The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2011-01002; 1000 ELDORADO AVE; PHILLIP'S RESIDENCE POOLFLD20,11-01002 1000 ELDORADO AVE Date Received: 1/3/201111:23:05 AM Phillip's Residence Pool ZONING DISTRICT: LAND USE: ATLAS PAGE: 238A PLANNER OF RECORD: ESC PLANNER: Ellen Crandall, Planner 11 CDB Meeting Date: March 15, 2011 Case Number: FLD2011-01002 Agenda Item: D. 2. Owner/Applicant: Kevin W. and Lana M. Phillips Agent: Steven-A. Williamson Johnson Pope Bokor Ruppel & Burns LLP Address: 1000 Eldorado Avenue CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval for the construction of a new swimming pool and deck for an existing single-family detached dwelling within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a rear (west) setback of zero feet (to Coastal Construction Control Line) where zero feet is allowed as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-204.E. ZONING DISTRICT: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District FUTURE LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY: Residential Urban (RU) PROPERTY USE: Current: Single-Family Detached Dwelling Proposed: 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 Vacant Lot East: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District Detached Dwellings West: Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District Water ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.22 acre subject property is located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately 300 feet north of Juniper Street. The property is presently a single-family detached dwelling. The properties to the north, south, and east, are zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District and the properties to the north and east are developed with detached dwellings. The property to the south is a vacant lot. Land to the west is zoned Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District and is the Gulf of Mexico. Development Proposal: The proposal is to add a pool and deck to the existing single-family detached dwelling. The request is being processed as a Residential Infill Project due to the requested rear (west) setback Community Development Board - March 15, 2011 FLD2011-01002- Page 1 of 4 to the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) for pool and decking. The pool and decking will have a zero foot setback from the CCCL which is consistent with houses south of the subject property. Pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 3-905.C.2 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. Density: 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 9,882 square feet (0.22 acres), one dwelling unit is allowed and therefore, the proposed density is in compliance. 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 0.53 is proposed. 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 and 15 feet. The proposal includes a rear (west) setback of zero feet with no reductions to front or side setbacks and is therefore compliant with the above referenced requirements. The reduction in the rear setback allows for a development consistent with the surrounding and emerging development pattern. Many of the existing pools and decks in the vicinity have or appear to have zero foot setbacks to the CCCL. A setback of zero feet from the CCCL to an in ground pool and deck was approved for 974 Eldorado (FLD2010-11031), 740 Eldorado Avenue (FLD2009-10040) and for 1154 and 1160 Mandalay Point Road (FLD2009-02004). In the case of 740 Eldorado the subject property (1000 Eldorado) is located further to the north on the beach and the CCCL is a greater distance from the mean high water line (approximately 500 feet). Existing pools and decks to the south of the subject property are set back zero feet from the CCCL for pool and decks based upon surveys provided for FLD2010-11031 (926 and 920 Eldorado). In addition, review of aerial photography show that several existing waterfront properties in the vicinity appear to have up to zero foot structural setbacks to the CCCL including 14 Somerset Street, 9 Cambria Street, 724, 734, 740, 770, 800, 804, 856, 880, 920, 926, 944, 946, 956, 964, 970, 1002 Eldorado Avenue, 1154, 1160, 1170, 1176, 1188, 1192, and 1198 Mandalay Point Road. Please see Exhibit "C" of the applicant's submission for aerial photographs supporting these addresses. 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. Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-903.1-1.1, 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. Compliance with screening requirements will be reviewed at time of building permit submittal. Community Development Board - March 15, 2011 FLD2011-01002- Page 2 of 4 Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the detached dwelling subdivision proposal with the standards as per CDC Tables 1) oni t A I ')OA- Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Density 7.5 du/ac 4.5 du/ac (1 unit) X ISR 0.65 0.53 X Minimum Setbacks Rear: 0 - 10 feet West: Zero feet (to deck) X' I 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 im acts on ad acent ro erties. Community Development Board - March 15, 2011 FLD2011-01002- Page 3 of 4 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of February 3, 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 0.22 acres is located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately 300 feet north of Juniper Street; 2. That the property is currently developed with a single-family detached dwelling; 3. That the proposal is to add a pool and deck to an existing single-family detached dwelling; 4. That the proposal includes a rear setback of zero feet from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) to deck; 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 approval for the construction of a new swimming pool and deck for an existing single-family detached dwelling within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a rear (west) setback of zero feet (to Coastal Construction Control Line) where zero feet is allowed 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 there are no obstructions in the waterfront site visibility triangles; 2. That pool and deck be constructed no higher than 12 inches or less above existing grade; and 3. That outdoor mechanical equipment including air conditioning and pool equipment be screened from view from adjacent streets and properties, and 4. That any rental of the single-family detached dwelling shall be for periods greater than 31 calendar days or one calendar month and that the appropriate Business Tax Receipt be obtained. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: :__k A 0_?? Ellen Crandall, Planner 11 Attachments: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs of Site and Vicinity Community Development Board -March 15, 2011 FLD20 1 1-0 1 002- Page 4 of 4 Ellen Crandall 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 727-562-4836 (Alen.erandall(i-mvclearwater.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, anc+. Flexible Standard Developments. Regulate growth and development of the City in accordance 1vith 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 cn 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, S1lippensburg, Pennsylvania ISA, International Society of Arboriculture, Certified Arborist LEED Green Associate, Currently pursuing 1046 1043 1044 9 d 1038 1041 1044 y t 1038 1038 1040 1036 1037 9 1034 1035 Q 1032 1033 103q NO 1030 1031 4p 1028 1029 1028 1030 1021 1010 1024 1022 1024 70 2 ` 1 102° 1018 1020 102S 1016 1019 70 102j 1010 7 1015 0j0 OS/R '°'6 70 7p 11 06 1°79 700q 1075 7007 1008 7000 P Q 7001 'O p4 7O71 ?B ••;: 0 7002 ,?l 1pOi 984 QQ 7000 992 10 03 987 A. 98 O 6 985 98 V '007 Q ''• 2 0 VV 983 8 ,s< 9114 97 0 9 w 916 t1? ?^ 981 9jS 974 9117 9j3 9110 9116 911q nJ? 977 970 Q 970 91-3 O 9j1 A91j7 968 96'9 966 966 ?U'Y/P 9 ? `C? ST 64 965 967 964 Q 'I. 9S8 V 963 V 96 3 960 Q 956 967 V 963 957 956 959 956 ` 948 9 ` 55 954 m 959 952 946 963 952 Zoning Map Owner: Phillips, Kevin W. Case: FLD201 1-01002 Phillips, Lana M. Site: 1000 Eldorado Ave Property Size: 0.21 AC PIN: 05-29-15-54666-069-0060 Atlas Page: 238A Z 130(s) $1043 046 o c 0 1z s 10 _ ? 110 U 0 038 < ``o v w _ f0 07 ~ 124S ''1041 110 h ?? U 03 103 1040 2 0 - i Z 11 s 10 1037 - so 0 91- / _ 103 135 y no 10 ° 1033 03 ? 103 0 102 103 "0s ,? 1021 " kp ,? 1 p W ? ° \ 102 8 102 ° D m etfc " Y 1p2 ° 'O?S 67 f 16 019 ` we i To- y , Gulf of , 0' o Mexico Ifi 700' Y \ 01, \ °1? °70 67 f ° " °0 9g, m/S? q O "0'000 QQ o- QO 965 m V 'Q97 98? ' B ' 62 170 V 9g3 Q MO / 0 '° y 960m' ?O •??/C 170 O GOVT L 5 ` 9 4 B7 Q „ ^7'e7o GOVT LO 5 X 2 ? ' g C QO 60 1P. 10 'tac s 9' p' v ° Y f?q " '?<0 g1p wel .?? 64 O y = 9yf+a 9?p ?U/V/PFR so ° LL O 111,4 Vry''? 96 gee ?1 T10 '#69 " `? b ? "m p 0 ??/P 40 9s 6 s0 J Q 967 964- FR S?. 4965 " o Z U 16.7 710 742.6 Q 963 96Q 1j J 0y ? r63 jr 170 O h 9s? " 9ss - 9 V 859 95 m 4?. W g 110 g " SS 954 " " 952y gS9 946 53 952 y Ad? Existing Surrounding Uses Map Owner: Phillips, Kevin W. Case: FLD201 1-01002 Phillips, Lana M. Site: 1000 Eldorado Ave Property Size: 0.21 AC PIN: 05-29-15-54666-069-0060 Atlas Page: 238A PROJECT Q • ::•:: SITE ?s ?Np pR OJ ? ?VN(P pP4 ?r S?s n O > J 'a Q O o LAUREL S r D U ?essam?e t Guava t KIPLING PLAZA Q Z Z g Q G4RDENIA ST Location Map Owner: Phillips, Kevin W. Case: FLD201 1-01 002 Phillips, Lana M. Site: 1000 Eldorado Ave Property Size: 0.21 AC PIN: 05-29-15-54666-069-0060 Atlas Page: 238A •!.! ° a .t F. 1 Q tLr A .. A 1 . 