmstad) at 2959 Ea21e Estate~ Clr W, Eagle Eslates, Lot 38 APP2003-00003 2 Top Fhl!ht Enterprises. Ine & 1925 Ed2ewater Drive. Inc. are requestmg a fleXible development approval to pemllt a reductIOn 111 the Side (east) setback on Sunnydale J)nvt' from 10 feet to 5 85 feet (to pavement) and, an 1I1crease ofbUlldmg height from 35 feet to 75 feet from base flood elevallon of 13 feet MSL (With height calculated to the mldpomt of the roof slope) to construct 77 multi-family reSldentml (attached) umts, under the proVISions of SectIOn 2-803 B (Proposed Use' Attached multi-family reSIdential umts) at 1919 & 1925 Edl!ewater Dr & 1010. 1012 & 1020 Sunset Pomt Rd, Sunnydale Sub, Lots 1,2 and W 34 ft of Lot 3, Sunset P01l1t and Replat Lots 2 & 3, Blk A, the E 3 ft of Lot 4, Lot 5,6,7, together with the W 15 ft of Lot 8 FLD2003-09050 3 M.lssoud & Malouse Dabm are requestmg a fleXible development approval to reduce the number of parkmg spaces from 34 to 32 spaces, to reduce the front setbacks (north and south) from 25 feet to 10 feet (to pavement), reduce the Side setback from 20 feet to 10 feet (to pavement), and a bUlldmg height ll1crease to 39 5 feet, as a ComprehenSIve Infil] Development under the proVISIOns of SectIOn 2-1004 B (Proposed Use: Office bUlldmg) at 117 McM tillen Booth Rd ., Crystal Heights Sub, LOIS I & 2 FLD2003-11061 4 Belle AQua Villas. LLC are requestmg a fleXible development approval to penUlt a multI-use dock, under the prOVISIOns of SectIOn 3 -60 I (Proposed Use. Multi-use dock for SlX slIps totahng 720 square feet, With each dock measunng 60 feet 111 length from the seawall, 111 conjunctIOn With a slx-umt townbome development) at 125 Brl2ht\\ater Dr, Bayslde Sub No 2, Lots 7 & 8 FLD2003-11062 5 Belle Aqua Villas. LLC are requestmg a fleXible development approval to perrrut a multi-use dock, under the provISIons of SectIOn 3-601 (Proposed Use. Multi-use dock for SIX slIps totalmg 720 square feet, With each dock measunng 60 feet m length from the seawall, 111 conjunctIon With a Slx-umt townbome development) at 116 & 120 Brll!htwater Dr., Bayslde Sub No 2, Lo!s 53 & 54 FLD2003-11063 6 ENTA Imestments. LLC are requestmg a fleXIble development approval to perrrut the expanSiOn of a medical climc wlIh reductIOns to the front (east along South Fort Hamson Avenue) setback from 25 feet to 10 feet (to eXlstmg bUlldll1g), from 25 feet to three feet (to eXIstmg pavement) and from 25 feet to 15 feet (to proposed pavement), reductions to the front (north along "B" Street) setback from 25 feet to zero feet (to eXIsting bUlldmg) and from 25 feet to seven feet (to proposed dumpster enclosure), a reductIOn to the front (south along "C" Street) from 25 feet to two feet (to eXlstmg pavement) and reductions to the Side (west) setback from 10 feet to eight fee! (to eXlstmg bUlldmg), from 10 feet to zero feet (to eXlstmg pavement) and from 10 feet to five feet (to proposed pavement), as a ComprehenSive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the proVISions of SectIOn 2-704 C, and to pemut reductIOns to the landscape buffer along the front (east along South Fort Hamson A venue) property hne from 15 feet to 10 feet (to eXlstll1g bm ldmg) and from 15 feet to three feet (to eXlstmg pavement), a reductIOn to the landscape buffer along the front (north along "B" Street) from 10 feet to zero feet (to eXlstmg bUlldmg), a reductIOn to the landscape buffer along the front (south along "C" Street) from 10 feet to !\VO feet (to eXlstmg pavement) and a reduction to the landscape buffer along the west property lll1e from five feet to zero feet (to eXlstmg pavement), as part of a ComprehenSIve Landscape Program, under the proVISIOns of SectIon 3-1202 G (Proposed Use, ExpansIOn of an eXlstmg 3,096 square-foot medical climc through the renovatIOn of an eXlstmg 2,357 square-foot bUlldmg for admmlstralive purposes) at 1320 Ft. HarrISon Ave., BelleaJr, Blk 24, Lot 1-2 & vac alley on W, Lots 3,4 & 5 & E 1/2 ofvac alley FLD2003-12066 7 I1han BIIl!utav (Pat Sheppard) IS requestmg a flexible development approval to penrut constructIOn of 2 medical climc offices wilh bUlldmg A totalmg 7,985 sq ft and bUlldmg B totalmg 8,488 sq ft along with reductIOns to the front (southeast) setback along Lakevlew Rd from 35 ft to 15 ft (to pavement), the side (north) setback from 20 ft to 10 ft (to pavement) and the side (west) setback from 20 fI: to 15 ft (to bUlldmg) under the provISIOn of SeCtion 2-1004 C (Proposed Use: 2 medical clilllc offices totahng 16,473 sq ft) at 720 Lakevlew Rd" Sec 21-29-15, M&B 1421 FLD2003-12067 8 Marlee A Wmner IS requestmg a flexible development approval to permit a reductIOn to lot Size from 5,000 sq ft to 4,040 sq ft, a reduclion m the Side (soulh) setback to 5 ft (to bUlldmg) and zero fI: (to pavement), a reductIOn ill the front (west) setback to 3 ft (to bUlldmg) and zero ft (to pavement), a reductIOn ill the Side (north) setback to 9 ft (to bUilding) and zero ft (to pavement), a reductIOn m the rear (east) setback to 5 ft (to bUlldmg) and zero ft (to pavement), a reduction m reqUired parkmg from 15 spaces per 1,000 sq ft to zero for a restaurant and to permit 3 dwelling umts above as a ComprehenSive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provISIOns of Section 2-803 C (Proposed Use' Restaurant and 3 residential ulllts) at 395 Mandala" Ave., Barbour-Morrow Sub, Blk A, par t of Lot 21 & all of Lot 22 FLD2003-12070 9 Valhalla Properhes / John Rich are requestmg a flexible development approval to penrut a medIcal chmc WIth reductIOns to parkmg from 42 spaces to 29 spaces, a reductIOn of the front setback from 25 feet to 17 feet (to bUilding), a reductIOn m the Side (south) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to the dumpster enclosure), a reduction III the Side (north) setback from 10 feet to SIX feet (to bUlldmg), and a reduction of the rear setback from 20 feet to 14 feet ( to pavement) as a ComprehenSive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the prOVISIOns of SectIOn 2-1204, and a reduction to the landscape buffer along the east property hne (no contmuous hedge along property penmeter proVided), as part of a ComprehenslVe Landscape Program, under the prOVISIOns of Section 3-1202 G (Proposed Use Change of use from an eXisting 8,072 square foot SOCial center bUlldmg to a medical clime) at 407 N. Belcher Rd , Sec 07-29-16, M&B 33 11 FLD2004~02007 10 Josee Goudreault IS requesting an appeal of a Level One applicatIOn (FleXible Standard Development case FLS2003- 12066) that requITes the bUlldmg be repamted a neutral color, under the prOVISiOns of Section 4-501 (Proposed Use. An exISting bUlldmg that has been pamted light purple [mam portIOn of the extenor of a bUlldmg] and dark purple [base of the bUlldlOg and tnm]) at 24 N Ft Hamson Ave., Earl & Tate's Sub, N 43 ft of Lots 12 & 13 APP2004-00001 Interested parties may appear and be heard at the hearmgs or file wntten notice of approval or ObjectiOn with the Planmng Director or City Clerk pnor to the heanngs Any person who deCides to appeal any deCISion made by the Board, With respect to any matter conSidered at such heanngs, w1ll need a record of the proceedmgs and, for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbalim record of the proceedmgs IS made, which record mcludes the testimony and eVidence upon which the appeal IS to be based per Flonda Statute 286 0 I 05 Conunumty Development Code Section 4-206 states that party status shall be granted by the Board If person requesting such demonstrates that slbe IS substantially affected Party status entitles partIes to personally testify, present eVidence, argument and Witnesses, cross-exanune Wltnesses, appeal the declslOll and speak on reconsideratIOn requests An oath WIll be adnumstered sweanng all part1clpants m publie hcanng cases If you Wish to speak please walt to be recogmzed, then state and spell your name and proVide your address Persons speaking before the CDB shall be hnuted to three minutes unless an mdlvldualls representing a group III whIch case the Chanperson may authonze a reasonable amount of lime up to 10 mmutes Five days pnor to the meetmg. staff reports and recommendatJons on the above requests WIll be aV31lable for review by mterested parties between the hours of 8 30 a m and 4 30 pm, weekdays, at the City of Clearwater, Planmng Department, 100 S Myrtle Ave, Clearwater, FL 33756 Please contact Frank Gerlock, Development ReView Manager, at 562-4557 to diSCUSS any questlQns or concerns about the project and/or to better understand the proposal and review the site plan ThiS notice was sent by the OffiCial Records and LegIslative Services Department, Cynthia E Goudeau, CMC, City Clerk Lisa FIerce Plannmg Department Cynthia E Goudeau, CMC City Clerk City of Clearwater POBox 4748, Clearwater, FL 33758~4748 NOTE Apphcant or representative must be present at the heanng YOU ARE BEING SENT THIS NOTICE IF YOU ARE THE APPLICANT OR OWN PROPERTY WITHIN 500 FT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY A COpy OF THIS AD IN LARGE PRINT IS AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES DEPT. ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY REQUIRING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING SHOULD CALL THE OFFICIAL RECORDS AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES DEPT WITH THEIR REQUEST AT (727) 562-4090. Ad 02/29/04 ~ , /9 :A ~ Sse Lt~~(er Dr. FLD?oo3 ~oc-ro~o CLEARWATER, CITY OF PO BOX 4748 CLEARW A TER FL 33758 - 4748 MEYER, SUSAN L MEYER, LARRY 1020 SEDEEV A ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1425 LOOS, GERHARD W LOOS, KATHLEEN M 1040 SEDEEV A ST CLEARW ATER FL 33755- GRA Y, WILLIAM L ORA Y, JANET C 1951 EDGEW A TER DR CLEARWATER FL 33755 -1417 STAUFFER, ROBERT R MONTGOMERY -STAUFFER, TONYA 1015 SEDEEV A ST CLEARW ATER FL 33755 - 1426 MC DUFF, CAROL S 1031 SEDEEV A ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1426 EPPS, VERNON EPPS, DOROTHY H 1045 SEDEEV A ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 -1426 GRACE, GERARD GRACE, TERRIE 1057 SEDEEV A ST CLEARW ATER FL 33755 - SCHRANZ, CARRIE M 1067 SEDEEV A ST CLEARW ATER FL 33755 - 1426 CLEARWATER, CITY OF PO BOX 4748 CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 4748 CLEARW A TER, CITY OF PO BOX 4748 CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 4748 STRANGE, STEVEN M 1030 SEDEEV A ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1425 REY, LILLIAN V 1042 SEDEEV A ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 -1425 MOSCHOS, STEP ANOS MOSCHOS, BErry 120 CARLYLE CIR PALM HARBOR FL 34683 - 1803 ZAGELBAUM, BENJAMIN TRE ZAGELBAUM, ADELE TRE 1039 SEDEEV A ST CLEARW ATER FL 33755 - 1426 ZAGELBAUM, NEIL 1035 SEDEEVA ST CLEARW A TER FL 33755 - 1426 SNYDER, JUNE H 1047 SEDEEV A ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1426 MC CULLOCH, GRAHAM H Me CULLOCH, HELEN W 445 PINE WARBLER WAY PALM HARBOR FL 34683- HARRIS, STEPHEN W HARRIS, SHERRY R 1963 EDGEWATER DR CLEARWATER FL 33755 -1418 BA TSFORD, EDWARD T JR BATSFORD, BARBARA A 1018 SEDEEVA ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1425 MAHER, CATHLEEN J WEBB, MICHAEL C 1034 SEDEEV A ST CLEARW ATER FL 33755 - 1425 MC GRATH, SHAUN MC GRA TH, SUZANNE 1959 EDGEW A TER DR CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1417 HAWTHORNE, AUDREY M 10 13 SEDEEV A ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1426 PRANJIC, NIKO PRANJIC, VIDA 1025 SEDEEV A ST CLEARW ATER FL 33755 - 1426 ZAGELBAUM, BENJAMIN TRE ZAGELBAUM, ADELE TRE 1039 SEDEEY A ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1426 SANDONATO, WILLIAM SANDONATO, HELEN A 1051 SEDEEV A ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - MC CULLOCH, GRAHAM MC CULLOCH, HELEN-WHITE 1065 SEDEEV A ST CLEARW ATER FL 33755 - COOMES, MICHAEL J 1014 SEDEEV A ST CLEARW ATER FL 33755 - 1425 1925 EDGEWATER DR INC SANDAKER, ROSE M EST 1925 EDGEW A TER DR C/O SANDAKER, CARL B PR CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1416 260 LYNDHURST ST F I L EDUNEDIN FL 34698 - ,.- , ".. . SANDAKER, ROSE M EST D'AMICO, RONALD S MC CLAIN, REGINA CIO SANDAKER, CARLB PR 1027 SUNNYDALE DR 1031 SUNNYDALE DR 260 LYNDHURST ST CLEARW ATER FL 33755 - 1438 CLEARW ATER FL 33755 - 1438 DUNEDIN FL 34698- FARRELL, DANIEL TRE MABEE, RICHARD D WEIGAND, STEVE 1352 WILLIAMS DR BELNIAK, MARY K 1957 SEVER DR CLEARWATER FL 33764 - 2880 1039 SUNNY DALE DR CLEARW A TER FL 33764 - CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1438 PORRARO, RICHARD A ACKERMAN, WILLIAM F BUCKINGHAM, DAN 1047 SUNNYDALE DR 1101 SUNNYDALE DR BUCKINGHAM, LISA M CLEARW ATER FL 33755 - 1438 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1440 1125 SUNNYDALE DR CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1440 HASSIG, JUDY V ANDREWS, PAUL L GROTH, VERONICA W TRE 1042 SUNNYDALE DR ANDREWS, VELMA C 1034 SUNNYDALE DR CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1437 1040 SUNNYDALE DR CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1437 CLEAR WATER FL 33755 - 1437 F ALK, DEAN MILLS, FRED E KEMPER, BETTY J FALK, MARIA 1028 SUNNYDALE DR 1022 SUNNYDALE DR 9880 LOWER 167TH ST CLEARWATER FL33755 -1437 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1437 LA KEVILLE MN 55044 - 8186 MANCINI, C LILLIAN BHULA, RAMAN R & R COMFORT SUITES 1018 SUNNYDALE DR 1941 EDGEWATER DR CLEARW A TER BAY CLEARW A TER FL 33755 - 1437 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1417 1941 EDGEWATER DR CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1417 R & R COMFORT SUITES CLEARW A TER, CITY OF CLEARW A TER, CITY OF CLEARW A TER BAY PO BOX 4748 PO BOX 4748 1941 EDGEWATER DR CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 4748 CLEARW A TER FL 33758 - 4748 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1417 BAY VIEW HOTEL INC MC MULLEN, D GUY LAMBRIANAKOS, V ASILIOS 727 BAY ST PROPERTIES INC LAMBRIANAKOS,DIMITRA SAULT STE MARIE ON P6A 6Y3 PO BOX 91 376 VENTURA DR 00030 - CLEARW ATER FL 33757 - 0091 OLDSMAR FL 34677 - CANADA BAY VIEW HOTEL INC BA Y VIEW HOTEL INC BA Y VIEW HOTEL INC 727 BAY ST 727 BAY ST 727 BAY ST SAULT STE MARJE ON P6A 6Y3 SAULT STE MARIE ON P6A 6Y3 SAULT STE MARIE ON P6A 6Y3 00030 - 0003 0 - 00030 - CANADA CANADA CANADA SHERRY, ROBERTJ SANDAKER, ROSE M EST LANNING, THOMAS L 1026 SUNSET POINT RD CIO SANDAKER, CARL B PR LANNING, SUE A CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1441 260 LYNDHURST ST 1040 SUNSET POINT RD DUNEDIN FL 34698 - CLEARW ATER FL 33755 - 1441 , "... II IIJ LANNING, THOMAS L LANNING, SUE A 1040 SUNSET POINT RD CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1441 RUIZ, ROBERT RUIZ, BRENDA D 1070 SUNSET POINT RD CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1441 SANDAKER, CARL JR 1028 SUNSET POINT RD CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1441 Hdrry S Chne, Esq POBox 1669 Clearwater, FL 33757 SUNSET OAKS lNC PO BOX 1992 LARGO FL 33779- ROSE, RA YMOND P TRE ROSE, DANY A M TRE ANDREWS, rNTER VIVOS TRUST 1058 SUNSET POINT RD CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1441 DEL MAR DEV 162 BRENT CIR OLDSMAR FL 34677 - Edgewater Dnve Homeowners ASSOCIatIon Chlp Potts 1150 Commodore St Clearwater, FL 33755 DA VIS, PHYLLIS J TRE 1058 SUNSET POINT RD CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1219 COCHRAN, DONALD D JR COCHRAN, EVELYN C 1878 STEVENSON AVE CLEARW ATER FL 33755 - 1854 TOP FLIGHT ENTERPRISES lNC 19309 PLER POINT CT LUTZ, FL 33558 ~ 'bot;.:J - t!J '? C'-'-- 0 .r-o b ' (J/:/ 1l17v t:..e. /If A-.,d /p,;.s- W7~~'-- ,. ... .. "" .....,.. mt;~ 1JJ?f )..~..(...~ ~,~~ ,...............-A G.., (~~E~0 rAi0?(T~3J/Q:6 :<.<<i -;..:r (,. ;- .~r,.t:t_ttrf'.~~~\ /~ ~ 4f~ 3 ,~ ~0.=m;t;'af u."B:~( ) ~( ~I!f:l'il:(( (~S.,~~~~~;T}IA) ~SOB'";}jtl~!/~) k~:::::j)i )~1i~1 '74 ~(-~;Ic~ "i ~~~f~ l.b:H" f Yf ..v..~ ~ ill\. .17.,/.;..,,"'"; ........ ~ {(c...')... Hl .j$'1 t~ ~"..." .; (~r1Jt~*:~~ )) ~ ~()(- ((+Wf3f~F ...,bl'~H,",~'" .t'l(!2 \!,~1, ) ...:!l~~"-"",,<<~ 011 ...<~1 ."t."I .-l34 )3;10.; 'J.GI .; J' ! 3$i i3~) ~O ", .; ~ l ~ .2X:!~ ,$ <~"'/Q!l:( < 0\ iF" eo..<., ~\ ~) N;] ~ \) V~~r'7~~~~;.;~mx.-*.}J~~(er:2)Y'~L.....ri /~ ___..... ) () l) ~~( ?U('.....I'W HHo:.; (......f ( ..::;..~) r..f1:: )l~.z;p..;:... ..... (Iff ....";..----~;;;;.~ (o:,:p~ ;;~~- ~ ^ ~.=t~'O:n..~~'X5u ~ ::::t::::::::Y';:;~';':~(Wcl'-';p,.::.::t',;';~'h:"((if'... A':; -==:x < :S::i'}lf;$~~( ~~~ '^-'l ~ll)~';,j!: ~ , J~ ~ , ~" -UJ- S - - '2 ~ !!Ell 9 :// ::; , ~_' ~:t:;:H D6 28 :27 2e 25- 24 ~J 22 2'1 20'9 HI 8_~ ..Mf.q I ~ "" S "'Oi ~ " S~~ · ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1I ;:''' " ." ~ <;.- ~ I#, '1 I s:r"'~OlRO 'II.'" ~ I.r.l f.n:!!.R ~ ~ ~A ~ ~! ~ I ~,\l f,~ ~ ~~ I H ~ ~ I~ 10 l ~ ~) i! I--H · , 2 J , ~ ' 1 J I T ~ ~ , O(~. '0 ~. 12 '1 " "'4 j ~ : " ,Jf ~ ~ ~ ~ ~36 "'; -.I ~ 5 ~ ,.,,, JO 20 '" 1~ 2. ,S ~, IJ 2 ,,~~ 19 1-""16 "'''' 1 j '~; -1...a!1 ~ '\~ " I ' , "I 6 1] '1 t! ,o~ ~~ ~ iii ~1~i~~9~H ~~~I....J ~ ~ 9"''' ~~ 51 COlI"_ smrr, 8 "",' iF ~'Iii" ..... ~ ., ~ i"i I. I 0 ~ t ~ ~ I ittI~H J i~IW . ~ ~ ~ ".n A ~lstll(D; '3~~1 "i"(i)' "'1 '..'8 ""2 lr-\.J ~-{ =-c 1 2' J .. 5 , 1: ~ I I. 51 s ., T.$ ~ HII, 12 i:tY f-f- .4 ~ ,fJ ~ BulBI 1 Iio."-- , , " " '~I'" "20 '~! 2l " 1. ,. " 19 ~ ~ ....'ll '",. ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~; ., ~ ~ ftf._1 g ~7 :;; '51'RtEr i P~I( :5 em i::i -.;. ~(m ~ . 7"6!; ~ ~,,~ ~ ~ ~ ;; L iI_:i/ , I ~ , "...!...- 10- '''' "~"1.5 'OR 15 Hi 11 18 \~ :2'0:2"1 .22 2::1 24 ~~ 2./3 :21 ~R >>~ I~ ;IE ~[] /2 m....oo. Sf S · , "( 'J.I" · '0 " '1 lJ ~ i! <l; i1"!~ J. ~U ! ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ! '" '" '1 J .~ 5 · """'" ......w 8 ~7/:~~:JI~I'IIA. ".. , , " . 1'( ) 8 1 . , ~ .~ J .. I ~ ~ .. 'f ' ~ ~. .. .. ! i! J' ~ ~ ~ l ~ ! 1); ,~ ~ ,. ~ . ~I l6 ~ 5- 7 EI 9 10 \1 ,::!! U 1m 2 tvA 'SlRE!f '" "Ii !;~l~!~ P '6 17 '! ~ " " ;' ~'" " '( ~~ '0 '" '" "J' J) I ' 1 ~ to: 5 . 1 " Y i H i it! ~ - t 1 ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ! <'"" '1 " ,. .. '6 ,,~ -~I~" . 5tOUVA ""i 'IlIi SmuT, I .; I t~~ ~ l ~ ",., ....' ~ ~ i I ~ 1 I I ~ ~ I ~~ i i I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ iT! Ii ~ ~ie:Ev. 'I L:: : · , .1,,1. .. ,,,,,,,.1\.. ~ :..... n n" u n;~. H': .it'~: ~ d}; .' ,~;,.. I "".. '0,. '" 31 3. J~l ~N )\ J2 31 Jo 19 ,. 11 ,. 1S 1411JkjJ' ~' ,. ~ ~ 82_.. "'I.... b ,,~: I~ i ~ 9 ~ ~. ~ I ~;I I I ~ .. .. ij ~ l!" 5' " .., ';! .on J' ".: ~';' _ '.. - -,..,,, 'j.-.... ",-' -. .'. ORlIt S I' 0" """" I l ~ I' \" 5 ~ ~ P . t ~I ~ I ~ . ~I ~ '~ !. m'l' ..,s6 ,,"'" ~ ,.... l6 "9!f, . ~" '~IB" I ~ 31112 - · · · · ~ 11; I -1Z-09", ..,,>7 49'" ~""J' '",~: ~ fU5 I ;2".1 4 5 is .., 8 '9 ..,,~~ 11 i} I 'J ,.. ,.5 '15 17 U!i l'l to i.1 fP 57.1 "".., 58 47 ~ ttt.."iIl. 2711 Iii '" ~ I '1 ^, ij ~ "~.. .~" ""Jov z~,,\\l II ..." ~ . , I" .1 '0 " '2 I",) '5 1'8 11 ,. __ 20 z, n OJ ,. ~" iz~ ''ll ?,~; l~-h" ~ j :''''-'0 '" "'4o.l. "5;l\J :- "'~\""nM }O.. i:' 4 I I I IJ~I ~ ~~ \ i fJ-:' Ii." "" ~ "" """ ".1'"'' i1iiU,if<fi ~I"" I ~ _ J I - ~ (~ I, t k7 /,1 "'_ ~-~ ~J _ .....2 4J~. ...." 23 ".. U Lab L~'~ '"It ., ~ ~ '.., Ii Ih hIS I U ~"! ~ ~'I'~.I I .-r IV -- - ~ , . '~~,R"l ~ ~~' '11~t~ttJ~, I~~ ill' "~r: . 8 ;r\ll~ I~i i 1 I~' ,.~~ DR ~ 1 ~ '.fl' 1 II 17 ~h~m~.....~ j ~i ~._ i~ "'[pu~-!... ~ ~SEIII~NT ("0 T-=--.!..."":: ~ i i IU ~ ! ~I~ i i ~ -1 ' ~~.. "~~~~ s~B I..' dr~'lId!:~, !(~ s: ~ F e... R ~?.,. S1JrfSl:T POI"'I' t:lD :-;- 1 ~ -mi,..s.;~~(~it ;2~ ~ -- "'7m-...' !JV, u n. nH~ ~ U! ;"7'~' ~~I ~ ~ ~ g ~ I~'~ il ~ " _ i-"' Z' I~~ijl "2! t}~ ~~ I V> . \ 9 ; -;-; I. ' "Ii "' J [2 I , "" - f WI, '9J %f '-::,f/fll ,~ /' " v' . "' 10 ....,. V~ oJ. · I' 2-= r :' , 2 · l, I ~ .. -, ' 1, ~~ m I \ 7" ,,"" '" "'. -.,;./: ~,,; '''''.~ I, , · -'. _6_ 't -. , ~ 0 , 1 '- Jt :54) 9 213 211 ~ I t.f7.1 ~ 9 , ~~h:6k: ~ta DiKJg'"' !'I'" ....... 11 """....,.. ,,/, '. '" om 2. 27 ''''II ' ""~' '- ,-' ~::l / ti . ~,~ ~ ~j~ t l:l:~;} PubliC' II".tor",olbl\ fkIta b 'l'uff"lfl.n.J t.li U\1t en'f of OfOf'll'ul.r jaolJ .CARDCW,l i / r Iku ,N.I'J 25 1 l'''''' I l /1'"& ~3 .3. ~~I 1.....f'(J.lWi /il!~js L_ plA)Irc Wl)lll.. ""1"\~t.lfo1lan!EJ\91n.1fi'^9. 1;Jnd" j1'1V111 bo! Gcct'j;lI"d 13 __ lO~ I ~ ~ ~ C1nd I,lle-<l by lfie ~('r::lpfo!"f"I1 ,,1L1'1 tl'1.e tII'l(Iei'l(!lAd!iri'lJ l~C11 ~~ do1t1 -.... /!. I ~5, I J 4Q.... IN. II'1J .2" .2 jH~ IIHI J2' ],5 /~ j~It'1 I ~~ ~ IIR..I....d1 wot ~OI'oI!'l:i~'or il<.lI: j;lU/l5C1R Df chv!fbtllf1111i .qr'4;lphrc: ill!: is \ H \::..o'filY! I,.., 28/ j I ' I ...,.;~ i I I I _.. ~ .,.ftOl!iiru("l.I11I' [r;Vtfl'Ofj AJI ~ tl'lol!' -clt,. .Q{ CI~rwt:ll!, pw....;r 1:t~'~ '1--.. ' ...h I \E54b ~/~:,~~:'I ! ,,:':: ~ :;:;.;; : : i~::: : ~ : <~=:~ F~ r~ :,,:~~. ;'~~:::.':",~~~; ..~;:~~'::',~~ '::" '''' ~ t;,- JH"~;', I n~ I ~ ~~Jl:n:~~:LI: t:::i)I:flll~::.=r~j l::~I;: ~~:;:~c:~~ . , , ~ '" .." n ," "" ".. ...~.<\>O 2' · ,... I I.... 19 '" ,,,. 'l""-_"~ liJ" H~"'\':' .,. "'..... "' ~<, d,t, J ~2 IN~ I -.I J 17 20 I ,IIU ~ oil' ~ :o:&....v ~c. J t ~'X 17111f4: ... 1 14 '-',11' 1~:5 6tH, ~ l ~a 39 PUt ~. ,""',. MlIIL .t,~, "'I) ~ 21, "If: 15:;; I I ' 120 1&1 AA .11.,. 1M.. ....110'10 ~~'!i! ttJbi'.cl Iq p~rlDd~ c:~~u ]" ~ 1fl'/II~" ~: Ilt" l nl~ l=:! ~415' 19o "7IMa I l IMI :z. .. Ia/HI'!1 ~ I f ~ FItIi ""~Of'"'CIU-l;ln gl;lDUt l~i!!:Il 11!!....~m~ IPtr:Q'K' {"oh pw..j[ .t!( ~ lIii~ ./" '!.- l/lo., ',0 '" 1B- l~,}- ~Iu l.!~/;:Y~".:f:'" ""~l1c!lJf\t;lrtt!l'l~ lO.--;; b ! 1 1G ffU:;i1f41 e:1,IJ Il.~U' ~~~ ~t ~~---:-; I 11 i----i,=- '9 f , It '1 !ll '6 9 I I" >Ii!?I "u n ~<:J, ":21 ".,. t ) . ~ I~] ~2 r~j ,lIItil' .. ,.~. tiI~il' I j !:. ~ 19~ t ~ ~~ N r f-----";;-. "", L,';;"",l,\' "'0 l ,-.f j ~ "" / i1:ii II ~~'~A fu~' EB ".,-,., ii' ~ '",~ I SU ;: ",,~~.;.-;,.", ,,"" ./ ~ I!'i! ,.: :11f;rf~ ;" 1F3r;,'J 'ST "'10(: r~~la~ .l. ~ ~ 21 ,~l:9!un'" /1 iI' 1/.1 I ~ "iTJ.;\t-2, I ~ f ! ~ "'J' V.cd' I I ,,1 , / ~.!!!!c .",n ".. "" ~ ~ /if ioU ~ sr 1 I 1/ -- ~~:r I~!i r I: I----S-- , '" .. ~ ~ .... 1 11;-; "I ,,',I '"~, --';~I" ~ 0 '00 200 4no ~ 9 , ~.~ I I /V; It tm::L.:lI: G ~, I" ~ ~" ~ !~ L 1.* lj' os/ ~ 3'1 i ~ ~;:.w;JB' 1'6 SCAlE ,-= '00 ... I ~ ~ "@ OVERBROOK 1/ (, ~f)~.o ~ f ,h~,I!.' -') ----"--' 2S 16 ,. '" 30 PARK I, t ")~!",. ~ :;""'.5i" 'I. . ~ 29!!!!. II 7~"". J ~ '0" ......... ,,, J] 1 I ~ .~ "" ~ i! _\ );1z , ~ --- 'J' . I I ~: '2 "'. ,,9'~" "" 1'<\ %1\ ''''-';'<- ~ \. 0:0."' I I "'J! 1 -~ ~ .... "') -'i'H' I I · " 1.=" '''' ~ ~ '''''''ll~j)t;jl1Ji ~, :;;:;;;::::~",., . ""V ~"" f J'~- n' I"", '.1, l:i;;:.._ III ~ ";;;':1~fW 11'1 (\J o .... "I "'" I- SO " l!!"~" rl' (]l smeu a '0 ~ "... -. '-!il ".. .", ~'O' II 0 ~ " I It" " '9 46,.." 'J, Ill: "OJ _____ CITY LIMITS lINF.: 11 ~ ~ ~ ':9 ~:-..; 1"" ~ J f: )V M ~ ~ _~~ !}~ ~~ ",p141' l ~~~ ~~ r " ~ ~ _ :-..: ~~ ~~:c.l~~f 4ff ~ yo-. ~, , . . "~ r~ '~;6'a i '''::11::~ · $. s ,. l.i.l'.llO, 7 PT~I""..2; :;" '>" ; ~., '''' 0' !, ~ · , I k;::S2 i- ~ (;~I ? 8 '- .25 2" ~:i!: 1\;1' t~j ~~1~~1,"",15; , "" ~ . , ,j<:;.... \ ~J ---,.,..- f\1t! 1 ~ ~ ===Jf='" '" .. ri "" ~ ';'ff'1 I 4'.", l:l '0 " , ..........1-.... '''' ~~ !?;..;.I'''~~"'' ~ "=t!H ~ i /\ ,,:"':- ~ 2 "" W~ 12" " ".... 2l _ t;'~,/Sl ::: 4 S 0SACl: ;IIlrET i ~~,," '!: ) J '", " .jo~ l f. "II ~ ~il\ ; ~ gL. ::.:.: .: j:t= :.tt. f. :~ .~' ',':~l f.1. i I., '. """ P G> ' I~ ~,'1:d" -' 4+ ~ ;;\;,~ ~"" (,:'5 ' 1<, ';~ .. ~~' 4' 20 ~- 1~ ~ .. 8 """AItI< SmrtT ~ ~ !K,~ 9 . '9" _ ~ ';( ~ "~~ 't'" ~"'rf .... 21 ;::;..~ it ""--i- ~. J~~I_ ~ !!!L"- '!f ,~ ., 20 ".. '" "",,, 0'" 1l e ....-::r",,_ ~ ~.. .!........L. ,", 1"1_ ~"I:I~' ~''''.'"''''. "" I'l''''~~'' . ~,~ ~ II 0 --"- , 0 ""< '.... 9 , . ,; 23 ~ ;-1-l! * '--; ~ ~fS~ '~ ""'9 n, L ~ IJ""" ~ ,>t. ~ .. I~," ~ i ~~ A: . """ ..\:1,' ." m;-T.- /' '"", ".:"'0/ 2J" r.!!!!. ~ ,,"" I~' ~a :\: ~ "" ': A ~ IP~' .. J ~~ II CH ~ J~LL ~) ~~..: .....;r "'" " 2.:: i "" · '5 "" d.:1 ~\ .",. \ ~ ~ \ ~"::.:~. ~ "T ,~~.~ ~ ,;.:.J~ j ~.' ,,':,:: · ~],>. ~<" "_ !'. ~ ~ , ~ ....:.t.:r.. , . .,: "t..... . ..~. ,;' ~r.'fr{;l; ____ ~ ". , 'i ~ 'l...... ".. "",~.1 '-' ,.." "'" ' !.' . s I . i 1 , 9 ;~ I J~~ "f ~A'fR" ~ - - ----.!JJ!lli - - --'"",- JZ'F w,~I~l Z ON IN G g! 0" ~ Ii ! a ~! ,,! 5 I!" I ~ ~ " ~~. Ii! ~ '. rfIi"fTiT''' rrr;"'\ \".:-.~/"-;1\~..L ..". \ \ \ U) ~ ~ , rJ" _--LJ-l-I ~ I~ I. I I:,; \ ~,..\ '\ ~ \ ,......., \ - , SW 1/4 OF SECTlON_I- ----- ~ 2688 V 269A 2698 '" _1_--~-- ~'=' tin OIM"4n:' ~r tl't.. """"11 rl)o. 4::J;1&I~l CIT'rI0'M4:0 ..54 -I"" ! 1 l~ I i f I ~~ ~t ( ~ C'n~ GWN[f1 1_ ilL u~ ~?;t1~ 4---- " :::'"~~38 ~ ~ ~ ~EA' ~ ~"!: ~ hi'll i (D!~l/D[~ t().H .. 5 6 ;( ~8 9 1 '12 ~ ' 2:3 ... I) D ? a '" 1 11 1:2 ~ ;~;~ ~I~ I ~dJ~1J ,!j ... '0"'" i ! l! ~ltiY" 1J'41.:l1~ o .. '~.l! '5 IS " 'l ~ :Bj2JI:3(J~ 1 - ~ ~ ~ ---l ~~ ~~ ~ y..."" "'" "(0< fil ,,1:1~ HOMfl~E~ ~~In I" I..i.. ~ .",' ~~. m. ~ ~'j' li9 ~ CQWrooRE STREET ~ ii n u; I~ ~ g' 3: -22 3 il= n/cl:r ~..... , J' ~I 9 L~$7~ IILA , 6 7 I' '1'~1" '2 ~~ ~II~ il i DU i~ 1rJ!t/ J ~ j "" fJ ~ J i' SI fi~ f"" 2 ~ i ~ /,1, L" :.. ;-"111",. i . L. ' '4,"; I ~ ,""" 'J " .J ,... I 9 ",", '& ... 8, ~ <II "I ~ ~ ~ 1 ~~~,. "1.' ~ ......~ ::0 "- fi < .-;: Ji :t 8 ~ ~ r '" ~ :'i 'S Q <>: U o "- 'OIIill:ll @ I I .... ~ ".. t.W''''''''t i II ~ ~ ~I ClIOIlAOA ~ ~~~,~I ~ I~ Ii i , 6 , B ~ ,oi 1\ 11 lJ l4 " E UJ fJ "1 It -GD9- 10 l 12 13 14 1 ~ ~ ~ ii Iii ~ ~ I!i ,~ ~I ~ ~i~ ~ \ 4 I _I 1 . , I ~.~ t B 90 '(,1 11 11" 13 t ( ~ ~ ~ ~,~ ,':;- , : =i:: ~ ~","'- ---i-- I II lA~i . ~~~ ,... 41/01 . J =t: l~1 I ' ~=i= 1 , I~u rl'~' ~~J~ Ul (',l ~ =i: ~I , ~ ----..3- J ' I 1;\ --:- ftr:- 1Il1-}- ,j, '" ~~I ~ Ii ~OI<""'S '&~';~ ill, ~ ~ g " '" " ., 5~ ~I ~: 16 , S J!I~f'1.lU ~ ::;; "- g 19 8 ~ ;;j o '" . ,: ,.'@iIi "" '11~11tt ~ . Ii , - :"f'iij , ,. '... ~ ~ . . " 0 . . o t 1- ,II IROOl1QfS ~ ~ . e , , i :i:F --!..- i=::i=",j,JI",J.J,lt 51' ~=F= ~ I Z ~ ~ . ~ I r 'IlItfT : j~ II l ~3 , ~ , ~' " I --''': - 10 {' t ,r;::s, 5""'1, . ~ sF ~ --D -,~ I I, 3 ~ I 5 ~ ~ , 2 , '0 It 12 1 ~ SIRaT ~ :.!8. 27 ~'~l ~lJ 5 ~ ~ f1!~ \:J~ lih j 9 ir~~% ~)~ j:;:^ 1 l ~ i ,It ~B )~~<j~~ ~ ",~It:IIJ9 i~ rff.Il ! ~'lt (~~'I ~ ?: ~ ".. ~~~ CITY or CLEARWATER OII11 VlClmTT PlIlEU.AS COUII'IY FLORID A P1i'~P,M;r~1) a.,. PUBliC 1\'ORXS ADlImJSTllATION ~NCIN(tFl,l.IG 100 ~ "':.-'.1,.. hot r~!II(!ii'f n JJ'SI :pro. n,13l'562'-47Stl. rOl rJ!;''!''~2"~O~~ ~llp" I /.Wllt cl~(]r'llr1Ji 1:1"- rtl;J;lm/~"'9""~~ I Dhclolm ~ P\ItlII~ 1It111;>ff1lollQn OO~g .. fufl'lI~t'I,,1;;I Dr tt'1. City ot Clt'lJfa'Ql-ff F\rtIfh; WNIi::II ....~mln~l,g1IiOI'1It{'l~lnlliin&>.'iI gn" rnul-l 1;1011' QI;'!;iFpludl C1l\d U !o!'d tJy l'Mo fo!'t:~ll!...t 'jIiUI'1 l~o!' ut'!~t'!li oi"ldlol ':I tnlD-t LI'1e d't1llll r~l:'l,",,=od ~ 't'I;Il~("Lr:d 101;1'" Lhl:' j;ll,Jrj;lnr: g.f d!,~I;IpIn'il 0 '9'opl'il;;;; rr-fn:l!lJrvi::l~ni ........!!'>11.~~ ~ Wd> U.,~ CHy ...f tleilr'I"IJ~t'r Pw~;r I"itO~U r'I(Io lI'CI'rl)Jllltt iIll'Dtt:UN Ot Ir'I'\f:)Ilft! 1:0000cI!'mlf"lQ ~t11!' t:I ~u'\X:y ~"""'~-I!to!'I'II!U tl!U"blllty tIiJ !IulLob-Ully .of ihb dolo 'Of CfI;)' olnc:r pmllrutClr lJ'!H' rudfinjnQr!" Ltli!! Cfl~ of CIi!(]',..lJ1M pw..../l []IIIU",'I:"lo J"[] IIottll L~ IIIrI>~htl~r QiI-'11I;1,I;;r!.c-d ..UI'1 LI'1l:" !IIH tJ ""'1~J,,!;i!' Df 'tu~ I!IDI~ UQ!L Tt'111 All"... ~'I! I. Wb~c1 tl;) ~1C.d1t:o ..hOr'l'9~1 fgr irlfOl""otfqn gblJl,J1 klin~ 'l!'\ofwlOo'1' fJl-e-ct!l4!" ('C!ii flI~A/E: ()I" ~I'l[lt cur 'WI:'b ~il' ffi 'QO , 200 , 400 , 600 I SCAL, , - - 400 LEGEND l~ 'm ~.. @ BLOCK NUt.lBE R 1234 LOT ADDRF.:SS rJ TY LIMITS lINF.: r-"', SHMEO /\REA - PROPF.:RTY 1::'""_'-' OUTSIDE CLF.:Ai?\'IA Hi? cln LIMITS n .t. AGR[F.:W[NT 10 ANNEX . QTY OWNF.:O PROPF.:RTY ~ ~ MDR ZONING D[SIGNATIOH ZONE lINF.: IIlENlM: PiJIttI [!]~2'D9mll:' CITY OF CLEARWATER OIID VICINITY PlIlEU.AS collrn P'Ul R1DA PR(PAA[D By PUDJ.JC WORKS ADllmrSTllATION r::NCD.I[[Ji!I~C: ~~ (!1~?;~~-~~~D. ~W{~~~'~~~:7~~ "lip 11"'#o1lt 0I:1,ar'*'l;l1..._ r~ ~/~1"9"H!" I 600 I LEGEND @- BLOCK ..<)r,(t1, R - 1234 LOl AOORESS , '. :2'::5] SHADF.:o AREA - PROPF.:RTY OUTSIDE CLF.:ARWATER CITY L1M1I S ... AORF.:F.:~ENl TO ANND . CI TY OWNF.:O PR OP ER TV MDR ZONING DF.:SIGNATION - ZONF.: LINE I REVISED 11/17/99 ATLAS ---- S \B'JG INIAUTOCAD\A TLAS\251A dwg 02113/01 0341 09 PM MCfelhl\ ""9",_5."",,9" pC3 'fI!J j,,,,~o. : v;J I n ~ Nt~: -n ~ f..:Jt~ I. ~ ~ ~ .~ l..,~ r ~ ~rli~''''''-==~t'--- l Je~"" - 1~1 \"'''1. ~ '" ~ & n T~ b~ ~ -~;k l - . "flr.--....... ~~ ~V~ " ,^" , '8"" ::: - :.- ~~~~~"'- ;~~ " " P" ,.... .. ~. , _ '<" _~-L '= ~. .. ,~, "'" ~ ... .." ~ f"-r.-- ,,~! - - . : > t , ~ r-:-".. '-::.. ~ ~I- CI"""';- D I ,,,Vi';, fI .. ~ f<;;;;--- ~ '" - .. 1~ ;;- -.:.::: - ,'F~ ~ ,,~'" I ';:-. ~ l! .. "',,. '" "'" ,==- ~ - ~~ ~ ~ 5JI ^"5 "1lJI.l; - ,"",,', z~.. i" S '" ..".. - ~ ~;! .. ~ ::c! _[<:9"-; .,. i 4'1.1:f 0 t9J N 1,.< ~ ktd- ~ ~u,.~ 1;01 ./'III; 6tJ. .., .. No - ,.., _:ll ...... i:;' lI. ~"<r ~ ~% ~ ~ ---.. w~ l; -- """ IIQ Of) lQ.... ...... .., ~ ~ ... :P.J!U ~ l,.,t\ ~~ ~ ~ it:.... ~ ..--:-"-:--&U ";;"'-;.- ~ ,..... ~ i ~ ~ ~~~~ 5 <pJ:~ t ~~ '~Jt? . ~Q .; ~ ~.o IOU JIIr....... ~ ~ NJD 2' "".... ~ 19_:: M ~""i"~ ~ ~}b~ =~ ft r*, () - - ~ _~ ;l) I e 'g:J ~ :;~ ~ ~...", -~; : "" ~ -: :,; i:f;; ...;;;. ~~. . :"_ V'lt 'lll - 1_. I. ;;;..... ;:.1....:: ,,.. -C'<"'...~ ~ ....=.., .l<":. ~;J ~~ ,.,.;;; m "'_ ili1~' ~ ~ '"; ....~ .'" '"'";< I"'d~~ ~ '" "'.. ~ > k ~ ~ ~I~ ~;>., "''' :tJ;\ 0 ~ 1 ""u _ii ~.t<I'.!1 ~ '.1" 1Q"~ tozl'::: trH-f' Q ~'iiI ~ ~X I~ ~ 1ft; ~...- 0:: \_ b .... ",.n tfH. - _o_~ ........OL" - IO~' ........ .;; ilI:I- ,_,.tn i;:~ " "'" ;<--~ ~ co "". - ''!!- .. -..~ - it! ~ '-" r- KM~ (kI I~ 1iII"-, f'jH:~ ::; I 1--~""""%:3"'" (:~ NL-J- m.a JOkf....t.""I t.,)c-.. INiI nWI.; ::=: ~ g~ a:: jltllSll~.:i ~ ~ ;;..1W7 1itU~Q: ;""'~, L::t ~ ~>r.-l~ tiKI A "'J~jp4':S :; ~ IU ~:~~ E1 '~-8 ~ ~ ~ 1...1 ;: h'H"O' I_>::j tDM;. ~ ,"~l;:: "''-''"'t'i IIOU "r::tf ~'Ji':: ........:: 1~~ 0 J.a:j.r~"':I'd" :;~ Q ~ UIH .....N1' tIIJU .; _ IfJH :;;: U'I i lJII..... 'v ~~ .JP. .... ~:: -- ~ ~'.IlliS jj;lPf l;;J ~ .; c; lNl ~ ~ 8 1IJ.SCIrt ~ B..,.\f] I I ~J .... ~:r- ~I_::l! ~ : ,_ ~ 1: l::j '"~, 1._rA.'<O.<;g g g ''''' ;::,;; l~-"" ~ - ~ !:!.'5~ ~ ".. ~ - ".' ~}~ ~- ,..~ 3 tl - ,... ~ tl ".. "." ':! r--3?- -1'''' .nl1~7.... ~p:::; -- '" '" ,"" f""'"'"..: ':....."" I"~" ~ ~ I'''' ~ ~ I ~ -: "" ,~~'" l::j :~:...........:o;: '"~ ~~~,...:; :~;;"~ '''''t~ ~!il"" ,ti~ ~ I ffi ,"::", - .. ~ u.. -111-;:- ~ "",. ;pm"" :-:;-~ I--';;:-...."..~_ b~ ..s:" ~= ~ -~~~~;~~::":.:. ~ ; ~:: ::..: 1-9 ...;;~: ~I~ :::: :~,. I ". ~ :::<i R~ Lr';9<:-~ ~""I ~.. "=' ~ ~~~ :" ,,,,"q, ~'-;';.. ~~ ;j .... ~ '-:" u" 6 '-:: ..=;;, i~ ~ "''''' :-llt:) I-~ _ '5 ~ ~ I".m" ~ '" --T ~ El ::: ~ :-;i;; ;,;: : ~ 1*(1 ~ l '" ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "" I: -: : ~ :: ~ :; ~ "" ~ ~= "'" ~ r:-- ,...~ ~ "" ~~ ~.........., ~~ t1 #d ~ ~ 1J.iW;; ~ """ ~ ~" I1~J IIn ~~ m;J [g ~ t'-'~3 f-~ ... n~ ~ I ~ 'M! "4'~ ~ '-4 ~J&~ tw.~ ~'fI l( 1140';: ~ jk$ (1fiI' ~ ~ 1I~~ ~ [,l'Imj ~......~ ~ 1t~ ~ 'Ion'~ .... ~ J t.>,,~ ~""J;;. t~. ~ ~ r~ 8 ~ .~~f 1: Pi\ir.~ '11 f"oj 11141'1 "" 1;1I all gj ~n 1m;;;;; :to:: Jr5~ :;:: m.!i Ii ~ ~.. - 1i~ f~. -~N''''''' ~ - s -.:... .. - "I ~~ ".. <: '" ..../tl5:3!l .... ~~ "'I~ ~ LZ' "" ~::! ~ ~ '--.. ~N ~~~~;:'~"'~'" ~I ~--<L oc ~ ~3 .~ ~'_I~~ ... ~Ii r{ ~.. "j ~;o -~J I: s ~~;;.~~. ~.~ """"c;;;';- ---:i :.~ r~ ~ ' .. r---r--..... I: .--.... ~ !:!. ~ .. : I.. I ~ ~ i r ,,' ""'.- g 0>0lllfl0Cl< S AvE. ~ 1 ____ I --- _ ... _ - " 8 c-= ~ . , ;;;0.. ~! '" .~ ~ .; -"., .. I'''' -.., - 1;;-~ '" ~ .. '" -' Ii: iij;' ;;:: I;IM' ;: !.:;;; ~ i: ~ 1il1.,l'l vfI/II ._~ ... #8!""IE:. 'Sf I".;Jo I,:"'''~ ..., ~ "" ... __ l'It,q, 01 ::: ot> IZ;? r- ~ e:.. g w ~ -..I ~ UII ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ NL A L I --,.. \.II... , t~~ ~~ - I ,:: ~ .... '" "'P' ;< UJ'" i ~ -!il ... ~ ~- I -,...M r---.- ... j , 4&^l:a ....m!! 1< !BIt: ~ ~ ~ ~,~ :qs 1J:l"Co> m "'...- 11ii":: ".. ~ "'~ ~ ,,! ~ .~ ;:. -:-;;;;-:::--- [~ ~ I! i!iI~ ~ ; :'I;:,:;! ...~ In1 m~ ):!:.." ~~I... ~ PI....Ab. OOI"CRES SA l" ~ i JmJ ~ ~ Jm' (II IJ'~: ~ r------........ ~ '8 f1II7 t ~ ~:l!!: ~m' ,.,.,:;: iI"II It79 I"""'I~~'" ~ u~ k~ t-- I~ !i.l:i ! ~! 5 ~ : ~ ..~""....... 0: .. ,.....I....y...~ ... ~~... L ~.-.- '~~I"" ~ ...'" n\~ '-,,- I _I:" . ",... ~ ... y y '" ="-.. 1 .. _, I!!:s ,... ~.. ,,.. "_" ...., -:;r-t ? 6 ..~,,., b -.)0-...._..( ~ ","''' II!I ......IL -Do- - ~ "'4 a. .... iI:fj UI.io. ~ _ .ri -..I liIn ~ I:::; r~~^ ~! I ~.ou ~ ; ./''!! :il ~~ ::~ ~ ~ :s ~ ".. ,... ~ ..T~ ':; ~~ '"~td' "I".. !.. .., 1...1.. ('-itf~.. i_l:J; ,it~~~ I ! .... ~1i1l ~ ~ ~ ua ~ ~ ,;) oQ 8Q ~ i II mJ1 A '* - t:! ~ ~ ~ !Q ~ ~ m ~ ~ .. i'Ir !4~ .. '!;VENUE t= [,ij (h% 00 A " " ~..:2::.li~ ~4 ~, ^ ~~ ^~~ ~ ~ ~, ~ "'11 ~l" r!:lll ~ll ~ ~ '0" i':'W U!!! i~ ,g; '.of.... ';'bl~ ~ilInV':'! ~>. ~ .. "";; - "., .. ~4- .... ... ~ 1.1 ~~.. ~lli "" ~iOl" I~I 91:1.~' A N~~ F:;t''',jJ f\':: :,f : ~":' ,'~I ':l ".. ~ ;:.. ~~ ~ "IIlI.... Ej1,~ ~~ '" ,.l.J I ~t.l-.t ,~- .. ':S8;*:: O>,.,,-i~""F' lli!i;,";~~U ~.....; r>.-U 'fff ""t.t'!L<---- ~.;" "....'~,.....~...... , , . o ~l. ~ ~-,;-: '=Z ~ ~ un.....C b i....~@ Sr.' ~ I ~ -- - - tA1f ~ lid l.ft. .................. I . .--- _ .J~ ,........ '~J~ I';f. ";:::f ^ OJ 4_h:t::f '!fZ.....-v1~ -&J~ ~ ::;1~"- Th"'J.&) ""'::i ii1r.t:;:~ l.-..........-- .... .. 'LUli ---- l,.l .... "y-.: ~ ...... _ ~j m IUI 1;1" ~DI (,.oi 110 m tD:i"'" I~j j::: ~,; ~~ ~ ~ ~,....$ IT ~~ ~o""'= t: t ~~ '=' ~ 'bW ~.tJ'"t - ,.m .. ~ ...... -0 '-" .. .,.. 8L!;l ,.. N U1 <<J OJ A ~ .... A - ~ - . "?i' ! "I 1".1 @1jZ .:;ji; ~8 .-,> ~~ .... '" ::;1 .. -<"0 ,.,'" "'0 .-,~ "'''' "':: c ~ '" I I I I , 3 '" ,... 1:: "i '" r Z '" ,... '.:l '" ~ ,- 1"'1 Cl I'l Z o <> <> ; ~ i; ,.. !l.> ~~ .Ii :l:g." ~!!.~ ~f!~ "A~ ,,~o ;:Wi h ; " a ~ =a s" . ~ i~ ~ i ~!!~ ~ t;;'~~:H~U J~t'<3~ilQ,!~ ..~ ;~.; ~,n~ !: l!hHl:f 'j., 0 I ~~ ~ . j: a.. 0... ii--""ii"8- t[~ t!J 3J~.. ~~-~l(~i.. ~ ~~I "-:llE"'.; . -~ . l"'" A~E ~"!t:T~~ ;;'l~~ lijii. i;'itjii~:I: lit ;:[~Z ~ t'P-; ~ ;!:~ :ij-l ~ !l.;r.;!'~nl'j-3.. ~"!!'.H"!!!' II o/":I-'!~1D7t!1' r, ~f~:;'i:l~.f 1:~l~oQ7~1Il cii' ~~:i~ :: if ~ffE:''' f ~ ...~n q ~~~'L ~. N o z z G) 1--)> -I Nr tnG) ~ (,.02: :E 1- "- ,.,,"" "'0 1II~ 11II tTl _0 CJl::l o "'2: 2: t:l '"' . ~@ r<> :;j z '"' ... z ,., .... '" z Z '" g III 2 )> -< ~ ~ '"' o ~ '" ." '" :'l -I .... '" .. z z C -, ~ EJjZ g !2 -< '" ~ '" ,., ,.., ~ 3 (!'; '" '" '" '" V> :z c 1: ~ '" :<l ~ '" g ~?8 ;g ~-;Iil ~ .....CllO: l'".) :W; .. ","'!II 0 ~ ~ ~~?;J ~ s ~ ~<<I""U ....(1e:>~ ~S! ~~: ~o:!.o:.2 -0; ~'!t ~ ll.1;> ~ l~~ ~ .....VI!;\: I::" ~ "" ("] ... ~ ~;~ g:n co fi j;i ~~EO 8 =Iii ~ ~ ,.. l:"] :tI ., 0'" ,,-'" ~s ,m <00 <0 B ~ 5 ~ j ! IS <> f-- )> '" " " - ~"""'~..."'" '- ..~ . 5 \engln\autocad\atlas\260A dwg, 03/17/2003 08 42 16 AM, dklllg ~ "'~ ,,", "'~ I~ ~ ~- r;--r.; jJ /ll~ , r '~~I V "'~ ,N l~ , lie - " , CJ (.... ~ ~Jg 0 <- "l "--- '" f.. ~ ; ~ sa _ ~ ~ ....... ~) ~ 0 ~l~ .... o ~ 'If/ "'w~.- .~ - '" N if ..... i21...j. 4 4l/~~ ~ .rrl< "i1fjJJ;'iJt;:,~t{:' OJ"" ~'J ~'It..": ~fljl: ~ I ~ .~rso.,,~.... .- '" AVE A 2598 ~l:t ii II ~ ./J, I'" "II - ",I nil" ii:i ....L ~j I "'j~ ,"+:+"rk _ ~ ~~ I~ I ~I ;i Ii I r~ w iiillllJ ~ Im~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ NORTH FORl HAF!;RI SON l:: · ~ ~ '.. "lt~H .I-II: ~:..~ .~: ~~.. ~I-I- 60 ]]0". ,- ~ ""0. ::1- g il".o-.r ---:...-- it lq:~: 0:Il: ~ 1fJ/~: l;;: rtJj./ ~ j r jQiI.(I.: ~ I(}'~: 11 ~ ~ BiQ ~~~-!..j&W~ -<~,'" !:JQJf<~- ow J~Je. ",," -I .to. ~ ~ f... 'it" r" :;;. j"l~ =. ... ~ll ... .. i::l:''''f8 1;/1 .. '" J2-1,j1 ~ ~ ; ~ ~ o~.... :j{} rn z:: I , ~ I : :'OEl /(J~~ ....IdU -=-ol'l;Ill +-- r ro'U. ;1(.1~ ~ -----;......- ~ iOo l~: ----;-- : <;I ~ : ~ ~~ ~ j oil "1111'S _ : U'B~ ~ H rUj - II' -----B-~~ ';:;:.. I~ ..lj-jl ~ ~ ~ ~: :Iij 1O!1-! 6(J ~:t.... ~ ~ _~.;;.--_ '---'," Il7J'S-- ---..:, .Iii ~ -c; /1. -:-u--E'-;;;; '" -~ =-,..,,= . n~ lII' ~ ~ ~ S WACHt TRAIL ---:-1: jrm ~ 101(): uw F./,iJ~ _;~ ~~~ .. ... ! 4 ... ~ ~~ ~=F= 1'.. l= ~ ~ : ~ .. .. ffi ~~~ ~ " ,. " . . .P8 '<;. 1Io...ofb .... _....:... tt ~... NJfJI f,t;I I ! u... :!:j: ~ ,,;;; . ,,' t/t. ~ "'.. "'HO> Dl ::;j _ J ~ "" $ LS'~ we _ ,"''' f lJ ~PJ . !r.ll~ ~ ~ U~J "L ~IH lIU~IIJ, \\> ~ j~. I- I ~ ~ , ,.'f,'j:: _ ''E:N7JF: 8 '''/nl~ '.'~'n~rr'-)I"U"""I""'"lm'II"\''\ rt...-" ~ ( ~ ;~ ;~ ~; //r;I'''~ --.-.!!..D13<; '" 11- ,G6- / ~:: "~ ~"~ \ "'N~; ;:,"'/iJ" if " ~<I,!" ~,~ _" ~ P,~ '" r>\u ) co .~~i ~ Ii- '" ~ OJ''' I It " , .""11< " '" Iv ~ ( ~ ;:, ~ ~ -.-= ,.,,--- .... "" I~t: ';'~'" ..Jr",,f,"f.~',, i!J~ ,~CJ>. - ("$ --l~ m~; ~ '~~;.:~~~"" N" l\~;;: il! ~ {-"',,, ~ ~ " A "ft ~ ,.,~ :"'.>. '" g ". ~ "!I::; ,;; A (t;, - J ~'-'- " ~ N rn :V: Q ~ t.) _ "'>. '>f N Ii:! t Iii ~ ~.- i l'l ~ /~ LA~- ---- U1 <.0 S S MAnn" tu",-, ~ g ~ ,.;;; ::; ~~.,. <> ~ ~ ' ~ H~' ~ _ '"~ --#- ~ !!!!!--- )> ""7i" ~ ~,. , '?"~I!< ,;; ",; '" ~ ~ - <::'"",, )>~ ~ ---=--~..;; , f "" 'It 0.,'" A " %~-' ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ii", g 15 ... !OI ,,.. _ rurloM h, :3 ~ :; ~... tv ~....... ~ ';}' ......~~ -: (I,~ ~ -.po. CLtll :0 :z f7lZ.ll ,- ~ ~ ~ CI ~ Ql" dl ~ if ~ g Ql ~ ~~ ...... ~ ,jj,!! ~ ::g 0/>. '107 till - ~ ~ r~~ - ~I .... ~ ~ mi~ ~........,..,. -oJ I ~........ ~17"'" jN"J~~?~i~""ll ~ ~~~~)>- ~ ........ Ilb9~ ~=-::.:- ~ ~ l;I"J l)II :1 _ .. _ N .. (:0 I -0: .lriamwI ~ ~~ .. .u..r.d" IX> "'" lili /:t 4 I--!ll? lun _00 ] ~ ~j 11 ~ : ~~ ::t ~;~.. u) ./ .---J.......... J/JD r.a 1-,1I fb ~ ~":;~"" .......::.:..~'""' .. q ~~,., ~,. .., "A:'":m: :vc:u/ ~ ~ ,,'~' " ,,'" r ~ C ~~r~...p~ Ij::J~ C~~N~ ~ L:; ~"'-J _ ~ ~ ~ .: ~~ ~~::: ~~ ~ ~.. I '-=- ~'" -"/~-:6' _ ~ ,," ~~""~' '> ',.... C; ~ "'''''' ,,,.~ '" -'~. it: '" - .. ~ I: ~.):~ ~..;;:.". - '" ,,"" ;: J:~~ "' ~1~i5 ~O//O~ ;;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ 19!i ~ ~ ~:'l~' ~i:ti-- ~ u.!Z/ ~'" ,:,,"" ..~ u:i i!:j: WI< INGTOO A UE ~.. '=' r-m; ..~~"' '" """ '" ~-::v 0 \~'" =~ ; 5 ! !i ~ i.' ~~ ~ ~ ~ i! '" ~ ~ ~ ~~c "\ ~ ~ ~;'ii~ '''''- _ ~ (!} '(IV ....'"OJ'':; 1-----;; l"lp:';;;""" '" ~ 1l. >1> ;;; :;; /~ ~,~:-- ~ <> .i~~'" '~"'~ ~~ ;;; ;;; '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : I~~:',: ,,,,,l11L-g~ ~~I'" '" 0; !~' 0 '" -;;"'.. '"~'""'-" I ~ ~ ~ ^, ~ 'ei e ~ ~ ",'" _ , ~ - -,....,~ i'l ,,~ ~~ I ,:'.-,.,,-". " , , ..~} id, ,.. - H H "..:' '~~ -'~" ~ _~ '" ~ ~ ~ ... / ... ~ ..... /Ifi, , l: \" ~~ ~ \ .--c~~i . _ ':I~- ii ii ii ,,- - 1 ~ ~~","~_~. ~ .. _ ~/Ib/! ".. A ~t;l ~ ~;,. ~. :0 . ~ _ - ':l / :"'I:: i): "It. {W.. ",f @j; ,", ~ ~ ~ ~ "SO \ '" '" ~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ 1 1 ~ i): "C / ~ r.... ",..{w"",'" g; 1'''' ~,~ :~.. ~'o:............""'- ::l ----".,:..~i:I.\-'" '" '" ~ 0 - ~:::: "'1., ,,,, I ~ Q.., I ';' r-, "'~MP i Ii" ~ ~(~ .. '~'--'v.';i1;j ,,"'" ~ ''''~\~'d: l;; ;j ~ (;l '" A ,. ti ; ,-0 r ~ , :>~~J~ ~ t :;... _ ",;~"".. (;: ,,'\"~\ . ,_ ,: 1,_:" _'''': ,1-0: "\" / ~ OA u/ '1 ~ j! ~! ~ ~ ~o ~ .!; )~;:;; \I;;;~ Y ~! ~ ! ~ ~ ~ '" Q ~I ~ ~ ~ ') ~ " c:::::;;L ~ - _ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~. Q . ~ li ii ~ ii~- - ~ li jj ~ I ~ l,,~ I! I I ti < f 2" "'It- A ... ~.I ~t-~ L It! ~~I_ ~_I~"U~ J!t;. ~ ." u - -B--.. 0; '" 1;; ". ~ 'b m" 1:J J'" .1 "':~l ~ - ~ -jj ~I ]~9' .i11l~ ~Ii i/~'~ '. ~'f ;.. if ~ il:I~..O",\\~!lV tt6a! ~ ': "'.: - ~ 1 J V \ \ 'lJ&.-... '::"':".~ ';;'<J,'.:.~~;;-~ :i':i'''';~~~~~';-~~~~'~I~:';i;-;~;~~c:_~ 'J~~y~~~"" ~ !!1 11~ ~~~;-~~-'l~~t~ \0"""' ~ ""U<.J~ -'-\:":1P "~ f--=; /Io~ ~'="'" =::! '::J ~ ~-'I '>r z:.t ~ -- - ~ q. __ "" -1:= .0 ~ KJ Mt'l~~!~"J ... f..:,,, ::i V ~\\\\~\~~~l \~......~~ 1:r<~t"~b4 ~-,~~r t!:::.~...Q ~w -~ ~"t:: -~/~::'""~"-~~~-i;4.~~ ~-;'::>T~"">- - -=;'~l.r~_--'- ~l-~ ~ -, t;; (It 1.O V ~'<~ - :: _~ ~~ ,-~~." ~* ~ - - ~ z, ~ ~ =< -=-r- __ -~- :;. -.:;:. -_.::' ~ ~ ~- '--, ;~iii: :~~~\\\~rr c;,. ~ :~::;:.'& .:. "1. J~~: ---..to OJ _v '" -~ _h..l!! "'~;;<" ~ ",,;r 0- "Ji;Jm ~ j -, '''-" '" u. ~ ~If~ -'''-, tll,n!->~ ~::I-,olciii,~\'!'\1" 1-1< ~f;;;; ~~""J~ ~~~~m ;.. ~ ,'-" ~ " "', ~ - - '" 'T809Z~' ... - ..- ~ - ~~, - - ... J' ,~~,],,".~'D ,,~ ~ '-" V> I 3:: ~l I ~ Q ; i!;'; ~ ~ ~ i ~ B g ~[I~)':;!"\VJ-i ?'ff!;;"'- q:.~, ::>: ~ · ~ r-::: I ... ~ f;:; a ~~ ~~~3~~.!n ~ i ;;jll!ll~ ~\~ . 1- N ....' CJ ~D """'i'.~~" i "'" .. N ~ 0 ~'" b 9 E; g ~ 9 8 ~ rrl:3 f ~ ~ ~ i~i ~ gii i i ~ ~~ ~ OD 0 Z ~ -< ~ <ill:, -< "g 6 ~i .::~ iHP~h f ~ . 't,VJ V1"T1 r C) ~ ~ 68 r- 0 : ~ 8 s..~. ~I~~."<:iie; ~ f ~ Z ~ ~ 2: z... ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ EB ~~~ ~~;.~~'Ci:_g-w ~ l~ ~ n ~ (") (fl a ~ p=\ tit VJ 1:: M ~ ~ c ~ 5.!.~ lr i !fit~ "?! g ~ .....j <.n 5 C) g jj Z 1:; " ~ '" ~ -, z ~f i~ H,;: ~ :1 ~H i~: ~ ~::; ~ 1'12: )> ~ ~ ~ ~~ : ~Jo ~"~!fi:i;:r~ i ~!rq~'D" ~~~ ,. ~ '" z "':u .. ';:1: 0 ;\t~llot" ~ . ~~'i!O<!!~ nl:> - r::t I-- ~ ~x ::Uo 0 8 L~ :;..c;-:t....-~~l a ::o'~.:(i)l;l " 0 ~ & ~ ~_, ~ ~ ~ g",; 0 .. No -< 0", =" ~Q"'."-~~~" 11 ~r:::,.M "ll">r (....J ~:tI !t..:;~g'!:i!'\1~3~ !i!!:II ;UOO ::(~f;<.l ~ )> 'R: -( =2 [~ :l~a~~i~[g .;;.; ~~~ ~ VJ (J) als- .- :;;~ """}~""~{J ~ .~. Iii ::I -.:::; O .........w ~ ~l" ;~~""~t3~:~ 3' - :j b ""I:l N'" ~ Q\ ~ ~;:t~:f~:~j ~ ~~ > is ~ )> O~o g 1lIo,g C1;J 1;J ~ .ill I"':;:j 10 P"""::I ~ ~ ;: , ~ ~~~~. ! ~~ ~ ,. g'3 ~ Avt. ......1 I. !; "l1- i~"" to . ".0 - '" ~I 1411.11 ~ t ~Ij*/ ~ . . . I'''.~ -.<-- ~ r~ --- ...0 ~ CA , r? . ~, ." ... --- CDB Meetmg Date Case Number Agenda Item Apphcant Address. Apn120, 2004 FLD2003-09050 E3 Top Flight Development. LLC 1925 Edgewater Dnve ORIGINAL CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: FleXIble Development approval to pernut a reductIon m the sIde (east) setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet (to pavement) and, an mcrease of bmldmg heIght from 35 feet to 75 feet from base flood elevatIOn of 13 feet MSL (WIth height calculated to the Il11dpomt of the roof slope) to construct 77 multI-fatl11ly reSidential (attached) umts, under the provIsIOns of SectIon 2-803 B EXISTING ZONING/ LAND USE: Tounst (T) DIstnct, Resort FacIhtIes H1gh (RFH) Category PROPERTY SIZE: 2 572 Acres PROPERTY USE: Current Use Motels (two) Proposed Use MultI-farmly reSIdentIal ADJACENT ZONINGI LAND USES: North Tounst DIStnCt (T), OvernIght accommodatIOns West PreservatIOn (P), Clearwater harbor East MedIUm DensIty ReSidential (MDR) and Low MedIUm DenSIty ResIdential (LMDR), Smgle FamIly ResIdentIal South Tounst Dlstnct (T) and Office Dlstnct (0), Gas statlOn and Smgle FamIly ReSIdential CHARACTER OF THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY: Scemc north-south comdor, overnIght lodgmg, smgle family reSIdential, and commercial ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: This 2.572-acre site IS located on the southeast corner of Sunnydale Dnve and Edgewater Dnve, and north of Sunset Pomt Road Commercial, and reSidentIal land uses dommate the Immediate VICinity. At present, there are two motels on the property proposed for redevelopment Staff Report-Commumty Development Board - Apnl 20, 2004 - Case FLD2003-09050- Page 1 The allowable densIty for overnIght accommodatIons on thIS sIte IS 102 hotel or motel umts Proposal: The proposal is to completely raze the eXIstmg sIte, mcludmg the two motels, consIstmg of 36 motel UnIts, nme rental apartments, and anCillary structures and construct 77 attached dwellIngs All applIcable Code reqUIrements and cntena IncludIng but not lmllted to General ApplIcabIlIty cntena (SectIOn 3-913) and the fleXIbilIty cntena for attached umts (SectIon 2- 803 B) have been met The applicatIOn as advertIsed IS seekmg fleXible development approval to permIt attached dwelhngs with a reductIOn of the Side (east) setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet (to pavement), an mcrease of bUIldmg heIght from 50 feet FLS level to 75 feet from base flood elevatIon of 13 feet MSL (WIth heIght calculated to the lTIldpomt of the roof slope) The request for addItIonal bUIldmg heIght IS to allow for the denSIty to be deSIgned wIthm the lIlTIlts of the property The Side setback request WIll allow for the parlang space reqUIrement to be met Both a SIx-foot hIgh decoratIve wal1 and heavy landscapmg are shown along the east property hne where the setback reductIon (to pavement) IS beIng sought To lTIltIgate the proposed SIde setback reductIon and to better mtegrate the development WIth the abuttIng predolTIlnantly SIngle-famIly reSIdentIal land use, the proposed bUIldmg has been redeSIgned to mcorporate a "statr steppmg" effect WIth a sectIon of the bUIldmg at the northeast SIde nsmg to 525 feet and transItIomng to 75 feet ThIS redeSIgn accomplIshes both bUIldmg heIght reductIon and Improved deSIgn. CODE ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS: There are no outstandmg enforcement Issues assocIated With thIS SIte STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: (Section 2-301.1 and 2-304): STANDARD PROPOSED CONSISTENT INCONSISTENT MAXIMUM 77 dwellmg umts X DENSITY IMPERVIOUS 060 X SURFACE RATIO (ISR) LOT AREA 2 57 acres, 111,949 square feet X LOT WIDTH 210 feet at nearest pomt X FRONT SETBACK 15 feet at closest pomt X REAR SETBACK None (no rear setback) X SIDE SETBACK East 5 85 feet X* HEIGHT (35- 100 feet 75 feet X* allowable FLD range) PARKING SPACES 117 spaces; 1 5 spaces per umt X (1.5 per unit reQuired) * See analYSIS above for dISCUSSIOn Staff Report-Community Development Board - Apnl 20,2004 - Case FLD2003-09050- Page 2 FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA (S 2 803 B) r bl b 'Id' h' h d d b k echon . . appllca e to UI 1D2 ei2J t an SI e set ac : Consistent Inconsistent 1 The Increased height results In an Improved sIte plan or Improved [X] [ ] deSign and appearance, and 2 The Increased heIght IS necessary to allow the Improvement of off- [X] [ ] street parkmg on the ground floor of the resIdential buIldmg 3 The reductIOn m SIde setback does not prevent access to the rear of [X] [ ] any bUIldIng by emergency vehicles 4 The reductIOn In SIde setback results In an Improved sIte plan, more [X] [ ] effiCient parkIng or Improved deSIgn and appearance GENERAL STANDARDS (Section 3-913): Consistent InconsIstent 1 Development of the land WIll be In harmony WIth the scale, bulk, [X] [ J coverage, denSIty and character of adjacent properties 2 Development WIll not hInder or dIscourage development and use of [XJ [ J adjacent land and bmldmgs or Significantly Impau the value thereof. 3 Development Will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons [X] [ ] resldmg or workmg m the neIghborhood 4 Development IS deSIgned to mmmuze trafflc congestIOn [XJ [ J 5 Development IS conSIstent WIth the commumty character of the [X] [ J lTIunedlate vIcImty. 6 DeSign of the proposed development mmImlzes adverse effects, [XJ [ J mcludmg ViSUal, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation Impacts on adjacent properties SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development ReVIew COmmIttee reViewed the apphcatIOn and supportmg matenals on January 29, 2004 The Plannmg Department recommends APPROV AL of the FleXIble Development applIcatIOn to pemut attached dwellmgs With a reductIOn of the SIde (east) setback from 10 feet to 585 feet (to pavement), and an tOcrease of bUlldmg heIght, from 35 feet to 75 feet from base flood elevatIOn of 13 feet MSL (WIth heIght calculated to the mIdpomt of the roof slope) to construct 77 multI-fanuly reSIdentIal (attached) umts, under the prOVISIons of SectIons 2-803 B and 2-303 With the followmg bases and conditIons Bases for Approval 1 The proposal comphes With the FleXIble Development cntena per Section 2-803 B 2 The proposal IS m comphance With other standards to the Code mcludIng the General ApphcabIhty Cntena per SectlOn 3-913 Staff Report-Community Development Board - Apnl 20, 2004 - Case FLD2003.09050- Page 3 ~ ..' 3 The development IS compatible wIth the surroundmg area and wIll enhance other redevelopment efforts CondItIOns of Approval 1 That any bUIldmg elevatlOns and sIte plan set changes submitted, wlthm the lnruts of Commumty Development Code SectIOn 4-406 A, will need to be found satisfactory by Planmng staff poor to bUIldmg penmt Issuance, 2 That the separate site plans be consolIdated to one site plan set with one site data table, 3 That the site data table mdIcate both the maximum and proposed ImpervIOus Surface Ratio, 4 That the site data table state the number of motel rooms eXlstmg on SIte, 5 That a lO-foot Sidewalk, dramage and utlhty easement along frontage of Edgewater Dnve be granted, 6 That a revised SIte plan be submitted pnor to bUlldmg permIt Issuance, correctly showmg vlSlblhty tnangles measured from the property hnes, 7 That a revised landscape plan be submitted satIsfactory to Planmng staff, pnor to bUlldmg penrut Issuance, 8 That Open Space, RecreatIOn Land and RecreatIOn FaCIlIty Impact fees be satIsfied pnor to the Issuance of bUlldmg penmts or fmal plat, whIchever occurs fust, 9 That a tree preservatIOn plan be proVided pnor to bUIldmg pernut Issuance, 10 That all Fue Department requlfements be addressed pnor to bUlldmg penrut Issuance, 11 That a vacatIOn of alley and/or easements be completed pnor to Issuance of a bUlldmg permIt; 12 That the InstallatIOn of samtary sewer mam be completed pnor to Issuance of a bmldmg penrut; 13 That a copy of the SWFWMD permit be proVided pnor to buIldmg permit, 14 That all nght-of-way permits be obtamed pnor to Issuance of a bUlldmg penmt, 15 That a sediment and erosion control preventIOn plan be submmed pnor to any demohuon and buildmg permIts, 16 That TraffiC Impact Fees be determmed and patd pnor to CertIfIcate of Occupancy Issuance, 17 That a COndOminIUm plat be recorded pnor to Issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, 18 That all proposed uttltttes (from the nght-of-way to the proposed bUlldmgs) be placed underground and mstallatlOn of condUIt(s) along the entlfe length of the site's street frontage be completed pnor to the Issuance of the first certIficate of occupancy, and 19 That all slgnage meet Code, conSIst of channel letters for any attached sIgns, and be archItecturally Integrated to the deSign of the bmldmg and SIte FreestandIng sIgnage Will need to meet code and be monument-style In deSign /h/~ k;1, ~ Michael H Reynolds, AIep, Semor Planner Prepared by Planmng Department Staff A IT ACHMENTS Aenal Photograph of Site and Vlclmty LocatIOn Map Future Land Use Map Zonmg Atlas Map ApplicatIOn ~ \Planlllng Departmen^C D B\rLEX\Pendmg rase.;..Up for the next CDB\Edgewarer 1925 fop Flight Development (T]\Updared Edgewater J 925 Staff Reporr doc Staff Reporl-Communny Development Board - Apnl 20, 2004 - Case FLD2003-09050- Page 4 ~ w " ---- .' ~ , - -" '-- ~ ... 1 CDB Meeting Date Case Number Agenda Item Apphcant Address March 16, 2004 FLD2003-09050 E7 Top FlIght Development, LLC 1925 Edgewater Dnve ORIGINAL CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: FlexIble Development approval to permIt a reductIon In the sIde (east) setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet (to pavement) and, an Increase of bUlldIng height from 35 feet to 75 feet from base flood elevatIon of 13 feet MSL (wIth height calculated to the lTIldpomt of the roof slope) to construct 77 multI-family residential (attached) umts, under the provlSlons of SectIOn 2-803 B EXISTING ZONINGI LAND USE: Tounst (T) DIstnct, Resort FaCIlItIes H1gh (RFH) Category PROPERTY SIZE: 2 572 Acres PROPERTY USE: Current Use Motels (two) Proposed Use Multl-faffi1ly reSidentIal ADJACENT ZONINGI LAND USES: North Tounst Dlstnct (T), Overnight accommodatIons West PreservatIon (P), Clearwater harbor East Medmm DenSity ReSIdentIal (MDR) and Low Medmm DenSIty Resldentml (LMDR), SIngle Faffi1ly ReSIdential South Tounst Dlstnct (T) and Office Dlstnct (0), Gas statIon and SIngle FamIly ReSidentIal CHARACTER OF THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY: Scemc north-south comdor, overmght lodgIng, SIngle famIly reSidentIal, and commercial ANAL YSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: ThIS 2 572-acre sIte IS located on the southeast corner of Sunnydale Dnve and Edgewater Dnve, and north of Sunset Pomt Road CommercIal, and reSIdentIal land uses dommate the nnmedlate vIcmlty At present, there are two motels on the property proposed for redevelopment Staff Report -Commumty Development Board - March 16, 2004 - Case FLD2003-09050- Page I . , . , \ > "- Proposal: The proposal IS to completely raze the eXlstmg sIte, mcludmg the two motels and all ancillary structures and to construct 77 attached dwelhngs All apphcable Code reqUirements and cntena mcludIng but not hmlted to General Apphcablhty cntena (SectIOn 3-913) and the flexIbIlIty cntena for attached umts (SectIOn 2-803 B) have been met The applIcation as advertIsed IS seekmg flexible approval to permit attached dwelhngs with a reductIOn of the side (east) setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet (to pavement), an mcrease of bUlldmg height to 75 feet from base flood elevatIOn of 13 feet MSL (with heIght calculated to the mldpomt of the roof slope) The request for additIOnal bUlldmg height IS to allow for the denSity to be deSigned wIthm the lImIts of the property The side setback request will allow for the parkmg space reqUIrement to be met Heavy landscapmg IS shown along the east property hne where the setback reductlOn IS bemg sought CODE ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS: There are no outstandmg enforcement Issues assocl3ted With thIS SIte STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: (Section 2-301.1 and 2-304): STANDARD PROPOSED CONSISTENT INCONSISTENT MAXIMUM 77 dwellIng umts X DENSITY IlVIPERVIOUS 060 X SURFACE RATIO (lSR) LOT AREA 257 acres, 111,949 square feet X LOT WIDTH 210 feet at nearest pomt X FRONT SETBACK 15 feet at closest pomt X REAR SETBACK None (no rear setback) X SIDE SETBACK East 5 85 feet X* HEIGHT (35- 100 feet 75 feet X* allowable FLD range) PARKING SPACES 117 spaces, 1 5 spaces per umt X (1.5 per unit required) * See analYSIS for dISCUSSIOn FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA (Section 2-803.B) a Consistent Inconsistent 1 The mcreased heIght results m an Improved Site plan or Improved deSl n and a earance, and The mcreased height IS necessary to allow the Improvement of off- street parkmg on the ground floor of the reSIdentIal bUlldmg [X] [ ] 2 [X] [ ] Staff Report-Community Development Board - March 16,2004 - Case FLD2003-090S0- Page 2 ....: t \' . GENERAL STANDARDS (Section 3-913): Consistent Inconsistent 1 Development of the land will be m harmony WIth the scale, bulk, [X] [ ] coverage, densIty and character of adJacent propertIes 2 Development will not hmder or dIscourage development and use of [X] [ ] adjacent land and bUIldmgs or slgmficantly ImpaIr the value thereof 3 Development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons [X] [ ] resIdmg or workmg In the neIghborhood 4 Development IS desIgned to mmmuze traffIc congestIOn [X] [ ] 5 Development IS consIstent WIth the commumty character of the [X] [ ] llnmedIate vlcImty 6 DesIgn of the proposed development mmImIzes adverse effects, [X] [ ] mcludmg visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operatIOn Impacts on adJacent properties SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review CommIttee revIewed the applicatIOn and supportmg matenals on January 29, 2004 The Planmng Department recommends APPROVAL of the FleXIble Development applIcatIOn to penmt attached dwel1mgs with a reduction of the sIde (east) setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet (to pavement), and an mcrease of bmldmg heIght, from 35 feet to 75 feet from base flood elevation of 13 feet MSL (WI th hel ght calculated to the lTIldpomt of the roof sl ope) to construct 77 multi-famIly residential (attached) umts, under the provlSlons of SectIOns 2-803 B and 2-303 wIth the followmg bases and conditIOns Bases for Approval 1 The proposal complIes With the FleXible Development cntena per SectIon 2-803 B 2 The proposal IS m comphance With other standards m the Code mciudmg the General ApplIcabIlIty Cntena per SectIOn 3-913 3 The development IS compatIble WIth the surroundmg area and Will enhance other redevelopment efforts ConditIons of Approval 1 That a reVIsed sIte plan be submitted satisfactory to Plannmg staff, pnor to buildmg permIt Issuance, to address the mItIgatIOn of any Impacts from the reductIOn 10 the Side setback by a) deslgnmg the bmldmg height With a "staIr steppmg" effect With a sectIOn of the first floor (east SIde) begmnmg at 30 feet m heIght and transltlOmng to 75 feet m height (to the north and to the west, or b) relocate a section of the bmldmg approximately 20 feet from the east toward the west, or c) an alternative proposal satisfactory to Planmng staff, 2 That a reVIsed landscape plan be submitted satisfactory to Plannmg staff, pnor to bmldmg permIt Issuance, Slaff Report-Conunumty Development Board - March] 6, 2004 - Case FLD2003-09050- Page 3 ,- , -~ y'" ~ ,~ 3 That Open Space, RecreatIOn Land and RecreatIon FacIlity Impact fees be satIsfied pnor to the ISSUdnce of bUIldmg permIts or fmal plat, whIchever occurs first, 4 That a copy of the SWFWMD permIt be provIded pnor to bUIldmg permIt, 5 That Traffic Impact Fees be deterrruned and patd pnor to Certificate of Occupancy Issuance, 6 That a tree preservatIOn plan be provided pnor to bUIldIng permIt Issuance, 7 That all FIfe Department reqUIrements be addressed pnor to bUIldIng permit Issuance, 8 That a lO-foot Sidewalk, draInage and utIhty easement along frontage of Edgewater Dnve be granted, 9 That a CondomInIUm plat be recorded pnor to Issuance of the first CertIfIcate of Occupancy, 10 That all proposed utllltIes (from the nght-of-way to the proposed bUIldIngs) be placed underground and InstallatIon of condUIt(s) along the entire length of the sIte's street frontage be completed pnor to the Issuance of the first certIficate of occupancy, 11 That a vacatiOn of alley and/or easements be completed pnor to Issuance of a bUIldIng permit, 12 That the InstallatiOn of sanitary sewer mam be completed pnor to Issuance of a bUildIng permIt, 13 That all nght-of-way perrmts be obtaIned pnor to Issuance of a bUIldIng permit, Prepared by Planmng Department Staff 14 That a revIsed SIte plan be submItted pnor to bUIldIng permIt Issuance, correctly showmg VISibIlIty tnangles measured from the property hnes, 15 That a sediment and erOSIOn control preventIOn plan be submitted pnor to any demolItIon and bUIldmg permIts, 16 That the separate site plans be consohdated to one Site plan set WIth one site data table, 17 That the sIte data table mdlcate both the maXImum and proposed ImperviOUS Surface RatIo, 18 That the SIte data table state the number of motel rooms eXIstIng on SIte, and 19 That all slgnage meet Code, conSIst of channel letters for any attached signs, and be archItecturally Integrated to the deSIgn of the bUIldmg and Site FreestandIng slgnage WIll need to meet eode and be monument-style In deSign /It~.~ ;t:1 ~,~ Michael H Reynolds, AICP, Semor Planner A 'IT ACHMENTS Aenal Photograph of SIte and VIclmty LocatIOn Map Future Land Use Map Zonmg Atlas Map ApplicatIon S \Plannmg DepaTtmen^C D H\FLEX\Pendmg fl1SenUp fOT the next CD8\Edgewater /925 Top Flight Development {T}\Edgewater 1925 Staff Report doc Staff Report-Commumty Development Board - March 16,2004 - Case FLD2003-090S0- Page 4 , " ^ J~ 7' ~<- ~ (> , - - -- - -----.. ~ , , PROJECT SITE " ~ i1iD l~~ S'! Location Map Owner I Top FlIght EnterprISes, Inc I Case FLD2003-09050 Site 1925 Edgewater Dnve Property 2 05 acres Size (Acres) 03/29/15/86778/000/0010 03/29/15/86778/000/001001 PIN 03/29/15/86778/000/001002 03/29/15/86778/000/001003 ORIGINAL j Atlas Page 251A - - -. ""I , ',., , <> 1__- _ .... I --~I '-~ ;--l6-. :-~_... I~~-~ -,~ 01 ~ SI"'II I 1..1 ~ f ~ ~ ~ I : 1___. 1,_ ~ ~ ' ~ - T~ !: 1- --- ---I 1 ~ f ~ 1 0 1 (:) \ ""1 l..... -~I I;. r-..1 : ~ --------~; I &------ , .; , , 1- ~ ~I , , -, , 2~ ;--: T : I ~: ~ "{ p ~ 91 ~ 91 ~ ~ ]901 ... It ~ ~ -----~--~-- , ij , , '____1 __ , ,- :_ ~.~1 "'_.. : - ~ 1---1 , , , , MD :~ -ll I_~ I~: 1 ; Ir(j:~u~.' ;;-- g S ;:: III ., ., ~., ~ ~ SUNSET POINT RD Zoning Map Owner I Top Flight Enterpnses, lnc SIte 1925 Edgewater Drive lease Property SIze (Acres) PIN- I Atlas Page , ''\1"-' I __1--' :~ : ;'_1 , -, , ~ I t I 1 ~_I r -_-j --, :~~ -~: --, , , , , l ~ I_I , , .1 : 1~-1 I__.! ,. ---j ~I-~~~ r , , - __I ____..I ~ I L".~~ .1 _:a: t__1 ! FLD2003-09050 2 05 acres 03/29/15/86778/000/0010 03/29/15/86778/000/001001 03/29/15/86778/000/0010 02 03/29/15/86778/000/0010 03 251A Park , '~ I 2. I~~. r --1,;Ij,1 _r...... i-iQ-1 ;-:--L ~ ~ l e: "I: .""' ~ f..~ . 'Yr r-;.l- I , , , , ._ ..__~l Park '9'11 :'~ Overnight 10 gin I I~, ~-_.: 2 !; - SUNNYDAL1E DR~ Park ~ H uu __ __ ~91 ~gJ '__; '._', J-~~ ~-~rami. ;t~s dent al e, s {{liD: : :-. : - ~ :-'---~: : Ql90~ ~ ~ . ~_J .;._J ~ ~...~~ m .__1 .._~~-.) :..~~~: _:~ ~ tij ~~ g ~g 13 2 ~ ;: , , SUN$ET POINT RD " ~ ~- ~t~~~~ --f 'II( 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Jo,. ~ I.{. ~ j- --- ---l , ~ It-. j .0 18 . ...... I ""'I :--: 1.1 : __.1 , ~------ ~-----~ --: : : ' , ; 'Gaca t : f~n : "'~ ~- --: !; 1-- .0 t ~! I S gl ram Iy r ~ide lial learwater Harbor , , , ,- , , I~li- r-; , , I~~~ ~ I , , '. w __2 .--1 , , ;)j .." , , " Stev nson's Creek ... ~ -, , , , , : I. ____~_ _ _ ~-_I'" Existing Surrounding Uses Map SIte 1925 Edgewater Dnve I Case' Property Size {Acres} FLD2003-09050 Owner: I Top Flight Enterprises, rnc 2 05 acres 03/29/15/86778/000/0010 03/29/15/86778/000/00 1 0:01 PI N 03/29/15/86778/000/0010 02 03/29/15/86778/000/0010 03 1 Atras Page 251A Aerial Map Owner: I Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. 1925 Edgewater Drive I Case: Property Size (Acres) : FLD2003-09050 Site: 2.05 acres 03/29/15/86778/000/0010 03/29/15/86778/000/00 1 0:0 1 PIN: 03/29115/86778/000/00 10:02 03/29/15/86778/000/0010:03 I Atlas Page: 251 A View to the west View to the north Views to the east 1925 Edgewater Drive, FLD2003-09050 r I ~ . 1/ ,.&- ~L 1, ' ~ ,;;C~earwater u FAX COVER MEMO CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVE., 2nd Floor CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 TO:~ ~~D FAX: 4t{ q -- cQ It.S~ Phone: FROM: L~-S^ fl ~~ Phone: S&l, -OrEiJ?1 DATE: 1 ,z.q -6~ SUBJECT: 0D6 Kftv\{)~ U~\( MESSAGE: ~ . NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) '::H-lD I HG REPORT Jul. 29 2004 02:20PM YOUR LOGO YOUR FAX NO Clt~OfClearwater-Plan Dept 727 562 4865 NO OTHER FACSIMILE 01 94492456 START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT Jul.2902:18PM 02'03 SND 03 OK TO ll.IRN OFF REPOk I, PRESS 'MENU' 004. THEN SB.ECT OFF BY USING '+' OR '-'. FOR FAX ADVANTRGE FlSSISTFlNCE, PLEASE CALL 1-800-HELP-FAX (435-7329). COMMUNITY DEVELOPME.N-l BOARD Meet1llg Date 3rd Tuesday Tlme/Place 200 pm - CommIsSIon Chambers Members 7 and 1 Alternate Term 4 years FmanClal Dlsdosure Yes Staff Liaison Plann1llg Department - Lisa Fierce - 562-4561 Purpose Handles matters related to plannmg and development, conducts publ1c heanngs and decIdes certain development requests that are not wlthm dIscretion of cIty staff, conduos desIgn reVieW, evaluates hlstonc applicatIOns, revIews requests for land use plan changes dnd rezonmgs, and serves as Local Planmng Agency to review and advise CommiSSiOn regardmg the City's Comprehensive Pldn Spec wI QuahficatlOns Board s ha II I nc I ude members q ual1 ficd and ex pen enced It1 the fie Ids of drchJteUu re, planmng, landscape archItecture, englneenng, construction, plannmg and land use law and real estate Ong Appt N amel Address 02128/2007 1999 DavId Gl1dersleeve 3350 San Pedro St ,33759 (Consultant - Plann1llg) 1999 Alex Pllsko H 706 Oak Ave, 33756 Mall to 0 800 Drew St 33755 (Archl tet t) 1999 Shlfley Moran 1301 Gulf Blvd ,#207,33767 (Consultant) 2001 Ed Hooper, Chair 2460 Northslde Dr, #402,33761 (RetIred Firefighter) 2002 John Doran, Vice Chair 65 Verbena Street, 33767 (CPA/Attorney/Real Estate Broker) Phone Explr Date H 796-2939 o 882-8366 I-I 441-8041 o 461-0030 02/28/2006 H 596-2225 02/28/2005 H 723-1166 o 458-4751 02/28/2005 H 442-9855 o 447-9579 02/28/2006 02/28/2008 Kathy Milam H 461-1929 1828 Venetian Pomt Dr, 33755 0 461-0564 (Presldent~Southern Hospitality Dlstmctlve Group Servlte::.) 2002 2003 Damel Dennehy 1925 Edgewater Dnve, 33755 (Alternate member) COB Members Contmued ~ H 278-4400 o 441-3295 04/30/2006 \ Reynolds, Mike From' Sent: To' Reynolds, MIke Friday, May 21,2004300 PM Bahnlck, Glen, Barker, Bnan A, Bertels, Paul, Blackburn, Anne, Carner, AI, Colbert, Joseph, Elba, Bennett, FInch, Terry, Gerlock, ChIp, Glenn, Tom, GJuskl, Roberta, Hufford, DIane, Maran, Robert (Bob), Martens, Cory, Melone, Donald, Morns, WIlham 0, Planning, RIce, Scott, RIchter, DebbIe, Shoberg, Elliot E , YellIn, Catherine WatkIns, Sherry FLD2003-09050, 1925 Edgewater Dnve, The Ashlelgh Cc Subject. DRC Members, The sIte plan and bUIldIng elevatIons for the above subject case have been revIsed J have placed a revIew copy on the fIle cabinets directly behInd my cubicle (In front of Room 216) These reVISions might not pertaIn to all of you A brief summary of the plan reVISion 1 The proposed bUIlding heIght IS now 59 feet (prevIously It was 75 feet) from base flood elevatIon to the mIdpoInt of the roof 2 The proposed number of residentIal dwelling unIts IS now 60 (prevIously It was proposed at 77 ul1lts) 3 The number of parkIng spaces In the proposal has Increased by three spaces to a total of 120 proposed vehIcular parkIng spaces (two parkIng spaces per resIdentIal unIt) The application IS stIli seeking a reduction of the sIde (east) setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet to pavement The next possIble COB meetlng date for thIS appllcatlon IS Tuesday, July 20,2004 Please contact me wIth any questions MIke Reynolds, AICP, SenIor Planner CIty of Clearwater - 727-562-4836 mike revnofds@mvclearwatercom ,,..,. 1 J Northpinellas: Clearwater residents shouldn't fight condos ,~. .~ .# ~....... .,;~. .." A ~~ .r. sptimes.com Text-only News sections Arts & Entertainment AP The Wire Business Citrus County Columnists Election 2004 Floridian Hernando County Hillsborough Letters Movies Neighborhood Times News Update North Pine lias North of Tampa Obituaries Opinion Pasco County South Pinellas Sports State Tampa Bay TV Times World & Nation Find your local news section Weekly sections Brandon Times City Times Homes Outdoors Perspective Personal Tech Sunday Money Tampa Bay Business Taste ~ ,- -m J '-- - Calendars Classifi.li1d Forums. $pQrts Wli1athli1J Yli1110wPag!;!s Selling a home? Looking to b(iy and need to search our/istings? Clearwater residents shouldn't fight condos A Times Editorial Published April 20, 2004 Some residents of the extreme northwest comer of Clearwater are upset about a proposal by a developer for a condominium project near them. "Upset" might not be a strong enough word. These residents have a logo,: a Web site, a hotline and a spokesperson, have held strategy meetings and have erected handmade signs along their streets that call on residents to "Save Our Neighborhood." At 2 p.m. today, the opponents are expected to show up en masse at a meeting of the Clearwater Community Development Board, which must' decide whether to approve the condominium project brought forward by the board's own alternate member, Dan Dennehy, and his wife, Terri. The Dennehys have bought the Bay Queen Motel and the Edgewater Motel, two aging properties on Edgewater Drive just north of Sunset Point Road, across the street from St. Joseph Sound. The Dennehys, operating as Top Flight Enterprises Inc., want to tear down the motels and build an L-shaped condominium building along Edgewater and Sunnydale drives. The building would contain 77 upscale condominium units selling for at least $450,000 each. One might think that residents of nearby single-family homes would celebrate this conversion of commercial property to residential use, from aging and certain-to-become-dilapidated motels to high-end condominiums. But they don't. They most adamantly don't. The main reason: The Dennehys' condominium building would be more than 75 feet tall. Residents say that the seven floors of condominiums, above a ground floor of parking, would be "menacing," and they have drawn comparisons to the condominium towers on Clearwater Beach and Sand Key. They have contended that the project would block their view ii of St. Joseph Sound. http://www.sptimes.coml2004/041201N orthpinellas/Clearwatecresidents_.shtml P,age 1 of 3 >. H ~U! ~'.It.\i 'i:,tn ' ..,( a~ 4/2012004 Northpinellas: Clearwater residents shouldn't fight condos () , ,,'~' 7' 'Travel Weekend Xpress Special Sections Arena football Buccaneers College football Devil Rays Lightning Police reports Schools Seniority Subscriber Services Subscribe Renew Help Advertise In print Online Market Info Join Us Internships Scholarships Times Jobs Contact us ~ GJ t~1 'U n~ lU.'!!Il ., Ii ilYm cnfG a>> mC n Residents have every right to express their likes and di$likes about this proposed neighbor, but it is important to confine the discussion to realities. Residents of Edgewater and Sunnydale will not lose a water view if the' condominium is built. The property is on the east side of Edgewater Drive, not the west, so the project can't interfere with the view for anyone who lives on Edgewater already. Residents of Sunnydale have their water view blocked by the two-story motels there now and can get a clear vieW: of the water only by standing in the street in front of their homes and' looking west. Although opponents argue the condominium project would be incompatible with their neighborhood, worse could be built. The Dennehy property has been zoned Tourist for many years. Under that zoning, a developer could build any of a variety of uses: a new motel, restaurants, a nightclub, retail stores, an alcohol package store, even a car lot. Those potential uses would all be far less compatible with nearby residences than a condominium. The Bay Queen and Edgewater motels recall an earlier era, and because they have been fairly well-maintained through the decades, they have some charm. But they are not thriving. With room rates at about $40 a night, the properties are likely to continue to decline. A motel serving a " low-income, transient population would not be a welcome neighbor in most neighborhoods. Although the condominium would be the tallest building in the Sunnydale-Edgewater-Sunset Point vicinity, it would not be the only multistory building. Two-story buildings have existed along that stretch of Edgewater Drive for decades. A new three-story Comfort Suites is across Sunnydale from the Dennehy property. A five-story condominium building is under construction on Edgewater just south of Sunset Point Road. Residents' most valid argument is that the height of the building, at 75 feet above parking, would cause a loss of privacy for those who live directly east of the project. Change is difficult for everyone, and so it is for Edgewater-area residents, who might wish for the historic low-rise development pattern there to continue. But unlike some other recent redevelopment cases that have gone before the Community Development Board - for example, the Clearwater Bay Marina project - this one at least offers some positives for., the neighborhood. [Last modified April 20, 2004, 01:20:37] North Pinellas headlines http://www.sptimes.com/2004/04/20/N orthpinellas/Clearwatecresidents_.shtml " Page 2 of 3 SAM , . Apartrl . Beech .Coopc .QJIf& . Medic 'Oldsm . Parad~ . Restal. >:~l,Ill'lm 4/20/2004 Northpmellas Clearwater residents shouldn't fight condos Page 3 of 3 r .. Boy. 10. hurt by watercraft In hit-and-run .. Officials identify body as Palm Harbor man ... Tarp-on man, 42, arrested In fatal crash .. Tired of bu[Y.ing friends. bikers rally Ii> Vehicles souqht in fatal hit-run FCA T 2004 Ii> DesPite small reading gains. many may repeat third qrade Speedway ... Hunt inherits win after 3 drivers are disqualified Top of the Class Ii> Peace. for fundralser .. EdItonal Clearwater resldents ')houldn't fight condos Ii> Letters to the EdItor. Condo cntlcs Ignore benefits. lmagme pItfalls of develonment ~,~ Cl1ck tor ~ local oil, ,uilte I Past 14 Days ~ rawl BACK .701101' @ COP..Y.!l9ht 2002-200451 Petersbura TImes All rights reserved Standard of Accuracv h ttp Ilwww SptJ mes eomf2004/04/201N orth pI nellas/Clearwatecreslden ts_ sh tml 4/20/2004 Reynolds, Mike From: Sent: To: Cc Subject Elbo, Bennen Tuesday, April 20, 2004 12 48 PM Elbo, Bennen, Reynolds, MIke Bertels, Paul, Gerlock, Chip, QUIllen, MIchael, RIce, Scott RE FLD2003-09050, 1925 Edgewater Drive, The Ashlelgh, Proposed 77 attached resIdential ul1l1s MIke, After further reVIew, the calculatIon of 2 6% IS erroneous The tnps of 29 vph should have been multIplied by 55% a reduction factor used by the MPO to determIne the peak one dIrectional dIstributIon (29 x 55 = 16 vph) Then takmg 16 vph and dIVIdIng It by 1110 vph gives you a 1 4 % Therefore, the expected tripS generated by the proposed development IS InsIgnifIcant and does not reqUIre a TraffIC Impact Study Ben -----On g ma I Messa ge----- From: Elbo, Bennett Sent: Tuesday, Apnl 20, 2004 10 11 AM To Reynolds, Mike Cc: Bertels, Paul, Gerlock, Chip Subject: RE FLD2003-09050, 1925 Edgewater Dnve, The Ashlelgh, Proposed 77 attached residential umts MIke from my calculations the applIcant must provIde a TraffIC Impact Study for the followIng reasons 1 The segment on Alt 19 between Union Street and Sunset Pomt Road IS a Level of ServIce (LOS) "F" 2 The proposed tripS exceed the 1 % dlmlnlmus The applicant must hIre an engIneering fIrm that conducts TraffIC Impact Studies Then VISIt the TraffiC OperatIons DIVISion and make an appoIntment for a scoplng meetmg prior to conductmg the TraffIC Impact Study CalculatIons Given 77 Unit condomInIum 6 stones over parking Weekday vol urne Rate 4 18 nn 4 18 x 77 = 322 vpd Peak hour volume (P M) Rate 038 --- 038 x 77 = 29 vph From the MPO's 2003 LOS Report Aft 19 (UnIon Street to Sunset Po lOt Road) = LOS "F" AADT 21,236 vpd Peak volume one direction' 1,110 vph 29 / 1110 = 2 6% over the 1 % dlmlnlmus -----0 n gma I Message----- From: Reynolds, Mike Sent. Tuesday, Apnl 20, 2004834 AM To. Elba, Bennett Cc: Gerlock. Chip Subject: FW FLD2003-09050, 1925 Edgewater Dnve, The Ashlelgh, Proposed 77 attached resldenbal umts Ben, Old you get a chance to look mto thiS questlon? The 1925 Edgewater case IS gOIng before COB today 1 . Thank you MIke Reynolds -----Onglnal Message----- From' Reynolds, Mike Sent: Thursday, Apn115, 2004 1 39 PM To: Elba, Bennett, Doherty, Steve, Richter, Debbie Cc' Gerlock, Chip, Bertels, Paul, Rice, Scott Subject: FLD2003-090S0, 1925 Edgewater Onve, The Ashlelgh, Proposed 77 attached residential Unlts Ben, Steve, and DebbIe Would you please wnte to me as to the above project meetmg or not meetmg concurrency? Thank you MIke Reynolds, AICP Senror Planner City of Clearwater Plannrng Department Tel # 727-562-4836 mIke reynolds@MyClearwatercom 2 .' f- c!o~.rI- J~-i-.Ev /1'1/ ~~wd~ , 3.r a6oJ.L- 1JF-E. ~ #-" -Tv d!a-t..o,eJ) tee Se:,6!e, 2>f ~/Y / ~V/Jh Me. j ,jJ-/ -10 r6 /' ~~ J. A loh6r ~ c.{-e--/j Vi' II t:- eJ# /l14,f- ij, /F60 ,I1r. 7r- ~'I'CY( uo f (f' en0...rlA,.l ~e- ~~-"",J (J'D I ~otl.e.- tJ?e.. -- 13 / ba/ A.r1k /b-W) S /DiJ IV: OJJCe<s (?' f' J · If 2.... ~ a/;/)(/L/ ~ ~ li7Jhj f~ /3 J ]1 if. 9 '2.