FLD2013-06021� �lea��at�r
a
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
CASE:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
August 20, 2013
G.1.
FLD2013-06021
REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit an Attached Dwelling with 12
dwelling units in the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District
with a lot width of 105 feet, lot area of 18,278 square feet; a height of 50
feet as measured from Base Flood Elevation (BFE) with an additional 12
feet for mechanical equipment and rooftop architectural details; a front
(north) setback of 15 feet to building and 15 feet to pavement; a side (east)
setback of 10 feet to building and five feet to pavement; a side (west)
setback of 10 feet to building and four feet to pavement; a rear (south)
setback of 15 feet to building, 10 feet to paving (one parking space), one foot
to paving (pool deck) and six feet to pool as a Residential Infll Project
under the provisions of the Community Development Code (CDC) Section
2-404.F and to reduce portions of the otherwise required landscape buffer to
four and fve feet to pavement along the east and west, respectively as a
Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-
1202.G and to permit a multi-use dock 835 square feet in area, 114 feet in
width, an average of 67.5 feet in length (between 71 feet and 64 feet), a side
(east) setback of 63 feet (to dock) and 28 feet (to tie pole) and a side (west)
setback of 54 feet (to dock) and 38 feet (to tie pole) under the provisions of
CDC Section 3-601.C3.
GENERAL DATA:
Agent...........................
Applicant / Owner. . . . . .....
John A. Bodziak, AIA.
DDB Real Estate Investments, LLC.
Location .......................... 211 Skiff Point (211 and 221 Skiff
Property Size ...................
Future Land Use Plan......
Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Special Area Plan .............
Adjacent Zoning.... North:
South
East:
West:
Existing Land Use .............
Proposed Land Use.........
Point)
0.419 acres
Residential High (RH)
MHDR District/Island Estates
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District (IENCOD)
Island Estates Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District
(IENCOD)
MHDR DistrictlIENCOD
Preservation (P) District
MHDR District/IENCOD
MHDR District/IENCOD
Vacant
Attached Dwellings (12 units)
'_ viVRl 1't�L�l Level II Flexible Development Application Review
� . > �s,� � � �. .
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The vacant 0.419-acre site is located at the
southwest terminus of Skiff Point
approximately 200 feet west of Larboard Way.
The subject property is comprised of two
parcels with a combined frontage of
approximately 105 feet along Skiff Point and
190 feet of frontage along the water. The site is
vacant except for two small docks which will be
removed with this proposal. The subject
property is zoned Medium High Density
Residential (MHDR) District with an
underlying Future Land Use Plan (FLUP)
category of Residential High (RH). The
property is also located within the Island Estates
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
(IENCOD). It should be noted that the
IENCOD, with regard to specific development
parameters such as setbacks, lot area and width
and the like is applicable only to properties
which are also within the Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District. The subject site
is within the MHDR District. Therefore, the
development parameters germane to the MHDR
District are applicable to the proposal rather
than those associated with the IENCIOD.
The immediate vicinity is characterized
primarily by attached dwellings between two
and five stories. One notable exception is a 15-
story building at the southeast corner of
Larboard Way and Skiff Point. It should also be
noted that at its meeting of June 21, 2005, the
Community Development Board (CDB)
approved a development proposal at the
adjoining property to the west (201 Skiff Point)
for a building 49 feet in height with 15 attached
dwellings (30 du/ac).
Site History:
➢ In 2005, the site was the subject of a Level II
Flexible Development application
(FLD2005-04036) which requested approval
to permit 12 attached dwelling units with
i �
vRGJ£CT
S��E
_,,
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
: �
... � �
... ,
'_ ... •
¢...,,�
Y �,
-t �
=
.:__._. '�� �
�ocAnoN nnaP
�
c
�
T
• , �t 1� �f _., ti +R`'"'� .
�
y� � � �
�..�;� � , s zr:;
.`�- ; � i �'�__ �'' � �t
� � � � "�� �
`, P
� �- -_.� —�',..~"� r :'� ; ..�.
. �
,
� -.
.•'��`�� �- ti y °.
. ,
, ,
, •
_� ,
� , �� } 11�I�DR
.,
, ,
,
� . .
�� ?�� �R �r_-_
�
, , � . E.
,.{'---�. � y ' ,_
�� .� , � _ •
� 'T ..�.-�� .. ,�. _.. � ,� s
"'�" � 1 � �F
` �- . . � �ti� %.� � • HDR', t 1 _
ZONING MAP
Community Development Board — August 20, 2013
FLD2013-06021— Page I
� Cl�.(i� ►t�61.1 Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING& DEVELOPMENT
p PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
���� ,:_
reductions to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 13 feet to parking; a reduction to the
side (east) setback from 10 feet to five feet to parking; a reduction to the rear (south) setback
from 15 feet to 1.5 feet to pool deck and 10 feet to pool; a reduction in the lot width from 150
feet to 142 feet, and an increase in height from 30 feet to 47 feet to roof deck and additional
eight feet for parapet and other architectural embellishments (from roof deck to top of
parapet) and an additional 12 feet for elevator/stairwell overrun (from roof deck), as a
Residential Infill Project, in the MHDR District / IENCOD under the (then) provisions of
Sections 2-404.F and 2-1602. C and H. The development proposal consisted of the
construction of a 47-foot high building (as measured from base flood elevation to roof deck)
containing 12 condominium units that range in size from a 2,594 squaxe foot three-bedroom
dwelling unit to a 3,035 square foot three-bedroom dwelling unit. That case was approved by
the Community Development Board (CDB) on October 18, 2005 with 21 conditions.
Pursuant to Section 4-407, an application for a building permit was required to have been
made within one year of Flexible Development approval (by October 18, 2006). In addition,
all required Certificates of Occupancy were to have been obtained within three years of the
date of issuance of the initial building permit. Building pertnits were not obtained within the
required time frame nor was a time extension requested therefore, the application expired.
Development Proposal:
The proposal is almost identical to that as approved by the CDB as discussed, above and includes
the construction of a 12-unit attached dwelling within a single building 50-feet in height (as
measured from base flood elevation to roof deck) with an additional 12 feet for mechanical
equipment and rooftop architectural details with 12 condominium units. The proposal includes a
front (north) setback of 10 feet to building and 15 feet to pavement; a side (west) setback of 10
feet to building and four feet to pavement; a side (east) setback of 10 feet to building and five
feet to pavement; a rear (south) setback of 15 feet to building, 10 feet to paving (one parking
space), zero feet to paving (pool deck) and five feet to pool. As a point of clarification and
orientation, the lot (and therefore the building) is not oriented north to south. For the sake of
argument, rather than encumber descriptions of direction with northwest, southeast and the like
the property line along Skiff Point is considered the north property line, the two sides are
considered the east and west property lines and the property line along the water is the south.
As mentioned, the proposed building will be 50 feet in height as measured from Base Flood
Elevation (BFE) with an additional 12 feet for mechanical equipment and rooftop architectural
details. It should be noted that the CDC allows an additional 16 feet for mechanical equipment
under the provisions of Section 8-102. The first floor of the building will contain 23 parking
spaces with one additional space provided outside the footprint of the building at the southeast
corner of the building. The ground floor also provides access to the stairwell, two elevators, a
trash room and small storage spaces for each unit all of which are generally located at the
southeast corner of the building. The remaining floors of the building provide the living spaces
for the dwelling units. Access to the site will be provided via a single driveway centrally located
along the north property line.
The pool area will be secured with a solid vinyl fence four feet in height.
Community Development Board — August 20, 2013
FLD2013-06021— Page 2
T Cl�.[ai ��ll.l Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
p pp DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
L .....��...:.. . .. ...
The proposed building can be characterized as a contemporary take on the Mediterranean
Revival-style of architecture incorporating a clay tile roof, stucco finish, articulation of the
fenestration using balconies, balustrades and other finish treatments commonly found in
Mediterranean Revival vernacular. Building colors will include earth tones such as sand, tan ad
light brown, which trim and terra cotta roof tiles typical of the Mediterranean Revival style of
architecture.
The proposal also includes the removal of two small docks which are in poor condition and the
construction of a new multi-use dock 835 square feet in area, 114 feet in width, an average of
67.5 feet in length (between 71 feet and 64 feet) a side (east) setback of 63 feet a side (west)
setback of 54 feet. As explored in greater detail further in this report, the proposed dock is
consistent with all dimensional standards of the CDC including permitted length, width and
setbacks. The dock will be for the sole use of residents of the property and their guests and will
not be rented or leased to non-residents.
As mentioned, the site was the subject of a previous Flexible Development application which
expired. The current site plan is almost identical to that as previously approved. The primary
differences between the former site plan and the current are:
1. The removal of the pool and patio from the southeast corner of the site to the center of the
south side as suggested by Staff in 2005;
2. A slight reconfiguration of the footprint of the southeast corner of the building which
takes advantage of the new pool and patio location;
3. The rearrangement of the parking spaces under the building;
4. The removal of one parking space outside the building relocating it under the building;
5. A proposed height as measured from BFE of 50 feet rather than 47 feet; and
6. The inclusion of an accessory dock.
The proposed elevations are also similar to that as approved with the primary differences being
minor reconfigurations of windows and of rooftop axchitectural features and the location of
balconies on the east and west elevations.
Special Area Plan: Island Estates Neighborhood Plan
The subject site is located within a designated Multi-family Area within the Island Estates
Neighborhood Plan area. As mentioned, the Plan draws a distinction between those properties
within the Single-family area and those within Multi-family Areas. Since the plan's development
parameters such as minimum lot size, permitted uses, setbacks and building height are applicable to
those proprieties within the Single-family Areas the development parameters of the MHDR District
are applicable to the subject site.
Community Development Board — August 20, 2013
FLD2013-06021— Page 3
' V�L�� F'!' �lL� Levei II Fiexible Development Application Review
z . . �.,.. aa�..°xi�t,��=... .
Communitv Development Code
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
Development Parameters
Densi :
Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-401.1, the maximum density for
properties with a Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) designation of Residential High (RH) is 30 units
per acre. The 0.419-acre property yields a permitted density of 12 dwelling units where 12 are
proposed, which is consistent with Code provisions.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISRL
Pursuant to CDC Section 2-401.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.85. The overall proposed
ISR is 0.71, which is consistent with Code provisions.
Minimum Lot Area and Width:
Pursuant to CDC Table 2-404, there is no minimum lot area or width for Residential Infill
Projects. However, for a point of reference, pursuant to CDC Table 2-402, the required lot area
and lot width for attached dwellings are to be a minimum of 15,000 square feet and 150 feet,
respectively. The lot area is 18,278 square feet which exceeds the otherwise minimum area. The
lot width is 105 feet which does not meet the otherwise minimum width required by Code.
Minimum Setbacks:
Pursuant to CDC Table 2-404, the minimum front, side and rear setbacks for Residential Infill
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 (north) setback of 10 feet to building and 15 feet to
pavement; a side (west) setback of 10 feet to building and four feet to pavement; a side (east)
setback of 10 feet to building and five feet to pavement; a rear (south) setback of 15 feet to
building, 10 feet to paving (one parking space), zero feet to paving (pool deck) and five feet to
pool, which is consistent with Code provisions.
Based upon the irregular shape of the lot, the requested reductions to the front setback to building
and pavement (parking) can be supported. The setback reductions are further supportable based
upon the proposed landscaping that will mitigate the reductions and buffer the adjacent uses,
thereby adhering to neighborhood character. Further, the swimming pooUdeck covers roughly 30
percent of the rear yard; thus, the requested reduction to the rear setback can be supported. It
should be noted that the current proposal incorporates a Staff comment from the approved, yet
expired, application that suggested moving the swimming pool and patio centrally along the rear
(south) property line. In addition, the requested side and rear setback reductions to parking can
be supported based upon the provision of adequate landscaping along their respective property
lines.
Maximum Building Height:
Pursuant to CDC Table 2-404, the maximum height for Residential Infill Projects is 30 feet.
This table provides that the development standards for Residential Infill Projects axe guidelines
and may be varied based on the criteria specified in Section 2-404(F). The proposed building
height of 50 feet from Base Flood Elevation (BFE) with an additional 12 feet for mechanical
Community Development Board — August 20, 20l 3
FLD2013-06021— Page 4
_ __ _
� C1l.Rl 1`Y �l��l Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
_
p pp DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
� : r���rvK._=,
equipment and rooftop architectural details 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, among
other development parameters, height shall be justified 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 requested flexibility will allow for a reasonable development of an
underutilized site. The proposed redevelopment will be more aesthetically appealing than what
presently exists on site and will benefit the immediate vicinity and City in that respect. With
specific regard to height, a majority of the buildings in the surrounding area are one or two
stories in height; however these buildings do not comply with FEMA requirements as they
pertain to habitable space below the base flood elevation. As a point of reference, the BFE of the
subject site is approximately seven feet above grade. In order for these buildings to comply with
FEMA requirements, it would necessitate an increase in height to each building. It is further
noted that buildings do exist in the vicinity that are three stories over parking and another
building that is 15 stories in height. In addition, at its meeting of June 21, 2005, the Community
Development Board (CDB) approved a development proposal at the adjoining property to the
west (201 Skiff Point) which consisted of a building 49 feet in height.
Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the flexibility criteria for
residential infill projects as they most closely pertain to increases in building height. The
development proposal is also compatible with existing and proposed development in the vicinity;
therefore, the requested increase to height to 50 feet (to roof deck) can be supported.
Minimum Off-Street Parkin�
Pursuant to CDC Table 2-404, the minimum off-street parking requirement for Residential Infill
Projects is two spaces per dwelling unit. The proposal includes 24 parking spaces for 12
dwelling units, which is consistent with this Code provision.
Mechanical Equipment:
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. Mechanical equipment such as
A/C compressors will be on the roof, screened and will not visible from off site. Other
mechanical equipment such as pool pumps and filters will be located within the pool area and
fully screened from adjacent properties by a surrounding four foot solid fence. Therefore, this
CDC section will be met.
Sight Visibilitv Trian les:
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the proposed driveway on Skiff Point,
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 20-foot sight visibility triangles. This
proposal has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Department and been found to be
acceptable. Shrubbery planted within the sight visibility triangles will need to be maintained to
meet the Code requirements.
Community Development Board — August 20, 2013
FLD2013-06021— Page 5
'_ L�L�I 1'1'Ltil��l Level II Flexible DevelopmentApplication Review PLA��G�nEVELOPMENT
�� �g,�� . ,.: ,,.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
Utilities:
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, for development that does not involve a subdivision, 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. There are no existing overhead utility
lines, serving this site. Existing, overhead utilities are located centrally within and essentially
bifurcating the Skiff Point cul-de-sac and are not adjacent to the subject site. All service lines
entering the property will also be placed underground.
Landsca.ping
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, perimeter buffers required for attached dwellings adjacent to
other attached dwellings are required to be 10 feet in width. Likewise, the front (north)
landscape buffer adjacent to Skiff Point, a local street, is required to be ten feet. The proposal
includes reductions in width along portions of the east and west (sides) from 10 feet to four and
five feet, respectively, to pavement. Please note that the landscape plan is a work in progress and
that the plan included with this submittal is the same plan associated with the Level II Flexible
Development application approved by the CDB in 2005. Staff and the applicant both feel that a
more attractive landscape plan should be developed for this proposal. Staff is confdent that a
mutually acceptable landscape plan can and will be developed by the applicant. It should be
mentioned that the applicant has since secured the services of a local landscape architect of note
to provide a landscape design for the site. A condition of approval is included with the Staff
recommendation which addresses this issue.