4 t yy . n' 31-1 .; ,a t ? , ' ir . ' ,) r 1 .'e ` r ff? I ,.r• h k V + , • ` ? • . ? • '? •o' ?` ? ` ' ? , ` ? ?:, • . ? `mow' r ? ell ,r' mr S r 1 ' 1 ?r C•"1L:-? + AR's: ' V !F t tit r ?v., l?`/ ''. •. 1 ?•+ ? i hZ ~ i 4 r.. •' Cr'r ' A!' k ? ???? e # '? ?. ? ?^ ? $ ? ti r. w - . , F M?• ? • ? v WA M i, r K .e Aerial Map Owner: Phillips, Kevin W. Case: FLD201 1-01 002 Phillips, Lana M. Site: 1000 Eldorado Ave Property Size: 0.21 AC PIN: 05-29-15-54666-069-0060 Atlas Page: 238A View looking at the east side of the existing building. (front) \ ?4 ixnr Ina 1000 Eldorado FLD2011-01002 Page 1 of 1 View of the property from the public beach access. View looking at the south side of the existing building. (side) View looking at the west side of the property. (rear) View of the west side of the property from between the rear property line and the Gulf of Mexico. View of the North side of the principal structure and the south side of the adjacent property. Crandall, Ellen From: Delk, Michael Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 11:00 AM To: Manni, Diane Cc: Crandall, Ellen; Tefft, Robert; Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: Lana and Kevin Phillips projected swimming pool Ella - I need you and Robert to stop by when you get a minute and fill me in on this so I can send a response to CM Cretekos. Thank you. mid From: Manni, Diane Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 10:28 AM To: Akin, Pam; Call, Rosemarie; Cretekos, George; Doran, John; Gibson, Paul; Hibbard, Frank; Horne, William; Jonson, Bill; Manni, Diane; Reporter; Tearney, Laura; carl@clearwatergazette.com; Lord Helfand; Mike Brassfield Cc: Delk, Michael Subject: FW: Lana and Kevin Phillips projected swimming pool Michael, would you please respond to CM Cretekos regarding this issue and he will respond to Ms. Bilgore. Thanks. From: george cretekos [mailto:gcretekos@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 20116:39 PM To: Manni, Diane Subject: FW: Lana and Kevin Phillips projected swimming pool diane--please forward to planning and others--thanks--gnc From: ebilgore@cs.com Subject: Lana and Kevin Phillips projected swimming pool Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 15:29:39 -0500 CC: gcretekos@hotmail.com To: ellencrandall@myclearwater.com Dear Ms. Crandall, To build a swimming pool with 0 set back from the Costal Construction Line is an intrusion onto the beach, which is beautiful largely because it is pristine and undeveloped. They did the same thing at their other house, and their renters (who rarely stay more than a week or two, despite community regulations to the contrary) jump in the pool at very early hours in the morning and late at night, disturbing all of us who live here. As they intend to rent this house in the same way, I cannot help but think that my peace will be further interrupted. The Phillips have already torn down the seawall in front of their house, which is not something other homeowners have found it necessary to do, and I wonder why the city is so indulgent of their desires, and so negligent of those of the rest of us. Please let me know why they are given permission to do such intrusive and unpleasant things. Ellen Bilgore ebilgore ?cs.com ebilgore _me.com Tel: 727-461-7895 Cell: 727-324-3456 Crandall, Ellen From: Delk, Michael Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 3:31 PM To: Crandall, Ellen; Watkins, Sherry Cc: Manni, Diane; Teunis, Terry; Silverboard, Jill; Cretekos, George Subject: RE: Lana and Kevin Phillips projected swimming pool Ellen and Sherry - Per the request of CM Cretekos, please ensure that these comments along with the earlier comments of Ms. Bilgore are provided to the CDB in their entirety. Thank you. Michael Michael L. Delk, AICP Planning and Development Director City of Clearwater, Florida 727-562-4561 727-562-4865 fax michael.delk@mvclearwater.com From: Cretekos, George Sent: Monday, March 07, 20117:55 PM To: 'Ellen Bilgore' Cc: Manni, Diane; Delk, Michael; Teunis, Terry Subject: RE: Lana and Kevin Phillips projected swimming pool Dear Ellen: Thank you for the additional information. Since you have copied Michael Delk, the planning director, your comments should become part of the record for the Community Development Board (CDB) to review. I am also asking that he make those thoughts known to the members of the CDB. It is encouraging to note that there are only monthly rentals occurring next door to you, and I know that the city is committed to investigating any violation and upholding its ordinances in these matters. Obviously, there are those who may try to circumvent the rules. As those violations and any others are brought to the city's attention, I am confident they will be handled appropriately. Again, thank you for your understanding, and with warm, personal regards, I am Sincerely, --george george n. cretekos member, clearwater city council george.cretekos(abmyclearwater.com 727-562-4050 (please note that any response to this email address is considered public record and, under state statute, must be made available to all members of the city council and the press) From: Ellen Bilgore [mailto:ebilgore@me.com] Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 11:08 AM To: Ellen Bilgore Cc: Cretekos, George; Manni, Diane; Delk, Michael; Teunis, Terry; Steve Samaha Subject: Re: Lana and Kevin Phillips projected swimming pool Am sending this again, as it bounced the first time. On Mar 7, 2011, at 11:06 AM, Ellen Bilgore wrote: Unfortunately, their previous swimming pool established the development pattern, three houses farther north than this new one. But, oh, well, when you lose, you lose. I hope that it won't be too horrible to live here. Since my first complaint, there HAVE been only monthly rentals next door to me. I hope that continues. At their other property, however, they have had a few short term ones, and, as I mentioned, the noise from their swimming pool disturbs me and the neighbor next door to them and to me. Thank you very much for your response. My hope is that this new swimming pool will not be too much of a nuisance. Ellen On Mar 7, 2011, at 9:17 AM, <george.cretekoskmyclearwater.com> wrote: Dear Ellen: Thank you for your communication regarding the projected swimming pool for the property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Phillips on Clearwater Beach. It is my understanding that a "Level II" zero setback has been requested, and such approvals are supportable due to the established development pattern in the area. The city's planning director further advised me that according to the plans presented, the coastal construction control line is approximately 35-feet inside the rear property line of the residence. Aerial photographs also indicate that the setback requested is not inconsistent with existing development patterns of the area. The Community Development Board will be reviewing all information, and a decision is expected at the board's March 15, 2011. You may speak at that meeting if you desire. The city's code compliance team is monitoring the rental of this property, but no indications of less than monthly rentals have been revealed. Should you have evidence otherwise, or any other complaint pertaining to the rental of the property, Terry Teunis is the code compliance manager and his telephone number is (727) 562-4723. Again, thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention, and I have also asked the staff to make note of your views for its records. With warm, personal regards, I am Sincerely, --george george n. cretekos member, clearwater city council george.cretekos@myclearwater.com 727-552-4050 (please note that any response to this email address is considered public record and, under state statute, must be made available to all members of the city council and the press) Ellen Bilgore ebilgore@cs.com ebilgore .me.com Tel: 727-461-7895 Cell: 727-324-3456 RESPONSES TO DRC COMMENTS FLD2011-01002-1000 Eldorado ENGINEERING REVIEW: Comment No. 1: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Response No. 1: Acknowledged. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Comment No. 1: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Please Note: Offsite discharge of produced groundwater from dewatering shall comply with dewatering guidelines from Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), F.A.C. 62-621(2). Response No. 1: Acknowledged. LAND RESOURCE REVIEW: Comment No. 1: A tree survey is required of all trees, with their canopies, on and within 25' of the property. Additional comments may be forthcoming once this data is received and reviewed. Response No. 1: Tree survey will be provided prior to building permit. Comment No. 2: Address the tree removal and clearing activity being performed without permits. Response No. 2: There is an existing single-family residence on the site. There is no tree clearing activity occurring other than that which occurred in connection with the permitted seawall removal. PLANNING REVIEW: Comment No. 1: The two FLDs and addresses provided to show that it is in the development pattern of the neighborhood are roughly over 2,500 to 4,000 feet away and are not considered part of the neighborhood. FLD cases in closer vicinity (970 Eldorado, 1010 Eldorado) have approvals for rear setback approvals of 4 and 5 feet respectively. However as it may appear that nearby properties are developed with pools and decks to the CCCL line, provide documentation (surveys) showing the nearby properties and the distance of their pools to the CCCL to support your proposal. Response No. 1: Exhibit "B" to the application has been revised to include additional information concerning north Clearwater Beach parcels that have also received relief from the CCCL setback requirements. It is difficult to state this information in terms of a particular "neighborhood" due to the fact that the CCCL is linear. As a result, there may only be a few parcels negatively impacted by the CCCL in a particular neighborhood block. The application narrative has been revised to clarify the information and to revise the phrasing such as to discuss the CCCL on north Clearwater Beach rather than, in the "neighborhood" of the subject property. Comment No. 2: The first page of the application states the parcel size 9,303 sq. ft. while Exhibit B states the lot area is 9,882 sq. ft. Clarify and revise whichever document is in error. Response No. 2: Page 1 of the Application has been revised to indicate 9,882 square feet (0.23 acre), which is correct. Comment No. 3: On the provided Site Data Table the impervious Area under the required column states 6,243.3 (.65) while under proposed it states 5,269. Clarify and state the proposed ISR percentage. (I am presuming it is.53.) Response No. 3: The site data table has been revised to indicate the proposed ISR of .53. STORMWATER REVIEW: Comment No. 1: General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Response No. 1: Acknowledged. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING REVIEW: Comment No. 1: General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Response No. 1: Acknowledged. #552148 v1 2 ti Planning Department 100 South arwater! Florida 33756 C ki'laorwater Telephone: 727-5624567 Fax: 727-5624865 D SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION O SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION - Plans and application are required to be collated, stapled, and folded into sets 0 SUBMIT FIRE PRELIMARY SITE PLAN: $200.00 0 D SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE $ LOPMENT INFORMATION: (coae secu Phillips' Residence - Pool 1000 Eldorado Avenue * NOTE: 15 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS) FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Residential Infill Project (Revised 07/1112008) -PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT- w-w?.nr A. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFUKMA I IUIV: (%.oae ,ecuU11 Kevin W. Phillips and Lana M. Phillips APPLICANT NAIVE: MAILING ADDRESS: 52 Pr-pqmtt Avenue, Bronxville, NY -10708-1719 PHONE NUMBER: FAX NUMBER: CELL NUMBER: 312-203-0973 EMAIL: PROPERTY OWNER(S): Sane as above. List ALL owners on the deed AGENT NAME: Steven A. WilliamsM, Esq. and MAILING ADDRESS: Johnson, Per Orr r 53755-7-3:36 - i PHONE NUMBER: . e 1-. U. BOX L368, C CELL NUMBER: EMAIL' PROJECT NAME: STREET ADDRESS PARCEL NUMBER(S): PARCEL SIZE (acres): LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PROPOSED USE(S): See Exhibit "B" attached. CASE #: RECEIVED BY (staff initials): DATE RECEIVED: Pool $42,000 PROJECT VALUATION: J)eck. $13,000 0.23 acre PARCEL SIZE (square feet): 9 , 882 3q. ft. See Exhibit "A" attached. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Specifically identify the request (include number of units or square footage of non-residential use and all requested code deviations; e.g. reduction in required number of CADocuments and SaWngsutareXio usonweaiaop4m,rn ny uwl - I"..I..-.- - 1- ---,-.- ..-,_-. ,. -- Page I of 8 DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTIFIED) SITE PLAN? YES _ NO _ (if yes, attach a copy of the applicable documents) C. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP: (Code Section 4-202.A.5) C3 SUBMIT A COPY OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY, DEED TO THE PROPERTY OR SIGN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING OWNERSHIP (see page 7) D. O I . WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 3-913.A) Provide complete responses to the six (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA - Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail: 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. See Exhibit "B" attached for responses-to General Applicability Criteria 1 through-:6. 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. 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 is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. CIDocuments and SetdngsWerek teryuson%Deaktoplplanning dept Forms 07081Residential UKII Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc Page 2 of 8 WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Residential lnfill Project Criteria) O Provide complete responses to the seven (7) RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT CRITERIA - Explain tow 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. See Exhibit "B" attached for responses to Residential Infill Project Criteria 1 through 7 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.) 3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater. 4. The uses or mix of use within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. 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. 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. 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. CMocuments and SettingsWerekfergusonOssktopWlanning dept forts 07081Residential lnfill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doo Page 3 of 8 E. STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL Manual and 4-202.A.21) Storm Drainage Design Criteria ? 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 qualify as an exemption to this requirement. O 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 property lines; ? Proposed grading including finished floor elevations of all structures; ? All adjacent streets and municipal storm systems; ? Proposed stormwater detention/retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; ? A narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including all calculations and data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City manual. ? Proposed stormwater detentionlretention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; ? Signature and seal of Florida Registered Professional Engineer on all plans and calculations. ? 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 ? ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF STORMWATER PLAN REQUIREMENTS (Applicant must initial one of the following): Stormwater plan as noted above is included Stormwater plan is not required and explanation narrative is attached. At a minimum, a grading plan and finished floor elevations shall be provided. 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) ? SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (including legal description of property) - One original and 14 copies; ? TREE SURVEY (including existing trees on site and within 25' of the adjacent site, by species, size (DBH 4" or greater), and location, including drip lines and indicating trees to be removed) - please design around the existing trees; ? TREE INVENTORY; prepared by a "certified arborist", of all trees 4" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and condition of such trees; ? LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY; ? PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (ie. Reduce number of spaces). Prior to the submittal of this application, the methodology of such study shall be approved by the Community Development Coordinator and shall be in accordance with accepted traffic engineering principles. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved; ? GRADING PLAN, as applicable; ? PRELIMINARY PLAT, as required (Note: Building permits will not be issued until evidence of recording a final plat is provided); ? COPY OF RECORDED PLAT, as applicable; C:1Documents and Set6ng3Xder .?ergusonlDesktopWlanning dept forms 070Mesidential InRU Projed (FLD) 2008 07-1 140C Page 4 of 8 G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A) CI SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36"): 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; All existing and proposed points of access; _ All required sight triangles; Identification of environmentally unique areas, such as watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, and specimen trees, including _ description and location of understory, ground cover vegetation and wildlife habitats, etc; Location of all public and private easements; _ Location of all street rights-of-way within and adjacent to the site; Location of existing public and private utilities, including fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes and lift stations, gas _ and water lines; _ All parking spaces, driveways, loading areas and vehicular use areas, _ Depiction by shading or crosshatching of all required parking lot interior landscaped areas; Location of all solid waste containers, reading or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment and all required screening (per Section 3-201(D)(i) and Index $701); _ Location