-- -Ir:4-U /f'JS- &d/.RlfV"d'ov J i'J ,- ? J' ~ 6ue 'vl--~ /3 ' p {" / f-"h;/.. Best Cop 4 Va i'ab.eY IT/Ii,. ,~ .. .nfe/) )( l.i a A A 7l/ r; -' If;-I' i ~/J /~ uP// &-~ JJ f- /~ -tv' r --;::::;: 71 ~~ Best Copy A .. '" Ii":" 'l)" ;;".,! r ',0' 'i't:\,"_ ~ <r h .....oj, ~,..,~ Reynolds, Mike From: Sent To: Subject FIerce, LIsa Monday, Apn119, 2004 10 17 AM Reynolds, MIke, Gerlock, ChIp FW Message ~ Kathy MIlam I need thIs mformatlon to be able to contact kathy, let's dIscuss after manager's mee1lng -----On glna I M essage----- From: Haines, Angel Sent: Monday, Apnl19, 2004 901 AM To: Tarapanl, Cyndl, Fierce, LIsa Subject: Message - Kathy Milam ~ .~ iN "JYl # tfl-P/ -I' ~ ~ JiJl ~( ~) \I ~ L alfrxP' ~v / '\ 1 ComfortSultes -IY"~I e/~~ )J 1M' fb 2 Construction for complex behind Old Clearwater Bay off Sunset POint AIo~L ~I 3. Development on the Bluff 1t?O ott~{t4-, fJ~ '/ l f~ Lisa L. Fierce CIty of clearwater AssIstant Planning Director hsa flerce@MvClearwater com 7275624561 phone" 727 562 4865 fax Buckeye and Buccaneer Fan - GO BUC(K)S! 60 1"" ,I Good morning ladles, She asked for you to call her on her cell 460-1050. -- Angel Haines Senior Staff Assistant PlannIng Department CIty of Clearwater (727) 562-4579 - AI c:>Aet No I-d n t<;~ r: - 700 ~vcbM~... Best Copy Available 1 ~ ~ 7-~-~~ / fl' ~c./<<./ ~r; ,( ~t.t-?/Y-- ~ 1(,; (' 1] ,idJ --:.::-- . 11-~ // /~~ tJ'dfi!.1 /1/~ --'~--c7'iU'L;L~1.L()~ u1d//~:==d~ .f//{/),- J-r~J / , , \~ ~ ~ I /i.': , ~ 0- ) I ~, \JJ f"" ,v fJ fi -L, ~ {j ~ , 01 ..:;: .r ---....: t'~ /1.A.,ui'tr' itlM b '-- ~ , I, e ,-~ --- -- A lJ ~ - ~ / ~ ,~ I' i@ \ , ~ . I ~ : 'J -it j I ;~ I (6 ~ ,. ~ ,1.' ; '-"- From. Sent: To Subject: Fierce, LIsa Thursday, March 11, 2004 10 24 AM Gerlock, Chip, Reynolds, Mike dan dennlhey project on edgewater - /~ r ~p~p1#,? Re nOids, Mike Importance High he IS ok wlth the conditions, he will do what It takes to work out the compatibility, hIs question IS what other cases have been approved With slmlllar compatibIlity Issues (tall bUilding adjacent to residential), there IS at least one I mentioned to him that IS under construction at 700 osceola, please do some research and contact dan at 278-4400 L.lsa L. Fierce City of Clearwater Assistant Planning Director !Iso flerce@MvClearwater com 7275624561 phone * 7275624865 fax Buckeye and Buccaneer Fan - GO BUC(K)S' /b <> (3 ~C EP j}(-'V/ IC( r.I JA ~Lu" ;fl. ~2--- !;p.rl / 7D d OJ"( ~O/ p J. 86 Ie~ fll c!i/6t1 of; 1 Reynolds, Mike From: Sent: To. Subject. Richter, Debbie Frrday, Aprr116, 2004 11 33 AM Reynolds, Mike RE FLD2003-09050, 1925 Edgewater Drrve, The Ashlelgh, Proposed 77 attached residential units P&R's Involvement wouldn't be related to concurrency but FYI, the Open Space and Recreation dedication requirement IS stili pending payment prior to Issuance of building permits or final plat (If applicable), whichever occurs first Dan Dennehy actively worked with me In February to gather our Information but he has not yet provided the final verification needed for me to calculate the fees Let me know If anythmg else IS needed -----0 rI 9 I nal M essag e- .--- From: Reynolds, Mike Sent Thursday, Apnl 15, 2004 1 39 PM To: Elbo, Bennett, Doherty, Steve, RIchter, Debbie Cc: Gertock, ChiP, Bertels, Paul, Rice, Scott Subject: FlD2003-09050, 1925 Edgewater Dnve, The Ashlelgh, Proposed 77 attached resldenbal units Ben, Steve, and Debbie Would you please wnte to me as to the above project meeting or not meeting concurrency? Thank you Mike Reynolds, AICP Senior Planner City of Clearwater Planning Department Tel # 727-562-4836 mike reynolds @ MyClearwater com 1 .II ~ Reynolds, Mike From: Sent: To: SubJect: Doherty, Steve Thursday, Aprr115, 2004344 PM Reynolds, Mike RE FLD2003-09050, 1925 Edgewater Drrve, The Ashlelgh, Proposed 77 attached reSIdential units I don't make concurrency determinations, but f can confirm that we presently have the ability 10 serve both water and sanitary sewer -----Ong mal M essag e--m From: Reynolds, Mike Sent Thursday, ApnI 15, 2004 1 39 PM To: Elbo, Bennett, Doherty, Steve, Richter, Debbie Cc: Gerlock, Chip, Bertels, Paul, Rice, Scott Subject: FlD2003-09050, 1925 Edgewater Dnve, The Ashlelgh, Proposed 77 attached residential Units Ben, Steve, and Debbie Would you please wnte to me as 10 the above proJect meetlng or not meetmg concurrency? Thank you Mike Reynolds, AICP Senior Planner City of Clearwater Planning Department Tel # 727-562-4836 mike reynolds@MyClearwatercom 1 . .!!.eynolds, Mike From Sent To' Subject. Doherty, Steve Thursday, Apnl 15, 2004 3 44 PM Reynolds, Mike RE FLD2003-09050, 1925 Edgewater Drrve, The Ashlelgh, Proposed 77 attached residential units I don't make concurrency determinations, but I can confirm that we presently have the ability to serve both water and sanitary sewer ---~-Ong Inal M essag e----- From: Reynolds, Mike Sent: Thursday, Apnl1S, 2004 1 39 PM To. Elba, Bennett, Doherty, Steve, Rlchter, Debbie Cc' Gerlock, Chip, Bertels, Paul, Rice, Scott Subject. FLD2003-090S0, 1925 Edgewater Dnve, The Ashlelgh, Proposed 77 attached residential umts Ben, Steve, and Debbie Would you please wrrte to me as to the above proJect meeting or not meeting concurrency? Thank you Mike Reynolds, ArCp Senior Planner CIty of Clearwater Planning Department Tel # 727-562-4836 mIke reynolds @ MyClearwater com 1 .. .... ~ of. Reynolds. Mike From: Sent. To. SubJect Richter, Debbie Frrday, Apn116, 2004 11 33 AM Reynolds, Mike RE FLD2oo3-o9050, 1925 Edgewater Dnve, The Ashlelgh, Proposed 77 attached residentIal units P&R's Involvement wouldn't be related to concurrency but FYI, the Open Space and Recreation dedication reqUirement IS still pending payment prIOr to Issuance of budding permits or final plat (If applicable), whichever occurs first Dan Dennehy actively worked with me In February to gather our Information but he has not yet provIded the frnal verification needed for me to calculate the fees Let me know If anything else IS needed -----Ongmal Message----- From: Reynolds, Mike Sent. Thursday, Apn115, 2004 1 39 PM To: Elba, Bennett, Doherty, Steve, Richter, Debbie Cc Gerlock, ChiP, Bertels, Paul, Rice, Scott SubJect. FlD2003-09050, 1925 Edgewater Dnve, The Ashlelgh, Proposed 77 attached residential Units Ben, Steve, and Debbie Would you please wrrte to me as to the above project meeting or not meeting concurrency? Thank you Mike Reynolds, AICP Senior Planner City of Clearwater Planning Department Tel # 727-562-4836 mike reynolds@MyClearwatercom 1 / f1',t <f"" ~.... c:;t./e;r""r <1 r-: ~ Reynolds, Mike ~' From' Sent: To' Subject. Fierce, Lisa Wednesday, March 17,20041 26 PM Gerlock, Chip, Reynolds, MIke FW comments from cdb members lvvtA.J1 } Q ~L{ln/9J71 like to know how many hotel units can be bUilt on the '10 John doran ~~ChBa me after yesterday's meeting - I'm"w dennehy Slt~ of It IS T and part IS resldentlally zoned please call him with the answer by tomorrow, thanks Lisa L. Fierce City of Clearwater Assistant Planning Director 11$0 flerce@Mvclearwater com 727 5624561 phone * 7275624865 fax Buckeye and Buccaneer Fan - GO BVC(K)S' @ I~ c;;2 . J- 1 ?-- y Cf't; /6"V ( f r --- -Ong In a I Messa ge----- From: Fierce, LIsa Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 9 53 AM To Gertock, ChiP, Reynolds, Mike, Wells, Wayne SubJect. comments from cdb members as I called for attendance, here are the questions/comments you need to be able to address tomorrow doran - how many hotel units could be bUilt on the dennehy site? (he couldnt do the math), IS the appellant's house on the eagle estates case 10 feet from hIs property hne (near the defendant's site)? phsko - not a cdb question but a sign question - he repainted his bUilding and took down his attached sign, his site IS zoned commercial, what can he have? I told him 20 square feet minimum/one sIgn, can do comp sign program up to 6% with more than one Sign hoopef ~ what IS the reqUirement for signed/sealed plans? told him need survey to be signed/seated and storm cales, what about sIte plans?? he said there are many In his packet NOT signed/sealed Including sIte plans and cales (maybe we Just have the file copies Signed and sealed?) glldersleeve - on dennehy's site - how can we agree With height? (told him It'S a compatibility Issue when tOUrist district abuts residential), we asked for mitigation (not telling applicant how to do It), he wants to see the mitigation before he approves (may request a continuance or that It be brought back to board) Lisa L. Fierce City of Clearwater Assistant Planning Director hsa flerce@MvClearwater com 7275624561 phone * 7275624865 fax But. keye and Buccaneer Fan - GO BVC(K)S! 1 Reynolds, Mike Importance High From: Sent To' SubJect. Fierce, LIsa Thursday, March 11, 2004 10 24 AM Gerlock, Chip, Reynolds, Mike dan denmhey project on edgewater he IS ok with the conditions, he will do what It takes to work out the comPa.!!blllty, his uestlon IS what other cases have been approved With slmlllar compatibility Issues (tall bUilding adjacent to restdentl , there IS at least one I mentioned to him that IS under construction at 700 osceola, please do some research and contact dan at 278~4400 L.lsa L.. Fierce City of Clearwater Assistant Plannmg Director !Iso flerce@MvClearwater com 7275624561 phone * 7275624865 fax Buckeye and Buccaneer Fan ~ GO BUC(K)SI 1 Mar 10 04 10:11a D-M~D GENERAL CONTRACTING 727-i-0752 p.1 ,4 . D-MAR GENERAL CONTRACTING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. 1453 MARTIN ~UTHER KINGJR. AVENUE SOUTH CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 (727) 461-4760 Fax MAR 1 0 200~ h.ANNING & D!:Vi:L~~f~ - vC~ CITY OF CLEA To: Mike Reynolds From: Andrew Caudell Fax: (727) 562-4567 Pages 2 Phone: Date: 03/10104 Re: Tile Ashleigh. FlD2003~9050 CC: Fax. 727442 0752 I~ o Urgent o For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply o Please Recycle . Comments. Please find attached the sketch of the update sight triangles on Sunset POint Road and Sunnydale Drive. Please do not hesitate to call me on my cell (727) 423 2770 If you have any questions. Thank you, Andy Caudell If there are any errors in transmission or you have any questions please call (727) 461-4760 Ma~ 10 04 10:lla D-MAR GENERAL CONTRACTING 727-442-0752 p.2 r o -" ~ U1 ~~ ~" \ ~; it'(-:. r\ ~f\> ~ m~:~ 3600(Ff .5~ "","~ r::; b:. ; ~ ~~ \ !:!10 (J1 ~ ~(l)aJ I c.,., 0 '- U1.....~ )>Ul-1 \ () O""'CJ :;Q"T'J?J g~ GJ ---I ~ ijj \ :!:: s::: fTI OO;;U rr~ r; fIV: \ p ....;;---:$1. ~. 'V --"(I:~.. 7r <~"Yii \\i · ~ ~~~) -.J ;:;~ \ -I"" I \ <t~~ ~\ ,,~ ~... R J'- I\) ~ I '- c:: , I , o -1 OJ , o . r o ---I u 0:::::: '~ Ir T -i- 0 CU1 I :::10 co N ..., ./:0 (JlZ .-(()) ~ N Ul. ["'10 0> )>.fT1 ..j::>.----l ()):::;: ["'1~ "!:. '--" ["'17': Z --l 8~~;J 3832' g~IiJ?:~ ~I ;;Q o.f'l ~l>-- " ::jz...,CO-l Al <0.-(f'lfT1 >::r: J'TI l'TI~OZZ FCi 0 .-( ::EO"TI..., I () '}>::lJ l>- r ~~o,,> 00 Z r r z "- r...,J'TIOno>fT1 C"J fT1>O~:;oOO 0;:0;:0 -rr10 () --l~~!l1i$iZS: f'l z O~ZC"J:;,;-l..., ..., MOZ>-l< rr1 ;:Orr1-l-<Of'l ;:0 0 Ol >z Zrrl 0:;'; CUl :::10 ro :::j- -<Ul nO c:;~ fT1> ~~ Z --l ;:00 >0 00 1== 1-4 I "" '" B l'TI-()) xz- O-l2 ~*-l OUl-l <..<>;;Q o:;ol>- ~fT1Z -~~ z:;:::, Iel f'lUlO 0...,2: IZI"TI -lOO -lul I I i- ~ yo----- t (Jl OJ Ul~ -( "T'I{/) /T1 - z' o--l f'T1 (11'1J 0:::0 1"",0 ::;E"O ~Sl ^8 r...., ) c ( ~ ) c r II IIfj;>, r ) , Mar 10 04 10:lla , " . ~~~ GENERAL CONTRACTING '72'7 - A.....' 2 - 0 '7 5 2 p.3 ~.J tj\ i-ll -r..-....-.....-..............-__ I :Po Z ;00 IV ~n " :;>.:~ 0 "U"1J q ~1900' ~lTl.o t.. o 0, 33' IV u" o 00 ==#0 IV -...I "'0 00 0' ~=*o ~ ~ ~ _ ~ N N ~Q " )>N gP()"'o 001 -:;;::~oo ,,-.. , - 'll"1Jo - I' ;j u o ~o N ""u 00 0,0 ==j1 [.f) C Z (.oJ Z 1'0 0J -< (() 0 0 )::> r rol ('T'I-Ul xz- O-l~ 0 ~;r;:-l OUl:;(l ;:a u~> o_Rlz ->~ < z ' S:::' xci [T1 l"1{/)o G)---l~ IZfTl -10(") -1 ill N .'V u: 3"GL.9i'.OOS U'\ o Ul"1J -;0 ~o l .~ ~M~r 03 04 03:19p !fJiiR GENERAL CONTRACTING 72~~12-0752 p.l Fax To: Mike Reynolds From: Fax" (727) 562-4567 Pages 2 Phone: Date: 03/03/04 Re: The Ashlelgh. FLD2003-Q9050 ce. Fax. 727 442 0752 D Urgent D For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply D Please Recycle . Comments. Please find attached a letter of explanation referencmg the MDR (Medium Density Residential) label on shown on Jots 6, 7 and a portion of lot 8 depicted on the survey for the above referenced project Please do not hesitate to call me on my cell (727) 423 2770 If you have any questions Thank you, Andy Caudell If there are any errors in transmission or you have any questions please call (727) 461-4760. '. ' ,.Mar 03 04 03: 19p /JIiAR GENERAL CONTRACTING 72~42-0752 p.2 March 2,2004 1m ~ r( .~--ifW ~ W' E T Caudell & AssocIates, lnc 2321 Pm Oak Lane East Clearwater, FlOrida 33759 Phone (727) 799-9778 , ~~ ~ ~-2004 , VCb f't.Ai~NlNG & DEvELOPMENT CI1Y OF CLEARWATER Mr Michael H Reynolds, A1CP Semor Planer Department of Development Services City of Clearwater Re The Ashlelgh FLD2003-09050 Top Flight Development LLC 1925 Edgewater Drive Clearwater, Florida Dear Mr Reynolds, This letter IS In response to the question concerning the MDR (Medium Density Residential) zonmg label shown on lots 6,7 and a portIon of lot 8 of Sunset POint SubdivISion At the time the survey was prepared, the CIty of Clearwater zoning maps Indicated that the MDR zoning applied to this portion of the property shown on the survey If there are any further questions on this mater, please do not hesitate to contact me ~. \.g~ 'Z. 7 crt) "71.,,~ --- 'V .,~-o \ \1_3-LO_~ ~ ~ .... " Best Copy ? r~va~-rable 1. L I.2Z . z. ~ l\~\i.r :S~ i b " ~ o+t" I~I t 2..... I II h. 1--0 .' ~ j. +... .'2- ol 4" 11 ot 4-'" e-t... S1fi.lri: I ,_1 J 3.. &-\~""s_1_.",.t~i:: ~~-~~ f ~~d l. \) + ~J ~. hr \, ~ ~ lJ-t..L-! - ~~_ s \-\c.- ~~,o,I ~)e d _ ') s~ V>~-T-c- u--. -~~ _ I) I S-" lu ~.\~... 'f'C~HV- r\~1- ~f" .. ~\ f\~~~\~ \)C'\:~ f-e/" ~1'Q. co 77 ~.... .\ .. {? ~ <>;;e..a "" _ "\,Qr- .t- \) ..., i\\;j \l ~:>t5 ;. 77" t ~~:{ - · ~ h ~~b.....,_~..-k~ ~ <$-~ - ~~~~ '>r~-.~.)\.~a ~12 ~ ~ _ ')Q,."",,'~ )f-eo.\ P -. -;:. :SltL~....." ",.,. ~h. ) J 3 h 5..... \-t. I i~'"' ""'~!IoI d-"~ <,.',~ j '~i 3 ~~ Sl~_~ b_~\fu- ~"u.,. - ~~~"~_\I)_\J\-..:'r ~ '):\~.. \ \+ 2- ~,- t:\~Q.~ l..kt ~ ~ h. \ \,\~. . t ~\Aw' C.\" _'^- bCJ,..js~ \r-. \"!.JA,.,"'...... ~_~Q~d. +-)flI r \l2.....~\ ,~ J U~~t.\,..\\)-e Q..r'<-'~~,~u..'i .-1.o~<V~i. u...~ .e.~~~ .'t-- ~ Y_t..l:"? \~~ ~ . J\l \T\~~,,,,,- ~ \.~1_. n Cu(:~-Q.\ \\.: ' . ~~~ra~ ~ 90\...r~~ c.,\)D'-..U-~ ~ ~~"'~~~(. ~\ \1... f n:.,,~~~ .",\\~---~:."'-\ ~l"'-'..e~ \:..-...1. ~ 0<,\\ . ~d ~ 'p1kr-(o,.~ .r &,,~rl&- ~\.~,,~. n. S\-!i:>>l ~~%,:r;""" ~3_;_~""\.i h!~" ~ l' ;""~ -.t -'"'~ J )' V'<"~t.1-- ?~'''~ iL~, t~~ewa..~ l2i.,,,Q. ~ ~..x-..~J ~~ ])1'. I . S~~ l'.........~ lr p.,,\ !t~'''''''~ ~,,:,.JIJW~S "" \~v- t,. hQ.. ~"'y_'-~~,,-,~.. G- ~ \.)\- fl--} 15 \""6"b ,,",,--.J~'"' \2~~~~_b.,. S~"-lI.~ l_S\) '1, ~~ \L). ) 11 N u_ \.v- ~r 'l\\u- C_L,..b..:,-1L, B) :tk ~~st. LhJ~~i. 1:1. ~L~\C.~\t...+" 0.\\ t.~-;,~b~_~~ y--r-~~cl ~~ ~o.-~. ~~~cl . lID. '3\-_1 .\- L ~'~~,,~.~ \'",\~~....-o.." = \ h1>o ~l.. 'E,J .......~_~ \c..'-J\b-~(IVo..~ S.E-1\~ f-\~tt = Ly]S\) s\. \)~ ~ be.t..e.-..Ill. w '. - iflest Co~1i Available (2) ~ \~"f,." :i~'~~ o..r--~ ~ ~~, ~ '- s+ I '1,: -is.~'1 :t k t-."'') ....... ~ S I"~ ~'.~ { .~ L..\ 2.. <\ ], f-k_ "n t!.\~-f. 0:("3 t ~ 4n \, to "f...~ ~ A ~ \~ .' ()..\~\ Q.~ m,'-li+ n~ r:r... ~;~'\ ~ 2-+ 1 \~i,~~. (+\40 VJ'~ '- ~,~6 I); \JC\.\~ SE: b~~- CN'--~ \~' ~'~\A~ c.: ~ S~Cf'..\..e. . 2<1. V ~ v>~ ~e.l'-~"Y~':' 'bu<j-fo>:j!A.>,,") ;~ "\'\N.-\ aNA.' : \I....~v- ~J~ L z \. )k\L ~ (~~~-t. w.:i~" f d...t'",~ ~ S \JV'.(\. ~\" \)r. t: ())~...~~ 'O.U'-"oQ.r a' \)~~ / tl t\l l~ u..t\L"\ )dj . f \i ~j~, k\~:b \ 1., . l->. W\.u..\ $~'i t"""tfl ..J'\'.l~ tr -l..~~~~ '3 ~Y"w ~~ ~_ 'u\ ~ l.<ll V<,C\Q.G"f'"' l.>'b.,\- -", '''~~ k- \~'b.\u- )~ Q.r-tcl... t'c-..... ~ ~ ar Q.-..rt.J. - ~ ~t) ')Q,J ~Q...i- \r":'\' ~ u- \l.~\.1 .+ ~'!l. '? U. ~ <<' l....~ n:l,:~ ..~~.:\-~) .C'<>.,.~ ~I&"~ .),..b.'" \n1\..... ~m~ r- .. cio...\1~ "~~6..~=i-- in ~~~ \~\ ~~ 1t1.-\~"J.Q \Q.~K~ L ~~""~ t...~.os-t ~ls~ \C'\. SW ~tlt'~ ~~r-t. ~\i~~~ c;.: "'fI'Y-.-\ .J I.a./ 7.0" ~ ~ ~ <l. ~ J.. \\. (jQ ',l. 1.- t.: 6-_ i\~ ~~~ \s ~Jl~) b '^ V<^"^,,p \ \)~t. ~ ~~ w'N> \~ \&. e I~ )) \) , - 0-. ~ "'" [i I-' ~ '\ "T'\,J t) ut'i t) ~~~. · z. . I ~ ~ ,~al~~h\'\e -.J I e""""":J~""~'c-.~~ S ~~\\~~i,i~~~L~~\J ~o... \....L.....j"-.\- ~~~~~ 2. "W L \~~~~ ~+ ~ \~~ t,.J-U... ~~~J: SUV'~~'t ~ 0 ~~ Q ~ : 31. .~ .~ 2.. s~~t> 9..i.\!SWJ v~~,\s. ~~1~~~ ~9~~~ L ~J ~~. \"-,,\\~ ~~! 4-S-. w'h~~ \LLtlr:r-u-\-~ - ~ "' ~ .. - .., ~ ~ '!',. '"''.J . __' -.... ~ ~ - er- r ,- "''$1_ 'ii~~e Ii M> _ _ _ ._....Jd .J\. ~'3\ ~ ~ ~,,*-~ "'t-U-\.""'- ~t ~ c-.\\~ G... SeA.-.>QJ- \, N- "":)\ :J>_\. ~ -I't> "'~ d. ~--.q ~ lli.e. ~" ~ \~ ltI1-~ (~.t\\~1 . . I I . I I I i I I I I I I . I I , I I Map Request Planner Name Mike Reynolds Case Number. FLD2003-09050 Date Requested: February 23,2004 Date Requested for March 4, 2004 Maps Needed ~ Aenal Photograph D Proposed Annexation ~ EXisting Surrounding Uses Basemap ~ Location Map ~ Zoning/Flexible Development Map D 2" X 2" Location Map for Newspaper D Future Land Use Required Documents ~ legal Descnptlon ~ Survey ~ Map With Proposed Site Highlighted Map Name Owner Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc Site 1925 Edgewater Dnve Case Property Size (Acres) .- FLD2003-09o5o 2 57 acres 03/29/15/86778/000/0010 03/29/15/86778/000/001001 PIN 03/29/15/86778/000/001002 03/29/15/86778/000/001003 Aflas Page 251A, 260 A WmWord Document CITY COMMISSION MEETING " . Page 23 of 33 ~ I "Nays" None ITEM #25 - PublIc Heanng - Res # 01-14 . Requestmg amendment of CountYWide Future Land Use Plan to recogmze pOrtlOllS of Clearwater Beach as a Commumty Redevelopment Dlstnct (PLD) On February 15,2001, the CommlsslOn approved Beach by DesIgn. A Prehmmary DesIgn for Clearwater Beach and DesIgn Gurdehnes Beach by Design IS a special area plan, WhICh desIgnates a specIfic area of Clearwater Beach as a Communrty Redevelopment Dlstnct (CRD) and governs development potentIal wIthlll that area In a compamon Item, Ordmance #6794-01 proposes amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan relatmg to Beach by DesIgn These amendments recognIze the eXistence of this special area plan that governs development potentIal on Clearwater beach The Pmellas Plannmg Council Rules specify that amendments to local plans that relate to and are governed by the cntena and standards of the Countywide Rules shall be submitted to the Prnellas Planmng Council for a determmatlOn of consistency All local government future land use plans must be conSIstent With the Countywide Future Land Use Plan The Rules recogmze the use of specIal area plans and commumty redevelopment dlstncts In order to gam conSIstency between the Clearwater ComprehensIve Plan (as amended by Ordmance #6794-01) and the CountYWide Future Land Use Plan, the Countywide Future Land Use map must be amended to reflect the Commumty Redevelopment Dlstnct on Clearwater Beach governed by Beach by DeSign Local governments must Initiate amendments to the CountywIde Future Land Use Plan ResolutIOn #01- 14 requests the amendment of the CountYWide Future Land Use Plan to recogmze Beach by DeSIgn as the special area plan for Clearwater Beach amendmg thIS area to Commumty Redevelopment Dlstnct CommiSSIOner Gray moved to approve ImtIatlon of request to amend the CountYWide Future Land Use Plan to deSignate portIOns of Clearwater beach as a CommunIty Redevelopment Dlstnct The motion was duly seconded and camed unammously The CIty Attorney presented ResolutIon #01-14 and read It by title only CommISSIOner Hamilton moved to pass and adopt Resolutton #01-14 The motIon was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was "Ayes" Hart, Gray, HamIlton, Jonson, and Aungst The SIte IS located at 1919 Edgewater Dnve/Sunset Pomt Road on the north SIde of Sunset Pomt Road The SIte IS approxImately 073 acres III SIze The subject site IS currently developed WIth duplexes The purpose of the land use plan amendment and rezonmg 1S to allow the applicant to redevelop the site With a Viable motel combmmg thiS site With an addItIonal 0 79 acres to the west Add1tIOnally, the applIcant has applied for a ComprehenSIve Infill Redevelopment Program WIth a ComprehenslVe Landscape http //199 227 233 29/ISYSquery/IRL3AIB tmp/2/doc 3/2/2004 WmWord Document CITY CQMMISSION MEETING Page 24 of 33 ~ , , ~ Program to streamlme redevelopment Issues at thIs site The eXIstmg ReSidentIal MedIUm plan classification wIll not allow the proposed motel development at this sIte In recogmtlOn of this limItatIOn, the applicant IS requestmg these amendments m both the future land use plan and zonmg dIstrIct to brIng thIS parcel mto consistency With both the CountyWIde Plan and the City zonmg dIstnct The proposed amendments will enable the apphcant to combme these properties With the rest of his properties to the west under one zonmg dIstnct and land use plan classificatIOn to convemently redevelop the site for the mtended motel use The Plannmg Department determmed that the proposed land use plan amendment and rezonmg applIcatlOns are consistent WIth the followmg standards specified m the CommW11ty Development Code 1) The proposed land use plan amendment and rezonmg applIcation are consIstent WIth the ComprehensIve Plan, 2) the potential range of uses and the specific proposed use are compatible With the surroundmg area, 3) suffiCIent public faCIlItIes are avaIlable to serve the property, and 4) the apphcatIons will not have an adverse Impact on the natural environment In accordance WIth the CountYWIde Plan Rules, the land use plan amendment IS subject to the approval of the Pmellas Plannmg CouncIl and the Board of County COmnllSSIOners actmg as the CountYWIde Planmng Authonty Due to the SIze andlmtenslty of the plan amendment SIte, reVIew and approval by Flonda Department of Conunumty Affairs IS not reqUIred The Commumty Development Board reviewed these applicatIons at their pubbc heanng meetmg of March 20, 2001, and unannllously recommended approval of all applIcatIOns In response to a questIOn, Ed Armstrong, applIcant's representatIve, said there would be 60 hotel umts Robert Pergohzzl, Flonda DeSIgn Consultants, said a detailed traffic analYSIS was performed and the mtersectlOn and roadway m the area was found to be at level of service C It was remarked that the PPC IS trymg to adopt IImltmg future development on roads With a level of serVIce ofF Ms Tarapam said the level of servIce on Edgewater Dnve IS F, however the volume of new cars that thiS project would add IS 2% of the total traffic on Edgewater. She stated Mr Pergohzzl's study addressed the mtersectIOn and cars do move through It at a level of servIce C She saId Edgewater Dnve IS a constramed roadway for cultural and scemc reasons A deCISion was made not to make lane Improvements III that area and no major Improvements are scheduled by the County or State CommlsslOner Hamilton moved to approve a Land Use Plan Amendment from ReSIdentIal MedIUm (RM) to Resort FaCIlItIes HIgh (RFH), and a Zomng Atlas Amendment from MedIUm DenSity ResldentIdI (MDR) Dlstnct to Tounst Dlstnct (T), for Lots 6 and 7, together With the West 15 feet of Lot 8, Sunset Pomt SubdIVISIOn m SectIOn 03, Township 29 South, Range 15 East The motIon was duly seconded and camed unammously The CIty Attorney presented Ordmance #6764-01 on first readmg and read 1t by tItle only CommIssIOner Jonson moved to pass Ordmance #6764- 01 on first readmg The motIon was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was "Ayes" Hart, Gray, Hamilton, Jonson, and Aungst "Nays" None http //199 227233 29/ISYSquery/IRL3AIB tmp/2/doc 3/2/2004 WmWord Document CITY COMMISSION MEETING -.... Page 17 of30 -~ " "Ayes" Hart, Gray, Hanlllton, Jonson, and Aungst "Nays" None ITEM #46 - (Cont from 4/5/01) Ord #6760-01 - Land Use Plan Amendment to Industnal Limited, 2060 Calumet St , Clearwater Industnal Park, part of Lot 9 (Flonda GraphIcs Supply, Inc ) The Mayor presented OrdInance #6760-01 for second readIng and read It by title only CommissIOner Hart moved to pass OrdInance #6760-01 on second readmg The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was "Ayes" Hart, Gray, Hanlllton, Jonson, and Aungst "Nays" None ITEM #47 - (Cont from 4/5/01) Ord #6761-01 - IRT Zomng, 2060 Calumet St ,Clearwater Industnal Park, part of Lot 9 (Flonda Graphics Supply, Inc ) The Mayor presented OrdInance #6761-01 for second readIng and read It by tItle only CommissIOner Hamilton moved to pass Ordmance #6761-01 on second readmg The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was "Ayes" Hart, Gray, Hamilton, Jonson, and Aungst 'C "N:~S" None :JfU9- ~ont from 5/3/01) Ord #6764-01 - and Use Plan Amendment to Resort FacihtIes High, 1919 Edgewater Dr /Sunset Pomt Rd , Sunset Pomt Sub, Lots 6 & 7 and W 15' of Lot 8 (Bay View Hotel, Inc ) The City Attorney presented Ordmance #6764-01 for second readmg and read it by title only CommissIOner Hamilton moved to pass Ordmance # 6764-01 on second readmg The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was "Ayes" Hart, Gray, HamIlton, Jonson, and Aungst "Nays" None It was reiterated that commercIal development should not extend further m th1S area ~&8From 5/3/01) Ord #6765-01 - TounstZomng, 1919 Edgewater Dr /Sunset Pomt Rd, --~b ,Lots 6 & 7 and W15' of Lot 8 (Bay VIew Hotel, Inc) Comments regardmg no additional commercIal development In thiS area were repeated The City Attorney presented Ordinance. #46765.-401. for second readmg and read It by tItle only Commissioner Jonson moved to pass 4 Ordinance. #46765.- 4 01 . ~ on second readmg The motIon was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was "Ayes" Hart, Gray, HamIlton, Jonson, and Aungst http //199 227233 29/ISYSquery/IRL3AIB tmp/1/doc 3/2/2004 Wm Word Document CITY COMMISSION MEETING '- Page 18 of30 . ,.. ... , "Nays" None ITEM #50 - Ord #6793-01 - Vacatmg westerly 5' of 10' dramage & utIlIty easement lymg along east property lme of Lot 15, Blk C, Northwood Estates Sub, Tract C, less south 5' thereof, a/k/a 3056 Diamond Head Dnve East (Dunton, V2001-10) The CIty Attorney presented Ordmance #6793~01 for second readmg and read It by title only CommIssIOner Gray moved to pass Ordmance #6793-01 on second readmg The motIon was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was "Ayes" Hart, Gray, Hamilton, Jonson, and Aungst "Nays" None ITEM #51 ~ Ord #6799-01 - regulatmg late mght & all mght dance halls The City Attorney presented Ordmance #6799-01 for second readmg and read It by tItle only CommIssIOner Hart moved to pass Ordmance #6799-01 on second readmg The motIon was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was "Ayes" Hart, Gray, HamIlton, Jonson, and Aungst "Nays" None ITEM #52 - Ord #6802-01 - Amendmg Ord #6352-99 authonzmg Infrastructure Sales Tax Revenue Bonds CommisSiOner Jonson moved to amend Ordmance #6802-01 as follows 1) On page 1, add a new Section 3 to the ordmance to read as follows SectIon 3 AMENDING ORDINANCE 6352-99 SectIOn 20(G)(2) of Ordmance 6352-99 1S hereby amended to read as follows (2) Upon recommendatIOns of the Fmance Director and to the extent adopted m a subsequent resolution of the Issuer, Ifthere IS an estimated Illcrease III Sales Tax Revenues to be received by the Issuer as a result of a change m law to provide for addItional Sales Tax Revenues to be dIstnbuted to the Issuer or an amendment to the Interlocal Agreements Illcreasmg the amount of Sales Tax Revenues to be dlstnbuted to the Issuer, then the Sales Tax Revenues portion of Pledged Revenues certified pursuant to paragraph 1 (b) of thIS SectIOn shall be Increased by the average annual additIOnal Sales Tax Revenues to be dlstnbuted as If such excess Sales Tax Revenues were In fact distrIbuted dunng the appltcable twelve month penod , and 2) Renumber remammg sectIons of the ordmance The motion was duly seconded and earned unammously Thc City Attorney presented Ordmance #6802-01 as amended for second readmg and read It by title only CommissIoner Gray moved to adopt Ordmance #6802-01 as amended on second readmg The motIon was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was "Ayes" Hart, Gray, HamIlton, Jonson, and Aungst "Nays" None CITY MANAGER REPORTS hUp //199 227 233 29/ISYSquery/IRL3AIB tmp/l/doc 3/212004 , " ~!.nellas County Property Appr "[ InformatIOn 03 29 15 86778 00000' 1\ Page 2 of7 03 / 29 / 15 / 86778 / 000 I 0010 lO-Nov- 2003 JlfYl Sf"li th, CFA Plnellas County Property Appraiser 16:36:57 OwnershlP Inforf"lation Non-Resident1al Property Address, Use. and Sales U25 EDGE("lATER DR INC 19Z5 EDGEWATER DR CLEAR("lATER fL 33755-1416 COl'"lparable sales value as Prop Addr: 1925 EDGEWATER DR of Jan 1, 2003, based on Census Tract' 2fil.00 sales frol'"l 2001 - 2002. 0 Sale Date DR BooklPage Prlce (Qual/UnQ) Vac/IlYlp Plat Inforf"latlon 12/1.999 10.159/ 106 925,000 (U) I 1952' Book 031 Pgs 012- 0 10 0/ 0 0 ( ) 0000 Book Pgs - 0 10 0/ 0 0 ( ) 0000: Book Pgs - 0 10 0/ 0 0 ( ) 2003 Value EXEMP TrONS Jus t/Market' 450,000 HOlYlestead' 0 Ownership % .000 HistorlC 0 Use %: 000 Assessed/Cap' 450.000 Tax ExefYlpt :t .000 Other ExelYlpt 0 Taxable' 450,000 Agrlcultural 0 2003 Tax In forfYlat ion land InforfYlatlon District. C("l Seawall' Frontage' Day Clearwate r View: 03 Mi llage ' 23.0851 Land S l.ze Unl.t Land Land Land I="ront x Depth Price Unlts Meth 03 Taxes, 10.388.30 1) 138 x 311 22.000.00 18.00 T SpeClal Tax . DO 2) 0 x 0 .00 .00 3) 0 x 0 .00 .00 Wl.thout the Save-Our-HoMes 4) o x 0 00 .00 cap, 2003 taxes IInll be 5) 0 x 0 00 .00 10.388.30 6) 0 x 0 ,00 .00 Wl.thout any eXelYlptlons, Total Land Value: 396.000 2003 taxes wl.II be 10.308.30 Short legal SUNNYDAlE SUB lOTS 1. 2 &: W 34 FT 0 f lOT Oescriptl.on 3 LESS RD R/w FROM lOT I Building Information . Buddmg 1 . BuIidmu . BUlldmg..J. http Ilpao co pmellas fl uslhtbm/cgl-scr3?o=l&a=l&b=l&c=1&r= 16&s=4&t=1&u=0&p 11/1012003 ~ Pmellas County Property Appr~ '~r InformatIOn 03 29 15 86778 0000(11) , , Page 3 of7 Building #1 03 / 29 / 15 / 86778 I 000 / 0010 :01 10-Nov-2003 JiM 5M~th, CFA P~nellas County Property Appra~ser 16 36:56 COMMercial Card 01 of 3 IMproveMent Type: Hotel/Hotel < 4 St Proper ty Address: 19 25 [DG [WAY ER DR Prop Use: 313 land Use: 39 Structural Elements Foundat~on Floor SysteM Exter~or Wall Height ~actor Party Wall Structural FraMe Roof FraMe Roof Cover Cabinet .& Mill ~loor F~n~sh Interior ~inish Part~t~on ~actor continuous Footing Slab on Grade Cone Block/Stucco o None None Flat Built Up/CO~po5~t1on Average Carpet Comb1nat1on Drywall o Heating .& Air Heating&Cooling Pckg F~xtures 36 Bath T~le Electr~c Shape ~actor Quality Year BU1lt Effect1V8 Age Other Deprec~ation ~unct~on Oepreclation EconOMic Depreciat10n Floor + Half Ave rage Rectangle Average Wall 1,952 31 o o o Sub Areas Descr1ption ~actor Area Descrlptlon Factor Area 1) Base Area 1. 00 3,818 7) .00 0 2) Open Porch .30 1. 181 8) .00 0 3) .00 0 9) .00 0 4) .00 0 10) 00 0 5) .00 0 11) .00 0 6) .00 0 12) .00 0 Commercial Extra Features Descr~pt1on D~Mens~ons Prlce Unlts Value RCD Year 1) SHUFBDCl 300.00 1 0 300 999 2) PATIO /D [CK 220Sf 2.50 ZZO 0 220 1. 955 3) ASPHALT 1. 00 11,950 0 11.950 999 4) POOL 1Z,500 00 1 0 5,000 1.955 5) .00 0 0 0 0 6) .00 0 0 0 0 TO TA l RECORD VALUE 11,410 Building #2 http Ilpao co Plllellas fl uslhtbmfcgl-scr3?o=1&a=1&b=1&c=1&r= 16&s=4&t=1&u=0&p 11/1012003 ~~nellas County Property Appr '~r Information 03 29 15 86778 0000(11) Page 4 of7 03 I 29 I 15 I 86778 I 000 I 0010 :02 10-Nov-2003 Jl~ S~lth, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 16:36'51 Co~~ercial Card 02 of 3 I~prove~ent Type Hotel/Hotel ( 4 St Property Address 1925 EDGEWRTER DR Prop Use: 313 land Use 39 Structural Elements I=oundatlon Floor Syste~ Exterior Wall Height Factor Party Wall Structural Fra~e Roof I=ra~e Roof Cover Cabine t & Mlll noor Finish Interlor Finish Partltlon Factor Continuous Footing Slab on G ....ade Cone Block/Stucco o 30'1 COlTllTlon Wall None Gable & Hip COlTlposition Shingle Ave....age Ca....pet COlTlblnatlon D....ywall o Heatlng & Alr Heatlng&Cooling Pckg Fixtures 18 Bath Tile Electrlc Shape Factor Quall.ty Year BUl.lt Effectlve Age Other Depreclatlon I=unctlon oepreclatlon Econo~ic oepreclatlon Floo.... + Half Ave ....age l Design Ave....age Wall 1.952 31 o o o Sub Areas Descrlption I=actor Area Descrlptl.on Factor Area 1) Base Area 1. 00 3.698 n .00 0 2) Utlllty 55 429 8) .00 0 3) Open Po....ch . 30 1.182 9) .00 0 4) Upper Stry Base A ....ea .90 2,949 10) .00 0 5) .00 0 11) .00 0 6) .00 0 12) .00 0 Commercial Extra Features Descrlption OlMenslons Prlce Units Value RCo 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 Building #3 http Ilpao co pmellas fl us/htbm/cgl-scr3?o=l&a=l&b=l&c=l&r= 16&s=4&t=1&u=0&p 11/10/2003 Pmellas County Property Appr '~r Information 03 29 15 86778 000 0(11) Page 5 of7 03 / 29 / 15 / 86778 I 000 / 0010 :03 10-Noy-Z003 J1M sMith, CFA P1nellas County Property Appra1ser 16.36.58 COMMerc1al Card 03 of 3 IMproveMent Type. Hotel/"otel < 4 St Proper ty Address 19 Z 5 EDG EWAT ER DR Prop Use, 31 3 land Use: 39 Structural Elements ~oundat10n Floor 5ysteM Ex ter ior Wall HeJ.ght Factor Party Wall Structural ~raMe Roo f I=raMe Roof Cover Cabine t &: Mi 11 Floor Finish Interior Finish Part~t~on ~actor continuous Footing Slab on (j rade Conc Block/Stucco o None None flat Built Up/COMposition Ayerage Carpet COMbination Drljwall o Heating &: Air Heating&Cooling Pckg Fixtures 0 Bath Tile ElectrJ.c 5hape Factor Qual1 ty Year BU11t EffectJ.ve Age Other Depreciation Funct~on Depreciation EconOMic Depreciation None Average Square Ave rage 1. 96Z 31 o o o Sub Areas Description ~actor Area Oescrlptlon Factor Area 1) Base Area 1. 00 196 7) .00 0 2) Open Po rch 30 336 8) .00 0 3) 00 0 9) .00 0 4) .00 0 10) .00 0 5) .00 0 11) .00 0 6) 00 0 12) .00 0 Commercial Extra Features Descr~pt~on D1Menslons Pr~ce Un1 ts 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 TO TA l RECORD VALU E. 0 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) ~~[E[I]~~ http Ilpao co pmellas f1 uslhtbm/cgl-scr3?0=I&a=1&b=l&c=1&r= 16&s=4&t=l&u=O&p 11/1 0/2003 PmeItas County Property App" ~r I n formatIOn 03 29 15 8677 8 000 or 1 f) '. Page 6 of7 . . . . . 23/02 j I 1 '...., 1 U") 1'-' /~ l(ry / ,/ j / 5IS I I I / '- AI9 jt & e - - lJR - EDdr0A TER 5 IBt1; 18t5 IOttv OR 51 $T 5T B~ 1031 035 9.. I( V EOEf BE~ ~ _ 5 5T S1 1941 EOGEWATER DR 1014 !OI8 1022 or'8 S ~JNY [@ ItJNY 0$ E!NY O~ :l~N~ Q: DR DR DR DR SUNNYDALE 1925 JII02~~ I( EDGE~TER S NNY tat DR - 7' ~ 1919 EDGEWATER OR 1020 si~~f?ET 1028 1040 IO~ gUN SET SUNSET UNSET SUN OII'JT pOI~n POINT OINT POIN 1901 1010 GEW A TE ~~N5ET DR ONT l.. r t r SUNSET /' t l . 32 Il" j POINT ROAD - 1888 I I T ,/ I DGEWATE~ I 1 r np -- E 1/8 Mile Aerial Photograph http //pao co pmellas fl uslhtbm/cgl-scr3?0=I&a=l&b=l&c=I&r= 16&s=4&t=l&u=0&p 11/10/2003 Pmellas County Property App' ~r InformatIOn 03 29 15 8677800000'1) , '. Page 7of7 Pinellas County Property Appraiser Parcel Information Best Copy Available Back to Search Page An explanation of this screen http //pao co pmellas fl uslhtbm/cgl-scr3?o=1&a=l&b=1&c=1&r= 16&s=4&t=1&u=0&p 11/10/2003 _,Pmellas County Property Appr -~r Information 03 29 1586778000 0()1.'1 Page 20f6 03 / 29 / 15 I 88092 / 000 / 0020 10-Noy-Z003 J1M SMith, C~A Pinellas County Property Appra1ser 16.39:56 Ownership InforMation Non-Residential Property Address. Use. and Sales TOP fLIGHT ENTERPRISES INC 19309 PIER POINT CT lUTZ fl 33558- COMparable sales value as Prop Addr. 1919 EDG EWATER DR of Jan L 2003, based on Census Tract, 261. 00 sales froM 2001 - 2002, 0 Sale Date OR Book/Page Pr1ce (Qual/Un!;)) Vac/IMP Plat InforMat1on 7 12.003 12.909/1,651 1.300.000 ( H) I 1913 ' Book 004 Pgs 056- 12/2.000 11.156/1.855 I. 000.000 ( H) I 0000 Book Pgs - 0 10 01 0 0 ( ) 0000, Book Pgs - 0 /0 01 0 0 ( ) 2003 Value EXEMPTIONS Just/Market. 550.000 HOMestead' 0 Ownersh1p % .000 HJ.stor1c 0 Use 1;, .000 Assessed/Cap 550.000 Tax ExeMpt %. .000 Other ExeMpt: 0 Taxable: 550.000 Agricultural. 0 2003 Tax InforMation land InforMat1on OJ.strict, Chi Seawall. ~rontage. Bay Clearwater View, 03 MJ.llage: 23.0851 land S1ze Unit Land land Land Front x Depth Pr1ce Units Meth 03 Taxes' 12.696.81 1) 110 x 147 20.000 00 23.00 T SpecJ.al Tax .00 2) 0 x 0 .00 00 3) 0 x 0 .00 .00 WJ.thout the Save-Our-HoMes 4) 0 x 0 .00 .00 cap, 2003 taxes WJ.ll be 5) 0 x 0 .00 .00 12.696.81 6) 0 x 0 00 .00 WJ.thout any exeMptions, Total land Value' 460.000 2003 taxes w111 be 12.696.81 Short legal SUNS ET POINT AND REPlAT LOTS 2 &: 3 LESS RD PER Description DR 5239/712 - Building Information . BUlldm~ . BUlldmg~ http //pao co pmellas f1 uslhtbm/cgl-chck?o=l&a=l &b=l&c=l&r= 16&s=4&t=1&u=0& 11/1 0/2003 ,Pmellas County Property Appr '<;:r Information 03 29 15 867780000(\1 () Page 30[6 Building #1 03 / 29 / 15 / 88092 / 000 / 0020 :01 10-Hov-2003 J1M SMlth, C~A Plnellas County Property Appralser 16:39 56 COMMercial Card 01 of 2 IMproveMent Type Hotel/Hotel ( 4 St Property Address: 1919 [DG[~AT[R DR Prop Use: 313 land Use. 39 Structural Elements ~oundatlon ~loor Syster>"l Exter~or Wall He~ght ~actor Par ty Wall Structural ~raMe Roo f ~raMe Roof Cover Cabinet & Mill ~loor ~~n~sh Inter~or ~~n~sh Part~t~on ~actor Continuous footing Slab on Grade Conc Block/Stucco o Hone Hone flat BUllt Up/Coroposition Average Carpet Combination Drywall o Heating & A~r Heating&Cooling Pckg F~xtures 57 Bath Ii Ie Electric Shape Factor Qual1 ty Year Built Effective Age Other Depreciation ~unct~on Oeprec~ation EconOMic Oeprec~at~on floor + Half Average Rectangle Average ~all 1.950 30 o o o Sub Areas Descr~pt~on Factor Area Descrlptlon Factor Area 1) Base Area 1. 00 4,027 7) .00 0 2) Open Po rch 30 1.168 8) .00 0 3) Open Po rch .20 21 9) 00 0 4) Upper Stry Base A rea 90 2.482 10) .00 0 5) .00 0 11) 00 0 6) .00 0 12) 00 0 Commercial Extra Features Descr~ptlon D1Menslons Price Unlts Value ReO Year 1) POOL 536 12.500.00 I 0 8.880 1.992 2) PATIO/DECK 200SF 2.50 ZOO 0 200 1.915 3) ASPHALT 4500 1. 00 4.500 0 4.500 999 4) .00 0 0 0 0 5) .00 0 0 0 0 6) ,00 0 0 0 0 TOTAL RECORD VALUE 13.580 Building #2 http Ilpao co pmellas fl uslhtbm/cgl-chck?o=l&a=l&b=l&c=I&r= 16&s=4&t=l&u=0& 11110/2003 Page 4 of6 'pmellas County Property App" -~r InformatIon 03 29 15 86778 0000(1' f'\ 03 / 29 / ~ 15 / 88092 / 000 / 0020 :02 10-Nov-2003 JiM SMith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appra~8er 16:39:58 COMMerc~al Card 02 of 2 IMproveMent Type' Rest/lounge/Orive-~n Prope r ty Address 0 Prop Use 313 l and Use: 39 Structural Elements I="oundat~on Floor SysteM Exterior Wall He~ght Factor Par ty Wall Structural FraMe Roo f FraMe Roof Cover Cab~net & M~ll Floor l="~n~8h Interior F~n~8h Part~tion Factor Continuous Footing Slab on Grade Cone Block/Stucco o None None Gable .&: Hip Bu~lt Up/CoMposition Average Terrazzo Hono o rywall o Heating & A~r Heating&Cooling Pckg I="~xtures 4 Bath hIe Electr~c Shape Factor Quah ty Year Bu~lt Effective Age Other Depreciation I="unct~on Depreciat~on EconOM~C Depreciation Half ....all Ave rage Square Ave rage 1,962 30 o o o Sub Areas Descr~pt~on Factor Area Descr~ption Factor Area 1) Base A rea 1. 00 485 n Office Area 1 05 150 2) Utility .55 50 8) .00 0 3) Open Porch .30 45 9) .00 0 4) Utility .40 150 10) 00 0 5) Service Prod. Area .70 JOO 11) .00 0 6) Canopy 25 360 12) 00 0 Commercial Extra Features De8cr~pt~on DiMens~on8 Pr~ce Un~t8 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 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) ~~[I][f]~~ http //pao co pmellas fl uslhtbm/cgl-chck?o=l&a=l&b=l&c=l&r= 16&s=4&t=l&u=0& 11/10/2003 Page 5 of6 ,fmellas County Property App" ~r InformatIOn 0329 15 86778 0000(\11) ./ 23/02 I 1---- (f) I '- ,LO 1M I f'1 I I ,./ , I I I I 1/8 Mile Aerial Photograph .-" , . . I . JB41 EDGEWATER DR 1014 018 S NN':f[BI. YD$ DR OR , I SUNNYDAL 585 1925 EOGEWATER OR 1919 EDGEcJf TER / " 1020 1026 -UNSET SUNSET OINT POINT 1028 SUNSET PDII'H Ale E d~\h T [010 NSET OINT POINT r- - ~ http Ilpao co pmellas fl uslhtbm/cgl-chck?o=l&a=l&b=l&c=l&r= 16&s=4&t=I&u=0& 11/1012003 ,Pmellas County Property App' oef InformatIon 0329 15 86778 000 Of" f) Page 60f6 Best Copy ~~ , Avaitabfe Pinellas County Property Appraiser Parcel Information http Ilpao co pmellas f1 uslhtbmJcgl-cl1ck?o=1&a=1&b=1&c=1&r=.16&s=4&t=I&u=0& 11/10/2003 Pmt::llas County Property Appr< ''':f Information 03 29 15 88092 000 O(y'" " , Page 2 of 5 03 / 29 / 15 / 88092 / 000 / 0051 IO-No...- zoo 3 JJ.rl SMith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser H:40. Z8 OwnershJ.p InforMation ResJ.dentJ.al Property ~ddress. Use~ and Sales TOP FLIGHT ENTERPRISES INC 19309 PIER POINT C1 lUTZ Fl 33556- COrlparable sales value as Prop Addr' 1010 SUNS ET POINT RO of Jan 1, 2003, based on Census Trae t . 261. 00 sales frorl 2001 - 2002, 92,800 Sale Date OR BOOk/Page PrJ.ee (Qual/UnQ) Vae/lrlp Plat Inforrlatl.on 7 /2.003 12.909/1.651 1. 300,000 ( H) I 1913, Book 004 Pgs 056- 12/2.000 11.156/1.855 1.000,000 ( H) I 0000 . Book Pgs - 5 /1. 994 8.6H/ 611 55,000 (Q) I 0000 . Book Pgs - 0 /0 0/ 0 0 ( ) 2003 Value EXEMP TIDNS Just/Market: 74,600 HOrlestead, 0 Ownership % .000 Historic 0 Use %, .000 Assessed/Cap' 14,600 Tax ExeMpt t . 000 Other Exerlpt' 0 Taxable, 74,600 Agricultural 0 2003 Tax Inforrlation land Inforrlation District, CW Seawall' Frontage, Clearwater VJ.ew' Water 03 Ml.llage 23.0851 land Size Unl.t Land Land land Front x Depth Price UnJ.ts Meth 03 Taxes, LHZ.15 1) 15 x 119 650.00 15.00 F SpecJ.al Tax .00 2) 0 x 0 .00 .00 3) 0 x 0 .00 .00 WJ.thout the Save-Our-Horles 4) o }{ 0 .00 .00 cap, 2003 taxes wJ.ll be 5) 0 x 0 .00 .00 L HZ. 15 6) 0 x 0 . 00 .00 WJ.thout any exeMptions, Total land Value, 48,150 2003 taxes wi 11 be 1,722.15 Short Legal SUNS ET POINT AND REPLAT BlK A, PART OF lOT 5 ANO E DescrJ.ptJ.on 3FT OF lOT 4 lYING NORTH OF SUNSET POINT RD DESC Building Information http Ilpao co pmellas fl uslhtbm/cgl-chck?o=l &a=l &b=l &c=l &r= 16&s=4&t=l&u=0& 11/1 0/2003 ~mtllas County Property Appr- ~~r InformatIon 03 29 15 88092 000 OCY'H) Page 3 of 5 03 I 29 / 15 I 88092 I 000 I 0051 :01 10-Nov-2003 Ji~ S~ith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appralser 16:40.28 Resldentlal Card 01 of 1 Prop Use. 220 land Use 08 llvlng Unlts 2 IMP Type' Duplex/Triplex Prop Address: 1010 SUNSET POINT RO Structural Elements J:"oundatlon J:"loor SysteM Exterlor Wall Roof Fra~e Roof Cover Continuous Wall Wood ConcBk liable-Hip CO~pos1te Sh1ngle QuaIl ty Year BUllt Effectlve Age Heatlng Coollng J:"lxtures Other Depreciatlon J:"unctlonal Depreciatlon EcononO~lC Depreciation Ave rage 1,946 35 Central Duct Cool1n9 (Central) 6 20 o o " Stories 1 0 J:"loor J:"lnlsh Crpt/Unyl/SftWd/Terr Interior Flnlsh Drywall/Plaster Sub Areas Descrlptlon Factor Area Description J:"actor Area 1) Base Area I. DO 1. 342 7) 00 0 2) Screen Porch .25 644 8) 00 0 3) Enclosed Porch .45 210 9) 00 0 4) .00 0 10) 00 0 5) .00 0 11) . 00 0 6) .00 0 12) .00 0 Residential Extra Features Descrlptlon DiMensions Prlce Units 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 VA LU E 0 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) ~~[t][!]~~ http //pao co pmellas fl us/htbm/cgl-clIck?o=l&a=l&b=l&c=l&r= 16&s=4&t=I&u=0& 11/10/2003 Pll)ellas County Property App- "er Information 03 29 15 88092 000 Ofl"f) ( ,./ 23/02 I ,'.-.. ,'-'1 t '-, JLD Ir<) I r'1 I I 1/ j / I !ill 1925 EDGEWATER OR Page 4 of5 I - I -- I - SUNNYDALE SI 1/8 Mile Aerial Photograph 1919 EoGEWATER DR / " AIB 1020 1026 UNSET SUNSET OINT POINT 1~,2~, 1010 E Gcdff T clifT 1028 10 SUNSET UI POINT 01 POINT Rt r--- - ~ L9 I 0 L14--.J http //pao co pmellas f1 uslhtbmlcgi-chck?o=l&a=l&b=l&c=l&r= 16&s=4&t=1&u=0& 11110/2003 ~1IJ.ellas County Property Appr~ "~r InformatIon 0329 15 88092 000 OO"H") Page 5 of5 Pinellas County Property Appraiser Parcel Information ,( BestCopy ^ '*"':'"Ii' ; III .-", a\, " , e l \. J .. dl!;l~i..Jll.. http //pao co pmel1as fl uslhtbm/cgl-chck?o=l&a=l&b=l&c=l&r= 16&s=4&t=1&u=0& 11110/2003 , P!nellas County Property Appr~ "'r InformatIon 03 29 15 88092 000 00':: 1 Page 2 of5 03 / 29 / 15 / 88092 / 000 / 0060 10-Nov-2:003 J1M SMlth, CFA Plnell~s County Property Appr~lser 16:42::35 Ownershlp Inforl'1~tJ.on Uacant Propert~ Use and Sales TOP flIGHT ENTERPRISES INe 19309 PIER POINT CT LUTZ fL 33558- COl'1parable sales value as Prop Addr: 0 of Jan 1, 2003, b~sed on Census Trae t ' Z61. 00 s~les frol'1 2001 - 2002, 54.600 Sale Date OR Book/Page PrJ.ce (Qual/UnQ) Vac/Ir>1p Plat Inforr>1ation 7 /Z.003 1Z.909/1.651 1.300.000 ( H) U 1913, Book 004 Pgs 056- 1Z/Z.000 11.156/1.855 1.000.000 ( H) u 0000' Book Pgs - 0 /0 0/ 0 0 ( ) 0000' Book Pgs - 0 /0 0/ 0 0 ( ) 2003 Value EXEMPTION5 Jus t/Market' 45.900 HOr>1estead: 0 OwnershJ.p % .000 HJ.storic : 0 Use %, .000 Assessed/Cap' 45.900 Tax Exer>1pt %, .000 D ther Exer>1p t : 0 Taxable' 45.900 Agricultural' 0 2003 Tax Inforr>1ation land Inforr>1ation District, Clol Seawall' Frontage Clearwat e r VJ.ew: lolater 03 Millage, 23 0851 land Size UnJ.t Land land land Front x Depth PrJ.ce UnJ.ts Meth 03 Taxes 1. 059.61 1) 60 x 27Z 800.00 liD 00 f SpecJ.al Tax .00 2) 60 x 30 800.00 60 00 f 3) 0 x 0 .00 .00 WJ.thout the Save-Our-HoM8s 4) o x 0 .00 00 cap, 2003 taxes wi 11 be 5) 0 x 0 .00 00 1.059 61 6) 0 x 0 .00 00 Without any exeMptlons, Total Land Value: 55.440 2003 taxes will be 1. 059.61 Short Legal SUNSET POINT ANO REPlAT All lOT 6 L ES5 RD R/lol Description ON OR 5Z39/774 Building Information http //pao co pmellas fl uslhtbm/cgl-chck?o=l&a=l&b=l&c=I&r= 16&s=4&t=1&u=0& 11/10/2003 , Pmellas County Property Appr'" <>[ InformatIon 0329 15 8809200000':;1 Page 3 of 5 03 I 29 I 15 I 88092 / 000 I 0060 10-Nov-2003 JAM 5MAth, C~A PAnellas COunty Property AppraAser Vacant Parcel Property Use 000 land Use, 00 1&.42:34 Vacant Extra Features Oescrlptlon D1Mensions 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 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) ~~[!][f]~~ http //pao co pmellas fl us/htbm/cgl-chck?o= 1 &a=l &b=l &c=l&r= 16&s=4&t=1&u=0& 11/10/2003 , P,nelIas County Property Appro'" "'f InformatIOn 03 29 158809200000'1 ./ 23/02 I ,1.-.. ,,~) '0:0 flY) ,Il') j j I ./ 1 :;:141 EOGEWATER DR I , I ( I lIS [Od~~TER I r 1919 EDGEWt.TER DR / ....... Ale + SLON2S~T S00N2S6ET PO I~n PO INT Page 4 of5 1014 5 NNY DR o~~~ tl2~6~J .~2 DR DR r ! 1901 E JGEWA. 1 DR 1010 NSET 011\11 SUNNYDALE 1027 S NNYcm DR sL9f5~T POINT J040 I UNSET Sl OINT p~ 'r--~I L-91 04 4----.J 1/8 Mile Aerial Photograph http //pao co pmellas fl uslhtbm/cgl-chck?o=l&a=l&b=l&c=l&r= 16&s=4&t=1&u=0& 11110/2003 .. , ~mel1as County Property Appr- ~er InformatIOn 03 29 15 88092 000 00" 1 Page 5 of5 Pinellas County Property Appraiser Parcel Information \ , Besrcopy Available http //pao co pmellas fl uslhtbm/cgl~chck?o=l&a=l&b=l&c=I&r= 16&s=4&t=I&u=0& 11/10/2003 .' ,J~mellas County Property Appr- ~<::r InformatIOn 03 29 15 88092 000 OO(.;f) . .... Page 2 of5 03 / 29 / 15 / 88092 / 000 / 0070 10-Noy-2003 J J.f'1 SI'U th , CFA Plnellas County Property Appraiser 16:43:46 Ownershlp InforMation Residential Property Address. Use. and Sales TOP FLIGHT ENTERPRISES INC 19309 PIER POINT CT LUTZ FL 33558- COMparab Ie sales value as Prop Addr: 1020 SUNSET POINT RD of Jan L 2003, based on Census Tract, 261. 00 sales frOM 2001 - 2002, 158.500 Sale Date OR BOOk/Page Price (Qual/UnQ) Vac/IMp Plat InforMatlon 1 /2.003 12.909/1.651 1.300.000 ( H) I 1913' Book 004 Pgs 056- 12/2.000 11.156/1.855 1. 000.000 (H) I 0000 Book Pgs - 0 /0 0/ 0 0 ( ) 0000' Book Pgs - 0 /0 8/ 0 0 ( ) 2003 Value EXEMPTIONS Just/Market 139.400 HOMestead' 0 Ownership :t .000 HistorlC 0 Use :t. .000 Assessed/Cap, 139.400 Tax ExeMpt :t' .000 Other ExeMp t . 0 Taxable, 139.400 AgriCUltural 0 2003 Tax InforMation Land InforMation Distrlct Ct.J Seawall' YES Frontage. Clearwater View, t.Jater 03 Mi llage , 23.0851 Land Slze Unlt Land land land Front x Depth Prlce Units Meth 03 Taxes. 3.218.06 1) 75 x 218 800.00 75 00 F Special Tax .00 2) 75 x 25 800.00 15 00 F 3) 0 x 0 .00 00 Wlthout the Save-Dur-HoMes 4) o x 0 00 00 cap, 2003 taxes wlll be : 5) 0 x 0 .00 .00 3.218 06 6) 0 x 0 .00 .00 Wlthout any eX8Mptlons, Total land Value, 69.900 2003 taxes will be 3.218.06 Short legal SUNS ET POINT ANO REPlAT All OF LOT 1 AND..... 15 FT Descrlption OF LOT 8 LESS RO Building Information http //pao co pmellas f1 uslhtbm/cgl-chck?o=l&a=l&b=l&c=l&r= 16&s=4&t=I&u=0& 11/1 0/2003 Pmellas County Property Appr..... '~r lnformatton 03 29 15 88092 000 0(1;<::1) Page 3 of5 03 I 29 I 15 I 88092 / 000 / 0070 :01 10-Noy-Z003 J1~ S~1th, CFA P1nellas County Property Appra1ser 16'43:47 Res ident ial Card Olaf 1 Prop Use' ZZ 0 land Use' 08 L1 vJ.ng UnJ. ts' 4 I~p Type: Dup~ex/Triplex Prop Address: 10Z0 SUNSET POINT RD Structural Elemen.ts Foundat1on Floor Systel"'l Exterior Wall Roof Fra~e Roof Cover continuous Wall Wood ConcBk Stucco/Reclad Oable-thp Conposite Shingle Qua11 ty Year Bu i1 t Effective Age Heating Unit/Spc/WI/F~ Coaling FJ.xtures Other Deprec1ation FunctJ.onal Deprec1at1on Econono~ic DeprecJ.atJ.on Aye rage 1.9iD Z5 Furn None 1Z o o o ~ Stories 1.0 Floor F1n1sh Crpt/Unyl/SftWd/Terr InterJ.or Flnlsh Drywal~/Pla5ter Sub Areas Descr1pt1on Factor Area Descr1ptJ.on Factor Area 1) Base Area 1. 00 1. 954 n .00 0 2) Base SenJ. Finished .80 504 8) 00 0 3) Open Po rch ZO Z91 9) 00 0 4) 00 0 10) 00 0 5) 00 0 11) 00 0 6) 00 0 12) 00 0 Residen.tial Extra Features Descr1ption oil"'lensions PrJ.ce Un1ts Value ReO Year 1) DOCK 401Sf 25.00 401 0 4. DiD 1.970 2) FIREPlACE AUG 2.500.00 1 0 1.000 1.9iD 3) SHED 20:<40 10.00 800 ,0 3.200 1.9iD 4) .00 0 0 0 0 5) .00 0 0 0 0 6) .00 0 0 0 0 TOTAL RECORD VA LU E ' 8.210 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) ~~[!][!]~[gJ http //pao co pmellas fl us/htbm/cgl-chck?o=l&a=l &b=l&c=I&r= 16&s=4&t=I&u=0& 11/10/2003 Pmellas County Property Appr - '~r Informatlon 03 29 15 88092 000 00,"1) , .. Page 40[5 j I I 23-'02 " '-.. I ~I"\ /....... jLO 1M 1M I I 18-'11 EDGEWATER DR ,/ j / 515 I I I I 7 1925 EOGEWA1ER DR 1919 EOGEWATER DR 5 d~~ DR 1018 1022 ~028 rqNYO:! EilNYDA OR OR ~7J NbR [ / "'" Ale 1020 J026 ~UhlS[T SUNSET ann POINT SUNNYDALE 1027 1031 S NNOYp IItttgR08 1028 SUNSET POlhfT 1040 1044 UNSET SUNSET OINT POINT 1901 1010 E GEWA T I'-IS[T DR 01 NT POINT r---- - ~ L-91 04 4-----.J 1/8 Mile Aerial Photograph http //pao co pmellas f1 uslhtbm/cgt-chck?o=l&a=l&b=l&c=l&r= 16&s=4&t=l&u=O& 11/10/2003 . . ~ilJellas County Property App"'- '~r InformatIOn 03 29 15 880920000(,,"'"1) Page 5 of5 Pinellas County Property Appraiser Parcel Information Best ,..."..,y , j:!I -.v ~ Best Copy AV~[iable http //pao co pmellas fl us/htbm/cgi-chck?o=l&a=l&b=l&c=I&r= 16&s=4&t=I&u=0& 11110/2003 .. City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planmng Director ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, ~ I am a resident of and I am wntmg m objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1 25 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which requires a height vanance to 59 feet at the 100fs mldpomt and a reduction m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the size of this project IS still too large for this neighborhood A bUIldmg of thIS SIze IS not m character WIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The SIze of thIS project Will destroy the aesthetics of thIS quamt waterside commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideration of this matter 7/ Voy " 01 flN"-IINI- p,. n ~\~E.~..oPMENT - r...., ..---1 1 1UE:1nL1}2003-09050 .e.~~'O ~VV (\.\')" Q'V "\ '\,\) (v~~ ~ R-. ~ r\~ ~ ~ ~f{>.~ ~\~~ (:J<:; ~~'" ~~\~~ v"'<rY ~""';...J 0 0'\\ .. City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue 0, POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Planning Director Dear Srr or Madam, I am a reSident of 2 C 3 C\ 73RcHtJj tJ4. 'f 4ViWd I am writing in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater I}rive, Ine. for the construction of condominiums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal is for 77 units, which requires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn in the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feeling that the density of this project is entirely too large for tins neighborhood Many objections from area reSidents have been raIsed concenung the effect the requested variance will have on this residential commumty );> This Will become the tallest buildmg m the area, looffilng over the smgle-fanuly residences, which destroys the aesthetics cfthts qUaInt commuruty Tlus also encourages future development to match or exceed tlus denSity };> The proposed 77 Units, along with the likelihood of2 vehicles per unit, Will put addttlonal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Drive This is not safe for the many pedestrians that frequent this area };> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- unit condommium located tmposingly in a smgle-famtly reSidential area will directly affect property values and therr ability to resell It will also affect area property taxes It IS my feeling that the SIZe oftrus project will do more harm than good m preserving the quahty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Ioc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Ioc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideratIOn m tlus matter Sincerely, ~ i-~~' [~~ 1) crv~ (2, ;/- ~ ~ ~ Fred & Dorothy Hazon 2030 Broadway 51 Clearwater, fL 33755 1004 ~ ?ff--, ~f - .4!Lf/-2.':33L.{ V I> {FR.. + 1ft\. 'lC PiAl ~ R. ~ R'ii="S ( bE'" fI.) r ( 6.J r ft~ ({Q u.y \;- ~r-::I..... =z CS- "7 E'"" Ill) ];:l.~ A CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planmng Director [T3'~~bn~ /lED li \, -== \,~ ~= U "W lb APli t 5 2004 FW~~'\J~ING UEFp~R~-L~ENT C~""iY CF C~ -EARWATIER RE: FLD2003.09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent oQo31 IJ"IJQ~ aod I am wnbng m obJecbon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, I . & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condomInIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, WhICh reqUIres a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon III the Side setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet It IS my feelIng that the denSIty of thIS project IS entIrely too large for thiS neIghborhood Many ObjectIOns from area reslde~ts have been raised concemmg the effect the requested vanance wlll have on thIS residential commumty ;0. ThiS Will become the tallest bUlldmg 10 the area, loommg over the smgle-famlly resIdences, whICh destroys the aesthetICS of thIs quamt commumty ThIS also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS densIty ;0. The proposed 77 umts, along With the lIkelIhood of2 vehicles per umt, Will put addItIonal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area ;0. The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- UTIlt condomInium located ImpOSIngly m a smgle-famlly reSidentIal area WIll dIrectly affect property values and their abIlIty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes. b'f-.J\ It IS mffeehng that the SIze of thiS project WIll do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of this neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conSideratIOn m thiS matter Smcerely, ~ j)~ Jt~ w If L1-t.' b .I4/R Ko /\ 5.5 (/ A/ City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director ~EC.[E,~.Vtro J APR 1 2 2604 w>~l'NIN(3\DEPARTM~NT CfRYJOF. OlEARWAtF~ RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I-ani. a-resident of ;!.O'(t( ~frl:4UAt~~ and I am wntlng in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, In . & 1925 Edgewater Drive, lot. for the construction of condominiums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road. The proposal is for 77 units, which requires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction in the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feeling that the density of this project is entlrely too large for tlns neighborhood Many objectIOns trom area residents have been raised concerning the effect the requested variance will have on this residential community ) This will become the tallest building in the area, looming over the single-family residences, wlnch destroys the aesthetics of this quaint community Tlus also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSity ) The proposed 77 urnts, along With the hkehhood of 2 vehicles per urnt, Will put additional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Point Road and Edgewater Drive This IS not safe for the many pedestrians that frequent thIs area };> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- urnt condomirnum located imposingly 10 a single-fanuly resldentlal area will directly affect property values and their ability to resell It Will also affect area property taxes It IS my feel10g that the size oftlus project will do dtore hann than good 10 preserving the quality of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc for a fleXlble development approval Thank you for your consideration m tlus matter Smcerely, ~~""-"- woo~ V1Jd71u--- tJ07/fL.-~---..-<- City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planning Director \R\ECE~\fED MAR , ~ 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT GllY Elf G~MRWI\TeR RE: FLD2003-090S0 Dear Sir or Madam, CA~,~'0j(; I am a reSIdent of 20<;;4 8'tUJ'A.DlN'ft'/ AVf, , and I am wnting m objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises; Inc. &, 1925 Edgewater Drive, Ine. for the construction of condominiums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road. The proposal is for 77 units, winch reqwres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon to the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It 1$ my feeling that the denSIty of this project is entirely too large for this neighborhood Many objections trom area residents have been rmsed concerning the effect the requested variance will have on this residentIal commumty );> This Will become the tallest building in the area, looming over the smgIe-fannIy residences, winch destroys the aesthetics of this quaint commumty This also encourages future development to match or exceed thts denSIty );> The proposed 77 uruts, along with the hkelihood of2 velucles per unit, wIll put additIOnal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Point Road and Edgewater Dnve Tlus IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent this area );> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- unit condommium located unposmgly in a smgle-family reSIdential area will directly affect property values and therr ability to resell It will also affect area property taxes It is my feeling that the size ofthts project will do more harm than good m preserving the quality of this neighborhood I am requesting that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Ine & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your conslderation In this matter / I (, I) 1J ~ -r frtlA rJ\ Z~6\fL1L-- 6 14- 2604 SincerelJ NV<-- ' ~ . (j ,J' City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 _on Mike Reynolds, Planning D'rectRE CE NED ~PR 1 2 1004 Dear Sir or Madam, PLA~~~NG OE.PART~~1 JDh/ t(oa.J~ erN Of ClEARWA I am a reSident ofO.Qj}rr,;..;04e.r Ii 337S-S- and I am writing In objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condormnmms at 19! 9 & ! 925 Edgewater Drive and 10 10, 10 12, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal is for 77 umts, wluch requrres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction In the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feeling that the density of tlus project is entrrely too large for tlus neighborhood Many objections from area residents have been nused concenung the effect the requested variance will have on this residential commurnty RE: FLD2003-09050 );> Tlus Wi.1l become the tallest building in the area, 100lDlng over the single-fanuly resIdences, wluch destroys the aesthetics of this quaint commumty Tlus also encourages future development to match or exceed this density );> The proposed 77 umts, along with the likehhood of2 velucles per urnt, WIll put addItIOnal traffic strain 00 the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve This IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent this area );> The overall negatlve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt coodolDllllum located Imposmgly in a smgle-fwTIlly resldentlal area WIll directly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It will also affect area property taxes It IS my feeling that the size of this project will do more harm than good m preservrng the quality of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Ine for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideration m tlus matter CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Planmng Dlfector ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-090S0 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of-L.Q7\ ~~ and I am wntmg m objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condommlUffis at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUired a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductlOn m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUJres a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIon m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVlOUS that the size of thIS project 15 strll too large for thIS neighborhood A bUIldmg of this size IS not m character WIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famtly homes The SIze of thIS project WIll destroy the aesthetIcs OfthlS quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good III preservmg the qualIty of thIs neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your conslderatlOn of this matter. Smcerely, _ __, p L. \ \ c\ 0\:..\ ~~~-:~ //\ /. or' '\ // ,~'" -~ ../" .--'i \ (' \, \\ .--09 '\ \\\ 0(\ \ \ \ ..--- \. \\' \ \Q , I ~ ~~\; ,,// \ , \-.)\ ) \\\ ~~? ~\/ \ ~\ ~~~~~' \ \ '\ \0.~\~G" ~~~~~""'~" ~ \J's~\"l- sS c~<2- ? oy 0-0 City ofClealWater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, PJannmg DIrector ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of 2m$" ~/fiUI~and I am wntmg m obJeclIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, In . & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of cOndOmInIUmS at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater'Dnve and 1010,1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUired a hetght vanance to 75 feet and a reduction III the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances ofthe Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which requires a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roof's midpoint and a reductIOn III the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the SIze of thiS project IS still too large for thiS neighborhood A bUlldmg of thIS Size IS not III character with the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The SIZe of thIs project wIll destroy the aesthetIcs of thiS quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good In preservmg the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, lnc & 1925 Edgewatel Dnve, Inc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your consideratiOn of this matter Smcerely, . . 111 rf1 CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue P.O Box 4748 Clearwater, Honda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planning DIrector RE: FLD2003-090S0 ORIGINAL Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident ofcJIl3' ~1Pa- and I am wnbng ID objectIon to tbe approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, DC. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, IDc. for the construction of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road. The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, WhICh reqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction In the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUires a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reduction m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the SIze of thiS project IS still too large for thiS neighborhood A buIldmg of thIS SIze IS not m character with the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The size of thIS project WIll destroy the aesthetics ofthls quamt watersIde commumty, and do more hann than good m preservmg the quality of this neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your conSIderation of thiS matter \ \ "'- " ~ City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn. Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director RECE~VED APR 1 2 2004 PLANNING DI-:-oARTMENT CITY OF ClL'"\rtWATER 2-07 S ~n""~"'~ A....- I am a resident of rol2!A-&J~ and I am wntmg m objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condomInIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, whIch reqUIres a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn III the slde setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet It is my feeling that the denSIty of this proJcct IS entIrely too large for thIS neIghborhood Many objectIOns from area resIdents have been raIsed concernmg the effect the requested vanance WIll have on this residentlal commumty' RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, ~ ThiS Will become the tallest bUIldmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-faIntly reSidences, whIch destroys the aesthetIcs of thIS quamt commumty ThIS also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS denSIty ~ The proposed 77 umts, along with the likelIhood of2 vehIcles per umt, WIll put addItIonal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area ~ The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt condommmm located Imposmgly m a smgle-famIly reSIdential area WIll dIrectly affect property values and theIr abilIty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It IS my feelmg that the size of this project Will do more harm than good m preservmg the quahty of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Ine & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Ine for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your eonslderatlOn m thIS matter Smcerely, .., -~ . City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Planning Director 11cf~~~n\\ I;~ J lJ ",bYbUWL ) APR 09 2004 1UE:~1)2003-09050 P~N~J~G :J:=?ART~~~NT Ci l Y 0:= ClEA.RWATfER Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of M' ~~ f'NE:, and I am writmg m objectIOn to the appro~al requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater I)rive, Ine. for the construction of condol1lllllums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal is for 77 umts, winch requires a height variance to 75 feet and a reductIOn in the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feeling that the denSity of tins project IS entirely too large for tlus nelghborhood Many objections from area resIdents have been rmsed concemmg the effect the requested vanance will have on tins residentIal commumty :> This will become the tallest building in the area, ~oom1Dg over the smgle-family residences, which destroys the aesthetics of this quaint community This also encourages future development to match or exceed tlus denSity >> The proposed 77 urnts, along with the likebhood of 2 velucles per unit, wtll put addttlonal traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Drive Tins IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent this area >> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- urnt condOtnlluum located Imposingly In a single-fannly resIdential area will directly affect property values and their ability to resell It Will' also affect area property taxes It is my feeling that the size of this project will do more hann than good in preserving the quality of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterprises, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Ine for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consIderation In this matter v ~~ -, Reynolds, Mike From Sent To: Cc. Subject: Reynolds, Mike Wednesday, Aprrl 07, 2004 1056 AM 'hsc@clw macfar com', 'raude@audeshandcom' Gerlock, Chip FW Top Flight Enterprrses & 1925 Edgewater Dr Condo To Harry S Robert J Cllne, Esq. Aude, AlA Mr Cllne and Mr Aude, I am forwardlng thlS e-mall to you, sent by Glen and Ken]a Tetrault, for your lnformatlon Mlke Reynolds, AICP Senlor Planner Clty of Clearwater Plannlng Department Tel # 727-562-4836 mlke reynolds@MyClearwater com -----Orlg1nal Message----- From developmentweb Sent Wednesday, Apr11 07, 2004 10 37 AM To Reynolds, M1ke SubJect. FW Top Fl1ght Enterpr1ses & 1925 Edgewater Dr. Condo Mlke, Here 1S a compla1nt we rece1ved V1a the web James -----Or1g1nal Message----- From Internet_Comment_Card [ma1lto Internet_Comment_Card] Sent Wednesday, Apr1l 07, 2004 11 27 AM To developmentweb SubJect Top Fl1ght Enterpr1ses & 1925 Edgewater Dr Condo Sender's Name Glen & KenJa Tetrault Date sent 4/7/2004 10 27 29 AM Comments My husband and I do not want the constructlon of the 7 story condo proposed for 1925 Edgewater Dr1ve at Sunnydale Drlve We have llved off Mar1ne & Edgewater for 4 years and plan to ra1se our two ch1ldren 1n th1S ne1ghborhood, hop1ng to preserve the area as lt 1S now. A large hotel was Just completed 1 block south of Sedeeva and another condo 1S gOlng up 1 block south of Sunset P01nt, 1t'S t1me to slow down the maSS1ve construct1on 1n our neJghborhood when there 1S so much land avallable for redevelopment In downtown Clearwater I am a Clearwater nat1ve and plan to stay Sender Ema1l Ma1l1ng Address 2079 Broadway Ave Clearwater, Florlda 33755 Phone 1 City of Clearwater Plalllung Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director RECEIVED APR 0 8 200~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of .;l()fO Br ()Qdu/Q..~ and I am wntmg m objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, nc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, whIch reqUIres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feehng that the densIty of this project IS entIrely too large for this neighborhood Many objectIons from area resIdents have been raised concermng the effect the requested vanance wIll have on this residentIal commumty' >- ThIS will become the tallest bUIldmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-famlly residences, which destroys the aesthetIcs of thIS quamt commumty This also encourages future development to match or exceed this density >- The proposed 77 umts, along With the likelihood of2 vehicles per umt, WIll put additIonal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent this area. >- The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- umt condommlUm located Imposmgly m a smgle-famlly reSidentIal area Will directly affect property values and theIr abIlIty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It IS my feelIng that the size ofthls project Will do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty ofthls neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSideration m thiS matter Smcerely, ~~ U(JfLL CIty of Clearwater Plamllng Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention' Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector RECEIVED RE: FLD2003-090S0 APR 08 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of~ ()fO !5ro:A.d WC0-( and I am wntmg m objectIon to the approval requested by Top Fligbt Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommIums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road. The proposal IS for 77 umts, which reqUIres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction III the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feeling that the denSity of this project IS entirely too large for thIS nelghborhood Many objections from area residents have been raIsed concerning the effect the requested vanance wIll have on this residentIal commumty )i> This will become the tallest bUIldIng In the area, loommg over the smgle-fanllly residences, which destroys the aesthetics of this quamt commumty. ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed thJS density. )i> The proposed 77 units, along Wlth the likelIhood of2 vehIcles per unit, Will put additional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset PolOt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area )i> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values. A multI- umt condomlOmm located imposmgly 10 a slOgle- family residentIal area Will dIrectly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It Will also affect area property taxes It IS my feehng that the size of thiS project will do more hann than good III preserving the quahty of thIS neIghborhood. I am requestlOg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve,lnc. for a fleXible development approval. Thank you for your consideration 10 thIS matter SlOcerely, J~ c-lOL City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planning Director RECENED ~PR 1 ~ luUIt o EPAR1MENl P~~~FGCLEARWA"ER RE: FLD2003-090S0 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of ~c,. t",aA,WAei lluJ · and I am wntmg 10 objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Int. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Int. for the construction of condormmums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and lOW, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road. The proposal is for 77 urnts, which requires a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn in the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feeling that the density of this project IS entirely too large for this neIghborhood Many objectlOns from area residents have been raIsed concerning the effect the requested variance will have on this residentIal commumty )> This Will become the tallest building 10 the area, loonung over the smgle-family resIdences, which destroys the aesthetIcs of this quamt community This also encourages future development to match or exceed this densIty >> The proposed 77 units, along With the hkelihood of2 vehtcles per unit, Will put additional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Point Road and Edgewater Dnve This IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent this area )> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- unit condonunium located imposmgly in a single-family resIdentIal area will directly affect property values and their ability to resell It will also affect area property taxes It is my feeling that the SIZe of this project will do more harm than good in preservmg the quahty ofthts neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commuruty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterprises, loc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideration 10 this matter Smcerely, A\f\n"t Cv()U .- f' City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attentlon MIke Reynolds, Planmng Director RECEIVED \ APR 1 5 200\ plANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER (. RE: FLD2003-09050 / 0- , \ Dear ~Srr or Madam, " ".. r , I am a resident of J.O 1 0 ~ i9~ ~ I am wntmg m objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, IncY & i925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condonuruums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal is for 77 urnts, wInch requrres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feeltng that the density of tIns project IS entrrely too large for tIns neighborhood Many objections trom area reSidents have been r8.1sed concermng the effect the requested vanance will have on tIns residential commurnty =.l,.