Solid Waste:
The proposal includes a small roll-out dumpster which will be kept in the building on the ground
floor. The dumpster will be rolled out to a staging area along Skiff Point on collection days. The
proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste and Fire Departments.
Si�nage:
The proposal does not include a formal signage package however the applicant intends to provide
attached signage with the name of the development and address. The applicant has indicated that
any proposed signage will meet the minimum development standards of the CDC.
Docks:
CDC Section 3-601.C.3 provides development criteria and standards for commercial docks (the
definition of which includes multi-use docks exceeding 500 square feet in area). The proposal
includes the removal of two small docks which are in poor condition and the construction of a
new multi-use dock 835 square feet in area, 114 feet in width, an average of 67.5 feet in length
(between 71 feet and 64 feet depending on the point of origin measurement), a side (east) setback
of 63 feet (to dock) and 28 feet (to tie pole) and a side (west) setback of 54 feet (to dock) and 38
feet (to tie pole). The dock will be for the sole use of residents of the property and their guests
and no portion of it will be rented or leased to non-residents.
The dimensional standards criteria set forth in CDC Section 3-601.C.3.h differentiate between
commercial/multi-use docks adjacent to single- and two-family dwellings, such docks located on
non-residentially zoning property adjacent to residentially zoned property and all other
circumstances. The proposed dock is on residentially zoned properiy adjacent to multi-family
Community Development Board — August 20, 2013
FLD2013-06021— Page 6
' v1�.I�i 1'!'�Ll.l Levei II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
U . . ,.�`"..@i�s�." . . . . �
residential dwellings containing more than two dwelling units. As such, the required side
setback shall be 10 percent of the width of the waterfront property line. The width of the
waterfront property line on the subject property is 190 feet; therefore the proposed dock must be
set back from the east and west extended property lines 19 feet. The proposed dock will be a
minimum of 54 feet from either extended side property line.
With regard to length, commercial docks shall not extend from the mean high water line or
seawall of the subject property more than 75 percent of the width of the subject property as
measured along the waterfront property line; thus the length of the dock is limited to 142.5 feet.
As proposed, the dock has an average of 67.5 feet in length (between 71 feet and 64 feet) and
meets the requirements of Code. The same threshold that applies to length also applies to width;
therefore the width of the proposed dock should not exceed 142 feet. The total proposed width
of the dock is 114 feet and is also consistent with the Code.
No deviations from the dimensional standards of the CDC are requested.
The development proposal has been found to be consistent with the criteria for commercial docks
pursuant to CDC Section 3-601.C.a-g. Specific responses to each of these criteria have been
provided by the applicant and are included with their application. Generally, the proposed docks
are intended to serve as an accessory use to the attached dwellings proposed for the site. The
size, scale and scope of the proposed dock are consistent with other docks in the area considering
the size of the site and density proposed. The width of the waterway to the south is
approximately 260 feet. The proposed dock will occupy about 0.25 percent of the waterway.
Given the length of the proposed dock and the nearest dock to the south there will be
approximately 153 feet of navigable waterway available. The applicant has asserted that the
proposal will have no impact on existing water recreation activities or on navigation. The
applicant has also asserted that the proposal will also have no negative impacts on the marine
environment or on water quality or natural resources. Please note that the Harbor Master has
reviewed the submittal and has found the proposal to be acceptable. It should also be noted that
dock permits are ultimately issued by Pinellas County Water and Navigation.
Purpose, Intent and Basic Plannin�Objectives
The proposal is supported by the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this
Code as follows:
Section 2-401. l lntent of the MHDR District and RH FL UP classification
The CDC provides that it is the intent of the MHDR District that development be consistent with
the Countywide Future Land Use Plan as required by state law. Section 2.3.3.3.1 of the
Countywide Land Use Rules provides that the purpose of the RH FLUP classification is to depict
those areas of the County that axe now developed, or appropriate to be developed, in a highly
intensive residential manner; and to recognize such areas as primarily well-suited for residential
uses that are consistent with the urban and intensive qualities, transportation facilities and natural
resource characteristics of such areas. The proposal includes a building 50 feet in height with 12
dwellings units constituting 30 dwelling units per acre as permitted by the RH FLUP
classification. The surrounding area has been developed in accordance with or less than the
intensity of use permitted by the underlying FLUP classification of RH. The proposal includes a
Community Development Board — August 20, 2013
FLD2013-06021— Page 7
� Cl�R� rl� �1��� Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
p pp DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
� �;�.��
level of intensity supported by the intent of the MHDR District and the RH FLUP classification
in that it provides for a more intensive residential use
Section 1-103.B.1. Allowing propertv owners to enhance the value of their property throu,gh
innovative and creative redevelopment.
The property owner will be able to improve a vacant lot with a new attractive building while
meeting the requirements of FEMA and aesthetically integrating into the existing neighborhood.
Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section.
Section 1-103.B.2. Ensuring that development and redevelopment will not have a ne ative
impact on the value of surrounding properties and wherever practicable promotin� develo�ment
and redevelopment which will enhance the value of surroundingproperties.
Surrounding properties have been developed with attached dwellings ranging in size from one- to
15-stories. The proposed attached dwelling use will constitute an appropriate use for the
neighborhood and 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. Strengthenin the citv's economy and increasing its tax base as a whole.
The proposal includes the development of a vacant lot with 12 dwelling units as part of an
attached dwelling use 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 urther purpose of this Development Code to make the beauti acation o�'
the citv a matter of the highest prioritv and to require that existing and�uture uses and structures
in the citv are attractive and well-maintained to the maximum extent permitted bv law.
The proposal includes one new attractive building characterized by an interpretation of a
traditional Mediterranean Revival-style of architecture. Setback reductions are generally to
pavement and will be mitigated by landscaping which will exceed the intent of the CDC. Please
note that the landscape plan is a work in progress and that the plan included with this submittal is
the same plan associated with the Level II Flexible Development application approved by the
CDB in 2005. Staff and the applicant both feel that a more attractive landscape plan should be
developed for this proposal. A condition of approval addressing this issued is included with the
Staff recommendation. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section.
Section 1-103. E. S. Preserve the natural resources and aesthetic character of the communitv for
both the resident and tourist population consistent with the city's economic underpinnin�s
While there are no natural resources associated with the vacant lot, the proposal will increase the
aesthetics of the immediate area through the development of a vacant lot and the construction of
a new attractive building. The proposal will support the resident population providing 12
additional dwellings units. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section.
Criteria Requirements
The proposal supports of the General Applicability requirements of this Code as follows:
Community Development Board — August 20, 2013
FLD2013-06021— Page 8
? C�e�� 11' �Ll.� Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP�u.N& �vuw nME ioN
� ����:� .._ � �a�.�,��,,....,�:���F :.
Section 3 914 A 1 The�roposed development of the land will be in harmonv with the scale, bulk,
coverage densitv and character o�adiacent�roperties in which it is located.
While a majority of the buildings in the surrounding area are one or two stories in height these
buildings do not comply with FEMA requirements as they pertain to habitable space below the
base flood elevation. In order for these buildings to comply with FEMA requirements, it would
necessitate an increase in the height of each building. It is further noted that buildings do exist in
the vicinity that are three stories over parking and another building that is 15 stories in height. In
addition, at its meeting of June 21, 2005, the Community Development Board (CDB) approved a
development proposal at the adjoining property to the west (201 Skiff Point) which consisted of a
building 49 feet in height. That development was constructed in 2006. Therefore, the proposal
supports this Code section.
Section 3-914 A 2 The_proposed development will not hinder or discoura�e development and use
�adiacent land and buildings or signi acantiv impair the value thereof
The proposal is generally consistent with the character of adjacent properties with regard to use
and with current FEMA regulations (with regard to BFE) and the Countywide Land Use Rules
(with regard to use and density). The proposal is almost identical to the attached dwelling
development adjacent to the west with regard to scale and scope. The proposal will have no
impact on the ability of adjacent properties to be redeveloped. It is not expected that the proposal
will significantly impair the value of adjacent land and buildings. Therefore, the proposal
supports this Code section.
Section 3-914 A 3 The pro�osed devel�ment will not adverselv affect the health or safetv of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood.
The proposal will result in a new attached dwelling use. The proposal will likely have no effect
on the health and/or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. Therefore, the
proposal is consistent with this CDC Section.
Section 3-914 A 4 The�roposed development is desi�ned to minimize traffic conQestion.
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.5. The �ro�osed development is
consistent with the communitv character of the
immediate vicinitv.
While a majority of the buildings in the immediate
area are one or two stories in height these buildings
do not comply with FEMA requirements as they
pertain to habitable space below the base flood
elevation. In order for these buildings to comply
with FEMA requirements, it would necessitate an
increase in height to each building. It is further
noted that buildings do exist in the vicinity that are
three stories over parking and another building that
is 15 stories in height. In addition, at its meeting of
June 21, 2005, the Community Development Board
(CDB) approved a development proposal at the
Community Development Board — August 20, 2013
FLD2013-06021— Page 9
a 1� + 4� PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
� C��l ��L�1 Level II Flexible Development Application Review �avELOrMENT �vicew Divtsiox
- �:,.-
adjoining property to the west (201 Skiff Point) which consisted of a building 49 feet in height.
The larger neighborhood constitutes those properties within the MHDR and High Density
Residential (HDR) Districts between Skiff Point and Windward Passage and between the
intercoastal waterway and Island Way (area outlined with subject property marked on the
accompanying map). Within this area are a multitude of buildings similar to the proposal with
regard to scale and scope. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section.
Section 3-914 A 6 The desi�n of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, includinQ
visual acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adiacent t�roperties.
The design of the proposed development should not result in any adverse olfactory, visual and
acoustic impacts on adjacent properties. The proposal includes an attractive new building and
the applicant has committed to working with Staff to develop a mutually acceptable landscape
plan which will exceed the intent of the CDC. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this
CDC Section.
The proposal meets the specific criteria for Residential Infill Projects pursuant to Section 2-404.F
of this Code as follows:
1. The devel�ment or redevel�ment o the�arcel proposed for development is otherwise
im�ractical without deviations from one or more of the followin�: intensitv; other
devel �ment standards.
Due to the pie-shape of the site and irregular property line along the street frontage it would
be difficult to reasonable develop the site while meeting every minimum development
standard parameter. The reductions in setback are primarily limited to parking and pool deck
with the exception of the front setback of 15 feet to building. Therefore, the proposal is
consistent with this CDC Section.
2. The develo�ment o�'the parcel proposed or development as a residential infll proiect will
not materially reduce the fair market value o abuttin properties.
Surrounding properties have been developed with attached dwellings ranging in size from
one- to 15-stories. The proposed attached dwelling use will constitute an appropriate and
compatible use for the neighborhood, abutting properties 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 �roject are otherwise permitted in the district.
The proposed use, attached dwellings, is permitted within the MHDR District. Therefore, the
proposal is consistent with this CDC Section.
4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent lands uses.
The proposed use, attached dwellings, is a permitted use within the MHDR District. The
subject site is surrounded by atta.ched dwellings. While a majority of the buildings in the
surrounding area are one or two stories in height it is important to note that these buildings do
not comply with FEMA requirements as they pertain to habitable space below the base flood
elevation. In order for these buildings to comply with FEMA requirements, it would
necessitate an increase in height to each building. It is further noted that many buildings do
Community Development Board — August 20, 20l 3
FLD2013-06021— Page 10
'�1L�1 ��l�l.l Level II Flexible Develo ment A licatlon Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
P PP DEVELOPMENTREVIEWDMSION
� �.��� .
exist in the larger neighborhood that are three stories over parking. Therefore, the proposal is
consistent with this CDC Section.
S. The development o the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will
�.Qrade the immediate vicinit�of the parcel pro,�osed for development.
The proposal includes a new, attractive building characterized by an interpretation of a
traditional Mediterranean Revival-style of architecture. Setback reductions are generally to
pavement and are mitigated by landscaping which exceeds the intent of the CDC. Therefore,
the proposal is consistent with this CDC 5ection.
6. The desi�o the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function which
enhances the community character of the immediate vicinitLof the parcel pro osed or
development and the Citv of Clearwater as a whole.
The proposal includes one new attractive building characterized by an interpretation of a
traditional Mediterranean Revival-style of architecture. Setback reductions are generally to
pavement and are mitigated by landscaping which exceeds the intent of the CDC. While a
majority of the buildings in the surrounding area are one or two stories in height these
buildings do not comply with FEMA requirements as they pertain to habitable space below
the base flood elevation. In order for these buildings to comply with FEMA requirements, it
would necessitate an increase in height to each building. It is further noted that buildings do
exist in the vicinity that are three stories over parking and another building that is 15 stories
in height. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section.
7. Flexibilitv in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street ap rking are
'�ustified by the benef ts to communitv character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposed for development and the Cit�of Clearwater as a whole.
The proposal will result in the development of two vacant parcels with a new, attractive 12-
unit attached dwelling residential development. Reductions in setback are mitigated by
landscaping in excess of the intent of the minimum development standards of the CDC.
Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section.
Section 4-206.D.4: Burden of proof. The burden of proof is upon the a�plicant to show bv
substantial competent evidence that he is entitled to the ap�roval rec�uested.
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.
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 maximum
density allowed by the Countywide Future Land Use Designation of the property, 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
Community Development Board — August 20, 2013
FLD2013-06021— Page 11
! Cl\.Rl 1`�t�ll.l Level II F►exible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT
p pp DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
� .. .. +�M":°,�r"`� .
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 provides for 12 dwelling units where 12 units are permitted and is consistent with
the otherwise permitted density allowed by the Countywide Future Land Use Designation of
Residential High (RH). Therefore, this Objective is supported by the proposal.
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.
Objective A. S. S- Promote high quality design standards that support Clearwater's image and
contribute to its identiry.
The proposal includes an attractive building incorporating a Mediterranean Revival-style of
architecture with a clay tile roof, a variety of building materials, stucco finish and an extensive
use of windows and balconies which provide for an attractive articulation of the fenestration.
Therefore, this Objective is supported by the proposal.
Policy A. 5. S.1 Development should be designed to maintain and support the existing or
envisioned character of the neighborhood.
The proposal will be similar in style, scope and scale to the attached dwelling development
adjacent to the west and will constitute an attractive addition to the neighborhood. The proposal,
while taller than some other buildings in area, is consistent with FEMA regulations where the
lower buildings in the area were developed prior such regulations. In addition, most of the
surrounding properties were developed prior to the adoption of the current CDC. Therefore, a
direct comparison between the proposed building and existing building is impracticable. The
proposal is consistent the intensity of development permitted by the current Countywide Land
Use Rules and CDC. Therefore, this Policy is supported by the proposal.
Objective A.6.1 - The redevelopment of blighted, substandard, inefficient and/or obsolete areas
shall be a high priority and promoted through the implementation of redevelopment and special
area plans, the construction of catalytic private projects, city investment, and continued
emphasis on property maintenance standards.