of all landscape material; Location of all ofsite and offsite storm-water management facilities; Location of all outdoor fighting 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. O SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in written/tabular torn: _ 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. O REDUCED COLOR SITE PLAN to scale (8'/: X 11); EXISTING REQUIRED PROPOSED 0 FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the following additional information on site plan: One-foot contours or spot elevations on site; Offsite elevations if required to evaluate the proposed stormwater management for the parcel; All open space areas; Location of all earth or water retaining walls and earth berms; Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned); Streets and drives (dimensioned); _ Building and structural setbacks (dimensioned); _ Structural overhangs; CADocuments and SoNngMwek.fergusonlDesktopVlanning dept forms 07081Residential InFlll Projed (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"): All existing and proposed structures; _ Names of abutting streets; _ Drainage and retention areas including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations; Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscape buffers; _ Sight visibility triangles; _ Delineation and dimensions of all parking areas including landscaping islands and curbing; 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. ? REDUCED COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8'/2 X 11); O 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) ? BUILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS - with the following information; All sides of all buildings; _ Dimensioned; Colors (provide one full sized set of colored elevations); Materials; ? REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATIONS - same as above to scale on 8 V2 X 11. J. SIGNAGE: (Division 19. SIGNS I Section 3-1806) O All EXISTING freestanding and attached signs; Provide photographs and dimensions (area, height, etc.), indicate whether they will be removed or to remain. O All PROPOSED freestanding and attached signs; Provide details including location, size, height, colors, materials and drawing; freestanding signs shall include the street address (numerals) O Comprehensive Sign Program application, as applicable (separate application and fee required). ? Reduced signage proposal (8'/2 X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application. Q0ocuments and Settings%derek.rerguson0esktoptplanning dept forms 070Mesidential Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-1 t.doc Page 6 of 8 K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4-202.A.13 and 4-801.C) 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 Engineer's (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. raffic 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: 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. 4X a 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 in this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize City repro tives to visit and photograph the property describ in this lication. i f.propedy STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS S\g?oorn to and subscribed before me this ID /; -day of JailUaXY , A.D. 20,1]-_ to me and/or by Steven a Wi 11 i am_nn who is personally known KXX loco= M&6 . Notary p ic. My commission expires: JAYNE E. ##SE SS 907040 CADocumentsandSoWngs\derekterguson\Desktop\planningdept forms0708UtesidentlallnfillProject(F of m Page 7 of 8 Wtenlbw 2, 2013 018 80MsdT,,Y"F*W^NM t857 M N. AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT: 1. Provide names of all property owners on deed - PRINT full names: Ja= kj• PLATT T.TP$ and TANA M- PLATT T.TPS r hseSFtiand and wife 2. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property (address or general location): 1000 Eldorado Avenue - Parcel No. 05-29-15-54666-069-0060 3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a: (describe request) 4. That the undersigned (hasihave) appointed and (does/do) appoint: Steven A. Willimmn, Esquire and/or Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Rq:)pe & Burns, LLP as (h13/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 (Uwe), the undersigned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true ?e rreG. ---may Owner Lana M. Philli rty Owner Property Owner Property Owner STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Before me the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned by 4" Ifty'• ^r Ihs Resale ^r r'-w:, on this day of December. 2010 personally appeared Lana-M Phil 1;l?s who having been first duty swam Deposes and says that he/she fully understarrd? lpq fta of the affidavit that he/she signed. 13, ?09 • N i ? NDD s Notary Pubic Signature Notary Seal/Stamp My Commission Expires: 'l f9?••'?yed0.+.rdrdlwN'.pQ?? CADoaan Vs and S*efnps%dwa .hrpuson0@skbplpl 4*sg dW forms 0708 ROaidential MI Project (FLO) 2008 07.1 t.doe Page 8 of 8 N. AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT: 1. Provide names of all property owners on deed - PRINT full names: 10= W PMTTT.TPS and TANA M_ PT-TTT.T.T'PS,, hushand and wi fP 2. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property (address or general location): 1000 Eldorado Avenue - Parcel No. 05-29-15-54666-069-0060 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: Steven A. Willianscn, Esquire and/or Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppe & Burns, LLP as (ft/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 an 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 ( e rsj ed a tty, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. M W. Phil Tknoodw o'"' r ty owner JLN7 Property Owner Property Owner STATE OF FUNUDA, COUNTY OF' '-PINE LA$. . Before me the undersigned, an officer duty commissioned by the Igws of the S tjg of Florida, on this .Z 77h?7 day of Keviz W. P u ll.ips Decetl;lber. 2010 personally appeared who having been first duly swom Deposes and says that he/she fully understands the contents of the affidavit that he/she signed. 9- I. Notary Public Signature Notary Seal/Stamp My Commission Expires: 2, 2013 180RJ9 M9 0000reent1 end ssmngsvl...4.rorquwmoeauop%pWnn np dept roans 070eVt*tKWWW IMU Pmjset (FLO) 2009 07-1 1.6= Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT "A" ,; Parcel 1: Lot 6, and the North 30 feet of Lot 5, Block 69, Mandalay Subdivision, according to the mappc•plak thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 14, Pages 32 through 35, inclusive, of the Public Records 6(lPInOos County, Florida, the North 30 feet of said Lot 5, Block 69, being more particularly descrlbed.at,fSg6ws; Commence at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 4, Block 62 of said subdivision, thence,ajong-thla Southerly right of way of Island Drive extended N.65N58'30"W., 60.00 feet to the Northeasterly; corner%ot,saVLot 5, said corner being the Point of Beginning; thence Southerly along the Westerly right At%way of ilhorado Avenue, said right of way being defined by a curve concaved Northwesterly, haYWgr a'lehgth,n6`30.01 feet, a radius of 2645.50 feet, a chord bearing and distance of S.22N30'420W., 30:01 feet;thincd` leaving said right of way N.65N58'30"W., 110.03 feet to the Westerly boundary of said Lhi 5; therIcO Northerly along said boundary, said boundary being defined by a curve concaved Northweste*,,having' a length of 30.01 feet, a radius of 2755.50 feet, a chord bearing and distance of N.22N34'20"E.; kvl-feet; thence along the Northerly boundary of said Lot 5, S.65N58'30"E., 110.00 feet,to the Point of Beginning. % Parcel 2: % All land lying Westerly of and between the Westerly projectlpns of the'N%dri herly and Southerly boundaries of Lot 6, and the North 30 feet of Lot 5, Block 69, Mandalay S61:d&rjsion according to the map or plat thereof, as recorded In Plat Book 14, Pages 32 through'35c inel6We, 1 the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida; the North 30 feet of said Lot 5, Block 6?,belriq,more particularly described as follows; Commence at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 4,,Bjock'62 oM,s-gid,3ubdivision, thence along the Southerly right of way of Island Drive extended N.65N58'.'Q"W., 60,0p test to the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 5, said corner being the Point of Beginning; the . pce'$outheriq Olong the Westerly right of way of Eldorado Avenue, said right of way being defined by icu(vke conncaved Northwesterly, having a length of 30.01 feet, a radius of 2645.50 feet, a chord bearing,end :Ikstante-ofS.22N30'42"W., 30.01 feet; thence leaving said right of way N.65N58'30"W., 110.03,r44it to•the WiVerly boundary of said Lot 5; thence Northerly along said boundary, said boundary being,deft d,6y a curve concaved Northwesterly, having a length of 30.01 feet, a radius of 2755.50 feet, a,chbrd deafr(ng and distance of N.22N34'20"E., 30.01 feet; thence along the Northerly boundary of salq'L.6t 5,, .65*r38'30"E.0 110.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. ?? ?? Z? r + S r - s t _ i ? 3. ! •5t. S 7 f. + `'t f4 1..! 1 Yf_ ? S 4i ?.,y3"!3.si i i .. '.L ? iif ? _rF t.',s a? ti... ? s3!? `r{5 r it"#+5 y, 7 x +e{t ,7.. er?t, 1 +t7??', s?Y 4 d 't? ? .•? ? ! r.._ ,jz¢. '9s '.`? '? ,? ? r .? i _?. ?dl?et?? s? r+ ,?? ?' 7 R}s r tr r•' +d_ i '.i r`? )1 ?' - a"'` F? =z -? ? .i! zz L-1:?'