The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2012-11027COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Clearwater ENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013 AGENDA ITEM: D.1. CASE; FLD2012 -11027 REQUEST: Flexible Development application for the construction of an accessory pool, spa, 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 the Community Development Code Section 2- 204.E. GENERAL DATA: Agent ........................... Rick Miller, Atlantic Pool Builders Applicant / Owner .............. Wayne J. Boyer Location ........................... 760 Eldorado Avenue; located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately 161 feet north of the intersection of Bohenia Street and Eldorado Avenue. Property Size .................... 0.15 acres Future Land Use Plan...... Residential Urban (RU) Zoning .......................... Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District Special Area Plan .............. NIA Adjacent Zoning... North: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District South: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District East: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District West. Open Space/Recreation (OSIR) District Existing Land Use ............. Detached Dwelling Proposed Land Use......... Detached Dwelling t �i n 1. law _ PLANNING & EVClearWatex Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.15 acre subject property is located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately 161 feet north of the Bohenia Street and Eldorado Avenue intersection. 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 (OSfR) District and is the beach/Gulf of Mexico. Development Proposal: The proposal is to construct a pool, spa and deck on the west side of the house. This request is being processed as a Residential Infill Project due to the requested reduction of the rear (west) setback from 15 feet to zero feet as measured to the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) for the pool and pool deck. Pursuant to Section 3- 905.C.3., 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: Density: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and Section 2- 201.1, CDC, within the Residential Urban (RU) future land use plan category, the maximum 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 existing density is in compliance. Impervious Surface_ Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and Section 2- 201.1, CDC, within the RU future land use plan category, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.65. The site is in compliance as an ISR of 0.54 is proposed. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to Table 2 -204, CDC, within the LMDR District, Residential Infill Projects shall have a front setback between 10 — 25 feet, and a side setback between zero to five feet. The rear setback for waterfront properties shall be 25 feet from seawall, property line or coastal construction control line. The proposal includes a rear (west) setback of zero feet with no reductions to front or side setbacks, which is consistent with the above referenced setbacks. Community Development Board — February 19, 2013 FLD2012 -11027 — Page 1 !--� i o CJ s 1 6 GARDEyW S7 a y VER6EMA 1� PRt1JECF SITE ST rw,aa � u, , o o I LJ RLIS ❑ {p � ASTER l' CS �� ACAC� sOMEPSEI G { \j � it � � 4■Il 1�i'y IOIEN LI) \ LOCATION MAP ,RANRO ST IFo 0 LIM�NM G+(t 8 � ° B - ZONING MAP Density: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and Section 2- 201.1, CDC, within the Residential Urban (RU) future land use plan category, the maximum 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 existing density is in compliance. Impervious Surface_ Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and Section 2- 201.1, CDC, within the RU future land use plan category, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.65. The site is in compliance as an ISR of 0.54 is proposed. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to Table 2 -204, CDC, within the LMDR District, Residential Infill Projects shall have a front setback between 10 — 25 feet, and a side setback between zero to five feet. The rear setback for waterfront properties shall be 25 feet from seawall, property line or coastal construction control line. The proposal includes a rear (west) setback of zero feet with no reductions to front or side setbacks, which is consistent with the above referenced setbacks. Community Development Board — February 19, 2013 FLD2012 -11027 — Page 1 ' �e 1 #� AfJ. � PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT _ Y. ,VC's It Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION The reduction in the rear setback to pool and ,1 ,a u� No - mt a 1 decking allows for development consistent with the surrounding and emerging development o DETACHED pattern. Many of the existing pools and decks in DWELLINGS R. the vicinity have or appear to have zero -foot setbacks from the CCCL. A setback of zero feet from the CCCL to an in- ground pool and deck was approved for 974 Eldorado Avenue (FLD2010- 11031), 740 Eldorado Avenue (FLD2009- 10040), 1000 Eldorado Avenue '"'°CIQS-- (FLD2011- 01002) and for 1154 and 11€0 Mandala Point Road FLD2009- 02{104. Most DETACHED y ( � � - -- DWELLINGS recently, a two foot setback to the CCCL was o "" approved for a pool and deck at 716 Eldorado - Avenue (FLD2012- 05012). In addition, a review EXISITNG SURROUNDING USES of aerial photographs depicts several existing waterfront properties in the vicinity that appear to have structures with setbacks of zero feet from the CCCL, including: the two adjacent properties to the south 756 and 752 Eldorado Avenue as well as 724, 734, 770, 800, 804, 856, 880, 920, 926, 944, 946, 956, 964, 970 and 1002 Eldorado Avenue. Therefore, the rear setback reduction to provide a typical amenity of a pool and deck for a beachfront detached dwelling is justified and consistent with the existing and emerging development pattern. In regards to the spa, the CDC defines spas as a swimming pool, and swimming pools that are greater than twelve inches above grade shall be considered a principle structure and must meet a twenty -five foot rear setback. Swimming pools twelve inches or less above grade are considered accessory structures and such accessory structures are not subject to the rear yard setback for a principle structure. Since the subject property's rear yard area is covered by a concrete patio with no exposed natural earth surface, the height of the seawall is considered by code as the existing grade. The submitted drawings show that the height of the spa qualifies as an accessory structure as it will not be greater than twelve inches above existing grade; therefore, the height of the spa is allowable by Code. Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to Section 3- 903.H.1, CDC, air conditioning and similar mechanical equipment is exempt from the side setback requirements, but such equipment must be screened from view from streets and adjacent properties. Any outside pool /mechanical equipment to be located to the rear or side of the dwelling shall be screened from adjacent properties and Eldorado Avenue. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit a plan that shows the location of pool /mechanical equipment and demonstrate how the equipment shall be screened to meet Code. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Community Development Board — February 19, 2013 FLD2012 -11027 — Page 2 DEVELOPMENT cka ater Lev2i 11 Flexible Development Application Review DEVE LO PMENT REVIEW DIVISION COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the proposed detached dwelling with the standards as per Tables 2- 201.1 and 2- 204, CDC: 1 See analysis in setback discussion above COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 204.E., CDC (Residential Infill Project): Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Density 7.5 du/ac (1 unit) 1 unit X or other development standards. 1412 0.65 0.54 X Minimum Setbacks Rear: 0 - 10 feet Zero feet (to pool deck) X1 X Side (north) 0 -5 feet 5 feet X 5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project X Side south 0 -5 feet 5 feet X 1 See analysis in setback discussion above COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 204.E., CDC (Residential Infill Project): Community Development Board — February 19, 2013 FLD2012 -11027 — Page 3 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. Community Development Board — February 19, 2013 FLD2012 -11027 — Page 3 Clea rY ate Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNNG & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the overnight accommodation use with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3 -914: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIOIN: The Development Review Committee (DRQ reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of January 3, 2013, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findings of Pact 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: I. That the 0.15 acre subject property is located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately 161 feet north of the intersection of Bohenia Street and Eldorado Avenue; 2. That the subject property is currently developed with a single - family detached dwelling; 3. That the development proposal is to add a pool, spa, and deck to an existing single-family detached dwelling; 4. That the proposed height of the spa is twelve inches in height above existing grade; 5. That the development proposal requests a rear setback of zero feet from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) to pool and deck; 6. That the pool, spa, and deck will be setback five feet on the side (north) and side (south) setbacks; 7. That pursuant to Section 3- 905.C.3, CDC, any requests to modify setback requirements from the CCCL shall be considered through a Level Two development process; and S. 