The proposal includes the development of a vacant lot within a residential neighborhood .
Therefore, this Objective is supported by the proposal.
Objective A.6.4 — Due to the built-out character of the city of Clearwater, compact urban
development within the uNban service area shall be promoted through application of the
Clear�vater Community Development Code.
The proposal is being processed as part of a Level II Flexible Development in accordance with
the Clearwater Community Development Code. Therefore, this Objective is supported by the
proposal.
Community Development Board — August 20, 2013
FLD2013-06021— Page 12
'_ v�etil f�aLl.i Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT
p pp DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
� . .�'.s;a�*': z�. .
Policy A.6.4.1 - The development or redevelopment of small parcels [less than one (1) acreJ
which are currently receiving an adequate level of service shall be specifically encouraged by
administration of land development and concurrency management regulatory systems as a
method of promoting urban infill.
The subject site of 0.419 acres will receive an adequate level of service and constitutes an
example of urban infill. Therefore, this Policy is supported by the proposal.
Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject
property.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards as
per CDC Tables 2-401.1 and 2-404:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Density 30 dwelling units/acre 30 dwelling units/acre (12 units) X
(12 units)
50 rooms/acre
Impervious Surface Ratio 0.85 0.71 X
Minimum Lot Area N/A 18,278 square feet (0.419 acres) X
Minimum Lot Width N/A 105 feet X�
Minimum Setbacks Front: 10 - 25 feet North: 10 feet (to building); 15 feet X'
(to pavement)
Side: 0- 10 feet East: 10 feet (to building); five feet Xl
(to pavement)
West: 10 feet (to building); four fee X�
(to pavement)
Rear: 0-15 feet South: 15 feet (to building); 10 feet X'
(to paving -one parking
space), one foot (to paving -
pool deck) and six feet (to
pool)
Maximum Height 30 feet 2 50 feet with an additional 12 feet for X�
mechanical equipment and rooftop
architectural details
Minimum 2 spaces per dwelling 24 spaces (two spaces per dwelling X
Off-Street Parkin unit 24 s aces unit
1 See analysis in Staff Report
2 The development standards for residential inf ll projects are guidelines and may be varied based on the criteria specifted in Section 2-
404(F).
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL APPLICABILITY STANDARDS:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General
Standards for Level One Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A:
Consistent I Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, Xl
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 workin¢ in the neiehborhood.
Community Development Board — August 20, 2013
FLD2013-06021— Page 13
'. Vl�.t�e� I� �l��l Levei II Fiexible Development Application Review
� . ..... �y"a`d.,.n ��. .... . .
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character 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.
1 See analysis in Staff Report
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
Consistent
X'
X'
�
Inconsistent
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility
criteria as per CDC Section 2-404.F (Residential Infill Projects):
Consistent I Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is
otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following: X'
intensity; other development standards.
2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill X'
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 lands 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 regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are
justified by the benefits to community chazacter and the immediate vicinity of the
parcel proposed for development and the Citv of Clearwater as a whole.
� See analysis in Staff Report
X1
X'
X�
X�
X'
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL CRITERIA FOR COMMERCIAL DOCKS
(SECTION 3-601.C.3.a-g):
The individual criteria for commercial docks (and multi-use docks which shall be reviewed as
commercial docks based on proposed square footage in excess of 500 square feet) are set forth in
the following table:
a. Use and compatibility.
i) The proposed dock shall be subordinate to and contribute to the comfort,
convenience or necessities of the users or the occupants of the principal use of the
property.
ii) The proposed dock shall be in harmony with the scale and character of adjacent
properties and the neighborhood in general.
iii) The proposed dock shall be compatible with dock patterns in the general
viciniTy.
Community Development Board — August 20, 2013
FLD2413-06021— Page 14
Consistent I Inconsistent
� Cl4til 1'F �L�l Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
- . ..... ��;�� ..
Consistent I Inconsistent
b. Impacts on existing water recreation activities. The proposed dock/tie poles or use X'
thereof, shall not adversely impact the health, safety or well being of persons
currently using the adjacent waterways for recreational and/or commercial uses.
Furthermore, the dock shall not preclude the existing uses of the adjacent waterway.
Such uses include but are not limited to non-motorized boats and motorized boats.
c. Impacts on navigation. The existence and use of the proposed dock shall not have a X'
detrimental effect on the use of adjacent waters for navigation, transportation,
recreational or other public conveniences.
d. Impacts on marine environment. X�
i) Docks shall be sited to ensure that boat access routes avoid injury to marine
grassbeds or other aquatic resources in the surrounding areas.
ii)Docks shall not have an adverse impact upon natural marine habitats, grass flats
suitable as nursery feeding grounds for marine life, or established marine soil
suitable for producing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding grounds
for marine life; manatee sanctuaries; naturai reefs and any such artificial reef which
has developed an associated flora and fauna which have been determined to be
approaching a typical natural assemblage structure in both density and diversity;
oyster beds; clam beds; known sea turtle nesting site; commercial or sport fisheries
or shell fisheries areas; and habitats desirable as juvenile fish habitat.
e. Impacts on water quality. Xl
i) All turning basin, access channels, boat mooring areas and any other area
associated with a dock shall have adequate circulation and existing water depths to
ensure that a minimum of a one foot clearance is provided between the lowest
member of a vessel (e.g. skegs, rudder, prop) and the bottom of the waterbody at
mean or ordinary low water (-0.95 NGVD datum).
ii) The dock shall not effectively cause erosion, extraordinary storm drainage,
shoaling of channels, or adversely affect the water quality presently existing in the
area or limit progress that is being made towazd improvement of water quality in the
area in which the dock is proposed to be located.
£ Impacts on natura[ resources. X�
i) The dock shall not have a material adverse impact upon the conservation of
wildlife, marine life, and other natural resources, including beaches and shores, so as
to be contrary to the public interest.
ii) The dock shall not have an adverse impact on vegetated areas; vegetative,
terrestrial, or aquatic habitats critical to the support of listed species providing one
or more of the requirements to sustain their existence, such as range, nesting or
feeding grounds; habitats which display biological or physical attributes which
would serve to make them rare within the confines of the city; designated
preservation areas such as those identified in the comprehensive land use plan,
national wildlife refuges, Florida outstanding waters or other designated
preservation areas, and bird sanctuaries.
g. Impacts on wetlands habitat/uplands. The dock shall not have a material adverse I X�
affect upon the uplands surrounding.
1 See analysis provided by the applicant in the application submittal
Community Development Board — August 20, 2013
FLD2013-06021— Page 15
' C���l ��L�1 Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
� __ ,�* .,.< .
COMPLIANCE WITH DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
(SECTION 3-601.C.3.h):
The following table depicts the development proposals consistency with the standards and
criteria as per CDC Section 3-601.C.3.h:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Dock Setbacks 10% of the width of the subject West: 54 feet (to dock), 38 Xl
(Minimum) property (19 feet) feet (to tie pole)
10% of the width of the subject East: 63 feet (to dock),28 feet X'
property (19 feet) (to tie pole)
Dock Length 75% of the width of the subject 85 feet Xl
(Maximum) property (142 feet)
X'
Dock Width 75% of the width of the subject 114 feet
Maximum ro e 142 feet
� See analysis in Staff Report
COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM STANDARDS:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Comprehensive
Landscape Program as per CDC Section 3-1202.G:
Consistent I Inconsistent
1. Architectural theme.
a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a
part of the architectural theme of the principal 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 demonstrabiy 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 Xl
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. The landscape treatment proposed in the X'
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 varcel nronosed for develonment is located.
� See analysis in Staff Report
Community Development Board — August 20, 2013
FLD2013-06021— Page 16
� C���l ►1' �l�l.� Level II Flexible Development Application Review PL^rrxs�G � DEV�LOrMExT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
u . i��z�:� �;,:. ..
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of July 3, 2013, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient,
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. The 0.419-acre subject property consists of two parcels with a combined frontage of
approximately 105 feet along Skiff Point and 190 feet of frontage along the water and is
located at the southwest terminus of Skiff Point approximately 200 feet west of Larboard
Way;
2. That the subject property is located within the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR)
District and the Residential High (RH) Future Land Use Plan category;
3. That the subject property is located in the Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District;
4. The proposal is to construct one, five-story building;
5. The proposed building height will be 50 feet as measured from Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
with an additional 12 feet for mechanical equipment and rooftop architectural details;
6. The proposal includes 24 parking spaces or two parking spaces per dwelling unit;
7. The subject site is vacant with the exception of two docks located along the south side of the
site over the water;
8. The proposal includes a front (north) setback of 10 feet to building and 15 feet to pavement; a
side (east) setback of 10 feet to building and five feet to pavement; a side (west) setback of
10 feet to building and four feet to pavement; a rear (south) setback of 15 feet to building, 10
feet to paving (one parking space), one foot to paving (pool deck) and six feet to pool;
9. That the proposal includes a multi-use dock 835 square feet in area, 114 feet in width, an
average of 67.5 feet in length (between 71 feet and 64 feet), a side (east) setback of 63 feet (to
dock) and 28 feet (to tie pole) and a side (west) setback of 54 feet (to dock), 38 feet (to tie
pole) under the provisions of CDC Section 3-601.C.3;
10. The proposal is a Residential Infill Project; and
11. There are no active Code Compliance cases for 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 2-401.1 and 2-
404 of the Community Development Code;
2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
404.F of the Community Development Code;
3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level One and
Two Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code;
4. That the development is consistent with the General Purposes of the Community
Development including Sections 2-401.1, 1-103.B, D and E.S;
5. That the development is consistent with CDC Section 3-601;
6. That the development is consistent with Section 2.3.3.3.1 of the Countywide Land Use Rules;
Community Development Board — August 20, 2013
FLD2013-06021— Page 17
� C��tu 1'!' �L�l Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
p PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
-�� .r
7. That the development is consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the City's
Comprehensive Plan including Objectives A.1.2, A.5.5, A.6.1 and A.6.4 and Policies A.2.2.2,
A.5.5.1 and A.6.4.1; and
8. That the application is consistent with the requirement for the submittal of substantial
competent evidence as per CDC Section 4-206.D.4.
Based upon the above, the Development Review Committee recommends APPROVAL of the
Flexible Development application to permit an Attached Dwelling with 12 dwelling units in the
Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District with a lot width of 105 feet, lot area of
18,278 square feet; a height of 50 feet as measured from Base Flood Elevation (BFE) with an
additional 12 feet for mechanical equipment and rooftop architectural details; a front (north)
setback of 15 feet to building and 15 feet to pavement; a side (east) setback of 10 feet to building
and five feet to pavement; a side (west) setback of 10 feet to building and four feet to pavement;
a rear (south) setback of 15 feet to building, 10 feet to paving (one parking space), one foot to
paving (pool deck) and six feet to pool as a Residential Infll Project under the provisions of the
Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-404.F and to reduce portions of the otherwise
required landscape buffer to four and five feet to pavement along the east and west, respectively
as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G and to
permit a multi-use dock 835 square feet in area, 114 feet in width, an average of 67.5 feet in
length (between 71 feet and 64 feet), a side (east) setback of 63 feet (to dock) and 28 feet (to tie
pole) and a side (west) setback of 54 feet (to dock) and 38 feet (to tie pole) under the provisions
of CDC Section 3-601.C.3 subject to the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
General/Miscellaneous Conditions
1. That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the elevations approved
by the CDB;
2. That boats moored at any existing or proposed docks, lifts and/or slips be for the exclusive
use by the residents and/or guests of the attached dwellings and not be permitted to be sub-
leased separately from the attached dwelling;
3. That no freestanding signs be permitted on the site;
4. That the proposed dock, lifts andlor slips be for the exclusive use by the residents and/or
guests of residents of the condominiums and not be permitted to be sub-leased separately
from the condominiums;
5. That all applicable requirements of Chapter 39 of the Building Code be met related to
seawall setbacks;
6. That any/all future signage meets the requirements of Code and be designed to match the
exterior materials and color of the building;
7. That issuance of a development permit by the City of Clearwater does not in any way create
any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and
does not create any liability on the part of the City for issuance of the permit if the applicant
fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal
agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law;
Community Development Board — August 20, 2013
FLD2013-06021— Page 18
' vil.�l`t�ll.l Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT
P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
� ?��� <, .. �
8. That all irrigation systems be connected to the public reclaimed line in the Skiff Point right-
of-way per Clearwater Code of Ordinances, Article IX., Reclaimed Water System, Section
32.376;
9. That all other applicable local, state andlor federal pertnits be obtained before
commencement of the development;
10. That a stacking distance of approximately least 35 feet between the Skiff Point right-of-way
and any obstruction (i.e. gate) barring access into the parking area under the building is
provided;
Timing Conditions - prior to issuance ofpermit
1 l. That application for a building permit be submitted no later than August 20, 2014, unless
time extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407;
12. That evidence of a filing of Unity of Title with Pinellas County be submitted to and
approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any building permits;
13. That a right-of-way permit be secured prior to any work performed in the public right-of-
way;
14. That the applicant coordinates with the Engineering/Stormwater Department to assure that
the final locations of the proposed storm chambers do not conflict with the swimming pool,
building foundation, andlor the perimeter landscaping prior to the issuance of any permits;
15. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, a vault maintenance schedule to include
cleaning after construction completion and on at least an annual basis thereafter is provided.
16. That prior to the issuance of any building permits the location and visibility of electric
equipment (electric panels, boxes and meters) be reviewed and, if located exterior to the
building where visible from any street frontage, be shown to be painted the same color as
the portion of the building to which such features are attached;
17. That prior to the issuance of any permits, any applicable Public Art and Design Program
Impact Fees be paid;
18. That prior to the issuance of any permits, any applicable Parks and Recreation impact fees
be paid;
19. 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 percent of its rated capacity;
20. That prior to the issuance of any permits all sub-standard sidewalks and sidewalk ramps
adjacent to or a part of the project shall be shown on plans to be improved to meet the
requirement of Local, State and/or Federal standards including A.D.A. requirements
(truncated domes per FDOT Index #304);
21. That prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of the General Engineering,
Stormwater Engineering, Traffic Engineering and Fire Departments be addressed;
22. That any encroachments into the 18 foot Building Code structural setback from the seawall
be submitted to and approved by the Building Official prior to the issuance of any permit.
It should be noted that the Building Official is authorized by the Board of Adjustment and
Appeal to process and approve administrative variances for such encroachments provided
Community Development Board — August 20, 2013
FLD2013-06021— Page 19
'. V�l.�l 1`1 �L�� Level II Flexible Development Application Review
u . y.'�<�'i,�.�. .
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION
the seawall has been re-engineered and re-constructed to accommodate the new
construction;
23. That a landscape plan be submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any
permits which provides, at a minimum, the following:
(a) A tiered effect along the north, east and west property lines utilizing groundcover
(other than sod), and vary heights of shrub material;
(b) Salt and drought tolerant plant species (native plants are preferred); and
(c) The use of sod only in conjunction with storm water facilities such as drainage swales
and retention/detention ponds;
Timing Conditions - prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy
24. That the storage units located on the ground floor are used for storage only, in compliance
with all Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) rules and guidelines and
that evidence of this restriction of use, embodied in condominium documents,
��
26.
