FLD2010-11031; 934 ELDORADO AVE; MANDALAY THE ISLE OF A THOUSAND PALMS.%6
FLD2010m11031
934 ELDORADO AVE
Date Received: 11/1/2010 9:00:41 AM
Mandalay The isle of a Thousand Palms
ZONING DISTRICT: Low Medium Density
Residential
LAND USE:
ATLAS PAGE: 238A
PLANNER OF RECORD: ESC
PLANNER: Ellen Crandall, Planner 11
CDB Meeting Date: January 18, 2011
Case Number: FLD2010-11031
Agenda Item: C.2.
Owner/Applicant: Henry Bohinick
Agent: David F Ramsey, Professional En ig neer
Address: 934 Eldorado Avenue
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development approval for the construction of a new
single-family detached dwelling within the Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) District with a lot area of 6,600
square feet, a lot width of 60 feet, a reduction in the front (East)
setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to building) and a reduction to
the rear (west) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to Costal
Construction Control Line) for an in-ground swimming pool and
deck and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to
10.7 feet (to Costal Construction Control Line) for the principal
structure as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 2-204.E.
CURRENT ZONING: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
CURRENT FUTURE
LAND USE CATEGORY: Residential Urban (RU)
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Vacant lot
Proposed Use: Single-Family Detached Dwelling
EXISTING North: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
SURROUNDING Detached Dwellings
ZONING AND USES:
South: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
Detached Dwellings
East: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
Detached Dwellings
West: Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District
Water
Community Development Board - January 18, 2011
FLD2010-11031 - Page 1 of 5
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.15 acre subject property is located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately 120
feet south of Laurel Street. The property is presently a vacant lot. The properties to the north,
south and east are zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District and are developed
with detached dwellings. Land to the west is zoned Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District and
is the Gulf of Mexico.
Development Proposal:
The proposal is to develop the subject property with a single-family detached dwelling. The
request is being processed as a Residential Infill Project due to the requested rear (west) setback
reduction to the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) for pool, decking and the main
structure. The main structure will have a 10.7 foot setback from the CCCL which is consistent
with houses immediately adjacent and south (930, 920 Eldorado) of the subject property, while
the pool and decking will have a zero foot setback from the CCCL which is also consistent with
the houses to the south of the subject property. Pursuant to Section 3-905.C.2 of the Community
Development Code (CDC), any requests to modify setback requirements from the CCCL shall be
considered through a Level Two development process.
The development proposal's compliance with the various development standards of the CDC is
discussed below.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR) Pursuant to CDC Section 2-201.1, within the Residential Urban
(RU) land use category, the allowable ISR is 0.65. The site is in compliance as an ISR of 0.648
is proposed.
Densit : Pursuant to CDC Section 2-201.1, within the Residential Urban (RU) land use category,
the allowable density is 7.5 units per acre. As the lot area is 6,600 square feet (0.15 acres), one
dwelling unit is allowed and therefore, the proposed density is in compliance.
Minimum Lot Area: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, for Residential Infill Projects, there is
no minimum lot area. The lot area of the subject property is 6,600 square feet which exceeds the
detached dwelling minimum standard of 5,000 square feet found in Table 2-202.
Minimum Lot Width: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, for Residential Infill Projects, there is
no minimum lot width. The subject property lot width is 60 feet which exceeds the detached
dwelling minimum standard of 50 feet found in Table 2-202.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, within the LMDR District, Residential
Infill Projects shall have a front setback between 10 - 25 feet, a side setback between zero to five
feet, and a rear setback between zero to 15 feet. The proposal includes a front (east) setback of
15 feet and a rear (west) setback of zero feet with no reductions to side setbacks and is therefore
compliant with the above referenced requirements.
The reduction in front and rear setbacks allows for a development consistent with the
surrounding and emerging development pattern. The existing detached dwelling immediately
adjacent and to the north of the subject property (936 Eldorado) is setback 3.3 feet from the east
Community Development Board - January 18, 2011
FLD2010-11031 - Page 2 of 5
property line. The existing detached dwelling (920 Eldorado) to the south of the subject property
is setback 5 feet or less from the east property line. Therefore the front setback of 15 feet is
justified and consistent with the emerging development pattern while still providing the
necessary off-street parking. With regard to the rear setback, the development pattern along
Eldorado is moving from typical ranch style Florida homes toward larger homes occupying a
greater portion of lot area than the existing homes. In addition, a site visit, review of aerial
photographs, and provided surveys show that several existing waterfront detached dwellings in
the vicinity of the subject property appear to have up to zero foot structural setbacks to the
CCCL. The existing detached dwellings immediately to the south of the subject property are set
back zero feet from the CCCL for pool and decks (926 and 920 Eldorado). The existing detached
dwellings immediately to the south of the subject property are set back 10 feet or less from the
CCCL for the main structure (930 and 920 Eldorado). Therefore, the rear setback reduction to
provide a typical amenity of a pool and decking for a beachfront detached dwelling is justified
and consistent with the emerging development pattern. The rear setback reduction to provide
adequate views from the main structure is justified and consistent with the emerging
development pattern.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, for Residential Infill projects,
the maximum building height in the LMDR District is 30 feet. The building height of the
detached dwelling will maintain a maximum building height of 30 feet as measured to the
midpoint of a sloped roof, which is consistent with the above, as well as with the definition of
"height, building or structure" as set forth in Article 8 of the CDC.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to Table 2-204 of the CDC, for Residential Infill
projects, two parking spaces are required. The proposal is to provide four off-street parking
spaces as through two driveways and two single-car-garages for the dwelling, which is consistent
with the above.
Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-903.H.1, air conditioning and similar
mechanical equipment is exempt from the side and rear setback requirements, but such
equipment must be screened from view from streets and adjacent property. Outside condensing
units for air conditioners as well as pool equipment will be placed adjacent to the side of the
dwelling. Compliance with screening requirements will be reviewed at time of building permit
submittal.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912. all utilities including individual distribution lines shall
be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. This proposal will
comply with this requirement.
Solid Waste: The dwelling unit will be provided a black barrel for solid waste disposal which
will be stored exterior to the dwelling. CDC Section 3-201.D.1 requires these black barrels to be
screened from view from streets and adjacent properties. Provisions for walls, fences or other
appropriate screening materials will be reviewed at time of building permit submittal.
Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated
with the subject property.