•+fa?r a}? ,^+z.?.. ?k, ? tr ???. f. ma i ? rr 1- ,'r ;F'e ?;. ? yh t t a. ' t e"2j?irg ?I 4 et s•1 •' 1 a+ •'r . IT lx, j:I•. iS 4 k{. ! ti:-. a ?f l i { -?1 3.;• {i? i +J['.. iP !. - ..• .1.'. 1 ?r '•s 4 ,?.! ? + 1 t' • M' z ., t t 1 t t ? )'e3 ?? e # - ? ^wr!rr ': .j -', *`cf h,?!.i ? r - r;'?• ? ?? ?" ?i?y #+ ? ?'ai ??'+?rYa t„x,. •y??E ,?a??u ? ti { }x-.f_• ' '<.. .? r E (. ?' f ? . `- x '3.• 1? -.i •c r."tS.}?.s 1 "?- - _ r .ta+- 3 It - t at f -3 ? it p r ! t t .. -f'tl : _='Lrl ????•y??,?•? ? • a .?t.3., .t?, r eX .. _?? raj. ,T' 1 ?!. ?•.'? ? ? ry .y+ ? j t'om` a {•? ?: 41 ? ; t .4 °'?. ! ?_, Set 1lft ;' )t * {rI 1 !• r x• a ? ttrrf?? }mss ,/ ?r_ t i- r S t ? (? ? e ~ •?'3 ??•?? d? 1 ,i .ice.. • ? ''••? '. Irv • -i }6 a . .''? •" fem. ,ai 1 , ?.rt Y fi V Y. - :I- 2 F• r?a EXHIBIT "B" TO FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (Phillips) The subject property is located at 1000 Eldorado Avenue on North Clearwater Beach. The parcel is on the westerly side of Eldorado Avenue and is comprised of platted lots in Mandalay Subdivision. The subject Property is bisected by the Coastal Construction Control Line ("CCCL"). The platted boundary of the subject property extends approximately 38 feet west of the CCCL. The non-functioning concrete seawall previously located on the subject property has been removed. The subject property is zoned "LMDR" with a land use designation of "Residential Urban." The reason for this request is to allow the Applicant to add a pool to the existing home on the subject property with a reduced rear setback to the CCCL. Specifically, the Applicant requests flexible development approval of a Residential Infill Redevelopment Project to permit construction of a pool and deck with an existing detached dwelling in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with: (i) a Lot Area of 9,882 square feet, where 5,000 square feet is required; (ii) a Lot Width of 88.8 feet where 50' is required; (iii) a side setback from the north property line to the deck and pool of 9' where 5' is required; (iv) a side setback from the south property line to the deck and pool of 5' where 5' is required; and (v) a rear (west) setback from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) of 0 feet where 10' is required; under the provisions of Section 2-204.E, Clearwater Community Development Code. Section D. Written Submittal Requirements General Applicability Criteria: 1) The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The subject property has residential homes to the north, south and east (across Eldorado) with private and public beach land to the west. A review of aerial photographs of the homes fronting the Gulf of Mexico and impacted by the CCCL reflects other residences with pools, other accessory structures or principal structures located immediately adjacent to the CCCL or within the minimum standard setback to the CCCL. The proposed pool is consistent with the pattern of development on North Clearwater Beach and is in harmony with the character of adjacent properties. Although similarly developed homes are several hundred feet from the subject property, the CCCL only impacts those homes fronting the Gulf of Mexico and all homes fronting the Gulf of Mexico should be reviewed for compatibility and consistency purposes. A setback of 0' from the CCCL to an in-ground pool and deck was approved for 740 Eldorado Avenue (FLD2009-10040) and for 1154 and 1160 Mandalay Point Road (FLD2009-02004). When comparing the current request to the request approved for 740 Eldorado, it should be noted that the subject property (1000 Eldorado) is located further to the north on the beach and the CCCL is a greater distance from the mean high water line (approximately 500'). The requested impact will not create any negative visual impacts to the adjacent property owners. In addition to the recent foregoing CCCL cases, please see the attached Exhibit "C", which sets forth other properties along Clearwater Beach that appear to have structures located within the required CCCL setback. 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 value of the subject property and the surrounding properties on the westerly side of Eldorado Avenue are significant because of the unique location, and the requested relief from the CCCL setback will not dilute those values. The proposed addition of a pool to the subject property will not hinder development of the neighboring land. Visually, the reduced setback will not be apparent, due to the significant accretion of beach at the rear of the property and the low profile of a pool. 3) The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. Health and safety is not adversely impacted, as the use shall continue to be single family residence and the property will continue to be occupied by the applicants. 2 4) The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. There is no change in density of the subject property, which will remain as one single-family residence. Traffic is not impacted by the proposed construction of a pool. 5) The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The community character of this area of Mandalay Subdivision located on the westerly side of Eldorado Avenue is one of large single-family residences. With regard to the rear setback reduction, the development pattern along Eldorado is moving from typical ranch style Florida homes toward larger estate homes which occupy a greater portion of the lot area than the existing homes. Aerial photos of the homes constructed along the Gulf of Mexico on north Clearwater Beach reflect that several existing waterfront detached dwellings appear to have zero foot structural and building setbacks to the CCCL, as shown on Exhibit "C." The requested rear setback reduction to provide the amenity of a pool and deck for a beachfront home is justified and consistent with the existing development pattern and the development of homes during the last 5 years. 6) The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. The relief requested as to the CCCL setback will not have a visual impact because the distance from the CCCL to the platted rear property line is 38 feet and the distance from the rear property line to the Mean High Water Line is approximately 500 feet. The design of the pool is consistent with the adjacent coastal architectural style of the residence and homes north and south of the property. Residential Infill Project Criteria 1) The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the intensity and development standards. The home already exists on the property side setback requirements. In order to would be so narrow as to be impractical. The proposed pool and deck meet the comply with the rear setback, the pool The previously existing seawall along the CCCL was non-functioning and has been removed so the proposed pool does not impact the seawall. 3 2) The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties (include the existing value of the site and the proposed value of the site with the improvements). The preliminary assessed value of the vacant subject property, according to the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's Office, is $1,265,830. The values of surrounding parcels vary from $458,000 to $3,420,000, having improvements ranging in size from 1,917 sq. ft. to 4,262 sq. ft. The higher value parcels are located on the Gulf, as is the subject property, and are developed. The proposed addition of pool to the existing residence will increase the value of the subject parcel and not negatively impact the abutting parcels. 3) The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater. A detached dwelling is a permitted use in the LMDR District. 4) The uses or mix of uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. Residential single-family use is compatible with this area of Eldorado Avenue and North Clearwater Beach. 5) The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proposed pool is consistent with the pattern of development of the properties along the Gulf of Mexico on north Clearwater Beach, and will increase the subject property's value, which will have a positive impact on the adjacent properties and other properties on north Clearwater Bach that are similarly situated. 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 proposed design of the pool blends with the overall theme of the coastal style of the residence and the neighborhood and is compatible with the community character and pattern of development of residential estate homes fronting on the Gulf of Mexico. 7) Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking are justified by the benefits to community character and the 4 immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The only flexibility that is requested by the Applicant is a reduction of the rear setback to the Coastal Construction Control Line in order to accommodate a swimming pool and deck. As previously discussed, similar relief to the CCCL setback has been granted to other lots on North Clearwater Beach, which front on the Gulf of Mexico and are negatively impacted by the located of the CCCL. In addition, although there does not appear to be any cases on file for relief, many properties along the Gulf of Mexico are developed immediately adjacent to the CCCL or within the minimum CCCL setback. 