27
homeowner's documents, deed restrictions or like forms, be submitted to the Building
Official prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy;
That all proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed building) be placed
underground. That conduit for the future undergrounding of existing utilities within the
abutting right-of-way shall be installed along the entire site's street frontages prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant's representative shall coordinate the
size and number of conduits with all affected utility providers (electric, phone, cable, etc.),
with the exact location, size and number of conduits to be approved by the applicant's
engineer and the City's Engineering Department prior to the commencement of work;
That a condominium plat be recorded prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy;
That the final Certificate of Occupancy be obtained within two years of issuance of the first
building pertnit;
28. That all utility equipment including but not limited to wireless communication facilities,
electrical and water meters, etc. be screened from view and/or painted to match the building
to which they are attached, as applicable prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy;
and
29. That prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy that all required Transportation
Impact Fees be paid.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
AT"TACHMENTS: Photographs
� Mark T. Parry, AICP, Planner III
Community Development Board — August 20, 2013
FLD2013-06021— Page 20
MARK T. PARRY
1655 Linwood Drive Tel: (727) 742.2461
Clearwater, FL 33755 E-mail: mparry@tampabay.rr.com
SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
A dedicated, AICP certified professional Planner focused on contributing to the field of Urban Planning
experienced in public and private sector planning. An excellent communicator, able to effectively interact
with clients, local government officials and business professionals at all levels. Experienced in various
aspects of urban design and planning, zoning regulations and permitting.
OBJECTIVE
To secure a Planning position which will allow me to continue improving the built environment and my
community through sound and innovative planning and design principals.
EDUCATION
COOK COLLEGE, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, New Brunswick, NJ
B.S. Landscape Architecture Major, Urban Planning Certification
B.S. Environmental Planning and Design
Certificate Urban Planning
Golden Key National Honor Society; Sigma Lambda Alpha
American Planning Association (Florida Chapter); member
AICP #020597
40-hour OSHA (Hazwoper) Training
PLANNER I11 PLANNING DEPARTMENT, CITY OF CLEARWATER 04/12 - Present
08/98 — 04/05
• Responsible for nonresidential and single/multi-family site plan review and permitting.
• Assist in the implementation and subsequent review of the Community Development Code.
• Responsible for assessing and writing Community Development Code amendments.
• Land Development Code development, interpretation and application.
• Provide, inspect and direct landscape review/design.
• Acting Development Review Manager 9/99 — 11/99 and 01/05 — 03/05.
• Manage and direct Associate Planners.
• Review, process and present variance/conditional use, land use/zoning atlas amendment and annexation
applications at in-house and public review meetings.
• Principle Planner in creating and implementing Clearwater's Downtown Design Guidelines.
Assisted in the implementation and application of the Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan.
SENIOR PLANNER DEVELOPMENT � ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, CARDNO TBE 04/05 — 04/12
• Planner of record for Cities of Indian Rocks Beach, Seminole and Clearwater and Town of Belleair.
• Responsible for nonresidential and single/multi-family site plan review and permitting.
• Perform site design and inspections.
• Provide technical planning support for engineering department.
• Provide support for Zoning Code, Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Land Use Plan amendments.
• Research and write Evaluation and Appraisal Reports.
. Create and update Special Area Plans/Form-based Codes.
• Provide CADD support.
• Assist with creating redevelopment marketing material.
• Perform technical environmental services including soil and groundwater sampling.
Designer/Owner GREENSCAPES-GLD, MARLBORO, NJ 9/92 - 6/98
• Founded and established a local garden and landscape business.
• Plan and oversee installation of commercial and residential landscaping projects utilizing a variety of CADD
and photo-manipulation programs.
• Develop and implement advertising programs, brochures and graphics.
• Estimate, bid and negotiate jobs.
• Source and negotiate purchase of materials and equipment.
• Manage, train and schedule installation crews.
Program Supervisor LONGSTREET FARM, MONMOUTH COUNTY PARK SYSTEM,
HOLMDEL, NJ
• Assisted in formulating and running children's summer program ("Hayseed").
• Created and coordinated daily programs and schedules for 6-9 year old groups.
• Supervised several other programs throughout the year.
• Created a demand which was twice the program's capacity after the first year.
COMPUTER SKILLS
6/87 - 8/93
Access, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Works, ClarisWorks, MS Word, Land Designer Pro, Permit Plan,
Excel, Cornerstone, AutoCADD, PowerPoint, Publisher
i�
��� �,,
';�
., %
I� I _� I��
i���-'�_ �,..
Y'i .^�,t�., .
r.:D2.
�j^�i;
: :�
.. �w
Looking �vest along north side of site.
A!i r., ... ��'y _.� ..a�. - - � .. �it1 ��'y�' , 4'F`;F .�.' .., . . 5����5
_ .. �-- � ki e""�'",3;:�. �'tr��'�'.�+,:,�
M., ... -���.
. :s. '.s..�C - '.�'r.t
I.00king east from the north side of the site. Looking north from the south side of the site
,. • - • •_,�,
�p � ''-� , _.,.;.�.,sau. . -
� iiur ���,:t•.
r .�._, _
�� � .
, .. _ . . _ ., e+��. � - �
�
.�"�____. i .. I ` � ..
Looking south from Skiff Point.
_...�'�
' ":.*,T'�'�„dy .. . � ..
+... ..._#�W{i'.I
Looking west from south side of the site.
211 Skiff Point
FLD2013-06021
�
0
�
JOHN A. BOD�IAK, ARCHITECT, A.I.A., P.A.
Mark Parry
City of Clearwater — Planning and Development
100 S. Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
July 10, 2013
RE: 211 Skiff Point
Mark,
Per our prior conversations and our discussion at the DRC meeting, we
would like the proposed docks to be a part of our Level II Flexible Development
request at this time.
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
We calculated the docks at approximately 910 square feet, but with a
recent change we have shortened the walkway to the docks by 15' the new
square footage is estimated at 835 square feet and the dock now extends just
under 65' from the seawall.
I concur that the width of the site along the water is 190 linear feet
(10% = 19 feet) and further concur that the setbacks are 63' on the east side and
54' on the west side. As shown the docks do not extend 75% of the width of the
property and do not intrude more than 25% into the waterway; and as such do
not constitute a navigational hazard. I also agree that the 85' in dock length is
correct and the dock extends from the seawall less than the 75% of the 190'
property seawall line.
DOCK CRITERIA
A. USE AND COMPATIBILITY
i. The proposed dock has been designed to be subordinate to and
contribute to the comfort, convenience, or necessities of the
users and occupants of the principal use of the property.
5530 FIRST AVENUE NORTH • SAINT PETERSBURG, FL • 33710
PHONE: (727) 327-1966 • FAX:1 (72'� 865-5119
FLA REG. #AR0005065
r
0
ii. The proposed dock as designed is in harmony with the scale and
character of the adjacent properties and the neighborhood
waterway character in general.
iii. The proposed dock as designed is compatible with similar dock
patterns in the general vicinity
B. IMPACTS ON EXISTING WATER RECREATIONALACTIVITIES
i. The proposed dock/tie poles and use of those items shall not
impact the health, safety, or wellbeing of persons currently using
the adjacent waterways for recreational/commercial uses.
Furthermore the docks shall not preclude any of the existing uses
of adjacent waterways. Such uses include, but are not limited to,
non-motorized and motorized boats.
C. IMPACT ON NAVIGATION
i. The existence and use of the proposed docks shall not have any
detrimental effect on the use of adjacent waters for navigation,
transportation recreational or other public conveniences.
D. IMPACTS ON MARINE ENVIRONMENT
i. Docks have been sited to ensure that both access routes avoid
injury to grass beds and other aquatic resources in surrounding
areas.
ii. As designed docks will not have an adverse impact on natural
marine habitats including grass flats suitable as nursery feeding
grounds for marine life, or established marine soil suitable for
producing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding
grounds for marine life; manatee sanctuaries; natural reefs and
any such artificial reef which has developed an associated flora
and fauna which have been determined to be approaching a
typical natural assemblage structure in both density and diversity;
oyster beds; clam beds; known sea turtle nesting site; commercial
or sport fisheries or shell fisheries areas; and habitats desirable as
juvenile fish habitat.
E. IMPACTS ON WATER QUALITY
i. All turning basin, access channels, boat mooring areas, and any
other related boating areas shall have adequate circulation and
water depth to provide one-foot minimum clearance at lowest
member. The established waterway presently provides sufficient
clearances for recreational watercraft navigation during mean
ordinary low tide, as established by the 0.95 NGVD datum. As
designed, the dock's area shall all have sufficient depth to operate
safely.
ii. The dock is in keeping with the standard of design for the area
and will not adversely affect or create additional erosion,
extraordinary storm drainage, shoaling of channels, or
degradation of water quality that presently exists in the area; nor
shall it adversely affect or limit progress toward improved water
quality in the area of location.
F. IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES
i. The dock as designed will not have a material adverse impact
upon the conservation of wildlife. No detrimental impact upon
manatee life or the natural resources of the site so as to be
contrary to public interest will occur.
ii. The docks shall not have an adverse impact on any aquatic or
terrestrial vegetated areas or habitat substantially critical to the
support of listed species so as to restrict their range, nesting, or
feeding grounds. No habitats exist on site that display biological
or physical attributes demonstrating rarity within the confines of
the city, nor do they represent areas delineated as such according
to the City's comprehensive land use plan or National Wildlife
, .
Refuges or departments having jurisdiction of Florida inter-coastal
waters. No designated preservation areas or bird sanctuaries
occur.
G. IMPACTS ON WETLANDS HABITAT/UPLANDS
The Dock will have no material adverse effect on or immediate to
the site since no upland wetland habitat of concern exists
immediate to the site.
Thank you for your assistance,
Jac odziak, A I.A.
JOHN A. BODZIAK, ARCHITECT, A.I.A., P.A.
Mark Parry AI CP
DRC Response
City of Clearwater
Planning and Development Department
100 5. Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 33756
July 10, 2013
The following is a written response to the DRC review comments from the
meeting of July 3, 2013.
Where possible review comments have been implemented on the
accompanying re-submittal. Those not implemented will be addressed as
described here-in, either prior to permit submittal of construction plans, or prior
to issuance of C.O.
I have grouped the comments and their responses in chronological order
by department as follows:
C of O Condition
Storm water
1.) SWFWMD permit will be applied for immediately and will be provided
prior to application for cert of occupancy.
2.) Engineered of record Certified signed and sealed as-built, drawings will
be supplied to City certifying compliance to approved design and
regulations prior to scheduling the final Storm Water inspection.
5530 FIRST AVENUE NORTH • SAINT PETERSBURG, FL • 33710
PHONE: (72� 327-1966 • FAX:1 (727) 865-5119
FLA REG. #AR0005065
Page 2
En�ineerin� Review (Prior to Buildin� permit)
1.) IN accordance with DC Sect 3-190 7B and sidewalk/bicycle standard
index #109, all sub-standard sidewalks, and sidewalk ramps adjacent to
or a part of this project including all A.D.A. standards applicant will bring
all applicable applications into compliance including detectable tactile
surfaces and / or truncated domes.
2.) Any infrastructure modifications deemed required by city will be
performed at applicant's expense, underground mains and hydrants
installed, completed, and in service prior to commencement of
construction.
3.) Irrigation systems will incorporate use of reclaimed water per Sect
32.376.
Prior to Cert of Occupancv
1.) Assesment for water main loop installed to accommodate 211 skiff points
will be paid prior to Certificate of Occupancy.
2.) Owners registered Engineer of record will submit to city engineering a
complete set of certified signed and sealed as built drawings as instructed
for field verification by Engineering Department for accuracy. Upon city
approval of as built owner shall provide City Engineering with five sets of
as builts.
General Notes
1.) Construction plans will be reviewed in detail prior to issuance of building
permit and may require additional review comments.
2.) Additional comments may be forth coming during review process.
Page 3
Environmental
1.) Applicant understands additional comments may be forthcoming
2.) Offsite discharge of groundwater from dewatering shall comply with
guidelines from FDEP F.A.0 62-621 (2).
3.) Complete detail Storm Water system plans and details will be provided
with permit submittal plans for review and further review comments may
occur.
4.) Erosion control measures and methods will be incorporated into permit
submittal plans.
5.) Applicant understands additional state agency permits will be required.
Such as SWFWMD of F.D.E.P.
Fire Review
1.) Florida Fire Prevention code 2010 edition is now shown in summary on
page CO.
2.) We acknowledge that an NFPA 13 fire sprinkler systems is required
permit plans will reflect that. Page CO
3.) Fire-Flow calculations are in process and will be submitted prior to D.O.,
application for flow test calc's is submitted.
4.) Applicant acknowledges automatic class 1 wet standpipe w/fire pump
providing 100 psi at roof will be provided. Systems will be zoned; if a
PDR is required it will be Elkhart adjustable device.
5.) Fire hydrant shown at seawall has been eliminated and requirements
of NFPA 303 fire protection standard for marina's and boat yards 2006
edition will be met.
6.) Standpipe connection for dock area connected to fire pump wet
standpipe systems will be provided.
Page 4
7.) FDC shall be a minimum of 15 feet from building and owner will install
a fire hydrant within 25 to 50 feet. This has been revised on
resubmitted plans to meet the standard page A-1.0.
8.) New fire hydrant at site shown and two additional hydrants are with-in
50 feet of property; additionally a third is within 300 feet of site at
intersection of Skiff Point and Larboard Way page A-1.0.
9.) Clearances of 7% feet will be maintained in front of and to the sides of
hydrant and a 4 foot clearance to rear will be maintained as per NFPA 1
see page A-1.0.
10.) Fire Department connections shall be identified by a sign that states
"NO Parkin� Fire Department Connection" and shall be designed in
accordance with FDOT standards for information signage and a 7% foot
clearance maintained in front and sides of appliance per FFPC 2010
edition page A-1.0.
11.) All underground fire lines and hydrant will be installed, completed, and
is service prior to construction as per NFPA 241 by a contractor with A
Class 1, 11 or V License.
12.) Building will comply with ordinance # 7617-06 Radio system
regulations and a 911 radio repeater antenna booster system installed.
13.) A Knox box will be provided and installed as obtained from division of
Fire Prevention Services, Clearwater Fire and Rescue.
14.) Fire alarm installation will comply with NFPA -72 2007 installed by a
licensed fire alarm contractor under separate permit and plans.
15.) The new fire sprinkler system will be designed and installed per NFPA -
13 by a licensed fire sprinkler contractor under separate permit and
plans.
Page 5
16.) Applicant acknowledges that other comments may occur and will be
addressed during permit plan review.
17.) Fire department access around building will be provided in accordance
with NFPA -1 2009 edition chapter 18.
18.) Exiting from structure is through two fire rated emergency exit stairs
located at opposite ends of walkway from each floor. These exits
directly to exterior at ground level see sheet A-1.0, A-2.0, & A-2.1 life
safety plan.
19.) Required height outlined in comment #2 of traffic review (7' 0" req'd)
is exceed with minimum of 8'-4" clear.
Land Resource Review
1.) Tree Inventory is shown on page A-1.1.
2.) Tree removal permit as applicable will be obtained at building
permit application/approval time.