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: Community Development Board --- February 19, 2013 FLD2012 -11027 — Page 4 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. & The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIOIN: The Development Review Committee (DRQ reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of January 3, 2013, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findings of Pact 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: I. That the 0.15 acre subject property is located on the west side of Eldorado Avenue approximately 161 feet north of the intersection of Bohenia Street and Eldorado Avenue; 2. That the subject property is currently developed with a single - family detached dwelling; 3. That the development proposal is to add a pool, spa, and deck to an existing single-family detached dwelling; 4. That the proposed height of the spa is twelve inches in height above existing grade; 5. That the development proposal requests a rear setback of zero feet from the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) to pool and deck; 6. That the pool, spa, and deck will be setback five feet on the side (north) and side (south) setbacks; 7. That pursuant to Section 3- 905.C.3, CDC, any requests to modify setback requirements from the CCCL shall be considered through a Level Two development process; and S. 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: Community Development Board --- February 19, 2013 FLD2012 -11027 — Page 4 r p r� }p PLANNING & DEVELOMMNT L earwa er Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 1. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2 -201.1 and 2- 204, CDC, 2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 204.E., CDC; and 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3- 914.A., CDC. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development application to permit the construction of an accessory pool, spa, 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 the Community Development Code Section 2- 204.E., subject to the following conditions of approval: Conditions of Approval 1. That the height of the proposed spa shall be twelve inches or less above existing grade (the height of the existing seawall); 2. That the final design of the pool, spa, and deck be consistent with the drawings approved by the CDB; 3. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit a plan that shows the location of outdoor pool/mechanical equipment and demonstrate how the equipment shall be screened to meet Code; 4. That there are no obstructions other than the non- opaque four foot fence in height in the waterfront site visibility triangles as per Section 3- 904.B., CDC; 5. That no new structure shall be located seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line; and 6. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Fire Department may require the provision of a Water Study performed by a Fire Protection Engineer in order to ensure that an adequate water supply is available and to determine if any upgrades are required by the developer due to the impact of the 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, then the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: r__';7-2Z Ke . Nurnberger, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Photographs of Site and Vicinity Community Development Board — February 19, 2013 FLD2012 -11027 — Page 5 7.00king south at subject property from beach. Looking south at subject property along from beach. Looking north at adjacent property to the south of subject property. Looking north at adjacent property to the north of subject property. 'art- Looking north from subject property beach at properties to the north. Looking south from rear of subject property. 