-4:::;'-~ ~ TIns \v111 become the tallest buddmg m the area, looffilng over the smgle-fanuly reSidences, wInch destroys the aesthetlcs of tIns quamt commurnty TIns also encourages future development to match or exceed tIns denSity ~ The proposed 77 urnts, along WIth the lIkehhood of 2 veIncles per urnt, WIll put addttIonal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve TIns IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent tIns area ~ The overall negatlve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- urnt condoffilrnum located unposmgly m a smgle-fannly reSidential area will drrectly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It will also affect area property taxes It IS my feelmg that the sIZe of tIns project will do more hann than good m preservmg the quahty of tIns neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commurnty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideration m tIns matter SJ~~ City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director RE: FLD2003-090S0 ORIGINAL Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of C 1-<4-1 ...J /l,f-e.r (B rMdw.k I am wntmg In obJ ectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 19 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condommiUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUired a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commul1lty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUires a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs midpomt and a reductIOn m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the size of thiS project IS stIll too large for thiS neIghborhood A bUIldmg of thiS Size is not m character With the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commul1lty 1S smgle-family homes. The Size of thIS project WIll destroy the aesthetIcs of thIS quamt waterSide commul1lty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, rnc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your consideratIOn of thIS matter Smcerely, ~D~ ?f~/o V (C-sJ l1J1JJ ~ C3 CJ l;"'.J = (Y) 0J1!J - UL~ [1illJ _ ~--"../---"1 ![_JC L_ ..:J I- Z w cr :;:;: w 0- f- 9 ~ wll)F ""J. l ~J . Cu Q J c :> :.! c.:;~u QU)LL Z 0 Z ~ 5 G CL City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector ~ECC~~V(E[) RE: FLD2003-09050 MAR 1 " 2004 PLAli\%~H\lG DEPARTMENT ~~1Y OF CLEARWATER Dear Srr or Madam, I am a reSldent of J 0 Z 0 CA q f J{ r rl and I am wntmg m objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises: Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Ine. for the constructIon of condonumutns at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal is for 77 umts, wluch requIres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feehng that the densIty oftlus project IS entrrely too large for tlus neighborhood Many objections from area residents have been ralsed concernmg the effect the requested vanance WIll have on tlus residential commumty ~ This Will become the tallest buildmg 10 the area, loonung over the smgle-fanuly residences, wluch destroys the aesthetics of tlus qUalnt commurnty Tlus also encourages future development to match or exceed tlus density ~ The proposed 77 urnts, along With the hkehhood of 2 velucles per urnt, Will put additIOnal traffic straln on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve Tlus IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent tlus area ~ The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- urnt condomlDJum located unposmgly m a smgle-fanuly residential area will directly affect property values and theIr ablhty to resell It will also affect area property taxes It IS my feehng that the sIZe oftlus project will do more harm than good m preservmg the quahty of tlus neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideration m tlus matter Smcerely, ~. "JA.j)'{'1-'5 feeM- City of Clearwater Planrung Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentlOn Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector RIEClE~VE[)) MAR 15 20n4 PlA~~ING DEPARTMENT erN 9F CL~RWATER JUE:FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of () tX ) d I am wntmg 10 ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flig t Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condomInIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal IS for 77 uruts, which reqUIres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction ID the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feeltng that the density of this project lS entirely too large for this neIghborhood Many ObjectIOns from area reSIdents have been rmsed concernmg the effect the requested vanance WIll have on thiS reSidential commumty ~ ThIS Will become the tallest buildmg m the area, loorrung over the smgle-family reSIdences, which destroys the aesthetics of tins quamt comrnurnty Tins also encourages future development to match or exceed tins density ~ The proposed 77 urnts, along With the hkelIhood of 2 velucles per urnt, will put additIOnal traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Drive Tlus is not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent this area };> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- urnt condommmm located imposmgly m a smgle-family residential area Will directly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It will also affect area property taxes It IS my feelmg that the size of this project will do more harm than good III preservrng the quality of this neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commuruty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank: you for your consideration m tlus matter Smcerely, City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue P.D Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planmng DIrector ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 7---1/ -bY Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of IOdLf {!J1J;lrfes Sf CltUInd I am wntmg m ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of cOndOmInIUmS at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which required a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn III the Side setback from 10 feet to 585 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, WhICh reqUires a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpolllt and a reduction III the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet It IS obvIOUS that the SIZe of thiS project IS StIll too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUIldmg of this size IS not III character wIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-fanuly homes The SIze of this prOject Will destroy the aesthetIcs of thIS quamt watersIde commumty, and do more hann than good III preservmg the quality of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny tile request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideratIOn of thIS matter smc~~~ (? SJ OJ!J] r -=:::r ~~ ~ t.--- = ('I") [lJUJ ((_J) ll:f1O --.J ~ J ~~ - -..~ ........-- -1, t .--- ~ , I L__ ._ J- Z LlJ 0: :E w n. I- a -< --l(/):S LlJ U I r.r > l' ~ W~LJJ 0> J ""O:U W11 Cj u) /;;' Z '-' Z >- Z t:: ~ U a.. " -" City of CleatWater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planmng Dnector RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGINAL Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of /i72t/ {!jar/...es Sf- and I am wntmg m objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Ed~ewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condomml urns at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUIred a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUIres a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roof's mIdpomt and a reductIon m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the SIze of this project IS still too large for this neighborhood A bUlldmg OfthIS SIze IS not III character with the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg cornmumty is smgle-famlly homes The size of thIS project wIll destroy the aesthetIcs of thIS quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fltght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your consideration of thIS matter smcere~tJ. ~ "'oJ(Jf (?~ )- z W IT QJ1d] :::2 w ~ (L I- c::'I o <: ~ c::'I -'(/)> C'-I UJ UJ IT = C"'? ~0 " I1!1JJ - (J :; : 1 d .,.jC!:O w ~L~- ~cn() z c: ,- u :s rr-......--=:1 lJ.... l L_J c~ I .~ - ..................-- -- City of CleaIwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 ClealWater, FlorIda 33758 AttentIon MIke Reynolds, Plannmg Director RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGINAL Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of I DCllf cJ~J..rl.e$ sf and I am wnt10g 10 objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condom1OIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ong1Oal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUIred a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon III the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two cont1Ouances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUires a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mIdpo1Ot and a reductron III the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the Size of this project IS stIll too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUIldmg of thIS SIZe IS not In character With the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-fanuly homes The SIze of thIS project WIll destroy the aesthetIcs of thIS quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIOn of thIS matter Smcerely, /;J ~ BifJttifL 11l010~ (?~ 0:&0 ~ M1JJ U !1&0 _ ~-=:Jl !oe] --.J ::;) J }- z W a: :2 w n. f- a :% t:d u) :.. >wo:: UJ ~ lJ.J D::>--.J <Q~u 0(/)ll.. Z 0 z i': z - :5 u 1.1. ""=1" C) C) C'-I = ('Y") City of Clearwater Planrung Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planrung Director ,,~-~ \fa WI !!~nW :'1U\ c~ ~AR 15_~JWl 'I ,-- - ~-;'':\-'-l "~'.::r f S\!~ l' ~ t ......_...'__...~ f1i.r.. -Ii I f l~" t-C-lf"';lr.~ ..\;-_-r~8~ j ....l-..........,.....--"'-~ RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of / aRt{ e )/tIf/Zl~g :oS '1: and I am wnting in objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condominiums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal is for 77 urnts, which requires a height variance to 75 feet and a reduction in the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feehng that the density of this project is entIrely too large for this neighborhood Many objections from area reSIdents have been rmsed concerrung the effect the requested vanance will have on tms residenttal community ~ This \viII become the tallest buildmg in the area, lOOmIng over the single-fanuly residences, which destroys the aesthetIcs of thIS quamt commurnty This also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSity ~ The proposed 77 urnts, along With the hkehhood of2 vehicles per unit, will put additIOnal traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve This IS not safe for the many pedestrians that frequent this area ~ The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- urnt condotn1Dlum located imposingly 10 a single-family reSidential area will directly affect property values and thetr abtlity to resell It will also affect area property taxes It is my feelmg that the size of this project will do more harm than good 10 preserving the qualIty oftlus neighborhood I am requestIng that the Commurnty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank: you for Y9uf consideratIOn m this matter VJ 11 Rrc c I'V i3 LA ~iq J2.... SmcerelYW ' City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Planning Director r=:;- "" / r . ~V~E"'[O ~'?'I~I; ,':J ~ 2:10 J ""S"-"~ I _ FUE:~])200~09050 MAK 1 5 200~ PlANNiij~G Ig[sP~~1ME~ sny eF sb~WAllER Dear Sir or Madam, I am a reSident of 1024' Cl1a. r It's S+ and I am wnting in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condomimums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 10lD, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal is for 77 units, wluch requires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction in the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feeling that the density of this project is entIrely too large for this neighborhood Many objectIons from area residents have been raised concerning the effect the requested vanance wtll have on tlus residentIal commumty )0> Tlus 'will become the tallest building in the area, looming over the single-fanuly residences, which destroys the aesthetics of this quaint community This also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSity ~ The proposed 77 umts, along with the hkehhood of 2 vehicles per umt, will put additional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Point Road and Edgewater Drive Tlus is not safe for the many pedestrians that frequent tlus area )0> The overall negauve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt condomtruUffi located imposingly m a single-fannly reSidential area will dIrectly affect property values and their ability to resell It will also affect area property taxes It is my feeling that the size of tins project will do more harm than good m preserving the quality of tins neIghborhood I am requestIng that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideratton m tins matter 3[{c1{O~ CIty of Clearwater PlannIng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue P.G Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planmng Director RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGINAL Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of 10 30 Chell" Ie I g and I am wntIng In obJ ectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edge"vater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommrums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, WhICh reqUired a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction In the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUires a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reduction In the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the SIze of thIS prOject ]S stIll too large for this neighborhood A bUildIng of this SIze IS not m character with the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg conunumty IS smgle-family homes The size OfthIS project will destroy the aesthetics of thIs quaInt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good In preservmg the quahty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your consIderahon OfthlS matter Smcerely, 9r~ 1/01 reel) [1dJJl ~ v = oo::::r C:I ?a C'? f1J1O g 0:&0 ~ -1 ::> J I- Z W 0: ::::E ~ ~ <: --l(f.l5: WwO: > 0" w_w O>--l ~ffiU (')(f)1.L z 0 z i:: z - :5 0 a.. CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of 1f)35"'~~ ~and I am wntmg m objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, WhICh reqUIred a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductlOn III the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqmres a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mIdpomt and a reductIOn III the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obVIOUS that the SIze of thIS project IS still too large for thIS neIghborhood A bmldmg of thIs SIze IS not m character with the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-faIntly homes The size of thlS project will destroy the aesthetiCS of this quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the quahty of thIS neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, luc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, luc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consIderatIOn of thiS matter Smcerely, ~~ 7 - 7 - o{ PLANNING & C[\'~LOi>MENT SERVIC~S CITY 01, eLl.. . .J, ,-., l C1ty of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 Attenhon MIke Reynolds, Plannmg Director RE: FLD2003-09050 I: f; ;~-"~A~~;~;:_~~li ~ "::,1,;1 \luL; llli I " : 1'" "--SVCbl l f L '_ .r\NtU.:n Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of !o8;fJ ~arU5 ~, and I am writing in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc:. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc:. for the constructIon of condominiums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal is for 77 umts, wlnch reqwres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction in the side setback from 10 feet to S 8S feet It is my feeling that the density of this project is entirely too large for this neighborhood Many objections trom area residents have been raised concemmg the effect the requested variance will have on tlns residential commumty };> This will become the tallest buildmg m the area, looming over the smgle-fanuly residences, which destroys the aesthetics of thts quamt community Tlus also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSity };> The proposed 77 umts, along Wlth the I1kehhood of 2 velncles per unit, wtll put additlOnal traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Drive This IS not safe for the many perlestnans that frequent this area };> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt condomimum located imposmgly in a smgle-fanuly reSidential area will drrectly affect property values and their ability to resell It will also affect area property taxes It is my feeling that the size of this project will do more harm than good in preservrng the quality of tlns neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideration in this matter Sincerely, ~~ ~- L4~D~ (<xa f~ ~ 111 !<ootf City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Plannmg Director lUE:InLD2003-09050 ..... :~Ol'P""~____~_~~____::... :,~~-~~:~~;:mlm,! I .... ~ r J ') ~.... "..". \- '" C" ,I"',. ~ J , _ _ _ ~ lolj _\ ~......"!..." t r ,~ -l~~ 11"J;dt~1 t - - -...........---~ Dear Sir or Madam, I am a reSident of / () ~ (;; G.- /Ir.; JZ t tE.S $d I am wntmg m objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condonuniums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal is for 77 units, which requires a height variance to 75 feet and a reduction m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feeling that the density of this project is entrrely too large for tlus neighborhood Many objections from area reSidents have been rmsed concernmg the effect the requested vanance will have on this residenttal community )> This 'Will become the tallest building m the area, looming over the smgle-family reSIdences, which destroys the aesthetiCS of this quamt community This also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSIty >- The proposed 77 units, along with the hkelihood of2 vehicles per urnt, will put additional traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve This IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent this area )> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- unit condomirnum located unposingly m a single-family reSidential area will dIrectly affect property values and their abtlity to resell It will also affect area property taxes It IS my feelmg that the size ofthts project will do more harm than good in preserving the quality of this neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Ioc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your conSlderatlon in this matter Smcerely, II tjyt~ Jt;;::t/1 tZq4~ -733 y17g CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of fi/(J a~ and I am writmg m ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUIred a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the side setback from 10 feet to 585 feet. After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUIres a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reduction m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It lS ObVIOUS that the SIze of thiS project IS stIll too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUIldmg of thIS SIze IS not m character WIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes. The SIze of thIS project wl11 destroy the aesthetics of this quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of thIS neighborhood 1 am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consIderation of this matter. Smcerely, tAl- h rr~ [!d1l] ~ c-/ = ~ OJ!JJ g G::&O ror =5 -; I- Z W c; ;'.?: 1..-' n \--- o ~ ..J (f\ .- ~ ~tt t J ::.... G>---, <<:i~. ,) ~UJ~ Z ~...... Z ( Z C-) :5 0.. "'=t C) C) C"-l ('Y') City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Planmng Director 1 - --,~('r: "T~; I'T'\lJ/' f2~-I':~ (' ~_l~l[.) L~ ~ II -- j ........ -~ r.,.-! ~ ,~ 'I ' I :,~DL M~_~5_ ~J~! . '" ......, ''1- VJ\fl~"- S C ij '<I=v\'} "".1 ;J.;\"l.::.'-L llii::hlj V...IO (, , , ~""('l~r\H~v,';fEn . -~- - . - . _ _~__ I RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a reSIdent of /OC/D (! h!l1k-d; ~ (?j- and I am wnting in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condominiums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal is for 77 urnts, whtch requires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction in the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feeling that the density of this project is entirely too large for this neighborhood Many objections from area residents have been rmsed concerrung the effect the requested variance will have on this resldenttal community );> This \VIII become the tallest building m the area. looming over the single-family residences, which destroys the aesthetics of this qUaInt commumty This also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSity );> The proposed 77 umts, along WIth the IIkehhood of 2 vehicles per urnt, will put addittonal traffic strmn on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Point Road and Edgewater Dnve This is not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thts area )> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- umt condommium located tmposmgly in a smgle-family residential area will directly affect property values and therr ability to resell It will also affect area property taxes It is my feehng that the size of thts project will do more hann than good m preserving the quahty ofthts neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commuruty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideration m this matter Sincerely, ~v.;r riJr6 ~I J ~I City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attentton Mike Reynolds, Planmng Director 1M VJ\J J~/IOO ~---&.:I:::'-."'--"'-"'II" ___ --- - I '" f 'lJ .- l~ 'I . l}' r ,..t ! 1 I ~ t i'J I ."" 1, \ 1 . t .. Ul _.......___. __w. --~-l ~ 1 t t ~)\~ MAR f 5 200~ J!l U ,i :lJLI ~~ Dear SIr or Madam, : " X', ;;'C:~:;JITDi1M~N?SVCl;)~ I am .'remdent of 1(; if g ~ ~ ~and I am wnting in O~j~lO~ ~::~~c::: ' requested by Top Flight En erprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condominIums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1012. & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal is for 77 Units. which requires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction in the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 8S feet It is my feeling that the densrty of this project is entIrely too large for thts neighborhood Many objections from area resIdents have been rmsed concerning the effect the requested variance will have on thts residennal commumty RE: FLD2003-09050 ) This will become the tallest bUlldmg in the area, loonnng over the single-family reSIdences, whtch destroys the aesthettcs of thts quamt commumty 1ms also encourages future development to match or exceed tins denSIty >>- The proposed 77 untts, along with the hkehhood of2 vehicles per urnt, will put addttional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve llns IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent this area >>- The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A mulu- unit condomlIuum located unposlOgly in a slOgle-fannIy residennaI area will dIrectly affect property values and their abihty to resell It will also affect area property taxes It is my feeling that the size of this project will do more harm than good in preservmg the quality of thts neighborhood I am requesting that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterprises, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Ine for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideration lO this matter Sincerely, (JYY/ City of Clearwater Planrung Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planmng Director ~\E~~~VED MAR 15 2004 PU\i\%~ING DEPARTMENT c~rt ~f 8fbEARWATER RE: FLD2003-090S0 Dear Srr or Madam, I am a reSIdent of tD 5 I C ~ '7f! L j S+ and I am writing in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructiOn of condonuruums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal is for 77 umts, wluch requrres a height variance to 7S feet and a reduction in the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feeling that the denSity of tlus project is entirely too large for this neIghborhood Many objections from area resIdents have been raised concerning the effect the requested vanance will have on tins resldenttal commurnty ). This \viII become the tallest building in the area, lOOmIng over the smgle-family residences, which destroys the aesthetics of this quaint community Trus also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSIty ). The proposed 77 units, along with the hkelihood of2 velucles per umt, wIll put addttIonal traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Drive This IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent tlus area >- The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- umt condomiruUffi located imposingly m a smgle-famdy reSIdential area will drrectly affect property values and their ability to resell It will also affect area property taxes It is my feeling that the size of tins project will do more harm than good m preseIVlllg the quahty of thts neighborhood I am requestmg that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consxderatlon in this matter Smcerely, Z/i d4 jfLI/ J. Of7Lj CIty of Clearwater P1anmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue PO. Box 4748 Clearwater, F10nda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of lD5lo c"WLc<; S+- and I am wntmg m ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn In the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUIres a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIon In the sIde setback from 10 feet 10 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the size of thIS project IS still too large for thiS neIghborhood A bUlldmg ofth1S size IS not m character wIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The SIze OfthlS project WIll destroy the aesthetics ofthls quamt waterside commumty, and do more harm than good III preservIng the quahty of thIS neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Ine & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIon of thIS matter. smcerelY'(fD ~(d i(IO(O<{ (0J fJ-J1O c:::-~ ~ =:= Chi1lJ y f1I1D [QC ----" ~ C"') I- Z W Q'" ~ W o r--. o < c;j(/J5 > Lt! 'T l1.> C (J :; _~ <<:lC::u (:I iJi '- 2 0 2 1: 2 ~ S U Q. :5 -, -.J Csty of Clearwater Planrung Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attenoon Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director , ~X~ _ u~T~ n-\Jrr~-r~l~ \ tJ ) '1---- 1 f ~\' I , ~ ui II MAR 1 5 2DO% I ~ :i w ~ ~~ ',~ -;"""~'-<1ir-J "r;~l--:'~-""C'" r 'i \.... '" _ ! -.. ~~ ... i 'v~ _' ...Jo II 41~ I~ . cOr - t k . t rJVt-.I Ti;:",~"'~ lU' - -- ---~_ T'_' ----lIo....:l RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, IOb5 CVLv0{/eS Sf- c(-PG"{ ( <.UO(~r f-L I am a resident of and I am writing in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. &. 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condominiums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal is for 77 units, which requires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feeling that the density of this project is entrrely too large for tlus neighborhood Many objections from area residents have been raised concerrung the effect the requested variance will have on tlus residential commumty );> Tlus \vJ1l become the tallest building m the area, loommg over the smgle-family residences, which destroys the aesthetics of this quaint commuruty This also encourages future development to match or exceed this density );> The proposed 77 units, along with the hkelthood of2 velncles per urnt, Will put addLtlonal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Drive This IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent tlus area );> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- unit condomimum located imposingly m a single-farruly residential area will directly affect property values and therr ability to resell It will also affect area property taxes. It is my feelmg that the SIze of this prOject will do more harm than good m preserving the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requesting that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Ine for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideration m tlns matter Smcerely, rt uSS(er City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director IRECEJ\/ED IUE:FLD2003-09050 MAt( 1 e; ?l'\f\~ LANN~NG DEPAR1MENl P erN gf CbtiJ.\RWA1ER Dear Sir or Madam, I am a reSIdent of 11()3> ~D~e3 ~d I am writing in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condomimums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal is for 77 units, wluch requires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the SIde setback from lO feet to 5 85 feet It is my feeling that the densIty of this project is entrrely too large for this neighborhood Many objections from area reSIdents have been raised concerning the effect the requested vanance will have on tlus residential commumty );> Tlus 'wIll become the tallest building In the area, looming over the single-family residences, wluch destroys the aesthetics of this qUaint community This also encourages future development to match or exceed tlus denSity );> The proposed 77 umts, along with the hkelihood of2 vehicles per umt, will put additIonal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Point Road and Edgewater Drive This is not safe for the many pedestrians that frequent tills area );> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- unit condormruum located unposmgly in a single-family residential area will directly affect property values and their ability to resell It will also affect area property taxes It IS my feeling that the size of tlns project will do more harm than good m presefVlllg the quality of tlus neighborhood I am requestmg that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterprises, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dove, Ine for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideration m this matter Smcerely, ~, O,\cK City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mlke Reynolds, Planmng DIrector RE: FLD2003-090S0 ORIGINAL Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of ij'"OC: c1n/iL~ ' Y'- and I am wntmg In ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top'Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condomInIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUlred a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUIres a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIOn m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the SIze of thIS project IS stIll too large for thIS neighborhood A bUlldmg of tins SIze IS not m character with the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS sIngle-famIly homes The SIze of thIS project WIll destroy the aesthetics of thiS quamt watersIde commumty, and do more halm than good m preservmg the qualIty of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, lnc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, lnc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consIderatIOn ofthls matter Smcerely, ~74~ 7 -- Iv -oC; (Q~ 0d1D t:::::::::,.:- C"~_J C:::::=::J \1LhO cQ) QJ1D r-::--~ I (..... r- ' LL_J ~ =:J """'" C) C) C"J (Y) .......J =:I -, I- Z ill IT :2 ill 0.... ~ o _ .-JifJ> ~ tlJ r U. ~~ .1J C>...J oljC::O WLL ~ifJo Z ~ z - :'.5 0 a... ~I ({(of City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater. Florida 33758 Attention :Mike Reynolds. Planmng Drrector RE: FLD2003-09050 : iT~:Ri;; :rr~l~:; I' \ ' , ~ -~ I "- -; "":';::8 '" " .".1 J V,..,::, - .<f....jr~ n~r1 i ...........- ~ -~ Dear Sir or Madam. I am a resident of \ lOt-- (}U\lt-L 6~ STand I am writmg in objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Ioc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condominiums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010. 1012. & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal is for 77 umts. whIch reqwres a height variance to 75 feet and a reduction in the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feehng that the denSity of tlus project is entrrely too large for this neighborhood Many objections from area residents have been raised concerrung the effect the requested variance will have on tlus residentIal community >> This \.viII become the tallest building in the area, loommg over the single-family reSidences. which destroys the aesthetIcs of tlus qUaInt community This also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSIty >> The proposed 77 units. along WIth the hkelihood of2 velucles per unit. will put additional traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve Tills is not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent this area >> The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- umt condonuru.um located imposmgly in a smgle-fanuly reSIdential area will directly affect property values and their ability to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes. It IS my feeling that the size oftms project wdl do more harm than good m preservmg the quahty of tlus neighborhood I am requestmg that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterprises, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consIderation in tlus matter Sincerely. 7--:2- 511 '1/6'-/ IleN Rvt~ <' CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department ] 00 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planning Director r-. - --', -l;-'~" ~ ~- ~""=I,I -, L \i6 \J7bU "J I~ I!Jl.'=d APR 0 9 2004 RE: FLD2003-09050 ,. r-." ('\ ~~ll^ r.- .. J.u,,~ D.::iPt\ ~1f)1]"""I\PT '/' 0 IC' " I ~ L .:'. \;J " ~J>- CP~~r:t"" \ .-.....'t) " '. ! U "':k'\\ Dear Sir or Madam, I am a restdent of -Ll 0'1- L t{ /lQ,LG~ .5 T and I am writmg m objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condomimums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal is for 77 umts, which reqUITes a height variance to 75 feet and a reduction in the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feehng that the denSity ofthts project IS entITely too large for this neighborhood Many ObjectIOns from area residents have been ratsed concerrung the effect the requested vanance will have on thIs residential community );> Tills Will become the tallest butldmg in the area, looming over the smgle-family residences, which destroys the aesthencs of tins quaint commumty Tills also encourages future development to match or exceed tins denSity };> The proposed 77 units, along With the lIkelIhood of 2 vehicles per umt, will put additional traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent tills area };> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- urnt condonnmum located Imposmgly in a single-famIly residential area Will dIrectly affect property values and their ability to resell It wIll also affect area property taxes It is my feelmg that the size of tIns project will do more harm than good m preservmg the quahty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterprises, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Ioc for a fleXible development approval Thank: you for your consideratIon m thIs matter Sincerely, C::7~____ I( fJ1'J Fn1 {;l)rvv<>-I II 0 1 t I-/I\fl.-L. vI fJ [L ~MvV"(T'i-1Z, 0- S\~-r Crt 'T) '-i~b -(/Z(,v City of Clearwater PlannIng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director i-rr'(rJ-'r~'r-]-\vr~i~r~ is ~i.'J Le \_1 Is-, 'I' L \~-------.-:-...........................,.\ .11 J ''''U;\j MAR 1 5 200~ ,II u }~ I....~ '1 '----" I ~ ' ~..,..;...... -; - ,~=--j... ~ t~rI r-<tlv 1 ~ vr...... ~ -- ~ i_I r-1 t1 ~-I= I ~~. _ _~_____J RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of //0 x>' Cho.r k<. S -h and I am writing in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Ine. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Ioc. for the construction of condominiums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 10 10, 10 12, & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal is for 77 units, which requires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feeling that the denSity of this project is entirely too large for this neighborhood Many objections from area residents have been raIsed concerning the effect the requested variance will have on this residentIal commuruty >- This 'will become the tallest building in the area, looming over the SIngle-famtly residences, which destroys the aesthetics of this quamt conununity Tlns also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSity >- The proposed 77 umts, along With the hkehhood of2 velncles per umt, wtll put additional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Drive This IS not safe for the many pedestrians that frequent this area );;> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- unit condommium located imposingly in a single-family residential area will directly affect property values and their ability to resell It will also affect area property taxes It is my feelmg that the SIZe of tins project will do more harm than good in preserving the quality of thiS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commulllty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Ine & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Ine for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideration m this matter smcerely'7~ d J Ot$o/J k!lAe~n ~ /4 01- City of Clearwater Planning Department' 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Planmng Director RE: FLD2003-09050 [ __0---" -.- - ~-~ - ^- jflfif;:;l W : l i- l 'lil [' 11 I ~ I ~ / L .J t~ 1\:!~) i.--~;;; -5 ;~4 u1 ~ 1:1 [uI".j .~J I \ r , ,,,' '~',I sv8:' ..,r t J~i~... 1 ~:r'{ -----.Ii Dear Sir or Madam, I am a reSIdent of II D 9 (!j~.Jf- and I am wnting in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Iric. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Ioc. for the construction of condominiums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 10 10, 10 12, & 1020 Sunset Point Road. The proposal is for 77 units, whIch requrres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction in the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feeling that the density of this project is entirely too large for this neIghborhood Many objections from area residents have been raised concerning the effect the requested variance will have on this reSidential community :> This will become the tallest building m the area, loommg over the smgle-family residences, which destroys the aesthetics of this quamt community This also encourages future development to match or exceed tins denSity );> The proposed 77 uruts. along with the likelIhood of 2 vehicles per urnt, will put add1tlOnal traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Point Road and Edgewater Drive This IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent this area );> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- urnt condominIum located Imposingly In a smgle-family residential area will directly affect property values and theIr ability to resell It will also affect area property taxes It IS my feeling that the SIZe of this project will do more hann than good in preserving the quality of this neIghborhood I am requesting that the Commurnty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterprises, Ine & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Ine for a fleXIble development approval Thank: you for your consideration in tlus matter S~!M L- IN v-4' 1J SbL~ 3) 'i D~ City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planmng Director \';-:'-~I::?'T] {l1{}~--[-5-r-"'- , [I? l G-~ r: I h'~:: f' ,) r S -' L '-~-~- II JL M~ ~_~ ~J~; t J . !!=' : hil _I svr'J , ,- 1 J ~.... ":1 I f"':''-.) - -- -='::.-\_=-\~-;L' RE: FLD2003-090S0 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of \\1.. L\ c.'n.a.''ES s"'r and I am writIng 10 objectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condomuuums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal is for 77 units, which requires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction in the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feeling that the deDSlty of this project IS entirely too large for this neighborhood Many objections from area residents have been raised concerrung the effect the requested variance wtl1 have on this residential commurnty ~ This \vIII become the tallest building in the area, looming over the single-fannly residences, which destroys the aesthetics of this quaint community This also encourages future development to match or exceed tlus denSIty ~ The proposed 77 units, along With the hkelihood of2 vehicles per urnt, will put additional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Drive This IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent tins area ~ The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- umt condomrnium located IIDposingly 10 a single-fanuly reSidential area will directly affect property values and their ability to resell It will also affect area property taxes It is my feelmg that the size oftlus project will do more harm than good in preservmg the quahty oftlns neighborhood I am requesting that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterprises, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Ine for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideration 10 this matter smcerel~~ ~-\~'Ol\ ;J~ ;4!IJri .,4J,! Ie y City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 1 00 S M yrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon MIke Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of / / d-__\ d~-ll ..f'r and I am wntmg In obJ ectlOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condomml urns at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The anginal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqmred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqmres a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIOn m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the SIze of this project IS still too large for thIS neighborhood A butldmg of this SIze IS not m character with the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surrounding conunumty IS smgle-famlly homes The Size of thIS prOject will destroy the aesthetics of thIS quamt waterside commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty of this neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, luc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, luc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consIderatIOn of this matter 7/; %C( cr- -SJ Dd10 ~ [~- == [1JLn g I1!1D C nf~~ - I- Z ~ ~, (l f- a -::: ...... :> lj I V) -;: >l' " UJ U LJ;;- ~ <.OfEU ~[/)o Z r Z r' :5 u Q ~ C"') =5 J .... CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 1 00 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of and I am wntmg m objectlOn to the approval I requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condom imums at 1 91 9 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1 01 0, 1 012, & I 020 Sunset Po lOt Road The proRosalls for 77 urnts, whIch reqUIres a helght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon 10 the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my fee ling that the density of thIs prOj ect IS entIrely too large for this neighborhood Many objectJOns from area resIdents have been raIsed concernmg the effect the requested variance will have on thIS resIdentml commumty );> ThI5> will become the tallest bUIldmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-famIly resIdences, wluch destroys the aesthetlcs of thiS quamt eommumty Tlus also encourages future development to match or exceed this density ;;.. The proposed 77 umts, along With the hkelIhood of2 velucles per umt, wIll put addItIOnal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater DrIve This IS not safe for the many pedestrmns that frequent thl'i area };;> The overall negatIve effect ofthe propo,>ed development on local property values A multl- urnt condommIUm located Imposmgly m a smgle-famIly resIdentIal area will dIrectly affect property values and theIr abIlIty to resell It wIll also affect area property taxes It IS .ii11y feelmg that the size of thIS project will do more hann than good 10 preservmg the qUalIty of this neighborhood I am requestIng that the Commurnty Development Board deny tile request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Ine for a flexIble development approval' Thapk YOll for your conSIderatIon m thiS matter Smcerely, " RECfE~VE[) ~PR 0 '7 lU04 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue P.O Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon MIke Reynolds, Planmng DIrector RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGINAL Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resldenl of /I,?6 "9- and I am wnlmg m objeelton 10 the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of cOndOmInIUmS at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road The ongInal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUIred a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two con tIn uances of the Commum ty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUIres a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mIdpomt and a reductIOn In the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It tS ObVIOUS that the size of thIS project IS still too large for thIS netghborhood A bmldIng of this Size IS not m character With the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundIng commumty IS SIngle-family homes The SIze OfthIS project Will destroy the aesthetiCS ofthts quamt waterSIde commumty, and do more harm lhan good In preservmg the qualIty of thIS netghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, lnc & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve, lnc for a flexI bIe development approval 'Pl1ank you for your consideratIOn of this matter Smcerely, 071009 ~ cc ~_5J ~ C\J1D ~ L-_' 5 ~ C\J1D - C01~J... ""'" C) c::l C"J ~ ~ o L' J) ~~ ~ 1\ ( :.. ...J< C'_ ....1..!- l'J r.iJ C Z Z ! \ z u ~ \ I C I' REC\E~V\ED City of Clearwater Planning Department APR 1 t) 2004 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 \?LA~~~NG DEPARTMENT Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Ci1V OF CLEARWATER Attentton Mike Reynolds, Planmng DIrector RE: FLD2003~09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of 1\3'1 ~le':'J &rtt'J-- and I am wntmg m objectton to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve and I 0 I 0, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, which reqUIres a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelIng that the denSity of thIS project is entIrely too large for thiS neighborhood Many obJecttons from area residents have been raised concemmg the effect the requested vanance wIll have on thiS resIdenttal commumty ~ ThiS will become the tallest bUIldmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-famIly residences, whIch destroys the aesthettcs of this quamt commumty ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS denSity ~ The proposed 77 umts, along wIth the likelIhood of 2 vehicles per umt, will put addlttonal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area. ~ The overall negattve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt condommmm located lmposmgly m a smgle-famtly resldenttal area will dIrectly affect property values and theIr abilIty to resell It will also affect area property taxes It IS my feelIng that the SIze of this project will do more hann than good m preservmg the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your consideratIOn m thiS matter Smcerely, ?AA=r)~ CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Planmng Director I I \ ) ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-090S0 Dear SIr or Madam, -.... ::-:-.--u'------........... I /' I am a resident of !tJftJ C/flJll Les and I am wntmg m obJectlOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condomml urns at 1 919 & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve and 1 01 0, 1012, & 102 0 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the side setback from 10 feet to 585 feet After two contmuanceybfthe CommunIty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUIres a h~t varpnce to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIOn m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feeV It IS obvlpus that the SIze of this project IS still too large for this neighborhood ~ ' A bUIldmg of thIS size IS not In character With the surroundmg commumty when 99% ofthe surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famlly homes The size of thiS project wIll destroy the aesthetIcs of thIS quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fle)"lble development approval Thank you for your conSideratIon of this matter Sincerely, ;:$1/e~J(/ "V ~h 7 --- q - o~ n OJ1Jl ~ = "'=1- C) ~ CT) Dd1D g 0J10 COv-c --......_ _ v :5 -, I- Z W IT ::;: w c.. f- o <r -l if) -"';: ~wcr [!J 2,2 ....J U>-l -""a::u ....., UJ ('J V) lL Z 0 z i:- z - :S u 0.. CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGINAL Dear SIr or Madam, ~ I am a resident of i 13(Q ~ ~. U ~I am wntmg III objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgc",ater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condomIlllUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductiOn m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUires a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductiOn In the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the SIze of thIS project IS still too large for thIS neighborhood A bUlldmg Oftl11S SIze IS not III character With the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-farmly homes The Size of this prOject Will destroy the aesthetIcs OfthIS quamt watersIde eommumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Ine & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your consIderation of thIS matter Smcerely, ~~dL. ~~ ? jlojcJf rr-SJ ~ ~ c:::~ == O--fl_~) J ~) Od1D l-- Z ~ [1 CL I- o <- uj if) ~ ~U rr L ( ;;:;; :5J ~ ~ ~) ) -'. 7" , -, ~ .t:; (I r:~ v---, 2 - ~ f ~----~ , i _r l ~ , ------.. -- - ~ - - ~~--- ~ ~~-----.-......--.-........ - 8 C"'J ('I") City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director 1UE:~1)2003-09050 - - -- ----.--~r - - - 0,--(" L r ~ n r \., 12 , ~L~; 1~ 1~~; !f~I! ~ , ~ \1 MAR 1 5 ~ I~l ! L.l ul ~~ ~ ~_~~_ _ _ ~ ,:-"O.C' r ~ I t ~~ ~l roo lr:: f~)_r:. 'iV~r;~... uV ~lt; ~ (',- - '" r (~~~: ~\\ ~:~\t , ~ Cr', A l .:...----~ Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of ,,1(; t-W0 '71C CP and I am wnling in objection to the approval requested by Top Igbt Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, loCo for the construction of condommtums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Point Road. The proposal is for 77 units, winch reqmres a height variance to 75 feet and a reduction in the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feehng that the denSity ofthts project is entirely too large for this neighborhood Many objections from area reSIdents have been rmsed concerning the effect the requested vanance will have on this residentIal community ) This will become the tallest building in the area, loommg over the single-family residences, which destroys the aesthetics of this quamt commuruty Tins also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSity ) The proposed 77 ufllts, along with the likehhood of2 vehtcles per urnt, will put additional traffic strain on the already t)urdened roadways of Sunset Point Road and Edgewater Drive This IS not safe for the many pedestrians that frequent tlns area ) The overall negabve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- umt condommmm located imposingly in a single-fannly reSidential area will directly affect property values and their abihty to resell It will also affect area property taxes It is my feelmg that the size of this project will do more harm than good in preserving the qualtty ofthts neighborhood I am requesting that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideranon m tins matter S~, Cf rrs~ 4 vr d CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of //31 Cflllt.LtS 3"T"" and I am wnhng m obJectlOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construchon of condommmms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 10lO, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUlred a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductlOn m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the CommuOlty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUlres a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mIdpolOt and a reductIOn m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the size of thiS project IS still too large for thIS neighborhood A bUlldlOg ofthlS SIze IS not m character WIth the surroundlOg commuOlty when 99% ofthe surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The SIze of this project WIll destroy the aesthetics OfthIS quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of thIs neIghborhood I am requestmg that the CommuOlty Development Board deny tlte request of Top Fhght Enterpn5es, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIon ofthl5 matter smcerelYt4 ~ 7/9/( rr3J _.. _:1.1 [1&!] ~ c:::: = [1:D~ g [1J1!J (F)'r :=--:J : J __~~ --1 =:;J J l- Z w C" :2 llJ D. c- o .:! ~~ /! (j ~ ) L :;. :6 ~ ) C'J (11 Z Z ~ Z. u ::5 0.. o::::t ~ ~ C"J ('Y) CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department tOO S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Planmng Director RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGINAL Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of / 1# ~k and I am wntmg m ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Fligh t Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which IeqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon III the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whlch reqUires a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIon m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obVIOUS that the SIze of thIS prOJec1Is stIll too large for thiS neIghborhood A bUlldmg of thIS SIze 15 not In character WIth the sUIToundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commu11lty IS smgle~fanllly homes The size of this project wl1l destroy the aesthetIcs of this quamt watersIde commumty, and do mOle hann than good In preservmg the quality ofthls neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewatcr Dnve, loc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your conSideratIOn OfthIS matter Smcerely, ~~fr1r >> N, c;?<tJL?t (?~ \ )- rr\ z UJ OJW :::t ~\ "<:j" Q ~ C) 0 ~ w (j~ -.. I' I C"") ~ I = , ~ jULn ( ;;- ) \ o.jC::: l, g :5 t;V' I ~ L I :? 0J!1] L I < ul (F)'rJ ....J li- t ..........- ...- ~ City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planning Director 'I -TfYfj-lr"s 1-lilliT}~--r - u ,..2.: '!J Y \ 'J (t., ~ i~~L~,~r~,5~ J~; -- '" .II~ l:: J :V:. t ~ ~iv(:,' s~,r,' L l~/\( "'c"""';;>lilf'T,-:;'J U""-'~ - --__--;:-- -. ..'" "":.,- "I.t L'\.:.. -,rt.::.l'-~ ---==-J IUE:F1lD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of 1/i/1 Lk,~ fi and I am wnting in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, IDe. for the construction of condominiums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 10 10, 10 12, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road. The proposal is for 77 units, wluch reqwres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feeling that the denSIty of this project is entirely too large for this neighborhood Many objecuons from area resIdents have been raised concermng the effect the requested variance will have on tins resIdential community >> This \viII become the tallest building m the area, loommg over the smgle-family residences, wluch destroys the aesthetics of tlus quamt commuruty This also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSity );> The proposed 77 units, along With the hkehhood of 2 vehicles per urnt, will put additional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Point Road and Edgewater Dove This is not safe for the many pedestrians that frequent this area );> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- unit condominium located imposingly in a single-fanuly residential area will directly affect property values and therr ability to resell It will also affect area property taxes It IS my feeling that the SIZe of this project will do more harm than good in preservmg the quahty of this neighborhood I am requesting that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterprises, loc & 1925 Edgewater Dove. loc for a fleXible development approval Thank: you for your conslderatIon in tlus matter Smcerely, f~)?I~ ;Va J? e it e H a J q. '" S~JL/.~J./ City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planning Director 1UE:~D2003-09050 , flJ-" [E ~ r~ n ~q [E W-~;ll I ~ ,------ -- ----] 1 I I'll i I III JI MAR 1 5 20010 :u J I I -, . <> --- -~ ~= I l'i r (lr':" 1_ 'J : \! ~I ,y)tlfl~~i'JT SvC,., l T' U' CU::"FlWAfEA ' -- ~-== - -- ~- ~ ~. Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of J \ Y q c ho..(tes Sf and I am writing in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condominiums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal is for 77 units, winch requires a height variance to 75 feet and a reductiOn in the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feebng that the density of this project IS entirely too large for tlus neighborhood Many objections from area residents have been raised concerning the effect the requested variance will have on this resIdentIal commumty ,.. This will become the tallest building m the area, looming over the single-family reSidences, wluch destroys the aesthetics of this quaint community Tins also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSity );> The proposed 77 units, along with the hkehhood of 2 vehicles per urnt, wIll put additional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Point Road and Edgewater Drive This IS not safe for the many pedestrians that frequent tlus area };> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- unit condomirnum located imposingly m a single-farmly residential area will directly affect property values and their ability to resell It Will also affect area property taxes, It IS my feeling that the size of tIns project will do more harm than good in preserving the quality of tins neighborhood I am requestmg that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterprises, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideration In tins matter Smcerely, ~~ (C \(LLM--cl.k , · Clty of Clearwater Plarmmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Plannmg Director RE: FLD2003-09050 %/ry Dear SIr cr Madam, I am a resIdent of/'777' ~C/ ~ uf.5 #.HAW I am wntmg m ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet. After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the CUffent proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUIres a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roof's mIdpomt and a reductIOn m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the size of thIS project IS stIll too large for this neighborhood A bUlldmg of thIS SIze IS riot 111 character wIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% o(the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famtly homes The SIze of thIS project WIll destroy the aesthetics of this quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good 10 preservmg the quality of thIS neighborhood I am requestIng that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your consIderatIOn of thIS matter Smcerely, ;lJ~ j)?/~ I jO) ~.(C ~ ~ ~ ~}:::. ~' IUllI ~ 14~ lU)i I PLANNING & Df:VELOPMENT I SERVICES ~ I CITY OF CLE,\qWATER ' CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector ORIGII~!~\!_ RE: FLD2003-09050 71'1/or Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of If)J~ 5~J..o1 ).1)A.-and I am wntmg m ObjectlOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterpris s, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructlOn of condommmms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon m the side setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, WhICh reqUIres a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mIdpomt and a reduction m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVlOUS that the SIze of thIS proj eet IS still too large for thIS neighborhood A bUlldmg of thIS SIze IS not III character WIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle.famlly homes The Size of thIS PrOject will destroy the aesthetics of thIS quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good III preservmg the quahty of this neIghborhood. I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deity the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Ine & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Ine for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your consIderatIon of thiS matter \ Smcerely, ~. ~ 7J1 G#l e.ud-- r CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 ClealWater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-090S0 l----loL --0 r Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of / O~ 7 SUIVNf iJI!.a- iiz and I am wntmg III objectron to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of cOndOmInIUmS at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUIred a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductron In the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contInuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUIres a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs midpOInt and a reductIon m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the size of thiS project IS strll too large for thIS neighborhood A bUlldmg ofthlS SIze IS not In character with the surroundIng commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famlly homes The SIze of thIS project Will destroy the aesthetrcs of thIS quamt waterSIde commumty, and do more harm than good III preservmg the qualIty OfthIS neighborhood I am requestIng that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc. for a fleXIble development approval. Thank you for your conSIderatIon of thIS matter ---- ---; (? }) ~ w a: nnn ~ UJ ~ o...f-- ~ ~ h~1 nnn ~&:d L::!-~ UJ u... r? ['.'\ ==! ~ U) 0 ~ ==s ~ ~ [1J1D ~o r;:=::;~J a. i_g-~ ~\ -------- ~- ~ City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Planrung DIrector , -: ~1~'~-\{Tr~1rrn-~~~\ ,\U U; f) -, ~"~"--J II :\ ~ \r; \ 5 2001I \U G\ _ ~,~~~ ~ h I ,\~~~,~~~~t~~~lf~A $VC~ . l- ~ - ==-- RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of /1J;;75()Pf.l,/~R'vt- IJ/L, and I am writing in ObjectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condo1ll1ruums at 19 I 9 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 10 10, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal is for 77 uruts, winch requires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction In the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelIng that the density of !1us project IS entIrely too large for tins neIghborhood Many objections from area residents have been rat sed concerning the effect the requested vanance Wlll have on tins resIdenttal commumty ~ Tins Will become the tallest buildmg in the area, loo1ll1ng over the smgle-family residences, which destroys the aesthetics of thIS quatnt commumty Tins aiso encourages future development to match or exceed tins denSity ~ The proposed 77 uruts, along with the likelIhood of2 velncles per umt, will put additIOnal traffic stratn on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Point Road and Edgewater Dnve This IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area ~ The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- urnt condorruruum located Impos1Ogly 10 a s1OgIe-fanuly reSIdential area will dIrectly affect property values and their ability to resell It wtll also affect area property taxes It is my feelmg that the SIZe of this project will do more harm than good 10 preserving the quality of this neIghborhood I am request10g that the Commuruty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterprises, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideratton ill tlus matter 3l/b~-~1 . ~ . ~ o I ::RiOlI2~rn W' h.ANNING & DEVELOPMENJVCb CITY OF CLEARWATER There IS a consIderation of some company to build a condomimum on Edgewater Drive between Sunset Pomt Road and Sunnydale Drive I am opposed to this construction. I request any vanances needed to start the project be denied S ir( s )/Madam( s) 2/27/2004 This area IS already impacted with too much traffic and It is already very difficult to get out of Sunny dale Drive onto Edgewater Dnve because of the mtense traffic flow. ThIS area IS already established as a predommately one story, smgle fanllly residences and an addIt ion of a multi story building to community would lower the quality of the neighborhood. The view of the mtercostal waterway would be mhiblted from Sunnydale Dnve and Sunset Pomt Road Agam I am agarnst buildmg the condonllmums m tlus area and request that all mvo Ived m the decISIon to consider denymg required permitting ~ince !&/ .. \ ,~~~ Fre MIlls 1028 Sunnydale Drive Clearwater, Flonda 33755 CIty of Clearwater P1anmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director OR\G\Njl,~ 7-lf-Of/ RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of IO,t.f/' )p.11I1 veL", (R O~ and I am wntmg m ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterpri'es, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommmms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUired a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUires a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs ffiIdpomt and a reductIOn m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the Size of thIS project IS stIll too large for thiS neighborhood A bUlldmg ofthls size IS not m character with the surroundmg commumty when 99% ofthe surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famlly homes The size ofthls project WIll destroy the aesthetics of this quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, lnc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, lnc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIOn of thiS matter y t/1JJ Smcerely, PLANNING & CEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF ClE.\RWATER " \ ~. . . Dean J Falk 1030 Sunnydale Dr Clearwater FL 33755 July 14,2004 Community Development Board 112 Osceola Ave Clearwater FL 33755 To Whom It May Concern PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF CLEARWATER My concerns about the fleXIble development plans penmttmg the heIght change, although less than before, of the proposed bUlldmg at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dr & 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Dr are 1 ) Yes, Top Fhght Development has reduced the bUlldmg heIght from 75 feet to 59 feet mId roof, thIS sounds hke a bIg conceSSIon, but the timshed heIght of the bUlldmg IS stdl almost 1 ~ tImes the heIght of the Comfort SUItes across the street At 59 feet mId pomt of the roof, addmg the rest of the roof It WIll be at 62 Yz, compared to the 34 foot roof heIght and 42 feet 11 mches finished of the Comfort SUItes I beheve a precedent was set 10 October of 2000 when the Comfort SUItes was hmlted to 43 total feet ---l <:( :2 - (!) - 0:::: o 2) By reducmg the heIght of the buddmg, Top Fhght Development has also ehmmated any stalr-steppmg to transfonn from the smgle famIly, 10 foot mId roof, housmg on Sunset Pomt Dr and Sunnydale Dr ThIs was reqUIred by the CIty Plannmg Department and the Community Development Board at the tirst meetmg Top Fhght Development has agam created a very bIg box 3) Increasmg traffic m the already congested area of Edgewater Dr at Sunnydale Dr and Sunset Pomt already has the potential of delaymg emergency vehIcles Addmg 62 Units (124 vehIcles) at thIS pomt of Edge water Dr WIll only compound the danger, not to mention the mcrease traffic already from the V tlla Del Mar across the Bndge on Fort Hamson Ave Although there IS no eXIt on Edgewater Dr all the traffic WIll have to enter Edgewater Dr to go anywhere 4) The VIlla Del Mar should not be used as a comparIson for many reasons FIrst It IS across Stevenson Creek, second It has no reSIdential housmg next to It, thIrd It has a recreatIOnal area across the street, and forth It IS an entirely dIfferent neIghborhood The CIty even seems to agree because the street has dIfferent names on opposIte SIdes of the bndge 5) If It IS necessary to compare the Ashlelgh Condos proposal to the VIlla Del Mar remember the VIlla Del Mar may be the same heIght as the proposed Ashlelgh Condos, but the Ashlelgh Condos have over 4 ~ times the road frontage at 308 feet compared to 68 feet of the V Ilia Del Mar Any way you look at It, thIS IS a very large bUlldmg and does not belong 10 a reSidential neIghborhood \, 6) Esthetics One high rise buddmg 10 the middle of a mamly residential area will look out of place and create an eye soar on the skyhne The motel on the other side of Sunnydale Dr was restncted to less than 50 feet for thiS reason I am attachmg a scaled view the Comfort SUItes and the proposed Ashlelgh Condos from Edgewater Dr to demonstrate the Size of the buddIng The Comfort SUites IS already large for the neighborhood, hut the Ashleigh Condos dwarfs It by 3 fold plus 7) More of the same Proponents say there will not be more high-rise bUlldmgs because of zonlDg of the other property along Edgewater Dr I watched the tape and have seen the 2 Yz of the lots on Sunset Pomt Dr In thiS proposal bemg rezoned 10 a 10 mmute meetmg of the Commumty Development Board and the an 8 mInute meetmg of the City Council In 200 I 8) Another concern IS the light pollution from the parkmg garage Yes the 6 foot fence Will stop the head hghts of cars IIghtmg up the neighborhood, hut it will do nothmg to stop the parkmg garage hghts of a 9 foot cedmg from I1gbt up our back yards like It were mid afternoon 24 hours a day 9) BlockIng the sea breeze Proponents say the breeze comes from all dlfectlOn, which IS true, but the coolmg sea breeze IS the prevaIlmg westerly Wind I come from Mmnesota were we put up snow fences to disrupt the wmd and stop the snow nght behind the fence This budding wdl accomphsh the same effect Therefore, as a concerned neighbor, I am stilI opposed to allowmg a buddmg height of 59 feet mid roof (63 Yz feet total), but I am not opposed to a new building there although the motels that are there now seem to dOing a good bus mess . I would prefer to see not more than a 50 foot hmlt set as was done with the Comfort Suites next door Smcerely, ~ o-tt~ I 0 ,~:~~~; ~ 1030 Sunnydale Dr Clearwater FL 33755 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF CLEf,RWATER Attached View of proposed Ashlelgh Condo and Comfort SUites from West l::l31VM~V3l:J:l0 All:) S3:Jl^1:I3S J.N3Wd013^30 'S 8NINNVld <: H tIj ~ I-zj ~ o ::s: f:J:j tj Q tIj ~ 1-3 tIj ~ tj ~ , 1 I i I I .. .. ... .. , , " . 0:. 15 March 2004 Dean J F alk 1030 Smmydale Dr Clearwater FL 33755 Commumty Development Board 112 Osceola Ave C1eanvater FL 33755 To Whom It May Concern My concerns about the fle....lble development pennlttmg the hClght change ofthe proposed buddmg at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dr & 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Dr 1 ) I am confused about the zomng of the property The ZOOlng descnptlon of thlS property 15 tounst which J thmk of hotel, motel, gas StatlOn, or stores I do not understand why tills 77 multI-farmly resldentlal (attached) umts IS even conSidered m dus category 2) Increased traffic m an already congested area Sunnydale Dr has only one entrance WhlCh opens on to Edgewater Dr, thlS already has the potentlal of delaymg emergency vehicles Addmg 77 umts (154 vehicles) at the entrance of Sunnydale Dr Will only compound the danger 3) Esthetlcs One hlgh nse bUlldmg m the mIddle of a mamly reSidential area wllllook out of place and create an eye soar on the skylme The Motel on the other SIde of Sunnydale Dr was restncted to 50 feet for thiS reason 4) More of the same Proponents say there won't be more hlgh nse blllldmgs because of zomng of the other property along Edgewatcr Dr I would thmk rezorung IS no more a problem then gettIng pcrmlSSlon to build We have already seen thiS because 2 of the lots m tlus proposal must have been rezoned recently to comply, the zonmg map has not yet been updated 5) Blockmg the sea breeze Proponents say the breeze comes from all dlrectloR which IS true, but the coohng sea breeze lS the prevadmg westerly wmd I come from Mmnesota were we put up snow fences to diSrupt the wmd and stop the snow nght bchmd the fence ThIs budding w1l1 accomphsh the same effect Therefore, as a concerned nelghbor, I am opposed to alJowmg the change ofbmldmg heIght from 35 feet to 75 feet, but I am not opposed to a new buddmg there I would prefer to see a 50 foot limit set as was done WIth the motel next door Z/($ Dean J Z~~ 1030 Sunnydale Dr Clearwater FL 33755 ~ <J City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planning Director ;'; tE [~ r~!lW~ ~~I': I --=---- ]' ,) II In ,'; '~\ MAR 1 5 2004 ~ 'L' 'j '_.'. j I ,~ -~-~- r j rr - .. ~~......... ......\'~ ~rl ~~\, /....; It' 1 \: lr-L~.,.( t..J_ _ ;:..... &J , ,~::. ,-. - f 'i"1'll.TE::~ '" i _-:~"':-~..-.=--:~___--.::>:IiG~ RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of /0 3 0 5"n.