The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2013-05020� � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD � �le�.�� - PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ;.� '-✓`�../'ti.�-'��-`�' l ; ..i��';�- ��--F�-��-- STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: CASE: REQUEST: GENERAL DATA: Agent........................... Applicant / Owner ............. L o ca tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Property Size .................... Future Land Use Plan...... Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . Special Area Plan .............. Adjacent Zoning... North: South: East: West: Existing Land Use ............. Proposed Land Use......... _ __ �..� , �� ` � � �� :. �� . � � � ��;� July 16, 2013 F.2. FLD2013-05020 Flexible Development application to allow a 53 attached dwellings in the High Density Residential (HDR) District with a lot area of 78,719 square feet (1.80 acres); a lot width of 385.66 feet; front (west) setbacks of 1.2 feet (to block wall/pavement) and 42.11 feet (to Porte-Cochere); side (south) setback of six feet (to curb and covered parking structure) and 72.6 feet (to building); side (north) setback of 4.10 feet (to curb and covered parking structure) and 80 feet (to building); rear (east) setbacks of five feet (to pavement), fourteen feet (to pool deck), 27.10 feet (to balconies), and 33 feet (to building); a building height of 72 feet (to top of roof slab); and 88 parking spaces as a Residential Infill Project under Community Development Code Section 2-504.F, as well as a reductions to the front (west) perimeter landscape buffer from ten feet to 1.2 feet, the side (south) perimeter landscape buffer from ten feet to six feet, the side (north) perimeter landscape buffer from ten feet to 4.10 feet; a reduction from the interior landscape area from ten percent to eight percent; and to allow more than ten consecutive parking spaces as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of the Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. Greg Hembree Island Way Tower, LLC 223 Island Way; 1.8 acres on the east side of the intersection of Island Way and Dory Passage 1.8 Acres Residential High (RH) High Density Residential (HDR) District Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (IENCOD) Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District High Density Residential (HDR) District Preservation (P) District Commercial (C) District Attached Dwellings Attached Dwellings � ��;��'"�, �„"° �!''`"' ` �;a�/�r" � �� , ,. : : � � ,. ' ^� �•+*� _� + «, � r � � - . �� 1r' � � ' ,,,� � ` ^� / I ', � $ - ..� , X� ,:. !. h '� '�s� � 1!, t � i .'' '� � �'' it, ""' � �.; �� •;�� ` �� ±� �.� � ! N rti � $ � � , �_.�t.. _ � ; ��;�1� � � � Cl�C4� F1'LiLI.� Level II Flexible Development Application Review ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 1.8 acre subject property is located on the east side of the intersection of Island Way and Dory Passage. The building was previously identified as the Dearborn Tower. At this time, the existing building is currently under construction being renovated from 88 attached dwellings to 53 attached dwellings. The property is located in the Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (IENCOD). The property to the north consists of attached dwellings, while the property to the south is vacant land. The property to the west across Island Way consists of a shopping plaza that includes Publix, and the property to the east is Clearwater Bay. Development Proposal: The building, which was originally built in 1962, is currently being renovated with a reduction in dwelling units from 88 to 53 units. After acquiring the property, the owner determined that the building was in a state of disrepair, but decided to reuse and renovate the building. The owner will retain the original structure. The entire superstructure has been saved with minimal repair needed and the renovation of the building will comply with current building code. The architectural elements that the owner chose to highlight were the original clean lines of the building itself. The color of the building will be changed to a more neutral tone (beige). This change in color will resemble newer buildings in the area. The screened in porches will be replaced with open rails to give the building a modern feel. All existing windows will be replaced with windows and sliding glass doors, low E insulated, high impact glass vinyl units. A porte-cochere will be added to the front of the building. The porte-cochere will extend past the proposed carports so that the carports can be added to the parking lot. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISiON — � -� �M� � , _ z �. _' , � , ; IplMis ... ,. .., ; _ _'_�_ - : ,�. -�F�°' _ � £ �. _ � .� . �.� �^a,�R . � � � � � PROJECT SITE Y. -_.. '- � � pppveSGE , , ', �',, , ��, ', g �4` o ', � , , �� i �� i �I I ��. i � ' ' J � -- \� ---, -- -_, _� !I ��'� � . � � , • , � � � � ��„ ; , � � �h�� , . LOCATION MAP The parking lot will be modified and brought up to Code. The parking spaces will be changed from 60 degree parking spaces to 90 degree parking spaces. The Traffic Engineering Division required the owner to reduce the number of entrances from three to two. The existing two Community Development Board — July 16, 2013 FLD2013-04012 — Page 1 . 9�l\.t�l i�Ri�l Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION � • °�� northern entrances will be eliminated and combined into a central entrance while the existing entrance at the south end of the property will remain. The proposal is being reviewed as a Level Two Residential Infill Project because the site will have 88 parking spaces where 106 spaces are required by Code and that the redevelopment of the parking lot does not comply with the development standard that parking lots shall be setback from the front property line a distance of 15 feet as set forth in CDC Section 3-903. Also, reductions to front, side, and rear setbacks to pavement are required as well; however, the development standards for Residential Infill Projects are guidelines and may be varied based on the criteria specified in Section 2-504.F. S�pecial Area Plan: The subject property is located in the Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. It is located within the multi-family area. This Plan states that the development standards for multi-family projects shall remain consistent with the current City of Clearwater Community Development Code. Densitv: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-501.1, the m�imum allowable density for properties with an underlying Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential High (RH) is 30 dwelling units per acre. The property has a lot area of 78,519 square feet which allows for a maximum of 54 dwelling units. The proposal is for a total of 53 dwelling units which is below the maximum development potential for the subject property. This redevelopment plan brings the density on the site into compliance with code. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISRZ Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2- 205.1, within the Residential High (RH) Future Land Use Plan Category, the allowable ISR is 0.85. The proposed ISR is 0.79, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-504, there is no minimum required lot area for a Residential Infill Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Section 2-502, the minimum lot area for attached dwellings is 15,000 square feet. The subject property is 78,519 square feet in area, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Minimum Lot Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-504, there is no minimum required lot width for a Residential Infill Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Section 2-502, the minimum lot width for attached dwellings is 150 feet. The subject property has a lot width of 385.66 feet, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-504, the minimum front, side and rear setbacks for Residential Iniill Projects are 10 to 25 feet, zero to 10 feet and zero to 15 feet, respectively. It should be noted that the Building Code may require the rear setback on a waterfront lot to be at least 18 feet from a seawall not withstanding structural modifications to the seawall which may allow a lesser setback. The proposal includes a front (west) setback of 42.11 feet to building (Porte-Cochere) and 1.2 feet to block walUpavement; a side (north) setback of 80 feet to building and 4.10 feet to curb and carport; a side (south) setback of 72.6 feet to building and six feet to curb and carport; and a rear (east) setback of 33 feet to building and five feet to pavement, which is consistent with Code provisions. Community Development Board — July 16, 2013 FLD2013-04012 — Page 2 9��\.tll Y1 a�� Level II Flexible Develo ment Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION u. ur.c s.�- .: , , . . . The redevelopment of the site does not include reducing the parking lot to comply with the development standard that parking lots shall be setback from the front property line a distance of 15 feet as set forth in CDC Section 3-903. The property is built out due to the need to provide the maximum number of parking spaces for the use. For this reason, the owner is maintaining the existing front and side setbacks to pavement, curb, and carports. The property had 91 off-street parking spaces for 88 units. This project proposes 88 parking spaces for 53 units. The parking ratio increases from a ratio of 1.03 to 1.6 per unit. The number of parking spaces provided brings the property closer to compliance with Code. The requested reductions to the front and side setbacks to pavement can be supported. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-504, the height of a building may range between 30 — 130 feet as a Residential Infill Project. This table provides that the development standards for Residential Infill Projects are guidelines and may be varied based on the criteria specified in Section 2-504.F. The building height of 72 feet is from existing grade with an additional 17.5 feet for elevator and mechanical equipment is permitted subject to the specific flexibility criteria for Residential Infill Projects. The flexibility criteria for Residential Infill Projects states that flexibility with regard to height shall be justifiable based upon the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The applicant has indicated that the flexibility is "justifred by the benefits to the city of Clearwater in aesthetic, property, and tax value. " The proposed redevelopment will be more aesthetically appealing than what presently exists on site and will certainly benefit the immediate vicinity and City in that respect. With specific regard to height, the owner is not planning to alter the shell of the building or the height as it exists, rather most of the work being done is internal wall demolition and rer�ovation, and replacement of exterior windows to bring the building which does not meet current building code to compliance with the Florida building code. Based upon the above, the redevelopment of the building is consistent with the flexibility criteria for residential infill projects. The redevelopment of the property is also compatible with existing development in the vicinity; therefore, retaining the existing height is supported. Minimum Off-Street Parkin�: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-504, the minimum required number of off-street parking spaces for a Residential Infill Project is two spaces per dwelling unit. A total of 106 off-street parking spaces are required for this redevelopment project. The site plan shows that a total of 88 parking spaces will be provided on site which is below the required number of spaces. The owner states that due to the reconfiguration of the parking lot entrance as required by the Engineering Department and the existing parameters of the parking lot, the parking area has the maximum number of parking spaces possible. The number of parking spaces provided is supported by Staff as despite in continuing to be nonconforming it will nonetheless result in lessening the existing nonconformity and bring the property closer to compliance with Code. Mechanical Equinment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. Based upon the plans submitted, the mechanical equipment will be located to the immediate side or rear Community Development Board — July 16, 2013 FLD2013-04012 — Page 3 � C1L�1 ►l�lel Level II Flexible Develo ment lication Review PLANNING&DEVEIAPMENT P APP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION u . . . �,�';� . . . . of the individual buildings. The location and screening of such mechanical equipment will be reviewed at time of building permit submission, should this application be approved by the CDB. Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the driveways of Island Way; no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within twenty-foot sight visibility triangles. The submitted site plan and landscape plan shows the sight visibility triangles from the property line into the public right-of-way. This needs to be revised to show the sight visibility triangles from the property line onto the property. After the site triangles are corrected; it appears that six existing parking spaces will be located within four site visibility triangles. There are no opportunities to move the parking spaces out of the sight visibility triangles without reducing the total number of available parking spaces. However, this proposal has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Division and been found to be acceptable. Any proposed landscaping within the sight triangles shall also meet this criterion. Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. Electric and communication lines for this development will be installed underground on-site in compliance with this requirement. The applicant shall provide documentation from the utility companies if undergrounding the existing overhead utility lines within the public right-of-way along the Island Way is impractical. If is determined that the overhead wires can be placed underground, then provisions for the future undergrounding of existing aboveground utility facilities in the public right-of-way must be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy in a manner acceptable to the utility companies and the City. Landscaping_, Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D., perimeter buffers required for the attached dwellings adjacent to attached dwellings are required to be 10 feet in width. The front landscape buffer along Island Way, a local street right-of-way, is required to be 10 feet in width. The applicant is requesting reductions to the front (west) perimeter landscape buffer from ten feet to 1.2 feet; side (south) perimeter landscape buffer from ten feet to six feet; and side (north) perimeter landscape buffer from ten feet to 4.10 feet. No rear (east) perimeter buffer is required adjacent to a waterway. The landscape buffer widths do not meet the provisions of CDC Article 3 Division 12. The applicant has mitigated the dimensional deficiency with regard to buffer width through the provision of providing various accent trees within the reduced buffer width. Shade trees within buffers of less than five feet in width would not meet the standards of the Code. The accent trees will be in intervals than 35 feet, which is required of shade trees, to provide dense vegetation. They also are providing eight different tree species (two accent trees equal one shade tree) on site where four tree species are required by Code. The landscape plan includes a variety of ornamental and palm trees (muskogee crepe myrtle, silver buttonwoods, winged elms, and sabal palms). The landscape plan also indicates that a number of shrubs are to be planted within the north and south buffers; however, the type and number of shrub to be planted is not identified on the landscape plan. It shall be a condition of approval that the landscape plan be revised to include the number and type of shrubs to be used in the north and south buffers. Community Development Board — July 16, 2013 FLD2013-04012 — Page 4 � Cl\.tl�i YT �l�l Level II Flexible Develo ment lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P MP DEVELOPMENT REViEW DIVISION u , .. " z-��e° . .. In regards to the interior landscape islands in the parking area; based on the square footage of green space provided in the islands and adjacent areas to the parking area the applicant will provide 8 percent of the required 10 percent of interior green space. The landscape plan shows that the applicant calculated 1,169 square feet of green space within the landscape buffer along the south property line to comply with the standard, but that area is counted towards the perimeter buffer and not towards the provided landscape interior island greenspace. For this reason, the owner is providing 8 percent of interior greenspace. The landscape plan shows that within the interior parking island provided the applicant will provide one shade tree (live oaks) or two accent trees (such as tree ligustrom) per island as well as providing palms (washingtonian palms) in greenspace areas within the parking lot to increase the plant material within the vehicle use area. Groundcovers such as dwarf Indian hawthorn, hibiscus, and flax lily) will be planted to create a tiered effect in the interior islands as well. In regards to allowing more than 10 parking spaces in a row where 15 is allowed. The number of existing parking spaces covered by carports is not considered as it is an existing condition on site. The parking area in the front of the building is where the number of parking spaces exceeds 15 spaces in a row. The initial site plan showed that the owner wanted to retain three entrances to the site. The location of the entrances created 21 parking spaces in a row along Island Way. The Traffic Engineering Division required the applicant to reduce the number of entrarices/exits to only two on the property. Two entrances will be eliminated and a new main entrance will be added near the center of property's frontage on Island Way. This design change created two interior islands at the entrance and broke up the string of parking spaces in a row from 21 spaces to 11 spaces north of the entrance and 12 spaces to the south of the entrance. This improved the parking design. The parking spaces directly in front of the building where the handicap parking spaces are located consists of a row of 18 consecutive parking spaces. Staff supports this parking lot design due to the need of parking spaces and that the new porte-cochere over the handicap parking spaces will visually break up the parking spaces. In regards to the porte-cochere, the site plan shows columns within the handicap parking space walking aisles. At the Development Review Committee meeting the applicant stated such support system for the structure will not be used and there will be no columns in the parking space. The applicant did not provide a response or show a detail in the building plans. All plans show the columns. It shall be a condition of approval that the applicant shall provide building plans that show the extension of the porte-cochere will not be supported any columns or support structures that do not encroach into required parking spaces. Community Development Board — July 16, 2013 FLD2013-04012 — Page 5 } C�eN�l 1't t�lel Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENT REV�W DIVISION u �.�iF�'� .. . .. Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code, the landscaping requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with those criteria. Consistent I Inconsistent 1. Architectural theme: a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a N/A N/A part of the architectural theme of the principie buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for development; or b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment X proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards. 2. Lighting: Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is X automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. 3. Community character: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. 