760 Eldorado Avenue FLD2012 -11027 Kevin W. Nurnberger 100 S Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 727 - 562- 4567ext2502 kevin.nurnberger gmyclearwater.com PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Planner III March 2011 to present Planner II October 2010 to March 2011 City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida 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, and making presentations to various City Boards and Committees. Planner County of York, Yorktown, Virginia 2007 to 2009 Reviewed residential, commercial and mixed use development site plans to ensure compliance with planning, zoning, subdivision, historic preservation, and environmental standards as well as design criteria, specifications, regulations, codes and ordinances. Led pre - application meetings with residents, neighborhood organizations, contractors, and developers regarding future projects which included state and local government agencies. Site Assistant Gahan and Long Ltd BeYast, Northern Ireland 2006 to 2007 Enforced Article 3 of the Planning Order (NI) with land owners, developers and district councils on procedures relating to archaeological and built heritage remains on proposed development sites. On site assistant to project manager during the archeological process throughout the pre - development stage. Development Planner Versar Inc„ Fort Story/Fort Eustis, Virginia 2005 to 2006 Developed survey strategies for the Cultural Resource Manager by reviewing local and state planning documents, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Preservation Planning on Federal installations, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the Virginia Department of Transportation plan, and Virginia Power's public utility plan in the predevelopment stages of new development and building expansion projects to ensure protection of historic properties. City Planner City Planning Commission, New Orleans, Louisiana 2000 to 2005 Primary subdivision planner assisting applicants throughout the subdivision process in accordance with the zoning and subdivision regulations of the City of New Orleans. Reviewed various zoning and conditional use applications. Prepared and presented staff reports to the City Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Adjustments. EDUCATION University of New Orleans, LA MA Urban and Regional Planning (2004) State University of New York at Butfalo, NY BA Anthropology (1999) 760 ELDORADO A'V E FLD2012 -11027 darer prx,l Planning & Development Department z�n,ng Lrrry INMxfiurt, OE!rs +,y Ftrt ACw s is 'lexible Development Application s, Duplexes or Assadated Arcessaty [Ise /strurrures IT IS INCUMEIENT UPON THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT COMPLETE AND CORRECT INFORMATION, ANY MISLEADING, DECEPTIVE, INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT INFORMATION MAY INVAI.IDATF Yt1UR APPLICATION. ALL APPLICATIONS ARE TO BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY AND C{`3RREGTLY, AND SUBMITTED IN PERSON (NO FAX OR 0LLi ' CRTE TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY NOON ON THE SCHEDULED DEADLINE DATE. )J A TOTAL OF 11 COMPLETE SETS OF PIANS AND APPUCATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 19 COPIES) AS REQUIRED ITNI ARE TO BE. SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BY IHE ULVLLOP+MENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTAL F -r E , COMMON" DEVELOPMENT BOARD WILL REQUIRE 1S COMPLETE SETS OF PLANTS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 0 ciffiF L ' AND 14 COPIES). PLANS AND APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COLLATED, STAPLED AND FOLDED INTO SETS. THE APPLICANT, BY FILING THIS APPLICATION, AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS IIE COMMUNITY DiVFtnP'MFNT CODE. tirtiJ FIRE DEPT PRELIMARY 53TE PLAN REVIEW FEE- SIDI7 APPLICATION FEE: $300 � PROPERTY OWNER (PER DEED): ? •FV 6 r AZLYG MAILING ADDRESS: + + — .�� -��!>� i U -- :•;�..6' �_t' % �1��r �1.� �_ ��'_ •tic di ,A�- =� - PHONE NUMBER: ' 3 -L j �, , EMAIL: 4Y'.Ji ?j 'ya sYl. s d• AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: MAILING ADDRESS' PHONE NUMBER:_- E MAIL � _ i.4 I 3 . lS ti '�� ' vel C [ :s• 'f ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: PARCEL NUMBER($ �� Lta +'3!C t t?_rj�( 4'z }: �S .�.r / � v... � o �. .� G [ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ��!} !�I 1 F• ��xZt�Ir? /•" -- PROPOSED USE {S). �' ! DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Specifically identify the request L' . L> �r . ! • Lt! finclude aA requested rode JfexibAty. e. q., reduction in required rturnber of ! / ` `� � e• . -- . �d.