Loading...
FLD2006-03017 (2)FLD2006-03017 63PARK PLACE BLVD N PARK PLACE OFFICE SITE PLANNER OF RECORD: WW ATLAS # 291 A ZONING: IRT LAND USE: IL RECEIVED: INCOMPLETE: COMPLETE: MAPS o3~3oi2oo~ PHOTOS: STAFF REPORT: DRC: CDB: CLWCoverSheet Clearwater U Planning Department '100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Telephone: 727-562-4567 Fax: 727-562865 ^ SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION ^ SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION including 1) collated, 2) stapled and 3) folded sets of site plans ^ SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE$ 1,205.00 CASE #: DATE RECEIVED: RECEIVED BY (staff initials ATLAS PAGE #: ~~1~ ZONING DISTRICT: LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: SURROUNDING USES OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES: NORTH: sauTH: WEST: EAST: ~` NOTE: t5 TOTRL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS) FLEXIBLE DEVELQPMENT APPLICATION Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project (Revised 04-05-05) PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT A. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) APPLICANT NAME: Hallmark Development of Florida, Inc. (ATTN: Steve Engelhardt) MAlL1NG ADDRESS: 4500 -.140th Avenue N., Suite 101, Clearwater, FL 33762 PHONE NUMBER: (727) 539-7002 FAX NUMBER: (727) 536-3574 Bausch & Lomb PROPERTY OWNER(S): rgi~,~;,r Aa-« (Must include ALL owners as listed on the deed -provide original signature(s) on page 6) RECI_~D AGENT NAME: Mr. Robert Pergolizzi and Mr. Richard Harris, Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. ~~ MAILING ADDRESS: 13825 ICOT Boulevard, Suite 605, Clearwater, FL 33760 ~„ A,,,,,,,~,r. n~taetaTtrA~tUT PHONE NUMBER: (727) 524-1818 FAX NUMBER: (727) 524-6090 CITY OF CLEARWATER CELL NUMBER: {727) 644-2695 E-MAIL ADDRESS: Pergo@gulfcoastconsultingina.com B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) STREET ADDRESS of subject site: NIA (vacant land north of # 21 Park Place Boulevard) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Please see attached Legal Description. (if not listed here, please note the location of this document in the submittal) PARCEL NUMBER: Portion of 17129116185546100010010 (Parcel 1) PARCEL SIZE: 7.394 Ac. (acres, square feet) PROPOSED USE(S), 51ZE(S) AND VALUE OF PROJECT: Office Buildings 61,200 square feet (number of dwellEng units, hotel rooms or square footage of nonresidential use} DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST(S): Flexible development for side-yard setback to parking less than 15 feet. Attach sheets and be specific when identifying the request {include all requested code deviations; e.g. reduct[on in required number of parking spaces, specific use, etc.) Page 1 of 7 -Flexible bevelopment Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Application 2005- City of Clearwater ~ 4 DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTIFIED) SITE PLAN? YES NO / (if yes, attach a copy ofithe applicable documents) The DRI assigned up to 100,000 s.f. of building area on this site. C. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP: (Code Section 4-202.A.5) ~ SUBMIT A COPY OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY, DEED TO THE PROPERTY OR SIGN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING OWNERSHIP (see page 6) Q. WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 3-913.A) D Provide complete responses to the six (6) GENERAL APPLICASELITY CRITERIA -Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail: 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The 61,200 s.f. represents a 0.19 FAR whereas up to 0.65 is permitted in IRT zone. Adjoining properties have FAR that are similar or higher. The layout provides a substantial amount of open space including ponds and landscaped areas. 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 site abuts an existing light-industrial building (100,000 s.f.}and is surrounded by public roads on 3 sides. Adjacent lands are already developed. It will not discourage appropriate use of adjacent land nor hirider the value. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. QRIGINAL The office development will provide jobs to persons living in the area. ~~~~~ MAR 2"9 2006 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. rlw>=rv The 61,200 s.f. of office space would generate only 638 daily trips, and 91 PM peak hour trips. All traffic ger}eri~gr~~s~~t~~,ti~~ATER per the approved Park Place DRI Development Order (ordinance # 7215-03). 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed far development. The Park Place DRI is a mixed-use development containing office, industrial, retail, and residential uses. The proposed office is consistent with IRT zoning and the surrounding development. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, inGuding visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. The buildings are situated inthe center of the site, well setback from adjoining uses to minimize visual, acoustic and olfactory impacts. The site is surrounded by public roads on 3 sides. ® Provide complete responses to the ten (10) COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CRITERIA (as applicable) -Explain how each criteria is achieved in detaili 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use, intensity and development standards. The reduction of setback to parking lot is necessary to provide adequate parking and circulation throughout the site. Lack of ample parking would be impractical. Page 2 of 7 -Flexible Development Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Application 2005- City of Clearwater /I • 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project or residential infill project will not reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. (Include the existing value of the site and the proposed value of the site with the improvemerrts.) The site is presently vacant. The existing site is valued at $2.5 million; upon comple#ion the site will be valued at $14 million. 3. The uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater. The office uses are permitted uses within the IRT zone. 4. The uses or mix of use within the compreheruive infill redevelopment project are compatible with adjacent land uses. The Park Place DRI is a mixed-use development containing office, light industrial, retail, and residential uses. The proposed office is compatible with adjacent uses within Park Place. 5. Suitable sites for development or redevelopment of the uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are not otherwise available in the Gity of Clearwater. Other office sites may exist but do not offer the location, access, and proximity to complementary uses offered by this site. The IRT zone is an ideal zone for office uses. 6. The developmen# of the parcel proposed for development as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project wilt upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The vacant property will be upgraded by the office development. The existing vacant property is overgrown and has been frequented by vagrants. 7. The design of the proposed comprehensive infill redevelopment project creates a form and function that enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The existing site is overgrown. The proposed office complex will be comprised of 4 small buildings and will maintain an office park character that will enhance the site and the immediate vicinity. 8. Fiexit~lity in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and o#F street parking are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearv~rater as a whole. The flexibility is being requested for the southern (side) setback only, where it abuts an existing developed property (Bausch & Lomb). The reduced setback will not adversely affect community character and will be buffered by landscaping. 9. Adequate off-street parfcing in the immediate vianity according to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of pane! proposed for development. Adequate parking will be provided on-site. 10. The design of all buildings complies with the Tourist District or Downtown District design guidelines in Division 5 of Article 3 (as applicable}. Use separate sheets as necessary. 0121GINAL NIA RF['FiyFn TMENT CIN OF CLI=ARWAiER Page 3 of 7 -Flexible Development Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Application 2005- City of Clearwater ! ~ E. STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design C Manual and 4-202.A.21~ A STORMWATER NARRATIVE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH ALL APPLICATIONS. All applications that ins addition or modification of impervious surface, inGuding buildings, must incude a stormwater plan that demonstrates compliance with the of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual. A reduction in impervious surface area does not qualify as an exempfion to requirement. If a plan is not required, the narrative shall provide an explanation as to why the site is exempt. At a minimum, the STORMWATER PLAN shall include the fallowing: Acknowledgement of stormwater plan requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines; Proposed grading including finished floor elevations of all structures; All adjacent streets and municipal storm systems; Proposed stomrnrater detenfion/retention area inGuding top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; A narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan inGuding all calculations and data necessary to demonsVate compliance with the City m ual. Signature and seal of Florida Registered Professional Engineer on a[I plans and calculations. COPY OF PERMIT INQUIRY LETTER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT SUBMITTAL (SWFWMD approval is required prior to issuance of City Building Permit), if applicable Stormwater plan as noted above is included Stormwater plan is not required and explanation narrative is attached. At a minimum, a grading plan and finished floor elevations shall be provided. . CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A STORMWATER PLAN AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562-4750. F. SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 4-202.Ay ~® SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (including legal description of property} -One original and #4 copies; f ~ TREE SURVEY (inGuding existing Vees on site and within 25' of the adjacent site, by species, size (DBH 4" or greater), and location, including drip lines and indicating Vees to be removed) --please design around the existing trees; J® LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY; 1~ PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (ie. Reduce number of spaces). Prior to the NIA submittal of this application, the methodology of such study shall be approved by the Community Development Coordinator and sfiall be in accordance with accepted traffic engineering principles. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the packing standards are approved; GRADING PLAN, as applicable; PRELIMINARY PLAT, as required {Note: Building permits will rat be issued until evidence of recording a final plat is provided); ^ COPY OF REOORDED PLAT, as G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A~ ® SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36"}: ~ All dimensions; ORIGINAL ~ / North arrow; Engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet}, and date prepared; RECEIVED .! Location map; _ Index sheet referenc[ng individual sheets included in package; MAR 2~9 2DOB N1A Footpcnt and size of all EXISTING buildings and structures; ~ Footprint and size of ali PROPOSED buildings and structures; / All required setbacks; pIANNING DEPARTMENT / All existing and proposed points of access; CITY OF CLEARWATER ~ All required sight triangles; Identification of environmentally unique areas, such as watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, and specimen trees, including description and location of understory, ground cover vegetation and wildlife habitats, etc; / Location of all public and pcvate easements; Development Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment / Location of all street rights-of-way within and adjacent to the site; ~ Location of existing public and private utilities, including fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes and lift stations, gas and water lines; / All parking spaces, driveways, oading area nd vehicular use areas; / Depiction by shading or crosshatching o all required parking lot interior landscaped areas; / location of all solid waste containers, recyGing or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment and all re_ uicL red screening {per Section ~ 3-201(D)(i) and Index#701}; / Location of a[I landscape material; / Location of all onsite and offsite stom~rwater management facilities; / Location of all outdoor lighting fixtures; and .! Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks. /® SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in writtenttabular form: ~I ~ Land area [n square feet and acres; '4 NlA Number of EXISTING dwelling units; / Number of PROPOSED dwelling units; / Gross floor area devoted to each use; / Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular form with the number of required spaces; / Total paved area, incuding all paved parking spaces and driveways, expressed in square feet and percentage of the paved vehicular area; / Size and species of all landscape material; ~--- / Official records book and page numbers of all existing utility easement; ~(/ Building and structure heights; / / Impermeable surface ratio {LS.R.); and OR~G~NAL J / Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses. RECENED ~~ ® REDUCED SITE PLAN to state (8'/a X 11) and color rendering if possible; p qq{~ ® FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the following additional information on site plan: MAR 2 ~ L11O6 / One-foot contours or spot elevations on site; / Offsite elevations if required to evaluate the proposed stormwater management for the parcel; / All open space areas; PLANNING DEPARTMENT / Location of all earth or water retaining walls and earth berms; ~(~( QF CLEARWATER / Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned); / Streets and drives {dimensioned); ~ Building and structural setbacks (dimensioned); / Structural overhangs; / 7ree Inventory,_prepared by a "certified arborisC of all trees 8" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and condition of such trees. H. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-1102.A) ~ LANDSCAPE PLAN: • ~ All existing and proposed structures; J Names of abutting streets; / Drainage and retention areas inGuding swales, side slopes and bottom elevations; Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscape buffers; / Sight visibility triangles; ~ Delineation and dimensions of all parking areas including landscaping islands and curbinU: / Praposed and required parking spaces; / Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and locations, inctuding driplines (as indicated on required n tree survey); V / Plant schedule with a key (symbol or label) indicating the size, description, specifications and quantities of all e`isting and proposed l landscape materials, including botanical and common names; Location, size, and quantifies of all existing and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relafing to the plant schedule; / Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants including instructions, soil mixes, backfilling, mulching and protective measures; Q / Interior landscaping areas hatched andlor shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressing in both square feet and percentage covered; NIA Conditions of a previous development approval (e.g. conditions imposed by the Community Development Baard); ,~ / Irrigation notes. ® REDUCED LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale {8 '/ X 11) (color rendering if possible); t1~ IRRIGATION PLAN (required for level lwo and three approval); ~^ COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, as applicable. Landscape associated with the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall exceed minimum Code requirements to offset the areas where minimum Code will not be met. Page 5 of 7 -Flexible Development Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Application 200-City of Clearwater ~ w L ' BUfLDING ELEVATION PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A.23) Required in the event the application includes a development where design standards are in issue (e.g. Tourist and Downtown lastricts) or as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project or a Residential Infill Project. ~ BUILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS -all sides of all buildings including height dimensions, colors and materials; .~ ® REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATIONS --faur sides of building with colors and materials io scale (8'/2 X 11) (black and white and color rendering, if possible) as required. J. SIGNAGE: (Division 19. SIGNS /Section 3-1806) ^ All EXISTING freestanding and attached signs; Provide photographs and dimensions (area, height, etc.), indicate whether they will be removed or to f remain. v ~ All PROPOSED freestanding and attached signs; Provide details inducting location, size, height, colors, materials and drawing; freestanding signs shall include the street address (numerals) ^ Comprehensive Sign Program application, as applicable (separate application and fee required). ORIGINAL ^ Reduced signage proposal (8'/=X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application. ~ECEIV£D K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4-202.A.13 and 4-801.C} PLANNING DEPARl'MENT ^ Inc1ude if required by the Traffic Operations Manager orhis/her designee or if the proposed development: CITY OE CLEARWATER • Will degrade the acceptable level of service for any roadway as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. WII generate 100 or more new vehiGe directional. trips per hour and/or 1000 or more new vehiGe trips per day. • Will affect a nearby roadway segment and/or intersection with five (5) reportable accidents within the prior twelve {12) month period or that is on the City's annual list of most hazardous intersections. Trip generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportatian Engineer's (ITE) Trip General Manual. The Traffic Impact Study must be prepared in accordance with a "Scoping Meeting" held with the Traffic Operations Manager and the Planning Department's Development Review Manager or their designee (727-5621J750) r Refer to Section 4-801 C of the Community Development Code for exceptions to this requirement. ® Acknowledgement of traffic impact study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): Traffic Impact Study is included. The study must incude a summary table of pre- and post-development levels of service for all roadway legnns annnd each turning movement at all intersections identified in the Scoping Meeting. 'riu Traffic Impact Study is not required. Approved DRf NOPC Traffic Analysis from Sepf. 2003 CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR. A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department. at (727) 562-4750. L. SIGNATURE: I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and authoriz ~ represer~Tat~'~s to visit and photograph the property des d i this apQ' Gon. Sign2ture of property owneritirJrB~~ntative day of ~. A.D. O~v or by t2,D~rr{- Bv~nlsz~~ ,who is pers~onae~know~n has produced - a's 3entification. Notary pu i , My commis ion expires:'(S/fig "",,, MAY E. tEBUWC :. . ~. N~ofary Ftr~c - Sfaie of Flo#do Page 6 of 7 -Flexible Development Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Applicafio ; f .- Cf ~5' •.,a~ v~ ,~` ~ #t X844087 %•~^,•"• IfonCted By Naflortal Nt~yAan. STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Sworn to and subscribed before me this ' 2 to me and! r • - AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT: Bausch & Lomb (Names of all property owners on deed -please PRINT full names) 1. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holders) of the following described property (address or general location): 21 Park Piace Boulevard and adjacent vacant land (Parcel ID # 17/29/16/85546/000/0010) 2. That this property constitutes the property for which a request fora: (describe request) Flexible Development approval for office buildings. 3. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint: Mr. Robert Pergolizzi & Mr. Richard. Harris, Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such peti5on; 4. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and ad on the above described property; 5. 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; 6. That (I/we), the undersigned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Bausch & Lomb Incorporated Property Owner By: Efrain Rivera 4~- ~ = ~reperty-Owner-Corporate VP Treasurer Property Owner Property Owner r.~tur~o~ STATE OF~~r,t<1~W f~2~ GOUNTY OF~~ Before me the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned by the laws of the State f~n this • ~ "" ~ ~~ day of any personally appeared r~~2~/!tl ~Vz.(~ who having been first duly sworn De es and says that he/she fully y~~ts of the affidavit that he/she signed. ' NOTARY PUBLiC, State of N.Y., Monrcz~ ~,o, My Commission Expires May 12, 20 otarv Public My Commission Expires: S:IPtanning DeparlmantLApplication Formsldevelopment reviewlflexible development comprehensive infil! redevelopment application 2005.doc ORIGINAL RECENED MaR 2'9 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Page 7 of 7 -Flexible Development Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Application 2005- City of Clearwater LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PART OF LOT 1, STORZ OPTHALMICS, ING. PARK PLACE, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF A5 RECORpED IN PLAT BOOK 109, PAGE 10 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE S.00'19'21"E., ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, 380.38 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE, 5.89`53'14"W., 96.87 FEET; THENCE S.44'53`14°'W., 15.25 FEET; THENCE S.89'53'14"W., 75.00 FEET; THENCE N.44'32'11 "W., 15.10 FEET; THENCE S.89'53'14"W., 619.02 FEET; THENCE S.56'20'S8"W., 28.44 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 1, ALSO BEING ANON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 610.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 142.72 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13'24'18° (CHORD BEARING N.03'12'35"W. 142.39 FEET) TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 690.04 FEET; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID WEST LINE THE FOLLOWING 3 COURSES: 1) NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 41.30 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03'25`46° (CHORD BEARING . N.01'46'42"E.,41.29 FEET); 2) THENCE N.00'03'49"E., 190.21 FEET; 3) THENCE N.45'03'49"E., 35.36 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE 5.89'56'11"E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1, 815.22 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 7.394 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. NOTE: THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION SHOWN ABOVE LIES WHOLLY WITHIN THE DESCRIPTION AS SHOWN IN FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE, COMMITMENT NUMBER 05-005-310330. ORIGINAL RECENED MAC 2"9 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY 4F CLEARWATER • • ~F~,^. ~-~FE E--- n C C~ z O C~ a N a a 0 m ~ w vi ~ a~ Z 0 0 250 500 EXISTING accESs PARCEL 3 PARCEL 1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 200, 000 SF (100,000 SF EwSTINC) ~~EXSTING ACCESS MULTI-FAMILY 234 D.U. (234 FNLn-FAMILY D.D. Ew5>j OFFICE ~ 82,179 SF OFFICE PARCEL 8 103,900 SF (92,178 SF EXISIINC) PARCEL 4 (101,900 SF EwSnNG) COMMERICAL (RETAIL) 55,278 SF PARCEL 7 (ss,z7e s Ewsr m+ PMCELS 7 AND 9) / "' COMMERCIA! PARCEL 10 (llaD3 sF EwsnNC) NATURAL AREA 0 aP~ PARCEL 2 ~~ ~°J MULTI-FAMILY 156 D.U. G~ (Ise 4NLT1-FAMILr D.u. ExIST)~ QvP QP PARCEL 5 ~/ PARCEL 6 (1245eD sF aFDCE EwsnNC) (IOD,DDD sF OFFICE PUNNED) ~1EE 220,56~_SF COMMERCIAL PARCEL 11 (14,539 SF EwsnND) LANd USE EXISTING PLANNED TOTAL RETAIL/ 81,120 SF 0 81,120 SF COMMERICAL OFFICE 304,639 SF 100,000 S 404,639 SF LT. INDUSTRIAL 10D,000 5F 100,000 SF 200,000 SF MULT9-FAMILY 390 DU 0 DU 390 DU RESIDENTIAL 485,759 SF 200,D00 SF 685,759 SF TOTAL 390 DU 0 DU 390 DU °a O Z 0 z "nTFC: 1. THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF SgUARE FOOTAGE FOR iNDIV10UAL UNDEVELOPED PARCELS ARE BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE MARKET INFORMATION AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. FUTURE THE AMOUNT OF TOTAL DEVELOPMENT, HOWEVER WILL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVED BY THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER. ACCESS Z. THAT PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT REMAINS TO 0E DEVELOPED IS REFERRED TO AS THE "PLANNED DEVELOPMENT". THE BUILD-OUT SATE. FOR 1HE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND FOR THE TOTAL PROJECT IS DECEMBER 3t, 2008. 