2/11/2011 9:44 AM 47461.119522 #547888 v4 - Phillips/1000 Eldorado/Ex to Res Infill 5 EXHIBIT "C" 14 Somerset Street 9 Cambria Street 724 Eldorado Avenue 734 Eldorado Avenue 740 Eldorado Avenue (FLD2009-100) 770 Eldorado Avenue 800 Eldorado Avenue 804 Eldorado Avenue 856 Eldorado Avenue (FLS2008-01003) 880 Mandalay Avenue 920 Eldorado Avenue 926 Eldorado Avenue 944 Eldorado Avenue 946 Eldorado Avenue 956 Eldorado Avenue 964 Eldorado Avenue 970 Eldorado Avenue 1002 Eldorado Avenue 1154 Mandalay Point Road (FLD2009-02004) 1160 Mandalay Point Road (FLD2009-02004) 1170 Mandalay Point Road 1176 Mandalay Point Road 1188 Mandalay Point Road 1192 Mandalay Point Road 1198 Mandalay Point Road = Map Direct: Beaches and Coastal Systems L • / :. _ r ant ?< Scale 1:382 ... , , ; * s# ad Coastal Range Monuments t ?1'r fill" 1 1 ?P • G Range Monuments Virtual Monuments Coastal Construction Control ?,/I , • . - Lines O Counties 1 dpw i ` r AVTEQ 2 Da9y MM d EnNmvnaM91 Pm vlon gyclainer. TRy m091y q ?w. MMW Dsw an W9E.9 Fy m11 fa:a8:]t l1TC n nlan0e0 br myRiyy 9wDaaaa only. 9 way a9wa gag 9yu Fom .eln ml acyy0 a aeaiwy fcMyy, wyn CAy.mi MneawiNw:ra?wiYea of yny I vnnvilisylMMw -AS IS- pXV?nEpowseMa.ega?aaoary aalpp1lM1nryyyeE. ?nyc?ludy9.UN rot YmMyE b. Ne mp4s0 THE SIZE BEFORE ?CTiNG OH iT.YW SHOULD THEREFORE vERiFV.HY MFORM?TION TMJED FRdA ICI ?v?er??- R Y k L. ......6j I L4 So m er?? w ?e Cho l {? 6?, °E Map Direct: Beaches and Coastal Systems a Scale 1:382 iy" 'e1 ,r Coastal Range Monuments • , + f??ppt' L Range Monuments • ; , Virtual Monuments `- x ? ¢? 1 M Coastal Construction Control a - Lines A r ? Counties . ^f N"TEQ EMCe peprlmeM A Enwranmentel Pmletim Dirtier Thia mp IeE n Mep DMed on Vyae. 9 Fab ROI l le:?)'O1 IITC u MiIm0e0 b r4eWeY PYmoHe oNY_ N vref cealeE ufo9, Wla Imm UIIIperP fOwwf mYaCMO r 0aarero calm, v?M Uinbmll bvMe M aPTaacy. eM.Nr oovenig haertrq PrIPU? of rro. NAVTED men aala u ProMeU'A515" erne wieoul emnrfies of eny MelO, eNMr aepiau or Mrg1iM, vqutifg, Oul nd limaetl MA IM mplie0+wnentim of rrexNenuGF7" filnaae for pApo?esHµhpory Welly enE nprFyrypgemml.VOV SHOULD TNEPEFORE VERIFY ANV MFDAMATION tAIfJEDFPpA T11E SITE OEFDRE ACTIND ON IT. a e6t f nJJf- ja C-l e I C Map Direct: Beaches and Coastal Systems ' Scale 1:382 l Coastal Range Monuments w a=% f . RanfM Mor umenb ?a` • ? Virtual Monuments l i t C - r? 4 ? on on ro Coastal Construct - Linea ? , ? Counties ? ?, - r F= e' a ? FbnCa peprlnrM d EnWa?nrMal Pmle Mon Dkdalmer TMa mp aeala? in My Direct W WaG. 9 Fa0 NII l I??aS:]0 UTC a in erMeJ br dapbY puryoeea oMT. n vres aealeE uMrg Eab fiom gllerenl sourw, eWecleU al E?Rarenl Nalea, v.Mn Oillemn ?ceb d aoauac/, aM/or mvernq U?IMeM pnboa ol4me. NAV1E0 maC Ma a provAeE'R515' anE xvNOUI xarnrNm d.ry , Nclud?q. WI ml FmMM b. tle ir?plsE Mnamies al nwrcfienudl?ly. fiuro» br r N Mr arpsae a n ? W M a il RIFV MlY INFORMATION iNNED FROM a My. a M p?w pa t e THE SITE BEFORE ONnfi.waNgemenl.YOU SHOULD THEREFORE VE ACTING 1 3?f e(j??do .mml.p--m- - _)q ajt Map Direct: Beaches and Coastal Systems t= s? y # r - ?• 1 _. , -, Scale 1:382 { i , ?`' '?? .??1 s !s+ s j f i >. ? Coastal Range Monuments Range Monuments yi ` trams ?,y, ;a r t. . - • " ? e Visual Monuments ` : t • h?? ?4? r .?` tj .a! -._ A Y t Coastal Construction Control - Lines • Ay S r y Counties F1 1 of ?e • !!-'. 1 1 t1 I E N AV T FbnCS p+pMmea aEnwam+aa Pmlx4on pIFCWmer. iN+mep vae1+G in Mp dr+a on W.E. 9 F+n ]011 I+:u'S] UTC u «a.o ro, usaer a?woF•+•av. a w•a a••w wYnq ma Nan ae.rea +ourc+s aoilecreo a a?aawn Mal•+. wn a?nemu irx. a •oa•.cr.,.ar« rovemq an..a F.?+a nn. NAVTEO mae aau m wa.eea •AS is• ww.uww w.nFne•. aarv prrya.we .?w.sa+yo?: ea.:,a•ana. wi am rnxsd w. O Nws'e REFQI .' a IFY NIY nq. Nl.u r«• TNESIen»rTE+BEfOfiE A?CTeIO OIJ IT.?Mm.VOV SHOULD TNEREFOi1E VERIFY MIY WFORMATION TIJNEO FROM - 1514 eI d,91- a-d") o? L E: Map Direct: Beaches and Coastal Systems *0 -Pew •{ *? y 4 Scale 1:382 ' t•? r Coastal Range Monuments ??. U.. G Range Monuments • - * - *_ /', Virtual Monuments Coastal Construction Control Lines ' ?• ' s o ? Counties !IKrI •' y; i NAVTE -....': FImEa D,penrnenld EnWmneriW Pndx9on D4dainwr Tn'is mep aaeiW?n y1Aap DVeam WeE.9 Fae 20111t:?9'?6 UTCu .nwaea ro? 9nou,r wmm+• miy. n.... aeare..ng as mm mmrea adi«aa a aeaea.wie., wm a?e«eni keels ol.mncr..wor Cnveivg elle0d penoa. a Vine. rUVTEG roa0 aaa a Orowea •AS Is• antl w:tlaul amnuea ol.w wna..mw.wro o.ryo,:nwyw. n w?.ra n,. °w ".q ` F' EVE a R?FVNlV n.<n. Y.ftO ATI m. ?nuw. WIDTNEFEFg2E 1FGRM?TION TNNED FaGM TH?1E SITES iGRE ACT nNG?ON rt. YW SM 0 -1-1c E 1-70 C W (6 0 Im 6 1 OEM 9 @-T"O VGGNDAs@bQ OM9 @Sagb GbV GM @MOMOM MUM 9M- -1 q_p -=Wjjkjka?o; MUM In n dt"-A f Map Direct: Beaches and Coastal Systems l Lit Scale 1:382 t.. • j ? a Coastal Range Monurnents y? ; e Range Mm weft Virtual Monuments e • • coastal CanstruUion control ?r - Unes •? . I ?' ' ? Counties s A ... ; I • t 1 0 ? I? erg. ?' • ' 4? '?? ?+ NAV?T ?Q is, iii"z ErMrmmed ?Mep VYe°9 F° N111 I.:000 UTC u wroaea a iv. EQ d awieaeu a1 'AS `A. m?eaaunA gEso° mu iaorornrai°`°.nn. R°, n aIM n9nMln9emad S.-MO -0X4 .I-P1 YINFOA..TION T.INE0 FROM 75co ndcv?ab t. ?r 0+ i C 41 k ?. t f .o .Ci f Map Direct: Beaches and Coastal Systems W T# I ? • ? i Scale 1:382 r.,F . • • • Coastal Range Monuments Rang! MonunleMs ,v W. ? e Virtual Monuments ;` +. , . r • • Coastal Construction Control - Lines Counties ?' • ? $ 1 • • • 44 ? ,N"TE FbW, oa.nro,m a EnionmwlW arw«ann oeae?nwr m.. ter, d..lw n u.c ur.a a, w.a. a F.o ml I I.:arsA urc I. :nanooa br alvplAr nwa+s. omy. n.-as ae+Na Hwy mu xarn artelem.oun• odlecba at oarerern «AI«, won a?•slea IeYey a aooAwy, anabr WYer4g ailkrerx peaons d Yme. NPVTEO roan aw i.OrovAN'A515' na wiabul.Nrvree of rry pyiuy0.owwller.gvsaayor nclWrg, WlrM bnRa b.Mlnpl+tl wart.nM+olnwcnenuod?ry. fivm. br, WrtiwYr vERIfY Y INFORMATION OBTNNEO TE BEFORE ACONii?+*?-n..YW SNOIAD THEREFORE AN THE SI mom 3 \t ., W our +?.? ? Y 4 ????s t t t T? ws - N T`? loo ? PL l N' I 1 i Yyl??da la?? U t? - Map Direct: Beaches and Coastal Systems I r _ E '' Scale 1:382 • . ! ? ` ' •. +? R Coastal Range Monuments Range Monumenu G ` 1 ? ? - r _ s A ' ? " '+ „? ? +-? • yi L. G Visual Monuments Coastal Conslrudron Control -Lines Counties F-1 U t q, Ocitvau r ,w R A 1 (?,-?o e(Juvvtdo tow,. i F° Map Direct: Beaches and Coastal Systems j r __ .44 'LAW 104- f y ?' # Scale 1:382 ?}* .: ?? •.+? y, • ,a- I? is • • f ?i Coastal Range Monuments t •' , _ _ A a Range Monuments 6 «r . ,I ?' ' • T •: ' _ ?? s? y?.? t i.:i }" . r qq d% vinUal Mmuments Coastal Construction Control - Lines At • f "1 ? Counties "?ti • r _., • , . d • . J AV E FbnEe Depanmant N Enwonmered FMecVm Di+rJemlr. Trxa mp aaaled n MN Wea onV , g Fo ml l lass?so UTC 4 mIY II xae aea40 nali5 Mb irom UIMBIK aaurcef 001 10G al Cillemnl?ales. wM OilfBrem bMr0e0 br eeplaY YW Wses k+ek memxe0y..Wacove!mp tiaeram pMbtltm Mne. NAVIEO maO OMa HproMe0'A515'en0.imoulw.lafa darN Yid, wllarr asp.fa 0. Mngiea, nclOTrq. M n01 YmibE I0, O+nnple0 vmrranliea al m.caenmeM' Mmes bra ED NMA' TAINED FROM F ANY INF XA' 9 II Y FI O gpgNet 0 ?pu v,lY ;anFeib?ya-YOU SHOULDT G Q4q -4- Q 9Q,-. [ I jovij 0 s .? I qqv Odt"Jo rll..t - Map Direct: Beaches and Coastal Systems ? Z MI e Scale 1:382 y !Fy i• ': + i k Coastal Range Monuments ' NO ,,At •? ` ??," «, ?. .?: Range Monuments ° ° Virtual Monuments 4 y w ; r + ? 5 - 4 • • Coastal Construction Control - Lines ; fi - ?+ ~ counties ! j -R :. 1 ? _ 1 ! * I t 4 •.. It A• 6 E ? i t. ? a • i . 4S p 1 yyyye • NAVT Q dam ' a- n FIOnE. Depvlrnem al FnMranmenlN Proleam Diedein?eF TNa meyceeIaE n M.p DMea on WeU. n FO 2011 11:l UTC andeE br tifgar n?AW+.T mlr. II was ueab0 uwg Uab M1Om dllerer+ aWxrM al O?n.rer. ua?e. rMll O?nnw. teem a ..mr« foranlq anaml ?r of Na.. NAVTEO maa aau uu wowee •AS Is•.aa w,mom wan«wa. a rr T«aa.w wino..iM.r eRaes+o+Inp4ny.e, nciwire. wl Aol xmu.a lo. IM.np4.a wwr.m'». or m«cn.m.Nl.y nl?.as ra E eEFOREACTMJGnIaNrMFgemam.YW SHOULD THEREFORE VERifV ANYINFORMATION TAINED FRpA TI?IES 9 5C.0 q 50 C(dy-cav ?,ff- Map Direct: Beaches and Coastal Systems t ` A. ~ cale 1:382 ! _ ? s Coastal Range Monuments M`' • '? Range Maniments Virtual Monuments n Control l C tr ti t ? ' u ?? " ? a ons uc o Coasta Lines Counties y y ' a 1 00"J ,. ` s4. k, A! 4 w. ct6 ,,, 'y -0:: • 1 ??`.?. .s.f ?. '4 ? ' a . .r , 4 AV T E Q ` ,oa1 FImCe Dpan?aed d EnrvamwMI PMIKYM becMirrcr. Tbo --W M MW Okea m W W? 9 Fab xot M:?:s> ITC n mrtlW br CifpiaY PuNUfaf onH. n aaa creala0 uwg Cat M1Pm dsmM fauicaf PPIIMeC at CCIMM fFalea, aMn CAle?ed puryoeMena..gntoary yumNpiyW n?n uwrd?p?elerb?ul?iM FnaeW b, Ne impF' Ma alrome2bmAiabiiFORH.RMATIO?waa bN r awartaM%sdanY TIIE SITE BEFORE ACTINGON IT.en.VOV SHOULD THEREFORE VERIFY M1V IN TMMED FROM (DQ--7o u ?( v q-? 0 Ojovado 41 7- 4 q wf C(6tc-aA Map Direct: Beaches and Coastal Systems • .? • ,_x Scale 1:382 1 -? Coastal Range Monuments rr' fl* . Range Monuments e e Virtual Monuments a ate " a Coastal Construction Control Linea Counties 44 . 1 A L r -ft E Q w ' JAI -. DNRn- a EmeavnenlM Rvt- Dba. .. TN. msp -t- M•n Direct m W. 11:1 "11 11:3]'1 f TI, Hianceo a, a.q.r u.mmo anr. n wa. uesae.wro mu xem anrorem R>u,c•. alxtea w aiBe,amc.le..,Mn a?i1«mm I..e• m Na..cr. nwa cownOp anelem oNm• 01 one. NAVrEO mx aau u oA.ia.o •AS ?s-.na Muw?i.?.l,rnn a.ry p?MposaAer•a?.ayo, Yn M. maudn0. eut m Mi1M b. tlr Yngwa,v.rtemro. a m«cnenucliry. 