4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 5. Special area or scenic corridor plan: T'he landscape treatment proposed in the N/A N/A comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. Solid Waste: The location of the new enclosed dumpster on the northwest side of the property has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste Department. It is a condition of approval that the new dumpster enclosure shall be made of a masonry wall of similar material, architectural details and colors as the proposed addition. Si_gna�e�. All signage must meet Code requirements or the applicant will need to submit their sign request for review and approval in the Comprehensive Sign Program. Comprehensive Plan: The proposal is supported by various Goals, Objectives and/or Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan as follows: Future Land Use Plan Element Objective A.1.2 — Population densities in the coastal storm areas are restricted to the mcrCimum density allowed by the Countywide Future Land Use Designation of the properry, except for specific areas identified in Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines, in which case densities identified in Beach by Design shall govern. All densities in the coastal storm area and shall be consistent with the Pinellas County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and the Regional Hurricane Evacuation Study. The proposal includes renovating interior of the building to accommodate 53 attached dwelling units where 54 units are permitted which is consistent with the permitted density allowed by the Countywide Future Land Use Designation of Residential High (RH). Therefore, this proposal is supported by the Objective. Community Development Board — July 16, 2013 FLD2013-04412 — Page 6 � Ll��al �, �ltrl Level II Flexible Develo ment lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P APD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION u. . "°'�,°.sr Policy A.2.2.2 - Residential land uses shall be sited on well-drained soils, in proximity to parks, schools, mass transit and other neighborhood-serving land uses. The proposed residential use is located on a well-drained site close to parks (Clearwater Beach, Pier 60, Clearwater Beach Library & Rec. Center/Pool, McKay Playfield and Mandalay Park) mass transit (PSTA J and T Routes) and other neighborhood-serving land uses (restaurant, retail and other commercial uses). There are no schools located on Clearwater Beach. Therefore, this Policy is supported by the proposal. Policy A.5.5.1 Development should be designed to maintain and support the existing or envisioned character of the neighborhood. The owner is renovating the existing building that has a height of 72 feet (from existing grade) from 88 apartments to 53 condominiums. The scale and style of the building is consistent with surrounding properties. The properties on the east and west side of Island Way from Windward Drive to Skiff Point mostly consist of properties with attached dwellings. The heights of these buildings range from one- to 15-stories. The design and use of the building is consistent with surrounding properties and the existing character of the area. Therefore, this proposal is supported by the Policy. Communitv Develoament Code The proposal is supported by the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code as follows: Section 2-501 Intent of the HDR District and RH FL UP classification. The CDC provides that it is the intent and purpose of the High Density Residential (HDR) District is to protect and preserve the integrity and value of existing, stable residential neighborhoods of higher density while at the same time, allowing a careful and deliberate redevelopment and revitalization of existing neighborhoods in need of revitalization or neighborhoods with unique amenities which create unique opportunities to increase property values and the overall attractiveness of the city. The proposal includes the redevelopment of an older building in the Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District that will increase the value and appearance of the building as well as providing a level of density supported by the intent of the HDR District and the RH FLUP classification. Community Develo�ment Code: The proposal is supported by the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code as follows: Section 1-103.B.1. Allowing property owners to enhance the value of their property through innovative and creative redevelopment. The applicant is in the process of demolishing the interior of the existing building to reduce the number of units from 88 apartments to 53 condominium units (BCP2012-09559). The owners state that the conversion of the buildings use from apartments to luxury condos will increase the value of the property from $6.5 million to $21 million. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Community Development Board — July 16, 2013 FLD2013-04012 — Page 7 � C�L��aLel Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P pp DEVEIAPMENTREVIEWDIVISION � �, �. u, . Section 1-103. B.2. Ensuring that development and redevelopment will not have a negative impact on the value of surrounding properties and wherever practicable promoting development and redevelopment which will enhance the value of surrounding properties. Surrounding properties have been developed with attached dwellings ranging in size from one- to 15-stories. The reuse of the existing building and improving the exterior fa�ade of the building will constitute an appropriate use for the neighborhood. The proposed density is supported by the CDC and the Countywide Land Use Rules. The proposal should not hinder the redevelopment of adjacent properties nor adversely affect their value. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 1-103.B.3. Strengthening the ciry's economy and increasing its tax base as a whole. The proposal includes the redevelopment of an existing building to be converted from attached dwellings to luxury condominiums thereby positively contributing to the City's economy and its tax base. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 1-103.D. It is the further purpose of this Development Code to make the beautification of the city a matter of the highest priority and to require that existing and future uses and structures in the city are attractive and well-maintained to the maximum extent permitted by law. The aesthetic and architectural improvements will make the property attractive as well as bringing an older building and property into compliance with the Community Development Code and Florida Building Code. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 1-103.E.5. Preserve the natural resources and aesthetic character of the community for both the resident and tourist population consistent with the city's economic underpinnings. The Island Estates neighborhood was developed between 1957 and 1969. The building was built in 1962. It is a building that established the character of the neighborhood. The redevelopment and renovation of the site and building will improve the appeaxance of the property. The owner intends to retain the aesthetic and architectural design of the building which will maintain the character of the community. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. The proposal supports of the General Applicability requirements of this Code as follows: Section 3-914.A.1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The owner is renovating the existing building that has a height of 72 feet (from existing grade) from 88 apartments to 53 condominiums. The scale and style of the building is consistent with surrounding properties. The properties on the east and west side of Island Way from Windward Drive to Skiff Point mostly consist of properties with attached dwellings. The heights of these buildings range from one- to 15-stories. The design and use of the building is consistent with surrounding properties and the existing character of the area. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 3-914.A.2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. The proposal is consistent with the character of adjacent properties with regard to use and the Countywide Land Use Rules (with regard to use and density). The redevelopment of the property will have no impact on the ability of adjacent properties to be redeveloped. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Community Development Board — July 16, 2013 FLD2013-04012 — Page 8 � C�L�l 1'1 aLel Level II Flexible Develo ment lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P APP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION u. ,...w �?;. ., . Section 3-914.A.3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safery of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. The proposal will result in the reduction in the number of attached dwelling on site. The proposal will likely have no effect on the health andlor safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 3-914.A.4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The proposal will likely have minimal effect, negative or otherwise, on traffic congestion. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 3-914.A. S. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. The owner is renovating the existing building that has a height of 72 feet (from existing grade) from 88 apartments to 53 condominiums. The scale and style of the building is consistent with surrounding properties. The properties on the east and west side of Island Way from Windward Drive to Skiff Point mostly consist of properties with attached dwellings. The heights of these buildings range from one- to 15-stories. The design and use of the building is consistent with surrounding properties and the existing character of the area. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 3-914.A.6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. The design of the proposed development should not result in any adverse olfactory, visual and acoustic impacts on adjacent properties. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. The proposal meets the specific criteria for Residential Infill Projects of this Code as follows: Section 2-404.F. Residentiallnfill Projects. 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following: intensity; other development standards. To renovate site as proposed, in regards to parking area, would be impractical without the reductions to setbacks. To improve the parking situation on site is to maintain the existing setbacks. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 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. Surrounding properties have been developed with attached dwellings ranging in size from one- to 15-stories. The reestablishment of attached dwellings use constitutes an appropriate use for the neighborhood and the proposed density is supported by the CDC and the Countywide Land Use Rules. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. The proposed use is a permitted use within the MHDR District. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Community Development Board — July 16, 2013 FLD2013-04012 — Page 9 r CiQN! 17 �Ll.l Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT p Pp DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION � ��.. .-_ 4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent lands uses. The attached dwellings use is a permitted use within the HDR District. The properties on the east and west side of Island Way from Windward Drive to Skiff Point mostly consist of properties with attached dwellings. The heights of these buildings range from one- to 15-stories. The design and use of the building is consistent with surrounding properties and the existing character of the area. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. S. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will upgrade the immediate viciniry of the parcel proposed for development. The aesthetic and architectural improvements to the building as well as the conversion of the dwelling units to luxury condominiums should result in an upgrade of the subject property and adjacent properties. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. 6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The building was built in 1962. It is a building that created the character of the neighborhood. The redevelopment and renovation of the site and building will improve the appearance of the property. The owner intends to retain the aesthetic and architectural design of the building which will remain consistent with the character of the community. The reduction to the number of driveway entrances will comply with code and results in an improved and safer traffic scheme to the property safety. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. 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 viciniry of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The proposal will result in the redevelopment of an older building in state of disrepair being brought back to use as a luxury condominium property. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 4-206.D.4: Burden of proof. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to show by substantial competent evidence that he is entitled to the approval requested. The applicant has adequately demonstrated through the submittal of substantial competent evidence that the request is entitled to the approval requested as required by CDC Section 4- 206.D.4. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Community Development Board — July 16, 2013 FLD2013-04012 — Page 10 '�l�Al �t L�LI-1 Level II Flexible Development Application Review u. ...�`�: . ��,;.�-.,; . , ..,,,�..� PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REV�W DIVISION COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the detached dwelling with the standards as per CDC Tables 2-501.1 and 2-504. Pursuant to Table 2-504, the development standards for residential infill projects are guidelines and may be varied: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Density 30 du/ac (54 units) 53 units X ISR 0.85 0.79 X Minimum Lot Area N/A 78,519 square feet X Minimum Lot Width N/A 385.66 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: 10 - 25 feet West: 1.2 feet (block walUpavement) X 42.11 feet (to porte-cochere) Side: 0- 10 feet North: 4.10 feet (to curb/carport) X SO feet (to building) South: 6 feet (to curb/carport) X 72.6 feet (to building) Rear: 0- 15 feet East: 5 feet (to pavement) X 14 feet (to pool deck) 27.10 feet (to balconies) 33 feet (to building) Maximum Height 30-130 feet 72 feet X Minimum Off-Street 2 spaces per dweliing 1.6 spaces X' Parkin unit � 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 2-504.F (Residential Infill Project): 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is 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 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. 4. The uses 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 which 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 regazd to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking, access or other development standards are justified by the benefits to communiTy character and the immediate vicinity of the pazcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. Community Development Board — July 16, 2013 FLD2013-04012 — Page 11 Consistent � Inconsistent X X X X X X X ' L�� 17 �Lt�i Level II Flexible Development Application Review � ... ��..s, ___ � ,. . PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 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: 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. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage 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 of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community chazacter of the immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactorv and hours of oneration imnacts on adiacent nronerties. Consistent I Inconsistent X X X X X X SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of June 6, 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 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 1.8 acre subject property is located on the east side of Island Way approximately 544 feet north of the Island Way and Windward Passage intersection; 2. That the property is located in the Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (IENCOD); 3. The property has a Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential High (RH); 4. That the existing use on the subject property is attached dwellings; 5. That the owner is renovating the existing building and reducing the number of attached dwellings from 88 units to 53 units; 6. That the proposal is for a total of 53 dwelling units which is below the maximum development potential for the subject property; 7. That the owner is adding a porte-cochere to the main building that will extend further west of 9. 10. 11. 12 13 proposed carports; The proposed carports will be behind the porte-cochere which is considered the front of the building; The existing carports are to remain; That the allowable ISR is 0.85 and the proposed ISR will be 0.79; The subject property is 78,519 square feet in area and exceeds the minimum lot area for attached dwellings which is 15,000 square feet; The subject property has a lot width of 385.66 feet and the minimum lot width for attached dwellings is 150 feet; That there will be a total of 88 parking spaces provided on site; Community Development Board — July 16, 2013 FLD2013-04012 — Page 12 � p�i.t�� } PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT � C�.ttil �7 ale� Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELAPMENT REVIEW DIVISION � ��:.a��, -0 . 14. That the 88 parking spaces provided for 53 units increases the parking ratio from 1.03 to 1.6 per unit; 15. That the existing height of the building is 72 feet is from existing grade with an additional 17.5 feet for elevator and mechanical equipment; 16. The proposal includes a front (west) setback of 1.8 feet (to block walUpavement), a side (south) setback of six feet (to curb/carports), a side (north) setback of 4.10 feet (to curb/carports); and a rear (east) of five feet (to pavement); 17. That the proposal includes a reduction to the front (west) perimeter landscape buffer from ten feet to 1.2 feet; a reduction to the side (south) perimeter landscape buffer from ten feet to six feet; a reduction to the side (north) perimeter landscape buffer from ten feet to 4.10 feet; 18. That the proposal includes a reduction from the interior landscape vehicle use area from 10 percent to 8 percent; 19. That the proposal allows includes a parking row with 18 consecutive parking spaces in a row; 20. The proposal includes six parking spaces within the required sight visibility triangles at the entrances to Island Way; and 21. 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 2-501.1 and 2- 504 of the Community Development Code; 2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 504.F of the Community Development Code; 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-914 of the Community Development Code; and 4. That the development proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Landscape Program standards as per Section 3-1202.G. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development application to allow a 53 attached dwellings in the High Density Residential (HDR) District with a lot area of 78,719 square feet (1.80 acres); a lot width of 385.66 feet (along Island Way); front (west) setbacks of 1.2 feet (to block wall/pavement) and 42.11 feet (to Porte-Cochere); side (south) setback of six feet (to curb and covered parking structure) and 72.6 feet (to building); side (north) setback of 4.10 feet (to curb and covered parking structure) and 80 feet (to building); rear (east) setbacks of five feet (to pavement), fourteen feet (to pool deck), 27.10 feet (to balconies), and 33 feet (to building); a building height of 72 feet (to top of roof slab); and 88 parking spaces as a Residential Infill Project under Community Development Code Section 2-504.F, as well as a reductions to the front (west) perimeter landscape buffer from ten feet to 1.2 feet, the side (south) perimeter landscape buffer from ten feet to six feet, the side (north) perimeter landscape buffer from ten feet to 4.10 feet; a reduction from the interior landscape area from ten percent to eight percent; and to a11ow more than ten consecutive parking spaces as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of the Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.,with the following conditions of approval: Community Development Board — July 16, 2013 FLD2013-04012 — Page 13 � C��tli 1`� Nlel Level II Flexible Development Appiication Review DEVEL MENT REV�.W DIME S ON u .. '� �a;.��L..r �a3,t S �.".