+. + I r 1 � 3 � r� `Irg Eat ,., parking spacts. height setbacks. W J' /jS:. e y F 14 * fig .F- c size, lot width, specifk use. erej: PlwInesg & 1}tlr010}t,r,u"t OYliWW"UP0, 1109 S. MWals Avenue, uleasrvate+•, FL 3$7:58, •Fol: 727.562 -4567; FOX: 727.562 -4965 Page 1 of 7 Revised 0117X o Planning & Development Department Clearwater Flexible Development ,Application Site Plan Submittal Package Cheep list IN ADCITION TO THE COMPLETED FLEXIBLE DrVELOPMENT (FLD) APPLICATION, ALL FLD APPLICATIONS FOR A SINGLE,VAMILY DETAC4ED 'DWELLING, DUPLEX, OR ACCESSORY USE /STRUCTURE ASSOCIATED VYITH EITHER A SINGLE- FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING OR DUPLEX SHALL INCIUDE A PLOT PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: tr-Responses to the General Applicability criteria as set faith in Section 3- 914.A. The attached Flexible Development Application General Applicability Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses. U,"'Kesponses to the flexibility criteria for the specific use(s) being requested as set forth in the Zoning District(%) in which the subject property is located. The attached Flexible Develvpinei,L AppliLativrr Flexibility Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses. Q-"A signed and sealed survey of the property prepared by a registered land surveyor including the location of the property, dimensions, acreage, location of all current structures /impruvernenL!,, lucatfon of all public and privdte ee3eirrent5 including official records book and page numbers and street right(s)-of way within and adjacent to the site. L3 If the application would result in the reiioval or relocation of mobile home owners residing in a mobile home park as provided in F.S. § 723.083, the application must provide that information required by Section 4- 202.A.5. LJ If this applicarirsn iq bring submitted for tie purpose of a boatlift, catwalk, davit, dock, marina, pier, seawall or other siiTrllar marine structure, then the application must provide detailed plans and specifications prepared by a Florida professional er %iaeLr, bearing the seal and signature of the engineer, except signed and sealed plans shall not be required tar the repair or replacement of decking, stringers, rai ing, lower landings, tie piles, or the patching or reinforcing of existing piling, on private and commercial docks. ir�A tree survey showing the location. DBH (diameter at breast height), and species on the parcel proposed for development w ith a DOH of four inches or more and identifying those trees proposed to be removed. �1:1_ A site plan with the following information North arrow, scale, locaucin map dull da €e prepared. t..K Location of the roastal Cnnctrnrtion Control Line (CCCL). whether the property is located within a Special 'Flood Hazard Area, and the Base flood Elevation (W) of the property, as applicable. td Location, setbacks and use of all existing and proposed building and structures. 4_1' /LrKation of all existing and proposed aaiking ai e,,s, aids -walks alid Jriveway :. t3' Location, type of material and height o` all existing and propnsPlf fPnres '-ff Location of all existing and proposed utilities, including water, sewer, gas, and stormwater. (Cdr Location of all existing utility easements, including Official Records hook and page numbers, and any proposed utility easements. /Adl Building or structure elevation drawiigs that depict the proposed building height, building materials, and concealment of al I mechanical equipment located on the roof. ti R � r Y Noy 2 9 2012 PLAlMyINO a 0EV[LOPMEW DEPT CITY cis Ct E�tiV1MT�iR M Planning t 00volopntcrnt uePartmont. 100 S Myrtle Avenue. Ctearwater, FL 33756, 7n1: 727-562-4567: Fax: 727-SS2 -4865 Page 4 of 7 Revised 01112 r Planning & Development department C ea 1}1 atef Flexible Development Application PP T- Affidavit to A) f.tbvrixe A tent /Representative I. Provide names of all prop" owners on deed —PRINT fill names: 2. That jl wa/we are) the owner4s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property. j di L I- 3. That this property amstitutts the Pre frerty for which a request For (describe request:). a. rh a[ � u(n))l1dersigned (Ih //a1s,/t'haive) appointed and (does /do) appoint: j y "e � � C�'+" 6 f +'l ? �'� � Jf � i' �? � } • —�L._' ~ ^i:� � l�. P •. � � . � ti /% 5 . °� �r a'e �y � as (his/their not s to execute a _ ] a6 () any petitPons or other documents necessary to affect such petition; 5. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the Gty of Clearwater. Florida to consider and act on the above described property; b. That site visits to the property are necessary by City rPprosentat.res in order to Process this application and the owner authorizes City representatives to visit and photograph the property descaibed in this application; 7. I has iljwVihe u,pdersiKne d *wtbority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. — — -- Pe vpvrty Owner Property Owner — Property Owner � Propeny Owner STATE OF FLtJUDA, COUNTY OF PIN$LI AS BEFORE ME THE UNDLIiSIONED, AN OFFI:;ER DULY COMMISSIONED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. ON THIS v {)/a,Y _'. PERSONALLY APPEARED trW140 HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN D, i , FD ANI r SAYS THAT IIEISH4 FULL JNOERSTANDS THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT THAT HEISHE SIGNED. 