6vrou I«. ??LVOUSNOIAD THEREFONE VERIFY RNY INFORMATION TAINED FROM THE SITE BEFORE AC ON IT. 0 0 DZ [; (,?dv L4 /0"a octov-o-d-G 0 • Map Direct: Beaches and Coastal Systems -1 a + " t ; 04 04., - &61 Scale 1:382 1 ?• ' • Coastal Range Monuments Range MonumeMa .'? Virtual Monuments e' t j • i? : ; _ coastal construction control f'y s Lines Counties • , Is ?las. - ?• - ?' i s, tr •- e+ aril' ? f1l, ?r M FHriae Dgen mentd Emimnm .ProlxUOn pieclaifneF Tr mq IW FMep Diretlm WeU.9 Fee ](H1 la:]a'91 UTCn nlereMO br CrWIaY OWWFeF MIY_Swea aee100 afin9+dn M1pn UilMrerrl aWlMatl at Nllarwu.celea. wp?aierM 4,ab of aaurxy. antUa covenrq Eillerenl pemUa of Enre. NAVFEO reaE UW u pmMM'AS IS' aW e;+lod vlerranlies of any hiM. eillror a yrasa or implien, indWirg, Lur rror Imilstl ro. Yre eee4e+ewmntw d nre,rlrenleWF M n b eTAMED FRp1.1 TIME SIIIIEFOR _T._,N'T? a?maaiVW SHOULD TiEREFpRE VERIFYNIV INFORMATON l -.? < < (k, 0 Mc,"icc,1`? P+- ' 0( S? cq , <<vo ward 04- 4 Map Direct: Beaches and Coastal Systems ' Scale 1:382 Coastal Range Monuments - • -. Range Monuments X Virtual Monuments coastal construction control - f Lines Counties 60 ? M r f l • ? e + W 7. •` a Flonee DI-I I ERVXamNrIN Prat 'tlon DisrJairt:er Tina mep gee N Mep Direct an WeC. 9 Fee ]011 1P:]5 55 ETC u NNmaM br anVlaY a?raaaef anlY. X wea a•ata utirg aeN /rom Oilkrem aawc mliepee at O:Xaae rda; wiN CAkrM Yvtle of •ocweci, an•rar coaerN? ellblam perbae of tinK. NAViED mae eam'H provnfee i5' ene w:nnur w•n•rlXef al?ry 'S hpM?grywwellpr egirasaayarN4fnlpXNyeO NcWainp. Wi m? YmiW ro, IM ?mq:ee wrtenlisf of nwcM1enudl:ry. Rn?eef br e TIIESITEDE'DFIE ACTMG ONa'T.-IMregemenrVW SHOULD THEREFORE VERIFYANY MFORMATIO.Y TMIED FRpA Q c 9 Map Direct: Beaches and Coastal Systems Scale 1:382 % • ?, /J Coastal Range Monuments e Range Monuments r, ., 14A e Virtual Monuments -1 ? Coastal Construction Control •? F r ,?/f a r Lines ?F f-- Counties ?F71 El AwP '` .41 w 1A. I Flow Depanmem aEE.:oa?a.lar Prolac9on o?a.l. m.. m.P ?..lae u, NhP o.wa Pn waE. s Fao X111 1. za•e? uTC u nlpwbE br OuPbY P- ortlY. II wsa aeab0.urg Eab Loin OnerarN fourcaa mIIMEP sl EiRUwre ualn, weft Oienara YYela Pl.mrrs. , arWa covlrrp Oillerenl peM1PCe of WM. NAVIEO maE Eau ie pmNEeU'A515? anC mUwut wanenYn d wry Mpiagp.?al?lMr.gxawayu MnWpM1ryaE. vrcluti?g, Eul nq amiNP b. ew IngMed wvrt.nlin 1 mercfianlaOAily filrras br a pvYa?4 T11E SITE REFOfIE ACTING ON IT. ??m? Y0U SMOIID TIEREFORE VERIFY ANY INFORMATON OBTNNEn FRgA I I -?U M Qnda(ad P4- - ?1 C??) (?-? 0- A P 1Igy- p/A oL?,Ada-( all? P+- 0? Map Direct: Beaches and Coastal Systems DWV'IMF I - w " :? I . . 0 -- 1./? • Scale 1:382 ' t Coastal Range Monuments . ? Lea ? • "'yt . • 'r Range Monuments e Virtual Monuments 1 _. 1 a ^ r ; ' Coastal ConsftWion Control Lines 4f ;? fill r 7 x • / ? Counties Lt J . I ? •9 iP a }, • it -? 9 NAVTE GlorWa Depwmanl of Enwron?wrbl Frolaceon ONdaimer T nnp dw1eA n Nap Wed on Wee. 9 Fw ]011 112,8, UTC'• menew ror GWIeY paWaw oav. n waf oreaNe uairg Caro M1om 019am9 aourtas mpedw a eleNea acdea, xim llwea rvela a apdaacr. mwpr mrern9 anerea penwa acme. IUVTEO roaa eau u pra.?eee •AS Is• me •inwal wwnmee d any NpiuM. erne, eryresa or Inipliee. innudrg. DN rwl Nmilee b. rL Fnplge REFMes d l?vY NF bt Al tar a TNE?SfTE$EFORErRCTiNrG Orvalon.rena9ememYOU5HOULDTNEEFORE VERILY ANY INFORMATION TPINEO FROM Phillips Residence 1000 Eldorado Avenue Site Data Table Required Proposed Dwellings Units 1 1 Lot Area 5,000 sq. ft. 9,882 sq. ft. Lot Width 50' 88.8' Gross Floor Area 3,952.8 sq. ft. [FAR.40] 3,270 sq. ft. Rear Setback to CCCL (for pool and deck) 10' 0' Side Setback (North) for pool and deck 5' 9' Side Setback (South) for pool and deck 5' 5' Parking Spaces 2 2 Total Paved Area 1,999 sq. ft. (incl. 611 sq. ft. paver pool deck) Impervious Area 6,423.3 sq. ft. [ISR.65] 5,269 sq. ft.[ISR.53] #548148 v t - Phillips Site Data Table NO STRUCTURE MAY BE INSTALLED ON INDICATED AREAS OTHER THAN 48" MAX HEIGHT LANDSCAPE AND/OR NON-OPA FENCE NOT EXCEEDING 48'H 0 Q ' c .1 k LJLJ LA_ Q) J J 31 m a O / m ? C. C. C. L. LOT 7 BLOCK 69 (NOT INCLUDED) o ?34 4' ALUMINUM FENCE BRICK i BRICK WALL A_d=;=4-? 8? Lo POOL DECK 0 Z? a zo A iC UNIT o a r ?B, LOT 6 RIC p T m ?,, aro BLOCK 69 25 7' COVERED ' OVERED . PORCH o j 6' WOOD DECK o^? ?r o 10,0 2 STORY STEPS FRAME Jo. 0, M RE IDENCE PORTION OF ti #1000 ; °" er16 LOT 5 , , POO ,BLOCK 69 ,z°- <. -STEPS 1Q°, 1`6p, 0 h 'v o? PORTION OF LOT 5 BLOCK 69 (NOT INCLUDED) ... ay er r.r A/C ?i /[8 CK WALL -0 Q SANITARY MANHOLE •4 zr a Qe v Qz . 0 0 Q Q 0 a NOT A SURVEY SITE PLAN SCALE-1"=20' W ISITE AREA TABULATION 1 OWELLIN LOT 4 BLOCK 69 (NOT INCLUDED) PAVER POOL DECK AREA G 1,388 SQ FT PAVED AREAS 611 SQ. FT. TOTAL GROSS BUILDING GROSS FLOOR AREA 3,270 SQ. FT, 2 PAVED PARKING SPOTS IN GARAGE (INCLUDED IN TOTAL GROSS BUILDING FLOOR AREA) TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA 5,269 SQ. FT, TOTAL GROSS SITE AREA 9,882 SQ. FT. = 539: TOTAL IMPERVIOUS RATIO CONC & BRICK PARKING PgS?N? OR Fj Rk PACE AfL?J 6? h .119 I .01di N •• W o a N U. ri If W '~ Q0 Z I W J CL 0 LL V m W? z?L o? Z PC 0 Wo w ? a0 0 •p" W n? O z Y m W rn m ' Ll I rn W W J Q DRAWN BY-TAG 0 CHECK BY- GLB O LL JOB# n ? a 1010-085 ? •? J DATE 07/01/10 DATE REV, 0 W 01/11/10 A0 Q SCALE a. 1 °=zo' 0 ? 0 ?BID SET W Q (]PERMITTING SET ul NPRDPDSED Q PAGE CL ? Q 1 0 ? OF , IL w c. %( ?4 C?, Ftt.{_: _5y'y.•. 'vc . .. F :?? ? _?. ?' ??? ??? it ''? c ij ,; j L ?, j i This property lies within Flood Zone VE as depicted on Flood Insurance Rate Map Community Panel IP 1210300064G Doted: 9-3-03 BENCHMARK: R.M.D. AURAL 1973", MAP #152, ELEV.=6. 193' BASE FLOOD ELEVATION: 13' SECTION-_5__TOWNSHIP Z9,S-RANGE-L5E- BASIS OF BEARINGS: S. LINE OF BLOCK 69 BEING N.83-1827"W. I SCALE. 1 "= 30' BOUNDARY SURVEY / C. C. C. L. I 1 >b h J5.39. 4' ALUMINUM a FENCE BRICK I U 4 b Q Q 1 1 ? ry CONC SEAw a W LOT 6 c BLOCK 69 b 247, J 10' SEMCK LINE FROM CCL .. 2 STORY , FRAME 1 R DE CE X h n 1000 PORTION OF LOT 5 r BLOCK 69 ` LOT 7 BLOCK 69 BRICK l 4a'-1 ° I_ -II,*-,,- LAW owl CONC & BRICK PARKING PORTION ION OF I LOT 5 " BLOCK 69 I 1 1 LOT 4 ' ' BLOCK 69 SHEET I OF 3 STEPS / P?A srEPS ?' =?l WALL 1 IRY \ Xf ? a a' O 0 0 1 w OFFICE LOCATION: 516 LAKESIDE PLACE LARGO. FLORIDA 33771 TARGET LAND SURVEYING. INC. NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND P. 0. BOX 663 THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA DUNEDIN, FL 34697-0663 PH:(727) 784-0573 LICENSED SURVEYER AND MAPPER. I hereby certify that this survey was made under my responsible ffEPARED FOR AND CERTIFIED TO: charge and meets the minimum Technic& Standards as set forth kICEVIN W. PHILLIPS & LANA M. PHILLIPS by the Florida Board of Professional Land Surveyors in Chapter 61 G 17. Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 472.027, Florida Statutes Field Survey 5-1-10 FBI EFB Pg NA Philip C. Stock Jobj 100430.01 C RLS 13035, LB #5570 5-3-10 Drown By: A. SANDY COPYRIGHT o 2003 TARGET LAND SURVEYING INC. DATE OF CERTIFICATION Surveyed By: P. STOCK SCALE: 1 "-- 50' 1 1 FM 1/2• IR (NO 1) 1 1 1 ?? ?2• x1 1 1 1 1 BLOCK 66 FNO 41x4" CM P 0/ ?B RtioN of _6_ (NO C LS .,=• ?1 .77 CK % js.? -? ; Ow ? BLOCK 62 FND 4"x4' CM NO 7 70 28 / ` S Er 1/2• M 3 S5 fit! - . - N. E. CORNER 1 02 LS .rays - - 220 LOT 5, BLOCK 62 PORT/O/y BLOCK 6g F LOT S I I COT 4 1 r i BLOCK 62 v 1 LOT 4 ?.1 1 2 LOT S BLOCK I 1' h RW r4•+RWRWRWt41'?-4j-ui,?,3R4+ BLOCK 62 I 69 aN^Nt00)^%c0" Q0k0") C4 Z- SET 1/2•IR ??' .?r'•19.7 • a ! I Q a0Nah'7a?N.Rt? I.s.?ou !!!? ? 110 IQ?? IsEr1/Z•w ? p OOb?00bwOO?=Va0 I`- ,?R1 0?' -..? LT" r 1 LOT BLOCS cZ? 2222222ui22vivi2 BLO ; 69OF LOT j I K 62 - 00j?' FND 41W CM aOwhoD^??h?oww'7 N795?47'?y (NO ,f) O N?O ^w?hNOON 1 = oioi00?i^?CaOCpoi00gj 1 S. W. CORNER C? ?t N of'7 V N o0 N'?'^ O o b w N LOT 3, BLOCK 62 BOOCK 69? OF LOT I 4 NN? I J NOOwI?1?wCDt?N00'h I f I OiofOOci %z Da00i00aD I 1 \? I ^No?'7wN00N'•7"?o?oN Z Or .2 f? BOCK 69 I J-? I B oC I 1 r K 62 ?? w(?I???h?N^'?? h dC4 000?0?0000000 I r I I ? ? I I LOT 1Or ?oo1 BLOCK 69 I ' St C a 1i 1i v°i l v `v a a oo`1pp ??