� � . Conditions of A�proval: 1. That a building permit be obtained for the parking lot improvements, landscaping and building improvements; 2. That the final design, color, and elevations of the proposed architectural modifications and color changes to the building be consistent with the design, color, and elevations approved by the CDB; 3. That prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall provide building plans that show the extension of the porte-cochere will not be supported by any columns or support structures that encroach into required parking spaces; 4. That prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, all utilities, including individual distribution lines serving this development within the right-of-way along the east side of Island Way, as applicable, must be installed underground unless undergrounding is not practicable; 5. That the dumpster enclosure shall be made of a masonry wall of similar material, architectural details and colors that match the building; 6. That prior to the issuance of any permits, that a final landscape plan that includes the number and type of shrubs to be planted in the north and south perimeter buffers be submitted to and approved by Staff; 7. That prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall comply with any outstanding comments from the Engineering Department; 8. That prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall comply with any outstanding comments from Land Resource; 9. That any future signage must meet the requirements of Code and be architecturally integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by Staff; 10. That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all of the proposed landscaping shall be installed; and 11. That prior to the issuance of any building permit, 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 andlor fire pump. If a fire pump is required, then the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall provide documentation that the Florida Power Corporation easement is vacated or that Florida Power Corporation approves of the construction in the easement. and -- Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: Ke in W. Nurnberger, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Photographs of Site and Vicinity Community Development Board — July 16, 2013 FLD2013-04012 — Page 14 }. . \` ��. __ Looking south from along Island Way from property Looking north uion� Island Way. Looking west at property across Island Way �� - ��k`��:s�.;;; � � � , �,-., , � � ,� �u � ;., .. � . r�v., . �+ ,. ' s , , � r �`, ..."� � �� f.: �?�} 4 � .. '� �'r 'Z?�'��:_¢a1 View of front yard area consists of a parking area. �i/ / �. �,; ��., � '�'� � Looking east at subject property. Lookiug at area tl�at will have the extended porie-cochere and carports. 223 Island Way FLD2013-005020 Kevin W. Nurnberger 100 S Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 727-562-4567ext2502 kevin.nurnberger(cr�mvclearwater.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 Yorl� 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, Belfast, 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 Buffalo, NY BA Anthropology (1999) Landscape Atchitects ir Civil Engineers June 13, 2013 Mr. Kevin Numberger, Planner III City of Clearwater Planning and Development Departrnent Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33758-4748 Re: Letter of Response Island Way Towers - FLD2013-05020 — 223 Island Way Dear Kevin: Please see responses to comments received on June 2, 2013. Engineering Review Prior to Building Construction Permit: 1. As per Community Development Code Section 3-1907B, SidewalksBicycle paths and City Construction Standard Index No. 109 for Sidewalks, Applicant shall bring all sub-standard sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project up to standard, including A.D.A. standards (raised detectable tactile surfaces or truncated domes per FDOT index #304 and 310 FY 2012/13). Please state on the plans that the sidewalk shall be assessed and brought into compliance with current ADA standards. Response: ADA ramp will be added to the existing side walk within the right-of-way per FDOT Index 304 and 310. 2. If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modiiications to satisfy site-speciiic wa�e capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. Response: A new fire hydrant is proposed within Isdand Way right-of-way. j�ARDEMAN KFrMPTON �' ASSOCIATES, INC. uv�cxrrY • Qu,�..rrY • cor�rr�' 2207 W. Norkh'A' Strcet Tampa, Flortda 33606-1583 813258.0066 Fax: 813.258.1783 www.hka-design.com 1�n Equal �portunity Employer 3. As per Clearwater Code of Ordinances, Article IX., Reclaimed Water System, Section 32376, Use of potable water for irrigation is prohibited, no person shall use potable water for irrigation through a new or existing lawn meter on property where reclaimed water distribution facilities are available. If potable water is currently used for irrigation, then a connection to the reclaimed water line in Island Way shall be esta.blished. Response: The site is currently served by reclaimed water service and this service will be connected to the irrigation system. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy: l. The Owner shall submit one set of as-built drawings signed and sealed by a State of Florida Registered Professional Engineer for the installation of all water, sanitary sewer and storm structures installed at the site. These drawings shall be sent to the Engineering Department, Municipal Services Building, 100 South Myrtle Avenue, Room 220. The City inspector will field verify the submitted as-builts for accuracy. Once the Owner has a set of as-builts to the City and a Certiiicate of Occupancy shall be issued. Response: Noted. General Notes: 2. Only Sheets SP1 and L1 were reviewed for General Engineering criteria; the additional details provided in the plan set may have been necessary for other depa.rtmental reviews to provide flexible development approval. Construction plans shall be reviewed in more detail prior to receipt of the building permit. Response: Noted. Environmental Review Prior to issuance of building permit: 1. An Asbestos Survey is usually required prior to conducting any demolition or renovations. Contact Pinellas County Air Quality (727/464-4422) for more information. Response: A copy of the Asbestos Survey in enclosed. 2. Prior to issuance of building permit, provide erosion control measures on plans sheet and provide notes detailing erosion control methods. Response: These detaids will be provided on the Civil Construction Site Plans. General Comments: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Response: Noted. 2. Additional permits form Sta.te agencies, such as Southwest Florida Water Management District or Florida Department of Environxnental Protection, may be required. Approval does not relieve the applicant from the requirements to obtain all other required permits and authorizations. Response: Noted. Fire Review Sheet SP1 does not show a radius on new drive widening please show a 30 foot radius on new drive. ACKNOLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB. Response: Please see the revised plans with the new entrance on Island Way with the proposed 30ft radius. 2. Sheet SP1 shows Existing FDC, (Fire Department Connection) shows a proposed covered parking, must not block %re department connection Fire Department Connections shall be identified by a sight that states "No Parking, Fire Departrnent Connection" and shall be designed in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation standards for information signage and be mainta.ined with a clearance of 7'/z feet in front of and to the sides of appliance as per Florida Fire Prevention Code 2010 edition. Please acknowledge intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB. Response: Please see SPI for the proposed FDC. 3. Please show location of Fire Hydrant to supplying the Fire Department Connection ACKNOWLEDGE PRIORT TO CDB Response: Please see SPl for the proposed fire hydrant location. 4. Note: This is a D.R.C. approval only. Other issues may develop and will be addressed at building permit stage, such as fire sprinkler system, fire alarm system, fire pump Please ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB Response: Noted. Land Resource Review Land Resource Review: Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit: 1. Apply for a Tree Removal permit for the 9 Washingtonia Palms proposed to be removed. Response: Permit will be submitted at time of construction plan submittal. 2. The plans propose the removal of 9 palms for construction, which require the replacement of 9 caliper inches. The landscape plan proposes 81 inches, therefore 72 inches excess exists. Response: Noted. 3. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, prior to issuance of a building permit any and all performance based erosion and sedimentation control measures must be approved by Environmenta.l and or Stormwater Engineering, be installed properly, and inspected. Response: Noted. Planning Review Planning Review 1. Staff has determined that by attaching the carports to the building that the nearest point of the carport structure to the property line cannot be considered the new front setback to principle building. Carports are an accessory user which means 1) is subordinate to and serves a principal use; 2) is subordinate in area, extent, and purpose to the principal use served; 3) contributes to the comfort, convenience or necessities of the users or occupants of the principal use; 4) is located on the same lot as the principal use. As an accessory use must be located behind the front edge of the principle building as set forth in CDC Section 3- 201.B.4. Response: Please see revised SPl, showing the carport behind the front edge of the principle building. 2. The proposed carports must be shown to be architecturally integral to the principle building -- to be considered a part of the building. Revise. Response: Please see enclose rendering showing the proposed carport design. 3. All proposed carport structures shall be removed from all submitted plans. Response: As discussed in DRC, since the proposed carports are behind the principle building; this is acceptabde to the City. 4. Staff is supportive of the porte-cochere to remain and that nearest point of the porte-cochere to the property line shall be considered the front setback. Show front setback to building dimension on plan. Response: Please see revised plan for proposed setback of the porte-cochere. 5. Staff accepts that all existing carports shall remain. Response: Noted. 6. Utilize the interior landscape islands within the parking lot near the carports for stormwater ponds rather than the two islands at the entrance and landscape the islands as set for the in code. Response: Because the existing drainage patterns, it is less difficult to drain to the two islands instead of the landscapes at the entrance of the building. 