-L V J a.f1, IJ,... and I am writmg in obJ ect:IOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condonuruums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal is for 77 units, whIch requires a height variance to 75 feet and a reduction in the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelIng that the density oftlus project is entirely too large for thIS neIghborhood Many objectIOns from area resIdents have been rmsed concerning the effect the requested variance wIll have on thIs residentIal community ~ This will become the tallest butldmg III the area, looming over the smgle-family residences, wmch destroys the aesthetics of thIS qUaInt commumty ThIs also encourages future development to match or exceed tlus densIty ~ The proposed 77 umts, along WIth the lIkelIhood of2 vehIcles per unit, Will put additional traffic strmn on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve This IS not safe for the many pedestrians that frequent thIs area ~ The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt condommlum located Imposmgly m a single-fanuly residential area will directly affect' property values and their abilIty to resell It will also affect area property taxes It is my feelmg that the size ofthts project will do more harm than good III preservmg the quahty of this neIghborhood I am requesting that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterprises, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consIderation m thIs matter Smcerely, dl$ ~ -It.(- oC( City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director ~ -~~~":-~......-....-.._"=iL.___ ;; L~ [~J fE II r1i ur:-rl~' 'J.-'I(----~~_1:L,~J ~'I ;~ 1 ~ ; I ;,L: ~"::"~~ ,f;~i:,;j~l '-'__ _./L~di:\i-:\!t'.(\TE(:, vlt....... ~ RE: FLD2003-090S0 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of I () It., e of r' and I am writIng in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enter ises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condominiums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal is for 77 units, whtch reqUIres a height variance to 75 feet and a reduction III the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feehng that the density of thIs project is entirely too large for tills neIghborhood Many objections from area residents have been raIsed concernmg the effect the requested variance will have on tins resIdentIal commumty )- This 'wIll become the tallest buildmg in the area, loorrung over the smgle-family resIdences, willch destroys the aesthetics of this quaint commumty Tills also encourages future development to match or exceed this densIty )- The proposed 77 units, along wtth the likehhood of2 vehicles per urut, wtll put addItional traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve Tins IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent this area ~ The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A mu1tI~ urut condominium located Imposmgly m a single-family residentIal area will dIrectly affect property values and theIr abilIty to resell It will also affect area property taxes It IS my feelmg that the size oftrus project will do more hann than good m preservmg the qualIty of this neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consIderation m thIs matter Sincerely, ;UI~ ~ 3/ir(ef ~ City of Clearwater P1anmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, P1annmg Director ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 '7 -- I;L-{!; t( Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of \ Q 31 f)l;V\'f\.VMUZ ~ and I am wntmg In obJectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condominIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUlred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn In the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUIres a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs midpOInt and a reductIOn m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obVIOUS that the SIze of thIS proJect IS stIll too large for thIS neighborhood A bUlldmg of this size IS not m character wIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The SIze oftlus proJect "1111 destroy the aesthetics of this quamt waterside commumty, and do more harm than good III preservmg the quality of thIs neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, loc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your conSIderation of thIs matter '-Ie' ~~ SIncerely, () .... Z UJ cr ~ I.LJ Q f- a <t cti(f)~ :> tll ~ ,,' u ~ c35~ e>1ffju ::5 GUlLI.. J 2: () J~ ;:: ~ Q 0~ --.:." - J ('-~ , _-II Q ; . I t - ~ '_h -... .. ~.........--_.... -& -.... - --~ n 0d1[J ~ ~ 0d1[J cL-2) 0d1[J (g ~ ('T) - ) CIty of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director RE: FL02003-09050 R~ClE~VED MAR' 5 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT e\'lY OF Cl~WATr;R Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of . I S cJ Vl n oI..a..k h!i I am wntmg m objection to the approval requested by Top Fligh Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, which reqUIres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction In the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelmg that the density of thIs project IS entIrely too large for thiS neighborhood Many objections from area residents have been raised concermng the effect the requested vanance will have on thiS resIdentl3l commumty ~ ThiS will become the tallest bUIldIng In the area, loommg over the SIngle-famIly residences, which destroys the aesthetics of this quamt conununlty ThIs also encourages future development to match or exceed thIS densIty ~ The proposed 77 UnIts, along WIth the IIkehhood of 2 vehicles per UnIt, will put addItional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area ~ The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- UnIt condommlUm located Imposmgly m a smgle-famIly reSidential area Will directly affect property values and theIr abilIty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It IS my feelmg that the Size of this proJect Will do more harm than good m preservmg the quahty of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the CommunIty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Toc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideratIon m thiS matter , 1fIetl~ CIty of Clearwater PlannIng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, PlannIng Director ORIGINAL July 13,2004 RE: FLD2003-09050 Members of the Commumty Development Board, I hve at 1034 Sunnydale Dnve and I would hke to VOIce my objectIon to the proposal for the cOndOmInIUm to be built on Edgewater Dnve, between Sunset POInt Road and Sunnydale Dnve Please note that preViously I Signed a petItIon In favor of thIS development, but after learnIng more about the proJect I am no longer a supporter I feel thiS project IS not m character with the surroundIng commumty ~~ Veromca Groth 1034 Sunnydale Dnve I L__ _ PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF CLEf,RWATER CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Cle~lrwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike ReynoJd~, Plannmg Director , D)I1!l[[~ !U~~::~l~fJ t Cr;,ro,.. .,tf;LQ.-, ~<..,\ ~ C'vc ---"'--...'..~R"':.'1 -.I RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of ' ~ a~ wrItmg m obJectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprise'.!, c. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the con'itructIon of condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater DrIve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS fOl 77 umts, which reqUires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon In the side setback flOm 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelmg that the denSIty of thIS proJect IS entIrely too large for thIS neIghborhood Many obJectIOns from area residents have been raised concernmg the effect the requested varIance wIll have on thIS resIdential communIty );> 1hl" will become the tallest bUlldmg m the area, loommg over the SIngle-family reSIdences, which destroys the aesthetics ot tim, quamt commumty ThIS also encourages future development to match or exceed thIS denSity );> The proposed 77 umts, along With the likelihood of 2 vehIcles per umt, WIll put addItional traffic stram on the already burdened roddways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater DrIve ThIS IS not safe fOl the many pedestrI<lns that frequent thIS area );> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property value') A multI- UnIt condommlUm located lmposnlgly m a smgle-faml1y re'5ldentlal area will dIrectly affect property values and theIr abIlity to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It IS my feeling that the SIze of thIS proJect WIll do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty of thl~ neIghborhood I am requestmg that the CommunIty Development Board deny the request of Top Fltght EnterprIses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater DrIve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for lOur consJd:ratlOn III thIS matter smCerely,;;~lt. ~ J --I,,) - )..- (J" 'f ~/ ~ - -- --- --- .,.~ Page 1 O~l_~ Watkins, Sherry From Kate Belnlak [kbelnlak@tampabayrrcom] Sent Monday, May 17, 2004 4 10 PM To Watkins, Sherry Subject: Please Forward to COB Members FILE COpy May 17, 2004 Attn Communrty Development Board Ref FLD2003..o90S0 Members of the Board, It IS my understanding that on the agenda of the May 17th COB meeting there IS Director's Item which will be a diScussion of a tlmeframe review of FLD2003-0900 - 1925 Edgewater Dnve The developer IS requesting to move this Item up from the July CDS meeting agenda to the June meeting Please consider when deciding on this Issue the community's Interest In thIs Item The public present at the Apnl CDS meeting were told July and made plans for such. (Ie travel plans, summer vacations, etc) Also there would be no notification of a change of date made to the public Thank you for your consideration In this matter Sincerely, Mary Kate Belnlak (Party Status) 1039 Sunnydale Dnve 5/1 7/2004 ~ City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention' Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector ORIGINAL July 13, 2004 Member of the Commumty Development Board, RE: FLD2003-09050 I resIde at 1039 Sunnydale Dnve and did obtam party status at the CDB meeting on Apnl 20,2004 I wnte thIS to advise of my contInued obJection In the matter of Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc., and the constructIOn of condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road I understand the current proposal IS for bUlldmg height of 59 ft (to the mldpomt of the roof slope) and 62 umts 1 feel this IS still out of character with the rest of the commumty The surroundmg commumty IS predommantly smg1e-fanllly reSidentIal with the only comparable bUl1dmg bemg the property to the north, whIch IS 43 feet. There would be a 625ft bUIldmg next to a 43 ft bUl1dmg, adjacent to smgle~faml1y residential and water, WhICh do you see as out of character? As stated at the last heanng I am not agamst sensible development, and after the heanng on Apnl 20th myself and two other party status members met wIth the Mr Dennehy m an attempt to reach a compromise that would satisfy both the residents of the commumty and the developer While we, the party status holders, do not speak for the commumty It was dIscussed that the communIty would most likely be more acceptmg of a bUlldmg no greater than 50 ft ,more comparable to the Comfort SUites, the property to the north I feel the size of the current proposal Will do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of thIS neighborhood and the quahty ofhfe for It'S reSidents I am requestmg that the members of the Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consideratIOn ofthls matter. Smcerely, Y()CCj k,dfu ~~ Mary Kate Belmak o ~(c~~\Jl~ A I 4 2004 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ("'IT' Cler- -'"""f,Tr-q CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Plannmg Director ORIG\NAL RE: FLD2003-090S0 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of I () 77 )tJNJJ1f)/1 ~ JDl1.. and I am wntmg m objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condomllll ums at 1919 & 1 925 Edgewater Dn ve and 1 010, 1012, & 1 020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUired a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Comm Ulll ty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUIres a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mIdpomt and a reductIOn m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obVIOUS that the denSity of thIS proJect IS still too large for thIS neighborhood A bmldmg of thIS size IS not III character wIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The denSity of this proJect Will destroy the aesthetics of this quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the quahty of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consIderatIOn m thIS matter PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF CLEi,RWATER City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Planning Director :: ~II 11; Cfm 0 W it rni: iU~ MARI5~ WJl I, ._,_ ~ If\f'.,$..... ~~__-.:Io..",...,-~___ ~ vt., _:I ,)1:='" 10t- L. ~ , ""'4 ~ 'V l~ l r It.... l ... ",JYlE:..9.f AF1NA 1 Hi..... Ii C., RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of \ 0 ~ am wntmg in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, I & 1925 Edgewater Drive, IDe. for the construction of condonnmums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal is for 77 units, which requIres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelmg that the density of this project IS entIrely too large for this neIghborhood Many obJectIOns from area reSidents have been raIsed concermng the effect the requested variance wtll have on thIs reSIdentIal commuruty }> This Will become the tallest buildmg in the area, looming over the single-famIly reSidences, whIch destroys the aesthetiCS of this quamt commuruty ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSity }> The proposed 77 uruts, along With the likelihood of2 velucles per unit, wdl put addItional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Point Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent tlus area >- The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- unit condomIruum located imposingly in a smgle-famtly reSidential area Will directly affect property values and theIr abIlIty to resell It will also affect area property taxes It is my feehng that the SIZe of this project Will do more harm than good In preservmg the quahty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commuruty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, roc & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conSideration m tills matter Sincerely, ~ ~~'" 3 ~ /.J --- ')4J Lf )f -I Z, _240 r My name is Velma Andrews. I live at 1040 Sunnydale Drive, and have been there since January 1978. In these 25 years I have fought with many to keep our neighborhood as it is today - with a beautiful view of the Bay. I am here to protest the proposed height and number of units for the cond!lmini~ms to be built on Edgewater Drive and Sunset Point Road. I feel it is too tall, and entirely too large for our neighborhood. Edgewater Drive is not capable to handling the over flow of traffic as it is now. Sunset Point Road in the mornings and evenings is already bumper-to-bumper. Currently we are asked to water our lawns once a week due to water shortages. We all need to save on water as much as possible, and think of ways to conserve. How will 77units help this? Are we putting money before health? ~<l~w~ter D!i~e~ies th~_ ~IJJY 9peJl view of the Bay in a residential area in Clearwater. So many people enjoy it. Often the residents here are told how lucky we are to live in this beautiful -area. I feel if the, height and number of units for these condominiums j is approved it will only be a short time before Edgewater Drive will be another Sand Key or Ft. Lauderdale. Myself, and the other residents, do not want this. Please do not allow a building this tall in our community. I appreciate your consideration in the matter. Thank you. ,( ~ '-'.:- ~I/~ ,/.../2- UiJ if RECEIVED APR 1 2 20D~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon. Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector ORIGINAL 7/tJ/f RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a reSIdent of and I am wntmg m obJection to the approval requested by Top light Enterprises, I . & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommlums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUIred a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the side setback from 10 feet to 585 feet After two continuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUIres a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reduction In the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the SIze of thiS proJect IS still too large for thIS neighborhood A bUlldmg of thIS size IS not m character with the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famlly homes The SIze of thIS project WIll destroy the aesthetIcs of this quaInt waterSide commumty, and do more harm than good In preservmg the quality of this nelghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conslderatIOn of this matter Smcerely, ~ (! ~ City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planmng Director ~lEC[E~V~[Q) "'1AR 1 5 100\ IPLAl\\N!NG DEPA~l~~\NJ1r cnrv OF GlEARWA1[:~' 1UE:~D2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a reSIdent of I () 1/-:2 ~ ) and I am wnting in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Eoterpris , Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Ioe. for the construction of condommIums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 10 10, 10 12, & 1020 Sunset Pornt Road The proposal is for 77 UIllts, which requires a height variance to 75 feet and a reductIOn in the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feelIng that the densIty of this project IS entrrely too large for this neIghborhood Many objections from area resIdents have been raised concerning the effect the requested variance will have on this residenttal commuruty >> This \VIII become the tallest building in the area, loomIng over the single-family residences, whtch destroys the aesthettcs of this quaint commumty This also encourages future development to match or exceed this densIty >> The proposed 77 uruts, along with the likelIhood of 2 vehtcles per umt, will put addttlonal traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Point Road and Edgewater Drive This is not safe for the many pedestrians that frequent this area >> The overall negattve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- unit condommIum located imposmgly in a smgle-fannly resIdential area will directly affect property values and their ability to resell It Will also affect area property taxes It is my feelmg that the size oftlus project will do more harm than good 10 preserving the qualIty ofthIs neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Drive, IDe for a fleXible development approval Thank: you for your consideratIon 10 this matter Smcerely, n'l CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 l/fe( /;1' Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of /6e..{;;... and I am wntmg m obJectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterpri es, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUired a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUires a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reduction m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the size of thiS proJect IS stili too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUlldmg oftlns size IS not m character wIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-farmly homes The SIze of thIS proJect will destroy the aesthehcs of this quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dove, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consIderatIOn of thIS matter Smcerely, ~~/I~ o ~(C~~\W~ JUL I 4 2004 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF CLE,\RWATER City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Planmng Director g r:~'J0 rrc ~ VIE D ,~~=~6 RE: FLD2003-09050 M~r{ , 5 10Gu ~y~W~~~G IOlElPt1\\Ffn 1\,~E~T erN OIF lGlf~~WAT~R , Dear Sir or Madam, I am a reSident of".E? sYZ- So'~t: ~ and I am wnting in ObjectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Ine. for the constructIon of condominiums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dove and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pornt Road The proposal IS for 77 units, which requires a height variance to 7S feet and a reduct10n in the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feelIng that the denSity of tins project IS entIrely too large for this neighborhood Many objections from area residents have been raised concerning the effect the requested vanance will have on thiS reSidential commumty )I> This W1ll become the tallest building in the area, looming over the single-fanuly reSldences, winch destroys the aesthetIcs of this quaint community This also encourages future development to match or exceed tlus denSity )I> The proposed 77 UnIts, along With the lIkelihood of2 vehicles per UnIt, will put additIonal traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Point Road and Edgewater Dove This IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent this area )I> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- UnIt condommium located imposingly m a single-farmly residential area will dIrectly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It will also affect area property taxes It IS my feeling that the SIze of this project Will do more harm than good ill preserving the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideration ID this matter C-- Sincerely:r~ lYJ~ City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue P.O Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Planl1lng DIrector ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 1/r~/ Dear SIr or Madam, I am a reSident of to ~__ (D)).IIjf.JlALr. J>e and I am wntmg III obJectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterpr' es, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommmms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmaI proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUired a height variance to 75 feet and a reduction III the side setback fTom 10 feet to 585 feet After two contInuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 Ul1lts, which reqUires a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs midpoInt and a reduction In the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obVIOUS that the size of thiS proJect IS still too large for thIS neighborhood A bUlldmg of this SIze IS not In character with the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle~famIly homes. The size of this proJect WIll destroy the aesthetics of this quaInt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commul1lty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Ine & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval. Thank you for your consideration of thiS matter Smcerely, ?~ ~ fl'\ ~ o ~t~~~~ JUL I A 2004 PLANNING & r.EVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF CLE;,qWATER CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flondd 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, P1anmng Director R[EC[E~~lED MAR 1 5 2D04 RE: FLD2003-09050 ~ ;~,,~W~JU\1G lDl~!;Q)APi1~~~lE~1' t,u N OF Cl~~WATlER Dear SIr Ol Madam, /D'i 6 ~y!4 J)~ 11. I am a resident of -~K -:id->>,urJ ,~) 'if:> and I am wntmg m objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condorrnmum~ at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 UnIts, which reqUires a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelIng that the denSIty of thiS proJect IS entIrely too large for thiS neighborhood Many obJectIOns from area residents have been raised concermng the effect the requested vanance wIll have on thiS resIdentIal commumty );:> ThIS WIll become the tallest bUlldmg 10 the are,l, loommg over the smgle-fanll1y re~ldences, whIch destroys the aesthetIcs of thiS quamt commumty Thl<; also encourages futUle development to match or exceed thiS denSIty );> The propo<;ed 77 umts, along WIth the hkehhood of 2 vehicles per umt, WIll put addItIOnal traffic stram on the already burdened roadwdY,) of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not ~afe for the many pedcstnan~ that frequent thiS area );> The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt condommIUm located Imposmgly III a smgle-family reSidentIal area Will dIrectly affect property values and theIr abIlIty to resell It WIll also affect alea property taxe<; It IS my feelmg that the ~Ize of thIS proJect WIll do mOle hJIm than good m preservmg thc qUalIty of thiS neighborhood I am requestmg that the CommunIty Development Board dellY the request of Top FlIght Enterpllses, Tnc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, lnc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your con'Ude13tIOn m thIS matter Smcerely, Il1l1 .. " I J C/ ~0-C0 -^- _ U/ftAA- ~ .3 ~ '-1- 0 ( , , City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector o RIG 1 N ~\ ~ 7-!r~cJV RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a reSident of and I am wntmg m objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, I . & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommIums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqmred a heIght Variance to 75 feet and a reduction m the Side setback from 10 feet to 585 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUlres a height Variance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIOn m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obVIOUS that the size of thiS proJect IS still too large for thiS neighborhood A bmldmg of this size IS not III character wIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famlly homes The size of this proJect WIll destroy the aesthetics of thiS quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good III preservmg the quality of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideration ofthls matter " Smcerely, vf2e.J/CU 4raAlt PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES \_ CITV OF CLEI\RWATER CIty of Clearwater P1annmg Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mlke Reynolds, Pldnmng Dlrector REClE~VED MAR 15 2nr.~ ~LAN\NH\AG DEPARTMENT erN OF C~~RWAT5R RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, Q. n n Il ..1 / /0 l/ ~ -<..J.M>>1 d aik ~ I} o....;J' . ;.J..{ , - - 337.J:3 I am a resIdent of' and 1 am wntmg In ObjectIOn to the approval reque~ted by Top Fligli Ente prises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewuter DrIve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POlOt Road The proposa1Ib for 77 umts, which reqUires d height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It 1:' my feelmg that the density of thiS project 1S entirely too lal ge for thiS neIghborhood Many obJectIOns from alea resIdents have been ral~ed concernmg the effect the requested varIance WIll have on thl<; resIdentIal commul1lty );> ThIS WIll become the tallest bUlldmg m the area, lOOmIng over the smgle-fmmly residences, whlch destIoys the aesthetics of thiS quamt commumty ThIS also encoUlages future development to match or exceed thiS den:.lty );> The plOposed 77 umts, along With the likelIhood of 2 vehIcles per umt, WIll put addItIonal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater DlIve ThIS IS not safe fO! the many pedestllans that frequent thiS area );> The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt condommIUm located Imposmgly m a 'lIngle-family reSIdential area WIU directly affect property values and theIr abIlity to resell It will also affect area property taxes It IS my feelmg that the SIze of thIS proJect Will do mOle harm than good m preservmg the qualIty of thIS neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght EnterprIses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Ine for a fleXIble development applOval Thank you for your conSIderatIOn In thl'> matter Smcerely, J I / :.J 1dJ.4!1?WAA-J- ..3-/V-6~ City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon MIke Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector OR\G\NAL RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of 10 V 7 .5:t:.yv" V ~ and I an1 wntmg m obJ ectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises;Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condomInIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUired a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which requnes a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIOn m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the size of thiS proJect IS still too large for thiS neIghborhood A bUlldmg of thIS size IS not III character with the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes ThE' SIze of this proJect WIll destroy the aesthetICS of thiS quamt waterSide commumty, and do more harm than good III preservmg the qualIty of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your conSideration of thIS matter Smcerely, 1-laO€( o 0d1D ~ ====::. fJd1D y 0d1D ro-v C-J l ~ _ <_ ~_ ~ ~ (T) I- Z W 0: :::'E LU c... ,- o < --J(/).... ~ llt [f- III Ll (~ ;; ~J eclO:() lJ_' l1. ~(J)o Z (> z '= :s u 0... =5 ), - ------- City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 AttentIon MIke Reynolds, Planning Director RECE~VED MAR 1 ~ lOO~ PLAN~ING DEPARTMENT CITY Qf QL.~RWATm RE: FLD2003-09050 . -t-nJ'1 Ot .337SS Dear SIT or Madam, ~WG1'\'1'1"'-I\ L..- I am a resident of 10 y 7 S~ ~d I am wntmg in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, c. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condominIums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal is for 77 units, which requires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction in the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feeling that the density of this project is entirely too large for this neighborhood Many objections from area resIdents have been raIsed concerning the effect the requested vanance will have on this resIdential community }> This will become the tallest building in the area, looming over the smgle-famIly residences, which destroys the aesthetics of this quaint community This also encourages future development to match or exceed this densIty }> The proposed 77 units, along With the lIkelihood of2 vehicles per unit, wIll put additional traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Point Road and Edgewater Dnve This IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent tlus area >> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- umt condomiruum located imposingly In a single-farmly residential area will dIrectly affect property values and theIr abihty to resell It will also affect area property taxes It is my feeling that the SIZe of this project will do more harm than good in preservmg the quality of this neIghborhood I am requestIng that the Commuruty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterprises, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Ioc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your consideration In t atter SIncerely, ) ~rcWA--~rra.11l .s-/'/-oy CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentlOn MIke Reynolds, Planmng Director OR1GINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 7 - (;2-Oj/' Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of \c:J \ ~ ~~~I;)~~ ';.~. and I am wrItmg m obJectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condomlllJUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 Ul1lts, WhICh reqUired a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the side setback from 10 fcet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 Ul1lts, which reqUires a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reduction m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the size of thlS proJect IS still too large for thIS neighborhood A bUlldmg ofthl3 SIze IS not m character \vlth the surrounding commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The size of this proJect wIll destroy the aesthetics of this quaint watersIde commumty, and do more ham1 than good m prcservmg the quality of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny tlte request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approvaL Thank you for your conSideration of thiS matter Slncerel~ ,,~~~ ~ =------- \.O\~ S,,~~~~ o ~ ~ c= ~ U DJ1lJ ~ (Y) ~ ,... z W a: :2 lJJ 0... I- o <:( .....J(j)?,: ~ LJj a: wO o5~ ~a:o lJJ (9U)l1.. Z 0 Z ~ z - 5 0 0... I City of Clearwater PlannIng DepaI tment lOO S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flouda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Plannmg Director , - ;r!'-("10r2:--lrrem~ r- L~'l-&.~JJ1Ji~\1 ~, iL!: ;'ul'11 MAR 1 5 2004 J/f I} !i) : i L~/i I r -~-,- --~- II 1,-~~t1 .......~I-~ .-"";........,....,....,..,....._~ j , , '" - \" ' ') ,'" (' f' 1 r, ... t..J~7\.& ~'- t....:< vV jl; ~__41~~~~-~~t?~~J'1TEf1 """~ - ~~~~ " RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SJr or Madam, I am a resIdent of \o(){) Se~ee()C\.. OS \-- and I am wntmg m obJectIOn to the approval requested by Top Ii'light Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 UilltS, WhICh reqUIres a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn III the side setback from 10 feet tq 5 85 feet It 1<; my feelmg that the den<;Ity of thiS project I~ entirely too large for thlS nCIghborhooc,f ~\ / Many objectIons from alea resIdents have been raIsed concermng the effect the requested vanance wIll have on thIs resIdentIal commumty }. ThIS WIll become the tallest bUIldmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-famlly re'lIdences, WhKh dc::.troy<; the aesthetics of thiS quamt commumty ThIS a150 enGOuragcs future development to match or exceed thiS denSity }. The proposed 77 ullItS, along WIth the likelihood of2 vehIcles per umt, WIll put addItIOnal traffIC stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater DrIve Thl<; IS not safe for the many pede<;tnam that frequent thI<; area > The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multJ- Uillt condommlUm locatcd Imposmgly m a smgle-famIly re<;tdenttal area Will dIrectly affect property values and their ability to resell It WIll dl"o affect area property taxes It IS my feelmg that the SIze of thIS proJect WIll do more harm than good III preservmg the quality of thiS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top Flight EnterprIses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, lnc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIOn m tIns matter Smcerely, k:. / S-\~e- S -\;1 a h r- ( 0",-/ CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of ItJa / c5ffIJF/5(/J/-- and I am wntmg m obJection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condomml ums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, WhICh reqUired a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn III the slde setback from 10 feet to 585 feet After two contmuances of the Community Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUires a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs oudpomt and a Ieductlon m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obvIOUS that the size of thIS project IS still too large for tIus neighborhood A bUlldmg of thiS sIze IS not In character with the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-f31m1y homes The sIze of thIS proJect WIll destroy the aesthetics of this quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, lnc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideration of thiS matter smce~ ~ 1)-/o-oLj' City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 i\ttentIon Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director ORIGiNAL JRE: FLD2003-09050 7 - /!2.. - of! Dear Sir or Madam, I am a reSident of J D31 ~eJEf'll~ Q and I am wntmg m obJectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUired a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUires a height VarIance to 59 feet at the roofs rmdpomt and a reduction m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obVIOUS that the SIze of thiS proJect IS stIll too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUlldmg of thiS size IS not m character with the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The size of this project will destroy the aesthetics of this quamt waterside commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIOn of thiS matter Smcerely, C~ VVc~ cg Q f- ~ @ '~Jf)~1 t::::=::I . I n C"'") {1 ., _ ( =: LLfLJ I I j . (qr~- ~ I --...-- - __J City of ClealWater Planning Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue P.O. Box 4748 ClealWater, Florida 33758 Attention: Mike Reynolds, Planrung Drrector RE: FLD2003-090S0 REC\E~V\ED APR 0 7 2004 PlAINN~NG DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Dear Sir or Madam, I affi"'"lt resIdent of 1 D3'1 Sede-eva 51. and I am wnt10g 10 obJection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condomlOiums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Po1Ot Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, which reqUires a heIght VarIance to 75 feet and a reduction m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet. It IS my feellOg that the densIty of this project IS entirely too large for thIS neIghborhood. Many objections from area residents have been raised concernmg the effect the requested VarIance WIll have on thIS residentIal commumty - =.:::: t...._ ,., )> ThIs WIll become the tallest bUlldmg m the area, loommg over the slOgle- family residences, whIch destroys the aesthetIcs of thIS quamt commumty ThIS also encourages future development to match or exceed thIS densIty )> The proposed 77 umts, along with the lIkehhood of2 vehicles per umt, Will put addlt1(~_~al traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dflve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area )> The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- umt condommmm located Imposmgly III a smgle-fromly reSIdential area Will directly affect property values and their ability to resell It Will also affect area property taxes It IS my feehng that the size of this project will do more harm than good m preservmg the quahty of thIS neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conSideratIon III thiS matter Smcerely, COJl1tlUAA Wtf?to "- ." ,. , City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planmng Dlfector REC~~V(E[; APR 1 2 2004 I RE: FLD2003-09050 PLAU\1~:MG lOEf>A~TME~T erN OF CLEARWATER Dear Sir or Madam, I ani~a resident of I 034 S e.~eev tt ~t. -and I am wntmg m objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condomlmums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, whIch reqUIres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet It IS my feeling that the densIty of thIs project IS entirely too large for thIs neighborhood Many obJections from area reSidents have been raIsed concemmg the effect the requested vanance WIll have on thiS reSIdential commumty -, ~ ThiS Will become the tallest bUlldmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-famlly reSIdences, whIch destroys the aesthetics of thiS quamt communIty ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS denSity ~ The proposed 77 umts, along With the likelihood of 2 vehicles per UnIt, WIll put addItional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area ~ The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- urnt condommmm located Imposmgly m a smgle-famIly reSidentIal area Will directly affect property values and theIr ability to resell It Will also affect area property taxes It IS my feeling that the SIze of this project WIll do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the CommunIty Development Board dellY the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consIderation m thiS matter smcere~ City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Plarmmg DIrector ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, ~ 0 >9 ~~~ ~'t'l{ I am a reSident of ~ ~jt~ and I am wntmg III obJectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUired a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet After two contmuances of the Comillumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUires a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs lludpomt and a reductIOn m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obvIOUS that the size of thiS proJect IS still too large for thiS neIghborhood A bUlldmg of thIS size IS not m character With the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The SIze of thIS project will destroy the aesthetiCS oftlus quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top- Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSideration OfthIS matter Smcerely, ~~. /#:;.9 S'~~/ ~_____ c0wf~ fi/ ~~1f,b 1/7/0'( PLANNING & Or.:VELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF CLE,..' RWATER City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector OR\GiNAL RE: FLD2003-09050 7 -/;2 -<J ~ Dear SIr or Madam, I am a reSIdent of / d4::r-- ~ am wntmg In objectIon to tbe approval requested by Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUIres a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mIdpomt and a reduction m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obvIOUS that the size of thiS proJect IS still too large for thiS neIghborhood A bUlldmg of thIs SIze IS not m character With the sUIToundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The size of this project will destroy the aesthetics of this quamt waterside commumty, and do more harm than good In preservmg the quality of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSIderation of this matter :;;~ ~ ~. Cd Dd1JJ ~ 8 t::::::::::J "" Dd1JJ ~ ~ ~ CPe ---_-l I ---------.1 ..-. z UJ cr ~ UJ Q f- a <:: -1(1)~ UJu;cr it; U ...- 05::; ""cru (') UJ u.. zUJa 2 j:: 2' _ S U Q CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, F10nda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 7 - 12~(!I( Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of f'D "'1 :; f.. -y f:- f3... V A $'Iand I am wntmg m obJection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn III the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances ofthe Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUires a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductlOn m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the SIZe of thiS proJect is still too large for thIS neighborhood A bmldmg of thIS SIZe IS not m character wIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famlly homes The SIze of thIS project WIll destroy the aesthetics of thIS quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good III preservmg the quality of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideratIOn of this mattei Smcerely, r 7i.~ (r5J CWlJ ~ ~ CWlJ Y CWlJ ~ :-~ -....~ :;5 -; C3 ~ 0') l- Z lJj rr ~ w Q f- a < -..Jws ~ LU if wU L.' 5!j ~ffiU ('jUJu.. z 0 Z r z .-- :5 G Q - CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director ~I --rIi (f~ i{-('I--\Yrf~- f "1 f rJ)~~---~....-~~l I I~~~~M~~~I ), r-:j,J\!I\Jj~\ ~ {1 DEVtLOP/' 1":NT SVCb l- - _ C'llQE CU:ARWATER RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of (l \....0 I!t r ~ ~ r -=4 ) and I am wntmg 10 objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommiums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal is for 77 urnts, whIch requires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn in the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feeling that the densIty of thIs project IS entirely too large for thIs neIghborhood Many obJecttons from area residents have been r31sed concerrung the effect the requested variance wIll have on thIs residentIal commuruty );> This wIll become the tallest buildmg in the area, looOllng over the smgle-fanuly residences, whtch destroys the aesthetics of thiS quaInt community This also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSIty );> The proposed 77 units, along with the hkelIhood of 2 vehicles per urnt, will put additIOnal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Drive This IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thIS area )> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- unit condonumum located unposmgly m a single-family reSidential area will directly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It wIll also affect area property taxes It is my feeling that the Size of this project will do more harm than good m preserving the qualtty of this neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consIderatIon In tius matter ~~~~~ v\~~h\\d~~~ ~&~bUl~~( \ 6 -:; \ sP ~ Q.QSl1... ~ Q....\ QG... ,W~ k, \ -:tL -~~ 7 .f3- :3 - JLf- ~oPy City of Clearwater Planmng Department ] 00 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn MIke Reynolds, Pldnnmg Director ~ I-i; flf~TG'nl"'~\1P l-:€- (~" '_J.~':;.'fL~;;::.L.;}=dll :', '-... Ii I "11 . ,~Jl MAR 1 5 2OO'J I ~) . - ~ .. - - ,_ ^ . J I h'~ ~\:~4>t r . , ~, f _ , ! - ,~_ ~ .~_~.,l RE: FLD2003.090S0 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of e--1t3A ~ and I am wntmg m objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condomInIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, whIch reqUire') a height varIance to 75 feet and a reduction m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelmg that the densIty of thIS proJect IS entirely too large for this neIghborhood Many obJections flOm area re<;ldents have been rmsed concernmg the effect the requested vdnance wtll have on this residential commumty );> ThIS WIll become the tallest bUllclmg m the area, 100ITUng over the smgle-famlly re::'ldence<;, WhICh destroys the aesthetIcs of thIS quamt commumty ThIs also encourages future development to match or exceed thIs denSity );> The proposed 77 UnIts, along WIth the lIkelIhood of 2 vehicles per UnIt, Will put addItIOnal traffIc stIa10 on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and EdgewateI Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestrIans that frequent thIS area );> The ovewll negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt condommlUm located Imposmgly 111 a smgle-famlly residentIal area WIll dIrectly affcct property values and theIr abIlIty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxe.;, It IS my fee1mg that the SIze of thiS project Will do more harm than good III preservmg the qualIty of thIS neIghborhood I am requestmg that the CommunIty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, lnc & 1925 Edgewater Duve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIOn m thl<; matter SIncerely, ~J~ ~~ J 05l{ Sr::;6eeJ-A s-r C\eAC UJfJ+o 371'55 Reynolds, Mike From Sent To Subject developmentweb Monday, Apn119, 2004 3 40 PM Reynolds, Mike FW Top Flight Enterpnses Condo proposal -----Or1g1nal Message----- From Internet_Comment_Card [ma1lto Internet_Comment_CardJ Sent Monday, Apr1l 19, 2004 4 25 PM To developmentweb SubJect Top F11ght Enterpr1ses Condo proposal Sender's Name Dan1el C Kadunce Date sent 4/19/2004 3 24 40 PM Comments Please reg1ster my Oppos1t1on to the SubJect proposal to bU1ld a condom1n1Uffi on the corner of Edgewater Dr1ve and Sunnydale Dr1ve Th1S proJect w1ll change the character of the ne1ghborhood 1n a negat1ve way, chang1ng the area from one 1n wh1ch most of the people know each other to one 1nhab1ted by faceless apartment res1dents Th1s area 1S predom1nantly one of s1ngle fam1ly homes, and the streets have a V1ew of the water, wh1ch w1ll be destroyed by th1s proJect My fam1ly and I urge you to reJect th1s proposal Sender Ema1l dankadunce@hotma1l com Ma1l1ng Address 1054 Sedeeva Street Clearwater, FL 33755 Phone 446-1974 1 City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Planmng DIrector RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of Se..dee:-Jo... ~-t. I tle..g.,:rv-ll\.ferand I am wntmg III obJection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010. 1012. & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, which reqUIres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn III the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelIng that the denSity ofthls project IS entirely too large for thiS neighborhood. Many obJections from area residents have been raised concernmg the effect the requested vanance will have on thIS residential commumty >>- ThIS will become the tallest bUIldmg III the area, loommg over the smgle-famlly residences, which destroys the aesthetIcs of this quamt communIty ThIS also encourages future development to match or exceed thIS denSity >>- The proposed 77 umts, along With the lIkelihood of 2 vehIcles per umt, wIll put addItional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area ' >>- The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A mu1tl- umt condommIUm located ImposIllgly III a smgle-famlly reSidential area will directly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It IS my fee1mg that the size OftlllS project WIll do more hann than good in prescrVlng L.1.C qualIty of this neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a f1exlble-dir~IFpmfimtapproval Thank you for your conSideration m thiS matter \R IE. C E u ~ [b \U' Smcerely, ADI) (), ,\I01t ~~ C 1~/ qll) Yo.J\.\e \ C. KC\~\U\.CQ.. 7 rh J) /o~~ Secke.vV\. St. Cl UfWh. -k r) fL 3?, g~5 PLANN:[\\Q ~'c.n,t:"RTr\j1ENT ClTY Of- GU:AR\NATER City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon MIke Reynold~, Plannmg Duector ... --r~It=:j-~~~........._~_ \ t ~-, r J~ j (::/ f, \l~~,'~rs-r~ i, ,.~~:;.. ~ j (L II III I ~ Ilj \ ::~ t ----~:~~~( f '- { ~::~~):J~l I " ~ . -, vl/,.... ~"L i.t! r r'J,--, vu:, ~ ---~ ~ ~~:~t~ RE: FLD2003~09050 Deai Su or Madam, I am a resIdent of e~and I am wnt10g 10 ObjectiOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the comtructlOo of condommlUm~ at 1919 & 1925 EdgewaterDnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, which reqUires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelmg that the den5Ity of thIS project IS entirely too large for thrs neighborhood Many obJectlOn~ from area resIdents have been raised concernmg the effect the requested vanance Will have on thi!:. reSIdential commumty );> ThiS will become the tallest bmldmg 1M the area, loommg over the smgle-famIly residences, WhICh destlOYs the aesthetics of tlus quamt commumty Thl!:. also encourages future development to match or exceed thIS den!:.lty );> The proposed 77 umts, along with the likelihood of 2 vehIcles per unIt, Will put addItlOnal tiafflc stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area );> The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property value~ A mu1tI- umt COndOl11miUm located Imposmgly m a smgle-famI1y reSIdential area will chrectly affect propeI ty values and theIr abthty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It IS my feeling that the Size of thIS proJect wIll do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve, lnc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your llSIderdtIo n thIS atter Smcerely, l{)~1 S~~ City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, P1anmng Director ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-090S0 7 - /e2. - 0 y Dear Su or Madam, I am a resident of lpL () S~;.)f} ~ and I am wrItmg III ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommlums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUIred a heIght varIance to 75 feet and a reductIon m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUIres a heIght varIance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reduction 10 the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obvIOUS that the size of thiS proJect IS stIll too large for thIS neighborhood A bUJldwg OfthlS SIze IS not m character '.vlth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the sunoundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The SIze of thiS project Will destroy the aesthetiCS of thIS quamt waterSide commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty of this neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board dellY the request of Top Filght Enterpnses, Inc & 192:' Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIOn of this matter 1</c-hA~ -r;;+M4J~ SITI;tx/ ?~ M~ W a: nnrl ~ w ~ s:t [L f- ,--,0<:( ~ ?a --J U) 3: C::---" ~ W II = (T) wQw nlLIl o>-! l..':::: "" a: u ~-2> ~ ~~o finn 2 ~ ~ --12 U ~--" _......:.._. :5 f ,- 'y'" ...---.--" 0" L~J (-:=.J City of Clearwater PlannIng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn. Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director "-' RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of i!J(pD 5tC-DEf vA- >1. and I am wntIng m ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condomInIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, which reqUires a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelIng that the density of thIS proJect IS entirely too large for thIS neIghborhood Many obJections from area resIdents have been raised concernmg the effect the requested VarIance WIll have on thiS resIdential commumty' );. ThiS Will become the tallest bUlldmg In the area, loomIng over the smgle-famlly resIdences, which destroys the aesthetics of this quaInt commumty ThIS also encourages future development to match or exceed thIS denSIty );. The proposed 77 umts, along with the likelIhood of2 vehicles per umt, WIll put addItIonal traffic straIn on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thIS area. );. The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A mu1tI- umt condommlUm located Imposmgly m a smgle-famIly residentIal area Will directly affect property values and theIr ability to resell It Will also affect area property taxes It IS my feeling that the size of this project Will do more harm than good In preservmg the quahty of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, lnc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, fuc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSideratIon m thiS matter smCerelY'J~~ RfECfE~VED APR 07 2U04 (pJILANNIN~ OED" -T~il'- ,[T CiTY Ot- elL., "u ..~\T ,,-r~ ' City of Clearwater Plarmmg Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue P.O Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planmng Director ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 7-/{)~@/~ Dear SIr or Madam, s€.de€ lIl}- S+ d /06 f ! {11 J - LJ"'I b h I am a reSI ent of and J am wntmg III 0 ~ectIon to t e approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommI urns at 191 9 & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve and I 01 0, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn III the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Comrnumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 UnIts, which reqUires a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIOn m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obVIOUS that the SIZe of thiS proJect IS still too large for thIS neighborhood A bUlldmg of thIs size IS not III character wIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The SIze of this proJect will destroy the aesthetICS of this quamt waterSIde commumty, and do more hann than good m preservmg the qualIty OfthIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Dcvelopment Board deny the request of Top Plight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, In.c for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your conSideration OfthIS matter Smcerely, ~~ rc-~~ ~ r---- [lJ1lJ I ~ ~ r___ ~ 10. I- --~ 25 o--c ~ N C(f)~ c:=..-=-..=t (Y') '~ L r. I] n I" ;- li.-J _ C :-. ---' -- "" r::. _ ((~-?) ~ ~~ ,~: ~ G -D-lJ ~ ~ ~) , (~ - "~-=,~"j.:. I t ' - ! l__. ...,--- - -..._- -----~-- CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S M yrt1e Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Honda 33758 AttentIOn MIke Reynold'), Planmng DIrector RE: FLD2003-09050 - -~:-~..I. ..._ .... - ~.... ',- c"r) it' n~~/.-';--r'3~r-"-. , t? i - J ~ )1 j It I I' ,I -=L-'=!...';..::.-! __I~ J L'J f~ i1 ~t~jl MAR;- ~-;oo~ ]1 ull :;i ~I ~J ~1 i ~ ~- - - ~- I I' "'-- ::::...7.....-- 4 t '~'Ir:~ I~ ';.. r~ I ~I ("40 t . ~.;,,~ ;....lji j.... 'V -_ I V 'oJ ~ J q -- ~ - ~--:.,.'...:~ j '-:~L _ j Dear Sir or Madam, I am a re~ldent of ~(v.x:d(f and I am wf1tmg m obJection to the approval reque~ted by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of cOndOmInIUmS at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umb, which reqUIres a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the ~Ide setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my fee1mg that the densIty of thIS project IS entIrely too large for thIS neighborhood Many obJectIOns from area re,)Ident~ have been raIsed concermng the effect the requested vanance will have on thIS reSIdentIal communIty );> ThiS will become the tallest bUl1dmg III the area, loommg over the "mgle-famIly resIdences, which destroys the aesthetICS of thiS quamt communIty ThI!:. aho encourages future development to match or exceed thIS denSIty );> The proposed 77 umts, along with the lIkelIhood of 2 vehlcle~ per UnIt, WIll put addItIOnal traffic straIn on the already burdened roadways of Sumet Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thlli area );> The overall negatIve effect of the propo~ed development on local property value~ A multI- umt cOndOmInIUm located Impo~mgly m a smgle-famtly reSidential area will dIrectly affect property values and theIr abIhty to resell It will also affect area property taxes It IS my feelIng that the SIze of thIS proJect WIll do more harm than good III pre!:.ervmg the qualIty of thIS neIghborhood I am requestmg that the CommunIty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnlie", fnc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIOn m thl smatter tIW 'I'- 106-6 ~il >';/'~r ~vbk~ >5~5 CIty of Clearwater P1annmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn MIke Reynolds, Planmng DIrector --~r'2.n~,o,--lllll ~ w"-~ r-'I f"~~IFoII\\V I n:\ [1 l_'::I \'::,..J .. I ~~ l r! ;UUI_ MAR.i~~ ~ I ~\ 'J\"NINC & Of' VEl Op, lENT SVCb ~_ J~ITY OF CiE6!31!:~TER _ RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, , \\ O~ Gl S~;9-e€-v ~4 ~J;: I am a resIdent of lQ\\ eC~~vt)tLM tv'" ,H ~ ::::, and I am wntmg m obJectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The propo~all~ for 77 UnIts, WhICh reqUIre... a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the SIde "etback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It 1\ my feehng that the denSIty of thIS project 1':, enttrely too large for thl" neighborhood Many obJectIOns from Mea residents have been raIsed concernmg the effect the requested vanance WIll have on thIS resIdenttal commumty >- ThiS wIll become the tallest bUIldmg m the area, loommg ovel the smgle-famIly resIdences, which de...rroys the aesthetIcs of thl" quamt commumty ThiS also encourages future development to match 01 exceed thiS denSIty >- The proposed 77 umts, along WIth the likelihood of 2 vehIcles per UnIt, WIll put addItIOnal traffiC stram on the aheady burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThI" I" not safe for the many pede"tnans that frequent thIS area >- The overall negatIve effect of the propo~ed development on local property values A multI- umt condonunmm located Impo~mgly m a smgle-famIly reSIdential area WIll dIrectly affect property values and their abIlIty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It IS my feelIng that the SIze of thIS proJect WIll do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty of thiS neighborhood I am requestmg that the CommuUlty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpn~es, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conSIderation In thiS matter Smcerely, '6?~~cv~ c. o.-v- 'V \ e 9 ~(f' O-Af\ L.- " City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue PO. Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn MIke Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector RE: FLD2003-090S0 Dear SIT or Madam, JjA fL 7/1/ I D 1 I am a resIdent of /010 (;pcl.JJlh/1/ J t. ~(~d I am wntmg m objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommmms at 1919 & 1925 EdgewaterDnve and 1010,1012, & 1020 Sunset PomtRoad The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqmred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction 1TI the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances ofthe Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUires a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roof's mldpomt and a reductIon m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the size of thiS project IS still too large for thiS neighborhood A bmldmg OfthlS SIze IS not In character with the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-farmly homes The sIze of this project WIll destroy the aesthetIcs of this quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good III preservmg the quahty of this neighborhood. I am requesting that the Commumty Development Board deny tlte request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flcxIble development approval Thank you for your consIderation of thIS matter Smcerely. (<' A-I\ ~ N NO lUL;t NJJ (~ Y1lWV!~~ I ~ ~ ~ n'l r -~~ ;--:-~- "[) ~~l~u~/lc r-~'I I ~ I 4 ~ II L};: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF ClE;',RWATER ~ CIty of Clearwater PlannIng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector R(ECE~VED JUL 1 4 2004 RE: FLD2003-090S0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CiTY OF CLEARWATER Dcar SIr or Madam, cJeu 0~ Yz 7 It! ~ r J am a resIdent of 11J70 M~M, and I am wntmg m objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommmms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUIred a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whICh reqUIres a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIOn III the side setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet It IS obvIOUS that the size of thiS project IS stIli too large for thIS neIghborhood A blllldmg of this size IS not m character WIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the sunoundmg commumty IS smgle-famlly homes The SIze of thIS project will destroy the aesthetics of this quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good III preservmg the quality of this neighborhood. I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your consIderatIOn of this matter 9;{l~ , , CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Planmng Director _ -<- _,. _..... ....."""""'_ =- "'""'_-='to ..=.<' ---- -"1 -, "~.-: r~ r!~ r; \v"' r~ r-n-" ~ I ,.~dd....:;."...:.....::E:..iL .;:;L~'......--,!' j l~ 1 I I i I~:l MAR 1 5 2004 I, ~ )i ! w UI f---":I I ~ -;~~ :;-7"-:'I'~_l/""J\'IC',~-s\.r"1 I _ I ~ _ 4''''~ I I~ ~ l~ I I ....)ta;Io, "{ /' CL':'\'~\.."-~~Efl ~ __ ~ _.r"_ ..:t.........=....a..:..~_--"'-"'>-=""KJ RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Slr or Madam, I am a resident of (ff(L;f[A/~, fL and I am wntmg m obJectlOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Ihc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the con~tructIOn of condommmms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POIllt Road The propo~alIs for 77 umts, whIch reqUIres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn III the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelmg that the den~lty of thIS project 15 entIrely too tuge for till '::i neighborhood Many ObjectIOns from area residents have been raIsed concernIng the effect the requested vanance w1l1 have on thIS resIdential commumty >- ThIS will become the tallest butldmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-fmmly resIdences, which destroys the aesthetlc~ of thiS guamt commumty Thts also encourages futme development to match or exceed thIS denSIty >- The plOposed 77 umt'l, along WIth the llkcJIhood of 2 vehIcles per unIt, will put additional traffiC stram on the already burdened roadways of Sun5et Pomt Road and EdgewateI Dnve Thl~ II, not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area );> The ovelall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt condomwmm located Impos1l1gly m a slllgle-famtly reSIdentIal area wlll directly affect property values and thelf abIlIty to resell It WJIl also affect area property taxes It IS my feelIng that the 'me of thIS project will do more hdlm than good m preservmg the quality of thIS neIghborhood I am requestmg thdt the CommunIty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpn~es, Ine & ] 925 Edgewater Duve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIOn 10 thIS matter Smcerely, j(~ 71rW!~J /010 5€.cAh2.Af'~ Si CLeocv III!~+C r {r:; L CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Plonda 33758 AttentIOn MIke Reynolds, Plannmg Director ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 "7 - I ;L~&-r Dear SIr or Madam, e.L.6A.R-tu.ifl,~ <.( fL- I am a resIdent of /67 ( ,,-) d~}J't ,S't'-:' and I am wntmg lI1 obJ ectlOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POlllt Road The ongInal proposal was for 77 umts, WhICh reqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUIres a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs nlldpomt and a reductIOn III the side setback from 10 fect to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the SIze of this project IS still too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUlldmg of thIS SIze :s net III character wlth the surroundmg commumty when 99% ofthe surroundmg cOffimumty IS smgle-famlly homes The SIze of this project wlli destroy the aesthetics of thIS quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good III preserving the quality of thIS neIghborhood I am requestIng that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your conSIderation OfthlS matter SIDCereIY'~7<~ (lo!LJ r; :?- -6 f.I- ~t-V € t€;$ cr-SJ l- Z fl!1D w a: ~ w ~ ~ Q f- a << ~ iIiifJ5 c:::=::= (T) >wcr fl!1D wu< 05::3 (Q)L5 ""IT:o LU, o U) - fl!1D ) z 0 Z ?- z c:: @E :S I:.) Q. -~~ ---...... - - ~~- --~ ~- City of Clearwater PlannIng Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, PlannIng DIrector RE: FLD2003-09050 c, --j~[~I1;-O. '\V1 f~ I ~s ,.::;:J ,1..1 I.; ~ J L~ Itil-;;; 1- 5 ~11 ji -~ L'J l-J ~ "_ _..._ h ~ 1\ ^ -\ ~ t < - t ,~ -,.:: S \J::~ I I:; ~:I2: '_ Q_~j.:~ Dear Sir or Madam, I am a reSident of t?i,::/)I!./vM6tIC and I am wntmg In objectIon to the approval feque&ted by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umt<;, which requires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelmg that the density of thIS project IS entIrely too large for this neIghborhood Many objections from area reSIdents have been ratsed concernmg the effect the requested varIance will have on thIS reSidentIal comrnumty .,. ThIS WIll become the tallest bUildIng In the area, loommg over the \mgle-famtly reSidences, whIch destroys the aesthetIcs of thIS quamt communIty ThiS aho encourage') future development to match or exceed thI\ den~Ity >- The proposed 77 umts, along with the lIkehhood of 2 vehicles per UnIt, Will put additiOnal traffIC stratn on the already burdened roadways of Sun&et Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thIS area >- The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property value\ A multi- UnIt condommIUm located Imposmgly m a smgle-famIly reSldenhal area WIll directly affect property values and thelf ablhty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It 1,1, my feeling that the SIze of thIS project WIll do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty of thI~ neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, lne & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conslderahon III thIS matter Smcerely, GdMYl-9~ 10 7 ( S 6:tftS EVt1 S'-t-. t L Ii Il-IZ l uJI/-bZ '7 fi:5.3 7 J:J CIty of Clearwater Planning Department ] 00 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon MIke Reynolds, Plannmg Director ;00 ~ ~R~ ~;J~! "',-AII.lNI1.TG & OCVElCP, 1f-1\I1 ....vC::, _ Cl rv OF .Q.!2,RWt'\TER RE: FLD2003-090S0 Dear Srr or Madam, I am a reSident of / I iJ 0 5u.k /II C1. ~ I am writmg 10 objectIon to the app~dval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condomiruums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pornt Road The proposal IS for 77 uruts, which reqUIres a height variance to 75 feet and a reductIon 10 the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feeling that the denSIty of this project IS entrrely too large for tills neIghborhood Many objections from area reSIdents have been raised concerrung the effect the requested vanance will have on this reSidential commuDlty )> Tills Will become the tallest buildmg m the area, loomIng over the sIngle-fannly reSidences, whtch destroys the aesthetIcs of thts quaint commuruty ThIs also encourages future development to match or exceed tills denSity ) The proposed 77 units, along with the lIkelIhood of 2 veillcles per UDlt, Will put additIOnal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pornt Road and Edgewater Dnve This IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent tills area ) The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- unit condomiruum located impOSingly In a smgle-famtly resIdential area will directly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It will also affect area property taxes It is my feeling that the size of this project wIll do more harm than good In preservrng the quality ofthts neIghborhood I am requesting that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterprises, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideration m thiS matter Smrere~, ~ 1 ~ 3 - I '1- 2..,~C)(f CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon' MIke Reynolds, Plannmg Director ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 7 -- ( 6 -0&( Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resldent of /1 () 3 ....c;ecke.Va- .5t1 and I am wntmg m objectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condonnm ums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve and 1010, 1 012, & 1020 Sunset Po mt Road. The ongInal proposal was for 77 umts, which requITed a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn In the side setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUIres a height vanance to 59 feet <!t the roofs midpomt and a reductIon in the side setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the size of thiS project IS stilI too large for thiS neIghborhood A bUlldmg of thIS SIze IS not lI1 character with the surroundmg commumty when 99% ofthe surroundmg commumty IS s1Ogle-famIly homes The size of thIS project will destroy the aesthetIcs ofthls quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good 1t1 preservmg the qualIty ofthls nelghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, lnc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, lnc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consIderatIOn of thiS matter I Smcerely, Iv //(a/UQ P c7L/ d~ K~J \1QJll--c; 1::::::::::_".) \ Cl c;::::::-- C'.I c.:. _:::-.:> C"? \ULD ~) M:D -,"'-::::=J C)L~ ---l ::::> ~ l- Z ill cr L UJ n ~ o ~ ~ L~ : '"'-', ' G ~ ~J ~ ~ ), ~ if, ('1! Z i Z (I Z G' 5 (L 'I J CIty of Cleanvater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Cleanvater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mlke Reynolds, PlannIng DIrector ORIGINAL 7 -- ('0 -1" HE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of 110'3 S"e..d1:J2.. Va :5 -t I and I am wntmg In obJ ectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 Units, whIch reqmred a height vanance to 75 fcet and a reductIOn III the sIde setback from 10 feet to 585 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 UI1Its, which reqUires a height vanance to 59 feet at the roof's mldpomt and a reduction III the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the SIze of thiS project IS stIll too large for thIS neighborhood A bUlldmg of this SIZe IS not III character wlth the surround1Og commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty lS smgle-famIly homes The size of this project will destroy the aesthetics of thIS quamt watersIde commumty, and do more haml than good In preservIllg the quahty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Boald deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewaler Dnve, lnc fOl a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideratIon of thiS matter Smcerely, ~te~ (L~~ -- ---'- "7 0d1lJ ~ ~ [ ~ cg Q I- ____"'>-~ Cl 0 '< ~ ~ I~c?~ nflJl l..1.1(J L::::'..=-J - L5j ~)) =5 ~[~ "') ~ VI (~;J-, ~ ~ --J ~ J~ I ~-....,....JII Q i, ; ~ L _ - ....... ~ -- - .........:::-..~-- --..- Clty of Clearwater Planrung Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planning Director -j~~~- ,....--~~--"-.., III I L~ li:J U~ I] W ~ rO',i iL~!!-~~;;~-20D4J- ~ I, ~ I f,l\il'~;;\J~?"J l'I"\I;;;:r:'([;\I, SvC,=, C; {"I r::r ('~ l:Al--j'Ji'tl I fR RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of / /0.3 :;Pd..eIf!,,I'a :it. and I am writing in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condonuniums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 10 10, 10 12, & 1020 Sunset Pornt Road The proposal is for 77 umts, whtch reqUIres a heIght variance to 75 feet and a reduction 10 the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelIng that the denSity of this project is entrrely too large for this neIghborhood Many ObjectIons from area reSIdents have been raised concerning the effect the requested vanance will have on thts reSidential commumty ) This will become the tallest buildmg m the area, loonung over the smgle-fanuly reSidences, whIch destroys the aesthetics of thIS quaint commurnty Tills also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSity };> The proposed 77 urnts, along WIth the likelihood of 2 vehicles per urnt, will put additional traffic straIn on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Point Road and Edgewater Dove ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thts area };> The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- unit condonurnum located Imposmgly In a smgle-fanuly reSidential area will directly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It wIll also affect area property taxes It is my feelIng that the SIze ofthts project will do more harm than good In preservmg the-qualIty of thts neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterprises, Ine & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Ioc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consideratIOn m thIs matter Sincerely, ~~~ 3--/3.- Z OtJ Y \ n / - CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIfector RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resldep.! of /f0 3 5 ~lIo- Sf. and I am wntmg m obJecnon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Iuc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construcnon of condommmms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 UlUtS, winch reqwres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon m the side setback fro"" 10 feet to 5 85 feel, It IS my feelmg that the density of tlns project IS entrrely too large for tlus neIghborhood Many obJecuons from area residents have been raised concemmg the effect the requested vanance Will have on thIS resIdential commumty ~ TIns Will become the tallest bwldmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-farmly residences, which destroys the aestheucs of thIS quamt commUlUty TIns also encourages future development to match or exceed thIS denSIty ~ The proposed 77 urnts, along With the likelihood of 2 velncles per unit, WIll put ad<huonal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways ofSunse1 Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area ~ The overall negauve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- urnt condomlmUlU located Imposmgly m a smgle-famtly resldenual area Will duectly affect properlY values and theIT ability to resell It WIll also affect area property taXes It lS my feellng,that the SIze oftlns project Will do more \1am1 than good m preseTVmg the quahty of tlns neIghborhood I am req~esung that the Commurnty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc. for a flexible devclopment approval Thank you for your consIderatlon m thIS matter \ S~1?o~ fD) [! m [~ u ~7 [! rm I.m APR 2 0 2004 lill ; " - ""......