3.) Queen palm was mis-identified and landscape plan has been revised
to reflect native species page A-1.1.
4.) Diversity of species will be revised to meet or exceed CDC Section
3-1202.B.4.
In keeping with the project theme the applicant will be upgrading
the landscape plans significantly prior to submittal of construction
permit submittal.
Parks and Recreation
1.) Site data table has been corrected to reflect three (3) prior
residential units and twelve (12) proposed residential condominium
units page CO.
0
0
Page 6
Plannin� Review
1.) Proposed amount of vehicular use area outside of the building
2,074.6 and is shown on plans page A-1.0.
2.) Footprint of building is more clearly shown on page A-1.0.
3.) Rendered, scaled and dimensioned elevations including color palette
are attached, larger scale elevations are on page A-6.0 & A-6.1.
4.) Elevation labeling has been corrected.
5.) The building is a Mediterranean revival style in detail and massing
with the use of columns, arches, window articulation and trim, dental
detail at soffit level, parapets, and use Spanish tile roof on defined
elements.
The color palette and stone styled trim and banding are also used
to define towers that are defining and visually anchoring the front
corners of the street fa�ade.
6.) The proposed ISR was incorrect and is 71.2 %(13,017.6 = 18,278).
9,725 sq. ft. is the accurate building footprint/coverage which is in
fact 53.21 %. This has also been corrected on site data table found
on page A-1.0.
7.) Applicant will submit comprehensive landscape program application
and compensating landscaping enhancements.
8.) Storm Water facilities and underground and overhead utilities will
be added to the landscape plans prior to construction permit
submittal.
9.) We have updated the landscape plan and clarified plant material
types and quantities.
10.) Fence will be a 4'0" high tan vinyl fence with vertical board
delineation.
Page 7
11.) Solid waste roll out dumpster is located in ventilated room
enclosure at front of building with roll our access to pad shown off
of cul-de-sac on the east side of the entry drive. page A 1-.0.
12.) Building name and address will be located on stucco wall of west
fire stair tower and will be constructed of back lit vinyl raised
letters.
13.) Mechanical equipment will either be on roof (A/C compressors), or
in enclosed rooms and fenced areas.
14.) All adjacent overhead utilities will be constructed underground.
15.) We request that the dock be included in the current request.
We understand that it will be a level 11 flexible development
request. As you know, there are two existing docks presently
located on the site plan and survey.
16.) Island Estates was created in the 60's and experienced a major
building boom in the 70's that substantially filled in the majority of
existing property and brought about an abundance of
development that is now non FEMA complaint and in many cases
functionally obsolete.
Retro fitting for life safety, FEMA and F.B.0 compliance is in
most cases economically and physically impossible, but buildings
would be elevated above B.F.E. at heights more closely
resembling current FEMA complaint building structures.
- _ _
Page 8
The building if built today would be elevated, with parking
most likely under the building and materials would be more
moisture resistant. Components would be impact and wind
damage resistant, and structural components would meet HVHZ
standards and all life safety and fire criteria. That was
nonexistent at the time of their development.
The advantages of design flexibility are to assist in their
compliance to all modern day code regulations and encourage
safe, responsible development.
17.) Ok
18.) The building site is A V-13 Zone and as such bottom of all
construction is to be located above 13 foot BFE. Additional height
is necessary with the required FEMA elevations. FEMA
regulations contribute to structural stability in HVHZ zones and
contribute significantly to structural integrity and life safety
issues.
Public Art Review
We acknowledge that a public Art and Design Program fee will
be due and payable prior to issuance of building permit.
Storm water Review
1.) All runoff from the site including but not limited to roof,
driveway, balconies, pool decks, etc.; will be retained to the
proposed underground chambers for treatment.
2.) Voids between rocks were counted and calculated at 40 %.
Page 9
Prior to Buildin� Permit
1.) We will detail building perimeter more clearly and the
routing of all run off to the proposed underground
chambers, by the roof collection system will be included in
construction permit submittal.
2.) We will label all dimensions of the outlet structure in detail
section.
3.) We will further show sheet flow directions on submittal
plans.
4.) We will maintain and show 6" vertical clearance between
seasonal high water table and rock bottom of storm tech
chambers.
5.) Underground chambers will have 6" freeboard.
6.) We will demonstrate and show that volume of the
underground system draw down in 24 hours or less to meet
city storm water criteria.
Prior to Certificate of Occupancv
1.) We will provide copy of approved SWFWMD permit.
2.) We will submit engineer of record certified as - built plans
per City approved permit plans prior to scheduling final
storm water inspection.
0
Page 10
General Comments
1.) Written responses submitted here-in.
2.) Applicant understands that additional comments may be
forthcoming during building permit application process.
Traffic En�ineerin� Review
1.) Structural system has been changed during design process, and
now many previously shown columns have been removed and /
or relocated.
None encroach into clear parking spaces and we have relocated
remaining columns where structurally allowable to further improve
conditions. Permit plans submissions will conform to CDC 3-1402.1.4.
2.) Minimum clear height is 8' — 4".
3.) Wheel stops have been removed from plans A-1.0.
4.) All electrical conduits, pipes, downspouts, and columns will be
protected from impact per CD Code 3-1402.1.12.
5.) An accessible parking space with sign details complaint with city
standards and applicable codes. (Index 118 & 119) page A-1.0.
6.) Due to the unusual configuration and the curvature of the cul-
de-sac location of the slight the bow in of curbing created makes
a 40 foot stacking difficult.
By relocating the gate deeper into the building we have created
a 35 foot stacking at entry centerline.
We would request due to the unusual road front condition
and absence of through traffic you deem this condition
acceptable.
Page 11
7.) The spaces are now properly called out as a 9 X 18 on both
pages.
8.) With the new structurai system we have eliminated 60 % of the
previously proposed columns; we have also created a 1.5 to 2.0
foot relief at parking space ends wherever structurally possible
thru vertical movement of columns as structurally allowable
with-in beam/column lines.
9.) We believe the removal of numerous columns and relocations
as indicated in response # 8 above were possible due to new
structural system design.
General Notes
1.) Will comply with and pay all T.I.F. fees prior to certificate of
occupancy.
2.) We recognize that additional comments may occur during
building permit review and processing.
I believe we have addressed all review comments here-in
and as required, All Comments will be incorporated prior to
submittal of construction documents for permit review.
We appreciate the assistance and positive intent
expressed by staff in development of accurate and code
complaint construction documents.
Sincerely,
° ter Planning & Development Department
�� ear�va Flexible Develo ment A lication
p pp
�� Attached Dwellings, Mixed-Uses or Non-Residential Uses
IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT COMPLETE AND CORRECT INFORMATION. ANY MISLEADING, DECEPTIVE,
INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT INFORMATION MAY INVALIDATE YOUR APPLICATION.
ALL APPLICATIONS ARE TO BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY AND CORRECTLY, AND SUBMITTED IN PERSON (NO FAX OR DELIVERIES)
TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY NOON ON THE SCHEDULED DEADLINE DATE.
A TOTAL OF 11 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES) AS REQUIRED WITHIN
ARE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTAL FOR THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD WILL REQUIRE 15 COMPLETE SETS Of PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL
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 OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE.
FIRE DEPT PRELIMARY SITE PLAN REVIEW FEE: $200
APPLICATION FEE: $1,205
PROPERTY OWNER (PER DEED): ��� �'Z,��L ����� ( �v��j'Z"'�
MAILING ADDRESS: Zh ,�5 C L�I'C'��(�IZI S� r.� ��
PHONE NUMBER: "l'L� .. 1'�L�-'�QjZ�
EMAIL• �C?•,�a4(7 �O � nj (Z�/s►L�I�h . C�
LG
33'1(�3
AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: J��N 11 � t3op2�Ak Ar.u��-r�zr 1�'C A
.
MAILINGADDRESS: ��. Q '�� ,R•�f(' �.V�NU� �I� S�T.C�Et�'1ZSPJU�Z+C9 '��..
PHONE NUMBER: 72,? — ���f ���(o(p ?j3%�O
EMAIL .Jrs.�:-(,L-@:jA(�O�ZIP�{L � ���
ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
PARCEL NUMBER(S):
� � . • � ' � � � �� r r L ia t�fC i
� � ` � �'
9
r
PROPOSEDUSE(S): ��'1j�^'L,p�M�'JT ���jZ.)iVJE1.VE '(Z�S�D�1�i,/�1 GBN�aN�tNi�
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: W�� '[�� (�(,p�7p�ATL�N A� 'C�NO A.o�A�c�T WA��r�r.�NT
Specifically identify the request
(include all requested code flexibiliry,•
e.g., reduction in required number of
parking spaces, height setbacks, lot
size, lot width, specific use, etc.):
A l 3� C'� ��,'T1�' tcrf' F� P�S Pc�►�Ru� � c� a-rLk l`�o' o� w p.�t'��'�.F'R+�i
�4Jp t'S LUGAe'i�i7 �tJ � GUL.'Dr - SAG Pt�' S�k�Ei� Sl'tL.
Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865
Page 1 of 8 Revised 01112
«
° � earwater
_ .�
��
ir
Planning & Development Department
Flexible Development Application
Data Sheet
PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS FILLED OUT, IN ITS ENTIRETY. FAILURE TO COMPLETE THIS FORM
Wlll RESULT IN YOUR APPLICATION BEING FOUND INCOMPLETE AND POSSIBLY DEFERRED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING
APPLICATION CYCLE.
ZONING DISTRICT: � � � �
rIiTURE LAt�D USE PLAN DESIGNATION: �ULT�I ��MI�Y �� �% ���
EXISTING USE (currently existing on site): V��At��
PROPOSED USE (new use, if any; plus existing, if to remain): ,Z �I��S�� �NPO(�:�N�UµS �v�
.-. .
f
SITE AREA: '� ��,1 � sq. ft. �%� `� acres
GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage of all buildings):
Existing: "O " sq. ft.
Proposed: Q ( � sq. ft.
Maximum Allowable: � f�► sq. ft.
GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage�devoted to each use, if there will be multiple uses):
First use: N' � A sq. ft.
Second use: ��� sq. ft.
Third use: � � � sq. ft.
FLOOR AREA RATIO (total square footage of all buildings divided by the total square footage of entire site�:
Existing: � IA
Proposed: �(� A
Maximum Allowable: �j � A+
BUILDING COVERAGE/FOOTPRINT (15` floor square footage of all buildings):
Existing: — C' — sq. ft. ( —�— % of site)
Proposed: ��� �� sq. ft. ( rj'lj."�� � t% of site)
Maximum Permitted: ��'j, Cj�j(p sq. ft. ( o % of site)
GREEN SPACE WITHIN VEHICULAR USE AREA (green space within the parking lot and interior of site; not perimeter buffer):
Existing: sq. ft. ( � % of site)
Proposed: - (��j(� '"] sq. ft. ( � D�j % of site)
VEHICULAR USE AREA (parking spaces, drive aisles, loading area):
Existing: rG� ° sq. ft. ( -- U^ % of site)
Proposed: _ � � v �.CS sq. ft. ( �,� .� _ % of site)
Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865
Page 2 of 8 Revised 01/12
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO (total square footage of impervious areas divided by the total square footage of entire site):
Existing: "Ci -� /
Proposed: �3 U �'�j .(o /�%( .'� tl!0
Maximum Permitted: � O � �Cj ��j�j(�
DENSITY (units, rooms or beds per acre):
Existing: --(�— D�.
�
Proposed: �Z,,, V Q.i��"j"�
Maximum Permitted: �2,, U�.i�,'t�j
OFF-STREET PARKING:
Existing: �7" �/�(}��J
Proposed: �
Minimum Required: 2,L}
BUILDING HEIGHT:
Existing:
Proposed:
Maximum Permitted
0
�� ��� ����
50` P�anv� �,��-
WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROJECT UPON COMPLETION? $ �OD (�O
ZONING DISTRICTS FOR ALL ADIACENT PROPERTY:
North: �/�, �.{'() j,?
south
East:
West:
M i-� 1zC�
l� t�C1iZ
STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS
I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all Sworn to and subscribed before me this ��� �� day of
representations made in this application are true and
accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize �, `� / ��• to me and/or by
City representatives to visit and photograph the �£1 �i r� I�Oc � r'r Li _, who is personaily known has
property described in this application.
produced �.� - _ ____ _ as identification.
of property owne�F or re
,- -'�-'�..�__._==-r�-�"
Notary public,
My commission expires: rne �� pZ, ��/
„���„
� �1PRV n���
'�°* ;`�= �HA� MI7CHELL
• � c Notary p�b���
��.+ "': MY Corn State ot Florida
�%;��F�o;��' Commis �xpires Fe6 py 2016
� ,,,,,� sion # EE 17
Bonded ihrough Nafronal Notars�6
Y Assn. �
Planning 8� Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865
Page 3 of 8 Revised 01112
LL
o Planning & Development Department
�� ear�ater Flexible Develo mentA lication
p pp
��� � Site Plan Submittal Package Check list
IN ADDITION TO THE COMPLETED FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT (FLD) APPLICATION, ALL FLD APPLICATIONS SHALL INCLUDE A SITE
PLAN SUBMITTAL PACKAGE THAT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION AND/OR PLANS:
� Responses to the flexibility criteria for the specific use(s) being requested as set forth in the Zoning District(s) in which the
subject property is located. The attached Flexible Development Application Flexibility Criteria sheet shall be used to provide
these responses.
�, Responses to the Generai Applicability criteria set forth in Section 3-914.A. The attached Flexible Development Application
General Applicability Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses.
�:i 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/improvements, location of all public and private easements including
official records book and page numbers and street right(s)-of-way within and adjacent to the site.
� 1� ❑ If the application would result in the removal 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.
i� If this application is being submitted for the purpose of a boatlift, catwalk, davit, dock, marina, pier, seawall or other similar
marine structure, then the application must provide detailed plans and specifications prepared by a Florida professional
engineer, bearing the seal and signature of the engineer, except signed and sealed plans shall not be required for the repair
or replacement of decking, stringers, railing, lower landings, tie piles, or the patching or reinforcing of existing piling on
private and commercial docks.
� A site plan prepared by a professional architect, engineer or landscape architect drawn to a minimum scale of one inch equals
50 feet on a sheet size not to exceed 24 inches by 36 inches that includes the following information:
1� Index sheet of the same size shall be included with individual sheet numbers referenced thereon.
� North arrow, scale, location map and date prepared.
� Identification of the boundaries of phases, if development is proposed to be constructed in phases.
� Location of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), whether the property is located within a Special Flood Hazard
Area, and the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of the property, as applicable.
� Location, footprint and size of all existing and proposed buildings and structures on the site.
� Location and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems, both on-site and off-site, with proposed points
of access.
� Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks, curbs, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, fire hydrants and
seawalls and any proposed utility easements.
� Location of onsite and offsite stormwater management facilities as well as a narrative describing the proposed
stormwater control plan including calculations. Additional data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City of
Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual may be required at time of building construction permit.
� Location of solid waste collection facilities, required screening and provisions for accessibility for collection.
� Location of off-street loading area, if required by Section 3-1406.
� All adjacent right(s)-of-way, with indication of centerline and width, paved width, existing median cuts and intersections
and bus shelters.