Community Development Board - January 18, 2011
FLD2010-11031 - Page 3 of 5
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the
consistency of the detached dwelling subdivision proposal with the standards as per CDC Tables
2-201.1 and 2-204:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Density 7.5 du/ac 1 du/ac X
ISR 0.65 0.648 X
Minimum Lot Area N/A 6,600 square feet X1
Minimum Lot Width N/A 60 feet X1
Minimum Setbacks Front: 10 - 25 feet East: 15 feet (to building) X1
Side: 0 - 5 feet North: 5 feet (to building) X
South: 5 feet (to building) X
Rear: 0 - 10 feet West: Zero feet (to deck) X1
10.7 feet (to building)
Maximum Height 30 feet 30 feet X
Minimum Off-Street 2 spaces per dwelling unit 4 spaces X
Parking
1 See Analysis in Staff Report
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-204.E
(Residential Infill Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is X
otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following: intensity
or other development standards.
2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project X
will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties.
3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. X
4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. X
5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project X
will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function which X
enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development and the City of Clearwater as a whole.
7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking, access X
or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character
and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of
Clearwater as a whole.
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The
following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards
for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X
residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, X
acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
Community Development Board - January 18, 2011
FLD2010-11031 - Page 4 of 5
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of January 6, 2011 and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to
move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following:
Findings of Fact: The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence
submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that
there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:
1. That the 0.15 acres is located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately 120 feet
south of Laurel Street;
2. That the property is currently a vacant lot;
3. That the proposal is to develop the subject property with a single-family detached dwelling;
4. That the proposal includes a reduction of the rear setback from the Coastal Construction
Control Line (CCCL) of 10 feet to zero feet (to deck); and
5. That pursuant to CDC Section 3-905.C.2, any requests to modify setback requirements from
the CCCL shall be considered through a Level Two development process; and
6. That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property.
Conclusions of Law: The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-201.1 and 2-
204 of the Community Development Code;
2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
204.E of the Community Development Code; and
3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of
the Flexible Development application for the construction of a new single-family detached
dwelling within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a lot area of 6,600
square feet, a lot width of 60 feet, a reduction in the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet
(to building) and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to Costal
Construction Control Line) for an in-ground swimming pool and deck at existing grade and a
reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to 10.7 feet (to Costal Construction Control
Line) for the principal structure as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 2-204.E with the following conditions of approval:
Conditions of Approval:
1. That the final design and colors of the detached dwelling be consistent with the elevations
approved by the CDB;
2. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, a separate right-of-way permit must be
approved for the installation of the brick paver drive apron;
3. That there are no obstructions in the waterfront site visibility triangles;
4. That pool and deck be constructed no higher than existing grade;
5. That vehicles cannot be parked in the driveway blocking the pedestrian access to the concrete
sidewalk;
Community Development Board - January 18, 2011
FLD2010-11031 -Page 5 of 5
6. That black barrels stored exterior to the dwelling and outdoor mechanical equipment
including air conditioning and pool equipment be screened from view from adjacent streets
and properties; and
7. That all utilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed underground unless
such undergrounding is not practicable. This proposal will comply with this requirement. ,
prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
Ellen Crandall, Planner II
Attachments: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs of Site and Vicinity
Community Development Board - January 18, 2011
FLD2010-11031 -Page 6 of 5
Ellen Crandall
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
727-562-4836
ellen.crandall(&myclearwater.com
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
¦ Planner II
City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida May 2010 to Present
Duties include performing the technical review and preparation of staff reports for various land
development applications, the organization of data and its display in order to track information and
provide status reports.
Planner I
City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida December 2009 to May 2010
Assist public customers at the Zoning Counter. Review Building Permits, Sign Permits, Business Tax
Receipts, and Landscape Plans as well as Comprehensive Sign Program Applications, and Flexible
Standard Developments. Regulate growth and development of the City in accordance with land
resource ordinances and regulations related to community development. Interdepartmental and
zoning assistance. Respond as a City representative to citizens, City officials, and businesses
concerning ordinances and regulations. Make recommendations and presentations at staff level at
various review committees, boards, and meetings.
Community Planner
Bradford County, Towanda, Pennsylvania January 2008 to May 2009
Coordinates with the 51 municipalities in Bradford County and assisted them in writing
Comprehensive Plans, developing ordinances, and general public and municipal education on zoning,
land use, and ordinances. Developed a comprehensive Zoning Lexicon that included zoning maps,
districts and definitions for all municipalities with zoning ordinances. Assisted in the County Parks
Plan and in developing a comprehensive Park's book listing all the parks in Bradford County.
Assisted mapping the natural gas wells as well as printing maps and parcel data for the gas
companies.
¦ Intern
Pennsylvania Geologic Survey, Middletown, Pennsylvania May 2006 to September 2006
Scanned geologic maps, updated documents and assisted in general office tasks.
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science, - Major: Geography, - Minor: Art, - Certificate: Geographic Information System
SHIPPENSBURG UNIVERSITY, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania
ISA, International Society of Arboriculture, Certified Arborist
LEED Green Associate, Currently pursuing
f: e
- y ?
1 :-: o c
}
a ? ti • . •.
Mp ?,
oR c?~?J
PROJECT ?uvia
R
SITE srrz?fr
0 LA uREL
?? cr
w
?sssa*n?e Guava
n KIPLING PLAZA
U
n z
z
5
Q
IR ENIA ST ui
?Iq VERBEPJA
p D,ANG0 Qw
o
G
8U. •"
Location Map
Owner: Bohinick, Henry Case: FLD201 0-1 1 031
Site: 934 Eldorado Ave Property Size: 0.15 acres
PIN: 05-29-15-54666-052-0050 Atlas Page: 238A
970
970 ti
O?S/R 966 971 9
?pFR S
C
,? y
T
a
964 967 964 z Z
958 963
963 960
956 961
957 956
959 956
948 955 954
952
946 947 953 952
944
951 950
940 944
945
R 944
941
936
W 939
LAUREL
ST
W
Q 930
934 937
1, Q 939 936
933 Q 935
931
926
928 932
931
Q
926 W
2 929 930
925
924 Q 925
•?
920
924
921
9 rn
920 9
916 920 92
917
91
SAM/NE ClR
909
909
908
W
HDR 905 j 907
r-W
90, m
?o
a
880
K/PL/NG PLZ
Zoning Map
owner: Bohinick, Henry Case: FLD201 0-1 1 031
Site: 934 Eldorado Ave Property Size: 0.15 acres
PIN: 05-29-15-54666-052-0050 Atlas Page: 238A
m 70
'moo JUNIPE
R
6 ?
roy
ll
p ?,
o `.
gss
Q 4 `/?/N/P 2
y
"0 FiQ d
O
Q - g61 g64
o
(
Z h h ??63110
v 0 ? 993 96? „ 4
Q
s
_
,
h
9
?