3. CONVERSION RATES OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT TO fi33 SOVARE FEET OF OFFICE DEVELOPMENT ARE HEREBY ESTABUSHED ON PARCEL 7 AS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE x:5722-95 4. ANY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL B£ UMITfD TD PARCELS 2, 3, 6 AN' 6. $. PARCEL a IS PLANNED FOR 10O.00D SF OF OFFICE DEVELOPMENT. CONVERSION RATES OF 1,000 SF OF OFFICE DEVELOPMENT TO 2.40 MULT1-FAMILY UNITS 49TF1 A MAXIMUM OF 240 UNITS, OR 1,000 SF OF OFFICE DEVELOPMENT TO 2.44 HOTEL ROOMS WITH A MA)(IMUM OF 244 UNITS ARE HEREBY ESTABLISHED FOR PARCEL 6 AS~APPROVEO BY ORDINANCE 6678-01. GULF-TO--BAY 60ULEVARD ~L COMMERCIAL 25,842 5F (RETAIL) (25.842 SF EwSnNG) PARK PLACE DRI -MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP ~ DATE: FIGURE: Gulf Coast Consultants, Inc. Land Development Consulting flRIGINAI. REVISED: RECEIVED AUGUST 22, 2003 DRAWN BY: MAR 2'9 2006 RAw CITY OF CLEARV'JATER ~ treet North 299 Dr. Martin Luther Kin P.O. Box 683 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0683 (727) 822-4317 Fax (727) 822-2919 George F. Young, Inc. Tzerning Vision Into Reality Since 1919 ARCHITECTURE ^ ENGINEERING ^ ENVII20NMENTAL ^ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTT.TRE ^ PLANNING ^ SURVEI'IIQG ^ UTILITIES April 7, 2006 Robert Pergolizzi, AICP D ~ I ~ L V Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. 13825 ICOT Boulevard, Suite 605 APR a 7 Clearwater, Fl 33760 Re: Bausch & Lomb Clearwater Florida Dear Rob, George F. Young, Inc. is representing Bausch & Lomb as the design consultant for improvements required to their existing facility on Park Place Blvd. in Clearwater Florida responding to the sale of the northern portion of the existing platted Lot L The property line, which will delineate the two subdivided lots, will bisect the site north of the existing building. There are existing on site hazardous materials containment buildings as well as dumpsters that will be relocated along with plans to add parking to satisfy the minimum parking requirements by the City of Clearwater and Bausch & Lomb's operations. We have a BPRC meeting scheduled for April 12, 2006 at 9:30 AM to discuss the proposed plans by Bausch & Lomb. The hazardous materials buildings and the dumpsters will be relocated to meet or exceed the setback requirements from the new common property line. This will be discussed at the BPRC meeting. Once we have met with the BPRC and understand their concerns, it is our intention to prepare site plans to submit to the City of Clearwater by the Apri127, 2006 deadline, upon the authorization of Bausch & Lomh. Please let me know if there are any other concerns that we can help you with. related to your site plan currently under review by the City. Sincerely, Jonathan J. Gotwald, ME, PE Vice President, Engineering Cc: Joe Perry, Bausch & Lomb BRADE'NTON ^ GAINESVILLE ^ NORTH PALM BEACH ^ ST. PETERSBURG ^ SARASOTA ^ TAMPA PARK 'LACE OFFICE SITE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SECTIONS 17, TOWNSHIP 24 S, RANGE IS E PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGAL D>:SCRIPTION x rsnr a Inr I. sralx aminlsFa, nIC vux rI/¢ eommvlG ro nc vrs a MI rlESa ss smnnn n nst soot tus rna l0 6 nc wac scams a urea s Dues AI M r1en1E1s1 MIm a Sn10 for ~ iraQ smlY]12 wnw n¢ LVSI lux a sw rnr r, sma mr; rsr„¢ uswc s.Im tsar vc smulst mer FEET; fIE11G 5«SlrS~r. If.a FEER nM[ Se])Ylr'n~, ]e0e sffr; nENa ~«Tf tY, lard FEEr: nanZ S1Y11'Itt. Ilaw rIIC Hatt SeE']Gal. ]e« r w s ranr a rK .ESr uIE a s+m ror r. ~ eE: a .ol- Xrcolr o:xsc COIGN EISIRY, nxra ~ enW5 « El0.w FEE! nq4:( rrra titles Sb O!M N2a lFLt nrrPJG1 A mliRll uluL 6 ITlIIC (mlCrm KMaIIC n.eTYa'rr 1~1a FEEII m A Farr a IF\ElH 4@2 CaCAN 451ERr NANIO A xn01' LE wo.w FE[r, rslxx mxrwc uses s.a asr uc of Fu,nwlc s mwsEi II IaIrIrE1R1 .•!`r e~A 0.RN ores f{E! ncWd n faaK NitlF a sasses' (orom evusro Ieal'b't22.tl.a r¢ih ]1 rKIICE n.uvuYnat. Iw.>t foEr: )) nplC( x.uvrnt. as Frcr m Is Iuem sr molar a sw Inr x uaa sene•nz. wmc M rurm ts¢ Q srID sor r. sues rExr ro oe rvlr rt Barel¢ CUIIarwO l.ae resat YfaE'Oa IE54 xoR, t14 tFnx. ¢FSaenlCx clew x]oN to roar rue] n+[ ur~errion u saw w mwn xanoxu nllc monnar im nnE rispax(L comlmlr aness ®-m-vova LOCATION MAP c ~~ r 5 i I { uagnn t^'~~~wh ~',~ ----~~~ w ~dll ~ f~ c P[jE~ IL4 [ - 7 ` ~ F ;off .~1 t'pf~Ilc,N _ li S~ l t~ y ~ I r `~`"s .. I o ~y b _~_ ~.,a t 3 s it ~ ~ 4 r 1 _ 1 TTI ! :~., i ~~~ it 1' ~ . w ~~~Pi~~ 4~~ ~ ~~ I W A R N l N C ' T1 © coxmncrar ro cut •swlslixr surf ONE csu' +-mr-ss]-eno w xcuas canon ro sIrc crES.axc Oe CP'+5*xVCngx Fpu ErlsNa unutt LOUMNS ~'„' PREPARED FOR: I~ ~~~ ~, ~ HALLMARK DEVELOPMENT OF FLORIDA, INC o ~„ _ ~ 4500140th AVENUE NORTH, SUITE 101 , ~ CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33762 ~ ~ a PFI01~] (727) 53@-7002 FNG p27) S~'(74 ~ y ~ Z PREPARED BY Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. t -. ~ Land Development Consulting 4. ~; O Si "-•~ I( =~~~ 13825 ICOT BLVD., SUITE 605 Clearvvater, Florida 37760 (fy \ Phone: (727)524-1898 "~' Fsx: (727)524-6090 DRAWING INDEX GHFCT TITLE 1 COVER SHEET 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS/DEMOLITION PLAN 3 HORIZONTAL CONTROL, STRIPING, SICNAGE k LICH TING PLAN 4 SITE PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY F,nlsnn¢Znn n¢~ IIi 3'(lndustnal, RcscucllaN l'wlula]o67'1 Sim Arco: 7J9 Actcs (y22082 s0 F.sistin¢ I.a nd Use: II. {[admum] Lunlxa3) F.A_R Plopnsd 0 19 Maxunual 9 G5 Parkins:.. Raryiral OlTice: JlkWUsf 194 spa<:rs (711undiwPPed? fUosed on GI,2UU sfOBire) PmpvxJ 2A8 alawa(711nndiwPPUd) Vchirulor Usr Arca NUAI: 97.018 sf lmeriar Pa rkine landncvecAma 15,E9Bti (IG.ayS) Ilprnious Suavee Rollo U6Ri Prorylsud: U.