7. The calculation for interior landscaping in the VLTA need to be revised. The landscape plan shows that building foundation plantings and landscaping in islands not on the properiy as counting towards the 10 percent ViJA required. Building foundation planting Building foundation planting has its own requirement and landscaping not on the subject property cannot count towards the interior landscaping. Revise. Response: Please see revised landscape plan for calculation. 8. Applicant shall need to discuss with the Engineering Db�u ted towardslrequired providing landscapmg in tha public right-of way cannot landscaping. Response: Noted. 9. A ten foot wide south perimeter landscape buffer is required. Please show in landscape data table and on landscape plan how the landscape requirements in this buffer will be met. Response: As discussed in DRC, the existing carport to the south currently sits t4ft into the required IOft landscape buffer. We are not proposing to relocate the existing carport; therefore a�6ft landscape buffer will be provided along the south property line. 10. The landscape data table indicates that accent and palm trees are being used in lieu of shade tree. The subject property requires 29 shade trees, show how that number is being met by use of palm and accents as set forth in CDC Section 3-1202.B.1. Response: Please see revised landscape plan for calculation. 11. Demonstrate how proposed landscaping is more attractive than what is typically required as set forth in Comprehensive Landscape Program• Response: We are proposing 8 d�erent tree species on-site whereas the Comprehensive Landscape Program only requires S different tree species and this will make the site more attractive that what is rypically required. 12. Provide a detail of the new dumpster pad enclosure. It shall be required that the color, materials and finish of the dumpster pad enclosure match that of that of the principle building. Response: Please see attached dumpster enclosure detail on the first sheet of the architect site plans. 13. The site plan shows a 7.5 building setback on the south side of the property. Although the building is located in the Island Estate Plan, the Plan states that multi-family land uses shall follow the HDR District development standards in the Community Development Code. Revise plan. Response: The plan has been revise to show the existing building set back the south side of the properry will remain the same in the proposed conditions. 14. In regards to Residential Iniill Criteria 2-504.F.1, provide competent substantial evidence that the project is otherwise impractical without deviations in regards to parking and landscaping requirements. Response: The proposed Island Way Towers project is an existing structure that has inescapable limitations that inhibit the abiliry to meet certain code requirements. The submitted design utilizes the available area to highest and best use that will enhance both property values and the quality of life on Island Estates while reducing Intensity. Without deviations with regards to landscaping (buffers), the parking ratio on-site would be reduced to less than one space per unit. And this would have a tremendous impact to the project. 15. In regards to the Residential Infill Criteria 2-504.F.6, provide competent substantial evidence that the form and function of the project, as proposed, will enhance the community character in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Response: The proposed project was in a state of disrepair that it devalues the property in the immediate vicinity and is cumbersome to the reputation Clearwater seeks to project. The proposed project brings the property up to a standard all of Cdearwater can be proud of. It also will be an example of how older buildings can be brought back to have a second life through a green venue. Public Art Review OS/24/2013-Due to the valuation of this project at $21,000,000, the Public Art and Design Program fee will be due and payable on this project prior to the issuance of a Building Construction Permit. This fee may be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Christopher Hubbard at 727.562.4837 to discuss the fee assessment. Response: Noted Solid Waste Review Need drawings of location and dimensions of Dumpster enclosure that meet index #701. Response: Please see attached dumpster enclosure detail. Stormwater Review Prior to Building Permit 1. Demonstrate using proposed grades and sheet flow arrows to show the proposed two (2) 3020 SF basins drain to the proposed ponds. Response: To be shown on the construction plan submittal 2. Provide drainage calculations showing the ponds have sufficient capacity. Response: To be submitted at time of construction plan submittal. 3. Provide pond cross section showing they meet 4:1 side slope. Response: To be submitted at time of construction plan submittal. 4. Indicate top of bank and pond bottom data. Response: To be submitted at time of construction plan submittal. Submit seasonal high water ta.ble data and soil analysis. Response: To be submitted at time of construction plan submittal. 6. Demonstrate that the ponds recover their volume within 24 hours or less using double ring infiltrometer test result. Response: To be submitted at time of construction plan submittal. 7. Add notes to �plans requiring contractor that all work within the r-o-w, such as expanding new driveway, closing existing driveway, adding ADA ramps, etc. shall not result in ponding within the r-o-w. Note also requires contractor to temporary flood the r-o-w for a thorough stormwater final inspection. Response: See revised SP 1 Prior to Certificate of Occupancy: 1. A copy of the approved SWFWNID permit shall be provided. Response: Noted. 2. Prior to scheduling the fmal Stormwater Inspection, the Contractor shall submit a signed and sealed as-builts certifying that the stormwater system was built per design and meets all regulations. Response: To be submitted at time of construction plan submittal General Comments: All resubmittals shall be accompanied with a reSponse letter addressing how each department condition has been met. Response: Noted. � 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Response: Noted. Traffic Eng Review Prior to CDB: 1. As per Community Development Code Section 3-1402 B, there shall be no more than one entrance and one exit or one combined entrance and exit per property along any street. As per Community Development Code Section 3-102D, residential collector roads should have driveways 125 feet apart. Please address these issues in the parking lot design. Response: The site currently has three (3) driveway accesses. The site plan has been revised to remove one of the existing driveways and relocate another on Island Way. Because of the existing layout of the site two driveway access will be use and they will be spaced a minimum of 125' apart. Both accesses will be right-in right-out only. 2. As per Community Development Code Section3-14023I 1, the minimum clear vertical height under proposed covered parking shall be seven feet zero inches and shall be eight feet two inches from van-accessible handicapped parking spaces. Response: Noted. To be submitted at time of construction plan submittal 3. As per Community Development Code Section3-9047, there shall be not objects in the sight triangle which does not meet the City's acceptable vertical height criteria at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade. (see sheet L1.0) Response: Noted. Prior to Building Permit: 1. Provide accessible parking sha11 and accessible sign details compliant with City standards. (Index No. 118 & 119) http;//www.myclearwater.com/gov/depts/pwa/engin/Production/stddet/index.asp Response: Noted. To be submitted at time of construction plan submittal. 2. Provide stops signs with marked stop bar at the driveways per current MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control) standards. Response: Noted. To be submitted at time of construction plan submittal. 3. Show 20' x 20' sight visibility triangles at all driveways on sheet SP1. Response: Please see revised LI.O for the sight visibility triangles. General Note(s) The proposed project will not incur any Transportation Impact Fee at this time. The Proposal is to reduce number of multi-family units from 88 units down to 53 units. Response: Noted. 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Response: Noted. Sincerely, KEMPTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. �tt�gins, P.E. Manager K:\C017013K (Island Way Towers - Clearwater, FL - Design Styles)�Documents\correspondence\COC ltr of Response.doc LL ° C earwater U Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application Attached Dweilings, Mixed-Uses or Non-Residential Uses IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICANT TO SUBMit COMPLETE AND CORRECT INFORMATION. ANY MISLEADING, DECEPTIVE, INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT INFORMA710N MAY INVAUDATE YOUR APPUCATIdN. All APPLICATIONS ARE TO BE FILIED OU7 COMPLETELY ANO CORRECTLY, AND SUBM{TTED IN PERSON (NO FAX OR DELIVERIES) TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPAR7MEN7 BY NdbN ON THE SCHEDULED DEADLINE DATE. A TQ7AL OF li COMpLETE SETS Of PLANS AND APPLICATIONN AREVIEW COMMITTEE.A SUBSEQUENi SUBMITTAL FOR'�7HE ARE TO BE SUBMIT'fE0 POR REVIEW BY tHE DEVELOPME COMMUNITY DfVELOPMENT BOARD Wlll REQUIRE 15 COMPtETE SETS OF PlANS AND APPLICA110N MATERIAIS (1 ORI�INAI ANb 14 COPIES). PIANS AND APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COUATED, S7APLED AND FOLDED INl'O SETS.� 7HE APPLICANT, BY FILING 7HIS APPLICA710N, AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY dEVEL�PM�NT CbDE. FIRE DEPT PRELIMARY SITE PLAN REVIEW FEE: S200 APPLitATION FEE: $1,2�5 PROPERTY OWNER (PER DEEO): MAIIING AODRESS: PHONE NUMBER: EMAIL: AGENT OR REPRESENTATNE: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: EMAIL: Island W Tower, LlC 1�3 Rosedale Or. leia etta LA 7D50B 337•7U6•8936 k�Islina.sageC�alchem m t.cam RRdinotan Shares. florMa 33708 ADDRESS OP SUBIECT PROPERTY: i231slandWay.Clearwater,F133767 PARCEL NUMBER(S): 08-Z9-t5-43316-000-0U60 LOTS 6-9. UMT 2 ISLAND ESTAiES oi CIEARWATER A5 REC�RDED IN PIAT BUOK 4?, PAGES 19 S 20. UF THE PUBLIC RECURUS OF PINEIIAS COUNTY. FLORIDA. LEGAI DESCRIPTION: Ait: Victar Hugglns with Hardeman Kempton 6 Assacletes 7201 Narth "A" 5treel Fl PROPOSED USE{5): 53 condominium units __ DESCRIPTION OF REQUES7: SpetJJicolly FdenUjy the request (lnclude olt requested code /lexibility; e.g., reductton !n requtred number oJ porking spotes, beigHt, setbocks, !ot slze, iot wldth, spec!