� Dimensions of existing and proposed lot lines, streets, drives, building lines, setbacks, structural overhangs and building
separations.
� Building or structure elevation drawings that depict the proposed building height and building materials.
Planning 8� Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865
Page 4 of 8 Revised 01/12
�Typical floor plans, including floor plans for each floor of any parking garage.
�Demolition plan.
�; Identification and description of watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, specimen trees, and other environmentally
sensitive areas.
� If a deviation from the parking standards is requested that is greater than 50% (excluding those standards where the
difference between the top and bottom of the range is one parking space), then a parking demand study will need to be
provided. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are
approved. Please see the adopted Parking Demand Study Guidelines for further information.
� A tree survey showing the location, DBH and species of all existing trees with a DBH of four inches or more, and identifying
those trees proposed to be removed, if any.
� A tree inventory, prepared by a certified arborist, of all trees four inches DBH or more that reflects the size, canopy, and
condition of such trees may be required if deemed applicable by staff. Check with staff.
� A Traffic Impact Study shall be required for all proposed developments if the total generated net new trips meet one or more
of the following conditions:
■ Proposai is expected to generate 100 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 in the City's Comprehensive Plan to
unacceptable leve�s; 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 intersection exists on the City's annual list of most hazardous locations, provided
by the City of Clearwater Police Department; 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 constrained roadway or developments
with unknown trip generation and/or other unknown factors.
�' 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
or remodeled in a value of 25% or more of the valuation of the principal structure as reflected on the property appraiser's
current records, or if an amendment is required to an existing approved site plan; or a parking lot requires additional
landscaping pursuant to the provisions of Article 3, Division 14. The landscape plan shall include the following information, if
not otherwise required in conjunction with the application for development approval:
�' Location, size, description, specifications and quantities of all 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, including drip line.
� Interior landscape areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressed both in square
feet, exclusive of perimeter landscaped strips, and as a percentage of the paved area coverage of the parking lot and
vehicular use areas.
� Location of existing and proposed structures and improvements, including but not limited to sidewalks, walls, fences,
pools, patios, dumpster pads, pad mounted transformers, fire hydrants, overhead obstructions, curbs, water lines,
sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, seawalls, utility easements, treatment of all ground surfaces, and any other features
that may influence the proposed landscape.
� Location of parking areas and other vehicular use areas, including parking spaces, circulation aisles, interior fandscape
islands and curbing.
��'
�'
Drainage and retention areas, including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations.
Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscaped buffers including sight triangles, if any.
Planning 8� Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865
Page 5 of 8 Revised 01/12
LL
° � ear�ater
Planning & Development Department
Flexible Development Application
� �� General Applicability Criteria
PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE SIX (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA EXPLAINING HOW, IN DETAIL, THE
CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL.
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, buik, coverage, density and character of adjacent
properties in which it is located.
"J Gc �C��1^L V
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings
or significantly impair the value thereof.
�— �
The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood
of the proposed use.
'�'7� PsT�G�
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion.
C,) � � l'�
The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development.
S� �'C"C"��'�
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of
operation impacts, on adjacent properties.
S � ���c �.��
Planning 8� Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865
Page 6 of 8 Revised 01/12
FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA
WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage,
density, and character of adjacent properties of which it is Iocated.
The proposed twelve (12) unit building is adjacent to a similarly designed fifteen (15) unit
building, of four floors above parking with roof deck. The neighborhood consists of a wide range
of heights, densities, and setbacks, where the proposed Mediterranean designed building is
located (which is in character with neighborhood design trends) to be constructed to current
FEMA / Life Safety standards.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development or use
of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
The adjacent buildings will not be hindered or discouraged for appropriate development and the
adjacent western building was recently similarly developed. The building proposed for this site
will encourage upgrading of substandard surrounding properties and enhance surrounding
properties.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health of safety or persons residing or
working in the neighborhood of the proposed use.
The proposed development will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare or working
within the neighborhood, in that it will meet or exceed all fire, life safety, building code, energy,
and coastal high hazard and FEMA regulations.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion.
The proposed design meets new off street parking and street access regulations not met by
prior structures; and are designed in accordance with flexible design standards.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character with the immediate
vicinity for the parcel proposed for development.
The proposed development is consistent with the constantly improving character of the
community and a number of the recent buildings improving the character and visual character
with Mediterranean Revival design being sought in current criteria.
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 minimizes adverse effects in that it is visually pleasing,
energy efficient, meeting all FEMA, flood, health, energy, fire and safety codes, and is in
conformance with the residential character of adjacent properties and has no operating,
acoustical or olfactory components that are not in character with the existing neighborhood.
° r�vater
��ea
-�
U ,,�
Planning & Development Department
Flexible Development Application
Flexibility Criteria
PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO THE APPLICABLE FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR THE SPECIFIC USE(5) BEING REQUESTED AS SET
FORTH IN THE ZONING DISTRICT(S) IN WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED. EXPLAIN HOW, IN DETAIL, EACH CRITERION
IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (USE SEPARATE SHEETS AS NECESSARY).
3.
Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-0865
Page 7 of 8 Revised 01/12
LL
° C ear�at�r
- �.
Planning & Development Department
Flexible Development Application
U%� Affidavit to Authorize Agent/Representative
1. Provide names of all property owners on deed — PRINT full names:
t7 l7 P� C���' ��c�� 1 Nv��m� ��.G
2. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property:
��'C5 3'� � 31� TSt.PtvJt� ����5 0'� C��2v�� U N��C' �✓ �- AL
3. T�tithispope�rt�con�stptute5hpr��y�t�orwhi�req�uest�for(cfescr� r0$s?°�"�r'J—'43�j°��j—pOdyU3'�C�
C���ti'�" l�al�. DG Ik 12 Uts�'C 1�t0�'CIPti. coNDoM1N1uM tN �
�Vtz. ��`� OVE�. ppsP�i� GoN��GURA'rioN WtTk� $C��C 'DUC,1�.5
4. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint:
�o �h,1 A, C�oD7.tA�t� PtiC��t�t P�T A �JAcK.>
as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition;
5. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described
property;
6. That site visits to the property are necessary by City representatives in order to process this application and the owner
authorizes City representatives to visit and photograph the property described in this application;
7. Th /w he un s' ned authorit reby certify that the foregoing is true and correct.
, �� DDI3 t�� t�i^iP�� ll�v�'��`^E�N't�j L(.G
' Pr pe y Owner Property Owner
Property Owner
STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS
Property Owner
BEFORE ME TH UNDERSIGNED, AN OFFICER DULY COMMISSIONED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ON
THIS �� DAY F�.J U L J ,�� I� , PERSONALLY APPEARED
e� � �-- �-
� � b _�.j j�l�����% S 7 WHO HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN
DEPOSED AND SAYS THAT HE/SHE FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE C
��
��.ti�K� N��., HEATHER E. PERRY
:`2° :`c�': Notary Public - State ot Florida
s• :•e My Comm. Expires Oct 21, 2015
s",��II�„oP�:� Commission �Y EE 131319
Bonded Throuph National Notary Assn.
Not
NTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT THAT HE/SHE SIGNED.
�
c._
Notary Pul3�lic S;�nature
My Commission Expires: �% �,� j 1 c�C�%�
Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865
Page 8 of 8 Revised 01/12
, � .
JOHN A. BODZIAK, ARCHITECT, A.I.A., P.A.
Criteria
Flexible Development Application
General Applicability Criteria
1.) The proposed twelve (12) unit residential condominium is adjacent to
a recently constructed 15 unit building of identical composition, four
living floors above parking.
The neighborhood consists of a wide range of other heights,
densities, and setbacks in two, three, and four story configurations
over parking or in most cases on grade below flood plain, high rise
and mid - rise structures are also immediate to the neighborhood.
Many of the existing buildings were constructed in the 60's and
the 70's under Pre- FEMA reliant codes. Under current FEMA and FBC
regulations these buildings would be elevated above flood plain and
be of additional height, they would also be subjected to stringent
structural, Fire, ADA and Life Safety Requirements bringing them into
similar configuration to this proposed structure.
The proposed Mediterranean revival building meets a design and
aesthetic standard that will compliment and enhance the
neighborhood.
5530 FIRST AVENUE NORTH • SAINT PETERSBURG, FL • 33710
PHONE: (72� 327-1966 • FAX:1(727� 865-5119
FLA REG. #AR0005065
Criteria
Criteria
Criteria
2.) The adjacent building will not be hindered or discouraged for
appropriate development and the adjacent western building was
recently developed in a similar fashion.
The building proposed for this site will encourage upgrading of sub-
standard surrounding properties and enhance surrounding
properties.
3.) The proposed development of attached dwelling units is a permitted
use in the MHDR district and will not adversely affect the health,
safety, or well-fare of persons residing or working within the
neighborhood in that it will meet or exceed all fire, life safety,
building code, energy, coastal high hazard, and FEMA regulations.
4.) The proposed design meets new off street parking and street access
regulations not met by prior structures, and are designed in
accordance with flexible design standards.
. , , •
Criteria
5.) The proposed development is consistent with the consistently
improving character of the community and immediate neighborhood.
A number of recent buildings have improved the character and visual
appeal of the neighborhood with Mediterranean designs similar to
the well detailed one being proposed here-in.
Most remaining buildings from the early years of Island Estates
development pre-date FEMA, Fire, ADA and Life Safety Codes; having
a lower profile and sitting dangerously on existing grade. Were those
buildings brought up to those codes they would be taller being
elevated above grade, and require much more structural complexity.
The attractiveness of the building will also be further enhanced by
above required attractive landscape standards and design features of
high quality finishes and materials.
Criteria
6.) The design of the proposed residential infill project will enhance and
upgrade the aesthetic character of the immediate neighborhood, and
will be a credit to the surroundings and City of Clearwater.
An attractive, well presented design will encourage and stimulate re-
development of other neighboring properties and contribute to a
trend of replacing functionally obsolete and non-code compliant
structures with well presented, code complaint, safe, and highly
desirable neighborhoods.
Criteria
7.) The unusual shape of this property creates both challenges and
opportunities. The small cul-de-sac road frontage but wide
waterfront vista requires a building of unusual shape and site
condition solutions.
The proposed project will be another step in upgrading a long
standing premier area of Clearwater (Island Estates).
Flexibility in the design criteria enables and encourages creative,
code complaint, and attractive solutions to replace under-utilized
and aesthetically unattractive buildings from by-gone eras.
Aesthetics, codes compliance, life safety, landscaping and effective
enjoyment of waterfront vistas are the resulting benefits.
Thank you,
�� �learwater
U
Planning & Development Department
Comprehensive Landscaping Application
IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT COMPLETE AND CORRECT INFORMATION. ANY MISLEADING, DECEPTIVE,
tNCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT INFORMATION MAY INVALIDATE YOUR APPLICATION.
ALL APPLICATIONS ARE TO BE fILLED OUT COMPLETELY AND CORRECTLY, AND SUBMITTED IN PERSON (NO FAX OR DELIVERIES)
TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY NOON ON THE SCHEDULED DEADLINE DATE.
A TOTAL OF 11 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES) AS REQUIRED WITHIN
ARE TO BE SUBMITTED fOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTAL FOR THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, IF NECESSARY, WILL REQUIRE 15 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION
MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL 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 OF THE
COMMUNIN DEVELOPMENT CODE.
PROPERTY OWNER (PER DEED): �
MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE NUMBER:
EMAIL:
AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: � D�N �� �L7ZLA� �.�G�,-�l'CEZ�`C� ��A l J� )
MAILING ADDRESS: 5�?j[� r( (Z,ST� A`J��IU� N.
PHONE NUMBER: ST Y.i(--�['�2�C�,1 f t2/r. �( /'�121 C�A ��� I U
EMAIL:
ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: �L � �
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: pfCC�1Cl.0
Specifically identify the request �� M
(include all requested code flexibility; �0,2
e.g., reduction in repuired number of
parking spaces, height setbacks, lot V-�A"��
size, lot width, specific use, etc.J: � c,t� {} p
�. C�'' � di '�3 O�'� 1
; 221 5 t�t �~ � QO �
r��w � o� �tw�tv� r
tw
���l��N�u(� �EC�3r�c►��
t �
�NT 5� . � - Gv�•pE-
C �E'PtiCZw�T�"� '
7�3
�v�
�N�Ts aF���a�a
������ n������
E FlE4[St�T ou �'C�� � q O'
l�ND t C�Za�L� 5 t-s'�'� ��
IW
bCC�"�l3tlu G C t'T�r \��vi�l+�l
STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS �
I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all Sworn to and subscribed before me this _ � day of
representations made in this application are true and
-,c.r ,i , �(�' . to me and/or
�-ti�Plrl
,�
accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize � �� y
City representatives to visit and photograph the �C� �j �4.J c,�� ,c� , who is personally known s o�°v ^ Q
property described in this application. produced ���� as identificati r� ;^ 2
of property owner�or represen
Notary public,
My commission expires: F�� ca�- �, �,Z Ci /�
Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865
Page 1 of 2 Revised 01/12
s �
F�- v�, w ''°
c
y � o
� � X O Z
W ' _
c=i E v' �
0
E E�
o E
o �
z �U c
m°
�����L U�bd��i
. 0 �� Mii b�.
:4 {�� Ou �
i�
%�6 �� o:
., ,* �;
'/��������5�`�,`,
`= �lear�ater
��;�
Planning & Development Department
Comprehensive Landscaping Application
Flexibility Criteria
PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE FIVE (5) FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA EXPLAINING HOW, IN DETAIL, THE CRITERION
IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPING PROPOSAL.
1. Architectural Theme:
a. The landscaping in a Comprehensive Landscaping program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the
principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for the development.
�j �� `` '� � gi �iA�+-�
OR
b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscaping
program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for
development under the minimum landscape standards.
W E l�t2C 1�t-� �t� ��rc�"3 5 O F(Z�'—�p.��J t t� v�, 'CD P� l � t�T' W� c. � E
A�-�t�.�rzo�.. �w� -� r,��� �. s���.- p��N �A� �,��c� c��r
5'Cy+NbPCYW51 tl�a,(�cJ�t,Artlr� Ttbn� A�•1� LI'C`��LP ���ZZ3 l�'►JO �(�(Z.��
2. Cighting. Any lighting proposed as a part of a Comprehensive Landscaping program is automatically controlled so that the
lighting is turned off when the business is closed.
� �L l.� va-�t �rZ� w� c. � 6 E t vs c.a�� c��t� ���n ��� T
'C1� C�PCI� d S � P�� 'P(.,4�1 A i•i C� V,1 Vl. �i�� %�U'[?JY"� 1�i'1 L�L L Y CFlW Tt2a Z(�b"1�
'T� M n�
M�� � vs�
3. Community Character. ihe landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will enhance the
community character of the City of Clearwater.
"t� �C���s s t o� A� c.t,�-r ��-31 c, r�p t,A-►.� p s c r�h�' 1 �� ' � t,v c� ��
G�C G�'�D G 4�tK ST?� p�cYLs? S�,tJ (� �� ��C•E �� CcS�M U`�u N t`i`�f
<.�G'RR,�C�- O'� �'� C 1"(`C OCi G l,�l'<1(Lvv t�C�.�
4. Property Values. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscaping program will have a beneficial impact
on the value of the property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
► �,� "t3E
a� 'Cti�' S tT� f�cr��7 �� rh t�� �'-11� ( lM�� t w2� "R� �-� 'N �l btr+�a �u-�vcJv
5. Special Area or Scenic Corridor Plan. The landscape treatment proposed in the 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.