-....t"~ ~ 710 """.........-~4_~.. DE1J~L ~~.'IIlt~~'J!--' A' I, ~ EPT ""'r ~l . 'f.."" CIty of Clearwater PlannIng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttcntJOll MIke Reynolds, Planmng Dlrector ---- G-r I.J Tig "fl~r.r;F3r--r n \- l: ~;:, l :0 1. ~J.!__\~~...,l "'" ;\'1\ I] 1.,)' I ~ I ~j'H MAR' 5 2004 ~ l:~ ,_u~ III j _ ~~_ _ ,_ -..1 '"' \ t ~-r~fr-f""''''')~~'- Cvt""'~ ! ;,....) l- ~ j'IJ ~~l ..,J.... ~ j I".. ......:... t ~~~~....~_~.r~~ RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a reSident of C !ePI2tU 4~ and I am wntmg In ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constmctIOn of condomInlUffis at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 UnIts, WhICh reqUires a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn In the sIde setback flOm 10 feet to 585 feet It IS my feelmg that the denSity of thIS project I" entIrely too large for thiS neIghborhood Many objections flOm area reSident':> have been raised ConceII1Ing the effect the requested val1ance Will have on thIS reSIdential commumty }- ThIS WIll become the tdlle::.t buIldIng m the area, loomrng over the "rngle-famIly reSidences, WhICh destroys the desthetlcs of thIS quamt commumty ThI<; also encourages future development to match or exceed thrs den<;lty >- The propo!;.ed 77 umt<;, along With the lIkelihood of 2 vehIcles per umt, WIll put addltlonal traffIc stram on the already bmdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestrIans that frequent thlS area >- The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property vdlue,> A multi- UnIt cOndOmInIUm located ImpOSIngly In a smgle-famIly re<;IdentIdl area WIll directly affect property values and theIr abIlIty to resell It WIll al <;0 dffect area property taxes It IS my feelIng that the <;Ize of thIS proJect WIll do mOle harm than good m pre,:>ervmg the qUdhty of thIS neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Ine & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Ine for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consIderatIOn m thiS matter SlI1cerely, /);vc JIll/'( fF~ f6L~ \ IbLl se.dULlA ')t~+-- / City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Planmng DIrector RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGINAL Dear Sir or Madam, IUD J am a resident of Sed e.e " e.... S+. and I am wntmg m obJection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommlUills at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POint Road The ong1Oal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUIred a height varIance to 75 feet and a reduction m r; the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two cont1Ouances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUires a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reduction m the slde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obvIOus that the SIze of this project IS still too large for thIS neIghborhood A buIldmg of this size IS not In character WIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The size of thIS proJect wIll destroy the aesthetics of this quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good III preservmg the quality ofthls neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIOn of thiS matter. Smcerely, ~ t2l-- /0 July 0" I rr~_~ I \- I _" -L z w C"I []ill ::.:: L.. "'=:::t r.L l-- ?':::J c=l 0 ::: ~ 1T, (j ~L = (T) G s:: ' 0:J10 L>~ <C ([ ) ~ l" U (SI if; ~ Z .J Gd1D 7 61 z s rnv-~ 0.. I ,...- .-/ City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn MIke Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector ORIGINAL 7...-lv,- oy RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of ;, 17 5 ec!.e"l;9Va. S1. and I am wntmg m obJectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condom1Omffis at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUired a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn 1I1 the sIde setback from 10 feet to 585 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUires a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mIdpomt and a reductIOn In the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the SIze of thIS proJect IS still too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUl!dmg of this SIze IS not m character With the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-farmly homes The size of this project will destroy the aesthetics of this quaInt watersIde commumty, and do more hann than good III preservmg' the quality of thIs neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your conSIderatlon of thIS matter Smcerely, @{~ If. ~----- o \E(c\E~'W\E!1 0 \ JQ I 3 2004 \i l L . PLANNING & :::' "::VELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF CLb RVliATER .--- CIty of Clearwater Planning Depa nt 100 S. Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Planmng DIrector RE: FLD2003-090S0 ORIGINAL Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of 1/)... / J~ .J:t and I am wntmg m objection to the approval requested by Top Fligh t Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructlon of condominIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, J 012, & 1020 Sunset Point Road The ongInal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon in the slde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commulllty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUIres a heIght variance to 59 feet at the roofs rmdpoint and a reduction In the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet. It IS ObVIOUS that the SIze of thIS project lS stIll too large for this neIghborhood. A bUlldmg of thIs sIze IS not m character With the surroundmg communIty when 99% of the surrounding communny 15 smgle-famlly homes The size of thIs project wlll destroy the aesthetics of thIS quaInt waterside community, and do more hann than good m preserving the qualIty of this neighborhood Jam requestmg that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your conSideratIOn of thIS matter Smcerely, /~ ;3~~ 7.. / d-.- ttJ7" ~v ~l-""" d, 1lil11.l.o1"" - (C~)1 l1&D ?-~ == OdlJl g DJ1:D - ~~:) oco::t Cl ~ ('0") -1 ~ -; ~---- - I- Z w a: :?; w Q. ~ o -. ~IJ)> ~w'! llJ~uJ t:.J> _J <>ocr!..) l.L~ lL C)U)r> Z J Z r: ~ G -l "- . CIty of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentlOn MIke Reynolds, Planrung Director RlEC(E~VE[J) RE: FLD2003-09050 MAR 1 5 2004 \ '! I~NW~NG DEPARTMENT g~ ~V Q[F ClEf\RWATER Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of II:?';; .5EZJEE rJ,t-- S J;d I am wnting in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Ine. for the construction of condomiruums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal is for 77 urnts, winch requires a height variance to 75 feet and a reduction in the Side setback from ]0 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelIng that the denSity of tins project IS entirely too large for this neighborhood Many objections from area residents have been raIsed concermng the effect the requested variance win have on thIs residentIal commumty )- Tlus WIll become the tallest building In the area, looming over the smgle-family residences, whIch destroys the aesthetics of this quamt community Tills also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSity );;> The proposed 77 urnts, along With the likehhood of 2 vehicles per UI1lt, WIll put addItIOnal traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Point Road and Edgewater Dnve This IS not safe for the many pedestrians that frequent this area );;> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- urnt condommium located imposingly m a smgle-fannly reSIdential area WIll directly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It will also affect area property taxes It lS my feeling that the SIZe oftms project wIll do more harm than good m preserving the qualIty of tills neighborhood I am requestmg that the CommuI1lty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Ine & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Ine for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consIderatIon in tlus matter Smcerely, /r; jtII ~ / '61 CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department ] 00 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, FlOllda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynold'::>, Planmng Director 1-,~0 I-i"s""n~~"';-''"'''' "I- i .:J i 'J'::' 'C Ll \ ~ I ! r: '"'1 ; ~ ~ .......~ L~~""'" ~..-\r~------~~-'!I\ II ' 'i \l MAR ~ 5 2004 LI j,: I ,U(, L,. I L! 'I 1 I, I ~_~_ ~_~ __HI: ~ .... t- t I >Oil} ~;\!~'~J~ { .. ~ (~ .. - 1.. \ \ 1: -, ~_ ~ ~... _.,..... 'L.L_~..-..........-~"..,!I RE" FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of ~, and I am wntmg m ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The propo,::>alI" for 77 umts, whIch reqUires a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelmg that the densIty of thIS project IS entIrely too large for thIS neIghborhood Many objections from area residents have been raised concermng the effect the requested vanance will have on thIS residential commumty >- ThiS wlll become the t<illest bUIldmg In the area, loommg over the smgle-famIly residences, whIch destroy" the aesthetics of thiS quamt commumty ThiS also encourage::. future development to match or exceed thIS densIty >- The plOposed 77 UnIt':>, along wIth the likelihood of 2 vehIcles per U111t, WIll put addltlonal traffic ,:>tJdm on the already burdened rO'ldw,lYS of Sunset POlDt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thIS area >- The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- umt condommlUm located ImposlTlgly In a smgle-famIly reSIdentIal ruea wtll dIrectly affect property values and theIr abIlIty to resell It Will also affect area property taxes It 1:;' my feelmg that the SIze of thiS project wIiI do more harm than good m preservIng the quality of thiS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for yom consideratIOn m thiS matter Smcerely, 1))~r7~r \\ ~7 ~C6fd- City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planning Director roF~~n~/,7~D \J ~ =~'C:=tl VI MAR' 5 Z004 P1.t\N~iNG DEPA~lMENT en~ Q~ CLlEA\RWAT~R RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of J I ~~ s.c- M~.b.~ I am writing m obJection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condonumums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal is for 77 units, whtch reqwres a height variance to 75 feet and a reduction in the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feeling that the density ofthts project IS entirely too large for thiS netghborhood Many ObjectIons {Tom area residents have been rmsed concerning the effect the requested vanance will have on thIS resIdential commumty )- Thts WIll become the tallest building in the area, loonung over the SIngle-family reSidences, which destroys the aesthetics of this quaint commuruty This also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSity )- The proposed 77 Ulllts, along with the likelIhood of2 vehtc1es per umt, WIll put additIonal traffic straIn on the already burdened roadways of Sunset POInt Road and Edgewater Dnve This is not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent this area )- The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- umt condonuruum located ImposIngly in a smgle-family reSidential area WIll directly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It is my feeling that the size oftms project will do more harm than good In preservmg the quality of thlS neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Comrnuruty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideration m thts matter Sln=d~~~ / City of Clearwater Plannmg Department lOa S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, P1anmng DIrector ORIGINAL '7//0r RE: FLD2003-090S0 Dear SIT or Madam, I am a resIdent of I rJ { ~,t.lv c.. <s I and I am wntmg m obJectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condommmms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The onglllal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn In the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances ofthe Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUIres a height varIance to 59 feet at the roofs mIdpomt and a reductIOn m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the Slze of thIS proJect IS still too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUlld10g of this SIze IS not In character wlth the surroundIng commumty when 99% of the surroundmg comrnumty IS smgle-famI1y homes The SIze of thIS project wlll destroy the aesthetIcs of this quaInt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good III preservIng the quality of this neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, lnc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval. Thank you for your consIderatIOn of thIS matter SIncerely, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES \ (""1'"' nIC ('I l-, PWAT}::q _J City ofCle31water PlannIng Department 100 S, Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Plannlllg Director RE: FLD2003-090S0 ORIGINAL Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of 1/:13 )eJ:u.f.E vA ST: and I am wntmg m obJection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommmms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 Ul11ts, whIch reqUired a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet After two contmuances of the Commul11ty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 Ul11ts, whIch reqUires a height vanance to 59 feet at the roof's mldpomt and a reductIon m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obvIous that the SIze of this project IS still too large for thIS neighborhood A bmldlllg of thIS size IS not m character wIth the surroundmg cOffimumty when 99% of the surroundlllg comillumty IS smgle-famlly homes The SIze of thIS proJect will destroy the aesthetIcs ofthls quamt waterside commul11ty, and do more harm than good m preservIng the quality of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve, Inc [or a flexible development approval Thank you for your consIderation of thIS matter Smcerely, ,.. M 0J1JJ ~ ~...-l = g ~ !-IZ-t11 ("I") [b&!J g M1J :5 J ~ -.... ..-...._--"'J! ( " ',__J , ' " Il..___ ~ z w ([ ::2: w a.. f- a <::: ....l(/)5: ~ u.J;r.: w~uJ O>--.J c<l;r;U l')(/)LL Z 0 Z ~ z - :s u CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Planning Director \roJ ~@r€aW~ m lill~lill f'LAil,lNING & OEVELOP,.1E:NT S vC~ CITY OF CLEARWATER 1UE:~D2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, 114;1 5ed(!(!J/A 'S+ I am a resident of ~/2Q.( WCl.+er 33705"" and I am writmg In objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condominiums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 10 10, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POint Road The proposal is for 77 uruts, which reqUIres a heIght variance to 75 feet and a reduction in the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feehng that the density of this project IS entirely too large for thiS neighborhood Many objectIons from area residents have been rmsed concerrung the effect the requested vanance will have on this reSIdential commumty ~ ThIs Will become the tallest buildmg In the area, loommg over the smgle-fanuly reSIdences, whIch destroys the aesthetics of this quamt commuruty This also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSity ~ The proposed 77 uruts, along with the likehhood of2 vehicles per uOit. wtll put additional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve This IS not safe for the many pedestrians that frequent tills area ~ The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- urut condonnmum located imposmgly to a smgle-fannIy residential area WIll directly affect property values and their ability to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It is my feeImg that the size of this proJect will do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of this neighborhood I am requestIng that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSideration in this matter ^~oO '3-I'I-"2db y- City of Clearwater Planrung Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planning DIrector llE:~D2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam,' { - jy ~ Qft>Qe~A. D\ I am a reSident of , n~ ~ 4.)~ 0 t L. and I am writmg in ObjectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condonuruums at ]919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal is for 77 uruts, which requITes a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction In the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feelIng that the density of this project is entirely too large for thts neIghborhood Many objections from area residents have been raised concernmg the effect the requested vanance will have on this reSIdential commumty , );> This will become the tallest building in the area, looming over the single-family residences, whIch destroys the aesthetics of this quamt commuruty ThIs also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSIty );> The proposed 77 units, along WIth the likelihood of 2 vehIcles per unit, WIll put addItional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset POlOt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIs IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thIs area );> The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- urut condonumum located Imposmgly m a smgle-family reSIdential area will illrectly affect property values and theIr abilIty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It IS my feelmg that the size of this project will do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty oftms neighborhood 1 am requestlOg that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Ioc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, IDe for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideration in thts matter sm=cl\J Jl ' .J vI 'I-u"OY CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Depar ot 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector RE: FLD2003a090S0 ORIGINAL Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of J I L/ L S €i\~ ~u - ~and I am wntmg III obJectIOn to the appro~al requested by Top ~ & 1925 Edgewatcr Drhe, Inc. for the constructton of condommt ums at l 91 9 & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve and 101 O. I 0 12, & I 020 S Ufiset Pom t Road. The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which requIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction in the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet After two contmuances of the Community Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 units, whIch reqUires a heIght variance to 59 feet at the roof's midpoint and a reduction In the side setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet It is ObVIOUS that the SIze of this project 15 still too large for thIS neighborhood. A buIld10g of this sIze IS not m character wIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg conunumty IS smgle.famIly homes The SIze of this project wIll destroy the aesthetics of thIS quamt waterside community, and do more harm than good In preservmg the quality of this neighborhood I am requestll1g that the Commumty Development Board deny tile request afTop Fhght Enterpnses. Ine & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, In" for a flexible developmcnt approval Thank you for your conSIderation of this matter Smcerely, Roj~ 8. k 7- I" -or rrr- a=--~~ [1:&D ~---, [~ --- -- '==-= ~ ~ I- Z w cr :?: w (L f- a <{ -1 $: we;;cc Gu -:: 0:>::; ~o:o WI.l.. ~U)o 2: i'= z - S 0 0.. [1[lJ] cg [1illJ _ r:-~--=:J ,rrr- t ~-:-~~ ('r") :5 ) -. "_ J -- -........- - ~---- ~i~.I""'" Wr-............ -------....... -- -- CIty of Clearwater Planmng Depal 'nt 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention' Mlke Reynolds, Planmng Director RE: FLD2003~090S0 ORIGINAL Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of """' \, ~~C')Cj.,tG. ~ and I am wntmg In obJection to the approval rl:'quested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Dri\'e, Inc. for the constructIOn of condomimums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve and J 010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road, The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, WhiCh reqUlred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction In the slde setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet After two contmuances of the Community Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUires a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs midpoint and a reductIOn m the side setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet It 15 obvious that the size of thIS project IS still too large for thIS neighborhood. A buIid10g of thiS size IS not in character WIth the surrounding commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-farnlly homes Thc size of this project Will destroy the aesthetics of thiS quamt waterslde commumty, and do more harm than good In preservmg the quahty ofthts neighborhood I am rcquestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideratIOn of this matter Smcerely, ~ ~~<h~o~ . o ~(C~~~~. 0 rU\ II 3 ~ It L -r PLANNING & rC\lROPMEN SERVIC::' , CITY OF elb >-" Al ECi __~ ~ ,_->," 1 'to - M:M..- ..I .1..., -~----.....-...... - City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-090S0 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of Jij' SC~€.uJ A Sl and I am wntmg m obJection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condom1Omms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUired a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances ofthe Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUires a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs midpoint and a reductIOn m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the SIze of thIS project IS still too large for this neighborhood A bmldmg of thIS SIze IS not In character With the sUIToundmg communIty when 99% of the surroundmg communIty IS smgle-famIly homes The SIze of thIS proJect Will destroy the aesthetics of thIS quamt waterside commumty, and do more hann than good m preserving the qualIty of thIS neIghborhood I am requestmg that the CommunIty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexlble development approval Thank you for your conSideratIon of this matter. smcere~ 7-(OrO'f \ ~/ City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGINAL Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident off/52 S~DI;!;f/fl ST and I am wntmg In objectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommlUTIls at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010,1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The anginal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUired a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon In the slde setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet After two continuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUIres a height varIance to 59 feet at the roof's mldpomt and a reductIOn In the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the SIze of thIS proJect IS strll too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUlld10g of this size IS not In character wIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The size of thIS project will destroy the aesthetIcs of thIS quaInt waterside commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty of thIS neIghborhood I am requestmg that thc Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, IllC for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your conSideratIon of thIS matter Smcerely, &&f tJ (Z/rd/dMj 7_ IO~ Of( M l1I1D ?~ =-- l1I1D g ~ l1I1D -- ((-y-v-r=-3 ~ ~ C") l- Z w CJ" ::::;: UJ [L \;;r o ..., ~ U1 [-; _ u . ~ L ~ \_ _ L c..: > J oe8}'J (9(/)- -" 0 "- z ~- z - "S 0 6.. City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Planning Director 'i~ uU ~ r~ r~ q \] [E MAR 1 5 200~ rn lUE:lnLD2003-09050 F'LAI'lNlNG & DEVcLOP,,1ENT svC~ CITY OF CLEAI1WATER Dear SIr or Madam, I am a reSIdent of 4162 ,5F/}!::Tl/ IT ~rand I am wntmg m ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condonumums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 10 10, 10 12, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal is for 77 uruts, which requITes a heIght variance to 75 feet and a reduction m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feehng that the densIty of this project is entirely too large for thts neighborhood Many objections :(Tom area residents have been rmsed concerning the effect the requested variance will have on thts residentIal community >> Thts WIll become the tallest bUIldmg m the area, looming over the s1Ogle-family residences, whIch destroys the aesthetIcs of thts quaint commuruiy This also encourages future development to match or exceed thts denSIty >> The proposed 77 uruts, along with the IIkehhood of 2 vehicles per urut, will put additIOnal traffic strmn on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve This IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thIs area >> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- unit condominium located imposingly in a smgle-fanuly residential area will dIrectly affect property values and their abdity to resell It will also affect area property taxes It IS my feelmg that the size oftlns project will do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of this neighborhood I am requesting that the Commuruty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterprises, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Ine for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideration m thIS matter sm=e[m dJ /!JJf ~ 3/ Iy~()t- City of Clearwater Planrung Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Planning Director , - \ I: D)r-ftT0(ILD--~l),' I~~t MAR I 5 21mJ@ I' .. J- -~-......... / t I' "I!I, '" ~)-~-'__ '- \., ~\'tlr'Q r r( G~f,r':~'r.,uI1Ef\ri S\1C~ - --'-~~~''''mfAfER ~E:~1)2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a reSident of j I J 2. S r=-c!CCJ/4.311d I~ :bng m objectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, IDC. for the construction of condonnruums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1012. & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal is for 77 units, whIch reqUlres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn in the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feeling that the density of this project IS entIrely too large for thts netghborhood Many objections from area resIdents have been rat sed concermng the effect the requested variance WIll have on this residentIal commuruty );> Thts WIll become the tallest buildmg in the area, looming over the smgle-fanuly resIdences, which destroys the aesthetics of this quamt community Thts also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSity );> The proposed 77 uruts, along WIth the hkelIhood of 2 vehtcles per urut, wIll put addItional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve Thts IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent this area );> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt condom1I1lUm located lll1posingly in a smgle-fanuly residential area Will directly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It will also affect area property taxes It IS my feeling that the SIZe of this project will do more harm than good 10 preservmg the qUalIty of thiS neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consideration III this matter / ' / . ~ ~} /l;/'_ _ 3f /Y( 6f Smcerely, ?zJ~ 'V~~ City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director RE: FLD2003-090S0 ORiG\NAl Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of / / 5,5 ~1I1f ~ and I am wntmg m objectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of COndOm1I1lUmS at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUIred a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contInuances of the Commum ty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUIres a height vanance to 59 feet at the roof's mIdpomt and a reduction 1I1 the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the SIze of thIS prOject IS sttll too large for thIS neighborhood A bLllldmg of thIS size IS not m character WIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg comillumty IS smgle-famlly homes The SIze of this project WIll destroy the aesthetIcs of this quamt waterside commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your consIderatIon of this matter. Smcerely, [)~ ;f~ 7//0//1'1 City of Clearwater PlannIng Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Plannmg Director ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-090S0 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of / / 5" ~ .secfe.e...J Ot...- and I am wn t10g In obj ectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of cOndOmInIUmS at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ong1Oal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUIred a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn In the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Comrnumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUIres a height varIance to 59 feet at the roofs mIdpomt and a reduction III the side setback from 10 fect to 5 85 feet It IS obVIOUS that the Slze of thIS proJect IS still too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUlld10g of thIS size IS not III character with the surround1Og commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famlly homes The size ofthls project Will destroy the aesthetics of thIS quamt waterSIde communIty, and do more harm than good III preservmg the quality of this neIghborhood I am rcquestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your conSIderation of thIS matter Smcerely, ~ AJ rz(~jJ/L, 7 /1 0/ a 'f- City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planning Director RE: FLD2003-09050 1~~[:~~J 2~~J~i I' l 't 4I\lI~jNG & D!::VEl OPt iI-NT SVCb " 91~ClEi\R1N.\TER Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of / I ~(, )ed eeVC\... and I am writmg in obJectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of eondomiruums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1 012, & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal is for 77 urnts, which requires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelIng that the densIty of this project IS entIrely too large for this neighborhood Many objections from area resIdents have been r31sed conceffilng the effect the requested vanance will have on this residential eommumty ~ This Will become the tallest buildmg In the area, lOOmIng over the smgle-family residences, whIch destroys the aesthetics of this quamt community Th.:.s also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSity ~ The proposed 77 uruts, along with the likehhood of2 vehicles per urut, Will put addItIOnal traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Drive Tills IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area )> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt condomInIUm located illlposmgly in a smgle-famtly reSidential area Will dIrectly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It Will also affect area property taxes It is my feehng that the SIZe of this project Will do more harm than good m preserving the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requesting that the Commurnty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Ine for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consideration m tills matter Stn~,oj~ Ar ~ 3 . /'{ ~'i City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector RE: FLD2003-090S0 i~ ~:~l: ;~JOO; I' i\,,~f\!lnC Ii G~ Vf..L 0 P 1 r- rr; S vC':J 1 _ e:IY~ OF_ CU~AIN.'~1 Eli -< ;~ Dear SIT or Madam, I am a resident of ~ ~00 .sedee \) (l)f and I am writing in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condominiums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal is for 77 uruts, which reqUires a height variance to 75 feet and a reduction In the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feeling that the density of thts project is entirely too large for trns neighborhood Many ObjectIOns from area resIdents have been raIsed concernIng the effect the requested vananee WIll have on this resIdential commumty ~ ThIs WIll become the tallest budding In the area, lOOmIng over the s1Ogle-famdy residences, which destroys the aesthetics of this quamt community Tills also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSity ~ The proposed 77 umts, along With the likelIhood of 2 vehtcles per urut, Will put additIOnal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Drive This IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent tms area ~ The overall negative effeet of the proposed development on local property values A multl- urut condornmium located Imposmgly ill a single-famIly residential area Will dIrectly affect property values and their ability to resell It Will also affect area property taxes It is my feelIng that the SIZe ofthts project wdl do more harm than good m preserving the quality of this neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commuruty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Ine & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideration m thiS matter SIncerely, k~ LO~ 03- )J1 - 01 CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Depaf nt 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Planmng Director ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, 1 am a resident of Ilb/ ~.fir:... and f am wntmg m ObjectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condomimums at t 919 & 1925 F.dgewater Dn ve and to 10. 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmaJ proposal was for 77 umts, WhICh reqUlrcd a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reduction in the Side setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet After two contmuances of the CommullIty Development Board, the currcnt proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUIres a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mIdpomt and a reductIon In the side setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet It IS obvious that the SIze of thIS project I~ still too large for this neighborhood A bUlldmg ofthl5 SIze IS not m character WIth the surrounding commumty when 99% of the surroundmg comrnumty IS smgle-famIly homes. The size of thIs project WIll destroy the aesthetIcs of this quaint waterside commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the quality ofthls neighborhood I am requestIng that the Commumty Development Board deny tire request of rap Flight Enterpnses. Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, me for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consldcratlOn of thIS matter Smcerely, ~ fiwo /~ JI, 7- /2 -Otf o ~(C~~~~JF nl\ JlJll 32004 I,IJ L ~ PLA;>.lNING & [' ":VElOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF ClE, P,WATEP, .-. ~tilW"ri~"~I"~ W...JJj"'~ ~~..--------. ~~.~ - City of Clearwater PlannIng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue P.D Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn MIke Reynolds, Plannmg Director ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of I J 7 J ~~ell&" S ~ and I am wntmg In obJectIOn to the approval requested by Top Fligbt Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condomllll ums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve and 1 010, 1012, & 1 020 Sunset POlllt Road The onglllal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUired a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn III the SIde setback from 10 feet to 585 feet. After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUlres a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIon III the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obvIous that the SIze of thIs project lS still too large for this nClghborhood A bUlldlllg of thIS size IS not III character with the surroundmg commumty when 99% ofthe surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The size of this project Will destroy the aesthetics oftlus quaIllt waterside commumty, and do more hann than good m preservIng the qualIty of thIs neighborhood 1 am request10g that the Commumty Development Board deity the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideratIOn of this matter 7/10(Di, ~~~ ~r\l\~~N1 PV\NN\l'lG & ~~C':s $E-R _ '~l,v.!p. "fER "f"V01-CLb ell l City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Planmng DIrector RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGlNAL Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of/1~/~~d I am wnbng In objecbon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of · condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUired a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn III the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUires a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roof's mldpomt and a reductIon In the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the SIze of this project IS still too large for thIs neIghborhood A bUlldmg of thIS SIZe IS not In character with the surroundmg cornmumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The size of thIs project WIll destroy the aesthetics of thIS quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good In preservmg the qualIty of this neIghborhood I am request10g that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, lnc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSideratIon of this matter Smcerel y, ~d~~ 1/ t? I.;;J-"'':;> r @[E(C~~w[E 'tJ [nil JUlI3~~ PLANNING & r::::VELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF CLE nVVATER City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Planrung Director "ujJe@!€O W ~ rn~ : III MAR 1~2004 ~UU , __~ ~~____ I _',fc, i ;"'[ P,r:VEl0C..l,'P.;:~~TSvc;, -' : ;:--c..U: l1iW;,fER - -~~=--~~ RE: FLD2003-090S0 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a reSident of / ilL! 5~jJdf!- l<) 1- and I am wntmg m objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condominiums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal is for 77 units, winch requires a hetght variance to 75 feet and a reduction in the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feehng that the denSity of thIs project is entirely too large for this neighborhood Many objections from area residents have been raIsed concermng the effect the requested vanance will have on tins reSidential commuruty >- This wIll become the tallest bU1ldmg m the area, lOOmIng over the single-famIly reSidences, which destroys the aesthetics of tins quamt commumty ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed tills denSity >- The proposed 77 umts, along With the hkelihood of 2 velncles per unit, WIll put additional traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve TIns IS not safe for the many pedestrians that frequent this area >- The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- unit condommlUm located Imposingly m a smgle-famIly reSidentIal area will dtrectly affect property values and their abIlity to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It IS my feeling that the SIze of tlus project will do more harm than good m preservmg the qualtty of tlus neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc &] 925 Edgewater Drive, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideration 10 tins matter City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Planmng DIrector RE: FLD2003-090S0 ORIGINAL Dear SIT or Madam, I am a resident of and I am wntmg m obJectIon to the approval requested by Top Flig ~Enterprises, Inc. & 1 2S Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommlUms at 191 &. 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUIred a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon m the side setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet After two contInuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUIres a height vanance to 59 feet at the roof's mldpomt and a reductIOn m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obVIOUS that the SIze of thiS proJect IS stili too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUIld10g of thIS SIZ~ IS not m character WIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-farmly homes The SIze of this project WIll destroy the aesthetIcs of thIS quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of this nelghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Ine for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideration of thIS matter kl~~' CIty of Clearwater P1annmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue P.D Box 4748 Clearwater, FIonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, PlannIng Director ~ECE~VtED RE: FLD2003.09050 APR 1 R 1~u4 PLAb\%\j~~G D~PARTl\J1ENT CITY OF ClEA1RVVATER Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of S O:U~l:(..I;L>..Jo.... ~-\..: Q.~ and I am wntmg m objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructlon of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Po1Ot Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, which reqUIres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon In the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelmg that the denSity of this project IS entirely too large for thIS neighborhood Many objectIOns from area residents have been raIsed concernmg the effect the requested vanance WIll have on thts resIdential commumty. )> ThIS WIll become the tallest bUlldmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-famlly reSIdences, which destroys the aesthetics of this quaInt commumty ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS denSity )> The proposed 77 umts, along wIth the lIkelIhood of 2 vehIcles per umt, Will put addItIOnal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area )> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt condommmm located Imposmgly In a sIngle-farruly resIdentlal area WIll duectly affect property values and their ablhty to resell It WI II also affect area property taxes It IS my feelmg that the SIze of thIs project WIll do more harm than good m preservmg the quahty of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Ine for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideratIOn In thiS matter , Smcerely, ~ ~<>->---.>.. ~~ ~~~~&.~~~~~~'~ '. ~ ~~,~~ ~~ c..~~~2).. ~~~J ~ ~ ~ '~,~. ~ \ '" " . ~~ ~~~~~ ./-"G :'\ ...~ ~..:a-. . ~ Mar 16 04 09:42a Aud~-Shand ~ Wllllams AlA I 7275'390099 fJ. 1 MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMULLEN ATrORHEYS ~ COUNSllr.ORS AT I.I\.W Intorvost Bank Bu11din9 645 Court S"reet Suite 400 P O. BOX 1669 {ZIP ~37571 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA ~~756 l?2?J 4.41-6966 PRIVILEGED MATERIAL FAX TRANSMITTAL FORM DATE: March 16, 2004 NUMBER OF PAGES: /3 (Includlng cover page) ATTENTION: MIKE REYNOLDS FIRM NAME: CITY OF CLEARWATER FAX NO.: 562-4865 TELEPHONE NO. _ 562-4836 FROM: HARRY S. CLINE FAX NO.: (727 ) 442-8470 fOJ [E ff6 r~ ~ W [E ! 11'1 uu~ 16 ~ llli PLA1'lNING & DEVELOPMENT CvC~ CITY OF CLEARWATER ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS IN RECEIVING, PLEASE CALL OUR OFFICE AT (727) 441-8966 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN T~IS FACSIMILE MESSAGS IS ATTORNEY-CLIE~, PRIVILE8ED AND :ONFIDENTIAL INPOR~AT=ON n TE:tO:::D ONLY FOR THE USE OF ~hE A.ODRESSEE I, THE REA.OEll. OF THlS MESSAGE IS '"'aT THE lllTE~DED RECjfl~lT COW4UIHCA-W'< Of' T1IS MATERIAL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITE:ll !F YOU IlAVE RECEIVED TflIS COMt-M. ICA':'IO'< IN ER."1.CR, ~LEASE !~~EIlIA,ELY NO,IFY us BY TELEPhON~ (CO~LECT IF NECESSARY) AND RBTURN TfE ORIGINAL VESSAGE TO US AT THE ABO\, E AIlD1l.P!> S V: II rH E U S PO ST AL S ERV I C:E: 'I'IlANK YOU Mar '6 04 OS:42a Aud' <:;hand S. WIllI ams AIR 7275~~i~0~SS rE (Yg rf' fl \!l G!' i ; ~O~R ~ -;~ n I~' h.ANNING& OEVELOPM!:Ni S~C~ CITY OF CLE B t 1 FP J r[lieJ'-slifeiali IS a proposed' CUYJ.lry condomznium prOject fixated zn crearwa J pmmzr commumtleS along tlie gulf of'MeJfico. '11ie tIeveCopment me IS 2 67 acres focautI at tIie intersectWn of P.tfgewater CDrive (afso R.P0'Wn as jtlternate 19) ani Sunset (j!oint CR,paa and it Fias titrect water views of CCearwater (]jay and mrect water access to Stevenson Cree~ crfie flsFifeiBli , , rrFie.flsfifetoli wtiI 6e comprised of 77 Units in si.xJWors aGave coverea parfiJng. <[/ie unzts range In size from 2,165 square feet to 4) 500 square feet. CEacli unit wi[[ 6e sercneei 6y a semi-private elevator and WtfI /iave aired sunset 'V1CWS of CCearwater (}jay, Cfearwater (Seaeli ana tfie qufj of 9I1.ex:fco. r.Every unit W1[[ Jiave a farge 6afcony faang tlie wate0 3 6eiroomsJ 2.5 6atlirooms ani a state-oftfze-art gourmet 1Qtclien. \ ~~ 0'" I do not oppose C4.~ (~J .\ " i~ \. k 'i,. J~ ~~ Gi-A'( 0'" 0"'" ltlJ t'{ Mar 16 04 OS:42a Aud~ ~hand ~ WIllIams AlA 7275~S0099 p.3 rtlie ;4 s Ii reig Ii rrlie ;4.stiCe1fJ1i IS a proposed't:u:{,ury condomtmum project (ocatea in Cf.earwater, one of p(orufa IS premlCr communitles awng tfie Qulf of ~eXJCo rrfie aeveCopment site 1$ 2.67 acres wcatea at the mtersectton ofp.dgewater(])nve (alSo ftnown asj4{temate 19) andSunset Point (j{oatf anatt fias direct water views of cCearwater cJ3ay ana rErert water access to Stevenson creeR.:. rrTie ;4.slileiefi wi[[ 6e comprisea of 77 unIts in sq,floors a60ve coverea parRjng- rrTie units range m size from 2) 165 square feet to 4,500 square feet. 'Each unit wi[[ 6e serrncea 6y a semi-pnvate efevator ana Will have tfirect sunset views of Clearwater (}3ay, Cfearwater (Beach ana tlie gulf of 5\.fe.(lCo. 'Every unit wif[ have a Carae 6arcony Jaang tlie water, 3 6earooms) 2.5 6athrooms and a state-of-tFie-art gounnet fGtclien. I ~ I do not oppose I need more informatIon \ Mar 16 04 09:42a Rud~ ~hand ~ Wllllams AlA ?2?~'9009S p.4 '-- February 25, 2004 City of Cleanvater Planning Department 100 Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 llOJ lE r~ rtrrW le,l n II UU~162004 W hJ\l\lN1NG & DEVtLOPtvlf:NT SvCi:.l CITY OF CLEARWATER RE: Case #FLD2003-09050 To Whom It May Concern: I am the owner of the property known as Lots 3 and 4 of the Sunnydale Subdivision, contiguous to the proposed Ashleigh Condom.uUUDlS. Subject to the above referenced case number, I am in full support of the Ashleigh CondomimUnls as proposed and presented to roe on Thursday. February 12, 2004. Sincerely, ~e~~ ...... \ I Mar 16 04 09:42a yc5 y~~ yes ~eS ~tS je s. ~l!~ fe~ Aud~ Shand L Williams AlA 727~~90099 p.5 ~oe.. 4- L\,,)c~ Ebbf WA-~ 'OO~~~'2~~IW jhAI\lfl.JNG & U!::VI:l OPM/ ~~l .s~C~ _ ClrfOFCLEf"P'N.'J[fl '":L .p..1.j c -\ A~ R -- L.I. .~. ~Q Db\\.o Le:, \ e -\-+ 6 ~ N ~ ~ ~'<.. -E..R- -, 0 <- - l j '-t \ - 7 b ~ - <( L I L, l S \J r-J ~ .,:) elf+. \ e.. ~ n... \h.o~^S cl- Su e. LANN/t'\1 0 Y ~ ~ ~ ~lo 1 S- 'S.J uSe i,- Ip.\-- R. d.. SIr\A V>..) lU M Q.. G. Q... A-A- \4 t:.D~l::-~ (,:1,.-4- <:::..\.2 1J Q L 1 \.t 2.. - ~ L L ')j ~'\~e\.. +- Wf-'\ 0R-A. ~ E b cOt:: u..) (-\- ~ e. iZ... ~ R.. YL\z...lq'~V1 1< a '0 ~r- ~ c.... \.<.. \:::."\"1.. (V\.l\ ~ Su ~ ,.j 0 etA t -€..- 10t:L l{f.ot:,-ql..3S 6A- {V\. ~ DD \" ~,-,u0 N~ 'f\;:.... 'fv\. ~ ~......:> ~ ciA:: \-e..... ~ (' \....{lo \-3?..9'-4 Kt::lXJ.Q.rT 6\-l.e.,r--~ S0 ~ ~ e ... p -\- 12.-. ~ 441 ~ (b19 II 10 A WO I j e.. I 50tv 0'0 "-t dA (e DIZ o --- )?\N '-~~G,~ ~ c:: 7 ~ f ~ 0'\ j~ ,_ ~ l <:... \. ~ ~ "r--... ," ,'-'-- -R c ~ ~ ,~e A-~f<~"^"'\,'\-<~ 3'1; t..c04'-">__ /llc. t; 6 '-J /JlV IS? II /lL..ec-/2~A N .J; ~ S;~:~ fL- Mar 16 04 OS:43a Me LLA.LL\l, K~""J.l~'" Y 1031 SONNYDALE DR CLEARvJATER FL 33755 1438 -.6' Ai....uco;- RONALD S - _/ 1027 SU~~uALE DR CLEARWATER FL 33755 1438 - -HARF.ls,- STEPHEN W v HARRIS, SHERRY R 1963 EDGEWATER DR CLEAR'o'IlA'IER FL 33755 1418 He GRl'TH, SHAUN ,/ Me GRATE, SUZANNE 1959 EOGEWATER DR CLEARWATER FL 33755 1417 GRAY, WILLIAM L v GRAY, JANET C 1951 EDCEWATER DR CLEARlIIll,TEi<. FL 33755 1417 - L~~lNG, THOMAS L LANNIi'lG, SUE A lC40 SUNSET POINT RD CLEAR'iIlATER FL 331~5 1441 SHERRY, ROBERT J ;W 1026 SUNSET POINT RD *' CLEARWATER FL >>- 33755 1441 Rue"' Shand & WIllIams RIR 727~~SOOSS p.6 ./ 54f'ICG7 t~}1(7 -------- !OOr~ ~~I:-~~~ jW IlpJlNNING & OEVElOPM~NT SvC, t CITYOFCli:ARWA1ER )11m <CD mCII _I .. - D1n 110 -" CD\( [' fi.'::'" ,13 oJ r- 8 fis.fc;l f.) II J 2- ~,;-).......'1 J... '-.t2.- ~.... ......... ,~ (').- ~ .5 ~ 1 ~ t.e-- 1J<""- d.-)6T.....J ,..,.-,-- I , '0 I\- D-? 6/ Cc- J J'6iJ SU0~). 0 ~ "FJ;;:5 I'r LOlJ ~~ e 'Des CcJ7'-Q.ITtt.~\ / j::L q 5. J ..; ^' J i'l- t e.. ~ IL- f66uu4 l2ui 1'-- (010 5~>d ff /U ~ uCs "rI 19&>'7 U;/'Jklfl .~'-(zfL{J 1:/L/L~r-V) -e ~~ e~7t}if;;~,1C-- !1!-- ~ l llv S,; J~:ri 1\ t-e_ br l t \ ~ s " ,..J ....... -J c.L"t: )c / Ir{jO 50-,"1 "'":J ~t dL 1/ 2-1 5Z/?4-/c:f~ I / I) L__5u cJ~ ~ dA Ie ---L 1 '7>'" 2> V ,N (V ~ 0 L,.J-t- ,.,. ) J Mar 16 04 09:43a Aue . Mar lb LUU4 ~ ~IJA~ Shand ~ Wllllams AlA 727~~90099 11 U r q I!.. r u ~ 10.7 March 15,2004 1[~l:R l;~1 ~ jW r,J1}H\1NiNGC~ D~~~:r!:ln SvCi:l J: __ ___.gITY OF CtEM~WAl ER --' Honorable Members of The Clearwater Community Development Board. My name is Lucille Crowley Auclair and my residence is 2009 Edgewater Drive. My husband and I have Ii ved at this address for over 8 years. 2009 Edgewater Drive is located 7 homes North of this proposed project. I come before you today to ask that you vote in favor of the Top Flight Partnership proposal to build 77 condo units at 1919 and 1925 Edgewater Drive, Clearwater, Florida. These individuals are residents in our neighborhood and I believe their condo units will add to the beauty and monetary value of our neighborhood. You and I know, as do, r m sure, the vast majority of those in attendance at tlus meeting that Edgewater Drive, also known, as Alternate 19 North is one of the most scenic drives in the City of Clearwater. Presently there is a condo construction being built just south of the "Sunset Point RoadlFishing Bridge" and another condo unit is under construction at Seminole Street. I think I can speak for most of you when I say, In my heart? I DO NOT want to see the Mom and Pop hotels go. And, in a perfect world I would gladly say NO to their continued demolition. But unfortunately it is no secret that many of these channing, small hotels are not now. and have not been for some time, financially viable. And for that reason, some would call their continued replacement and impossible to aVOId. I do fear that should the Board fail to approve the Top Flight Partnership proposal it will not be long before some other Mar 16 04 OS:43a Aud~ Shand ~ WIllIams AlA 727~?SOOSS p.D Mar 16 2004 g'~OAM ,~ No I~IL P In Developer or Organization, with no vested interest in the welfare of our neighborhood, comes before you with a similar request, and perhaps on a much larger and more obtrusive scale. The question seems to me to bet do we want to trust the fate and future of our beautiful community to some unknown corporate entity, or would we not be better served by ensuring that our new neighbors are in fact, OUt current old neighbors? Again, I respectfully ask that you vote in favor of the Top Flight request. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, ,,~ / ;1-/~ ciIle Crowley Auclair (0) 727-461-4801 X 8149 (H) 727443-0016 i{Df f1 & It a w fE l1iT /Jd: MAR I 6 ~ @j !. -- , 3',I't!!\JINC"7-('r':--lj' ._~-_ ~ '~',- r-I 01)' l' f'l" , '7'( 0'- (': r. t '. "vc.... -~ ~L-L.-!-tARvVAJER'" '" ----...: cc: Top Flight Partnership Mar is 04 OS:43a Aud~ Shand & Wlll1ams AlA 727~~9009S JO.9 FROM : BAY QUEEN MOTa FAX NO. 727-466-6185 Mar. 15 2084 10.28AM Pi City of Clearwater Planning Departmertt 100 Myrtle Avenue CleMwuter. FL 33756 fro) ~ m I ~ 0 w ~ r:\! iu~~~W \ .r~!\lf\~ING & DEVtlOPM!:1'Jl- .s\lC~ __ Cl[fCc.ClEARWll,l EH February 25. 2004 RE. Case #FLD2003~050 To Whom II May Concern 1 am the owner oftbe property known as SWlSet Point and RepIat E 45 FT of Lot 8 and W 40FT of Lot 9 and RIP RTS. con1lgUO\lS to the proposed Asblcigh CondmrunlUms Subject to the above referenced case number. I am in full suppon of the Ashleigh Condominiums as proposed and presented to me on Thursday. February 12.2004. , ,\ loP ~c,.~ u..:ve..o't'\~, U-c- A4~ \0 Co~~ A. ~-o \-hl.tl..\ w"u........ A;.lbN.'1 \\-lEi E~t..E ~~"1 ~Q.....) PQ...o?Ea...'1"( l-H'..tE Ie> f'Q.&J~ .....tJ'( u~~\uo...~""'....x..e "\0 "\l-\e NG"\ c.., L-\.buL~ P9...Dt--\, 'He~ou.~,t; .. Best Copy Available - ~N\~ tJ&t-.)~ 1bf ~L.C\ D~~t~CN'f lLL ~\C1::.~ "' \ Mar 16 04 09:43a Audp Shand & Wlll1ams AlA 7275390099 p.l0 - 1?J: fJ'\t~E- l3S9 (2)O~9 Ashleigh Condominiwns TREE INFORMATION Mardl1S, 2004 f0 ~ @[fO \Y! ~ ~I! III ::ll 11 ill U MAR 1 6 ~~Jl01 , '~'lI'16;DEVElOP'~TSvC";)I' I .:. r I ~);- Clrl,tfV ',.., I r fi - _.... -J __~"'~3iI.~~ SAVING ON THE SITE 9 OAKS FORA TOTAL OF 184" lRANSPLANTING ON 1HE SITE ] I PALM TREES FOR A TOTAL OF 133" PLANTING 75 NEW TREES ON SITE FORA TOTAL OF 173" EXISTING 52" & 36" UVE OAKS ARE BETWEEN SO AND 75 YEARS OLD TIlESE TREES ARE NATIVE AND PROVIDE FOOD AND SHELTER-FOR MANY BIRDS AND OTHER. ANIMALS. THEY ALSO PROVIDE OXYGEN WITHOUT NEEDING ANY FERTILIZATION OR WATERING, SINCE TIlEY ARE ADAYlbU TO LOCAL TEMPERATURES AND RAINFALL PATIERNS. ANDERSON LESNIAK LIMITED. INC. Land!;Cdpe AtchltectuM 492/ South We!jt.5hor~ Blvd SIte PI.iffmng r-imps, Flond.; 33r; II Urbiltl OeslI!]" (tJ /3) 63/.:7:;'5 Mar 16 04 09:43a Audr Shand ~ WIllIams AlA 727~~90099 p. 11 Best Copy rr1i jIlife Ii Available e s ig 71ie)tslile'fjfi 1$ a proposed fux:pry conaominium prOJect (0 ca tea in Cfearwater, one of PContfa 's prem1.e1' communIties afong tlie CJuff of 5W~co. rrTie aevewpment SIte is 2. 67 acres {ocatea at tlie intersection of P,ieewater ([)rive (afso kJtown as jI(temate 19) and Sunset Point CJ{paa anti it lias dired water views of Cfearwater <Bay and tfr.rect water access to Stevenson Cree~ 'I1ie )fsfzCe:r.gfz. wi{[ be comprised of 77 un1.ts in ~ors a60ve coverea parf(jng. rrlie units range In size from 2,165 square feet to 4,500 square feet. p.acli umt wilI6e servICed' 5y a semt-private efevator and wi{{ nave direct sunset mews of Cfearwater{}3ay, C[earwatercBeacli and tlie quff of 9dCXJCo. CEvery unit wi[[ /iave a farge 6auony facl'''fJ tlie water; 3 5edrooms, 2.5 6atlirooms ana a state-of-tlie-art gourmet kjtclien. ~\ III I do not oppose I need more information ~'> 1\ _--- ~ ~l -t - ~~ (\g [~ J llj ~1\ D\ \i \l' u; - -- \1 'I ,Jr MAR' ~ ~)\ ", L _0:; _ -;;--6;:CTof"i.AENT s vc~, ! ... :'t~:: ~...... j....1 - ;',\pl/(..l~l::\:'1.~..l .J~__ ::..:..-:::-' :' ~~~.. ~ J I t J~ (\ J Mar 16 04 09:44a . t 4 .. 110 4 ' /f It} f. yc:s yE.S ~tl- to ... J C/t1j yt:S ~t5- ye~ ye~ Aud~ Shand ~ WIllIams AlA 727F~90099 p.12 j(:\CK... D\'Sb~ E 1:) b 8"" O-j A-~ DR. 'iq(... - ~ liC- Cl+A-l:::, ~~ eKe--\-+ 6 \J e r0 ~ P --r I(:) f2.. L/7l ~ $ 7 2 1 c. ~[C (b~r\or-1cl~e Suw~~ ~ t-e... \::Jr K fl\ S+: ~ ~"- ~)..J~ \€- S.J.e _)e.........,s.::,~ C-Q.. et: K z Z- L~ - I (.. I S- r fQ..o6-er../o 1<v j z. -5uw~€A- Pr ftd YLf 7 - l:. 2.. ~ q ~D rvt- C 1+f"1g; k e , I /11lftL.IVe 61' 4'-1 (, - .L/S6 z.. u " c. c..o c... h (tA: ~ S-\-e-' ~5~';:' (1( L{r...f 7 - L 'b" ! ){ 76/ J I i /J C I( e /( tvf 4 ,J Yf.JVj d.A ('< D Q.. :~ <J.~J~.Lf[TFlLrillrl]'\f ~L:U MAR I 6 ~] U II II ~ ---"~ "'''~, Ir(',~- I , ,,,IN:,;-~<.:' .",E\ftLOPMi::~J (l:' _ eld . 9'-J'~t~An)N<'\TER ",vC~ S .f eo f ^ · N e (V1. C fco Vol ,,,) ~0i'-'i dA (e ~, C II MAR-15-2004 ,'" . 16:05 P 01 "J~ W.;-"",i'ARLANE FERGUSON & McHlJl,.LEt.. " A'l"IODlIn'S 5. COUNSELORS AT '-AW Int9~~t ~aok Buildin~ 625 cou~t ~t~99t Sl,I.it.. 200 , 0 BOX 1~~9 (ZIF 33151) at E1IlI.iolll.1'Dl , VLQII.:nm B 7 S E (7271 4.41-6~~~ PRIVILEGED MATERIAL FAX TRANSMITTAL FORM y DATE: March 15, 2004 NUMBER OB' PAGES: (Includlng cover page) ATTENTION; MrKE REYNOLDS FIRM NAME: CITY OF CLEARWATER FAX NO.: 562-4865 T2LEPHONE NO.' 562-4836 PROM: HARRY S. CLINE /; FAX NO. : (727) 442-8470 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS; MIKE: Attached is the list of residents in support of the Top Flight matter who livee on Sunnydale; however, they have 44 people in total that have signed their petition, which we will fax to you no later than first thing ~n the a.m. Thanks Kathy O'Hearn IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS IN RECEIVING, PLEASE CALL OUR OFFICE AT (727) 441-8966 TIlE IJiPOllt'lIl.nON CQ)l'rAINm IN THIS P.lV:SIMILE MESSAGE IS l't.:rroroU~V-CLI~'T PRIVILEGED IlJ"Il COlJl'tPmTIAL INFORMATION IliITEJroED ONLY E'OR nq: lJ$l! or 'rim ADDtl:S SEE. I F THE R&l't.DER OP TIlt S MilS SAGIl I S NOT TIm INT El\Ipm REel P I ENT ecMMtlNICATION OF nns ~TP,tAL HI S'fRIC'rLY PROHIBITEP IF YOU AAVll: Mt:BIVED TillS COMJlfIDlICAT1QIi1 IN ERROR, Pu:A91ii tMMEllIA.TEL'i OOTU'Y US BY TELEPHONE lCOl;.t.Il:C'I Iii' NECESSARY) ANIl RETURN THE ORIClINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE 1\lJDRBSS VIII 11lE U.9 POSTAL SERVICE THIINK YOU M~Fr1-5-~00~ 15 05 (f~ Harry Cline P 02 From. Kathy O'Heam Sent: Tuesday. March 09,2004221 PM To. Harry Cline Subject DANIEL BUCKINGHAM # 244~2471 You needed li5t of names & addresses on Sunnydale Dnve w/names & addresses Damel Buckingham 1125 Sunnydale Drive Clearwater, FL 33755 Samuel Buck 1113 Sunnydale Erich Burbridge 1112 Sunnyd ale Tina Wolfe 1130 Sunnydale LOUIse Descoteary 1129 Sunnydale Jan Young 1116 Sunnyd ale Robert Hackerman 11 00 Sunnydale Billy Hackerman 11 01 sunnydale Stephanie McGowan 1121 Sunnydale John Smith 11:37 SunnydaJe Regina McLean 1031 Sunnydale Ronald Damico 1027 Sunnydale Collette Sandaker [she has property on Sunnydale] 1038 Sunset POint Road They had 44 people that signed their petitIon y jD-'r TOTAL P 02 , /' '~) \ " r~ ORIGINAL Toy :Fuglit 'Deve{oyntent, LLC February 26, 2004 Mr Mlchael Reynolds CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Ave Clearwater, Flonda Re FIle #FLD2003-09050 ~ ~ @ r~ n \lJ] ~ ~I L~~EB 26200\ I U lU Lf....l\lNING & DE \ ~ l or' lilt I;,) 1 ;:; vC~ Cl1Y OF CLEM"N/\l Eli Dear Mlcheal, Attached please find an ongmalletter dated February 25,2004 from Collette Sandaker She IS the neighbor directly east of our property (Sunnydale SubdIvIsion Lots 3, 4, 5) As you can see m her letter, she fully supports the Ashlelgh Condom1OlUm as It IS currently proposed Collette mheflted the property sometIme In the past two years from her late husband's estate HIs name was Carl Sandaker and he In turn mheflted the property from hiS deceased mother several years pnor Her name was Rose Sandaker and she IS still the regIstered owner accordmg to the County Property AppraIser's office Collette and every other homeowner that lives wlthm 500 feet of the proposed project was invited to a presentation on February 12, 2004 The meetmg was very well attended and the deSign and development team presented the Ashlelgh CondommlUm The presentatIOn was exactly as It has been submitted to you 10cIudmg the bUIldIng heights and setbacks We receIved a very pOSItIve response from a large majonty of the attendees In fact, most have subsequently signed a petitIOn survey 10 full support of our project We are still recelvmg signatures and as soon as the survey IS complete we Will submit It to you for your fi I es To date the followmg I s the status of our neighborhood support 1 Number of property owners wIthIn 500 feet of the proposed AshleIgh 56 2 Number of those that are duplIcate names or owners of multIple properties 8 3 Number of those that are the applIcants 4 4 Number of those that are the City of Clearwater ...1. Net actual property owners wIthm 500 feet 40 Of the 40 actual property owners that live wlthm 500 feet of the proposed AshleIgh CondomInIUm we have already receIved 36 pOSItive signatures That IS mdeed an overwhelmmg mandate of support Please feel free to call me If you have any questIOns Thank you ~~ Daniel Dennehy ....- 1925 Edgewater On ve Clearwater, Flonda 33755 Ph 727-278-4400' Fax 727-466-6186 -' ..... , i I:J FEB 2 6 2004 J ~ 0:., Jil\lNING &. DE'lidOPMENT svc~ ~ CITYOFClEARWATER I " , February 25, 2004 CIty of Clearwater Planning Department 100 Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 RE. Case #FLD2003-09050 To Whom It May Concern I am the owner ofthe property known as Lots 3 and 4 of the Sunnydale Subdivision, contiguous to the proposed Ashlelgh Condommmms. Subject to the above referenced case number, I am ill full support of the Ashleigh Condomimums as proposed and presented to me on Thursday, February 12,2004 SlOcerely, JueU- ~ '- ~ . -- rm? rt~ W IE Wil' l:ffi-MA~ ~ ~Lt1~/) f/ PL.AI~~E:tcLOP,MP'T~V :::J A/ _ ~~ _ _ , - ~ ~ J~~ o/~~ ~~~~~4)~ dLlUL-~ ~~ ~ ;?a~k~ -rhL ~~ -~~/. V ~~~~,~_~~ . L. .' ~ '.;c:;- ?iLe ~-~~f~ ~ _~~~ ~~L~~d~- __O_~ G/ L ~jf ~ _~_!!_~_...d.2 ~-~~Q~~ .. 1- m . __CI)~m '_L--~_~ ~~ _:~~~d~-~~~~ 61--c<;/_~~~/o.~ j3~--'l~~~ ~ --~r~~-d1-~-~- ~~.~ 6=-_cf1'ck!~- -- _______ ___.~~c&-~-.~- c . -/.f-<f . ~~~m~e;;;;; ~ -;1 [;;> rv-~ _ :/_ _ J~~T~~~ ~~ - ..::: ~ I ~. .L f.,. ;::L.5~ o~-J'*~,*~. ~~~;t;_JU?? ~ /;;~r-. .-.-..- - .~ % ~~Fof;;;t ~~. ~d, _ _ u-%~ ~ ,- A~,'-h-7- ~~-~. ---;/~ - -~ 3S:~~-?~7 --~-- ~~~1?t'3 -. CJOjj~ ~~J~' ~ ~' ,~ &?2 - / 'W...L- .. -~ ~ --1---- -- -- - - ------~-, - --- . . : ~~-~k _~..-b m~~~~J~ '~-&a._u;ti!JL;J2) ~ J;t J .. o~ \ J j;;fl;i- ffi/.~ , ___ 0 ,,~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~'( --------- . ~~-~- '-'~- 0" ~T--- -- r-;L.~o. /0'1-7 .8~])~~V:A ~T cb_~337s-j JIi\ ...J' ..- . - " March 4, 2004 City of Clearwater Plann10g Department RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of 1039 Sunnydale Dnve and I am wfltmg m objection to the approval requested by Top FlIght Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of cOndOmInIUmS at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, which reqUires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn 10 the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feeling that the denSIty of thIs project IS entirely too large for this neighborhood I moved to thIs house 3 Y2 years ago because of the Ideal locatIOn The water View, the dead-end street, and the safe walk-able neighborhood these were all location qualItIes I had searched for Smce my move I have been further been Impressed With the people m my neIghborhood There IS a very real sense of commumty and I conSider myself very fortunate to be part of It This IS why I have to vOice my OppOSItIon to thIs development proposal My first major reservatIOn regardmg the height and Side setback of the proposed bUlld10g IS that a seven floor bUlldmg will have a conSIderable negatIVe affect on the amount of sunlight my property receives m the afternoon by causmg an early sunset It wIll also further cut back the amount of sea breeze that flows down SunnydaIe Dnve Both the sunlight and sea breeze are hlgWy deSIrable attnbutes to thIs property owner The next concern I have IS about area traffic Currently Edgewater Dnve and Sunset Pomt Road are burdened enough WIthout the addItIon of a 77 -umt condo The mtersectlon IS congested by the datly traffic of the Chevron on the northeast comer, and gettmg out from Sunnydale Dnve can already be difficult dunng certam times of the day This Will certamly not Improve With the proposed construction In fact It 10creases my fear for the safety of the many pedestnans, 1Oclud1Og myself, who enJoy walkmg m thIs neIghborhood AddItionally I have concerns about the potentIal negative affect on my property value The developers have told me that this WIll mcrease my property value, I do not see how tills can be Who would purchase a house With a large condom1OlUm lOOmIng at the end of the street? Furthermore a proJect of thIs size Will only encourage addltlonal large-scale development III this area, which IS somethmg I am adamantly opposed to I moved to this area because of ItS quamt, "\ - ... . e_;( Old FIonda charm I would hate to see thIs destroyed by overeager developers With only revenue mmmd Understand that I am not agamst all development, IJust feel the size of thIs project Will do more harm than good m preservmg the quahty of thIS neighborhood I am request10g that the CommunIty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, lnc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your conSIderation In this matter Smcerely, !l~~~ccL 1039 Sunnydale Dnve <1 March 3, 2004 ~5~~/W' PLANNING & Ol:\.r i:lQP ," . f ' .' '. CITY OF ClEARWA1EA - .....,;,l To Whom It May Concern My wife and T have lived at 1043 Sunnydale Dnve smce June 2002 Dunng thIS time we have had the pnvIlege of establIshmg strong ties with many members of our commumty. It has been brought to our attention that an Illvestment group is seekmg peffilission to bUIld on the locatIOn where the Bay Queen Motel currently resides (comer of Sunny dale and Edgewater) I am also to understand that this group wishes to place a structure at thiS location neanng a heIght of 75 feet ThIS would currently dwarf any structure m view of the homes m our commumty m excess of 25 feet. ThiS would also substantially Increase the flow of traffic III our once quiet neighborhood In an effort to mamtain the mtegnty of our famIly-lIke communIty, my wife and I share the dIsmay of the homeowners on thIS street It IS our hope and prayers that those involved ill handling these matters, will see to It to keep the height of thiS structure near that of which we can all lIve With. We appreciate your tlme and effort toward thiS matter SIncerely, Jason and MelIssa Coon 1047 Sunnydale Dr. Clearwater, FL 33758 March 3,2004 !OJ ~ @ r~ ~ \VI rn 1m uu~ ;5 ~ lill PtAt>lN ING & 0 E vtt OPr,iLNT ~ vet! CITY OF CLEARwArER Mike Reynolds Project Planner Community Zoning Board 100 S Myrtle Ave. Clearwater, FL 33756 Dear Mike, I would like to go on record stating that I am in opposition to grantmg ANY SORT of EASMENTto the proposed project of Case #FLD 2003-09050. I feel that If any such easements would lessen the quality of my street Sunnydale Dr causmg immed1ate and unforeseen problems The two properties the Bay Queen and the Edgewater Motel that are currently located at the end of my street on the S W side are both 2-story Florida motels that keep WIth the Florida Charm found on Edgewater and the surrounding neighborhoods A condominium building of 75' that houses 77 uruts would not only cause a break in tlns charm by placing a tall menacing structure that would block the gorgeous view and skyline of St John's Sound, it would bring more traffic to the already congested and dangerous Edgewater nght of way. In additIOn to these problems, my property tax and any future residents would be increased. I personally moved here mto thIS particular area just for the view and environment that It proVides. Thorough the day there is always IDce breeze that blows in off of the water and in the evemngs there IS a beautiful SUNSET that many neighbors and Clearwater residents come to see. I guess that this was kept in mind when the planners named my street Sunnydale Drive and the main mtersecting street Just south Sunset Point. I invite you and the other members ofthe C D.B. board to come and witness the already temble traffic problem and the amazing sunset. I would like any consideration of an easement to be abandond and a complete hearing scheduled. Truly rti!L4;~ March 4,2004 Clearwater PlanI1Jng Department RE: FLD2003-09050 rn MAR 0 5 2004 rn Dear Sir or Madam, PL/\''tN1NG;; l)f:Vb OPIvI!:NT SIJC;;, , CITY OF ClEARWA1ER I am wnt10g 10 reference to the proposed constructIon of the condommlum to be located at the address 1919 and 1 925 Edgewater Dnve and 1 01 0, 1 012,1 020 Sunset Pomt Road There IS a request for a height vanance of 75 feet and a reduction m the side setback from 1 0 feet to 5 85 feet I moved to this location eight years ago The VIew from my front porch and lawn IS beautiful I have a VIew of palm trees, water and spectacular sunsets It IS just lovely My concern IS If the 77 uruts are buIlt It wdI take away my beautiful view and I'll only see a 75-foot bUIldmg Also I feel the bUlldmg of thIS condommlUrn will only depreCiate the value of my home Bemg a grandmother my grandchildren VISit often and I have a concern for their safety while playmg m the neighborhood The additiOnal traffic that wIll be a direct result of this project Will threaten their safety This IS a great farnIiy-onented neighborhood and I would like It to stay that way I feel this bUIldmg IS too large for thIS commuI11ty I am completely aga10st thiS proJect and would like the Board to deny the request for the permit Thank you, ,,') ~ if9 Kemper 1022 Sunnydale Dnve March 3, 2004 f5J ~r~!~nw~ r~l UU~;-~lill hA'I!N!NG & e'EVI:LOP",lI:I'IJT CvC~ Cln OF CLEf,PW Al ER City of Clearwater Plannmg Department RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I have been a reSident of 1040 Sunnydale Dnve S10ce January 1978 ThIs IS a beautiful, qUIet neighborhood WIth a wonderful view of the water and serene sunsets My hope IS that It WIll remam as such Ther:~.!s a permit request by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc;--fot<lh~,fPnstructlon ofcondom1OIums at the end of Sunny dale Dnve on Edgewater Dnve an4. a portion Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, which reqUIres a height vanance to 75 feet and a setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelIng that the 'den~lIty of/thiS project IS entirely too large for thIS neighborhood In fact It appears that revenue IS be10g made more a pnonty than the health and safety of this neighborhood's reSidents I do not understand the reasomng of burIdmg huge condomIlllums when resources such as water, and even electnclty at tImes, are already m short supply There IS also a major traffic concern for the already congested Edgewatef Dnve, and Sunset Pomt Road Dunng the peak hours of the day It IS almost ImpossIble to make a left turn from Sunnydale Dnve onto Edgewater Dnve A nght turn can prove almost as dauntmg, one IS hterally at the mercy of the pass10g motonsts Thls Situation IS not condUCive to the hIgh pedestnan traffic thiS area sustams r do not see how a 77-umt condommlUm eXltmg onto Sunnydale Dnve, or entenng off of Sunset Pomt Road, wIll make the situatIon any better or safer My neIghbors and I love our street and our homes We love bemg able to walk to the end of the street to see the water We do not want additIonal safety concerns for our families We do not want to see the value of our property depreCiate because of an Impos1Og condomlIllum My neIghbors and I would apprectate the Board preservmg the quality, and safeness of our neighborhood by denymg the requested permIt Thank you, Velma Andrews ~~ 2/27/2004 rn @: p-i~W [E MAR 0 1, 2004 SIT( s )lMadam( s) F'LAi~NING & OEliELOPME:NR CITY OF ClEARWATE There IS a consideration of some company to buIld a condominmm on Edgewater Dnve between Sunset Pomt Road and Sunnydale Dnve I am opposed to thts construction. I request any vanances needed to start the project be demed Thts area is already impacted with too much traffic and it is already very difficult to get out ofSwmydale Drive onto Edgewater Dnve because of the mtense traffic flow. ThIS area IS already established as a predornmately one story, smgle fmmly residences and an addItIon of a multI story buitding to commumty would lower the quality of the neighborhood The view of the intercostal waterway would be mhiblted from Swmydale Dnve and Sunset Point Road Agam I am against building the condommmms m thts area and request that aU mv01ved m the deClSlon to consider denymg requITed permitting. ~u Fre Mills 1028 Sunnydale Dnve Clearwater, Florida 33755 w v~ .... . PETITION ~!~-;::W' f'LAt\\N1NG & DEVELOPMENT SVC~ CI TV OF CLEARWATER February 22,2004 We, the undersigned, submIt tlus petitIon m objectIOn to the density of the proposed constructlOn of AsWey Heights to be located at addresses 1919- 1925 Edgewater Drive, and 1010-1020 Sunset Point Road We are requestmg the CIty of Clearwater deny the request of Top Flight Development, LLC for a 75-foot heIght vanance, and further hmlt said vanance not to exceed 50 feet It IS the mtentIon of the undersIgned cItIzens to protect and preserve the mtegnty of therr resIdentIal commumty from exceSSIve development m an effort to mamtam and enhance the qualIty of hfe for ItS resIdents Top Fhght Development, LLC IS requestmg from the CIty of Clearwater a vanance from the current heIght restrIctIOns for the proposed construction The requested 75-foot vanance wIll allow for a 7 story, 77- lOllt condotrumum The current proposal allows for the mam entrance/exIt to the complex to be accessed from Sunset Pomt Road WIth another eXlt only spIllmg onto Sunnydale Dnve Many obJecttons from the residents have been raIsed concernmg the effect the requested vanance wIll have on the residentIal commlOllty ~ The densIty of the bUlldmg WIll make It the tallest bUIldmg m the area, 100mmg over the smgle-fanuly resIdences, which destroys the aesthettcs of the commumty TIns also encourages future development to match or exceed the denSIty ~ The proposed 77 tUlltS, along WIth the hkelIhood of 2 vehIcles per UTIlt, WIll put addItIOnal traffic stram of 154 velucles on the congested roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve )0. The densIty of the bmldmg WIll also cause consIderable clrrnate changes for those resIdences located to the east of the locatIOn A reductJOll 10 the amount of on-shore breeze WIll affect those , ' resIdences on Sunnydale Dnve and SlU1set Pomt Road, as well as a reductIOn ill the amount of afternoon sunhght exposure to those resIdentlallandscapes ~ The overall negatJve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI-urnt condom1IllUJD located Imposmgly ill a smgle-farmly resIdentIal area Wlll drrectly affect property values and therr abilIty to resell PetItlOners contend that more ngorous regulatIon and oversight of the requested and future vanances, along With meamngful pubhc mput, should be the standard the City of Clearwater stnves to mamtam to ensure the protectIOn of the resIdentIal commuruty We, the underSIgned, urge the Board of COmmIssIOners to take munedlate actlOn to address the density concerns, the traffic burdens, the climatic affects to the residential community, and the negative affects on the local property values, and take the necessary preventatIve measures that have been recommended m tins petItlOn ADDRESS ()/~ 5t ~Q ~.QQ.J "-- ~-\- TELEPHONE # NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # PETITION MAR 0 1. ZOtJIt February 22, 2004 PLAl\iNING 8. OEVtl Ci1MtNT uVCb ClrvOF ~W;.