/1c use, etc.); repulrements. Plamilng & Development Department, t00 S. Myrtle Avenuo, Clearwatar, FL 31758, Tel: 72T-562456T; faxRevised 1 14 Pa�e 1 ot 8 � ° C earwater � Ptanning & Development DeparUnent Flexible Developrnent Application Data Sheet PLEASE ENS TRiN YOUR APPLICATION'BEING FOUND1SINCOMPLE E� AND POSSRB Y DE ERRED UNTIL' THEEFOLLOWIN WILL RESU APPLICA710N CYCLE. ZONING DIS7Bl�I: Nigh Density Resld�Ual (HOR) fUTURE IAND !!ce o� ent nFSIGNATION: Residanl(al H(gh EXiSTING U5E {turrently existing on site): 88 unft apertmem buildir� PROPOSED USE (new use. i( any; plus existing, if to remain): 53 unit candominium building SIYE AREA: 78.519+/- sq. ft. GR05S FLOOR AREA (total square tootage of all bufidings): Existing: ►U2.259 sq. ft. Proposed: IDZ259 sq. Et. Maximum Aliowable: , sq. ft. 1.8D �/- acres GROSS fL00R AREA (total square footage devoted to each use, I( there will be multiple uses): First use: IU0.268 sq. ft. Second use: 1.991 iAssemhly) sq. it. Third use: sq. ft. �LOOR AREA RA710 (total square toocage oi all bulldings divlded by the total square footage of enll�e site): Extst{ng: 1•3 Proposed: 1•3 Maximum Allowable: BUILDING COVERAGE/POOTPRIN7 (1" floor square footage of all buildings): Exfsting: 14.564 sq. ft. �( 18.5 9b of skej Proposed: 14,564 sq, ft, ( 18.5 _ 96 of site) Maximum Permitted: sq. ft. ( % of slte) CiREEN SPACE W ITHIN VEHtCULAR USE AREA (green space within the parking lot and interiaroi site; not perimeter buEfer): Existing: 2�120 sq, ft. ( 2.7� 96 of site) Proposed: 2158 sq. ft. ( 2•70 % of site) VEHICULAR USE AREA (parking spaces, drive afsles, toading areaj: � of sitej Existing: 37.969 �q. (t. ( �.3 ----- Proposed: 35.741 sq. ft. ( 45.5 95 of site) Pianning 8� Development Oapartmant,100 S. Myrtle AvOnue, Ctearwater, FL 3�766,Ta1: 727-562�4587; FazRevis�d2 1812 Page 2 ot 8 iMPERVI0U5 SURFACE RATIO (total square tootage oi impervious areas divided by the totai square footage ot entire site): Exisling: � Proposed: �� Maxfmum Permltted: 0.6__, 5_______ DENSITY (units, rooms or beds per acre�: Existing: 88 umt�— Proposed: � �ig Maximum Permllted: 54 units OFf•STREET PARKING: ExistUg: g� Proposed: g g Minfmum Requlred: 106 BUILDI(VG HEIGH7: � Exlsting: �?"��.--- Proposed: 77'�.—__..._._-- Maximum Permitled: 3�'•��— WHAY IS iHE ESTIMAYED707AL VALUE OF THE PROIECT UPON COMPLETION? $�.000.0�_ EONING DI57RICf5 FOR ALL ADIACEN7 PROPERTY: NoRh: Me�umN' Den e� ie South: NI Oe Realdenlfel(NOR East: PreservellonlPl West: Cammercid(C) bk�Sls�vg • Y�G ,�,� STATE OF 6k@R19A, COUN'1"V OFl�INlklAS ` 9;� day oi 1, the understg�ed, acknowledge thaf all $worryto and. subscribed betore me thls^ �, to me andJor by representatlons made In thfs applicatian are tcue and ^ ��' t �56�s.__ accurate to the best oi my knowledge and authori:e `� who is personally known has ttty representatives to visit and photograph the _. • s '� ,.f{ asldentiifcation. oronerl�► descrlbed in this app��atfon. �^ • produced . or , ) DAy wmm►slfon expires: �/ JuNus J. Stag6� IV Bradley & Moreau, APLC Bar Roll #24655 My C,ommission Ex.piras at Death Plaoning 6 Oevelopmont Oeparlmen1,106 S. MyAI� Avenue, Cloatwatat, FL 33766, TeC727•662�4667; FaxRevfsed d1812 Page 3 ot S ° Clearwater � Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application Site Plan Submittal Package Check list iN ADD1710N TO THE �aG� �,HA D Nt UOES THE FOLLOWING IN ORMA ION AND/OR PLANS: 1�TtONS SHAII INCLUOE A SI7E PIAN SUBM{TTAI PACKA ❑ Responses to the flexibiiity criteria for the specific use(s) being requested as set fo�th in the Zoning DisMct(s} in which the subJect property fs located. The attached flexlble Development Application Flexfbfliry Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses, 0 Responses to the General Appficability criteria set forth in Section 3-914.A. The attact►ed Flexible Development Application Generai Applicability Criteria sheet shall be used to provlde these responses. ❑ A signetl 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/improvements, location of all publlc and private easemeots Including oFticial records book and page numbers and street right(s)-of-way within and adjacent to the site. 0 If the appiication would result In the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing fn a mobile home park as provided in F.S. § 723.083, the appllcation must provfde that information required by Sectfon 4-202.A.5. O if this application Is being submitted for the purpose ot a boatlift, catwalk, davit, dock, marina, pier, seawall or other similar marine strutture, then the appiication must provide detalled plans and specifications prepared by a Florida professfonal eng(neer, bearing the seal and signature of the engineer, except signed and sealed plans shall not be requfredior the repair or repiacement of deck{ng, stringe�s, railing, tower tandings, tie piles, or the patthing or reintorcing of existing pfling on private and commercial docks. O A s9te plan prepared by a professional architect, engineer or landscape architect drawn to a minimum scale of one inch equais 50 feet on a sheet size not to exceed 241nches by 36 inches that includes the foilowing information: . O index sheet of the same size shali be included with fndividual sheet numbers referenced thereon. O North arrow, scale, location map and date prepared. O Identftication of the boundarfes of phases, if development is proposed to be constructed in phases. 0 lotation of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCI), whether the property is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area, and the Base Flood Elevation (6FEy of the propeny, as applicabie. O location, footprint and slze of ali existing and proposed buildings and structures on the site. C7 location and dimenstons oF vehicular and pedestrian circulatton systems, both on-site and off•site, with proposed points of access. 0 location of afl existing and proposed sidewa{ks, curbs, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, fire hydrants and seawalis and any proposed utility easements. 0 location of onsite and offsite stormwater management facilitfes as well as a narrative desccibing the proposed stormwater control plan inctuding calculations. Add{tional data necessary to demonstrate tompliance with the Ciry of Clearvvater Sterm Oreinage Design Criteria manual may be required at time of building construction �ermit. O lotatlon of sol(d waste collectfon facilitfes, requfred screening and provisions for accessfbiliry for cotlection. O location of off•street loading area, if required by Sectlon 3-1406. . O All adJacent right(s)�of-way, with Indication of center{ine and width, paved width, existing median euts and intersections and bus shelters. ❑ Dimensions of existing and proposed lot {ines, streets, drives, building lines, setbacks, structurat overhangs and building separations. 0 Building or struc�ure elevation drawings that depict the proposed bullding height and building materials. Pianning 8 Development Department,100 3. Myrile AvOnue, Clearwater, FL 33766, Tel: 727•562�45B7; FaxRovlsed 01112 Paga 4 ot 8 O Typical floor plans, including floor pians for each Ooor of any parking garage. O Oemolition plan. ❑ Identification and description ot watercourses, wetiands, tree masses, specimen trees, and other eovironmentaily sensitive areas. ❑ If a deviation from the parking standards is requested that is greater than 50% (excluding those standards where the dlfference between the top and bottom of the range is one parking spacej, then a parking demand study wili need to be provided. The findings of the study w;ll be used in determining whether or not deviations to t6e parking standards are approved. Piease see the adopted Parking Demand Study Guidelines for further information. 0 A tree survey showing the locatfon, DBH and species of ail existing trees with a OBH of four inches or more, and identifying those trees proposed to be removed, {f any. O A tree inventory, prepared by a certified arborist, af all trees tour inches OBH or more that reflects the size, canapy, and conditlon of such trees may be required if deemed applicable by staff. Check with staff. O A 7raftic impact Study shali be required (or al) proposed developments if the total generated net new trips meet one or more of the following conditions: • Proposal is expected to generate 300 or more new trips in any given hour (directional trips, inbound or outbound on the abutting streets) and/or 1,000 or more new trips per day; or • Anticipated new trip generation degrades the level of service as adopted fn the City's Comptehensive Plan to unacceptabfe levels; or • The study area contains a segment of roadway and/or intersection with five reportable accidents within a prior twelve month period, or the segment and/or intersectfon exists on the City's annual Ilst of most hazardous locations, provided by the City of Clearwater Police Oepartme�t; or � The Traffic Operations Manager or their designee deems it necessary to require such assessment in the plan review process. Examples include developments that are expected to negatively impact a constralned roadway or developments with unknown trip generation and/or other unknown factors. O A landscape plan shall be provided for any project where there is a new use or a change of use; or an existing use is improved ar remodeied in a va{ue of 25� or more of the valuation of the principal structure as reflected on the property appraiser's current reco�ds, or if an amendment is requlred to an existing approved site plan; or a parktng lot requires additfonal lanciscaping punuant to thE provisia��s of Article 3, Diviston 14. The landstape plan shall include the following information, fi not otherwise requlred In conjunction with the application for develoqment approval: O Location, size, deuription, specifications and quantfties of ail existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names. ❑ Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and location, inciuding drip Une. O interior landscape areas hatched and/or sheded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressed both in square feet, exciusive of perimeter landscaped strips, and as a percentage of the paved area coverage of the parking tot and vehicular use areas. 