°pp 6665:! I i K 62 ? NNNNNNNNNN?1?N G _ ' SET 112• IR _ 110 010 ?S&T112 • +? fr I Q o ?v ?? ,S J035 N.83' 118 27'1! N 83 O ___ 18 27'-W 220 14 ' e OCe 62 FND 4"x4" CM BASIS Of N.83'1827' J I - _ S. W O CORNER BEARINGS FND 4"x4" CM (N / / ?l LOT 1, BLOCK 62 (NO) J/ 1EE7 1 2 OF J LOT 8,ORNER BLOCK 62 OFFICE LOCATION: 516 LAKESIDE PLACE TARGET LAND SURVEYING, INC. LARGO, , FLORIDA 33771 NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND P. 0. BOX 663 THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA DUNEDIN, FL 34697-0663 PH:(727) 784-0573 LICENSED SURVEYER AND MAPPER. I hereby certify that this survey was made under my responsible PREPARED FOR AND CERTIFIED TO: charge' and meets the minimum Technical Standards as set forth KEVIN W. PHILLIPS & LANA M. PHILLIPS by the Florida Board of Professional Land Surveyors in Chapter 61 G 17, Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 472.027, Florida Statutes Field Survey 5-1-10 &?A & -?? FB# EFB Pg NA Philip C. Stock RLS 13035, LB X5570 Job# 100430.O1C Drown By: A. SANDY 5-3-10 COPYRIGHT O 2003 TARGET LAND SURVEYING INC. DATE OF CERTIFICATION Surveyed By. P. STOCK LEGAL DESCRIPTION. LOT 6, TOGETHER WITH A PORTION OF LOT 5, BLOCK 69, MANDALAY, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 14, PAGES 32 THROUGH 35, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID PORTION OF LOT 5 BEING FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. BEGIN AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 62, THENCE NORTH 83-1827"W., 170.01 FEET ALONG THE PROJECTION OF SAID BLOCK 62 TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 69; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, AND 5, BLOCK 69, TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 5, SAID POINT BEING DEFINED BY A CURVE CONCAVED SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2754.14 FEET, A LENGTH OF 268.34 FEET, A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF N.08'54'03"E., 268.23 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE CONTINUE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 5, SAID BOUNDARY BEING DEFINED BY A CURVE CONCAVED SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 2754.14 FEET, A LENGTH OF 30.17 FEET, A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF N. 12'00'22 "E., 30.17 FEET; THENCE S. 76'32'55 "E., 110.02 FEET TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ELDORADO AVENUE, THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE BEING DEFINED BY A CURVE CONCAVED SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 2644.14 FEET, A LENGTH OF 28.87 FEET, A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S. 11 '57'36 "W., 28.87 FEET, THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY N 77' 13'28 "W., 110.02 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. LEGEND: BM - Benchmark CS - Concrete Block CL - Centerline CM - Concrete Monument £LEV - Elevation FND - Found IP - Iron Pipe IR - Iron Rod ASP - Asphalt LSD/ - Land Surveyor Registration Number NIT - Nail & Tab N&D - Nail & Disk M.H. - Manhole P.R.M. - Permanent Reference Monument R/W - Right Of Woy CONC - Concrete P.C. - Point OF Curvature P.T. - Point Of Tangent P.R.C. - Point Of Reverse Curvature P.C C. - Point Of Compound Curve Ch. - Chord P.P. - Power Pole W.M. - Water Motor R.R.S. - Railroad Spice RAO. - Radius R - Record D - Deed M - Measured C - Calculated O.B. - Deed Book P.B. - Plot Book O.R. - Official Record Book PG - Pogo PVMT - Pavement P.O.B. Point Of Beginning P.O.C. Point Of Commencement CH.B. Chord Bearing R.P. - Radius Point CEF - Chain Link Fence P.C.P. - Permanent Control Point P.I. - Point of Intersection REVISED: GENERAL NOTES: 1. No instruments of record reflecting easements, rights-of-woy, and/or ownership were furnished, except as shown. 2. No foundations or underground improvements located except as shown. 3. If elevations ore shown, such elevations ore Dosed on N.G.V.D. 1929 ((MSL = 0.00). Except Pineios County Where elevations are based on N.A.V.D. 1988 (MSL 0.00). 4. Declor tion Is mode to original purchaser of the survey. It is not transferable to additional institutions or subsequent owners. 5. Surveyor has mode no investigation or independent search for easements of record, encumbrances, restrictive covenants, ownership title evidence, or any other facts SHEET 3 OF 3 that an accurate and current title search may disclose. 6. No water meters located except as shown. 7. This Survey is prepared for the exclusive use of those parties certified herein and REVISED: 5-13-10 170.01 is valid for one (1) year from Dote of Certification. OFFICE LOCATION: LARGO, FLORIDA 33771 TARGET _LAND SURVEYING. INC. NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND P. 0. BOX 663 THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA DUNEDIN, FL 34697-0663 PH:(727) 784-0573 LICENSED SURVEYER AND MAPPER. I hereby certify that this survey was made under my responsible PREPARED FOR AND CERTIFIED TO: charge and meets the minimum Technical Standards as set forth KEVIN W. PHILLIPS & LANA W. PHILLIPS by the Florida Board of Professional Land Surveyors in Chapter 61 G 17, Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 472.027, Florida Statutes Field Survey 5-1-10 eA'`? C°..2;-Z70-? FBI EFB Pg NA Philip C. Stock Job# 100430.01 C RLS 13035, LB #5570 5-3-10 Drown By. A. SANDY COPYRIGHT O 2003 TARGET LAND SURVEYING INC. DATE OF CERTIFICATION Surveyed By: P. STOCK I#: 2010217694 BK: 16990 PG: 1299, 08/03/2010 at 11:53 AM, RECORDING 3 PAGES $27.00 D DOC STAMP COLLECTION $10710.00 KEN BURL, CLERK OF COURT PINELLAS COUNTY, FL BY DEPUTY CLERK: CLKDUI3 ?a Prepared by: Kenneth G. Arsenault, Jr. Title Agency of Florida, Inc. t 19535 Gulf Boulevard, Suite C Indian Shores, Florida 33785 Parcel ID 05/29/15/54666/069/0060 _ File Number: 09-BO48 w?-30 000. v `, 'Ile x WARRANTY DEED THIS INDENTURE, made this 5 E day of U y'? . -3(211x, etweerX RONALD J. POLLACK, and MIREILLE POLLACK, husband and wife, hirefnaher?cafli;,s3 flte Grantors, to KEVIN W. PHILLIPS, and LAN M. PHILLIPS, husband and rffe, her;8nafter called the Grantees, having the principal address of: eL?o 97? WITNESSETH: That the Grantors, for and in consideration of tlie'sWn of Ten Dollars (510.00), and other good and valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficienpy,of which is he4by acknowledged, by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, alien, remise, release, enfordoe rtveyartd'egnfrm unto the Grantees, all that certain parcel of land lying and being in the County ofpinellas)lS itc?Qr onda, more particularly described as follows: ?AND MADE A PART HEREOF SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHES HERETO SUBJECT TO TAXES FOR THE Y41AR 201b` &ND SUBSEQUENT YEARS SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS F,A,"SEMENTS OF RECORD. TO HAVE AND TO 13S1?dS the sa)he in fee simple forever. and the Grantors hereby co%+ehpn`,*ith said Grantees that Grantors are lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that Gmntots have gooa right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that Grantors hereby fully warrant€he ti"tlclo said Iand and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever, ac Abkt s U I; d is free of all encumbrances. ?VTlNESS-VHEREOF, Grantors have hereunto set Grantors' hands and seals the day and year first altdve-Witten. PAGE 1 OF 3 PdNELLAS COUNTY FL OFF. REC. BK 16990 PG 1300 PAGE 2 OF 3 Continuation of signature page for deed for that certain real property Eldorado Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33767. having a street address of pw - ,> RnNSII.n .i_ POLLACK, _- ," STATE OF FLORIDA ' COUNTY OF PINELLAS The foregoing instrument 1W aclct?owcdW before me this day of JULY, 2010 by RONALD J. POLLACK and MIREILLE © ACK, who produced bm%.4LM t-J_ as identification. „ Notary Public • - - My commission expires: •? , `•? P?` ?`1 AMY KCAIERWH ` ; • • ` MY COMMISSION # DD 723791 `• - J EXPIRES: December 19, 2011 eWMod n;N Pkb y P * undowr* SIGNED SEALED AND DELIVERED PINELLAS COUNTY FL OFF. REC. BK 16990 PG 1301 t EXHIBIT "A" Parcel 1: Lot 6, and the North 30 feet of Lot 5, Block 69, Mandalay Subdivision, according to the mapp6plat% thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 14, Pages 32 through 35, inclusive, of the Public Records 6(11P)ne,N0s County, Florida, the North 30 feet of said Lot 5, Block 69, being more particularly describe4a3.fdOws; Commence at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 4, Block 62 of said subdivision, thence,ajorigtk Southerly right of way of Island Drive extended N.65N58'30"W., 60.00 feet to the Northeasterly; corner of,sad Lot 5, said corner being the Point of Beginning; thence Southerly along the Westerly right di',way of &Idorado Avenue, said right of way being defined by a curve concaved Northwesterly, t ayLrig a`leingtJL. f 30.01 feet, a radius of 2645.50 feet, a chord bearing and distance of S.22N30'42"W., 30.01 feet; th' nc6leaving said right of way N.65N58'30"W., 110.03 feet to the Westerly boundary of said Lbt 5; therico Northerly along said boundary, said boundary being defined by a curve concaved Northwestekly,,havl g' a length of 30.01 feet, a radius of 2755.50 feet, a chord bearing and distance of N.22N34'20"E., i=Cfeet; thence along the Northerly boundary of said Lot 5, S.65N58'30"E., 110.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Parcel 2: All land lying Westerly of and between the Westerly projectit?s M.the ly04herly and Southerly boundaries of Lot 6, and the North 30 feet of Lot 5, Block 69, Mandalay.%Jbdivjslbn bccording to the map or plat thereof, as recorded In Plat Book 14, Pages 32 through'3S, ine'I604e, 5 the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida; the North 30 feet of said Lot 5, Block t?,bein`q more particularly described as follows; Commence at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 4„Bjock162 olsaid,tubdivision, thence along the Southerly right of way of Island Drive extended N.65N58'3'Q"W., 60,*p rsat to the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 5, said corner being the Point of Beginning; thegce`$outherlrl olong the Westerly right of way of Eldorado Avenue, said right of way being defined bX i cl rve concaved Northwesterly, having a length of 30.01 feet, a radius of 2645.50 feet, a chord bearlr4 nd'di tante-o(S.22N30'42"W., 30.01 feet; thence leaving said right of way N.65N58'30"W., 110.03AA to,tltie Westerly boundary of said Lot 5; thence Northerly along said boundary, said boundary being,deflalo-6y a curve concaved Northwesterly, having a length of 10.01 feet, a radius of 2755.50 feet, 46fard tieafring and distance of N.22N34'20"E., 30.01 feet; thence along the Northerly boundary of salq ltit 5,'S.65 6'58'30"E., 110.00 feet to the Point of Beginning.