\IER We, the lUldersIgned, subll1lt thIs petItIon ill objectIon to the densIty of the proposed construchon of Ashley HeIghts to be located at addresses 1919- 1925 Edgewater Drive, and 1010-1020 Sunset Point Road We are requestlllg the City of CleatWater deny the request of Top Flight Development, LLC for a 75-foot height vanance, and further hmlt Said vanance not to exceed 50 feet It IS the llltentIon of the undersIgned cItIzens to protect and preserve the llltegnty of therr resldenhal commumty from exceSSIve development m an effort to mamtalll and enhance the quahty of hfe for ItS residents Top Fhght Development, LLC IS requestmg from the CIty of Clearwater a vanance from the current heIght restrIctions for the proposed constructIOn The requested 75-foot vanance Will allow: for a 7 story, 77- urut condommlWTI The current proposal allows for the mam entrance/eXIt to the complex to be accessed from Sunset Pomt Road With another eXIt only spllhng onto Sunnydale Dnve Many objectIons from the residents have been raised concemmg the effect the requested vanance WIll have on the resldenhal community >> The denSIty of the bUlldmg w1l1 make It the tallest bmldmg ill the area, loommg over the smgle-fannly resIdences, WhICh destroys the aesthehcs of the commuruty ThIS also encourages future development to match or exceed the denSity >> The proposed 77 umts, along WIth the hkehhood of 2 velucles per urnt, Will put addItIOnal traffic stram of 154 velucles on the congested roadways of SUllset Potnt Road and Edgewater Dnve >> The density of the bUlldmg Will also cause consIderable chmate changes for those resIdences located to the east of the locahon A reduction m the amount of on-shore breeze Will affect those residences on Sunnydale Dnve and Sunset Pomt Road, as well as a reductlOn m the amount of afternoon Sunlight exposure to those residentIal landscapes ~ The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI-urnt condommlllffi located Imposmgly III a smgle-famtly residential area will directly affect property values and therr ability to resell PetItIoners contend that more ngorous regulatIon and oversIght of the requested and future vanances, along wIth mearungful publIc mput, should be the standard the City of Clearwater stnves to mamtam to ensure the protection of the residential c0mmurnty We, the undersIgned, urge the Board of Commissioners to take unmedtate action to address the density concerns, the traffic burdens, the climatic affects to the residential community, and the negative affects on the local property values, and take the necessary preventatIve measures that have been recommended III tlns petItion NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # 'I NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # PETITION (~ f -~-;~ \Ill ~ I -', ~~.I2OM W February 22,2004 PLAI'iNING & DEVELOPMENT vC:::t CITY OF CLEARWATER We, the lUlderslgned, submit this petitIOn m objectIOn to the density of the proposed construction of Ashley Heights to be located at addresses 1919- 1925 Edgewater Drive, and 1010-1020 Sunset Point Road We are requestmg the City of Clearwater deny the request of Top Flight Development, LLC for a 75-foot heIght vanance, and further hmIt smd vanance not to exceed 50 feet It IS the mtentlOn of the undersIgned cItIzens to protect and preserve the mtegnty of their resldentJaI commumty from exceSSIve development m an effort to mamtam and enhance the qUalIty of hfe for ItS resIdents Top FlIght Development, LLC IS requestmg from the CIty of Clearwater a vanance from the current heIght restrIctions for the proposed constructIon The requested 75-foot vanance will allow for a 7 story, 77- lUllt condommlUID The current proposal allows for the mam entrance/eXIt to tbe complex to be accessed from SlUlset Pomt Road WIth another eXit only spdlmg onto Swmydale Dnve Many obJectlOns from the reSIdents have been raIsed concernmg the effect the requested vanance will have on the reSIdentIal commlUllty . ;... The densIty of the bmldmg wdl make It the tallest buddmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-f31mly reSIdences, wInch destroys the aesthetics oftbe commlUuty. ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed the denSIty >- The proposed 77 lUlltS, along WIth tbe bkehhood of 2 vehIcles per umt, wtll put addItIonal traffic stram of 154 velucles on the congested roadways of SlUlset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve >- The denSity of the bUIldmg will also cause conSiderable chmate changes for those reSIdences located to the east of the 10catlOn A reductlOn m the amount of on-shore breeze WI II affect those resIdences on Sunnydale Dnve and Sunset Pornt Road, as well as a reductIon In the amount of afternoon sunlIght exposure to those resIdentIal landscapes )0- The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI-untt condommuun located unposmgly Jll a smgle-farmly resIdential area WIll dIrectly affect property values and theIr abIhty to resell PetItIOners contend that more ngorous regulatIOn and oversIght of the requested and future vanances, along WIth meanmgful pubhc mput, should be the standard the CIty of Clearwater strIves to mamtam to ensure the protectIon of the resldentlal commumty We, the underSIgned, urge the Board of COlTIIlliSSIOners to take unmed13te actIon to address the density concerns, the traffic burdens, the climatic affects to the residential community, and the negative affects on the local property values, and take the necessary preventatIve measures that have been recommended ill thIS petitIOn NAME ./ ADDRESS TELEPHONE # 10 L{ 3 .5..WN'f cJA (,.= ~ . / <:) 4 ~ "ScJ IJI"J-/fJ/1 (..es [)/L ~ -. -4 /0",/" 6jt-6~ NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE # d>~ ..?OrP So_fer ;17"'/(/ tZ/~~///- 3316'5 7pt7 --/y'O ?-J? ~7L/ 7J.7- f?:j/j.c ~r1-/JI1 t.-vIlCPY~ OAefYy. /. /~Jh:.p/~ -- 1'/iLe/ At ~~ /-JOb ~ ;J. ?</dl t ( - t/~ ~ ~ ~~A~ ~~, 0../. o .t. U t\), _All .. ,Qj!ll. "'\ CG~ ~~ J -11...--6 Y ~ '~lc~A-,-?M ('0.;' /O~ 1 SW\.~y~ ~ # CC~et\-e1f\. \ fL~ ~D7SS- ~ t3) Q7 S- ~ 9Yl1~ I~I:;~]~ f'1.AIIlNING& DE:VI:IOP'"1/ ';1 ~\I" _-..SlD'_OF CLEAHWA1ER ....,;;1 r rOPiFLIGHT DEVELOPMEN I 1925 EDGEWATER DRIVE FLD2003-09050 Date Objecting Support More Information Question Mark? Total Before March 15, 2004 92 62 13 167 March 16, 2004 Forward 72 64 10 2 148 Total 164 126 23 2 315 , CIty of ClealWater Plarullng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn MIke Reynolds, Planmng DIrector ORIGfNAL RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIT or Madam, I am a resident of c"/t 4. r I\J'-Vf-~r and I am wntmg III ObjectIOn'to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condom 1m ums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve and I 01 0, 1012, & 1 02 0 Sunset POInt Road. The ong1OaI proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn III the side setback from 10 feet to 585 feet After two cont1Ouances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUIres a height vanance to 59 feet at the roof's mldpomt and a reductIOn III the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the size of thIS project IS stIll too large for thiS nelghborhood A bUIldIng of thIS SIze IS not m character WIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% ofthe surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famtly homes The Size of thIS proJect wIll destroy the aesthetIcs of thIS quamt waterslde commumty, and do more harm than good III preservmg the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny tlte request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Ine & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Tne for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your eonsIderatlOn of this matter Smeerely, ?/'0i \ \ I "'-VClOPMENI PLANNING & \ ,L "F R",r'r:<; I 1 \~ro 1 r"i~ ' ~ ....------ Clty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue P.O Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn MIke Reynolds, Platmmg Director ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madant, I am a resident of {je~rtvtt:f.r and I am wntmg In obJectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommlums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, WhICh required a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn III the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUires a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roof's mldpoIllt and a reductIOn ll1 the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObViOUS that the SIZe of this proJect IS stIll too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUildIng of thIS SIze IS not In character WIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundIng commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The size of this project wIll destroy the aesthetics OfthIS quaIllt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good In preservlTIg the qualIty of this neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny tlte request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Ine for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your conSideratIon of thIS matter Smcerely, 9i67~ 07 -0 ~-oy JUl , 3 2DD4 ,8 ~ " ," "-- CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector ORfGINAL , RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of C~/F>or~~./' and I am wntmg III objectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommmms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUIred a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon 10 the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet' After two contmuances ofthe CommuI1ity Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUires a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roof's mIdpomt and a reductIOn m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the SIze of thIS proJect IS stIll too large for thiS neighborhood A bUIldmg of this SIze IS not III character with the surround1Og cornmumty when 99% ofthe surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The SIze of thIS proJect WIll destroy the aesthetIcs of thIs quaInt waterside commumty, and do more harm than good In preservmg the qualIty of thIS neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny tlte request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIon of thIS matter. SIncerely, ~;ldC/Z- f'/~4U6f/?2 J~ 7/ld/OY ,., - I. City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon MIke Reynolds, Plannmg Duector ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of CJ\p_Ct...-ru.Xi..~v and I am wntmg m obJectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condom mI ums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve and 1 01 0, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ong1Oal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon m the side setback from 10 feet to 585 feet After two contmuances ofthe Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch requires a height vanance to 59 feet at the roof's nudpomt and a reduction III the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the size of thiS project IS stIll too large for thIS neighborhood A bmldmg of thIS size IS not m character With the surroundmg commumty when 99% ofthe surroundmg commumty IS smgle-fmmly homes The size of thIS project wIll destroy the aesthetics ofthls quaint waterSide commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fltght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIon of thIS matter SmcerelY!? ~ ~ tJ'--D 7-\J-oY o ~(C~~W~ff10 ILL M 3aD41,~ PLA"lNING R r~VEI_Q,"MENT SERVI.:::r s C1TYorCIL..'-\t'A~':-'l I J 1- __ City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Planmng Director RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGiNAL Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of.;b i-S ~ and I am wntmg m obJectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condominIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, whICh reqUired a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon In the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet. After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposalls for 62 umts, whIch reqUires a height vanance to 59 feet at the roof's mldpomt and a reductIOn m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obvIOus that the SIze of thIS proJect IS still too large for this neighborhood A bUlldmg of this SIze IS not m character With the surroundmg cOntnmmty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famJly homes The size ofthls project WIll destroy the aesthetIcs of this quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good m preserving the quahty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consideratIOn of this matter Smcerely, q~~ ~ ~' 07/0? /o~ (L5J ~--) Q1hll ~ ~I is ~ E~'~I r? ~ <<: f :; ~ ~ ~U)) fld11J J ~ = I (n'[--e, ~ 01 =----- CIty of ClealWater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn MIke Reynolds, Plannmg Director RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGINAL Dear SIT or Madam, J am a resl dent 0 f 2D r-<; u.s. l L 't>D ~ t l II D and I am wn tmg m obJ ectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condominIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POIllt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn III the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUires a height vanance to 59 feet at the roof's mldpomt and a reduction III the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet It IS obvIous that the SIze of this pIOJect IS stIll too large for this neighborhood A bmldlllg of thIS SIze IS not III character wIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The Slze of this project wlll destroy the aesthetIcs of this quamt waterside commumty, and do more harm than good III preservlllg the quahty of this nelghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny tlte request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your conslderatIOn of this matter smc1~~ M I'-t(. \--\ ~u... ~..) \"="0 y...'C> ~S WI L~ Y3U../\) CL E \A.:L uV ~I f'- '"3 3 l S5:"" [rj) fJd1[J ~ == f1illJ Y f1l1lJ (R"? 1//,/-,}5 '1 ~ C"') =5 -, I- 2 ~ ~I CL '- o <( W (I) : - " (, , - I r _ _, , ~~~ .11 I ,1 J! 11 I :: 'j " l CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentlOn MIke Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector OR1G1NAL RE: FLD2003-09050 7 //.2/6 c( Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of (1 /5Sl{J1uaJltID.-.Dr and I am wntmg m obJecbon to Ibe approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condomInIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, WhICh reqUired a height vanallce to 75 feet and a reductIon In the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet. After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUIres a heIght variance to 59 feet at the roof's mldpomt and a reductIOn III the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the size of thiS project IS still too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUIldmg OfthIS size IS not In character wIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIiy homes The SIze of thIS prOject Will destroy the aesthetics of this quamt watersIde commumty, and do more haml than good m preservmg the qualIty of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny tlte request of Top - Fhght Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consIderation of thIS matter (t II · 5~1~~"1- Smcerely, ~ ~w...,., 0' ~-)J ~-...----..- [1:&0 ~--, ,..- -- 0.--- == ~ c:> t"-l (l") nJLfl g Il&D ~1 :5 --" t- Z LJj a: ::E LJj CL I- o ~, --.J (ll S ~ u} rJ. lp J l~ .... c~ '3 ..:J oofho ~[/)o z r:: Z () I ;5 I City of Clearwater Plannmg Department I 00 S Myrtle A venue P,O Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention' Mike Reynolds, Planning Director ORlGINAL RE: FLD2003-090S0 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of _ j (~ ? J~ S'-...:t and I am wntmg In obJectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, {DC. for the constructIon of condOmmlUTIlS at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road. The original proposal was for 77 Units, which reqUIred d. heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reduction 10 the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whICh requires a height vanance to 59 feet at the roof's ITIldpo1Ot and a reductIOn In the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is obvIous that the size of this proJect IS still too large for thIS neIghborhood. A bUlldmg of this size is not In character wIth the surroundmg community when 99% of the surroundmg commul1lty IS sIngle-faanty homes The siLe of thiS project WIll destroy the aesthetIcs of this quaInt waterside community, and do more harm than good III preservmg the quality of this nelghborhood, I am requestmg that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterprises, lnc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, lne for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consIderatIon of thls matter, Smcerely, . ~~ J"a ~ 1_/~-,(ji o [1J1O ~ = [ldl1] U [1J1O ((-~J l_~~~j __ _ _ ""'=T C) ~ (T') ---1 =:l --, l~ :S 0.. City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Planning Director ilo1 fE @ r~ 0 W fE in, UTI MAR 1 5 ~ till PLAI\lNING & DEVEWP,.1ENl SvC~ - ~ CITY OF CI.EAI1WAl ER RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of ~/C4h"LI1_r.k/- and I am writIng m objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Ine. for the construction of condonmnums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal is for 77 umts, wluch requires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction in the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feeling that the density of this project IS entIrely too large for tlus netghborhood Many objections from area reSidents have been raIsed concernmg the effect the requested vanance WIll have on thiS residentIal community }> This \VIII become the tallest building in the area, loonung over the smgle-famtly residences, which destroys the aesthetics of this qUaInt comrnunny ThiS also encourages fhture development to match or exceed tlus denSity }> The proposed 77 units, along with the likelihood of 2 vehicles per unit, WIll put additIonal traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Drive Tlus IS not safe for the many pedestrians that frequent tlus area }> The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- urnt condonuruum located ImpOSIngly In a smgle-fannly residential area WIll dIrectly affect property values and theIr abtlity to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It 15 my feeling that the SIze of this project will do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of tIus neighborhood I am requestIng that the Commuruty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consideration In tills matter Smrerely, )7 fL &--Icj- ~ City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planning Director m~::~~ ~ ~_ ~P~N~SV~ ~I ?tJl~NdW~ ~~~t1~I~rW::/,iER t- --- 1UE:~D2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of tit ~~ ~... and I am wntmg In ObjectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight n erprlses, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructton of condommiums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal is for 77 urnts, winch requrres a height variance to 75 feet and a reduction in the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feelIng that the density of this project is entrrely too large for thIS neighborhood Many ObjectIOns from area reSidents have been ratsed concerning the effect the requested variance will have on thiS residential commumty ~ This will become the tallest building III the area, looming over the smgle-family reSidences, which destroys the aesthetiCS of tins quaint community This also encourages future development to match or exceed tins denSity ~ The proposed 77 units, along with the lIkelIhood of2 vehicles per umt, wIll put addIttonal traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset POInt Road and Edgewater Dnve This IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent tins area ~ The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- unit condol111mum located Imposmgly in a singIe-famtly reSidential area WIll directly affect property values and theIT abilIty to resell It wdl also affect area property taxes It IS my feeling that the SIze of tins project will do more hann than good m preservrng the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commuruty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterprises, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSideration In this matter Sincerely, 41u (! - ~ 3-t ~ ~tJ't 3 -f V - D L\ City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Planning Director :1- 0 ~~[~ (~ r~_ [S~lJtl ~ \: 1~~L_~~ 5 2004 J~ tF1U1!\\NII'>:O & fJEVt:LOPdENl svC'::I I CITVUF CLEARWATER - .....- - ~ 1UE:F1lD2003-090S0 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a reSident of ~g/6....-"'rt~-i-- ~,7 ~....~d I am Wflting in objection to the approval ~ requested by Top Flight Enterprise~ nc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of COndOmInIUmS at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road The proposal is for 77 units, wInch reqUIres a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reduction 10 the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feeling that the denSity of tIns project IS entIrely too large for this neighborhood Many objectIons from area residents have been raIsed concernIng the effect the requested vanance will have on tIns residentIal commurnty );> TIns Will become the tallest buildtog In the area, looming over the stogle-fannly residences, whIch destroys the aesthetics of thIs qUaInt comrnuruty TIns also encourages future development to match or exceed tlus densIty };> The proposed 77 units, along with the IIkehhood of 2 veIncles per urnt, Will put additional traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset POInt Road and Edgewater Dnve This IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent tIns area };> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- unit condonnruum located lIUposingly III a smgle-fannly residential area Will dIrectly affect property values and their ability to resell It will also affect area property taxes It is my feehng that the SIZe oftrus project Will do more harm than good In preservmg the quality of this neighborhood I am requesting that the Comrnuruty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consIderation In tIns matter Smcerely, City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, flonda 33758 AttentiOn MIke Reynolds, Planmng DIrector -1\;7~~ I ~ rTW' ~-ill-\" ~br~R"~LA'1 ~li ! Ii c~~> _ I ,;;, ~c ~~ :.:Tr;p -I' Rl=~-I (SI)"'" ( ........ ~ I;'"""" C ~ ~~j .J~."l. :J VV _',: r,.!~ . ~,~\qV#l fEFl RE: FLD2003~09050 Dear SIT or Madam, I am a [e'Hdent of ~ and I am wntmg m objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructton of condomllllUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, whIch reqUIres a heIght varIance to 75 feet and a reductIon In the sIde setback from 10 feet to 585 feet It IS my feelmg that the denSity of this project IS enttrely too large for thIS neIghborhood Many objectIons from area resIdents have been raised concermng the effect the requested vanance wIll have on thIS reSIdentIal commumty >- ThIs wIll become the tallest bUlldmg m the area, loorrung over the smgle-fanuly re'~adences, whICh destroy.') the aesthetics of thIS quamt commumty ThIs also encoUlages future development to match or excced this denSIty >- The plOposed 77 UnIts, along WIth the lIkelIhood of 2 vehIcles per UnIt, wIll put addItIonal traffiC sham on the already burdened roadways of Sunset POInt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestrIans that frequent thIS area >- The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- uml conuommlUill located llnposlIlgly In a smgle-famIly reSidential area will dIrectly affect property values and theIr abIlIty to resell It Will also affect area property taxes It IS my fcclmg that the SIze of thIS project WIll do more harm than good In preseI vmg the quahty of thIS neIghborhood I am requestmg that the CommunIty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, lnc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSIderatiOn m thIS matter Smcerely, ~ (BAv7)l{C C ,~ City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Dlfector " i i~r n:) r S LrJ '\V; r~ r-n~\ " ~; ~~~~~ \.L_tI~ I !. ,- J J I ~~ ~ I i~UL~R~.~ ~ ~jj 'I ' ? --,:::: Iqr J ,l " <:'"'('j' < I \ ... _ t_ _ t". l 1-......... I.... 'J is... ....1 J r ' - I' ""'1' -j'" ~ _ _ __ 4 iJl~~\ ~E~ll-~.f~~ RE: FLD2003-090S0 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of e ~ Y/--t</ ~h-- and 1 am wrItmg m objectlon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condomml ums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, WhICh reqUIres a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reduchon m the sIde "etback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelmg that the denSity ofthI') project 15 entIfely too large for thIS neIghborhood Many ObjectIOns from area resIdents have been raised concern1l1g the effect the requested vanance wIll have on thIS resIdential commumty ~ Thl~ wIll become the tallest bUIldmg In the area, loorrung over the <;mgle-fmmly re::'ldences, whlch destroys the ae')thelIes of thiS quamt commumty ThiS also encourage::. future development to match or exceed thiS denSity ~ The proposed 77 unit::., along with the likelihood of 2 vehIcles per umt, wlll put additIOnal tlaffic stram on the alIeady burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThI~ IS not safe for the many pedestnaTI5 that frequent thIS aJea ~ The overall negative effect of the proposcd development on local property values A multl- umt eondomllllUffi locatcd impo~I~gly m a smgle-famIly re':>ldentml area wIll duectly affect property valucs and their abIlIty to resell It wIll also affect area property taxes It IS my feelmg that the <;Ize of thiS proJect wlll do mOle harm than good III pre<;ervmg the quality of thiS neIghborhood I am reque<;tmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnse::., Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dllve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideratIOn III thIS matter smcere~-;A/~ j-J. I? / v h /l-4d f, lZI(0lfz). Ctty of Clearwater PlannIng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn MIke Reynolds, Planmng DIrector "'='-...... ............. ......->.---..--...-~r ...:'" -"';-~ (T:I rr~ II \1;7 P I r Ll.::, l'D L,=, 11 \'! I t f -:"r \ I ~ -: ~~~-~-----~ II \ , : ~ It MAR 1 5 2004 II U !: '. .l! L.., I~~ l I ~~~ -~,<~~~ ,.. r ' I'~f" tll-"'~~t\.j:"'~(l'r\'. ~~'''~~ ".. t -r j ~I I ~ _, ~ ~ ~.:;!I>-~~..........o:k:I'.-'lJO"_"':'- RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of r.~ €-"Y.l.A: toAretL and I am wntlOg 10 objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condonumums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road The proposal I'> for 77 umts, whIch requIres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon In the side setback from 10 teet to 5 85 feet It IS my feeling that the densIty of thiS project IS entIrely too large for thI~ neighborhood Many obJection,> from area reSIdent... have been ratsed concernIng the effect the requested varIance will have on thIS reSIdentIal communIty );> ThiS wIll become the tallest bUlldmg In the area, loommg over the sIngle-famIly re:lIdenees, whICh destroy~ the aesthetIcs of thIS quaInt commumty ThiS also encourage,> future development to match or exceed thIS denslty );>- The propo~ed 77 umts, along wIth the lIkelIhood of 2 vehIcles per UnIt, will put addItIOnal traffIC "tram on the already burdened roadway':> of Sunset POInt Road and Edgewatef Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thIS area );> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property value~ A multI- umt condommlUm located Impo<;mgly In a sIngle-famlly re~ldentIal area WIll dIrectly affect property value" and theu abIltty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxe" It IS my feeling that the '>Ize of thIS project Will do more harm than good In preservmg the quality of thIS neIghborhood I am requestIng that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your con<;lderatlon In thl'> matter smcere~/ ~v v.[:r:reuo :<. ::;- <'"u s~@.auA) tSLU 0' -L C Le"'4Il"'-' 1it...t::1' L )- CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Planmng Director _ - I'h....'& ---....:Z"O~ , ~ (-i-=: I r"" f l r,v I -r-::-~ r---...., ," " :> I' "I -., f n I~<f= ~:~~~~tJ'lli i! t_uj ~:: , ~ - - - 0- ~ _ _ ~ f~ "1_ t ~ r-'tl_ - svr~ l ~I . ... - 1- \1 'r \" ,.~:: r .. -- ~~-~ RE: FLD2003-09050 \ f I -I Dear SIr or Madam, I am a reSIdent of ~~ and I am wntmg In obJection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewatef Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condorrunmffis at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, whIch reqUIres a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn 10 the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It 1'" my feeling that the denSIty of thIS project IS entIrely too large for thiS neIghborhood Many objections from alea reSidents have been rdl~ed concern1Og the effect the requested vanancc WIll have on thIS reSIdential commumty );;> ThiS wIll become the tdllest bUIldmg In the area, loommg over the smgle-famlly reSidences, which destroys the aesthetICS of thl~ quamt commumty ThIS also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS density );;> The propo<;ed 77 umts, along wIth the likelihood of2 vehicles per umt, Will put additIOnal traffic sham on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewatel Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestn<lns that freqllel).t thiS area );;> The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local ploperty values A multI- umt condommmm located Imposll{gly Il1 a smgle-fdlmly reSidential aled WIll dIrectly dffect property values and theIr abIlity to re<;ell It WIll also affect area property taxes It II) my feelIng that the Size of thiS project wIll do more harm than good m preservll1g the quality of thl~ nelghbOlhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, loc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc fOf a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consIderatIOn In thIS mattef SIncerely, ;;J~ CIty of Clearwater PlannIng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn MIke Reynolds, Planmng Duector -~,...."....----........,.., ............,..........J""..._~....l<-r ~r"=. - It-=:;-~l~1) fr; 11 \\:1 f:. I f'l ~ 1 ~~ \.. :5:- _: \: i l..-. t I I .--~-=--_._---_.~~.~ \ ~ ,~ l Ill! ;', ~i: MAR 1 5 200~ '1\ J I { I, I , 't' ---' I 1-~ -'~ 1 I'~ _ to-. \ ( ~ I \ .... I~ I \j~o{ ~ ~\r-C-~ ,:- j ~~ _~ -.:=---ll""_ RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, St~ ~(~o>r I am a resIdent of ~ and I am wntmg In objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condomInmms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal 1<; for 77 Units, which reqUlre<; a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelmg that the dem:.lty of thl~ project IS entirely too large for thIS neighborhood Many obJectIons from area resIdents have been raIsed conccrnmg the effect the reque<;ted vanance wIll have on thIS reSIdentIal commumty >- ThI" will become the tallest bUIldmg In the area, loommg over the smgle-famIly residences, which de "troy" the aesthetic" of thl"; quaInt commumty ThIS also encourages future development to match or exceed thl" den"lty >- The propo')ed 77 umts, along with the likelihood of 2 vehIcles per umt, wIll put addItIOnal traffIC stram on the already burdened roadways of Sun~et Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area >- The overall negative effect of the propo\ed development on local property values A multI- umt cOndOmInIUm located Impo,:>mgly In a \mgle-famtly reSIdentIal area WIll directly affect property value') and their ablhty to re\ell It WIll al"o affect area property taxes It I') my feeling that the Mze ofthl~ proJect WIll do more harm than good In preservmg the quahty of thl,) neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpn"e<;, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consIderatIOn III thIS matter Smcerely, ~rr~ ~~I\...Q.. City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector - ~J ;:;.....--.-.....:: 't;"'voo ':;' -", ... f I .....r:.~~~ - , I~' ([;-- I ~ :11 \[1: I~: I~, [ -'" \. - _ - 1 ,1 I ' ~) '" i.w--.---- -----'-.....:::-J-~lli: ,I: ! , \' I ! L, ULMAR~5 _:~04_ U ) Ii t. " _ (> )'::\1'1 n :J^,''- "vI" II ~~ 1.. L...:;,.L~~~~~~~";\_~.I '~~;;I~ i'> ~oij L=. c_ -~~-=!~~I-,1~,'ll JL l RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of 0' ,{ and I am wntmg In obJectIOn to the approval requested by Top Fligh Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condomInIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, WhICh reqUIres a heIght varIance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelmg that the denSity of thl" proJect IS entIrely too large for thI'i neighborhood Many obJectIons from area re~ldents have been nuscd concemmg the effect the requested vanance WIll have on thIS reSidentIal communIty >- ThIS WIll become the tallest burldmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-famIly re~Idences, whIch destroy<, the aesthetics of thl<' quaInt communIty This also encourage., future development to match or exceed thI<; denSity >- The proposed 77 UnIts, along With the ltkelIhood of 2 vehIcles per umt, WIll put additional traffiC straIn on the already burdened roadway~ of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thl~ area >- The overall negative eftect of the propo,')ed development on local property values A multl- umt condommlUffi located Impo'imgly In a smgle-famIly re,')IdentIal area Will dIrectly atfect property values and theIr ability to resell It wIll abo affect area property taxe::. It I" my feelmg that the SIze of thIS project Will do more harm than good In preservmg the qualIty of thI<' neighborhood I am requestIng that the CommunIty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnse<;, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible developmenl approval Thank you for your conSIderatIOn 10 thIS matter ~~Dl6.1 ~~ ~~t~ ~ 2-~-\~c"-\~ ffi~ \~4- n City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, F10nda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, PlannIng Duector .......,.......--.:;-- -~;";';~I~"rl-~~lr; re r n , 4J/_'~~~'1 ' I I" I - r I U L.. l_ ~ \ ' .~;;?_~---~-=~o'"l1 . 1,_;;.,' \1 I r, It MAR 1 5 2004 ~/ L~UI " ,.. - -- -:-;--L ,--~~... S\.f'" I ;, ~ I ~ .... .-.~_ ~....~~ ......._-p"...aro.U RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of {'Ie (] r u J nit? r and I am wntmg III objectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condomInIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, which requITe" a height varIance to 75 feet and d reductIOn m the ~Ide setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It 1" my feehng that the denSIty of thl<" project 1<., entirely too large for thIS neighborhood Many obJectIOm from area re~ldents have been raIsed concermng the effect the requested varIance wtll have on thl~ reSidential commumty ~ ThIS WI,JJ become the tallest bmldmg 10 the area, loomIng over the ,>mgle-famIly re~ldences, whIch destroys the aesthetIcs of thIS quaIllt communIty ThIS also encourages future development to match or exceed thIS denSIty ~ The prop05ed 77 umt!>, along with the likelIhood of 2 vehIcle') per umt, will put additIonal traffiC stram on the already burdened roadway" of Sun')et Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS 15 not ')afe for the many pede~tnam that frequent thl!. area ~ The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt condomInIUm located Imposmgly m a smgle-farruly reSIdentIal area WIll duectly affect property values and theIr abIhty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It 1<; my fcelmg that the size of this project Will do more harm than good m preservlllg the qualIty of thIs neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the reque!.t of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIOn m lhIS matter Smcerely, Crd~O~ .20-60 /V 12.,., J/vd If/';;J L/tC2/Wo.fpr r1- Jd'7~S City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds. Plannmg Director --~--~. . - .- ~ '--'~L~;f~jlWjf~ ~['I :'~f~ ~;;;-~G 1\:1 ~ / , ,I \ '--' r - - L _ 1 ' ,. ", ur. ~ 0", c;~~ 'I f < ~ J t 1_ 1 ~ """~--......~~........ RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of (!) e aYwdet-<- J.nd I am wntmg m obJectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommmms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt ROJ.d The proposal IS for 77 UnIts, which reqU1re~ a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the sIde setback horn 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feehng that the denSity of thIS project IS entIrely too large for thiS neIghborhood Many ObjectIOns from area resIdents have been raIsed concemmg the effect the requested varIance WIll have on thIS re,..dentlal commUnIty >- ThiS Will become the tallest bUlldmg m the area, 100ITUng over the smgle-famlly resIdences, whIch destroys the aesthetic:) of thl:) quamt community ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS density >- The proposed 77 umts, along WIth the likelIhood of 2 vehIcles per umt, Will put addltlondl traffiC stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS I\; not safe for the many pedestrIans that frequent thIS area >- The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- umt condommmm located Impo..mgly III d ,>mgle-fdmlly reSidentIal area Will dIrectly affect property values and their ability to resell It wIll also affect area property taxes It IS my feelmg that the size of thls project will do more harm than good m preservmg the quallty of thiS neIghborhood I am reque~tmg that the CommunIty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpn ses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater DrIve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consIderatIOn III thIS matter IJroo Wlv-!I'J t!ree/LlSlvd ]) 10.3 (!jt/JYt<-dea( /.::{ s3"7{,j City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planmng Director RECEIVED APR 05 200'1 PlANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of /() /(J a 1:4 ~JI!PJ/ S-r;d I am writing in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Ine. for the construction of condomiruums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal is for 77 umts, which requires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn III the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 8S feet It is my feehng that the density of this project IS entirely too large for thIs neIghborhood Many ObjectIOns from area residents have been raised concerrung the effect the requested variance will have on thIS residential commumty )> ThIs Will become the tallest buddmg m the area, looming over the single-fannly residences, whIch destroys the aesthetics of thiS quamt community ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSity )> The proposed 77 umts, along With the likehhood of 2 vehicles per umt, will put additional traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Point Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIs IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thIs area )> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- umt eondoDllmum located imposmgly m a smgle-fannly reSidential area wIll directly affect property values and their ability to resell It will also affect area property taxes It is my feeling that the SIze of this project will do more harm than good m preserving the quahty of thIS neIghborhood I am requesting that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Ine & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consIderation III this matter Smcerely, CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue PO. Box 4748 Clearwater, FIonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Planmng DIrector RE: FLD2003-09050 REceIVED APR 1 2 2004 PlANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLeARWATER Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of 10,L? ~ ft, and I am wntmg 10 obJection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructlon of condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, which reqUIres a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn In the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelIng that the density of thl S proJ ect IS entIrely too large for this neighborhood, Many ObjectIOns from area resIdents have been raised concernIng the effect the requested VarIance will have on thls reSIdential commumty' " ~ ThiS WIll become the tallest bUIldmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-famlly reSidences, whIch destroys the aesthetics of this quamt commumty ThIS also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS denSity ~ The proposed 77 umts, along With the lIkelihood of2 vehicles per umt, Will put addItional traffic straIn on the already burdened roadways of Sunset POInt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area ~ The overall negatlve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt condomlI11Uill located ImposIngly m a smgle-famlly reSidentIal area WIll dIrectly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes - It IS my feelIng that the size of this project Will do more harm than good 10 preservmg the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny tlte request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIOn III thiS matter smcerelY't~LV~V-' City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon MIke Reynolds, Planning DIrector RE: FLD2003-090S0 ORIGINAL Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of lold! b !?MIJ#4' ~ and I am wntmg m obJectIOn to the approval requested by Top Fliglt't Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, WhICh reqUIred a helght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet After two contmuances of the Community Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUIres a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roof's mldpolIlt and a reductIOn In the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the SIZe of this project IS still too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUlldmg of this size IS not 1Il character with the surroundmg commumty when 99% ofthe surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famlly homes The size of thIS proJect Will destroy the aesthetics of thiS quamt waterside commumty, and do more harm than good III preserving the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your conSideratIon of this matter p [1J1!] r ~ ~\ ~ =-.--..::l C"') OJ1D g [1J1!] l_- -.. CG'~"--" r--' I (:~} L-:-J 1-/O/6C( ---1 ::::J --:> )- z W [f :2. w r_ f-;: o ~ ~ (/) ::;. UJ UJ rf" G ~ ~~ c..... > -.J e>) ffi '.) l'2 (/) 0 \ ~ c ." J- L [) :; Ii. I I ~ CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attentlon Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director RECEIVED RE: FLD2003-09050 APR 0 8 zuu~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT erN OF CLEARWATER Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of ~ ("fiM.(i&l. J.r11P-t' and I am wntmg m objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flig Enterprises, loc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condomInIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, which reqUIres a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feehng that the densIty of this project IS entlrely too large for thIS neighborhood Many objectIOns from area resIdents have been raised concemmg the effect the requested vanance WIn have on thiS resldentlal commumty' ~ ThiS Will become the tallest bUlldmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-famIly residences, which destroys the aesthettcs of this quamt commumty ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS densIty ~ The proposed 77 umts, along WIth the likelIhood of 2 vehicles per umt, Will put addlttonal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thIS area ~ The overall negattve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multt- UnIt condommlUm located Imposmgly m a smgle-famIly reSIdentIal area Will directly affect property values and theIr ablltty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It IS my feelIng that the size of thiS project Will do more harm than good III preservmg the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your conslderatlon m thiS matter Smcerely, H, t\~shatu..( CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, PlannIng DIrector ORIG'NAL RE: FLD2003-090S0 7 -f/ -ot( Dear SIr or Madam, I am a reSIdent of I () d 0 ~d I am wntmg m objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommmms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUired a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances 0 f the Comm umty Development I Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUIres a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIon m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the SIze of thIS project IS stIll too large for thiS neighborhood A bUlldmg of this size IS not III character with the surroundmg commul1lty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The size of thIS pJOject will destroy the aesthetIcs of this quamt watersIde commumty, and do more hann than good m preservmg the quahty OfthlS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, luc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSideration of thiS matter Smcerely, -.;f Mr (0) rJd1[] 2~ <:::::::::::::: fJdJ1J y rJd1[] ( :~::=:':':J f ~,-- , ~ cg ~ ("r) I- Z w cr :2 w Q I- a < -I(/)3: s; UJ cr W U r, os-:j 0f5U C) U) u_ Z 0 ~ 51 Q ~ City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn MIke Reynolds, Plannmg Director RECEIVED ArR 0 8 200~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of lidtJ 6r4f'/ qdq Sf-< and I am wntmg m objectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condomml ums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve and 1 010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POIllt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, which reqUIres a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon III the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet. It IS my feebng that the denSity of thIS project IS entIrely too large for thiS neighborhood Many objections from area residents have been raised concernmg the effect the requested vanance will have on thiS reSidential commumty ~ ThiS wIll become the tallest bUlldmg III the area, loommg over the smgle-fmmly resIdences, whICh destroys the aesthetIcs of thIS quamt commumty ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS densIty );l> The proposed 77 umts, along With the bkelIhood of2 vehIcles per umt, WIll put addIttonal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset POInt Road and Edgewater Dnve. ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thIS area ~ The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- UOlt condommlUm located ImposIngly III a smgle-famIly reSIdentIal area Will directly affect property values and theIr abIlIty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It IS my feelIng that the SIze of this project WIll do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of thiS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conSideration m thIS matter Smcerely, JT[~P~ City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of l(j~ \ GR~A" A- 9r. and I am wntmg III ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of cOndOmInI ums at 1919 & ] 925 Edgewater Dn ve and 1010, 1 012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUires a height varIance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIon m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the size of thiS project IS stlll too large for thiS neighborhood A bUlldmg of thIs sIze IS not m character With the surroundIng commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The size of this project WIll destroy the aesthetics of this quamt waterside commumty, and do more harm than good m preservlTIg the qualIty of thIS neIghborhood I am requestlTIg that the Commumty Development Board deity the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you fOJ your consideratIon of this matter Smcerely, ~ ~ ~ 7 - 1- u'l PLANNING & a-v t ELOPMENT SER\flr<::r.; __ C'''' r City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue PO. Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, PlannIllg DIrector RECEIVED APR 0 8 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of \ ~ \ ~Yf)cr\Q5+-- and I am wntmg m objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Eoterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condominIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 unItS, which reqUIres a heIght VarIance to 75 feet and a reductIon m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelIng that the denSity ofthls project IS entirely too large for thIS neighborhood Many ObjectIons from area reSIdents have been raised concernIng the effect the requested VarIance Will have on thiS reSidential commumty' ~ ThiS Will become the tallest bUIldmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-famlly reSidences, whIch destroys the aesthetics of this quaInt commumty ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed thIS denSity ~ The proposed 77 unItS, along With the lIkelIhood of2 vehIcles per umt, WIll put addIttonal traffic straIll on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area ~ The overall negative effect ofthe proposed development on local property values A multI- umt condomIlllUm located Imposmgly m a smgle-famlly reSidential area WIll dIrectly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It Will also affect area property taxes It IS my feelIng that the SIze of thIS project WIll do more harm than good III preservmg the qualIty of this neIghborhood. I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consideratIOn In thiS matter Smcerely, ~ D~l~ City of Clearwater P1annmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector ORIGINAL ?-(o-oV RE: FLD2003-090S0 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of \ 0 ~ 3 G 'R. i ~ a 1> A '1,- and I am wntmg m ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The onglllal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn In the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the CommunIty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, WhICh reqUires a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs ffiIdpomt and a reductIOn m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the size of thiS project IS still too large for thiS neighborhood A bmldmg of thIS size IS not m character With the sUIToundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle~[amlly homes The sIze of this project WIll destroy the aesthetics of thIS quamt waterside commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty OfthIS neighborhood I am requesting that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Tnc [Ql a flexIble development approval Thank you for yoU! consideratIOn of thIS matter Smcerely, a~~ --.-J ~ ~ } (L fJ o ::- cdUl,:' ;:0. u_ ~ u'::.... > L> -' ~a::o Of.;, UJ u ~(j)o ~ ~ o ~--~ W1 r-~ r:::::::::-::, ~ c;:::::: - .......... c::::...--:::...-:l ..- ~ LU1l1 Qj \1!1D 5 ,/_- -- J D- (~ -', 'Lr-- I '._.J. ---^e 1 I ___---~-- ~:- .....----- CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planmng DIrector RECEIVED ArR Q f\ ~YU~ pLANNING DEPARTMENt erN OF CLEARWATER RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, 9 I am a resident of [C/ ~ G'DJi)G.OQ and I am wntmg III objectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight terprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condomllllUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road. The proposal IS for 77 umts, which reqUires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon m the side setback from 10 feet to 585 feet. It IS my feelmg that the denSity of this project IS entirely too large for thIS neighborhood Many objectIOns from area reSidents have been raised concernmg the effect the requested VarIance Will have on thIS reSIdential commumty. ~ ThIS Will become the tallest bUlldlllg m the area, loomIng over the smgle-famIly reSidences, whIch destroys the aesthetIcs of thIS quamt commumty ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS denSIty ~ The proposed 77 umts, along With the lIkelIhood of2 vehicles per umt, WIll put additIOnal traffic straIn on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thIS area };> The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- umt condominIUm located Imposmgly III a smgle-family reSidentIal area WIll dIrectly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It Will also affect area property taxes. It IS my feeling that the size of thIS project Will do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conSideratIon m thiS matter SIncerely, ~ ~ CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon. Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director RECEIVED RE: FLD2003-09050 APR 0 8 lUU~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT ellY OF CLEARWATER Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of J b Z...S &-r (} h CL.& c.. and I am wntmg m objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. &'"1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, whIch reqUires a height varIance to 75 feet and a reductIon In the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelmg that the denSity of thIS project IS entIrely too large for thiS neighborhood. Many ObjectIOns from area residents have been raised concernmg the effect the requested VarIance Will have on thiS residentIal conunumty. ~ ThiS Will become the tallest bUIldmg m the area, loommg over the sIllgle-famlly residences, whIch destroys the aesthetics of thIS quaInt commumty ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS densIty )- The proposed 77 umts, along WIth the lIkelIhood of2 vehIcles per umt, Will put additIonal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area ~ The overall negatIve effect ofthe proposed development on local property values A multi- unIt cOndOmInIUm located Imposmgly In a smgle-famIly residential area WIll dIrectly affect property values and theIr abilIty to resell It Will also affect area property taxes It IS my feelmg that the SIze of thiS project WIll do more harm than good In preservmg the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Ine & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc. for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consIderatIon In thIS matter Smcerely, cP~ \ I i City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Planmng Director ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, JO~g G;~c..Jl4'. ~ I am a resident o~ and I am wntmg In objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the Side setback from 10 feet to 585 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUIres a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs lTIldpomt and a reductIOn In the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obvIOUS that the size of thiS project IS still too large for thiS neighborhood A bUlldmg of this size IS not m character With the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famlly homes The size of thiS project will destroy the aesthetics of thiS quamt waterside commumty, and do more harm than good In preservIng the quahty of this neighborhood I am requestIng that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideratIOn of thiS matter SIncerely, 7-10 -oV O%a [1J1D ~ ~ ~ c::::> 0-,. C::::::.: c::::> ..J (f) > ~ C'J ill U' IT ~ C"") G ~ .J - c_ :> _J QJ\J] ~ ffi ~ gl ~ ~(f)~ l1l1l1 _ _-rJ 5 0 r(--~;VfJ D- I r_ _~ ~ ---" '-- ~ - . FILE ~ ORIGINAL CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn MIke Reynolds, Plannmg Director RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of / tJ J f Mhflc!tl ff and I am wntmg m objectton to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condomInIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road. The proposal IS for 77 Units, which reqUIres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon In the sIde setback from 10 feet to 585 feet It IS my feelIng that the densIty of thIS project IS entIrely too large for thiS neIghborhood Many objectIOns from area residents have been raIsed concernmg the effect the requested VarIance will have on thIS resIdentIal commumty ~ ThIS wIll become the tallest bUlldmg ill the area, loommg over the sIllgle-famlly residences, whIch destroys the aesthetIcs of this quamt commumty. ThIS also encourages future development to match or exceed thIS denSity ~ The proposed 77 umts, along WIth the likelIhood of 2 vehIcles per umt, will put addIttonal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area. ~ The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- unit condommlUm located Imposmgly III a smgle-family resIdenttal area will directly affect property values and their abihty to resell. It Will also affect area property taxes It IS my feeling that the SIze of thIS project Will do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conslderatton m thiS matter Smcerely, Jrf(- 11- n ~ f-rL ~ ~ECE~~€J) () l".\ 1~~~ ~?~ ~ p~R\\\I\E\'\\ p\'p>'\,\\,\\~G ~~p..R\N~"n:"R C\1'f Of CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attentton Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector RE: FLD2003-09050 RECEiVED APR 0 8 200\ PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of \ 0,2..-- (S--YO\ )",(), dO'> St and 1 am wntIng m objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road. The proposal IS for 77 umts, whlCh reqUires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductton In the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelIng that the denSity of this project IS entIrely too large for thiS neIghborhood Many objectIons from area resIdents have been raised concerning the effect the requested VarIance Will have on thiS reSIdentIal commumty ~ ThiS Will become the tallest bUlldmg m the area, loommg over the SIngle-family residences, which destroys the aesthetIcs of this quamt communIty ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS denSity ~ The proposed 77 umts, along With the lIkelIhood of 2 vehicles per umt, WIll put addlttonal traffic straIn on the already burdened roadways of Sunset POInt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thIS area )0> The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multt- umt condomInIUm located unposmgly m a smgle-famlly residentIal area Will directly affect property values and theIr abIlity to resell It Will also affect area property taxes It IS my feelIng that the size of this project Will do more harm than good m preservIng the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conSideration In thiS matter Sincerely, a~'~ Y~vY1-e.-> ':J~ A-h~t'\V'>t City of Clearwater PlannIng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planmng Director REceiVED APR 0 8 lUU~ pLANNING DEPARTMENT erN OF CLEARWATER RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a reSident of IDS? ~r/lNK2'ijl LleM wa:~ wntmg In objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Ioc. for the construction of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, whIch reqUires a heIght VarIance to 75 feet and a reduction m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feelmg that the denSity of this project IS entIrely too large for thiS neighborhood Many objecttons from area reSidents have been raIsed concernmg the effect the requested VarIance WIll have on thiS reSIdentIal comffiumty ~ ThiS WIll become the tallest bUIldmg m the area, loomIng over the smgle-famIly reSidences, whIch destroys the aesthetics of thIS quamt commumty ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS denSIty ~ The proposed 77 umts, along With the hkelIhood of2 vehIcles per umt, Will put additIonal traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thIS area ~ The overall negattve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt condomlllmm located Imposmgly m a slllgle-famIly reSIdentIal area Will directly affect property values and their ability to resell. It will also affect area property taxes It IS my feehng that the size of thiS project Will do more harm than good III preservlllg the qualIty of this neIghborhood I am requesting that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consIderatIon III thIS matter SIncerely, CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attentton Mike Reynolds, PlannIllg DIrector RECEIVED APR 0 8 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT erN OF CLEARWATER RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of /OS1 t::J~J;(.SI and I am wntmg III ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructton of condomIlllUills at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road. The proposal IS for 77 umts, whIch reqUires a heIght VarIance to 75 feet and a reductIon III the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet. It IS my feehng that the denSity of this project IS entIrely too large for thiS neighborhood. Many objectIons from area residents have been raised concerning the effect the requested varIance Will have on thiS reSidentIal commumty ~ ThIS Will become the tallest bmldmg III the area, loommg over the sIllgle-famIly residences, which destroys the aesthetIcs of thIS quamt commumty ThIS also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS denSIty ~ The proposed 77 umts, along WIth the likelIhood of2 vehicles per UOlt, WIll put additIonal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thIS area ~ The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt condomInIUm located Imposmgly III a smgle-famIly reSIdential area WIll directly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It will also affect area property taxes It IS my feelIng that the Size of thiS project Will do more harm than good III preserving the quality of thiS neighborhood I am requestmg that the CommunIty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, lnc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideratIon m thIS matter, w~g Smcerely, CIty of Clearwater PlannIng Department 100 S Myrtle A venue P.O Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attentlon Mike Reynolds, PlannIng DIrector RECEiVED Af1R Q R 1UO~ pLANNlNG DEPARTMENT erN OF CLEARWATER RE: FLD2003-09050 D= SIr or Madam, /10/ tf /I #-1"'- f},It. '1 r I am a resident of and I am wntmg In objectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condomml ums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve and I 0 I 0, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POIllt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, whIch reqUIres a heIght VarIance to 75 feet and a reductlon In the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelmg that the densIty of this project IS entlrely too large for thiS neighborhood Many objectlons from area resIdents have been raised concernIng the effect the requested varIance Will have on thiS resldentlal commumty ~ ThiS WIll become the tallest buIldmg 10 the area, loommg over the smgle-famlly resIdences, which destroys the aesthetics of this quaInt commumty ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS densIty ~ The proposed 77 umts, along WIth the likelIhood of2 vehicles per umt, Will put additional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Po lOt Road and Edgewater Dnve thIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thIS area ~ The overall negatlve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- umt condommmm located ImposlOgly In a smgle- family resldentlal area WIll directly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It Will also affect area property taxes It IS my feelIng that the size of thIS project Will do more harm than good III preservmg the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny tile request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conslderatton 10 thIS matter Smcerely, ~ I 1# ~ 1'f-t:>~.S r rr f" · //0 I (;,1"''' CIty of Clearwater Planlllng Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, PlannIng DIrector RECEIVED APR 0 8 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of - and I am wntmg m objection to the approval requested by Top light Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommmms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, whIch reqUires a height varIance to 75 feet and a reductIon m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It lS my feelmg that the denSity of thIS project is entlfely too large for thiS neighborhood Many ObjectIOns from area reSidents have been raised concemIllg the effect the requested VarIance WIll have on thIS reSIdentIal commumty ~ ThIS WIll become the tallest bUlldmg In the area, loommg over the smgle-family reSIdences, WhICh destroys the aesthetics of thiS quamt commumty ThIS also encourages future development to match or exceed thIS denSity ~ The proposed 77 umts, along With the lIkelIhood of2 vehIcles per umt, Will put addItIonal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset POIllt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area ~ The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi. umt condomInIUm located Imposingly II1 a smgle-famtly reSidentIal area WIll directly affect property values and theIr abIlIty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It IS my feelIng that the size of thiS project Will do more harm than good m preservIllg the quality of this neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conSideratIon III thIS matter Smcerely, CIty of Cleanvater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Planmng Director OR\GINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 r; - 11 ~()1 Dear SIr or Madam, f1- I am a resIdent of / j / d Cr r CVZ1 Gl d (Jj and I am wntmg m objectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommiUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 UnIts, whICh reqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn III the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which requires a heIght variance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reduction m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObViOUS that the SIze of thiS project IS stIll too large for thIS neIghborhood A buildmg of thIs size IS not III character WIth the surroundlllg commumty when 99% of the surroundIng commumty IS smgle-family homes The SIze of this prOject Will destroy the aesthetics of thiS quamt wateIslde commuOlty, and do more harm than good III preservmg the quality of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the CommunIty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Ine for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consideratiOn of thIS matter Sincerely, [)~K~ rr~~ I ___. __" r- 0d11J O<:;t ,~_ c=l ---.::- _---' CJ c::;:::;:-.:--' C".J ,.., (T) OdJ-U ~~ 0d10 (DC -" :5 --:I I- Z UJ c- ~ U1 [L f- a ....( it. [/) . ~ - II. (JL I (' -> _~ I <:.)tSo l')U'io z ~ ~ S u [L ~~c~ ~ 4PR o. ;;IV~D 1tP>1\?~'W~lIflillG ? IDDI ..",~~ ~~ 0,.. ct~p~ ~'i',\l, \\ I ~~ '',...,~ <Sq~%~~ . r'~c~~~~ P? ~\~Gt~' @..~ elf City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle A venue PO. Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon MIke Reynolds, Planmng DIrector RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdenl of (l(iJlFlaJ.c:c S1- and I am wnlmg m obJecbon 10 the approval requested by Top Flig t Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructiOn of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 StJ.ilsel POIllt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, whIch reqUIres a heIght varIance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelIng that the denSity of thIS project IS entIrely too large for thiS neIghborhood Many objectIons from area reSidents have been rmsed concernmg the effect the requested VarIance WIll have on thIS reSIdential commumty ~ ThiS Will become the tallest bUlldIllg In the area, loomIng over the smgle-famIly reSidences, WhICh destroys the aesthetIcs of thiS quamt communIty ThIS also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS denSIty ~ The proposed 77 UnIts, along WIth the likelihood of 2 vehIcles per umt, Will put additIonal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area >>- The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt condomIlllUm located ImposIllgly m a smgle-famlly reSidentIal area Will directly affect property values and theIr abIhty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes. It IS my feelIng that the SIze of thIS project Will do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty of thIS neighborhood. I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideratIOn III thiS matter 1- - - - - - - -- - _ Ms Deborah A Kowal 111 0 Granada St Clearwater Fl33755-1036 flit are alrt~ s+v.cJ:;. w d,}, f'hj1 h orel Ov+ ~ Sa hi 0 C-b 'l VI e Y ~ ! !JD({ {~ City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon MIke Reynolds, Plannmg Director RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGINAL Dear SIT or Madam, I am a Iesldent of ")) (1. rCt./nal.4 6J::- and I am wntmg In objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condommmms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 UnIts, which reqUired a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn III the Side setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet After two contmuances of the CommunIty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUires a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIOn In the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet It IS obVIOUS that the SIze of thiS project IS still too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUildIng OfthlS SIze IS not In character With the sunoundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg community IS smgle-famIly homes The Slze of this project WIll destroy the aesthetics of this quaIllt watersIde commumty, and do more haml than good III preservmg the qualIty of thIS neighborhood I am requesting that the CommunIty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Ine & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consIderatIOn of thIS matter SmCerelY~ adcdi 7 - Ie) --- of/ (?-5J Qdl~ ?~ r --' -- cg C) C"'.J 1- Z W 0: ::i llJ c- f- a :::r -.J '" wUlcr > UJ llJQw O>..J a(la:u cDi7iLL z 0 Z 2:: z u :5 Q !1!l-lJ cg [111d] ~ 1 , (T) =1 --, City of Clearwater PlannIng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn MIke Reynolds, Planmng Director ORIGINAL 7 /1 0/>1" RE: FLD2003-090S0 Dear SIr or Madam, r am a reSident of J I ()., UrrCVY/..~a_ and I am wntIllg III objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommlUnIs at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 Units, which reqUired a heIght vanance to 75 fcet and a reductIOn III thc Side setback from 10 feet to 585 feet After two contmuances of the CommunIty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUIres a heIght VarIance to 59 feet at the roofs nlldpomt and a reductIOn III the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the SIze of thiS project IS stlll too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUlldmg of thIS size IS not m character With the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS SIngle-family homes The SIze ofthlS project WIll destroy the aesthettcs of thIS quamt waterside community, and do more harm than good III preservmg the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requesting that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consideratIOn of thIS matter. Smcerely, I -J?7~ok '(?ec~~ ~ (f- 5J ~ _-_' _ 2 -~LJ.J !1DJI ""=r I 2 o c = ' C".J U ~r M ru, [ S'"J r-o""f. a ~ LJ' C roT .c ?:J c;:---' Q/Ln ({ 51 \::::::::::/ ~J1 (CiC: -- ~~ ~ (- I 1 ' , 7 0::- .J .i. v I I __I "'" CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn MIke Reynolds, Plannmg Director RECEiVED APR 0 8 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT e1TY OF CLEARWATER RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of I f I :L- ~Ci JCL-5 rand I am wntmg III objectton to the approval requested by Top flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condommlums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, which requIres a heIght VarIance to 75 feet and a reductIOn In the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feeling that the densIty of this project IS entIrely too large for thiS neighborhood Many objectIons from area resIdents have been raised concernIng the effect the requested VarIance WIll have on thIS resldenttal commumty ~ ThiS Will become the tallest bUlldmg m the area, loomIllg over the slllgle~famlly resIdences, which destroys the aesthetIcs of this quaInt commumty ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed thIS denSity ~ The proposed 77 umts, along WIth the lIkelIhood of 2 vehIcles per umt, Will put additIonal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area ~ The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- umt condomIlllUm located ImposIngly m a smgle-famlly residentIal area Will directly affect property values and theIr abIlIty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It IS my feelmg that the size of this project WIll do more harm than good III preservIng the quality of thiS neIghborhood. I am requestmg that the CommunIty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIon m thIS matter SIncerely, r B~~a-,~ ~~ City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Planmng Director REceiVED APR () A ZUU4 PLANNING DEPARTMENT C1TY OF CLEARWATER RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of "J 5" G,t~A l'JA-.x cLt:'""''''1',~nd I am wntmg m objectton to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructton of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, whIch reqUires a height VarIance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet It IS my feelmg that the denSity of thIS project IS entirely too large for thiS neighborhood Many objectIons from area reSIdents have been raised concernIng the effect the requested VarIance Will have on thiS reSidentIal commumty ~ ThiS Will become the tallest bUlldmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-famIly reSidences, whIch destroys the aesthetIcs OfthlS quamt communIty ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS denSity ~ The proposed 77 UnIts, along WIth the likelIhood of2 vehicles per umt, Will put additional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dn ve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area ~ The overall negattve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- umt condomInIUm located Imposmgly III a Single-family reSidentIal area Will directly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It Will also affect area property taxes It IS my feelmg that the size of this project WIll do more harm than good In preservIng the quahty of this neighborhood I am requesting that the CommunIty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses. Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, lnc for a fleXIble development approval. Thank you for your consideratIOn m thiS matter Smcerely, ~ ~ City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue P.D Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon MIke Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector RECE\VED RE: FLD2003-09050 ArR U R iyylt PLANN\NG D~~~~~T C\lY Of CL~ Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of 113lo OjraJllidl1...~ and I am wntlllg III objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, which reqUires a height VarIance to 75 feet and a reductIon m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feehng that the densIty of this project IS entirely too large for thIS neighborhood Many objections from area resIdents have been raised concernmg the effect the requested VarIance WIll have on thiS resIdenttal commumty ~ ThIS WIll become the tallest bUlldmg m the area, looming over the sIllgle-family residences, which destroys the aesthetics of thIS quamt commumty ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed thIS densIty );> The proposed 77 umts, along WIth the hkehhood of 2 vehIcles per umt, Will put additIOnal traffic straIn on the already burdened roadways of Sunset POIllt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area ~ The overall negative effect ofthe proposed development on local property values A multI- umt condommlUm located Imposmgly III a smgle-famIly reSIdential area Will directly affect property values and their abIhty to resell It will also affect area property taxes It IS my feeling that the SIze of thIs project Will do more halll1 than good III preservmg the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conSideration III thIS matter SIllCerelY,~W't1lL. NldLtLL City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon MIke Reynolds, Planning Director RE: FLD2003-09050 -~~ - ~... - , I rc l - ~ r" iI \:17 r~ r ~ k:: .:~M~l 5 ~']~I I' j ~.,! C .' '.... 'r,,"i i;SV .S , /- n''''-I1:R := - C ;.::t" _ ;;., ~ Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of 1131 C'W"MA dll..,- sf, and I am writmg m objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condo01101UIDS at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and lOW, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal is for 77 units, which requrres a height variance to 75 feet and a reduction m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feelIng that the density of this project is entirely too large for thts neighborhood Many objections from area residents have been raised concerning the effect the requested variance will have on this residential community ~ This will become the tallest building in the area, looming over the smgle-fanuly reSidences, which destroys the aesthetlcs of this quamt community ThIs also encourages future development to match or exceed thIs denSity >>- The proposed. 77 uIUts, along With the lIkelIhood of2 vehIcles per unit, will put addItional traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIs IS not safe for the many pedestrians that frequent this area ~ The overall negative effect of the proposed. development on local property values A multi- unit condominium located. lffiposmgly in a smgle-fann1y residential area will directly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It Will also affect area property taxes It IS my feeling that the size of this project will do more hann than good In preservmg the qualtty of this neighborhood I am requesting that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your consideration in thIs matter Sincerely, ~~4-~~ City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 MAR 1 5 2aO% AttentlOn Mike Reynolds, Planrung Director PLANNING DEPARTMENT GITY 9F gLMRWATe~R RfECE~VfEfD 1UE:~1)2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a reSIdent of litIS (6/CAfo/lllJfl ff and I am wnting in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Ioc. for the construc1J.on of condominiums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road. The proposal is for 77 uruts, wluch requires a height variance to 75 feet and a reduction in the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feehng that the density of this project is entIrely too large for this neighborhood Many objectIons from area residents have been raIsed concenung the effect the requested variance W1lt have on tills resIdential commurnty- ~ This will become the tallest building In the area, looming over the single-farrnly residences, whIch destroys the aesthetics of this quaint commuruty This also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSity )> The proposed 77 uruts, along with the likehhood of 2 vehicles per urnt, will put addItional traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Drive This IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent this area }> The overall negatlve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- urut condomiruum located imposingly In a single-fanuly reSidential area will directly affect property values and theIr ability to resell It will also affect area property taxes It is my feeling that the size of thts project will do more harm than good in preserving the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requesting that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterprises, Ine & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Ine for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideratIon In thts matter Sincer~~a ICrD/I ~ CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon. MIke Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector RECEiVED APR 08 26M PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITV OF CLEAR~ATER RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of i J ~ f? Gf'tJ/I't. ().- J 4: SI and I am wntmg III objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Eoterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condomIlllUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, which reqUires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductton III the SIde setback from 10 feet to 585 feet It IS my feelmg that the density of this prOject IS entIrely too large for thiS neIghborhood Many objectIOns from area residents have been raised ConcernIng the effect the requested VarIance WIll have on thiS resIdential commumty: ~ ThIS WIll become the tallest bUildIng m the area, loommg over the smgle-famIly reSIdences, whtch destroys the aesthetics of this quaInt communIty ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS denSIty ~ The proposed 77 umts, along WIth the lIkelIhood of2 vehicles per umt, WIll put additIonal traffic straIll on the already burdened roadways of Sunset POIllt Road and Edgewater Dove Thls IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area ~ The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- unIt condOImmum located Imposlllgly m a SIngle-famIly resIdentlal area Will dIrectly affect property values and theIr abIhty to resell It Will also affect area property taxes. It is my feelmg that the SIze of thIS project WIll do more harm than good III preservmg the quahty of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dove, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conslderahon III thIS matter Smcerely, ~ I( tJJ City of Clearwater Planrung Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director RE: FLD2003-09050 r I U I I <~ p 'n' I, I I I I t I ,ILl ~~ I I I '. I, l ~ ---' '~-l~f'=;~r~' ; Ii \ N 'r n ~ ' - ,,! r-; ~;'l-;~~ J~! - 'sl.lr~ij ~ I I, _rJ ~ .1 __~ --I Dear Sir or Madam, I am a reSident of / I., J ;':'t2,lJfl~ 51 and I am wntIng in ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condonuruums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal is for 77 uruts, which requires a heIght VarIance to 75 feet and a reduction m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feeling that the density oftlus project IS entIrely too large for this neighborhood Many objectIons from area reSidents have been ratsed concerning the effect the requested vanance will have on this reSIdentIal commumty >- This \v:ill become the tallest buddIng in the area, looming over the single-family residences, which destroys the aesthetics of this quatnt commumty This also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSity >- The proposed 77 uruts, along With the hkelihood of 2 vehicles per urut, will put addItional traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset POInt Road and Edgewater Dove This is not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thIs area >- The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- urut condolllimum located Imposmgly in a smgle-famtly residential area will dIrectly affect property values and their ability to resell It Will also affect area property taxes It is my feelmg that the size of this project Will do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of thiS neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commuruty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Ine & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Ine for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideratIon m trus matter Smcerely, ;:~jui 11 ?i, Up J- /ZC-DfL I . City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of Il S3 ~(' 11 ViIi e. St" and I am wntmg m ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, nc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condomIlllUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 unIts, which requires a heIght VarIance to 75 feet and a reduction m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelIng that the densIty of this project is entnely too large for thiS neIghborhood Many ObjectIOns from area resIdents have been raised concernIng the effect the requested VarIance wIll have on thIS residential communIty. >> ThiS wIll become the tallest bUlldmg In the area, looming over the smgle-family residences, WhICh destroys the aesthetics of this quamt communIty ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS denSIty ). The proposed 77 umts, along With the likelIhood of2 vehIcles per UnIt, Will put addItIOnal traffic straIn on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thIS area ~ The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A mu!tI- umt condomIlllum located Imposmgly m a smgle-famlly reSIdentIal area Will directly affect property values and then abIlIty to resell. It Will also affect area property taxes It IS my feeling that the size ofthls prOject Will do more harm than good III preservIllg the quality of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the reauest of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Ine for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conSideration m thiS matter f:S ~ H..e le (?r"~Se(\.le (\0\-- O...2..St"'(O~ +-~Q... Area.. ~-r~1' Smcerely, U~ ' REC[E~VED APR 1 2 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER City of Clearwater P1anmng Department 100 S Myrtle A venue PO. Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attentlon MIke Reynolds, Plannmg Director RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGINAL Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of ((5 7 ~ CV7 Gb ~~ I am wntmg m obj ectlOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Eogewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condomIllmllls at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 UnIts, which reqUired a height VarIance to 75 feet and a reductIOn III the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 UnIts, which reqUIres a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIOn III the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obvIOUS that the SlZe of thIS prOject lS still too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUlldmg of thIS size IS not III character With the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg communIty IS smgle-family homes. The size of thIS project Will destroy the aesthetIcs of thIS quamt waterside commumty, and do more harm than good III preservmg the quality of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, lnc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consIderatIOn of this matter Smcerely, ~ // f?(tly In I l- I z [1ill] ill F,! ~ "=:I" a ~ I ~~ ~ 0 C) N u: ~n r-~ - ' 0"') / 1 J I 0d1D c, :: " IT I y ---I " IJ ~ 9 :OJ ) L I [ld1[J <:: 0'-r---- , I LOC- I I -.i City of Clearwater PlannIng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn. Mike Reynolds, Planmng Director OR\G\NAL RE: FLD2003-090S0 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of / /;)? A .0uu;d; 2f-and I am wntmg In ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of COndOmInI ums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve and 1 010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road The ongInaI proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUired a heIght VarIance to 75 feet and-a reductIOn m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet After two continuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch requITes a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mIdpoIllt and a reductIOn m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obvIOUS that the SIze of thIS project IS stIll too large for thiS neighborhood A bmldmg of this size IS not In character With the surroundIllg commumty when 99% of the . surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The SIze of thIs project WIll destroy the aesthetIcs of thIS quamt waterslde commumty, and do more harm than good In preservIng the quahty of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fltght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve, Ine for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conSideration of this matter smcerelY'~ ~ //F? ~~D-~c.-&-f<, :1-/0-6;/ M ~ I z I 8J1:!J w c- , 2 ""'=T " ~ = 0 = ~lf C'.J ~I = cY) "it l [1JU] I > ",' r:r :S , U ( J -:> 0d10 " i c.J rr=~'-- - \ ~ ..L C~ ~-- I ___J L_ L--___ _J City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Planning Director -"~---:..::::..."-"""~ ~~--~-, ~~n(~~~:~;~]~l I {~~ C'r\;:F...:Li) r/ ~~nSVC~J " ~ -,:,!-,~",'=1'!Ji',IEI"'; I -~ - ~~ ~~ RE: FLD200J-090S0 Dear SIT or Madam, sf- ~ I am a reSident of / I 5' '/ Gvr~ ~ ~ and I am writIng In objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc:. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, lot. for the construction of condommiums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal is for 77 units, wluch requrres a height variance to 75 feet and a reduction in the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feeltng that the denSity of this project is entirely too large for this neighborhood Many objections :110m area residents have been raIsed concerrung the effect the requested vanance WIll have on tlus residentIal community >> This \VIII become the tallest buildmg 10 the area, looming over the single-fannly residences, which destroys the aesthetics of tlus quaint community This also encourages future development to match or exceed tlus denSIty );.> The proposed 77 uruts, along with the hkehhood of2 vehicles per unit, will put addttional traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Point Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIs IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thIs area ~ The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- umt condorntlllum located imposingly in a single-fannly reSldentlal area will dIrectly affect property values and their ability to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes ~-- - . It is my feeling that the'size oftlns'project wtll do more harm than good 10 preservmg the qualIty of thIs netghborhood I am requesting that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, rnc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideratlon In tlns matter Sincerely, ~~~~~ ~/oJ R._ ~~~~F\ /'1 ('~~ 1 City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mlke Reynolds, Plannmg Director -- RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a reSIdent of / /!J' 1 #tth1.J& Y,and I am wnlmg m obJecbon 10 the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Ine. for the constructIOn of condonumums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal is for 77 umts, whtch reqwres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feehng that the density ofthts project is entIrely too large for thts neighborhood Many objections from area reSIdents have been r3.1sed concernmg the effect the requested vanance W1l1 have on thts reSIdential commumty ~ _ Thts \.viII become the tallest buildmg m the area, loonung over the smgle-fanuly reSidences, whtch destroys the aesthetics of thts qU3.1nt commumty Thts also encourages future development to match or exceed thts density ~ The proposed 77 umts, along With the IIkelthood of 2 vehtcles per urnt, Will put additIOnal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Drive Thts IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thts area ~ The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- urnt condonumum located unposmgly m a smgle-farmly reSidential area will directly affect property values and theIr abilIty to resell It Will also affect area property taxes It IS my feehng that the sIZe ofthts project will do more harm than good m preservmg the qualtty of thts neighborhood I am requestIng that the Commurnty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideration m thts matter s~!~ R\EC\E~V\ED APR 1 2 20U4 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department ~ ~~Q 100 S Myrtle Avenue ~\~ POBox 4748 (e/(jv ~ Clearwater, flonda 33758 ~V"1 'l~~ ~"'\ AttentIOn MIke Reynolds, Planmng DIrector 99. " ~"\~€'<;.~ ~ (, Q~~~-.tl~ RE: FLD2003-090S0 ~~\~ c c,\) ~~;....J 0' c,'\' ' Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of IU . nd I am wntmg m objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flig Enterprise Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, loco for the construction of condommmms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, which reqUires a height VarIance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feeling that the densIty of this project IS entirely too large for thiS neIghborhood Many objectIOns from area residents have been raIsed concernmg the effect the requested VarIance WIll have on thIS reSIdential commuOlty ~ ThiS WIll become the tallest bUlldmg In the area, loommg over the smgle-famlly resIdences, which destroys the aesthetIcs of this quamt commumty ThIS also encourages future development to match or exceed thIS denSity ~ The proposed 77 umts, along With the lIkelihood of2 vehicles per umt, WIll put addIttonal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset POInt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area. ~ The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt condommmm located Imposmgly In a smgle-farmly resldentml area will directly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It Will also affect area property taxes. It IS my feelmg that the Size of thiS project WIll do mc:e harm than good In preservmg the quahty of this neighborhood I am requestlllg that the CommunIty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conSideration In thiS matter. SIncerely, cf ~ f11. o 4 rcr~ I , . ',,- CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Planmng Director ~ECE~VED APR 1 9 200~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER RE: FLD2003-09050 &s EJ.'3~q- \).. <- I am a resIdent of and I am wntIllg III objectIon to the approval requested by Top Flig t Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condomInmms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, WhICh requIres a heIght VarIance to 75 feet and a reduction III the side setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet. It IS my feehng that the denSity of thIS project IS enttrely too large for thiS neIghborhood. Dear SIr or Madam, Many objectIons from area residents have been r31sed concernmg the effect the requested VarIance will have on thiS residential commumty ~ ThIS wIll become the tallest bUildIng III the area, 100mlOg over the smgle-faImly resIdences, WhICh destroys the aesthetIcs of thiS quamt commumty ThIS also encourages future development to match or exceed tills densIty ~ The proposed 77 unItS, along With the lIkelihood of 2 vehIcles per umt, will put addItional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset POIllt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area ~ The overall negattve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- umt condommmm located Imposmgly m a smgle-famlly resldenttal area Will dIrectly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It IS my feeling that the size of thIS project Will do more harm than good III preservmg the qualIty of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc. for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your conSIderation m thiS matter smcaeW~ City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn MIke Reynolds, Plannmg Director ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-090S0 ? - /vl -()/ Dear SIr or Madam, , I am a reSIdent of I .11 CJ~f ~ ''',;;;'d I am wntmg m objectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of cOndOmInIUmS at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road. The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, WhICh reqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet After two contllluances ofthe CommunIty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUIres a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIOn m the Side setback from lO feet to 5 85 feet It IS obvIOUS that the size of thiS project IS still too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUildIng of thIS size IS not m character With the surroundmg commumty when 99% ofthe surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The SIze of thIS project Will destroy the aesthetIcs of this quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, lnc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conslderahon of this matter Smcerely, r I.. ~ 1tt-&.-4- ~4-JI' U (? ~ ~ =-- UJ 0: (1JV) ~ ~ ~ o -. r::::--..... ...J (J) :> ?-> ~ UJ ~ .------, (T) UJ g ill ------ 0 > ...J nnn ~O:l.) ~ ~ (')~u... r?'Y\ z 0 ~ z ?: (1JV) 5 u ~~ -..l r~--- ILQJ ~ I OdJJJ -- ~ ffi ""'=1' Q f- C) 0-.[ ~ --1(J"J: g; U1 ,- [,0 L..>:::! "'~ ffi U CD (/) J -- 0 3; (>- z ~ 5 u Q City of Clearwater PlannIng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue PO. Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, PlannIng DIrector RE: FLD2003-090S0 ORIGINAL Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of t9'7 ( I$~ Deand 1 am wntIng m objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommIums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmaI proposal was for 77 UnIts, WhICh reqUired a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn In the side setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet After two contInuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, WhICh reqUlres a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductlOn m the side setback from 10 feet to 585 feet It IS obVIOUS that the,slze of thIS project IS stIll too large for thIS neighborhood A bUlldmg of this size IS not In character WIth the surroundmg commumtywhen 99% of the sUIToundmg commumty IS smgle-fanllly homes The size of thIS project will destroy the aesthetics of this quamt watelsIde commumty, and do more harm than good III preservIllg the quahty of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Ine & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Smcerely, ,A .AI c;". fr L ( Gf ~o.#{)o5 1 //A~f/ l::::::___ c::::::--=..-l c:--=-= (Y) ~LlJJ ~) [1I11J ((---"'--J Lee -_J =5 J --~ City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Planmng DIrector ~--~rE)r[Ow f~- Nr- Lb ,-!Q JJ_~--~ I ~ t .--.----- . :~1~\ MAR 1 5 2004 J ;~ I_U:j I i ~~~'~";"l' ~(l-~ ~ :!"c\,(','" ~ l. ...,rt .. -' 1 ~ j, t .... 0\ t :- - ~ \.J~l _ ~~t ~~~~'P.U RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, " I am a resident of ..EJ.se.w..l--{..er ]) i (J t and I am wntIng m objectIon to the approval reque~ted by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructiOn of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sumet Pomt Road The proposal I') for 77 UnIts, WhICh reqmres a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn III the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It I~ my feehng that the densIty of thIS project IS entIrely too large for thiS neIghborhood Many objectIOns from area residents have been ral<;ed concernmg the effect the requested varIance will have on thiS reSIdentIal commumty >- Thl'l will become the tallest bmldmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-farmly residences, which destroys the aesthetIc~ of thI,> quamt commumty ThIS also encourages future development to match or excced thIS density >- The proposed 77 umt<;, along With the hkehhood of 2 vehicles per umt, WIll put addtUonal traffiC stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS II) not &afe for the many pedestnans that frequent thl" area ~ The overall negatIve effect oftbe proposed development on local property values A multI~ umt condommlUm located Imposmgly m a smgle-farruly reSIdentIal area WIll dIrectly affect property values and theIr abilIty to resell It Will also affect area property taxes It IS my feelmg that the 5Ize of thIS project Will do more harm than good III pre~ervmg the quality of thIS neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpn,>es, Tnc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your con~lderatIon m thIS matter SI'l2~ 1> ~u~6" ~f' =-~ tIi;: ..__I City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Dtrector R[ECrE~VED RE: FLD2003-090S0 APR 1 2 2004 PLAu\%\.!I~G IDIEPARTMI'::~ fr cn-y OF ClEAR.WATE,~ Dear Sir or Madam, ~a;liP- ~ I am a reSident of /9 g 5 and I am wntmg In objectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterpri s, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater DrIVe, Inc. for the construction of condonuruums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal is for 77 uruts, whIch requires a heIght variance to 75 feet and a reduction In the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feehng that the denSIty of thIs project is entirely too large for thIs neighborhood Many objections from area reSIdents have been raIsed concernmg the effect the requested vanance WIll have on thiS reSidential commuruty }i;> This Wlll become the tallest building m the area, loommg over the smgle-fanuly reSidences, which destroys the aesthetiCS of this quamt community ThIS also encourages future development to match or exceed thts denSity );> The proposed 77 units, along WIth the hkehhood of 2 vehIcles per UnIt, wtll put additional traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Drive Tins IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent this area );> The overall negatlve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- unit condomimum located Imposmgly In a smgle-famtly reSIdentIal area WIll directly affect property values and their ablhty to resell It wIlt also affect area property taxes It is my feeling that the size ofthts project will do more harm than good In preservIng the qualIty oftlns neighborhood I am requestIng that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Ioe for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consideration In thts matter SIncerely, If ~ ~ xfP<<J;) tLo9:D , ~ . April 7, 2004 WFa5 ~ Q W'rrm IlJLL"APR 0 0 ~ 1." ,I , ('" r , r " - c J " - f ... -- ,"'~ - I' . !!' I ~ ~ Hon(uable Mitmbers of The Clearwater COnllnunity Development Board. Re: Ashleigh Condominium Project My name is Luctlle Crowley Auclair and my residence is 2009 Edgewater Drive, Clearwater, Florida. My husband and I have lived at this address for over 8 years. 2009 Edgewater Drive is located 7 homes North of this proposed project. I come before you today to ask that you vote in favor of the Top Fhght Partnership proposal to build 77 condo units at 1919 and 1925 Edgewater Drive, Clearwater, Florida. These individuals are residents in our neighborhood and I believe their condo units WIll add to the beauty and monetary value of our neighborhood. You and I know, as do, r m sure, the vast maj ority of those in attendance at this meeting that Edgewater Drive, also known, as Alternate 19 North is one of the most scenic dnves in the CIty of Clearwater. Presently there IS a condo construction being built just south of the "Sunset Point RoadlFishing Bridge" and another condo unit is under construction at Seminole Street. I thInk I can speak for most of you when I say, in my heart, I DO NOT want to see the Mom and Pop hotels go. And, In a perfect world I would gladly say NO to their continued demolition. But unfortunately it is no secret that many of these charming, small hotels are not now, and have not been for some time, financially - .. " .. j' . viable. And for that reason, some would call their continued replacement and Impossible to avoid. I do fear that should the Board fail to approve the Top Flight Development, LLC proposal it will not be long before some other Developer or Organization, with no vested interest in the welfare of our neighborhood, comes before you with a similar request, and perhaps on a much larger and more obtrusive scale. The question seems to me to be, do we want to trust the fate and future of our beautiful community to some unknown corporate entity, or would we not be better served by ensuring that our new neIghbors are In fact, our current old neighbors? Again, I respectfully ask that you vote In favor of the Top Flight Development request. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, uc~ / &Mt- ucille Crowley Auclair (0) 727-461-4801 X 8149 (H) 727-443-0016 cc: Top Fhght Development, LLC City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Planning Director R\ECE~VED RE: FLD2003-09050 MAR 15 2004 PLANN!NG DEPART~e~T CITY OF CLEARWAT~R Dear Srr or Madam, I am a resident of ;) t> 'f 1 (~~' \ll{and I am wnling in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Eote ISes, Ioc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condominiums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal is for 77 units, which reqUITes a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feeling that the density of this project is entirely too large for this neIghborhood Many objections from area residents have been raised concerning the effect the requested variance will have on thIs residenttal community >- This will become the tallest building in the area, looming over the smgle-fanuly residences, whIch destroys the aesthetics of this quamt commuruty This also encourages future development to match or exceed thIs denSIty , >> The proposed 77 uruts, along with the hkehhood of 2 vehIcles per umt, Will put additional traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Point Road and Edgewater Drive This is not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thts area );> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- urut condomimum located nnposmgly in a smgle-family reSidential area wtl1 dIrectly affect property values and their ability to resell It will also affect area property taxes It is my feeling that the SIZe of this project will do more harm than good in preserving the quality of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commuruty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterprises, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dove, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideration m tins matter Sincerely, CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynold&, PlannIng Director _ ::: l::'t-.... -l::::"' '"l.~---;.........-P ~ ~r;--:F'f"::-'" '. ',' L fit .1, I 1 ~ I r' ' ~:_~ :.~l.:~LJ:'l-}_~" Iii I' : ~..... I 1 I '1; MAR 1 5 2004 j' d)'; ,;( ~I - ~-'I ,I r~t;~ ~'" ~~VC\t ~ ~ ~ -~ 1 """- __....... .....=tt.~~...,..Il: RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of (~~ and I am wntmg m objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condominIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, WhICh requIres a heIght vaflance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelmg that the densIty of thIS project IS entIrely too large tor thiS neighborhood Many objectIOns from area resIdents have been raised concemmg the effect the reque~ted vaflance Will have on thl<; re<;IdentIal commumty >- Thl& Will become the talle&t bUlldmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-falmly resIdences, WhICh destroys the aesthetics of thIS quamt commumty Thl~ dlso encourage" future development to match or exceed thIS denSIty >- The proposed 77 umts, along WIth the ltkelIhood of 2 vehlcJe~ per UOlt, WIll put addItional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not ~afe for the many pedestndn<;, that frequent thIS area >- The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- UOlt condommlUm located Imposmgly III a smgle-famlly reSIdentIal area WIll directly affect property values and their abIlity to re&ell It will 0.1<;0 affect area property taxes It IS my feehng that the SIze of thl<; project Will do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty of thl<; neIghborhood I am reque<;tmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideratIOn m thIS matter Smcerely, Vl~L ~;------ ;)-7 g.) ~~337S1 City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Planmng DIrector r - -~("~\\flT:"\!q"i::::T~-' ~ ,~'D 10 ] "'_-4-1-1\ 1\ : L;;11 MAR I 5 2Oll'I l0Vj / ,r- ~"_~~.J ~~ .. \ l "\1\ r.::( SVCI:;:\ J t."-\"J'..i(~~_ 1 __ -r- &'~ ............iIL._~:r.o...=-~ RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of c.;c f:l/-fC fA.) A-TCfC- and I am wrItmg m objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommlums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater DrIve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 Ul11t.'>, whIch reqUIres a heIght varIance to 75 feet and a reductIOn In the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelmg that the denSIty of thIS prOject l~ entIrely too large for thl.'> neIghborhood Many ObjectIOns from area reSIdents have been raised concernmg the effect the requested variance will have on thiS resldenttal commumty ). ThIS wIll become the tallest butldmg m the area, loommg over the sIllgle-fallllly reSIdence,>, WhICh destroy" the acsthetIcs of thiS quamt commumty ThiS aJ<..o encourages future development to match or exceed thl" den~lty ). The proposed 77 Ulllt~, along with the likelihood of 2 vehIcles per umt, Will put addItIonal traffIC stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pamt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestrIans that frequent thiS area ~ The overall negative effect of the propo.'>ed development on local property values A multi- UnIt condomInIUm located Impo"mgly m a smgle-family reSIdential arca WIll dIrectly affect property values and their abIlIty to re.'>ell It WIll also affect area property taxes It I" my feelmg that the size of thIS project Will do more hann than good III preservmg the qualIty of thl" neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, loc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIOn m thIS matter Smcerel y, ~/rt& 5R 590 CLeJ4-4.W4-Te7'e- :$ 51S( City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, P1anmng DIrector I ~-~~~= ~ ~~:,l-~~\-;i-f?-! ;1 I 1.. ......}} l l . ~ 1 { .:- I I lJ ~--~--~"";;:"-'-~""-'ll: ~i'\; MAR 1 5 200~ t\ U ,; L.\UI 10,; , 1 I I' ! .t~Y- - ~.., ~ J/:- - S\,~~h (J ~ f---'t':..~a~j~lf'lll"~':Ji ! .=': "~...>. ~_~- ....2:....:.~ - ~ RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Mada I am a resIdent of and I am wntmg m objectIOn lo the approval requested by Top FI ght Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the con\tructlOn of condonumums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sun<;;et Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, which requIres a heIght varIance to 75 feet and a reduction III the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelmg that the denSIty of thIS project IS entirely too large for tills neIghborhood Many objectIons from area re"'ldents have been raised concemmg the effect the requested vanance WIll have on thI" resldenttal communIty >- ThiS Will become the tallest bUlldmg m the area, loommg over the ~mgle-famtly reSIdences, which destroys the aesthetIcs of thIS quamt commulllty Thl~ abo encourages future development to match or exceed thIS demIty );> The proposed 77 Ulllt':>, along with the likelIhood of 2 vehicles per umt, WIll put addItIOnal traffIC stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve Thl~ IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thIS area );> The overall negattve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- Ulllt condommlUm located Imposmgly m a smgle-famIly re<;;Identlal area Will directly affect property values and theIr abIlIty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxe~ It IS my fee1mg that the SIze of lhIS project wIll do more harm than good m pre~ervmg the quality of thIi-> neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpn\e<" Jnc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for y. r on\lderatlon III thIS matter ~~~ ~ P136 -owl) (lQ~N\(}"-.J~ Ll~\:I0.j::)~\es- I ~ 33~bS Smcerely, City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Plannlllg DIrector ~_.......-- .. ,- ~~~ - ~~ (f _I r!; r '~I h: I !""II' ,r u" I L J .J 1-' _\1 \ L~ ~'.J ~~~~- ] l~:r=-- 1\1 ~)jl. MAR 1 5 2004 \~~j~ ~ ~~l rl.. 1 ,)"' __ ~ ,__~ _=J RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Slr or Madam, I am a resIdent of U ctAM.)~ and I am wntmg m ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the con<;tructIOn of condomInIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010,1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 Ulllts, which reqUIres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It 1& my feehng that the demIty of thl" project IS enttrely too large for thIS neIghborhood Many objectIOns from area resIdents have been raIsed concernmg the effect the requested vanance will have on thIS reSidentIal commumty ~ ThiS will become the tallest bmldmg III the area, loomIng over the smgle-farruly residences, whIch destroys the aesthetIcs of thIS quamt commumty ThIS also encourages future development to malch or exceed thIS densIty ~ The propo&ed 77 Ulllts, along With the hkehhood of 2 vehIcles per unit, Will put additional traffic stram on the already burdened roadway& of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not "afe for the many pedel,tnans that frequent thiS area );> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- Ulllt condommmm locatcd Imposmgly III a smgle-famIly rcsldcntIal area WIll dIrectly affect property values and thelf abilIty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It IS my feehng that the size of thIS project WIll do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of thIS neIghborhood I am reque"tIng that the Commulllty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Ine & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIOn In thIS matter Smcerely, I~~ KeH:1 Xkra.l\~ l~(,,(., Idlewdd c.{eo.rwo..teo', FL Dr. 3~ 1515 City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S M yrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn MIkc Reynolds, PlannIng DIrector ~--=-;~c (~~~~rl~ \lrrT~ ~ Gn--, If ,-"" \ I) I......, .!.I )~-, ,II l I ~.....~-----... ~.....----............. =---""'"' , ,-,.-'111 I II I' f1';j MAR 1 5 2004 I ~ j; , ~, 'I 1-.....) I ----p , _J :t I ~ ,t , - ~ '.....11.1"" 't ~ .... f"!... IV',..I _..,.:::> rtJ ~}~ ~ ,1\ '!:.~ r ! ~ _~~ ~~=-..,.J RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a reSIdent oi' J-e~r~ and I am wntmg m objectIOn to the approval reque5ted by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condom1TIlUm~ at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The propo~alIs for 77 umt:-., whIch reqUlre5 a height varIance to 75 feet and a reduction m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It 1'::. my fee1mg that the denSIty of this project IS entIrely too large for this neIghborhood Many ObjectIOns from Mea reSidents have been raIsed concernmg the effect the requested varIance WIll have on thIS resIdent131 commumty >- This Will become the talle~t bUlJdIng In the area, loomlllg over the smgle-famIly resIdence5, whIch destroys the ae5thetIcs of thiS quamt commumty ThI"i also encourages future development to match or exceed thl~ denSity ~ The propo~ed 77 umts, along With the ltkelIhood of 2 vehIcles per UnIt, Will put addItIOnal traffiC ~tram on the already burdened roadwdY~ of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve Thl., IS not safe for the many pede<i.tnan.. that frequent thIS area );> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- umt condomInIUm located Impo'::.mgly In a smg1e-famIly reSIdentIal area WIll directly affect property value~ and theIr ablhty to resell It Will also dffect area property taxe~ It I~ my feelmg that the .,lze of thIS project will do more harm than good m preservmg the qual1ty of thIS neIghborhood I am requestmg that the CommunIty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght EnterprIse<i., Inc & 1925 Edgewater DrIve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSideration m thIS matter 2/co c(JU(5ePtt ~d, .1 {)leBfu;:J-e;; r I 33 7G CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn MIke Reynold~, PlannIng DIrector - -~- --- ~ ~ ---- -~~ - ~~ ,e 1'1':: p~ i I ':~f' !-;~ !,.. I ~..._...::::~.......:.._...._ (~ I I (...1 I ~- li~~_~ ~~_I ~_~ .lW;; " ~ ,C'_,,~ ,J' '"), ';::: VE:l r '~I'>/?:I" -S\!C'J!I l.=- _C ~ '\ "- ~.. C\J.../ \ f ~lf1d ~ft:::-] 1 - ~"'~..L-....~_...... ~ ~~_ ~ RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of C~ w~ and I am wntmg m objectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommI um~ at 19 19 & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve and 1010, 1012, & 1 020 Sun "et Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 UnIts, whIch reqUlre~ a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductiOn m the "Ide setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelmg that the denSIty of thiS project 1\ entirely too large for thIS neIghborhood Many objections from area re~ldent" have been raIsed concernIng the effect the requested varIance WIll have on thIS resIdential communIty >- ThIS wIll become the tallest bUlldmg m the area, loomIng over the "mgle-famIly resIdences, WhICh destroys the aesthetics of thl~ quamt commumty ThiS also encourage" future development to match or exceed thiS density >- The proposed 77 umts, along WIth the hkelihood of 2 vehIcles per Ulllt, WIll put additional traffic ~tram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thIS area ~ The overall negative effect of the propo')ed development on local property value') A multI- umt condOmInIUm located Impo"mgly m a smgle-famI1y reSidential area WIll dIrectly affect property values and theIr abIlity to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It 1" my feelmg that the SIze of thiS project will do more harm than good m preservmg the qUalIty of thIS neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIOn In tills matter }'\-GA- /530 d3.e-l~lI(t 1..0 City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon MIke Reynolds, Planning Director JUE:F1lD2003-090S0 -~~~~ t ...;--;~ --;-= ~-"~"'-......-- - , ) I r I! \117 i ~~ ,m' ,'L ,.:j -~~R-I.5 -_~ l~! ~ r' '~, JC',"IGfJ S\!C~ _ /:",1;" A.flf1:rl Dear Sir or Madam, I am a reSident of 'd.o ';) '5 w ~ 1'5c7.-J tbLl and I am writmg in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Ioc. for the construction of condonuruums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 10 10, 10 12, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal is for 77 units, which requires a height variance to 75 feet and a reduction in the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feeling that the denSity of this project is entrrely too large for this neighborhood Many objections {tom area residents have been rmsed concemmg the effect the requested variance will have on thIs residential commumty ~ This will become the tallest building m the area, looming over the smgle-family residences, which destroys the aesthetics of this quaint community ThIs also encourages future development to match or exceed tins densIty ~ The proposed 77 units, along with the hkehhood of 2 vehicles per urnt, will put additional traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve This IS not safe for the many pedestrians that frequent this area ~ The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- unit condomimum located Imposingly in a smgle-fannly residential area will drrectly affect property values and their ability to resell It will also affect area property taxes It is my feelmg that the size of this project will do more hann than good in preServIng the quality of this neIghborhood I am requesting that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, IDe for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideration 1D this matter SIDcere~, J1( ~ ~e.~\ ~\/ ~+t1 ( City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Planmng DIrector ...L-'=_ ......_---..._..~ ~"'~-g"'- - -,-::; (ii_' 'I""~ [11 \1[,' l~:; ;-...., L t; l ',:, _ r - J 1.', I ~-_ " v ,-------~~--~~I I' -l~i~ MAR 1 5 2004 I ~ l~ , f J( L:../ I I.-l.. ~ I , ~~" ,. -:J -~ ,....; '"".... 1-"-....c\ilr!:""IJ ~ ~l...._ ...-/.;,", V ,,",-.,.1"1' - _~_=-r'"il~~r~ L~~,!Il:?J~ ~~. RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a re.':>Ident of t / f 0. f wa It r and I am wntIng III ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condomInIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 Units, which reqUIres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the side setback from lO feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelmg that the den<;lty of thiS project IS entIrely too large for thiS neighborhood Many ObjectIOm from area re<;ldents have been raIsed concernIng the effect the requested varIance will have on thIS reSIdential communIty );> ThIS WIll become the tallest bUlldmg m the area, loommg over the <;mgle-famtly reSidences, which destroys the aesthetics of thIS qualllt commumty ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed thIS density ~ The proposed 77 umts, along With the hkelIhood of 2 vehIcles per UnIt, will put addItIonal traffic .':>traIn on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnan~ that frequent thiS area ~ The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- UnIt condommlUm located Imposmgly m a smgle-family re.':>ldentlal area Will directly affect property values and theIr abilIty to resell It Will also affect area property taxes It 1(, my feelIng that the Size of thiS project wIll do more harm than good In preserVIng the qualIty of thIS neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, lnc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, lnc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSideration In thl'> matter Smcerely, ~u 13 {rJCcL~ ~()O ..s-h1",~ ']x */55 ~v.Xr1i4 J (!-- 337/AJ c 0 Ll~rlv'-.r JD C LA Jl~ 1 (JjJ 260 Lyndhurst Street, Dunedin, Flonda 34698 727-7361141 oolette sa nda ker@venzon net March 17, 2004 ~~OW[E ~' Ms CmdyTarapam Mr Michael Reynolds City of Clearwater Plan nmg Department 100 S Myrtle Ave Clearwater, Rorida 33756 rn MAR 1 7 2004 PL/uIlNING & DE'~ [t 'Ct' till, ~.1 S \ (;~ CITY OF CLEAfI'Nf\l En Re The Ashlelgh CondommlUm, 1925 Edgewater Drive, Clearwater Dear Ms TarapanlfMr Reynolds, I WIsh to address the Issues that were raised last night at the Community Development Board As I understand It, the Planning Department has recommended approval of the Ashlelgh on the conditIOn that the developers change their plans to set the bUlldmg further back from my property line As a remmder to you, I own the property on Sunnydale Avenue that directly adjoms the Bay Queen on their eastern property line I wrote you a few weeks ago about my support of the property I am wntmg you now to state my absolute support of the Ashlelgh as It Is currently designed I do not want or need their bUlldmgto be moved further from my property Ime nor do I want their bUltdmg reduced 10 size I am fully aware that any change In their design might mean the ehmmabon of some old beaubful trees and I would hate to see that {Jdk elo{t~J~ Yours Faithfully, Colette Clar1l;e Sandaker Smcerely, Reynolds, Mike From Sent To: Subject. developm entweb Wednesday, Apn121, 2004 812 AM Reynolds, Mike FW Proposed 75 f1 Condo on Edgewater Drive -----Or1g1nal Message----- From Internet_Comment_Card [ma11to Internet_Comment~Card] Sent Tuesday, Apr1l 20, 2004 4 28 PM To developmentweb SubJect Proposed 75 ft Condo on Edgewater Dr1ve Sender's Name Cather1ne Schulz Date sent 4/20/2004 3 27 56 PM Comments. I am oppsed to th1s development prOJect The argument that our property taxes w111 go up 1f th1s condo goes 1n may be true, but not a strong enough one to sacr1f1ce our qua11ty of 11fe for Our property taxes are g01ng to go up regardless 1f the condo 1S 75 feet or 35 feet or even 1f NO condo goes 1n Our commun1ty 1S p1cturesque, qua1nt, romant1c, h1stor1c and peaceful .Don't sellout our ne1ghborhood out so that one developer or ten developers can make money_ Do not grant the var1ance If you grant 1t for one, you w11l have to grant 1t for the ten that follow I would have attended the meet1ng at 2 pm 1f 1t were not for Job restra1nts, v01C1ng my Oppos1t10n Don't sell us out Sender Ema1l crsdbg@tampabay.rr com Ma1l1ng Address: phone 813-765-1289 1 City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S M yrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn MIke Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of II Of ~cJ-Piv6{l'A/ 4taHd-I am wntIng III objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condomIniums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, WhICh reqUired a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reduction In the side setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet After two contmuances of the CommunIty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 UnIts, which requIres a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs nlldpoInt and a reduction III the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the SIze of thiS project IS still too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUildIng of thiS size IS not In character With the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg communIty IS smgle-famlly homes The size of this project will destroy the aesthetIcs of this quaint watersIde communIty, and do more harm than good In preservmg the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve, Inc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your conSideratIon of thiS matter SIncerely, !( ;jS/Yl('K tfl~ 1 t r1 / 5./-6; u ~ .f~ --- aC</~ $ g 7 S-S 1 (t ~()'i X}v -'-- PLANNING & rr:VELOPMENT SF11"'-'-<:; CI"" 0'" (" r '-" _J CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, PlanOlng DIrector ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a reSIdent of fI~ (hU<"fOrl ArJb and I am wntmg m obJecbon to the approval requested by Top light-Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condomllllUms at ] 919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POint Road The onglllal proposal was for 77 UnIts, WhICh reqUired a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 UnIts, whIch reqUires a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mIdpomt and a reductIOn m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obvIOUS that the size of thIS project IS stIll too large for thiS neighborhood A bUlldIllg of this size IS not 10 character WIth the surroundmg communIty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The sIze of thIS project will destroy the aesthetIcs of thIS quamt watersIde commuOlty, and do more harm than good III preservmg the qualIty OfthIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Ine for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your consIderation of thIS matter c/l4 1 \ IY\O't o ~(C~~~~-'i 0 \ JlJl\ 3 2004 Ji, \ L PLANNING & C.-VELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF CLEf RVlATEq --' City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Plonda 33758 Attention' MIke Reynolds, Plannmg Director RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGINAL Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of It) _> t... MA (J J(/ f!- 5/- and I am wntmg III ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 UnIts, which reqUired a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction III the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the CommunIty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUires a height varIance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductton III the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obvIOUS that the SIze of thiS project IS still too large for thiS neighborhood A bUlldmg of thIS SIze IS not m character WIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surrounding commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The size of thIS project Will destroy the aesthetIcs of this quaInt waterside commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consIderation of this matter 0'~~7 7/ro/rR M rUUll-- C3 ~ ~ = C"') nJLn (g l1illJ (Q~ --I :::l -, f- Z W IT ::;;: L; 0... ~ o <t W [f ~ I >, L'.... \......I c. :5 _ c<:lrcu l')~LL z () L z: <( -.J 0... ~ u CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon MIke Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector ORIG\NAL RE: FLD2003-09050 '7//o/u V' Dear SIr or Madam, I am a reSIdent of 11.1--3 ;;L~..,S} ~~ObJeClIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condommmms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUIres a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mIdpomt and a reductIon m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obVIOUS that the size of thIS project IS sttll too large for thiS neighborhood A bUIldmg of this size IS not III character With the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS SIngle-family homes The size of thiS project Will destroy the aesthetIcs of thiS quamt waterside commumty, and do more harm than good In preservmg the qualIty of thIS neighborhood I am requestIllg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSideratIon of this matter Smcerely, ~ !}'~ ((1) !lillJ ~ = ;g c:::> C'-I ("f') QJ~ ~ 0d1D @~ --1 ::::;, J ~ z W a: ~ W a... f- a <I: ...JCI)~ W U' rr >" w ~ l:J U>.....I o.-::l ffi U l'JCI)L... Z 0 Z r: z - :5 U a... CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon MIke Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGINAL Dear Su or Madam, I am a reSident of 10+0 1YJA'(ftJE U and I am wntmg In objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of cOndOmInIUmS at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUired a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUIres a heIght VarIance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductlOn 10 the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obvIOUS that the size of thIS project IS stIll too large for thIS neighborhood A bmldmg of thIS size IS not m character With the surrounding commumty when 99% of the surrounding communIty IS smgle~famtly homes. The size of thIs project will destroy the aesthehcs oftlus quaInt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good III preservmg the quahty of thIS neIghborhood I am requestIng that the Commumty Development Board deny tlte request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval. Thank you for your conSideratIon of thIS matter. Smcerely, :D~ ~~ 7 //.J~rj ~ -~ c::--- <===== IlI1iJ Y 11DJJ ____ CcJ~ (C5J nd1D ----- ~ ~ C"") =5 --, I- Z W 0: :?: w Q f- a <, -'(/)5: g: UJ cr 'JJ U ~ 03::1 c.jo:u (')~ll.. Z 0 ~ ~ :3 u 0.. City of Clearwater P1annmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attentton Mlke Reynolds, Plannmg Director RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGINAL Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of loq 5' ;11 ihr"",<- r +- and I am wrItmg m objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewatef DrIve and 1010,1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The orIginal proposal was for 77 UnIts, whIch reqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn In the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet. After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUIres a height VarIance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIOn In the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the SIze of thlS project IS stIll too large for thiS neIghborhood A bUIlding of thIS size IS not In character wIth the surroundIng commumty when 99% of the surroundIng commumty IS smgle-famIly homes Thc SIze of thIS project Will destroy the aesthetics OfthIS quamt watersIde communIty, and do more ham1 than good 10 preserving the qualIty of this neIghborhood I am requestIng that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your conSideration of thiS matter. Smcerely, ~;l~ I /(() /~ ~ 0J1:D ~ = [111J) ~) (1&0 ~ cg ?;a ('r) :5 J // /" ~ Z ill a: ::2 ill Q f- a <f --I(/)3 ~wo; w~w 0>--1 06ffio ('JwlJ.. Z 0 z i:: ~ (3 (L '" - City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue P.D Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attentton. Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector ORIGfNAL RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, 7-/o-D~ I am a resIdent of Jt> '-I S /'1-.'~ s;- .h and I am wntmg III ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongInal proposal was for 77 umts, WhICh reqUired a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the Side setback from 10 feet to 585 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, WhICh reqUires a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roof's Imdpomt and a reductIOn In the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet. It IS obvIOUS that the SIze of thIS project IS stIll too large for thiS neighborhood A bUlldmg of this size IS not III character With the surrounding commumty when 99% of the surroundmg communIty IS smgle-famlly homes The size OfthIS project Will destroy the aesthettcs of this quamt waterSIde commumty, and do more harm than good 10 preservIng the qualIty of this neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board dellY the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Ine & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your consideratIOn ofthts matter SIncerely. /'1,e::...-k /'1 : L.. I ! ""--L< ~.. ~ ~_.-A' ~ (rjJ [WJ] ~ = Qd1JJ g MJ] LQC """'" C) ~ (T) ~ \- Z w 0:: ~ u.. D.. ,... o <:. ..J (/) ~ ~ LI r l..l S:: L I (- > -' <>C~() 19 ifJ l_ Z 0 Z ~ z u :5 D.. City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn MIke Reynolds, PlannIng Director RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGINAL Dear SIT or Madam, lam aresIdentof!7J9t9' ~ ~I am wntIngmobjechon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condom 1m urns at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 101 0, 1 012, & 1 020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongInal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUIred a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reduchon m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet. After two contmuances of the Community Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUIres a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs Imdpomt and a reductIOn m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obVIOUS that the size of thiS project IS sttll too large for thIS neighborhood A bUIldIng ofthlS size IS not m character WIth the surroundmg communIty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famlly homes The SIze of thIS project Will destroy the aesthetIcs of thIS quaint watersIde community, and do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty OfthlS neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIon of thiS matter Smcerely, 1-/D/o1{- rr-}) 0d10 ~ = 0d10 g 0d10 ~ C3 Rl C'? -.J =:l -, ~, I- Z ill 0: :2 w Q.. ,.... o < ,J:j (f) ~ u -'- ~~ LoJ L>.-J 060:0 w o (f) LJ. Z 0 Z ~ 5 G 0.. -. . . ~ ORIGINAL City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 R 2 6 zno~ Attention Mike Reynolds, PlannIllg DIrector AP PLANN~NG DE.PARTMENT crT'! OF CLEARWATER R\ECE~V~JD RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of f06V rnan'rU- ~t, and I am wntmg m objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, WhICh reqUires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn III the Side setback from 10 feet to 585 feet It IS my feeling that the denSity of thiS project IS entuely too large for thiS neighborhood. Many objecttons from area residents have been raised concernIng the effect the requested VarIance Will have on thls resIdenttal commumty. ~ ThiS WIll become the tallest bmldmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-famlly resIdences, whIch destroys the aesthetIcs of this quaint commumty ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed thIS denSity ~ The proposed 77 unItS, along With the lIkelIhood of 2 vehIcles per umt, Will put additIOnal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve thiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area };> The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt condomImum located Imposlllgly III a smgle-famIly resldenttal area Will directly affect property values and theIr abIlIty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It IS my feelIng that the size of this project WIll do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of this neighborhood. I am requestIng that the Commumty Development Board deny tile request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your conSideratIon In thiS matter eLQ~ Dear Sir or Madam, ., 'ORI,GINAL ~~Il; #f~ C~![\,1. p 4PR ,2 7l:/D C~ildIAJG B l(J(J9 Of: CI..D/CpA,/? ~l?lIU 17wlZAJr ~ ~r.€"~ I am a resIdent of I" ro J11;JrZ. . rl; sj <' and I am wntIng III objectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condomIniums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, WhICh requIres a heIght VarIance to 75 feet and a reduction m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet It IS my feelIng that the denSIty of thIS project IS entIrely too large for thts neIghborhood. Many objectIons from area reSIdents have been raised concermng the effect the requested VarIance WIll have on thiS reSIdential communIty: ... . City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector RE: FLD2003-09050 }oo ThIS Will become the tallest buildmg In the area, 100mIllg over the smgle-famIly reSIdences, whIch destroys the aesthetIcs of this quamt communIty ThIS also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSity. ~ The proposed 77 unItS, along WIth the lIkelihood of2 vehIcles per umt, WIll put additional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset POInt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area ~ The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- umt condomInmm located ImposIllgly m a smgle-famIly residentIal area WIll directly affect property values and then abilIty to resell It Will also affect area property taxes It IS my feehng that the SIze of thIS prOject WIll do more harm than good In preservmg the quahty of thiS neIghborhood I am requestmg that the CommunIty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, lnc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consIderatIOn III thIS matter Smcerely, r7 j/)1jd,q~L ;J~ ,g~,.&~ CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attentton MIke Reynolds, PlannIng DIrector RECE~VED fD';? 1 ~ tUl(~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of I,f {, / il/Ifll!../ tV t. oJ l' .' and I am wntmg 10 objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, lnc. for the construction of condommlums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 UnIts, whIch requIres a height VarIance to 75 feet and a reduction m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelmg that the denSity of thIS project IS entIrely too large for thiS neIghborhood Many objectIons from area resIdents have been raIsed concernmg the effect the requested VarIance Will have on thiS resldent131 commuOlty ~ ThiS WIll become the tallest bUilding In the area, loommg over the smgle~famIly resIdences, which destroys the aesthettcs of this quaInt communIty ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS denSity. ~ The proposed 77 UnIts, along With the lIkelIhood of2 vehIcles per umt, Will put addIttonal traffic straIn on the already burdened roadways of Sunset POInt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area ~ The overall negattve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi. umt condomInIUm located Imposmgly In a smgle-famIly residential area Will directly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It Will also affect area property taxes It IS my feelmg that the SIze OfthlS project WIll do more harm than good m preservmg the quahty ofthls neIghborhood I am requestIng that the CommunIty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve,lnc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your conSIderation III thiS matter SIllcerely, 5t.(~ roV(l_1!~ (c4) I- .:z 0d1lJ l.U 0: ::::f l.U ~ ~ Q .- 0 <[ u:J(J)S ~ ("I? >WCT 0d1lJ l'..J 0"' - o5~ ",,0.:0 ~ ~ wll.. ~(J)O 0d1lJ z ~ 2 [) I~ :5 Q J "__u_ CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGINAL Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of 1 t () t rn ~rf W( and I am wntmg m ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Fligbt nterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUired a heIght VarIance to 75 feet and a reductIOn In the sIde setback from 10 feet to 585 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUIres a heIght VarIance to 59 feet at the roof's mIdpomt and a reductiOn III the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obvIOUS that the size of thIS project IS stIll too large for thIS neighborhood A bUIldmg of thIS size IS not m character WIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-fal11l1y homes The size OftlhS project wlll destroy the aesthetICS of thIS quamt waterSide commumty, and do more harm than good III preservIng the qualIty of this neIghborhood I am requestIng that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, lnc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your consIderatIOn of this matter Smcerely, ;tt/~ 7-1D-D~ _J '.. CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue PO. Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attentron Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director ORIGiNAL RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, ~. I am a resident of jJ ) L) "'6Y\,~ lJarrd I am wntmg III objectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condomlllmms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 10 I 0, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The onglllal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUired a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn In the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUires a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mIdpomt and a reduction 10 the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the size of thiS project IS stIll too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUlldmg of this SIze IS not m character With the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes. The SIze of thIS project WIll destroy the aesthetIcs of thIS quaint watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good m preservlllg the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requesting that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, lnc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideratIOn of this matter Smcerely, ~~~ ~o)1 ~' City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, FIonda 33758 AttentIon MIke Reynolds, Planmng DIrector RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGINAL Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident off //'1 I'lAA;/l?t}1b.e'!1 and I am wntmg m ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUired a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductton 10 the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the CommunIty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUires a heIght VarIance to 59 feet at the roofs nl1dpomt and a reduction m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obvIOUS that the SIze of thIS project IS stIll too large for thiS neIghborhood A bUildIng of thIS SIze IS not 10 character With the surroundmg commuOlty when 99% ofthe surroundmg communIty IS smgle-famIly homes The Slze of thIS project WIll destroy the aesthetIcs of this quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good In preservIng the qualIty of thIS neighborhood I am requesting that the CommunIty Development Board dellY the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Ine for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consIderatIOn of thiS matter rr0f -- ~~ r:~'-'J~~\ \ \\~ \ c'_ ~ J lS \ \ \ O \'-' \. - -----. I '--, --- 'I \ ~\ll \ 3 2004 "~ - ~LODMENr G & Cc\Jt. ' PLANNIN ~EP.V\CES f:p. OF ClE J:)"WAI ~ Clll' City of Clearwater PlannIng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Cleanvater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon MIke Reynolds, Planmng Director RE: FLD2003-090S0 l ORIGINAL Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resldent of J1 (<; jl;f ~~L~ and I am wntmg III objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condomllllUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which required a heIght \anance to 75 feet and a reduction III the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet. After two contmuances of the Commul11ty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUIres a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reduction m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obVIOUS that the SIze of thiS project IS stIll too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUlldmg of thIS size IS not m character With the surroundIng commumty when 99% of the surrounding commul11ty IS slllgle-famIiy homes The size OfthlS project WIll destroy the aesthetIcs ofthls quamt waterside commumty, and do more harm than good III preservlllg the quality of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commul11ty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your consIderatIOn OfthIS matter ~~~-V~ 1---' P-()~ cc-5l - -- --Ii ~ ~ ~ f1d1D g fJd1!J ,.-- f . ~ -----1 ~ I- Z W a: ~ u Q ,.. o <: ujiflS >wiI W~lL O>--.J ~a:o W,. ~ U);-- C"'? =5 J J CIty of Clearwater PlannIng Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon MIke Reynolds, Planmng DIrector RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGINAL Dear SIr or Madam, J am a reSident of \ \ ~~ ~ Q~f\ ~ ~.y and I am wntmg In objectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of cOndOmll1lUmS at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongInal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUired a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two continuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal is for 62 umts, whIch requlles a height varIance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIon m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obvIOUS that the SIze of thiS project IS still too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUildIng oftlus SIZe IS not m character WIth the surrounding commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famlly homes The size of thIS project WIll destroy the aesthetIcs of this quaInt waterside communIty, and do more harm than good In preservIng the quahty of thIS neighborhood I am requesting that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consideration of thIS matter SIncerely, ~ Q:~ 1-ID-()~ .--- ~\r-'~'\ ~ _C'':\\ 1~"J \\\ r;:...-J; \ ., I I" \ ~ fr' ,,~ ,~-:; \ \ \ \', @~~2~::;<0\ \ \ J'J "'\ \ " \ '?tJlcN \ '\ \ ~ -:\!c \...0 ' ~-G&C'-- ,?\y-NN\N sc'?-"j\CI'::'~'IJ'J p.. \c~ , 01- C\___E (\1'" .. \ ' ------ ---~- CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, PlannIng DIrector RE: FLD2003-09050 RECEIVED APR 0 8 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Dear Sir or Madam, I am a reSIdent of 112.. ~ M~f..