957 h
56 4 3 95?
9
9A C h 8S
9
55
954 Q
m
94 etac 954
e 7 ?Q 953 952
We 951 954 9
944
9
245
110
y 944
_
110 ? N' ?
110 C* SO
s LAUREL 110 m
„? s3s 939
LAUREL S
o
1- 0
T
110930
F 934
0 391pDe ac'01d6?
Water
0 Q ° 933
J -935 D e l
2 Q
931
926
Q
51
931
928 W Z
929 50 930 N
925
925 IT
920 LU
924
110 h 110 1 i$ V
fio 1y
o
„
?
o
so e 1109
9 60 20 of 9
n
Q
135.3 k1oo w 917
4 110 115 91
1
?
ti O
SB,
136,3 JESSAMINE ,o
CIRCLE
fi 85 65 n _
s09 h
y
F 0 m
08 W 909
a
0 T 0 10 _112
Attached ?j
-
N
g N 90
Dwelling
r - -1 - m
U
g011i
32 L74074 1 60
72 60 a 6
GOVTLOT5 88?
GOVT LOT 2 u,
L069 K?rL
5
? fi0 I
&1Z
Existing Surrounding Uses Map
Owner: Bohinick, Henry Case: FLD201 0-1 1 031
Site: 934 Eldorado Ave Property Size: 0.15 acres
PIN: 05-29-15-54666-052-0050 Atlas Page: 238A
77
,y c
r
ift
lit
? A
i i!F q T? ?
?
' CIO
.J
- 101 1 SC
-
^
+ Ilk
?. rr tJ
. t-. r
k ? - y
dlAd i,r 1?
?1.
Aerial Map
Owner: Bohinick, Henry Case: FLD2010-1 1031
Site: 934 Eldorado Ave Property Size: 0.15 acres
PIN: 05-29-15-54666-052-0050 Atlas Page: 238A
View of vacant lot at 934 Eldorado from the east. View of vacant lot at 934 Eldorado from the west.
934 Eldorado Ave.
Case Number FLD2010-11031
Page 1 of 1
West side of the properties directly to the south of
934 Eldorado.
View of 936 from the west.
JOHN E. TSAVAR.IS II
920 ELDORADO AVE.
CLEARWATER BEACH, FL
33767-1120
January 3, 2011
The Community Development Board
City of Clearwater
City Hall
112 South Osceola Ave,
Clearwater, Fla.
Re: 934 Eldorado Ave. Parcel
No.05-29-15-54666-052-0050
Gentlemen and Ladies,
I have received your Notice concerning the Community Board Public Hearing concerning
the above-captioned matter to be held on January 18, 2011.
Unfortunately, I will be out of town and will be unable to attend, however, as I stated at
the Hearing held on Dec. 7, 2010, I have no objections to Mr. Bohinick's project. He and his
architect have shown me the plans and have discussed them with me and it appears to be a very
beautiful design.
934 Eldorado has been an empty lot and an eyesore for about 8 years. Mr. Bohinick's
new home will rectify that, will significantly improve the appearance of our neighborhood, and
will enhance the property values of all of his neighbors.
r ?f
DavidFRamsey,PE - PSM
R&S Engineering and Construction Corporation
434 Skinner Boulevard, Suite 105 61 The Glens Boulevard
Dunedin, F134698 Banner Elk, NC 28604
webpage: s a e .aaaa?a ca as cr•igagxom
727 4094639 e-mail 828 963-5875
Professional Engineer Ohio-Florida-N Carolina-S Carolina-Georgia
Professional Surveyor Ohio-Florida-N Carolina
General Contractor Class A Florida CGC 010310 North Carolina 44555
1`[d.< "t. a°q)IN to Florida Address
January 6, 2011
City of Clearwater
Planning & Development Department
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, F133756
RE: Case Number FLD2010-11031- 934 Eldorado Avenue
DRC Comments and Response
Meeting dated 01-06-11
Dear Ellen:
Enclosed herewith you will find the response to the DRC meeting held on January 6, 2011 regarding the
aforementioned project.
The comments will be repeated and with my response in BOLD.
Engineering ReviewPrior to review by the Community Development Board:
1. Provide a minimum length of 18 ft. for the driveway from back of sidewalk to
building face so that a parked vehicle will not block or obstruct the sidewalk in
accordance with City Ordinance 30.041(1)(b).
The submitted plan shows 19 feet from the face of the garage to the Eldorado Avenue right-of-way.
2. Plantings in the Eldorado Avenue right-of-way shall be approved by the City's
Landscape Architect, and if approved, must obtain a Landscape Right-of-Way
Permit.
Applicant's Landscape Architect will apply for landscape right of way permit when plans are
approved by City's Landscape Architect.
?r
Page 2: DRC Comments 934 Eldorado Avenue/January 6, 2011
Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit:
1. If brick pavers are proposed for the driveway installation, a separate right-of -
way permit, signed by the property owner, will be required for the installation
within the right-of-way. Contact Don Melone 727.562.4798 or Room #220 at
the MSB (Municipal Services Building).
Decorative pavers are planned for the driveway installation and a permit will be obtained for the
installation prior to commencement of construction.
General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review;
additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit
Application.
Note: All resubmittals shall be accompanied with a response letter addressing how
each departmental condition has been met.
Environmental Review DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments
may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application.
Please Note: Exterior lighting must comply with sea turtle lighting regulations.
Contact Sarah Josuns at (727) 562-4897 for more information.
All exterior lighting will comply with the sea turtle lighting regulations and information on lighting
and window performance data for the installation of the windows is attached for clarification.
Fire Review 1) Must provide a Standpipe System to meet the requirements of NFPA-1,
2006 edition Chapter 13 Fire Protection Systems 13.2.2.2
13.2.2.2 New buildings shall be equipped with a Class I standpipe system installed
in accordance with the provisions of Section 13.2 where any of the following
conditions exist:
(1)More than three stories above grade
(2)More than 50 ft (15 m) above grade and containing intermediate stories or
balconies
(3)More than one story below grade
(4)More than 20 ft (6.1 m) below grade
2) When plans are submitted for building review, the building code may require
that a fire sprinkler system be installed.
The mechanical penthouse is not-habitable. The space is for mechanical equipment and access to roof
mounted mechanical equipment.