4�` "' �� IYtFHOV1 ri AL1EAfAI1 uY CABNtIS$rt7lr r oQ!ri521+ E F- V KS' •JY 26 2014 r "-W rrn, u fait —� "*'x"' Notary Puhlk Signature Notary SeaWStamp lMY Commission Expires: U t lfirt'1 C '{ 19 ol; vqo 7 "."Al v 7a�r Rev 4 ttEl�,r Clearwater V Planning & Development Deparment Flexible development Application Data Sheet PLEASE ENSURE THAI THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS FILLED OUT, IN ITS ENTIRETY, FAILURE TO COMPLETE THIS FORM Witt RESULT IN YOUR APPLICATION BEING FOUND INCOMPLETE AND POSSIBLY DEFERRED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION CYCLE. 70NING 111STRICT- FUTURIE IANDIM _ EXISTING USE (currently) existing nn aitp)- PROPOSED LJSE (now use, if any; plus existing, if to remain) SITE AREA: ,�� sq. ft GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage of al buildings): Existins -�.;?J sq. R. Proposed: ' -_sq. ft. Maximum Allowable: r _ 11_ sq. ft. __..5 A-� L,�'. fir -4, acres GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage &onrM in each kne. if there will be multiple uses): first use: sq. ft. SeLuad use, sq. ft. Third _use- %q. ft. FLOOR AREA RATIO (total square footage of all bkilewgs divided by the total square footage of entire site): Proposed: , ¢ v' Maxim um Allowable: d jl ,j BUILDING COVERAGEjFOO�TPRINT (1" flow square footage of all buildings): Existing: p► .yiJ sq. 't. € - rr,. `;� %of site) ArnpncPd Rq. `t. { ,.� �r • % of site) Maximum Permitted: Sq. It. € T %Of site) GREEN SPACE WITHIN V#HICUiAR USE AREA (green space within the parking lot and interior of site, nut perimeter buffer): Existing: '�`I�' sq -'t• € %of site) Proposed: sq rt. ( %of site) VEHICULAR USE AREA (parking spaces, drive aisles, loading area): Existing: _ sq. `t. ( %of site) Proposed: sq. It- { %of site) Planning B Development Department, i00 S. Myrna Avenue. Clearrvatm, FL 33766, Tel: I Page 2 of T r ►1 Yom° r� 27•562-168 Fax. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO (total square footage of impervious areas divided by the total square footage of entire site} Existing: Proposed: ' Maximum Permitted: DENSITY (units, rooms or beds per acre). Existing: �• Proposed: Maximum Permitted' - BUILDING II[IGHT: Existing: _ Proposed: Ly Maximum Permitted: OF F•YMIET PARItMG: Existing: _ h,ote: A parking demand study must be provided In conjunction with any request proposed. - to reduce the amount of required off-street parking spaces. Please see the Minimum Required: r� adopted Parking Demand Study Gurdefirres for further information. s.L. WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED TOTAI VALUE OF THE (PROJECT UPON COMPLETION? 0 i -'t�f j > - ZONING DISTRICTS FOR ALL ADJACENT PR+DPERTV: North— _: -'_ -- Samith7 �L M Y - East: L y•!1 I - - STATE Of FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS { �"�► the undcrsigncd, acknowledge tyat all Sworn to and subscribecl before m-e this , rl:sy n representations made in this application are true and accurate to the hest of my knovvledae acid authotiee -+ to me and /or by City representatives to visit and photograph the , who is personally known has property described in this application. produced _. _ as identification Signature of property owner or representative e Notary Iic, - My commission expires. , C % 1 2 1 _ r. y MLYM MUM Ili' fY]IIY S" II EE IS91-, EXPIRS. Jnmart tl ky. fkrdrl Rvu 4v y y .' ► ih yrnn f-ata.rw,9jV a aeaaGraprbuant Depau'ffnssit, 03 S. Xiyr-tle Av anva, Clearwater, FL. 2IW46, Tel: 727.562 -4567: Pax: 'i2i•Saa -4 5 PIRO3of 7 Rnvtss d 09(`2 Planning lie Development Departmelt ' Fleldble Development Applicatioi General Applicability Criteri, MMM COIMKM RWOMW TO EACH OF THE SID! (6) GEMMM APPLWAMUM OM MA ElGPtmf s mOW, tN DETAtL, Tf CRITEMON 5 BEM Ct]/IOKKO WFM PER THIS OMLOPlMENT PROPOSAL 1. The proposed development of the land will be In harmony with the scale, bulk, camrage, density and character of mdjece p in whicp It Is located. 1 The proposed development +will Prot hinder or discourage thr appropriate development and use of adjacent land and lbruildi rT or sisnificantjv Impair the value tiered. 3. The proposed development will rot advers6j affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhoc of the proposed use. A. The -coposed development is designed to minimize traffic c Wes8i®:j. . — n44-AQ EPT S. The peaposed devalopl -a is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity 01 thLm p-rcol proposed 6 d erlopmcnt. 