{ IV~ ~ T and I am wntIng In objectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condomInIUms at 1919& 1925 EdgewaterDnveand 1010, 1012,& 1020 Sunset POInt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, which reqUires a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon In the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelIng that the density of thIS project IS enttrely too large for thiS neIghborhood Many objectIons from area reSidents have been raIsed concernIng the effect the requested vanance wIll have on thIS reSIdentIal commumty ~ ThIS Will become the tallest bUildIng In the area, loomIng over the SIngle-famIly reSidences, whIch destroys the aesthetICS of thiS quaInt commuOlty ThIS also encourages future development to match or exceed thIS density ~ The proposed 77 UOltS, along With the hkehhood of 2 vehIcles per UnIt, Will put additIOnal traffic straIn on the already burdened roadways of Sunset POInt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area ~ The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- umt cOndOmInIUm located ImpOSingly In a SIngle-famIly reSidentIal area Will directly affect property values and their ablhty to resell It Will also affect area property taxes It IS my feelIng that the SIze of this project WIll do more harm than good In preservIng the qualIty of thiS neIghborhood I am requestIllg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consIderatton In thIS matter ~k CIty of Clearwater PlannIng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue P.O Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, ORIGINAL I am a resident of I J JfJ fk1 ~~ Sr-and I am wntmg In objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 uOltS, WhICh reqUIres a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIOn III the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obvIOUS that the SIze of thIS project IS still too large for thiS neighborhood A bmldmg of thIS SIze IS not In character With the sUIToundmg cOffimumty when 99% of the surroundmg communIty IS smgle-famIiy homes The SIze of this prOject WIll destroy the aesthetics of thiS quamt watersIde communIty, and do more harm than good III preservIng the quality of thIS nClghborhood I am requestmg that the CommunIty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve, Inc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your conSideration of thIS matter Smcerely, ~~Q-<13~ 1/;O/D'f CIty of Clearwater PlannIng Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Planmng DIrector RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGINAL Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of ~tJ 'Y\4~t~ 5/and I am wntmg m objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condomInIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongInal proposal was for 77 umts, whICh reqUired a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn In the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two continuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUIres a height VarIance to 59 feet at the roofs mIdpomt and a reductIOn m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obvIOUS that the SIze of thiS project IS sttll too large for thIS neighborhood A bUlldmg of this SIze IS not m character WIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS SIngle-famIly homes The SIze of thIS project WIll destroy the aesthetIcs of thIS quamt waterSIde commumty, and do more harm than good m preservIllg the quahty of this neighborhood I am requesting that the CommunIty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your consideratIOn of thIS matter Smcerely, ~ ! I I I \ I City of Clearwater PlannIng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, PlannIng DIrector RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGINAL Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of -1155 M6,.Y-\V\e.. &i, and I am wntIng III objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewatef Drive, Inc. for the construction of condomml urns at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongInal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUIred a height variance to 75 feet and a reductIon m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUires a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIOn III the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obvIOUS that the size of thiS project IS sttll too large for thiS neighborhood A bUlldmg of this size IS not III character With the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg communIty IS smgle-famIiy homes The Size of this prOject Will destroy the aesthetics of thIS quamt waterside commumty, and do more harm than good In preservmg the qualIty of thIS neIghborhood I am requestmg that the CommunIty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve, Inc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your conSideratIon OfthlS matter SIllcerely, A~oSio'oS G~DY\\S WO~ CIty of Clearwater Plarmmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Plonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, PlannIng Director RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGINAL Dear SIr or Madam, I am a reSident of /15' MfJlUfLL ~Ifl.u.j and I am wntmg m objectIon to the approval requested by Top Fiigbt Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructton of COndOmInIUmS at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUIred a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductron In the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contInuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUIres a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductlOn III the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet It IS obVIOUS that the size of thiS project IS stIll too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUIldmg of thiS SIze IS not m character wIth the sUIToundmg commumty when 99% of the &unoundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The size of thIS project wIll destroy the aesthetiCS of thIS quamt waterSIde cornmumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the quahty of thIS neIghborhood I am requesting that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, loc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIOn of thiS matter Sincerely, J!h'to 0tdllU !JID!Olt CIty of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Planmng Duector ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 7//0~7 DeaT Sir or Madam, I am a resident of ! 0 11 UN I Co ~ S-r and I am wntmg In ObjectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructton of cOndOmInIUmS at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, whIch reqUired a height vaTIance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contInuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUIres a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIOn III the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the size of thiS project IS still too large for thiS neIghborhood A bUlldmg of this size IS not m character With the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The size of this project will destroy the aesthetics of this quamt waterSIde communIty, and do more hann than good m preservmg the quality of this neIghborhood I am requestlllg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, lne for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your consideratIOn of thIS matter Smcerely, 9~ ~levcr-J 130'0\t\ l- Z W 'I ::2 w CL l- o <r ~(I)S ~ UJ [l fUUl ("'j L:.J ~ CJ U>--.J ",a:u y =5 ~~o nnn ---, z;>- ~ Z !- K/ ~-~ Oi o [1&0 ?~ cg: ~ Dear SIr or Madam, RE: FLD2003-09050 r ';\If VD~rf' ~\ JO ( ~ Clt)i of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Cledrwater, flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector 47as;t;l~-oc 0~ ~at 12._ O.a Uca - .... .- cnG at> me )0/7 U(\lov\" 'St. and I am wntmg m objectIOn to the approval rcquestcd b 0 Fit ht Enter rises nc. 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the con::.tructIon of condomlI11UlTIs at 19] 9 & ] 925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, which requires a height vanance to 75 feet and a rcductIon II1 the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feehng that thc denSIty of thIs project IS entIrely too large for thIS nClghborhood Many ObjectIOns from area reSIdents have been raised concermng the effect the requested vanance Will have on thiS reSIdentIal commumty >- ThIS Will become the tallest bUlldmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-famIly resldcnces, winch destroys the aesthetIcs of thI5 quaint commulllty This also encoura es future development to match or exceed thIS denSity ~ j)/o~ hvOJ:2 _ ~ , 6 >- The proposed 77 umts, along WIth the hkehhood of 2 vehIcles per umt, wIll put additional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset POint Roa.d and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestndns that frequent thiS area ~ The overall nega.tlve effect of the proposed development on local property values A mulh- Ulllt condomm1Um located Impos1l1gly m a smgle-famlly reSidential area will dIrectly affect property values and their abIlIty to rcscll It wll1 also affect area propcrty taxcs It IS my feeling that the Sl7e of thIS project will do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commulllty Development Boar~denv tire reaUl~..t of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble dcvelopment approval Thank you for your conSIderation 111 thIS matter Smcerely, City of Clearwater PlannIng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon MIke Reynolds, Planmng Director ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 1 jJ0r Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of I 0 I q V tJ I 0 to-J S'\ and I am wntmg m ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condomInIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road The ongIllal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUired a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reduction 10 the side setback from 10 feet to 585 feet. After two continuances of the CommunIty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUires a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reduction In the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obVIOUS that the size of thlS project IS stIll too large for thiS neighborhood A bmldmg of this SIze IS not 10 character with the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS sIngle-famIly homes The SIze of thiS project win destroy the aesthetIcs of thIS quaInt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good III preservmg the quality of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commulllty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideration of thIS matter Smcerely, ~0 i)1\1J 10 -r. 15'Oo-rl-\ K5J 0d1lJ 2::, ~ fL~W Y 0d1lJ (- V:=:--.=, ,--... -...... i l~ I tl I L_u Ie. L ~.- cg ~ C'>') - ;5 -.., l- Z w ~ IX Q !:! o -"'t -J(/);;' ~ lJ~ ;...' " (J c5 ~, c::o ~w ~ (f) L. .2 C) /- 5 Q ( u Clty of Clearw ater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, PlannIng Director c~\\]~o ~€ 1~~~ t:-.?R \ tJ ~\\R~~\ nCP~~l\ll\.\'E.fl l\'G v"" O:\l~i'""' l>..\~~'t'-- \..~'fo- 'P'-"~ or G c\\ . RE: FLD2003-090S0 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of \ D'~\ l\C\'lD~ S-t ,l,\v and I am wntmg 10 objectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of wndommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve dnd 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, which requires a hClght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 585 feet It IS my feehng that the denSity of this project IS entIrely too large for thiS neIghborhood Mdny objections from area reSidents have been raised concernmg the effect the requested vanance WIll have on thiS reSidentIal commul11ty ~ ThiS Will become the tallest bUlldmg 111 the area, loommg over the smgle-famtly reSIdences, which destroys the ae:::.thehcs of thIS quamt commumty This also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS denSity ~ The proposed 77 Ul1lts, along wIth the hkehhood of 2 vehicles per umt, will put additIonal traffic stram on the already burden cd roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve. Thl.'i IS not safe for the many pedestnal1s that frequent thIS area };> The overall negatIve cffect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt wndommlUm located nnposmgly 10 a smgle-famIly reSidentIal area WIll directly affect property values and theIr ablllty to resell It will also affect area property taxes It IS my feelIng that the SIze of thiS project WIll do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty of this neighborhood 1 am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deity the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Ine & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consIderatton 111 thiS matter Slllcerely, ~I)\d '& ~~ \;=laUNC:> J . _.:: ......:... :::~. _..~-..."'~ .~-~ . ~ - ... ..... ....... ..I ~\~\~ -\Wj WtlN\~ {'~{\ +- (V\#r-- ~ ~ , \ \xL. A~ ~ \)\-e9..~ ~e~q T~ ~ ~ ~~ C\~,,~ ~r~ K.. -e>\. ~~ ... ~ {V\fV, d\ ("'y-f\f\.Q j CJli'\UU- N S . ~ ;- ,l;' :- CIty-of Clearwatcr Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clcarwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Plannmg DIrcctor RE: FLD2003-09050 I am a resIdcnt of Q e and I am wntmg III objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condominIUms at 19] 9 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunsct POint Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, WhICh reqUIres a hClght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon m the side sctback from 10 fcet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelIng that the denSIty of thiS project IS entirely too large for thIS nCIghborhood Many objections from area reSidents have been raIscd concerlllng the effect thc rcquested vanance WIll havc on thiS reSidential GOmmunIty f 04- ~ U (\\ IJv'\. S+. Dear Sir or Madam, );> ThIS wIll become the tallest bUlldmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-famlly reSidences, whIch destroys the aesthetics of thiS quamt commumty This also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS denSity );> The proposed 77 umts, along WIth the hkellhood of 2 vehicles per UnIt, WIll put additional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sumet Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thl~ area ~ The overall negative effcct of the propo'5cd development on local property values A multI- umt condomllllUm locatcd Imposmgly m a ~lllgle-famIly reSIdential area will dlrcctly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxcs It IS my feeling that thc size of this project will do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of thIS neighborhood I am requcstmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the requeM of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideratIOn m thiS matter slncereIY'~ RECENEO ~PR 1 q 1~[\-.\ AR1MEN1' pLA\\W-!\NG O~RWf\1E.fl C\1'f OF Ct.: ~ ~, CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector APR111 2iWOO4 RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, 0"'1Q~ (~e~ I am a resIdent of / / tJ% t/l'/JO)J 5r and I am wntmg m objection to the approval requested by Top i'hght nterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, which reqUires a height VarIance to 75 feet and a reductIon In the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelIng that the denSity of thIS project IS entIrely too large for thIS neighborhood Many objecttons from area reSidents have been raised concemmg the effect the requested VarIance WIll have on thIS reSIdentIal commumty ~ ThIS Will become the tallest bUildIng In the area, loommg over the smgle-famlly reSidences, whIch destroys the aesthetICS of thiS quamt commumty ThIS also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS denSity ~ The proposed 77 umts, along WIth the hkehhood of2 vehicles per umt, Will put additIOnal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset POInt Road and Edgewater Dnve. ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thIS area ~ The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt condommlUffi located ImposIngly In a SIngle-famIly reSidentIal area WIll dIrectly affect property values and theIr abIhty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It IS my feehng that the size OfthlS project will do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of this neighborhood. I am requestIng that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSideration In thIS matter Smcerely, (()~~- ~tA~Fr~ ~~~~ CJMl/J~~- U/~~~~~~/~ Cv, ~ ~ - er /Y'U..--' < -/bW- ~ N~ ~ tiw (W rj!- ~ vb-- :J- ~~ vn- ~ U/.JL b- dii1 ~ itr ~ ck~ miJ r=-.. CIty of Clearwater PlannIng Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Planmng DIrector RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, ORIGINAL I am a resident of //: 1'/ tC"./~/~ ~nd I am wntmg In ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, In~ 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condomml ums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POlOt Road The ongInal proposal was for 77 umts, WhICh reqUIred a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet. After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 UnIts, whIch reqUIres a height vanance to 59 feet at the roof's mldpomt and a reductton 10 the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the size of th1S project IS still too large for tlus neighborhood A bmldmg of this size lS not 10 character With the surrounding communIty when 99% of the surroundmg cOffimumty IS SIngle-family homes The Slze of thIS project will destroy the aesthetics of thiS quamt waterside commumty, and do more hamI than good III preservmg the quality of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the CommunIty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your conSldcratIon ofth1s matter U 7~/O-O-( 04 \ \ CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Planmng Director ORIGINAL '"' RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of (If? fiN,'lJft S+-&r:->e1 and I am WrIting In objectton to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of cOndOmInIUmS at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater DrIve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road The anginal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUired a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon III the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet. After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUIres a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIOn III the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet. It IS obvIOUS that the SIze of thIS project IS still too large for thiS neIghborhood A bmldmg OfthIS SIze IS not In character wlth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS Single-famIly homes The size ofthlS project WIll destroy the aesthetIcs of this quamt waterside commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the qualtty ofthls neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you fOI your conSideratIon of thIS matter ~ ~/<<Io'l City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon. Mike Reynolds, Planning Director RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGINAL Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of /In aAl;D~ Sf/{eef and I am wntmg m objection to the apprpval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constmctlOn of cOndOmInlUIllS at 1919 & 1925 Edgcwatcr Dn ve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 Units, which reqUIred a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn In the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two continuances of the Community Development Boald, the current ploposalls for 62 umts, which reqUIres a heIght variance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductton III the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the SIze of thIS project IS stIli too large for thIS nelghborhood A bUlldmg of this size IS not III character wIth the surrounding commumty when 99% of1he/-'~ surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famI1y homes The SIze of thiS projcct will destroy'the aesthetIcs of thIS quamt watersIde communIty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty of thIS nelghbOlhood I am requestmg that the Commumty DevcIopment Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideration of thIS matter Smcerely, Ur~ 7 /(~/oJf cc=-:u w ~ c:::::::::::::: W g ~ ~ ooo:::t c=I Ri Cr') ~ ~ UJ a: ::2 ~ 0... d.. o ~ ~(j);:' uJ",,-, >..... ' wldw (' :> ...J -a:O <IlW\.L t9(/)o Z Z ~ Z 0 5 0... City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn MIke Reynolds, PlannIng DIrector OR\G\NAL RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of JJ.S9 Un \" (')(V N and I am wntmg 10 objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommmms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POIllt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 UnIts, whIch reqUired a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn In the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Community Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, WhICh reqUIres a heIght VarIance to 59 feet at the roofs mIdpoInt and a reductIon III the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obvIOUS that the size of thiS project IS stIll too large for thiS neighborhood A bUIldmg of thIS size IS not m character wIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% ofthe surroundmg commumty lS single-family homes The SIZe ofthls project will destroy the aesthetIcs OfthlS quamt waterside commumty, and do more harm than good In preservlOg the quality OfthIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Ine & 1925 Edgewatef Dnve, Ioe for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your conSideration of thIS matter 7-'/0-0 y //:~ ,...r / "- ,/~\":-., \ <. '\ "'\. \ ,,\1'\/ \ )"\ r? \:, \~,/ /, \ ~ '\ (/ -' \ (F' \' ,v \ ' \ ~~) / ~<0~ ,\v' \ ~,;0 ~ "C /:\/~\ \ \",..\ l 2\ ~\.- \ ,,,,'0yo,,?\I'\ '0<>- ~~\ 'b- \' ~G'Y...S :>):\\'-\ \.) {j 0'>l' 0 ~~~ s~ 0'<jv / '?~ , oY (,0' / City of Clearwatcr Planning Dcpartment 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Rcynolds, Planning DIrec.tor . , RE: FLD2003-090S0 DCdr Sir or Madam, CIW fL I am a reSIdent of 10 I Z. COiY\Il"\.m6"'l.E:-SI A~a:and I am wntmg In objectIOn to the approval requestcd by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgcwatcr Drive, Inc. for the construction of cOndOmInIUmS at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, whIch reqUires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the Side setbac.k from 10 feet tPB) ~$, fpe..t~ HY;:fc~g that the denSIty of thiS project IS entirely too large for thIS nelghborhood~\b,Yb~ w b ~ ... . & ~ ... Many objections from area I~dcrts ~'i1~ been raised concernmg the effect the requested vanance wEll have on thIS reSIdential 85n\:rrluHIty PLANN'NG DEPARTMENT "'~"if."lJ' t:'Ih rl cL\R\NATER >- ThiS Will becom€ltliie't'mlest-bulldmg 10 the area, loommg over the smgle-famIJy resldenc.es, whIch dcstroys the aesthetics of thIS quaInt commumty ThIS also encourages future development to match or exceed thIS denSIty ~ The proposed 77 umts, along With the likehhood of2 vehIcles per umt, WI]] put additional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestfians that frequent thiS area ~ The overall negative effeet ofthe proposed developmcnt on local property values A multi- UOlt eondommlUill located nnposmgly In a smgle-famIly reSIdential area Will directly affect property values and their abJlJjy.J...o te~s.ell__ILwlll also afff'ct area propcrty taxes -' r It IS my fcchng that the SILe of this prOjcct WIll do more hann than good m preserving the qualIty of this neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, IDe & 1925 Edgewatef Dnve, Ine for a fleXible developmcnt approval Thank you for your conSIderatiOn III thiS matter Sincerely, City of Clearwater PlannIng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director RE: FLD2003-090S0 Dear SIr or Madam, ORIGINAL ~ -- r-r( I am a resident of IOlsClbottIJf/.RtPlc;/ and I am wntmg m ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condom 1111 ums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve and 101 0, 1012, & 1 020 Sunset POInt Road The origInal proposal was for 77 umts, WhICh reqUIred a height VarIance to 75 feet and a reductIOn III the Side setback ITom 10 feet to 585 feet After two continuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUIres a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mIdpomt and a reductIon m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVlOUS that the size of thiS project IS stIll too large for thIS neIghborhood A butldmg of thIS SIze IS not In character WIth the surroundmg cOillmumty when 99% of the surroundIng commumty IS SIngle-family homes The SIze of this project will destroy the aesthetIcs of thIS quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good 111 preservIng the qualIty of thIS neighborhood I am requesting that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 EdgeVvater Dnve, Inc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your consIderatIon of thIS matter SIncerely, rftPu. [QJ ~ f10dJ r--;l ~ ~, ~l 8 9 ~ c"'::-- C'\J w (f) > III =-=----.J (T) , J () L>~ 0~O l,) ~ L Z 0 '7 ;>- Z l- S U 0.. nJLn ~L~ r Ov-~ City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Planmng Director RECEIVED R~: FLD2003-090S0 APR 1 2 200~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT CllY OF CLEARWATER Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of /013 to1"C VI'l~ji'1(! 'j- and I am wntmg III ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommmms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnvc and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, whIch reqUires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet. It IS my feelmg that the dcnsIty of thIs projcct IS entIrely too large for thIS neIghborhood Many objections from area resIdents have been raised concernmg the effec.t the rcquested vanance will have on thiS resldenhal commulllty ~ ThiS Will become the tallest bUlldmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-famIly residences, whIch destroys the aesthetics of thIS quaInt commumty ThiS also cncourages future developmcnt to match or exceed thIS denSity >- The proposed 77 umts, along WIth the hkelihood of2 vehIcles per UnIt, WIll put addItional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thIS area };> The overall negative effect ofthe proposed development on local property values A multI- umt condollumum locatcd Imposmgly 10 a smgle-family reSIdentIal area Will dIrectly affect property values and theIr ability to resell It will also affect area property taxes It IS my feelmg that the SIze ofthl:'. projcct WIll do more harm than good m prescrvmg the quahty of this neIghborhood I aill requcstmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Tne for a fleXIble dcvelopment approval Thank you for your conSIderatIOn III thiS matter. Smcerely, ~~~~ I-aG' f11V()) D. /tf.e/Yc!t2J City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn MIke Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector ORIGINAL -7-1-oC( RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or MadanI, Commt7d#r e 5'1. I am a resident of /6/':;-' E~; ~~ j: "i{:--f a~d I am wntmg III objection to the approval requested by Top Flight EnterprIses, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010,1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 uOlts, which reqUired a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS faT 62 UnIts, WhICh reqUires a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs midpOInt and a reductIOn m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the SIze of thiS project IS still too large for thiS nClghborhood A bUlldmg ofthls SIze IS not In chaTacter WIth the sun-oundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The SIze of this project Will destroy the aesthetics OfthIS quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the qualIty of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc. for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideratIon of thiS matter Sl~ ;!J-L (q f.l11D ~:_,J ~ 3 ~ f ,..... :z liJ ~ (1 () r , l. ,- I I I I =/ c.:; 4,.~ fJ:. !, , Co ;- ;0- City of Clearwatcr Planmng Depdrtment 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIkc Rcynolds, Pldnlllng Director RECEIVED APR ! ~ 'UU~ RE: FLD2003-09050 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Dear Sir or Madam, I am a rcsldent of /cJ/::J G/')1J'Y1PtlJl""e.. !7;nd I am wntmg In ObjCctiOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edge'\\'ater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The propo'iaI 15 for 77 umts, WhICh reqUires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon III the Side setback from 10 feet to 585 fcct It IS my feehng that the denSIty of this project 15 entirely too large for thls neighborhood Many objectIOns from area reSIdents have been raised concerning the cffect the requested vanance WIll have on thiS reSidentIal commumty >- ThIS Will bccome the tallest buildmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-famtly rcsIdences, WhICh dcstroys the aesthetiCS of this quamt commumty Thl5 also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS denSIty ~ The proposed 77 UnIts, along With the likelihood of 2 vehIcIcs pcr Ulllt, will put addlttonal traffic 5tram on the already burdcned roddways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve "his IS not safe for the many pedcstnans that frequent thIS area >- Thc overall negative effect of the proposcd development on local property values A multi- UnIt condommlUm located Imposmgly m a smgle-family reSidential arca wlll directly dffect propcrty values and their ablhty to rcsell It will also affect area propcrty taxes It IS my feelmg that the SIze of this project will do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of thl5 neighborhood I am reque~tll1g that the Commumty Development Board deny the requeM of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgcwater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consideratIOn III thIS matter Smccrc1y, ~ City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Planmng Director RECEIVED APR 0 8 2UU~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER RE: FLD2003-090S0 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a reSIdent of / ~ 2 r Cd' -. - 01 ~4t re and I am wntmg m ObjectlOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, whIch reqUIres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn In the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelIng that the denSity of thIS project IS enttrely too large for thIS neIghborhood Many ObjectIOns from arca reSIdents have bcen raIsed concernIng the effect the requested vanance wtll have on thIS resldenttal commumty ~ ThiS WIll become the tallest bUIldmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-famIly reSIdences, which destroys the aesthetIcs of this quaInt communIty ThIS also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS denSIty );> The proposed 77 umts, along WIth the lIkelIhood of2 vehIcles per umt, wIll put addItIonal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS arca ~ The overall negative effect ofthe proposed development on local property values A multI~ umt condommlUm located Imposmgly m a Single-family reSidential area Will directly affect property values and theIr ablhty to rcsell It will also dtrect area property taxes It IS my feeling that the size of thIS project WIll do more hann than good 111 preservmg the qualIty of this neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Entcrpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consideratIOn m thIS matter Smcerely, ~~ City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGINAL Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of / () 1 } LZJ~V'I-;~ and I am wntmg m objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 UnIts, whIch requued a height var13nce to 75 feet and a reductIOn 10 the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet. After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUires a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mIdpomt and a reductIon m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obvIOUS that the SIze of thIS project IS shlI too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUllchng of this size IS not III character WIth the surrounding commumty when 99% of the surroundmg communIty IS smgJe-famtly homes The size of thIS project Will destroy the aesthettcs of this quamt watersIde communIty, and do more harm than good III preservIng the qualIty of thiS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, luc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideratIon of thIS matter. Smcerely, '7-) 0/ o-f 7~/---- %/-/431 rr-:ll 0d1JJ ~ = [1[LJ] g ~ IJd1J] rcrr f ---; g C'\J M l- Z W IT ~ W Q... :;:: o _ -lff)S !3:wCI: LJU D5~ <tla::u (5~LL 2 0 z i: Z G 5 Q J ~ 0d1D cD f1&!J rr=~y';=:J ICJL- ,-.------==-"~___I CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue P.D Box 4748 Clearwater, Plonda 33758 AttentIOn M1ke Reynolds, Plannmg Director RE: FLD2003-09050 ORIGINAL Dear SIr or Madam, I am a reSIdent of) 032... Co ""l'n nJ)oi"~ ~t and I am wntmg III ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condomInIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 UllltS, which reqUIred a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the side setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet After two contmuances of the Commulllty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 UllltS, Wh1Ch reqUIres a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductton III the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the size of th1S project IS still too large for thiS neIghborhood A bUlldmg of this size IS not III character With the surroundmg commulllty when 99% of the surroundmg commulllty IS SIngle-family homes The SIze of thIS project Will destroy the aesthetics of this quaint waterSide commumty, and do more harm than good m preservIng the qual1ty of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 EdgewateT Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consIderation of thiS matter Smcerely, ~-~ 7/10/0 '1 M QJ!J] ~ """::!" C) ?a = """ =5 -, l- Z W r:r :2: UJ U. - o ~ ---' (j) -' ~ ~I T , ~ L '> ~ ~[,l..) (!)U):... z .) z z < _J U. ,r ,.- u CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 1-?-V Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of C VY1 m d nd I am wntmg m ObjectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1 25 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructton of cOndOmInIUmS at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The anginal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUired a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn III the SIde setback from 10 feet to 585 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUIres a heIght varIance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIon m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the size of thiS project IS stIll too large for thiS neighborhood A building of thIS size IS not III character with the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIIy homes The SIze of thIS project Will destroy the aesthehcs of thIS quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good m preservlllg the quahty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commul1Jty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater DrIve, rnc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIOn of thIS matter Smcerely, ~~ (C)) ~ ~w [U1JJ ~ ~ ~---, 8 0 ~::;.--- C".J , =-.= CT) , n n n L- l_ 6- l':::-l_=- ~ Ll g ~ ~L~ [U1JJ ~J~ ~ ~c- DC. l -_ CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, PlannIng Director ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of /050 f2 0 ,l.41<..1.oG2Q1It'~and I am wntmg m objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condomllll urns at 1919 & 1 925 Edgewater Dn ve and 101 0, 1012, & 1 020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 UnIts, which reqUired a height varIance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 UnIts, whIch reqUIres a heIght vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mIdpomt and a reductIOn In the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obVIOUS that the SIZe of thIS project IS still too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUlldmg of thIS SIze IS not In character WIth the surroundmg community when 99% of the surroundmg cOIDmumty IS smgle-famIly homes The size OfthlS project WIll destroy the aesthetics of this qualllt waterside commumty, and do more harm than good In preservmg the qualIty of this neIghborhood I am requestlllg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIOn of this matter Sincerely, ~~ ?-?-t( ~)) ~ [1[1!] -- ~ ~ f t=--__ cg I c~ -r ----..:-, c:;::) J c~ '" w U) > L ,-- :J (Y) , j :::,; L> -.:; <<1 8S (.J (')(/)ll.. Z 0 z I: Z <3 - - -- :5 a.. --i :::l -, [11L!~ ~) 0l..:JJ rcrc ~___...J City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 CleaIWater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon MIke Reynolds, PlannIng Director ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-090S0 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of I OS s Co fY\m~,., ,e .54-..a:fand I am wntmg m obj ectlon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 10 12, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, WhICh reqUIred a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon In the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contInuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUIres a heIght VarIance to 59 feet at the roofs midpomt and a reductIOn m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet. It IS obVIOUS that the size of thiS project IS stIll too large for thIS neIghborhood A bmldmg of thiS size IS not III character With the surrounding commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famIly homes The size of this projcct WIll destroy the aesthetics of this quamt waterside communIty, and do more harm than good m preservmg the quallty of this neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consIderatIOn of this matter S1l1cerely, k.~ R f3~jJsJ:; 1/tO/de; {}:51 \ \ l- e \ ..-::- _.1 z w [1ill] z: 1 \ ""'3'" ( Cl () \ ~ ?a -" ~Ll ~~J ====' C'? , - OJlJ] L rI I ~, \L ~ C)L I Y -, ~\ [1ill] s (C r- - . \ c~,' L' ~- \ __1 ( , . -- City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attentton Mike Reynolds, Planmng DIrector ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 7;1'~ 5' r.:- Dear SIr or Madam, , () '5 S L- CI i'11'1C:> d Ci~ e.. ) (I I am a resIdent of jfo.vn lJ. 43> ~I\ \..sl<.~ and I am wnhng m obJecl1on to the approval requested by Top light Enterprises, nc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condommmms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The angInal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqmred a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances ofthe Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqmres a heIght VarIance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIOn III the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the SIze of thiS project IS stIll too large for thiS neIghborhood A bUilding of thIS SIze IS not In character with the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundIng commumty IS sIngle-family homes The SIZe of thIS project WIll destroy the aesthetics of thIS quamt waterSide commumty, and do more harm than good III preservIng the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a flexIble development approval. Thank you for your consIderatIOn of thIS matter smcerelY'fLB? 8 %ft. rrJJ I I l- I ~......."'" Z L1J [ I G:&D "" .., I I ~ c - I ~ c:o U ~ W ~ I = CT) - 0J10 J l , I gl ~ I ( (, I c- M-JJ _ !? ' j -' . @ ~:_~ I L --- City of Clearwater PlannlOg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attentton MIke Reynolds, PlannIng Dlrector RECEIVED RE: FLD2003-09050 APR J. M lUU4 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Dear SIr or Madam, I am a reSIdent of J.SS (...wA.".Sf.. and I am wntmg III objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommmms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, which reqUIres a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn III the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelIng that the denSIty of thiS project IS entIrely too large tor thiS neIghborhood Many objcetlons from area reSIdents have been raIsed concernmg the effect thc requested vanance WIll have on thIS reSidential commumty >- ThIS WIll become the tallest bUIldmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-family reSidences, whIch destroys the aesthetics of this quamt commumty This also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS densJty ~ The proposed 77 umts, along With the lIkelIhood of2 vehIcles per umt, Will put addItIonal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that fr.equent thiS area ~ The overall negatlVe effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt condommlUm located Imposmgly m a smgle-fmmly reSidential area WIll directly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It will aho affect area property taxes It IS my feelIng that the SIze of this project WIll do more harm than good III preservmg the quahty of thIS neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the reque'5t of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIOn III thiS matter Smcerely, K ~ I3j -'31.' City of Clearwater PlannIng Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Planmng DIrector ORIGINAL '7 -/..L~V RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of I.( (} ,5/ rJ:; /11 frI ()b It am wntmg mob] ectlOn to the approval requested by Top Fhg t Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condominIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POint Road The ongInal proposal was for 77 umts, which reqUired a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the side setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet After two contllluances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUIres a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIOn m the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the size of thIS project IS still too large for thIS neighborhood A bUlldmg of this size IS not In character WIth the surroundIllg comrnuOlty when 99% of the surrounding commuOlty IS SIngle-family homes The SIze of thIS project wIll destroy the aesthetIcs OfthIS quamt watersIde commumty, and do more harm than good In preservIllg the quality of thIS neIghborhood I am requestmg that the ComTnumty Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Ine & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval. Thank you for your consideratIOn of thIS matter Smcerely, C~ ~---:- I Dd1!J - ~- 2 I ~ ~ ~ {fjl c::> Q f-- c= ~ 0 <( C::::::::::l W (f) 1: rr&!J ('I') > UJ a: L IJ..1 U - - 03::J ~ ;;;;;:I ~ffi() S:{ t'Jf.I)LL Dd1!J 01:2 0 --. ~ ,?;: I ~ ' I I I L-- -0.4 --------1 City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue PO. Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director RE: FLD2003-090S0 ORIGINAL Dear Su or Madam, I am a reSIdent of. ~,~! (J/11 ~ ~ am wntmg m objectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of cOndOmInIUmS at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POInt Road The ongInal proposal was for 77 umts, WhICh reqUIred a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn III the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5.85 feet. After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, which reqUIres a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mIdpomt and a reductIOn In the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS ObVIOUS that the size of thIS project IS stIll too large for thIS neIghborhood A bUlldmg of thIS SIze IS not In character WIth the surroundIng commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS sIllgle-famtly homes The size of thIS project WIll destroy the aesthettcs ofthls qualOt waterside commumty, and do more harm than good III preservIng the qualIty ofthls neighborhood I am requestmg that the CommunIty Development Board deuy the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consIderatIOn of thIS matter (C=-:=~ -: 0JU1 ~ fL 2i Q e-- ~ ~ ~(,: ~ C::::=-=:J' "..::. . C"') l I , c.... ~ J I ~ ~; \.J :::;. ~~ v- JJ~ 7 < (t 1,-, ...--- _J ~ --'-; (_J '.L 1 (- ~ -~ L-~_ ..:: -=-==---=::=:..-: f1J11] ~- c::. ~-~ DAD City of Clearwater Planlllng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attcntlon MIke Reynolds, Planmng DIrector RECE~VED APR 1 R tUU4 PLANN~NG D CITY OF CL~~R~RTMENT I'"'i WATER RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a reSident of JJD~ t,MfttOO()2P' .sr. CU.Jltand I am wntmg 10 objcctlon to the approval requcsted by Top Flight Enterprises, hie. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommlUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dn ve and ] 0 10, ] 0] 2, & t 020 Sunsct Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, which reqUIres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn 111 the Side sctback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feeling that the denSity of thIS project IS cntlrcly too large for this nClghborhood Many ObjectIOm. from ared reSIdents have been r31sed concemmg the effect the reque~ted vanance will have on thiS reSidential commumty ~ ThiS Will become the tallest bmldmg III the area, loommg ovcr the smgle-family reSIdences, which destroys the aesthetics of thIS quamt commumty ThIS also cncourages future dcvelopment to match or exceed thiS denSity ~ The proposed 77 umts, along With the lIkelIhood of2 vehIcles per umt, Will put addItIOnal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve. ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area ~ The overall negative effect of the proposed dcvelopment on local property values A multl- umt condommlUm located ImposIngly III a smgle-famIly re';;Identlal area will chrectly affect property values and theIr abilIty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It IS my fcchng that the ')Ize of this project will do more harm than good m prcscrvmg the quahty ofthls neIghborhood I am requesting that the Commumty Dcvelopment Board deny the reque5t of Top Flight Enterpnses, tnc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, InG for a fleXIble devclopment approval Thank you for your conSIderatIOn m thiS matter SmGerely, ~~ 110 ? ~mPt"'21o,.ep" S-;-: - Ct.-~R?a;. FL- 33l.s-S- , I City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, ptamung Director - f?"'T1", i-I s~ l"l\\n 7S -"," ~ t:"::l j - ~ ,- ,"'\ I ) l.t;, 'J:' ll- \! l!~ I I' u-< r~ --- -jlllil . i,~ULM~~~_~ 2~O~_ I 'l~ I " I'" " - ['I \,.:::.rq ('jn~:,:=", SIJt;..., I ~ u ~ _"1._ I;. '-- ~ j IV _~ 'i.. ~ VJ : " \ '--(,~'~^,D!~jWER -----=- -=----=- -~-~~ ~ - . . RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of J 1 d.- 'I CorvrMoJOtff' /Siand I am writing in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Ioe. for the construction of condonuruums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal is for 77 urnts, which requires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction in the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feeling that the density of this project is entirely too large for this neighborhood Many objections from area residents have been raIsed concerning the effect the requested variance will have on tins residential commumty );> This will become the tallest building in the area, looming over the single-fanuly residences, which destroys the aesthetIcs of tlus qUaInt commumty Tlns also encourages future development to match or exceed this denSity );> The proposed 77 umts, along with the likehhood of 2 velncles per umt, WIll put addItIonal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset POlDt Road and Edgewater Drive ThIs IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent this area );> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- unit condominium located imposingly in a single-family residential area will directly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It will also affect area property taxes It is my feelIng that the size of this project will do more harm than good in preserving the quality oftlns neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Ine for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your consideration in this matter S~~~ tJ~ jJl ;}O I<u,e-hn :7/14/04- City of Clearwater Planrung Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Re)'llolds, Planning Director RECE~VED 1UE:~1)2003-09050 MAR 1 5 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT crrv OF CLl:ARWA1ER Dear Slf or Madam, I am a resIdent of '\2 \ CO !vi \V\O J.pre ~ and I am wnting in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condominiums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal is for 77 units, which requires a height vanance to 7S feet and a reductlOn 10 the side setback from 10 feet to S 85 feet It is my feeling that the denSity of thts project is entirely too large for tlus neighborhood Many objections trom area residents have been raised concerning the effect the requested variance will have on tins residential commumty )- This Will become the tallest buildmg in the area, lOOmIng over the smgle-family residences, which destroys the aesthetIcs of thts quamt commumty This also encourages future development to match or exceed tins denSity >- The proposed 77 umts, along With the ltkelIhood of 2 vehicles per urut, will put additional traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Point Road and Edgewater Dove Tills IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent this area ~ The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- unit condormruum located imposmg1y in a smgle-family reSIdentIal area will directly affect property values and their ability to resell It will also affect area property taxes. It IS my feeling that the SIZe of this project wtll do more harm than good in preserving the quality of tins neighborhood I am requestIng that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Drive, roc for a flexIble development approval Thank you for your consideration 10 thIs matter Sincerely, A~Ii\~ KLv0hV\ 3 \\~ ~ o~ CIty of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue P.D Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIon Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector ORIGINAL RE: FLD2003-09050 ?/IO/oY Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of //J5 Gmma:/ore ~ and I am wntmg III objectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condommIums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The ongmal proposal was for 77 umts, which required a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet After two contmuances of the Commumty Development Board, the current proposal IS for 62 umts, whIch reqUires a height vanance to 59 feet at the roofs mldpomt and a reductIOn m the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS obVIOUS that the SIze of thiS project IS stIll too large for thiS neIghborhood A bUI1dmg of this size IS not m character wIth the surroundmg commumty when 99% of the surroundmg commumty IS smgle-famlly homes The size of thIS project will destroy the aesthetIcs of thIS quamt waterSide commumty, and do more harm than good In preservmg the qualIty ofthls neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, lnc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideratIOn of thiS matter smce~J ~ g~-: I 0d1l1 lJJ 0:: ~ ~ ~~~I -------.. C\";) ;:.. tu a:- 0d1l1 - ~~~ t? --51 =' "'j ~ u ~'_ ... j = ) ':.J~ Ll J J~. ~ ( ? ~ u L ~~ S City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Planning Director RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of 11:(5" Gnmodore Sfreer and I am writmg m objection to the approval requested by Top Flight En~erprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condominiums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal is for 77 urnts, whtch requIres a height variance to 75 feet and a reduction in the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feeling that the density of this project is entirely too large for this neighborhood Many objections from area residents have been raised concermng the effect the requested variance will have on this residentIal commurnty };;> Tms \I{l!l become the tallest building in the area, looming over the single-fanuly residences, winch destroys the aesthetics of this quaint corrununity Tins also encourages future a..I development to match or exceed tlus denSity PtfuSQ..dcrr\t Mn ~ i",-ro Cbndo ~, )- The proposed 77 units, along with the lIkelihood of 2 velucles per urnt, will put additional traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Point Road and Edgewater Drive This is not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent this area )- The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- urnt condomiruum located imposingly 10 a smgle-family residentIal area will drrectly affect property values and thetr abihty to resell It will also affect area property taxes It is my feeling that the size of this project WIll do more harm than good in preservmg the qualIty of this neighborhood I am requesting that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc for a fleXJble development approval Thank you for your consideration m this matter S~t r}p0f1 R/EC/EOVIEID APR 0 1 200~ PLANNING D cury OF Cl:ARRTMENT WATER it' ~ Robm Wright 1125 Commodore Street Clearwater, FL 33755 Mike Reynolds, Planning DIrector City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Fl 33758 RfECE~VlED Dear Mr Reynolds, APR 1 (i 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER FUE:FL])2003-09050 I am told that you recommended the buildmg of a seven-story condo in my neighborhood I am told that you felt it would "enhance" the neighborhood. As a result, I have a couple of questions for you. First, where did you get your degree in planrung? Secondly, where did you get your definition of the word enhance? My small dictionary states "to make greater as m beauty or value" I belIeve that our dIfference of opllllon IS based on the second half of that definition. ])0 you thmk that having increased traffic flow m our pedestnan neighborhood will enhance it? ])0 you thmk that the people on Sunnydale will feel you have enhanced their neighborhood when they fmd themselves living next door to a parking garage? Do you think it will enhance the neighborhood when the homeowners experIence the lose of backyard privacy? ])0 you think that taking the cool sea breeze away and replacing It with dIrty air (a term used by sailors) produced by the building will enhance the neighborhood? ])0 you think that increasing the density of our neighborhood and thus the county/city, and putting an increased stram on an overloaded mfrastructure Will enhance our neighborhood? Look around; we are already on water restnctIons I am told that the new hotel next door has created a floodmg problem durmg the rainy season. I am told that the drainage IS offtherr land and into the street ])0 you think that adding an even taller building Will enhance our neighborhood? Do you think that changing the view seen our back/front yards from a beautIful blue sky with puffy white clouds to concrete and seasonally boarded up wmdows will enhance the neighborhood? Do you thmk that taking away our gorgeous sunsets from our yards will enhance the neighborhood? Do you think that blocking our view of the water from our yards will enhance the neIghborhood? Do you think that settmg a precedent with this buIlding will not start the condo march up Edgewater? I have been told that the property on the comer of Union and Edgewater was touted as prime 'condo' Site dunng the sale process. My guess is that your concentrating on the dollar value the tax base would gam from the mcreased population I am hopmg that you see that that beauty is :far more important than the dollar. I moved to this neighborhood for exactly what It IS, an old fashioned neighborhood. In my neighborhood people t" *' walk their dogs each day. Thfy take their children for walks, to the library, to the park, to visit . neIghbors. In my neighborhood people gather on front porches each evenmg to watch the SWlset, and lately to dISCUSS the possible monster looming over us In my neighborhood people nde bikes and roller blade. They tend their yards and wave of speak to neighbors who pass by. In my neighborhood we have block parties where people gather and have a good time. Charles Street JUst had one last weekend We are truly a unique neighborhood We have people who have lived here for 47,24,2 years and love it We love It and want to keep It unique and quamt This is no place for condos Please help us keep our neighborhood unique, quaint, and less than 35 feet' filincerei , I / WfZ1~ obin Wright cc St. Petersburg Times . CIty of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planrung Director iOO\ ~ ~ ~ :_~1~' \~I.Ar"NiNG & 01, VtLO? '1oN T S,C, ~. _r CITY OF Ci EARW;l EA ! " RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident oft , lJ.,.. ~A.or L- S-""'t and I am writmg in obJection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condomiruums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal is for 77 units, wlnch requires a height vanance to 75 feet and a reduction in the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feeling that the denSity of this proJect is entirely too large for this neighborhood Many objections from area resIdents have been raised concerning the effect the requested variance will have on thiS resIdential community );;> ThIs Will become the tallest buddmg in the area, looming over the single-family residences, whIch destroys the aesthetics of this quaint commumty ThIs also encourages future development to match or exceed this denslty );;> The proposed 77 umts, along With the lIkelIhood of 2 vehIcles per unit, Will put additIOnal traffic strain on the already burdened roadways of Sunset POlllt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent this area );;> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt condominium located imposingly m a smgle-fanuly residential area Will directly affect property values and their abihty to resell It will also affect area property taxes It IS my feeling that the SIZe oftlus project will do more harm than good in preservrng the quality ofthts neighborhood I am requestmg that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterprises, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc for a flexible development approval Thank you for your consideration m thIs matter Smcerely, ~~~~~ .~ ~ (1- U?Otp - ~~ \2\\...'--'..:.l.t~ . CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwatcr, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Planmng DIrector RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a reSident of 1I;l ~ Co rr1YY1odo re st; 0. I am wntIng In ObjectIOn to the approval rcqucsted by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1 5 Edgcwatcr Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condominIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgc'r'/atcr D c and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt ROJd The proposal IS for 77 umts, which reqUires a h ght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn 10 the sldc ~etback from 10 feet to 5 85 fcct It IS my eehng thdt the denSIty of this project IS entIrely too large for thiS neighborhood Many objections from area reSidents have been raised concemmg the effect the requested vanance will have on thiS reSidential communIty ~~ ThiS will become the tallest bUIldmg In the area, loommg over the smgle-fanuly reSidences, which destroys the aesthetIcs of thIS quaInt communIty ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed thIS denSIty );> The proposed 77 umts, along with the hkehhood of2 vehicles per umt, wJ!1 put aclil1tmn::J1 traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area );> The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt cOndOmInIUm located Imposmgly III a smgle-famlly reSidential area Will directly affect property values and theIr ability to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It IS my feehng that the size of this proJect WIll do more harm than good III preservmg the qualIty of thIs neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIon m thIS matter ~\JJ~O Smcerely, ~'f:~C€ ~ l\\\\~ ~' --P . L ^ "'" ,.. ~?R \ ~i\!\'S.~\ ~'-\l.-U-' t ~?~f( ~e~. ~~\~G 0 ~~~\,~ ~~......J Or c~ c\\ ' c,leet\ Le; sheav . City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle A venue POBox 4748 Cle.1rwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector - - fFJ"r~-['e;-)l\lf'-r.5-~1 - ,. I P 'I:::; I r:l j I \, H~ p , I"" \.~, -, i "-~, \ I! , ~11 M;~l -~-~ -I~! i u UL~_ _ ~_~_.. __ __~J i! I l; ~.. 1~l J J~~Jlt:~ C:?'.~E~r SVC~h t t t*~(~~J '~i-1WL\fEr~ ~+:--...~~--~ -.>..-~~ RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, //7.) f<,ffl.fkO/ cnt' 5;: (tVJIVv~ pc. I am a re"dent of i1 /"''1. ...sLc'l~~and I am wntmg m ohjeclton to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. &. 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 UnIt'), which reqUIres a height vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn m the sIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It lS my feelmg that the densIty of thIS project IS entIrely too large for thIS nelghbOlhood Many objections from area residents have been raIsed concemmg the effect the requested varIance wIll have on thiS reSldentlal commumty >- ThIS wIll become the tallest bUIldmg m the area, 100mmg over the smgle-famrly resIdences, which destroys the aesthetIcs of thIS qualDt commumty ThIS a!<'o encourage,> future development to match or exceed thIS denSIty >- The proposed 77 umts, along WIth the lIkelIhood of 2 vehicle') per umt, WIll put addItIonal traffic stram on the already burdened roadway~ of Sun'let Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestllan,> that frequent thI,) alea )> The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt cOndOmInIUm located Impos1I1gly In a smgle-famIly reSIdential area WIll directly affect property values and theIr abIhty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It IS my feelmg that the .')Ize of tlus proJ ect WIll do more harm than good III preservlll g the q uah ty of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the reque~t of Top Fhght Enterpnses, loc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your consIderatIon III thIS matter S lllcerel y , j) V, /l e h 1'1- 5" /f/l.l'V1 0 CIty of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attentlon Mike Rcynolds, Planmng DIrector . RECEIVED APR 0 8 2UU4 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resident of ) /,J s eommoJJrel.fJ.- and I am wntlng In obJectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the eonstructlon of condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, whIch reqUIres a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn ll1 the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet. It 1S my feelll1g that the densIty of thiS project IS entIrely too large for thiS neighborhood Many objections from area resIdents have been raised concemmg the effect the requestcd vanance will have on thiS residential commumty );> ThIS will become the tallest bUIldmg m the area, loomll1g over the smgle-famIly resIdences, whICh destroys the aesthetIcs of this quaInt commumty ThiS also encourages future development to match or excecd thIS denSIty );> The proposed 77 UnIts, along With the hkehhood of2 vehicles per umt, wlll put additional traffic stram on the already burdcned roadways of Sunset POInt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thiS area };> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- umt wndomllllUm located Imposmgly III a smgle-famIly reSIdentIal area Will directly affect property values and their abIlIty to rcsell It will also affect area property taxes It IS my fcchng that the Size of this prOject will do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of this neighborhood I am requestIng that the Commumty Development Board deny the requeM of Top Fhght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideratIon In thIS matter Smcerely, CJ~ f}.{)~ J CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn MIke Reynolds, Plannmg Director RECEIVED APR 0 8 2UU4 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER RE: FLD2003-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of -.lJ 3l CD r\ fYlf.rJ ~ f e l5~d I am wnt10g m obJectIon to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, I~. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the construction of condommIums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 UnIts, which reqUIres a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIon 10 the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelIng that the densIty of thIS proJect IS entIrely too large for thiS neIghborhood Many obJectIons from area resIdents have been raIsed concemmg the effect the requested vanance WIll have on thIS reSIdentIal commumty )> ThIS Will become the tallest bUlldmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-fmmly residences, whIch destroys the aesthetIcs of this quamt commumty. ThiS also encourages future development to match or exceed thIS denSIty. )> The proposed 77 UnIts, along With the hkehhood of 2 vehIcles per umt, wIll put addItIonal traffic straIn on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve. ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestrIans that frequent thIS area )> The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- UnIt condommmlTI located Imposmgly III a smgle-famtly reSIdentIal area Will directly affect property values and theIr abIhty to resell It Will also affect area property taxes It IS my feelIng that the size OfthIS project Will do more hann than good m preservmg the qualIty ofthls neighborhood. I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSideratIon m thiS matter Smcerel . ~ CIty of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 CleaIWater, Flonda 33758 AttentIOn MIke Reynolds, Plannmg DIrector RECEIVED RE: FLD2003-09050 APR 0 8 2004 PlANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Dear SIr or Madam, I am a resIdent of ~ (p)l"\fl6dore (~t and I am wntmg In obJectIOn to the approval requested by Top Flig t Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condommIUms at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnve and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pomt Road The proposal IS for 77 umts, WhICh reqUires a heIght vanance to 75 feet and a reductIOn III the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelmg that the denSity of thIS proJect IS entirely too large for thIS neIghborhood Many obJectIons from area residents have been raised concernmg the effect the requested vanance WIll have on thiS residentIal commumty }o> ThiS Will become the tallest bUildIng In the area, loomIng over the smgle-famlly reSidences, WhICh destroys the aesthetICS of this quaInt commumty ThIS also encourages future development to match or exceed thiS denSity ~ The proposed 77 umts, along With the likelIhood of2 vehicles per umt, WIll put additIOnal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThIS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thIS area ~ The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multI- umt condommIum located Imposmgly In a smgle-famIly reSIdentIal area Will directly affect property values and theIr ahIhty to resell It WIll also affect area property taxes It IS my feehng that the size of this project WIll do more harm than good III preservmg the quahty of thIS neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXIble development approval Thank you for your conSIderatIOn m thiS matter ~ City of Clearwater Plannmg Department 100 S Myrtle A venue P D Box 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention MIke Reynolds, Plannmg Director RECEIVED APR 0 B 2004 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER RE: FLD2003-09050 Dcar Sir or Madam, I am a resIdent of / / /.1 tJ ( f1;t~ and I am wntmg m obJecI1on to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condomml ums at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Dnvc and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset POint Road The proposal IS for 77 Ul11ts, which reqUIres a heIght vanance to 75 fcet and a reduction 10 the Side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelIng that the dcnsIty of thiS project IS entirely too large for thiS neighborhood Many objections from area reSidents have been raised concemmg thc effect the requested vanance will have on thiS reSIdential communIty ~ ThiS Will become the tallest bmldmg m the area, loommg over the smgle-famIly reSidences, which destroys the aesthetics of thIS quamt commumty ThIS also encourages futurc development to match or exceed thIS denSIty ~ The proposed 77 Ul1lts, along with the hkehhood of 2 vehicles pcr umt, will put additIOnal traffic stram on the alrcady burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Dnve ThiS IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent thIS area ~ The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multi- UnIt cOndOmll1lUill located Imposmgly 10 a smgle-famlly re51dentlal area WIll dlrcctly affect property vdlues and their abIlIty to resell It will also affect area property taxes It IS my feelIng that the size of thiS project WIll do more harm than good 111 prcscrvmg the quahty of this nClghborhood I am requestmg that the Commumty Development BOdrd deny the request of Top Flight Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conSideratIon m thiS mattcr SmGerely, i).d- 't- /1 if 0 k- City of Clearwater Planmng Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attention Mike Reynolds, Plannmg Director IUE:FLD2003-090S0 , -..... .....-~." ... ....,..(i~-=-s -~...... I," , - ;r: I) i{J r...:l m' I U .....&_~_n __ I L.} Lt I J f I, . j ----- ~."" 1 II f"1 ' F-; MAR 15 ~ _I ~ ; ~. \ - Sv!':)', _ J ~:l let' i ~-~- - ~~~ . Dear Sir or Madam, _ -: S. V ,/ 11-?-4- Com/11iJQ6tZb I am a restdent of ~~~/and I am wnting in objection to the approval requested by Top Flight Entefprfses,~Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIon of condolDlDlUffis at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Pornt Road The proposal is for 77 uruts, which requires a height variance to 75 feet and a reduction rn the side setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It is my feeling that the densIty of this project is entirely too large for this neighborhood Many objections from area residents have been raised concerning the effect the requested variance will have on dns residential commumty )0> 'flus Will become the tallest building in the area, loonung over the srngle-family reSIdences, which destroys the aesthetics of this quaint community Tlus also encourages future development to match or exceed tins denSity )0> The proposed 77 uruts, along With the hkelIhood of 2 vehicles per urnt, win put additional traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Point Road and Edgewater Drive Tlus IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent tlus area >- The overall negatIve effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- urnt condormruum located Imposmgly in a single-fannly residential area Will directly affect property values and thelf ability to resell It will also affect area property taxes It is my feelmg that the size oftms project will do more harm than good m preserving the quahty of this neighborhood I am requestmg that the Commuruty Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterpnses, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Ioc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your consideration m this matter Smcerel~ ~ ~~ o en \ 'Je- K L.( f' eri- /f 4-'2 ~L>' CIty of Clearwater Planrung Department 100 S Myrtle Avenue POBox 4748 Clearwater, Flonda 33758 Attentlon Mike Reynolds, Planrung Director ~~L:;: :1;:;~ ~l mi I~"J~C ' 'S v 8:-. ~ n 1.','1 :a..~"""~~"'.>"1. __..._~ RE: FLD200l-09050 Dear Sir or Madam, I am a resident of f' tf~ ~lVl ~o roe.. s-\: and I am wntmg m obJection to the approval requested by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. for the constructIOn of condommmffis at 1919 & 1925 Edgewater Drive and 1010, 1012, & 1020 Sunset Point Road The proposal is for 77 units, which requrres a height variance to 75 feet and a reduction m the SIde setback from 10 feet to 5 85 feet It IS my feelIng that the denSity of this project IS entrrely too large for tills neighborhood Many obJections from area residents have been raIsed concerrung the effect the requested vanance wtll have on this residential community }i. This Will become the tallest buildmg m the area, looming over the smgle-family residences, which destroys the aesthetics of this qUaInt community This also encourages future development to match or exceed thts denSity );- The proposed 77 uruts, along With the lIkelihood of 2 vehicles per urut, w1l1 put additIonal traffic stram on the already burdened roadways of Sunset Pomt Road and Edgewater Drive Tills IS not safe for the many pedestnans that frequent this area );> The overall negative effect of the proposed development on local property values A multl- umt condomiruum located imposmgly m a smgle-fanllly residential area will dIrectly affect property values and their abilIty to resell It wIll also affect area property taxes It IS my feelmg that the sIZe of this proJect will do more harm than good m preservmg the quality of this neIghborhood I am requestmg that the Community Development Board deny the request of Top FlIght Enterprises, Inc & 1925 Edgewater Dnve, Inc for a fleXible development approval Thank you for your conslderatton m this matter Smcerely, W~~ \tV lL- \+.e-1' IV I eto t s 3-1Y-Oi L'''' JUN-15-1995 03 02 J\\' '" '.. ~ ) P 01/02 r . - April 14, 2004 City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33758 Attention: Mike Reynolds, Planning Director RE: FLD 2003-09050 Dear Sir, I am a resident of the Edgewater Drive neighborhood. I have lived at 1145 Commodore Street in Clearwater for 22 years L like my neighbors, am also opposed to the height variance and the sizs of the condominium project proposed by Top Flight Enterprises, Inc. & 1925 Edgewater Drive, Inc. I believe a project of this size is not appropriate for our community. I know that the motels in this area are in need of redevelopment. In fact the Comfort Suites project has already been completed. This completed project should be the model height for our neighborhood. I will be interested to see the architectural designs and I hope the designs will take into account the fact that families live behind this project. Looking down the street to a wall is not a pleasant thought for anyone. One such wall has appeared on the corner of Charles and Edgewater with the building of a new home. It appears that the house being built on the property is just too large for the lot. While the family building the house will have a great view it will be at the expense of the family living next door. This did not need to happen. Such an occurrence is my fear for the families living behind this project. I would like to now bring your attention to the condominiums/town homes JUN-15-1996 03.02 P.02/02 - ~ - - t __ ,.,.. L "4.... . f! . "') ....>1 ,..., t that were built some years ago on the corner of Marine Street and Edgewater Drive. They were exquisitely designed. They fit into the neighborhood without being over-bearing for the neighbors. Although we were all sad to see the lovely home and large lot disappear, there was little protest. I realize that building and flood codes have changed since these condominiums/town homes were built and I realize limiting the size of the project would be less profitable than a 77 unit complex, but this is our neighborhood not a condominium complex community. Another concern is this project may very well set the precedent for more condominiums of like size. Living down the street from two) two story apartment buildings causes concern of what may happen if the owner of these buildings decides to sell or build something bigger to make higher profits. Please hear our neighborhood concerns and work with the developer to desi~n a project that will enhance our smalJ quaint community. Sincerely ::~o~~~~ Sally J. Waldron TOTRL P.02