Page 3: DRC Comments 934 Eldorado Avenue/January 6, 2011
Planning Review 1)For the CDB submittal set of plans and application (15 sets) call out the
smallest setback from the CCCL to the pool (zero feet) on the Site and Drainage
Plan. Also call out the setback of the most northern edge of the pool deck from the
CCCL.
The CDB submittal of 15 sets of plans and application is attached with the setbacks indicated for the
building and the pool.
2)For CDB submittal set of plans and applications (15 sets) Change
Description of Request:
Flexible Development approval for the construction of a new single-family
detached dwelling within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District
with a lot area of 6,534 square feet, a lot width of 60 feet, a reduction in the front
(East) setback from 25 feet to 15 feet (to building) and a reduction to the rear (west)
setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to Coastal Construction Control Line) for an in
ground swimming pool and deck and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from
20 feet to 10.7 feet (to Coastal Construction Control Line) for the principal structure
as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community Development Code
Section 2-204.E.
The CDB submitted of 15 sets of plans reflect the aforementioned statement with the exception of the
lot area which is 6,600 square feet per plat of (60x110) and not 6,534 square feet. The description has
been added to the application and is attached with 15 copies.
Stormwater Review DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments
may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application.
All surface water drainage has been included in the application but if additional information is
requested it will be provided.
Traffic Eng Review Prior to CDB:
1. There shall be no more than one entrance and one exit or one combined entrance
and exit per property along any street unless otherwise determined necessary by
the traffic engineer to alleviate congestion and improve traffic flow.
(Community Development Code Secton 3-1402 B)
Provide justification for more than one entrance and exit.
The entrance as shown on the plan serves a garage on each side of the entry way to the single family
home. The existing plan is the best configuration for the proposed home. The proposed home design
has two garages and driveways separated by an exterior stairwell. The two driveways provide two
off street parking spaces as well as access to the two separated garages for additional parking off
street. The two curb cuts provide for safe and efficient vehicular access and parking
I ,
Page 4: DRC Comments 934 Eldorado Avenue/January 6, 2011
General Note(s):
1. Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee
Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.).
2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional
comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit
Application.
1. Will comply.
2. Additional comments will be addressed as they arise during the permitting process.
Please review and if you have any questions please do not hesitate to call or email.
Sincerely,
David F Ramsey, P E, PSM
Florida Engineer 15307
General Contractor
Performance Data
Center of Glass Performance Data
Nigh-Performance'" Low-E4® Visible gNG Fadli g % RN
Imilide Insift
S
f
Impact-R13sistaAt Glass LIgI1t' SC' SNGCa tiPl` TING
Tdw-r
at 10a' ur
ace
Glass Tempo
Casement, Awning 71% 0.48 0.41 100 <1% 23% 53% 52°F
Casement, Awning Picture 68% 0.47 0.40 96 <1% 22% 61% 56°F
Tilt-Wash 71% 0.48 0.41 100 <1% 23% 53% 52°F
Tilt-Wash Picture 70% 0.47 0.41 98 <1% 22% 57% 54°F
Tilt-Wash Transom
i 71% 0.47 0.41 97 <1% 20% 61% 56°F
C
rcle Top;" Elliptical Top, Circle, Oval 68% 0.47 0.40 97 <1% 22% 61% 56°F
Frenchwood0 Gliding Door 70% 0.47 0.41 98 <1% 22% 57% 54°F
FmnchwoodO Hinged Door 70% 0.47 0.41 98 <1% 22% 57% 54°F
SPringfirm°' Window 67% 0.45 0.39 93 <1% 21% 61% 56°F
Fladfrarl Arch Window 67% 0.45 0.39 93 <1% 21% 61% 56°F
Nigh-Performance'" Lev-E40 Vise RRG Fading % RH luside
Sun Impact-Resistant Glass Light' SC' SNGC3 tiPr Tuv' Tdw-r at IV I Glass Tempo
Casement, Awning 39% 0.30 0.26 64 <1% 14% 53% 52°F
Casement, Awning Picture 38% 0.28 0.25 60 <1% 14% 61% 56°F
Tilt-Wash 39% 0.30 0.26 65 <1% 15% 53% 52°F
Fit-Wash Picture 39% 0.29 0.25 63 <1% 15% 57% 54°F
Tilt-Wash Transom 39% 0.29 0.25 61 <1% 13% 59% 55°F
Circle Top:" Elliptical Top, Circle, Oval 38% 0.29 0.25 61 <l% 14% 59% 55°F
FrenchwoodO Gliding Door 39% 0.29 0.25 63 <1% 15% 57% 54°f
Frenchwoodm Hinged Door 39% 0.29 0.25 63 <1% 15% 57% 540F
Spnnghne' Window
_
36%
0.27
0.24
57
<1%
13%
61%
56°f
Fla rf e® Arch Window 36% 0.27 0.24 57 <1% _
13% 61% 56°F
High-Performance°Low-E4®
" Vide
RN6 NOW %RN hislde
Surt
smartsun
Impact-Resist?t Glass Ligtlt' SC2 SNGC' tIPN Tuva Tdw-II' at we
Glas
s TeW
Casement, Awning 64% 0.32 0.28 68 <1% 17% 53% 53°F
Casement, Awning Picture 62% 0.31 0.27 65 <1% 16% 63% 57°F
Tilt-Wash 64% 0.32 0.28 68 <1% 17% 55% 53°F
Tilt-Wash Picture
63%
0.32
0.21
67
c1%
17%
59%
55°F
rift-Wash Transom 64% 0.32 0.27 67 <1% 16% 61% 56°F
Chcle Top, Elliptical Top, Circle, Oval
_ 62% 0.31 0.27 66 <1% 16% 61% 56°F
Frenchwaod• Gliding
Door
63%
0.32
0.27
61
<1%
17%
59%
55°F
Frelich"P HmBedDoor
63%
0.32
0.27
67 _
<1%
11%
59%T
550F
Springline'" Window
61%
0.31
0.27
64
<1%
16%
63%
57°F
F aftme• Arch Window 61% 0.31 0.27 64 <1% 16% 63% 57°F
WINDOWS AND /DOORS WITH
- P R O T E C T 1 0 N
"High-PerfarmaOC6- Law-E4°' (HP Lmv-E4h,
"Rgh-Perfomwrice- Low-E4° Sun' (HP L0w-E4° Sun) and
"High W"I' u ce" Low-E4° SmartSun' (HP Low-E4° SmarlSun) are
Andersen trademarks for "Low-E' glass.