-0G9 Ralwral: B BS Ira<. Bvildin¢ Rei¢hl: 50 feel mac, Bvi]din¢ Brcakduwn: Buil4ing A: 9;HIU sE IStary ~, ~ BuIlJing B: 14,744 s( ISrory li Bullding C: 16,800 sf 2-6[eI)• i BuiMing D: 19800 sf 2Swry 'Patel: GI}W sl" xal";rut N;;J„v6itl to Pmkinq 6ethuks: I~mnr: Nonh 20 fv:t SA.G Pm F'ront:f 1 2Ufm 394f y Prone W ~ 2V feet 122.7 leer Sklc: South IS Pixt 5 Pest •• YIiR TI{G DRI MAXIMUM OFIICC SQUARE FOOTAGE AE.LOWCD IS Gl yon BI+ m-0m OY1T68181(00 • • II 1 I~ _ '~I1~~ I ; I . L~;r' s ae u.:i.... vv. alr r. Ird ~Y ~ _ ~-~_ [n' I ICI i .,y ~ ~ I~:i IQy ' I I i II II . ~ f I ~ , o..b 1'~,F xu w I> ~ I I ~ . rkI571NC R6 iENTl€Nd AREk Irl i q ~ I I y ' K ~ ~ I . ~ Io11 vr li Iea~ it I . . `~ S5} ~ Im I - F .yn h .~,..e. I I €~ _ II ~ _. r t,.. ,..~6tSi~r', D R E W STREET (C.R. 108) 100' R/W N89'S6'1 _ _______sos.os'(P) als.zz'(L) `~w-'~ i ti 'L r~exlx _ _ 7._~ _-_=a=_____________e_ __ ~ _ - - I ~ to ~": 1 : _ _ . _~~lr~+ bra ~tl ~.N II ~ S I-i®TL1 ~w ~v ~'y la O ~ •_~~ n -:~ ~ ? ~. -~ ~~, r~, ~] ~ sk"" I"~ ~t ~' ~~ ha i 3~J4 ' ~r ... n r \±/ J ~udl J-i ...l''~ '~ ~. /. ~ d~\ I L__ 1~7~ ~ ~_a; I I + . r i4 ~.s„ «w„ ~ "~ "" ,t ~ ( I II~~d+ 1 k I ~ ~ ~ 'ry~ yq ' ~ - /+. ~11 .~ . q'al I ~ a ~ ~ - .~ I II I I if ~i ~ I °'1 '. ~ ..~ 1 I '1 I'~ I 9tl , I yl i ' . ce, ' 'I I .I.®~~~.t ~_ I ~ ~ I ~ I I I I I:, I ~~Im i Ivy I I ~ va. I - yrI I - & I ~m S I I I i .. ~ ~ v er ~ J [ JJ :o I rr I l w ~ .,, W v~ I I l I~ as ~ j I I III ~ " 31 , ~"e ~ ~ ; ~ € I ~ ~ ~~~, m I --~ r - I I I N ,. ra ,., w c > ter" ,,, ~, ~ ~ ... °` > o~ Ii"~~ I _ III I s?• ' . EkISTI>JO RETEN iIDtd ARE§ I11~1 • ~ I I ...~' f.,. ~ i~~ 4 ~. -v..r I ~I III ~ I ~I I v ~ r ~ T..,, ~'' reT . y r I t1 fe..., p ;~',~ ~~ a ~ ~ 'iii I I I IIII 1 „~r~ L'".r~~ss. '~=~. Ll a~~ ICI / .. I ui~ P ,r ~ g.." .3 ~ ~e~ l~?? iw~~... " I Itl ~~ 'E~e` ~~(,~I i nl ~t.., rQ.Yr,.•.. ~,`.W«, *~~' JY~J Q~,. Ali ~~~~ v l t:} ".L4 fir', r..,y^. ~-Jr.. k~JJ~r ri .`fir ~~~ n..rl~"'`w ~ ``r~r rs.~l lil I k ~. ~ 'c ~ ~a.+{.]rr 17I I Ii °.~.. ~ ~. ~~~ 0 crea I ~~I. od~-\a' )AxC •~~ [~ Ilru ~Z ~ ~~ A a+~, ~, ~ ©~~~ ~r~j ~~ 1;1 ~~; 1-~~ I'- ~s°- 1EI ~"° ~ Q ~~ i 1 r°n t % Ilb ~~~~ ~ /JI wwu rl ~rit~+'~ '~ •ipwr wi -,.~ l ~ry III j~,`' ("~. .«~~ td~iJ {JJ:va r ~o•~, ^r I a~~ 1'..~rr •r, 31 y~ J'~ f ! 'Y I ~ { ~fn I it is {,~! ~ J ~~1~ ~ Q rrmw r};re." En,at- ~ ' - +~ r IIII k Q ti!v . ~ J .mom 'ro ~ (.~ raa lrn, ~un _ 11 ~ Q I I L e. ~ ~ 1 .: > r I >, a ~'''' ` r~ s 'I ~ ~ ~~ I~ hl raln n - ~ y~._ - ~ rw • J ~ ~ - !~ 1 "`e it~r'~ J ' 1~ {~,~r'"~ {~iw o. ~`,p5~,,~~;,~! `~s k~~ ,I ur.rz v,~ ill JI ~~ {r ~Y a r~+r.""`,~I :CaZ 1{Jy ~~~+>~a rFl +r .. am "y„T9f~^ I m~ ri..; Ali 1 ii ~:n ~e _, s ,,. rma ~, »~~,. (]' ~ ~~ -_Y~~».., ~ =~~ -rya ~i',i~.•,?,6,r,~, I .~6 .yt- II f1 J i In _ "`~ ' r~ - -"-rro- ,~ ~.~aw<.~ '•,.'.: r~ ~W 5~~~3'T4~ Qra~ r ~0. .. « ~ Q"„1." "~"" 619.0 ~Y'~"~' I° _r4~..J~,~~~~~ I li f 1 I Ilxatl~ ~~ ~~ Y' ~`'' e ~~ ' 0 .m ~_ ~ °' r i ak" :,, ®/!~°~}y]~y r~~ ~I ryL2 = °, ~ I ~, I ! II I r r~'°J~r_~ "°'n ~' I n 1+~.aT ',~ n~ 'I ram ~ ~ ~~~r~+~r~, rww ~? tTr(w~r~ w`ty~ I" .m it 1 ~ ' n, - ~ alp r \ r ar ,,."_y~ '° ;q; ~. ~i t~~;.. ~ ~ ~ ~r~ - ~ I-! ,.~W;~ n f~ I,(p~ .°ts"'°td"L`rJ-.~ml~ `~0'~4-.,,. ianr 9~ ~~ ~ - ~" ~ 1 I 1 , iwulmmrlrF.s.1 ~n s.. m.~ f. mr e ~ - 111 OtHEA TREES LESS n1IN 10 MPlp ~..~..~,.~ mgr or.. '~r~eNf I tyres: 1 1+ C..d ~, ~ ro e ~ ~ ~ o n. 1 {. 0.EVU9N5 ersm w ftVarurEn .sc prA nrvarnn - w.E9. venal wsn w euRn1 ulclaNr.vrnrrx wluu rYG6 0 17 30 Jo . ~.o u {j ~... a. Eusnnc .u,rEnlaa s+rnm e+sm un rnwe aaro E~E++CE ua0arm rureRwz slol.el wsm an vre rtans r~nm 9¢a I+zu-ml-0oo wrzo Lv/r+I. ®~ T~'~o~s~.~.~w~uie s ni wwonc sveffs a+E nrn sracEa smos. cc.IF:+--arc ®" O ~ R D GdrCoaslculannfrrg.loc. ""`I' "`Hallmark Developmentof Florida, lnc. ~ I,I..I§~.I,rz..l. W~~~ ~~~~ PAaK PLACE {7FFICE SITE 2 "" ~c_ r J300 140th Avcnuc N., Suitc 101 _ - i r IW~ C]carwaler,Plorida337G7 EXISTINGCOND[TIONS/DEMOLITION PLAN q d. Pinnc: (727J 539-7002 Fav: (727333G-337J anon 4 r - r~ 1 ~ } -~ ~ = Sj'~7 I I I I f~ Ind I I I I I I f 1 1 1 1 1 ~~// " .~> _ il~ \ m ___ ___ n .rud __-mz~Ir w~~)____~~ioau9 ~1 \_J APR U l 20~ Pi.AN~~ 1 II~~C IQ'E .. II, Imo'' Ia I?~i ; IW~ Iii Iii loll I~ ~~ n~ l~i~ loll IJ all I I~° dal II Ian I I° u I ~ mal I IIY ill 1, ", 1 1 t V DREW STR EET (C.R.1 _ J ,oD• RrW - 1 -N89'56' 1 1 "W a' ~,N e3~.'.a IMP ~~s "„„~ 805.05'(P) 815.22'(L) _ _~._I ~ f- ~.- -. _ _,_._. ~.~I I ~ _ _ _ _ .ice"aM ~ \~ AI'I I ~__ __________________ ..