������a �cu�- c�c�� `[�i�.�r 4� P� ��-� N�� c����.
�
�
�_.�„�✓r�st.t �-' � � {ocj'� . `
Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865
Page 2 of 2 Revised 01/12
���
EXTERIOR COLOUR PALETTE
_��
j DYCO 0183 'MOTH WING'
�, � (
,�-,- " �! '\
�"J ��-�
DYCO 0011 ' SUGAR DUST' � � `' � ��. � �
�, > ,;4.
— 4� � E���,\� DYCO 1009' BEDTIME STORY'
DYCO 0183' MOTH WING � `��
. , � � .� � a t` 1 .
�, " � -- ----' - _ ���..� k... s�=' ��� � � �-i,\ ;;
� ✓�i
'� � � , � _ � � -- _ �`'=� �_� � ,
�._�, ____— --- -- _ - . ,,,� ,
�' n �� :. � _ � �� —+�.�.� . �� _ " � �� i � , i � DYCO 0011 'SUGAR DUST'
.
��, - � ' =
.,
, � � . .� ��� , � � - � �
L�J 1 � � � � i i� �� � - :� . � � �� i ' �
. ,
� � ��. � —� ; E � � � � � � � � �� 'i � _
.
, �
t �_r1'` � +-�"' :-- i � i � � � �; - ` • ;,� y �
,
. a �
,..,..- . , � r . _
� �
� ��t = �'� �� �� � !i � x , �� ��,._�- -- 1
� • ---
` . �
� � , . � - "�.
,.
�_ ,,� �
� •_ :
. �, � � �
.f� . � Y� r �
�
, � ' _ � � �"`! � __ _ . , � �_ �
� , ��� s
� _
-
, _ . _
J , � , � � �
, � ,
1 . � `. _.
�;�fi��», � a�k� x �� �� i�'� �, ���- �
' ._.. \ `, I ' — �__ ' � , �, �
DYCO 1009 ' BEDTIME STORY' `� ' � • � _ -- -- - ��` `� ; � - �~ • DYCO 0931 'LEMON BUBBLE'
_
; --- .� � ; � � .
! yy
t _ . .a.r .. �
� � �� � � �,
� , ���� �
?'�C
�,
� �
, i , � i
,
J` F .,, � lilb I'i :.�.�I! ,:P,`�.
� , _� _ — — -- - -"" — � , �
„ _ ,,. .�...w...,—�----- — � � � � .��� � � r _ ,
DYCO 0011 ' SUGAR DUST', -- � � � .�'Y""—` � f _ _._ �,,,� �, �, —
--� . _.
, ,
.
F ., - -
<<
'
, . ,� � � t ,f
�r � -
�, �— E .,�
, � �i_� �� �. N f � , � - �
� ' '�
� ��r � — � � - � �"�. . . _ t ,
---- -- ' - r �
�' - -- - --- - -- - _ _ _ _ 1'�.--. i
L}�` �� ,, 'a. _ � � � � ,,° ' ""��!2• ,,: � DYCO 0364 'STONE HEARTH'
DYCO 0931 'LEMON BUBBLE' '�' .�,__ ; _ �
�. . _
a � I' � . I` ��., ^k �
'� � � �'� � ,Si �. 1 �4 y� �,,,,,r ' �
. ,. � � �.
�,«-. . -
DYCO 0364' STONE HEARTH � ^,.� � , � , ��^ ' . , , �, —'�—
�, �,
s .., ,W,,, �
� „
_--_..��.. -� , . a;.
�- u �
_
. :'m�. .,, _
, — A
r-- - — ,.
� �E. � _
� . _ �, �,� � . -. _ . _ _ -- ^----_
� �.�,. _._ �. .,
:� _
u.
. �,,,. ... _
,
�� '� ;��, �.�- �.�«:: � �: ' �
� �� ���� E .� � :�� .
, � ,, _ �. :-- :�r
w
�.
��,
u °`�, < � ',
.
, , �,
, �� �
...
, � ��. �
� .�;.�....h� .��,�,,�,. .
x, .. � _,,.�. � �,. � �. �
,-,�-- ;�� , , � � `
-..�-�" , �' � � �, �
�......---� __ ,
_ �.� s �,.
�..' � � � .c,,,�„ � s r'�' � €``�
�� , �
�.�r�. *�. r , . � '�.
P^`.,$� �.:' �,,;�, , - a
._ . "`� . ✓ �t^:�: ��` "J ,�A�,�.'� a �
�
, ,r
#�
: " ` .. � :.._ .
_ �. r
' � . �' �," � `
,
. �
a �
;
. �. � � �
�
� . �°�+,
, . . . . . . ...... � V
� �� � �,�. � � � . ,.��� � ��� � � S`. �.�' ��� / �� . .
�
: .,, .
" � � v�ca � � . �; � � "'«.:..�, a
� � � t� :�, �
<
� �o ,
0
,
� � � t �.� `
,
. -
�:, o .- .,�„ ":� ; , ,,�
.. .. . �..�
m., ""� �`� ° , � �� � , t , ,•; r �
� �� � ��� � � �-,� �,
� �' r�� �"� : �`� "
,� ?�
�i° �,� � °�._�•
� � �- �� , ,
�� �.� ��` � � �� �
<� �r
� ' �--.. ' • A���v�r '� �. �"',
� _ -w : e a� ' . , ,� -� ve..»�.•o-»„««�.. ... g � .
<
g,-.�,w.r , . °'- ; .
�^" "g TM ,. , t .,„ ,.,,.:a.�., w" �,.
. 4, * ,
�
t
� `' • ,'°, y I �+� � �q,, =*r--�., , , - , �
�e
. ' .x.: +w E ��- ., ' �, .,,.+/" � �i,� ,a� { .
e'
.>,�.� »�" ��""""�"�`^ <....'*` ...,,.,....�, "4-.��M�r�`°''A�y ,'�:,, ' � i m� �.
� !
��;
� � �;.�
��
e� .F�
s �.
� ;
� ��
i
i r y����.:.
.. �'!.�� � :�: �
���. �� �
��
�$
�� � w
�i�; �.'�yk""''
+ � ,w
,� �
� ��;ti�
.
� .� �
� ��
.,�
�
.�� � � �; w,
.r
::� . ,. �: . ' �� .... "�
� , '' . "......
��
� �M' p
-��y��
,.. �
p1 � '
I �
z �
i '
� `
� � � � . j ��
� _.�t . �? '�:
! `� :{,� � �� a
��� �P�� � � ' 3 � k
��- �# � � � � ���.
��, �
� ; � �1�..�
,
���� ` '�����°`
__. 1► � i �
;, � �,� .
� , :� � ,� �� � i ��, I
,� , ,
? ik
I �=� " � � �
�-:�_��.� .�► � ; � �� .�
�� �- ��� � � ' �C.,��,� ; �& �
�"�-`�� 5 �� `� 4
i ��
r� � �� �"� � -^ � ��
��� ` �y �� a
�� . ��`� e �
�' �
.
'��� . � � �..,r � �'i
��; �.._.� "' �_---�--,�,ar,�„
�_.. ,�.� �` .
� � : � .. .... �rx��
�__,......_.._ . . .
,.
.,., . y. �.,,, .. '
��'.�r'*'� MMM�l�E`'"���..y� # .,. ,.., ..
,
a.
� _,f- ..�. .., .r+.za�
i --- ° ' �s�
, .
"' °;:� '� �
_ e . �� ,> ,
�.; �,,,�„ ., ,,�....
�� ��� �
+'w' ti ,
,.
�j vy�.M
1 `� �k , �y��».'a
t
� �� �
;,. ,.
. i.::....'..,
i�
� � �
.. ..� ��.�
�����
� -itJP OF PdA50NRY AT TOWER. � �-- "` -�- 'y� "`�. �
-.�.�_�.�...._.-�.�....,,.�..�.,.�'_.�..� .._........._._..,...�.,�....
�. . . 5..�....�.�'�'_"°'�'�..�.,�� �...._ .. .�,_._. ...�. �.�.... � . ....�..�......�.�.__�.m , ..,�
. .
_._.. r... ..,_ ,
. e�:V.=71'O' � _ � - �M �� � /� . _ _. . .� _.._ . ._.. _' '_'—
. . #: ....., . `
� � . . _- � ___�i.,_
C] . �', ... '� __ _ y
., ,
1
ta� ; So � �� � . . _ .
.
TOP OF FIAT RCOf I , .:. _ .. . . . ' .� _ ' ..' ._ �e°`°�'--v�"y.A .+ . h _ '7'"� a _
_ __ _ � _. '_ .., . _.. _
.
�
, __
t . .�._.�.�.w.�...._....�. .�. ._.�.__. � .,.�..�..�. .
«. {
;� � �LE J - 63'_O' � . _ � � _ • , �.rs_ � - .=..�_ ., �. ,, .. - .. � _— ` � G",...-.'r'IIL�'T�_`'' ' '�� �.l--`�. . _ -� -- . _— .. —' _ _-- _
�.
: � !
// i ,�, r .. __ ___� _'_---- - � — \ 3 �� .. �.
� ! . - � � �-�a:�� \\ � :\ /�� ^� Y "�� .
,
�-. 6 ; ;-- ��` } � � ' � �� �—�;
� �,�� `j �� �� pp �'
b � � . <__ � � � � �
, �' ;.
�� z - � � � �� f i +
^ � j �� �,i,, �.l��f�d_'�r4'?(:Y7 ��h, S � � �_�,(�'i Y,`�� � �t�r�e�3 ' i�i;� r r ; i i :yrs�r t r,, i i - ° 6 d �� -,��' �---_� �P�� ����?
' � (,1�$} � iA
.. .: i)::,:':, . .v . . � a.'1e..w�?.__��9t.:,ak�'.v. � r�au . .:+4 •__.� �. . - -
� h
J� 5th. FI.00P. LN1N6 PENPIOUSF I ...` ��'� � _._._... G�.� n.�� !1�',L:t_,.4141�4�/� i, ; % i S 1 , i - i; - �; � � -u" f .,� ,�;m;� _ ! .- , - � . .
«��.'G�FV. - 57 4' �-�. _ . .. - __ . . ,,.. .., � � : . ._ , _ _.
.�'_'�....�'_'_.'_'_' . . . . _ - _b
.P.
: .�_ _- _ _ _ `
� ____ —
���� ._._.__...... �__.�_+.. s-_-._. _ . ' . . � ' ( . . . ... .. . .
_��� .
o ( . . � � . � ' E . . � - _. ,_.. _ rk +� - '- .. " ��C li� �� � �
IQ �
„ � " " : i r� 1 � ����,, , ,,
`��' � ,,� ' � �;� �, , � '�i + }
�
,� �.
i �
� �
;
� a �
1i o r
Acn.. Fl.00R u � "' '...�<-..,.--,,,�. �:,;;...., f s } t r� +,�, s � � � i. i'
�,.
....._._._ _ -�-
( _ �
_ __.�._..._�. �__.. .�.—.�._.:._ �_r..�. --- _ . ,.,,.�,..__.
�.
.
.,
t
�ELEV. � 4I'_F� � . . �� � . � . . ! ... � �."� .a,...�,.�.. _._.�.._.� . �.�.. . ...�.s_'_... �. __ _,...,. ._.._.__ ,. ......._....._-.___...._........... _____ _ .�_ _
� - -- - _- � �-e..._�„ -�--' _ �� � �' t
g �
�, .- b i � . . � � . . i ; � � p'.: . � � . - � L, 7 �-{�
S
� . � � � � � � : ,
� � . . . .. I���'�I i� � �..;f:�t�'n� �� j� ,r������l� �3 ,1� � �I k. I I i17� �I� �� ����j iil �I r.fi�j�� f� � t � �� 1 { ., � .�'� �� � ���� ��s,.D .�,: � ��i �) �9 �j�
s��. F�oort c��. r, ; � us�---<� r,._ ....� t, , t�'� ii � ! ��I; i (Ii�i�:�llli��n�t � i_l.�+-�.•«v-,--�'.,.---- �� � :-- ','���=�� ..._ � � �� �. _ _ � �!i � �� �1�f:�
_.__.__..��.--*.._.- -----• "�"'L.-
. ,.. _ _.__.-...._.� ��e�. . �.�.-..,...�.�-.�.= _" _�a. .�_' '_.�"�...m._a_..�«.__..__1_ . . _
., EIEV. = 3 t' r,, . .._. _ , _,. .. ,_.._.;;.... _ . . . .. _ ... ._..-... . .
� ' ---- - - -- -- - --- —� '' - -
• . . .__ ' .. - - .. _
, _. _- --.. _ ._--� . � ...._._. _.__ .,. _.
. . _ ... -__ . .. . . _.____. ......_. _...
' � �,�u � - ----'r � �--� _— _ it . f
�_�. �. )
� ' � � < . ., ... a. x....,'^ �- _ j
�
__ . .E, ,..,;'... �
' ' 1 � I _ . r�—�
. ! � � � I � ! a - �'�'�'.i � , �, � � , � �
� ! � ; j �� �
� (� � �� 7 , � � ,,�, ,�� y� �,���, � � �� , � � ; ,t �� {� , � `; � �
�1,"� � I � �, i � 'i�i i� � �� � ��
6 _ i ..� ! I �I � �� { �� j �l�� ��'����1� �I '!t � !S� � � 1'�i � , . �I � ��i , I �1 i � � � � . �� ��i� �{ �i���'�� �1 �il
.f! KLIAING . . � '�"^^4�..,'.r._._i I �i (� d_��� � ' �;� . t';' � �� :���. � _.. ,-.-x.�..�._ ,._-- � ---I .li I.�� i
� � �� � � 4 '` I ' � � i�i i i� � i �ll i � I ilE � �.� i �� i i � �� �� �Ix � ;� __�1� i �' � i
.� � �. ._ _:_: �_ � i ..�:..��'.
- _
,_.._.�_�.,.�. ._.. _ .�
e�v = zo-a^ �' __ . , _. __ _.� � .
.�....�
- —_ _ .._ .� _,w`�s�;
_ . ,.�
;�I
,.�,.� _ -- _
, , _ . -_ _._....:......,.�..� �,.�..._, m,. � - -.. , �___ _
� -_
I , --"' ' ;°
b , �-._.� ._r "".�-�" � _ � — — _ - '' . ^ -- -
�—
B.'F.E .- - . . . . �� i , .
.1^
—,_��,�
�T^'`�^� _'---•-
• ' ._._.._._.�.. � ,�..._.._ _._�_.......:_._. � 1�.. : I t
j l �
��> � g� r •--r, ��. 1 :A .��.,.��..-....�.�. �.��.....-«w.�.-- / �:�...�...�..�� -�1_._...-.... -..�_ ,t . .� __ �._ �� � .
.�.�. �......... � ..` _ ...����_�".�..' _ " " • ._r �.�.`,..
_ .�`� � _" ' ) . . .