Based on WE testinghimulation conditions using wndovs 4.1 and NFRC
validated spectral data 0°f outside temperature, 701 inside temperature
and a 15 mph what.
1 Visible Light Transmittance measures how much light comes through
the glass. The higher the value, from 0 to 1, the more daylight the glass
lets in. Visible Transmittance is measured over the 380 to 760 manometer
portion of the solar spectrum.
2 Shading coefficients (SC) defines the amount of heat gain through the
glass compared to a single [Re of clear 178' (3 NM) glass.
3 Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) defines the fraction of solar
radiation admitted through the total unit both direcUp transmittal
and absorbed and subsequently rNeased inward. The lower the
value, the less heat is transmitted through the glass.
4 Relative Heat Gain (RHG) is calculated under a diffeent set of
assumptions than thermal performance.
5 Transmission ultraviolet Energy frovii. The transmission of short
wave energy in the 300-380 --meter portion of the solar spectrum.
The anew can cause fabric fading.
6 Transmission Damage Function (TTAVI. The transmission of short
wave energy in the 3004M naometer portion of the solar spectrum.
The value includes both the UV and visible light energy that can
cause fabric fading. This rating has also been referred to as the
14ochmann Damage function.
7 Percent relative humidity (RH) before condensation occurs at the center
of glass, taken using center of glaze temperature
8 Inside glass surface temperature is taken at the center of glass.
Center of Glass Performance Data - Monolithic Impact Resistant Glass
monoofflic Clear Laminated Visible Fading
t-Resistant Glass UAW SC' SNGCS RV Trove Tdw'
Casement, Awning 0.87 0.87 0.75 188 <1% 33%
Casement Picture 0.85 0.83 0.72 180 <1% 33%
Circle Top,° Elliptical Top, Circle, Oval
_- 0.85 0.83 0.72 180 <1% 33%
FmnchwoDP Outswing, Gliding Door 0.85 0.83 0.72 180 <1% 33%
wriframe° Arch, Springline° Window 0.85 0.83 0.72 180 <1% 33%
Alonolitllic Gray Toted V1011" Fading
impact-Resistmlt floss Light' SC' SNGCa RW Tuv' TdW'
Casement, Awning 0.43 0.68 0.59 150 <1% 17%
Casement Picture 0.43 0.64 0.56 142 <1% 17%
Circle Top;" Elliptical Top, Circle, Oval 0.43 0.64 0.56 142 <1% 17%
Frenchwood® Outswing, Gliding Door 0.43 0.64 0.56 142 <1% 17%
Fhndframe® Arch, Springline" Window 0.43 0.64 0.56 142 <1% 17%
Updated 2/10 Andersen.
WINDOWS -DOORS _- c
Colonial Electric Supply
daniel Seth mattes, clc
302-293-7187 (cell) * 302-256-5892(direct) * 302-998-3503(fax)
daniel.mattes@?colonialelectric.com
Hank Bohinick
Hello Hank
Per our conversation,
Regarding the Lighting I have specified for your new residence in Clearwater Florida.
All of the Exterior Lighting Specified meets the Dark Sky Initiative. This is interpreted or described as
Indirect Lighting. This will also satisfy the requirements of the Sea Turtle Lighting Restrictions that
prevent Lights from shining on the beach and confusing hatchlings.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions or concerns
Thank you and Have a Bright Light Day
Daniel Seth Mattes,clc
Certified Lighting Consultant
Bright Light Design Center
JOHN E. TSAVARIS II
920 ELDORADO AVE.
CLEARWATER BEACH, FL
33767-11.20
January 3, 2011
The Community Development Board
City of Clearwater
City Hall
112 South. Osceola Ave,
Clearwater, Fla.
Re; 934 Eldorado Ave. Parcel
No.05-29-15-54666-052-0050
Gentlemen and Ladies,
I have received your Notice concerning the Community Board Public Hearing concerning
the above-captioned matter to be held on January 18, 2011.
Unfortunately, I will be out of town and will be unable to attend, however, as I stated at
the Hearing held on Dec. 7, 2010, I have no objections to Mr. Bohinick's project. He and his
architect have shown me the plans and have discussed them with me and it appears to be a very
beautiful design.
934 Eldorado has been an empty lot and an eyesore for about 8 years. Mr. Bohinick's
new home will rectify that, will significantly improve the appearance of our neighborhood, and
will enhance the property values of all of his neighbors.
Clearw Planning Department
ater 100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 33756
Telephone: 727-562-4567
Fax: 727-662-4865
? SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION
? SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION - Plans and
application are required to be collated, stapled, and folded into sets
? SUBMIT FIRE PRELIMARY SITE PLAN: $200.00
? SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE $
* NOTE: 115 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS)
FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
Residential Infill Project
(Revised 07/11/2008)
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT
A. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A)
APPLICANT NAME: Henry Bohinick
MAILING ADDRESS: 4413 Atlantic-Brigantine Blvd. Po Box 486, Brigantine, NJ 08203
PHONE NUMBER: FAX NUMBER:
CELL NUMBER: 610 656-1486
EMAIL: hankbohinick@vverizon.net
PROPERTY OWNER(S):
List ALL owners on the deed
AGENT NAME:
MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE NUMBER:
CELL NUMBER:
B.
PROJECT NAME:
STREET ADDRESS
PARCEL NUMBER(S):
PARCEL SIZE (acres):
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PROPOSED USE(S):
Henry
David F Ramsey, Professional Engineer
434 Skinner Boulevard, Suite 105, Dunedin, F1 34698
72 7 4 AX NUMBER: None
09 - 463 9
EMAIL: davidf.ramsey@verizon.net
TION: (Code Section 4-2027)
Lot 5 Block 52 Mandalay The Isle of PROJECT VALUATION: $ 750, 000.00
A Thousand Palms, 934 Eldorado Avenue, Clearwater Beach, F1
05-29-14-54666-052-0050
0.15 PARCEL SIZE (square feet): 6600
Lot 5 Block 52 Mandalay The Isle of a Thousand Palms PB 14, Pages 32-35
y
---Lupment approval for the construction of a new single-family the
de
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: dwelling within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a to
Specifically identify the request area of 6,534 s
(indudenumber ofunits orsquare quare feet, a lot width of 60 feet, a reduction in the front East
footage of non-residential use and ?letba??c fm_2?fet t?5 e
requested code deviations; e.g.___ ?t9_k ?ing_)._and rgtuctign?ter W t)
reduction in required number of setbask_f_r„_z _nt t@r? f
parking spaces, specific use, etc.) AASafal.-G°nst""?+ Eer?tl-Line) €or in
C:00ru nts and Seth rvv?
ngslderek.fergusonlDeskt0plptammng dept forms 07081Resklential InfiN Project (to the
FLD) 200!107-1-!2! 20
feet to 10.7 feet (to Cdh5thdf8C0nstruction Control Line) for the principal
structure as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 2-204-E.