0 location of existing and proposed structures and improvements, including but not Umfted to sidewalks, walis, fenaes, pools, patios, dumpster pads, pad mounted t�ansformers, fire hydrants, overhead obstructions, curbs, water Iines, sanitary sewer flnes, storm drains, seawalls, utility easements, treatment of all ground suriaces, and any other features that may iniluence the proposed landscape. ❑ location of parking areas and other vehicular use areas, including parking spaces, tirculatlon aisies, interior landscape Islands and curbing. D Drafnage and retention areas, including swales, side siopes and bottom elevations. 0 Delineation and dimensions of ali required perimeter landscaped buffers including sight triangies, if any, Planntng 8 Davelopmont Depanmen6 100 S. Myrtle Avanue, Claarwater, RL 337b6, T01: 727•562-4587; FaxRevisedZOti12 Page S of 8 ° Clear�rater U Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application General Criteria PROVIDE CbMPIETE RESPANSE5 t0 EACH OF THE SIX �6j GENEitAI APPUCABIIITY CflITERiA EXPLAINING HOW, IN DEtAII, THE CRl7ERION IS BEIN6 COMPLIEO WITH PER 7HI5 DEVELOPMENT PROROSAL. The proposed davelopment of the land wlil be in harmony wlth the scale, bulk, cnverage, density and character of adJacent propenies in which It is located. The pr�ect ts a redevelapment o� farmsr a multi Isvel, multi famtly building. The" Reatdentlalnffll° proJeot wfll be cnnststeM with the acele, dendty �d character of the e�dstlng / edJacent davelupmeM �d Is designed to "blend-b" w�h ezistmg �lida�s. 7he proposed development will not hlnder or distourage the appropriate devetopment and use of adJacent land and buildings or significantly impatr the value thereof. Ad)aeent and nearby properBes are mostly developsd wit6 cnmmercial and madium Ngh dsnslry resldentiel The re•dev�apment wIN not hind�r a� discouraae devalopment and use of edJaeent lend and buNdin s ar a( n(Flcantl Im alr the velue Ihereui. 7he proposed development wfli not adversely aHect the health or safety or persons reslding or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. The propased re-devalapment wlli not aifeat the health or safaty oi Ihe area since the praviuus use was e muld femily use as well. The proposed development is deslgned to minlmize trafflc congestion. TraHic congestion is not eKpected as the sfte leyaul has considered access end ezisting/revised parking sialis withintha overall site. Also the number of residentlei units was reduce (rnm 88 ro 53. Nots elsa that e�isq� dr(veweYs, curb cuts a� vehtcu�er inpress/epress a�a ta remaln vnlh same minar rscon�gurtng. The ptoposed development is consistent with the community tharacter of the Immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Ad�acent and neerby praparties e�e already develaped with commerclal uses end madium high density re�ldentlaf uses. T�s proJect Is cans(stent with the surraimdinp aommunity d�eracter and conteut. 7he design of the proposed development minlmizes adverse effects, including visual, awusttc and olfactory and hours of aperatinn impacts, on adJacent prapertles. The site is aurrnunded by publie roads on ell sMes. The I�ilding Is situatad with suffldent setba�ks (rom adjoi�ng usea to minimize visual acoustic and aifactory impacts. Na unusud or specld hours of oQaration ara repuired beyond normel retafl uses. Planning & Oevelopment Department,100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Claarwater, F! y3768, Te1: 72T�882�4567; FaxR vised Ot 12 Page 6 of 8 ° Clear�vater � Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application Flexibil�ty Criteria PROVIDE COMPL�7E RESPONSES TO 7HE APPLICABIE FLEX1911.ITY CRITEBIA FOR THE SPECIFft USE(S) BEIN6 REQUESTED AS SET FORiH IN rNE tONING DIS7RICT(5) IN WHItH 7HE SUBIEC? PROPER7Y IS LOCAT60: EXPtAtN HOW, tM DETAII, EACH CRITERION IS BEiNG COMpt1ED WITH PER 7HI5 t7EVBlOPMEN7 PROPOSAL (USE SEPARATE SHEETS AS NECE4SARY). 1. The praposed lalend Way Towers proJect is en euistMp st�ucture ihat has Inascapab�e Hmibdans thet inhibft tha eb�� to meet ceitaln cuds re�uirem�ts. The submitted deaign ulilites the avallable srea to higheat end beat use that will snhanee both prnparty vakrea end tl� quebty of hfe on Isbnd Eatates while redudng Mtensity. 2 The prnpassd proJect will In�rease the value irem 6.25 milflan ddlars to PI mtlllon dollers. The r�nsensus Gom Real Eda1e protessbnda and isiand Estetes pr�erty awrrers is thet thia proJe�t wlll Increase values. We bel�eve tMs ia reflestsd In our merketinp success. to date spproxGnately ha{f af iha prdeet has been sold. 3, The use of IWs property as a co�omi�um Is pe�mitted under the eurrent zonina The densitv or000sed is lust underthe allawable d��ltv q, We rely on the current ioning lo sup�rort this requMement and the proJeet is campalibla wlth tha edlacent land use. 5 Changing use of this praperty from en 88 unit epartmant bdlding, suffering from major eode vlolatbns to a Migh end. eode eompliant NnwrY co�dam�nium sbvcture wi8 up�ade the cammwHy. 6. The propased p�alect has baen reduced to such a stehs "' ^'� '' s� �ne il�n eg�narly ln the Imn�i?le ticln(lv and Ic rumtinixnma M tha rnnulatinn Clearweter seeks to proJect The proposed pro►ast brings the property up ta e stend�d all oE C�e�weter can be praud of. It also wtll he an ezempla af how older buddinpa sen be broupht baek ta have e secand Ilie throuph e green venue. 7, Flezi6lNty in tha sfte plan for thi� develapment IslusNfied bv the beneHts t�tha Citv �C F � sell�dM ��e�+„ a� �� m _ 8. Planning & Development Dapartment,100 8. Myrtle Avanua, Clearwater, PL 33768, Tet: 727•562-4667; Faxc�tV' ed 0112 Page 7 of 8 ° Clearwater u Planning & Development Department F�exible Development Applicatian Affidavit to Authorize 1. Provide nemas of all prop8rty owners on deed — PRIt�7 full names: IslendWay Towers, llC , t. Thst tl am/we are) the owner�s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property: Paul BewWeu � 3. That this property constltutes the property for which a request for (desuibe requestj: IteducUon M �equind nua�er of Du'�A � undscece �bed�a on the noMh south and weai sides of 1he oroce�r e� dnimgt repukemeMc 4. That the underslgned �has/have) appointed and (does/do) appolnt: Grap Nembree es thls/th,elr) agent{s) to execute any petitions or other documents ne�essery to afiect such petitlon; S. 7hat thts affldavtt has been executed to lnduce the City of Clearwater, Plorda to consider and act on the above described propeRy; 6. That site visits to the property are necessary by dty representatives In order to process this application and the owner authorizes Clty representatives to vislt and pHotograph the property described In this app�catbn; 7. That (I/wej, ihe nd signed author by �ertify that the foregoing (s true and correct. Property e Property0wner Propetty Owner Property0wner . r ._.l� S7ATS OF W�ARi�A� COUNTY OI+�bMkS ,_,. f� G.Rtr�� 9EfORE ME THE UNDERSIONED, AN OFFiCER DULY COMMIS310NBD BY 7HE IAWS OF THE S7A7E OF �6RIBA, �N 7HIS � oAY OF n �' ' � ��%� . PERSONALIY APP�ARED �C WWO HAIIIN� BEEN FIRBT bULY SWORN DEPOSED AND SAYS 7HA7 HElSHE FULLY UNbERSTANDS TWE CON7ENTS OF TtiE APFIDAVI THAT HE►SN� SI�NED. Ju11ue �. �tagg, Y'�Y Br�dley 8a Moreau, APLC Notary Pubfic ' net re $ar Rol! #24866 � I��y Con��[RSion Expiroe at DeatYMy Commiss�on Expires: �� Notary SeaUStamp Planning 8 Cavelopment OepaHman1,100 S. Myr��e Avenuo, Clearweter, PL 3�T66, Te1: 72i•582�4b67; FaxRevised 01112 Pege 8 018 � CERTIFIED EXCIUSIVELY T0� BRADLEY & MOREAU/ REAL TITLE 0 m O O O A D d H � � �) N � 0 z � °� � .� u w a - P .p O �p O ` ' £ 'D J 3 � A O p O O O N . J (v . � n � � G r C�1 N x � � h e o u w e � � � � � � N � � 'D ,. ... � G�. 0� n � �0 �oi SECTIDN 8 TOWNSHIP 29 S. RANGE 15 E. .�/' SCALE� 1'•SO' � � y � � � � � A SURVEY OF: LOTS 6-9, UNIT 2 ISLAND ESTATES of CLEARWATER, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 47, PAGES 19 & 20, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELIAS COUNTY,- FLORIDA. NOTE� ELEVATtONS SHOWN ARE BASED ON CITY ❑F CLEARWATER BENCHMARK G-04.5. PUBLISHED ELEVATION IS 3,85' CNAVD'88). RCP = REINF❑RCED CONCRETE PIPE CMP = CORRUGATED METAL PIPE INV. = INVERT WINDWARD PASSAGE EVANS LAND SURVEYIN�� N�i. �DUNEOIN FLE346 8EE(727)734T3821 I. pESCRIP110N AS PRONOED BY C11ENf. F.E.M.A. Zone " AE "(BFE 11'), 2 SURVfiY WAS PERFdiMED YM7MOUT BENffIT OF AN ABSTRACT OF T7LE. 3. O71$lt 7HAN SMONM ON PUT Tp5 FlRM HAS YAOE NO AT7ENPT TO RESEAftCH Per Ponel #12103 C 0102 G(09-03-03) INSiRUNENTS OF RECORO NEFLECIWG EASEYENlS. PopiiS OF WAY, ANO/OR CpIC � CONCREiE ONMERSFGP 7HA7 MAY QOST BUi ARE NOT SNOMN ON 7H15 SVRVEY. FCN � FOUNO CONCREIE YONUMEN7 E�/i � EASEMENi �. NO UNDERCROUND IYPROVELIEN75 NERE LOCAlEO. FIP � FOUND IRON PIPE PP � POMER POLE 5. WiWiED pNEN40N5 SHONN ON DRAWMIG b11PERCEUE SCALEO aNENS10NS 17EN5 FPP . FQUNU VMCN PIPE N� NEASUREO NAY BE ORAMN OUT OF SCALE TO GRAPMICAU.Y $MOM ENCROAp1MENiS ANOIOR �' F�O IRON ROD C� CALCUU7E0 FN/p� FOUNp NAIL IN O�SK 6. � TIIS SURVEY BY ANYONE 07HER INAN 1i105E CER71F1FD TO 1Mll BE AT TIE �ro� �T NNL IN DISK :��ARING BASIS UNE s�+ - sEr inan aao (i/z� ,�z2s v- fla.o (al - o�o r�-usEas so� a�su. wniaur u�eiun ro n+e ax+vEran. voa - vanr oF eEaNnin 7. UNLESS 07HER1MSE NOlEO, EIEVATON$ ARE BASEp UOQV NAVO 19E0 OAIUM. O.A - OFFlf7Al RECORDS PG. � PACE lP � UCN7 POLE a. UNLE55 OIMENNISE NOIEp, FdJND CORNERS HAVE NO IDENTFYINC GM OR 015C. PRM � PERMANENT REFERENCE MONUMENT T19. . TY➢ICM. INV NO I HEREBY CERTFY TMAT iHE SURVEY REPRESENiED HEREON MEEiS 7HE MIMAAUM REOUIFtEMEN75 OF GtUVP1FR5 SJ-f7.030 TO SJ-17.0�2 � 7HE FLORIDA AOMRUSiRAII C00 �,t. . 11 � Lb - [ 2_ ARR L, S JOHN C. BINDER FL R N0. 2937 FL REG. N0. 4888 CENSED BUSINESS No. 6225 FEIJA � FEDERAL EI�IERCENCY NANAGENENT AGENCV ($�RVEY INVAUO 1M7MOUT EAIBOSSED SEAL OF UCENSED SURVEYOR k MAPPE DRAWN BY� LLE CRD FILE� DEARHORN ,cr5 CAD FILE� DEARBDRN TOWERS _. ( l �_ � t �,. ,:;:�:�, � n�:�. _„ ' �- ��t � �� ° f` �� ° t �. � � (/') � W 3 0 �- � � � � � � � � � � —�-- � � � �N � � N Q � 1.L ` Q � '--� � ` CD � � �rn.L \ V N 111 t.' ,:,, �4?= k ��.Y"k. � � ��"T `! � � � � jR '; %�� J� � . .��.'::,.t.0 i:�,:,:.J.... �� i � � � rT� ,s�'!�•F.. _t-i�'"y� � �t� ` '�t�` ; ti� :: '�: � 8� '' � . '',/ y�" � ;n '1'. � � i �� .,..'�r � � � � . � � �. � Y �� 1� ,. �� n-�� ,�� . , �. '� � _ �) '�I t � � ��, �� /� �� - n �� ; � . GY .�.�: � v �� 3�.�IyNry � =�■ =7 ,� a'� `4`` _ y � 1 \ � 1 ii— . ' \ , , ,,� � � ��' ,fw j' "� > %�y'" // I . �;� Y � , , ,:�� , , . , . �,.. a� �'�:^. � � ''�' : f ;'�� G y3�"s�..t . 4 � '; �£�L � � � �%"� ��. � 1'� �r � �