"'�E�. i§� .- � . .. .. . �`. ; �_ Ri r �1 � a !�_7'-j-ri .,._ ,__? � t7'i --__ . 2 .���, � = _ r �. . t _._...._._..._.. _
`� � I ` �• � �� TI�'..�! �" � 'i:f 'i1 lit�' i �� �'� i ;�^ �� {{ .1
� � �� , � � , �
, . _
�s, , ---_ - zn � . � , }� � s � � � , , � � , �-�
i � i., � � 4 � �
� _ � yj:li� ;u, �t�hi�l�j�li� � �i� �� {v � r,x 'i � � y k
,9 a '
..- --y;� : . _�-'__ � ��i 's: '.
`�:, ss�. �tOOP PARKJN6 �-.__.�. _—_.'___.._� . . -.. ..�U.+-.._,fi� '�� " � -�._.�_ { �, f-�� t_,! � � .;{, -., �� � ,.,.; . , , ..�.. .:. , ,., - �.��J_�,,,�;,_�_ :__-� ��_
.�
--
�td�rini-c5n�v�.nr�ESt�3's'=�'�..._.._'. _ _._..}____ _ �.u_,. 3� "`r'�..i��.`' ,�.:
. .
�
. _._..__ ___...:._.. ..,�,_..,:.,..._........ . ._.. _ � . .__ . _�_ , _ ,.:
_ . �. __.. ,.__ .__ _....___. ____ .._...._.
i _.
1+� _1. S�'�� (� '`�� .�� r' r �1��,�5+.��:.;
I \� �� :
TQP OF �1/�SONRY AT TOWE�
.\—___ '—'_'_'_'�'___'__'_._.•...._.__.__..._..- -__
Ei.EV. = 71'-O' --
R �
io : , -
�ITOP OF FLAT ROO` r y..._,.__,..�. .._,.� _�
--- -� EIFI. - 63'-O' '_'_..._.�.
i I
b i I
' SCf+.F±QGRLIVINGPENTYCiJSE � �.Yrt._� _ f ' -
� ELEV. = 5�'-4'
�'.� _ _'._._.�...�_�. .I _
�
, ___ .
�; ��a
i �j
4tti.. FLOOR LIVING i
..a...mo..ym...�., �'_'�'_'_' .._.,,.
� EIEV. � 4i'.g• '_._.�.�,..,,T,
g----; -
�
� 3rd. FIOOR IIVING .
w.�._._..
..►'�.'�'..e,.,,,._, ..., .w..P.._ ._......._
� ELEV. � 3 �'4' � . ..,_. . .
f _ __�_
I �, I� �; , `
I � �
i � �-
z„�. r-�ooQU+nru� .�..�._.,�,�.�.._,...�. _ � �__
ELEV. e 20''4" I . �
� I a ,.� �,_ _ �--�
I
I
, �
,� . B.F.E ° I I� "I�
���.. i�,�.�._..._.�..�....._�_,.....�A._,....�.�..,. _.�.�. �r_ 9 A i'_1
�; �� y f
� ` azs.ftc��aFr.�^,t%� 1 �_ i� � � c
.. - —�L"Fin1.'L�'t5�"ia.cx"'�Sv,�� � •..,W.._...�,...,._-..—.-.v>v,.__..
���i
t��j ii .
� � y � �-.�..- � ��,-."�...a�.,
�- _
� i
� .
��. :'.
�� ->-.. �. � � � . � _�� �_. � , � � ,
. .,:`,_ . �...« ' . : �.: . ' .. y . . -. . �,. �,.
. � 1 .. � .. . ,<.
,'*JTSTU_'?'S -�_ — ' _ .-:ItSCC c7' ^T?'���Ta'9S'[I� -' �'- - '" - - — —
�. � \ Y � �ii'�. -��
d l ' 1 o c {�!IF . �1 . � �,� il � . . . .
J ` — fi I I �� 3
� � � ,� � r f �i
r
7 ry � �� Y�!� �
�
; � ; �,`,, �, � ; � Y �4� }� i� �_� `.�"��� �?, �G� __.� i
1 1 . 2n--�_. . . � x . � . � .
: _i.��---�- u_. ;� .� . . .. . - �. !
_ ' ...�..... _�-�-��. .
� .
.. _._._..... �.._ _
.._..._" . -- •--._ �
c`= _�
, 0 1 i . _ . , ..
� ' ., � 3 ip � � I . � � � .._--
i � ��� s��� �� _ �' (
�_'""'...: ' ,;,; � i t�rp� ,�� ��� i , ,�, , � - ,
t,..�.,, . . .
, 1��^*,;. i s � � ��� L��� # I i I� I
.
, j
�- i�...�, ,, __..?._�_ � , �: _..�.e�._.. _,
��
aa'-" r ` _...__'_.-� .._.,...._...._� _...,......_., _.__.. . ._.. . _ '..,-a-p-,..— ._'�'
__ _.,. _ ..
���� �� � �. � ' �
fi- � , - , -,
1 s ;� �. °+'�;�.�;;�' t�°`�
�
°-,--4 � , f � '� �: s ; �
�i 1
� ', �u '�l ���,�� 1`— _ ' �`—^� '� �� l�ilil �
�
��- �._...._,_.---..�..,.e....�....,_...�....�.......-.._� �� �_� �_—., ,_.�..�...,............_.. , R......_.,.� .I
_... ..._"' _ . � '_ '_"_._..��.
� , ; . _ r .... . _ _.._:.:. . _ � �.. __._ _ _ ___ _...._.. _ . .� ._ .._.�_._ , . .
�
� _—�,--..��-��•��-, _ . _ _ _ j
� i ' ;T� '^ �- � � �—���
��� •
� ; �� ; i
� ;,
� � _. j ..9 � 1 � . . � I
, �i ��: R ',�;�I � �;j � �� t. . ,__� � _ 1 . � . . it!ii� �j:
�
�'��.I.,....3 ;t�,....�
�.. � ,�,
._._ ._ v . _-- •---� �._—_.�.��.�.._ ..., x
-,.�....Y -N-._ _ .-�....e._,_ _...�..
--- -- - — --•--
.�� _.._.� ---
- —
_._.
� _
�_ ... . . , �:..� _._v_.....-, ..,.-.�-T...-, - _ .. = . _._.. �.��,.,.. �: , . .. �
� . ... . . . . ...-. . �,
\ � .... _ .�.�. �...�� . .. , �,' _ � . ..
1 � .�-=..., � �ewr.....�,.....x✓ i:.. .
_ �
_°"""�"'T -"`"r...' . „_, . . �
— � • ---- —=._..�:__ ...:�.._.:_�...-�.�.�._.. .�._._..e...._._.._._._._..._: ._.._.___... _. ...
- '�";-- •�--.—.�.
� " R
�._ r � , �
�
; ; i J _- �.. . :; _ �,. .���,.� rx.�.�
�� �.* �
';
, _ � . �
�'�.�.. _. � 2 � . - ,.> �M � �,� � tii. . � .._
• --�. � � � �,_ _. . — � _--
z WEST EXTE�10� �S_�-'v %tii iON
'•,�ns. i �c,n�e: �ia° _ �,-0„ --
�' roe oF rnnson�;r .,- �� ,, : . .�- -
• ELEV. = 71'-0"M-_..___�: _ _
0
�
\ TOP OF RAT ROOF
• L`LEV. a.�r•_a ._'_'_.'_'_
� I
�''
i
Sth. FLOOP LIVI4JG P�N.TttOUSE
ELEV. � 52'.��.�._...__�..
�th.. fLOOR LIVIM1IG
ELEV. = 40'-8' � �
3rd. FLOOR UVI�
ELEV. ° 31�_p� .�._'�'_'.�
i 2nd. FiGORlIV14JG
�ELEV. = 2d-4° '—'�
B.F.E
�� -- EIEV. I 3'-O'
c
n� I 5t. FLOOR FARY.ING
—� EL. FIN. ON �,RADE SIAB i
�,...,,.�. .�C7UT�i EXTEKic�?4,. �� M!fI'�:� 1JI�,�
A-�.�� scn.i c� i,g• = a�-o° � ._ .
��
.. r:aP.<•04!�'�. ;�..r 7�MR
\ � �'"�'� EIF.`:.- ��.�,,._�_ '�'�'...,.. _�.�.
o ' �. .
m j 2z ;
i
� j TOP OF fV�l ROi7r' �
_k__ _ _�j..._...�_ _..__........_...._,�....._.�'�,_.._.,_�
`t' etEV.
i W
i b,
�'
b
�
Sth.fLG-_:`;.l;.'t yLi;��.',,.� �
� ELEV. 52'-"" � • ....-,._..._-'..-�'�'—'
'm
d I
4th.. FLQOR IIVIWG �
�.�..
EIEV. � 41'-0' '_•—•—•—•�• i
3rd. FLOC.Mt LfVIPPG
CLEV. � J1•{J •••.
� 2r�PLQSR iIVIPIG
�. EIEV. � 20'-4'
1
i
�I
tn I
D F.E
�� _ ±a�.a...�....-�._.�
F�1 st. FLOOtt PARKItK
� EI.�IN. OIV ,(�111JE SiA��� 6„
� EAST CXTCFZIOP ELEVATiOP�i
� A-6. I SCALF� I!8. _ i�;,,
ABBREVIATTONS S.N &D = SET NAIL AND DISC #6539 FD. PK N. = FOUND PKNAIL SEC. g� TWP 29 Sy RGE 15 E.
S.LR. = SET IRON ROD #6539 FD.C.M. = FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT
S.C.M. = SET CONCRETE MONUMENT FD. N.&D. = FOUND NAIL & DISK
(P) = PLAT FD.LR. = FOOND IRON ROD B.M. = BENCEiMARK BEARINGS BASED
(F) = FIELD FD.O.P. = FOUND OPEN PIPE L.FL.EL. = LOWEST FLOOR ELEVAT[ON
(L) =LEGAL FD.P.P. =FOUNDPINCHPIPE GAR.FL.EL. =GARAGEFLOORELEVATION ON RECORDED PLAT
(M) =MEASURED H'M =WATERMETER C.L.F. = CHAINLINKFENCE
RWM =RECLAIMEDWATERIVIETER WF. = WOODFENCE
(D) = DEEDED hfy = MANHOLE V.F. = VINYL FEIYCE
(C) =CALCULATED pp =pOWERPOLE PLA = PLANTER ADDRESS:
(P.O.L.) =POINTONLINE LP =LIGHTPOLE COV. = COVERED VACANT LOTS - SHIFF POINT
CH.BR. = CHORD BEARING CONC. = CONCRETE TYP = TYPICAL
cs =coNCxeres�na wi =w�n� CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
FLOOD ZONE: "VE" (B.F.E. =13') & "AE" (B.F.E. =12'), ACCORDING TO F.I.RM.
#12103C0102-G, COMMUNITY # 125096, MAP DATED 9-3-03, INDEX DATED 8-18-09 BASIS OF FIELD BEARINGS:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 33-34, UNIT 5A ISLAND ESTATES OF CLEARWATER, AS RECORDED EAST LINE, LOT 33,
IN PLAT BOOK 60, PAGE 51, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. BEING: S. 14° 24' S1" W.
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
SCALE: 1" = 30'
6' METAL FENCE
0
'°i 23' CONC. /
\ �,� SEAWALL ��
DRILL HOLE
LOT 35
OCCUPIED
99.
O�`� � \rl
,�° o,�. �
` �� �
o�����.�
��5titi� ��
RADIUS = 50.00'
ARC = 68.25' (C)
CHORD = 63.08' (M)
CH.BR. = S. 73° 25' 15" E. (F)
S. N&D #4931
V
LOT 34
\
1�
�
�
��
�'
RADIUS = 170.00' �
ARC = 122.89'
CHORD = 120.23'
CH.BR. = N. 54° 52' 35" W. (P)
N. 54° 52' 12" W. (F),
�
ZONE "AE"
B. F. E. = 12'
� �'
\
ZONE "VE"
B.F.E. = 13'
���
�kA
1.3'CONC.
SEAWALL
WOOD
DOCK
FD. N. & D.
NO# �
0
0
WATERWAY
�FH
SAN �
PP M ��
1' CONC. CURB
RADNS = 50.00'
ARC = 32.18' (P) 3216' (C)
CHORD = 31.62' (P) 31.61' (M)
CH.BR. = N. 85° 58' 45" E. (P)
N. 85° 45' 36" E. (F)
�
- - - OV RHEE-AD
w�xES cTrr> �G�jT
S �So�SKIFF W`�yv-��ES
��4�544�9�,E��� P011v I
iP) � jl, (E] �iF) qspN9l `�
+ ' `/ T P9�E`yE�'T
� VERIZON O
�� B X
13' CONC.
CURB\ -6' - "'�
FD. DRILL HOLE }��i'� FD. 4" X 4" C.M.
I 17i W/NAIL
NO #
��
� ��
1 r.
k� '
'� 11 " �
11
� LOT 33
/
� APPROXIMATE LOCATION
�FLOOD ZONE DEMARCATION LINE
� �9
�
/ ��� \
�
/
FD. N. & D. �
#
J9
�5�35'09'� w 6� 6.�
�13,��
0
wOOD
DOCK
�
0
TREE LEGEND ►�� ` '480-
,� � ELEVATIO�1
= PALM �VATIWS BASED W NAV DATIM ff 1988
HASIS ff Ba1CMIP�RIU PD�ELLAS COUWTY DISK DESIGWATED 'AI�tAL A'. MAP N 144,
ELEVATIW = iL8P
FD. �l.'.Y:�I�'}j'+�\
W/NAIL ! -O• � �
NO # / FD. 3/4' O.P.
NO#
�NC 1.03���
CONC.
BASrs oF
FIELD
� � BEARINGS
� e b
� ~
�
a
�
'�
i�
H
0
er
�
�
�ONG o��o�
LOT 32
OCCUPIED
CONC. �
�
�NC p.26' OFF
FD. N. & D.
PAINTED OVER
� No a
1) NO UNDERGROUND INSTALLATIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN LOCATED EXCEPT AS NOTED
2) NO INSTRUMENTS OF RECORD REFLECTING EASEMENTS, RIGHT OF WAY, AND/OR OWNERSHIP WERE FURNISHED TO THIS
SURVEYOR EXCEPT AS NOTED AND/OR SHOWN.
3) THIS SURVEY IS PREPARED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE PARTIES SHOWN HEREON. LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES
MAY NOT BE TRANSFERRED OR ASSIGNED.
4) THIS SURVEY IS VALID IN ACCORDANCE WITH F.S. 627.7842, FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS FROM DATE OF CERTIFICATION.
TYPE OF SURVEY: LAND OR BOUNDARY USE: DESIGN JOB NO. 2013-019Z
CERTIFY TO: JOHN A. BODZIAK, AIA, ARCHITECT
SIGNATURE:
LAUREN R. PENNY P.S.M. # 4931
DATE: 5-28-2013
DRAWN BY: LP/J1VI�'
�
NOT VALID UNLESS
SIGNED & SEALED
L.R. PENNY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
10730 102ND AVENUE NORTH
SEMINOLE, FLORIDA 33778
PHONE: (727) 398-4360
FAX: (727) 319-6051
LICENSED BUSINESS #6539