CASE #:
RECEIVED BY (staff initials):
DATE RECEIVED:
DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTIFIED) SITE PLAN? YES _ NO X (if yes, attach a copy of the applicable documents)
C. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP: (Code Section 4-202.A.5)
? SUBMIT A COPY OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY, DEED TO THE PROPERTY OR SIGN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING OWNERSHIP
(see page 7)
D. WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 3-913.A)
? Provide complete responses to the sir (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA- Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail:
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which
The ro ose
p p d--7.?'foot front yard setback is greater then the existing front yard setback on Lot 6, Block 2
whi h is-3..-3--f-eet--and-Lot-2 --p-look-S2-which i.s_.4-9-feet--f--om-the--f-ront---pr-oper-ty lines- T-he-p-r-oposed--setba k
the swimming pool would hg 0 feet from the CCCL while the properties at Lot 2 Block 52 and Lot. 3 Block 5
on r encroach to the seaward side of the CCCL. The pool would be located adjacent to the CCCL with no s (t.
whi h is consistent with the swimming pool at 880 Mandalay Ave which is adjacent to the CCCL.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly
impair the value thereof.
The proposed Single Family Residence will have two garages with a capacity of three cars and
--- twcr7Of-f zrf'tt=he-garages-Th±s would-e-liminate-any-street--parking
-and-provide-for-the-f-r-ee---movement-o-f---pedest-r-i-ans--on--.the-sidewalk There--would-be--no--tr-af_f-i-c--
con?estion with the off street_?ark ng_p ovidie _
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use.
The proposed house is compatible with the existing structures and will not adversely affect
--the-hea-ith-or-safety-or-persons-residing--in-the-neighborhood:-The--Single-Family--Residence-is
being r9Psigned-tto--confixm-to wr; ami _Dade-s.tandasd z r-o_.-withstand_a_.withstand__14.6-MP.H -wa.nds
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion.
The propose house will have a two car garage with room for four cars in the garage level of
the proposed house with two additional parking locations in front of the house therefore no
street parking and traffic congestion should be impacted -- -
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
The proposed house to be constructed is consistent with the community character within the
immediate vicinity. ----- ------ ---- ------
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts,
on adjacent properties-
The Proposed house does not adversely effect any visual, acousti_c_ and olfactory. conditions _
and hours of operation are normal as a single family home.
fo:
are
CADocuments and SettingsWerek.ferguson\Desktoplplanning dept forms 07OMesidential Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 2 of 8
WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Residential Infill Project Criteria)
0 Provide complete responses to the seven (7) RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT CRITERIA - Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail:
1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the intensity and
development standards.
The standards allow for setbacks to be changed given that the requested change is within the
guidelines for variances and within the character of the neighborhood and surrounding homes.
-Tt-'1ltrii?CS-tYie aYCriitectus?al varato?that- riiak? -the house-unique: "-?-"------ --
2 The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting
. properties. (Include the existing value of the site and the proposed value of the site with the improvements.)
The property value of the land is $825,000 based on purchased price on June 29, 2010. The value
_of the Rite-wiJa improvemp-ntG will hP at 1Past-$? _GD-O-,_O-OA-OD_-ox-more--based---on-= t-s-plus info
proved from a realtor based on lack of new construction on the beach in this size and quality
range. -_-_.---
3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater.
The project is a single family residence that is permitted in this LMDR zone and consisten
with the neighborhood and other houses.
4 The uses or mix of use within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses-
. The adjacent properties are single family houses of similar size as is this project
5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed
for development.
The single family home will be the first new home in many years in the neighborhood and will
u N
meet the current codes and exceed the construction quality of existing homes-
6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function that enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of
the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole.
The--single__family-lhame_w.ilLzeplace_ an_otiex-gr-oxn-v-acant-lot--next__io a._hous?e-that-is_-in tQtal-
disrepair. The single family home will be consistent with residents to the south of it on the
same block but designed to meet current standards and style-
7. Flexibility, in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified by the benefits to community character and the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole.
The single family house will replace an overgrown lot and add stability to the neighborhood by
praviding-a-home-which--i szr character--with-the--ne=ghborhooc-as--well---as-not--requiring variances
t-hat--a-r-e-inconsi-stent-wlt-h--the-neighborhood-p-l-us-adding-sign i-f-icant--t-axc revenues---to-the-Gity-
while helpng_to spread the talc burden over a__-___-.---?
C:1Documernts and SettingsXderek.ferguson\Desktop%oanning dept forms 070Mesidential Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 3 of 8
of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria
Manual and 4-202.A.21)
? A STORMWATER NARRATIVE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH ALL APPLICATIONS. All applications that involve addition
or modification of impervious surface, including buildings, must include a stormwater plan that demonstrates compliance with the City of
Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual. A reduction in impervious surface area does not quality as an exemption to this requirement.
** The house and driveway provides some impervious surfaces for construction of a single family hom
? If a plan is not required, the narrative shall provide an explanation as to why the site is exempt.
? At a minimum, the STORMWATER PLAN shall include the following.
? Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all properly lines: ** Provide on P7
? Proposed grading including finished floor elevations of all structures; * * Provided o
? All adjacent streets and municipal storm systems; * * Eldorado Avenue` provx
? COPY Of PERMIT INQUIRY LETTER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT
SUBMITTAL (SWFWMD approval is required prior to issuance of City Building Permit), if applicable
** Not Applicable
? ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF STORMWATER PLAN REQUIREMENTS (Applicant must initial one of the following):
Stormwater plan as noted above is included
Stonmwater plan is not required and explanation narrative is attached
elevations shall be provided. **The plans. shore the grading
along with swales to drain to Eldorado Avenue.
CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A STORMWATER PLAN
AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY
MAY OCCUR.
If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562-4750.
F. SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 4-202.A)
U SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (including legal description of property) - One original and 14 copies;
? TREE SURVEY (including existing trees on site and within 25' of the adjacent site, by species, size
including drip lines and indicating trees to be removed) - please design around the existing trees;
? TREE INVENTORY; prepared by a "certified arbonst", of all trees 4" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and
condition of such trees; ** See Attached report
? LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY, ** On the cover sheet
? PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (ie. Reduce number of spaces).
Prior to the submittal of this application, the methodology of such study shall be approved by the Community Development Coordinator and
shall be in accordance with accepted traffic engineering principles. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not
deviations to the parking standards are approved:
**See Plan two car garage is planed along with two car driveway
? GRADING PLAN, as applicable; ** See Plan for all grading
U PRELIMINARY PLAT, as required (Note: Building permits will not be issued until evidence of recording a final plat is provided); ** N/A
? COPY OF RECORDED PLAT, as applicable, ** N/A
C:1D0c1Jment5 and Settingsldemk.feWsonlDesktopVlannirg dept forms 07081Residential Dill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 4 of 8
G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTALREQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A)
? SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24"x 36"): **The plans show all of the listed items.
d Index sheet referencing individual sheets included in package;
? North arrow;
Engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet), and date prepared;
All dimensions;
Footprint and size of all EXISTING buildings and structures;
? Footprint and size of all PROPOSED buildings and structures;
All required setbacks;
P/ All existing and proposed points of access;
All required sight triangles;
,?,?pp ?Identifcation of environmentally unique areas, such as watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, and specimen trees, including
/' 'description and location of understory, ground cover vegetation and wildlife habitats, etc; Location of all public and private easements;
Location of all street rights-of-way within and adjacent to the site;
Location of existing public and private utilities, including fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes and lift stations, gas
and water lines;
? All parking spaces, driveways, loading areas and vehicular use areas;
? Depiction by shading or crosshatching of all required parking lot interior landscaped areas;
Location of all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment and all required screening
I/ (per Section 3-201(D)(i) and Index #7011;
ti Location of all landscape material;
Location of all onsite and offsite storm-water management facilities;
„1194c. Location of all outdoor lighting fixtures;
,/Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks, and
Floor plan typicals of buildings for all Level One (flexible standard development) and Level Two approvals. A floor plan of each floor is
required for any parking garage requiring a Level One (minimum standard and flexible standard) or Level Two approval.
I] SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in written/tabular form:
** See Plan Cover Sheet EXISTING REQUIRED PROPOSED
Land area in square feet and acres;
Number of EXISTING dwelling units;
Number of PROPOSED dwelling units;
Gross floor area devoted to each use;
Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular form with the
number of required spaces;
Total paved area, including all paved parking spaces & driveways,
expressed in square feet & percentage of the paved vehicular area;
Official records book and page numbers of all existing utility
easement:
_ Building and structure heights;
Impermeable surface ratio (I.S.R.); and
Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses.
J REDUCED COLOR SITE PLAN to scale (8'/2X 11); **Attached
? FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the following additional information on site plan: ** Not Applicable
One-foot contours or spot elevations on site;
Offsite elevations H required to evaluate the proposed stormwater management for the parcel;
All open space areas;
Location of all earth or water retaining walls and earth berms;
Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned);
Streets and drives (dimensioned);
Building and structural setbacks (dimensioned):
Structural overhangs;
C:1Documents and Settingsderek.ferguson\Desktoplplanning dept forms 0708Vtesidential IrfiG Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 5 of 8
H. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-1102.A)
? LANDSCAPE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24"x 36")= * * See Landscape Plan which shows these i
/ All existing and proposed structures;
Names of abutting streets;
Drainage and retention areas including swales. side slopes and bottom elevations;
? Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscape buffers;
V Sight visibility triangles;
Delineation and dimensions of all parking areas including landscaping islands and curbing;
T Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and locations, including driplines (as indicated on required
tree survey);
Location, size, and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant
schedule;
Plant schedule with a key (symbol or label) indicating the size, description, specifications, quantities, and spacing requirements of all
/ existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names;
Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants including instructions, soil mixes, backfilling, mulching and
/ protective measures;
Interior landscaping areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressing in both square feet and
/ percentage covered;
Conditions of a previous development approval (e.g. conditions imposed by the Community Development Board);
Irrigation notes.
Ur REDUCED COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8 % X 11);
a' COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, as applicable. Landscape associated with the Comprehensive
Landscape Program shall exceed minimum Code requirements to offset the areas where minimum Code will not be met.
1. BUILDING ELEVATION PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A.23)
LS' BUILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS - with the following information;
.,-'All sides of all buildings;
l Dimensioned;
f Colors (provide one full sized set of colored elevations);
/ Materials;
Z( REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATIONS - same as above to scale on 81/2 X 11.
J. SIGNAGE: (Division 19. SIGNS / Section 3-1806) ** Not Applicable
? All EXISTING freestanding and attached signs: Provide photographs and dimensions (area, height, etc.), indicate whether they will be
removed or to remain.
L] All PROPOSED freestanding and attached signs; Provide details including location, size, height. colors, materials and drawing;
freestanding signs shall include the street address (numerals)
? Comprehensive Sign Program application, as applicable (separate application and fee required).
? Reduced signage proposal (8 % X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application.
C-1Documents and Settingslderek.fergusonU)esktoWWanning dept forms 07o8Y2esidenpW Infiv Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 6 of 8
K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIO: (Section 4-202.A.13 and 4-801.C) -' 4#XAb1
0 Include if required by the Traffic Operations Manager or his/her designee or if the proposed development:
Will degrade the acceptable level of service for any roadway as adopted In the Comprehensive Plan.
Will generate 100 or more new vehicle directional trips per hour and/or 1000 or more new vehicle trips per day.
Will affect a nearby roadway segment and/or intersection with five (5) reportable accidents within the prior twelve (12) month period or
that is on the City's annual list of most hazardous intersections.
Trip generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip General Manual.
The Traffic Impact Study must be prepared in accordance with a "Scoping Meeting" held with the Traffic Operations Manager and the
Planning Department's Development Review Manager or their designee (727-562-4750)
Refer to Section 4-801 C of the Community Development Code for exceptions to this requirement.
0 Acknowledgement of traffic impact study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following):
Traffic Impact Study is included. The study must include a summary table of pre- and post-development levels of service for all
roadway legs and each turning movement at all intersections identified in the Scoping Meeting.
(1 yj Traffic Impact Study is not required.
CAUTION -- IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY
MAY OCCUR.
If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562-
4750.
L. FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY: - W
Provide Fire Flow Calculations. Water Study by a FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER to assure an adequate water supply is available and to determine if
any upgrades are required by the developer due to the impact of this project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire
sprinkler, standpipe and/or fire pump. If a fire pump is required the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity. Compliance with
the 2004 Florida Fire Prevention Code to include NFPA 13, MFPA 14, NFPA 20, NFPA 291, and MFPA 1142 (Annex H) is required.
0 Acknowledgement of fire flow calculations/water study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following):
_ Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is included.
i Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is not required.
CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A FIRE FLOW
CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE
RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR.
If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Fire Prevention Department at (727) 562-4334.
M. SIGNATURE:
I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS
in this application are true and accurate to the best of my Sworn to and subscribed before me this ?v"" day of
knowledge and authorize City representatives to visit and LCAT-=jar , A.D. 201 u _ to me and/or by
photograph the property described in this application. ; ej? i-u . 1?'h t n. ct--- who is personally known has i
produced 1 0-- l f? t (G'-1 ba`I CMG IC> r t
as identification. e? ???15f
r
i Notary public.
Signature of pro ofivrf" g? or representative My commission expi GINA fW FrAL6rONE
"i MY COMMISSION # DD704756
fea,a EXPIRES August 13, 2011
u
(407) 398-0153 F le rid an'otaryService.com
CMocuments and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desklop\planning dept forms 0708\FIe?o61e Development (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Pagc? of 19
N. AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT:
1. Provide names of all property owners on deed - PRINT full names:
2. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property (address or general location):
3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a: (describe request)
4. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint:
as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition;
5. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property;
6. 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;
7. That (1/we), the Idersigned authority, h y certjfy that the foregoing is true and correct.
Pro e Property Owner
Property Owner Property Owner
STATE OF FLORIDA,
COUNTY OF PINELLAS
Before me the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned by the laws of the State of Florida, on this day of
who having been first duly swom
l c c
it 4e - v L " ), C? I C- ?
personally appeared _ ---
Deposes and says that he/she fully understands the contents of the 00davit that he/she signed.
s? ? t
oti v.?e: GINA M i?: ALCON ?y? l 1 i ` I's ? I rs C A
MY COMMISSION # OD704756 -----`-'? "- t? ` / - -- _ _.
Nota Public Si nat re +.
` EXPIRES August 13, 2011 tiY 9C
Notary Seal/Stamp (407) sss-otea FlondaNOtatySerwce.com My Commission Expires: i
}
C:\Documents and Settings\derek.ferguwn\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708tFle)dble Development (FLD) 2008 07-1 t.doc
Pageloff')
fi?N
-1
Ir- .r
p
0
9
er
a,
IJ
>r.a
?g r
?0)
00
&t 3 -- _SEAL: REVISIONS a rs
wtwwc e. EAST ELEVATION -COLOR
_
BOHINICK RESIDENCE ? D? ???
W? s g 934 Eldorado Avenue ¦
s ; Q a s Clearwater, FL 33767 _ 4S
-- -- ? sib
`. °" Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida
?' _-. -_ _ -- --_ --- - - inaeaNe14W 8WSand acP9lsratlk i
,WasYp Si,W W Pe0!W4ns aq Ww sBuwery EuVS N 's&?.aP slap
A. gPSi6PSesVWrWP era mu Ap".W?oW.s?Di wd..q.u eWp. OI 'S3LMJOSStl 3M1WRl.1dV1015P P dW ejwssN 41?PSUPS?P!?s ?P?e swlP4sr?'s&s?eq'vw9snsM?svM Wluawca 4W ptl'SZ6t-ieLSlZ+wsu scald 8Z ttld'P1IPH'011S3V*OSStl MI1bW"Ud 1S/4GWZ UbuN^7
6g
I p ? n
r
I
N
I
W
A
0)
v
Ib
a
D
W
w uvnN cwAWm Dm
,(w q pelBnaep 9
Clearwater, FL 33767
inellas County, Florida
s!9 Due'41 aq m emy,DUn DVa cuo®uauD P¢ W g0!smCv
MI SUVIXM 3*LWH Ia jSPRl?dW uap
? T
m o
c=;
,J
rl
rn
b
s i l l WEST ELEVATION - COLOR
w BOHINICK RESIDENCE
s s 934 Eldorado Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33767
`°`A- Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida
uxayc PwPPUm PUe swPUayp°Nw°ysunte°w AwP wuPeu e4 Pnw myp sXS Pw'ml aWwewryPim Pw swpuuuP llewrepPUdba eV Pw /V?w leiR U°Pe?w;
w Aw PI peu6Psv eV 4 AeVt we?a'Apyr.m ui ? DemPwdup pu Aew P'w'??V'S3lM?O5SV 3?IISfIH IVdYN15 PAledotl W ue Ms sM 441!Y PsVeim PwPw r
Vq m!1 !
¦
SEAL:
_ G_bTM1PR AA _ _ ?
suauuw,P PePw ao mumavd eneV W
IPPw aioQegsnR'$uxeq' geneP'su
_-
J
e!Ii
U1
DD
W g
?11'
JFds
w w.auc .?nv.m Pw .m...w •a
Ae W peu&ace p4 k4 wiou'Apyi
P? RE. _
SOUTH ELEVATION - COLOR SEAL
ow
w. _ REVI510R5 _.
D-pWn_
w a
-by
B -- -
OHINICK RESIDENCE ?
$
rado Avenue
934 Eld 9
o
Clearwater. FL 33767
Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida n?.s Ae>F+ ??+? _
e^w w?6u?w'P.ww
M turyd wuPwau 4
Kin¦
4 ?.x
.a ww sewx.+P d.w n ?.w esew
ed iePw w .eam..w v? 4ed P?a
;9V MUM UdWI fA ME Y6!ado?
EGATED PITTOS
GREEN MALA`
(11) ASIA)
(1) CHRISTMAS PALM
'S SQ. FT. MED.PINE BARK MULCH
(11) BLUEBERRY FLAX L]
L ORANGE
2ALD GODDES
FT. MEDIUM PINE BARK BED
INDIAN HAWHTHORN
L) BLUEBERRY FLAX LILY
3) ASIATIC JASMINE
IATIC JASMINE
SQ.FT. MEDIUM PINE BARK
(1) CHRISTMAS PALM (DBL}
- 19) BLUEBERRY FLAX LIL'.
BOHINICK RESIDENCE LANDSCAPE
r, 934 ELDORADO AVENUE ee?-
CLEARWATER BEACH, FL
SCALE: 1/16"_1- d"