0. The desaljo of the proposed deve1c rrserrt minimizes adverb offfects, Including visual, acousVc a�'d cAlactory and hours opw&,21pn in apags, an adjacent pr*ertles. N L a Planning&Development Departme� � �a�Va��r Flexible Develo ment A licatio� . p pP `' General Applicability Criteri� PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE SIX(6)GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA EXPLAINING HOW, IN DETAIL,TF CRITERION IS BEING COMPUED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjace properties in whic it is located. � . � � �-� - � l� d p,;`�; G� 1� . ` , �- � �� . � � �'� f-" I _�T� � � �D�'I') J . � : 2. The proposed development wiil not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent iand and buildin; or significantly impair the value thereof. . ,�� ' � � �� -� _.� r ,�/ � � ' ';� �.� ��',c__3 r'7�� T .� ��"�� `�l F� ( �I �`�' �?r� a/ 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhoc of th propos d use. ` • � ; 1i�� rr � � ? ��"i�r� / �-?�� ;t.% / � j !/c' � , �, . � -� � ✓ s'� i / � � � �� . � � � , 4. The proposed developm�nt is designed t minimize traffic congestion. � � ` . � 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed f� development�. �� . . - . � Tl� f� _l'��/C S �' I �"' i r _ � �a S ;,c.,>, : P� �� ►r" ;� � , f L� G� � ' � '�� e �:•, � � � `� C.IC: iL�� ` � � � V1�, � 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours oper�tion impacts,�n adjacent proper 'es. � ! � l f �'�r' � �/ ' ''�' I ( J � � , J � �� ► � � � `�' � �� - �� _' � G - _- -` s 0 � b 0 3665 Eric Bay [Dr.. S -Ite 1 1 2 Lorga, FL, 33771 -1965 [7271 5S`. l 1 4P. FlexibiilitY_Crteria, Lomnnunity oevelooment Code LC-DC] -Z--204E 1. The develvprrrent of redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherMs+e impractical without deviations from one or rlore of the following; Intensity; other development standards; A ten foot setback from the C. C. C_ L. for the propn -u-d installation would not allow for a minimum size swimming pool. 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will not materially reduce the fair isidrlie'. -.slue of abutting properties? The proposed installation is in keeping Frith the character of the neighborhood and should add value. 3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district? Yes, other properties have similer installations. 4. The uses within the residential infiil project are compatible with adjacent land uses? Yes, this area is residential and the swimming pool would be for the owner's private use only. S. The development of the parc?t proposed fnr riPvelnpment as a residential infill project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development? The proposed in"llation shnuld increase property values. 6. The design of the proposed residential lnflll project creates a form and function which enhances the rommunityr character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole? Yes, the proposed installation is in keeping with a beach lifestyle. 7. Flexibility In regard to Iot wiuh, required setbacks, height, off street parking access or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole? Yes. 4 Z(i12 EP ��, 01e of XA ,7x.0, -T -W, Red VA 44 U4 71, '4 a G� Lz= I ut � � --�'i' ' , � c. a�o�, �.a��►��0. �. � C.,.�..., '�l�f', �� 3.� �i�dG.��', �3tt� iiP..AR4qN �f9f9 ') �0, PWOON� �b�PB� �T6;$ . G�9 ��4� , 4 � � Q . . , t� 1 S � . . o� J � . � . , � Q- � � ,� � J . . i � � � �� f? t �• \ � � +� ' � � .. , .� � '� � • d. �� ! . �- �i,y � � ��,�' ��i . 9 0 Go. 4�� ' °,�J i _� � � � .� � �b 1"� P�re Atr a '�'""')'t«�.�aar/ . ,I . .' _r +..v-�nr—.� r " ' y� � � � �. O � � S � �.4.,� •ad C�ne'� �`.�• � /�',Qf� � t� b �. i�-] -� '�-c�r4r� • � ;o. ` ��' � ' � � �� l l,i.k-�1 �' � ',� . . � ��' j � A � � � � � •...� � � �!'Q� ��O ' 1 ti� � �,,' ._.�:�.,....�.-�`�....� g , ^ � e� . + � � .'�.I ,� , � . � � �,r � � ' � . � ,� , � �, S r��r� � �� ,.��: � ' . p f, � �°� � , 1id tR ,P'�a1'�';�e'' " . . + + - � : , �.� � �``" '�: � � � +� ��''tlxv' � � � 1y' `�:M� �• �� u� ! vJ �i4� � 'w� - . �:�,;e, , � • . � �� .pa ,..�.:W.......►..�. a°� � �i � � �' +�:,,� » }� ►�e ! � �,,, w� ,�(,ir�� 'ri1A - I�AA.t4�► ♦ � � i y "'",� ( '+j� � i4. � � .� �' � I , . �ai � `. I e ai. . IY,�'� . �� _ o �M • c�•�.�o,,. � e • _ �� { ,�. . � j��.. Ol��'� �r��' � ��, + �'. � ', � � I ' J`-� 1� �� . �° �� '� �• r� , +a � �� fi• � ♦ �� LA I ;�F 4• is It V . W 46 v apaw- two Ask- - Na.� N_ IA LLI A-0 IX it lo f l-rr Is U.- 0, Lm, II of 00 R. 4Y 7' 40 f l-rr Is U.- 0, Lm, II of s 1 war -Al C1 :-7)