~__ ._ ~~ , I /~ / ______.._- ~ _ __~~ __ L~_______ ~. __ _______ __ __ __ __ E. ~ IIII I I I I /r ~rtev» IIII I I I I :.~ /" , ° R ~ ~ m.gpE4 I I IIII /~ i i aA"I++.i ~ ~x~E \ _ - , ~ [MISTING RCiLN AON ARCA II i II3 I I 1 ~~ tnn ,~~ ~rll+.ll _I_ _ .~' ~' a,`i""~ r i I i r1'I ~ I I 1ttt r'E I ,r AnaA I li i /'w~~` `\ . + l ~I I I 1~ I ~. I I I L I I I _..Ir.,.e I~ ~ t j \ Is ~-^iiii ~ I CX1517NG Rr'i f'N710N ARCA ,~ ~ 1 ~'wAAC.W a+f~*1 '-`'t-'a r' 11 all ~ I C.1(~~ un { - ~ ~ r~ ~`\~. 11 ylMllll I ~I ~ 1 / ~ ~~;~ i I'"'I•" `"t' I I I I h.l I ~, ~'" / I,~f' I I:®iiii II I ~ ,,..) j , ~e 6 l' UI ~i 6 \ \ ~ I 1 NI ~- I€ L / \3 g ~- ~.\ S \'.' I 1311 I~1 ', pI i~G ,~ -/ ~ ~ - _....~....~____ ~~ f`'°.~=rn'7~/~\ I I 1111 HIV Flj 11 ,m //!/~ ~_,V~ k aSy O TRACE Ip,y ~ ~ ~~ \ II iiii ~I I 'I~.F i~~~\: ~ ro 9,904S.F. A ,~"`Iml ~ ^~ ~~:, ~('y~~, I II I ~ I ;!I¢ ~ ~ / ~y~~ ~ ~~y7 g 1 Story ~ .M ~f~r I " ~~ I ~ ~ I :~ I 1 !I I h/~''Z ~" ~c sswwss (® O I - ._. J Y, / aw': i~r ~, 1 /' t1 I I I /rr'i~. SPA E k MlW~SO,EFM us [ml ~ T:~ ~.,.-.?1 + ~~I J I ,I rl/ mm^[_f' Irani _ 1 ,~ I ~_-r K ~ r viz ~ f>~I _ ~ I I .. ~ I i li i ) EII tnn r 4 O fn ~ ~ -`"'"~ ~~~~ , n ~ I i' ' li i f jr A m - c>1~, ~,.o I,,.I _ ~ - 1 1 1 I o ^oooo^ oaoooo ~ N ( _ _ ~Lrr~~_~ L }} ii ~ I i~~ ~ f,vl i ~ I ~ O ~ Id _~ll.M1 w' 11 k ili I I I ,>s> li -_ ~~ -I 94,700 S.F. }` :~~1'~1,~.~ p • .M^°~'^l~ ,.~~... _ 1 1 ' ~ ~ ~I I i ~ i s,~ jsl~'- ~~ ~_:-y, l~rl x srce ~-SkOry s 99,800rS.F. ~ I -~~~ ~; `~~P~, I l,ll r I ~ ~_, . y- ~. „~.;~ 2-Story I I ~ ~ j .I I I I I I ; r - ~ - ~,. 1 ~ I li / wrx i ~ ' .~ ~ ~ CSSiI~~i ~3 III I ~ I i <"_ TnEE' ( '~-- :- - ---... ...-- ... ... i ~---S S°sun -~---M1-~~- - I5 3'~.a TJ' - ;1 j.~.-~ II II I / 6 5 h ~ L4 ~ f. L~ I I ~~ I I N II I I ~. i I I I ,,/ I 1 . J j ' ~ ~ -I I---I l-1 r cmr ..1':, I -- _oa n' m 11 omauu ' ~~I 1. ^ (Tm1 ~ ~ ~ SEN. I ~~ III r .mmx t i' a ~ ~ ~ ME ~ p Itl m I f °°°ITMI T ~I^Yr 5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ __ I ___________ __ I~ III • I L __ y______ _____ __ ___.__ _'._ _ _ __ _ _ _ w r- - III 1 -------___ --_.... - .~_ _^h~ II I l o• a.ASU 1-a' A>:Ae Iml ~' ~ ~~ _ ~ ------7--- M ~ ~ -ia'_w . _ _ . _ . , _ .. _ _ -,~ s ~,~~r"" - `~_~ms l 9.oi _ -_ ~~ . _ l / . r2i,~~. ~ Il 1,,, o,,.., ----------------------- ---- - ~ Mr I ~ m~ R a - ~~ `'~ ~ I \ ~.4. .. ~n wE a ~t uNE rnelE M.,o :~) - .,,t - - =1•.;.:~..a~ ~' A ..<~vE>a 1 ~M~_ uNCr~ ~~ ~ EXISTING BUILDING Tfl REMAIN srx t] #21 POfk PIOCB BIVd. ~ 1 cmrsn os F.wosc°I~o nasAs EA f ~~ ]S!tl ~~F~ 1 .., CIM.Y ,NNC __-~ OPOSE~ NiE99F Lu+O CJRYE l]1G11f RADa15 BLIRUIG 4 Ggap ~~ sc+rEO,vrEAB i, CI ii.1) T lliUIL' iA/]3 0 1~ ~ ~ r. CWflrGE CCUECfICn wlu 9E BY SCaED40 0.1ur5R0. A` C] ,~ MO.GO 6 6179 ® A ALL WM.AwC SP.CES VKE~ED ~ 5]~ nE ~GOSC DI' ]xC LR cwrcoa:ICo~wuNg,l»E. 1,.,1<",.1.°Flallmark Development of Florida, Inc, ,1,,,.IA,~..~," Wm..m:.,. - ~a~ ..•Im.,.~~~. PARK PLACE OFFICE S[TE 3 ~_ aSOU IaUrIA Arcnlre N., S~ilc lo] Clcanratcr, Florida 337G2 HORIZONTAL CONTROL STRIPING, - - - - P]lanc: (727) 53Y-iW2 Fax; (727]536.357a ]nam o 4 SIGNAGE & LIGHTING PLAN • 5 ~ A~o~~ D PLANrvNt.; --_-~- DR EW STREET (C. R. 108) -~~_.1- , ~.rt.. 100' R/W u ~~ _ - flu . u `k~'°'S, a A fe I 89'56' 1`L'W °" __^ 5 " sos.o P als.zz ~ -,~.,Fa2.~l3 ,wl t<~ -- N ------- -- - ¢"_-~- - ~L.ar-I-. ~3~:.aa---=--------------==-L) -------------- __- ___ •.r - - - - -- -- - - -- -- -^ 1 e1 T _ e n ° ,w.~t7 2a. .~ .~ ~„ -.. 4,~+~ ~ a OOH ~--~,~ - -~°- ~ . ~~,_, ~„ ~~ - . .~ ~ 1,.... i 1 I ~ u, .. _ o (~' _~ ~~ ~ ~_.--~,,e . ~\1'I III J[yIII I I /~ ---mn-Wne---------s~~~v~.-------- ,.. ----'~---------------~ I - -._ - q -.'_"_ __ _ ---- --- 1 ••I1I 'Gn" J II ~ ~.~ ~\ ~... .yy - -----`---'-= E~-- Fps m.vtYS ~ 'Wlllw I II \` ~ sa„~- I ICI I I/Pj I r~ercx ~"- a°~E '~ E%!STING REiENTt01J ARE4 jllll~ I~~I -- I I ~~ ~ s ~ w ~ Irel ~ ~~r ~ ~e ~.~~Q ~ O~ -C3~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~ '~.,.., ~Y *~~I~~ lal ~ I If I _ ~ ~ ~~-- -r ~-T I ~-I ~-T =r~~-r~=T=r-~-~-~ rl-~ ~ I III I>ii I .i'' i~ .~ 'wf® "f~-~ ~~ I I I I I ~~I J ,,~,,I I I I I.~°w..l I„J" I I u- I I if1a~` ~7yr-'&~-'~ I 'ii ~,I I~ ~~~ .s r ~.c...sa.cm'.~.c 'r~' \ I iiii I WII F I I I I F%IST[NG REiENT ON AR A ` .oa _y i uv-w rt~ k+• .n qg I ~ / ~ !P \ I I III .,., y,..~, a.m U.n-.,.,, ~ . `8=E `~ ~~"°'"'° _~l_ ~. trrl~~ .~na gl ~ .. ~ ~~ ~ .. ~ w .. 1~ II 3 I I ~~~~ / ~ Ire) - ~- ----- - ~..., _ ~ ~ ~+r ~ I I M) 1141 Iii ~° I I ~i~ t i i'®I~iw.,ee .>,.I° r~'~ja \ p, -`-- I.rl'"'IS"1''~ .Fea~l~ I .I~^~ a.lf J ~ `` ~,~),•j~l'~.\ g i °tiiii II I I l.' I I wv u~ n ~~/~TT'\ „n~ w~ '"`I ~..~ "A ---- 'Cd..~' ~ ~ I I NI I loll ..r.~ ,... L-. - -- ~ -1.L r I ~ _ _ ~.e l..t "~ v, I ~;;~ '~1 iii ~ I I~r ~~ r~i ~ ~ ~ `~ i ~ ~~© a ~° i .mmm/ /~'+."~ ~ i till I jlr0 I I ~I I ./y%un~ ~y ~ I 9,9Q0 S.F. O .1 l r ^rf / ~i, I III' ~L c)I,m I I I ..,.. 4 ~ A ~-St0 "~~"'> I ~, \~ I d, ' ~/r ~ ii`` w,na ^~miwu I ~~°~ .~~ I I I III II II ~ .} ~. ~ ~ '~" I 4u ~ I I I ~i'. 4 ~ ~ E O • FF-a55o" luu~: 1.~J r"b...l~l.~} I fI.., ~ I v ~ ~ I ~~ Vie. it ~~an lal'I~ I `^'~ ' I` . ! -,,. ~ - ~ „ ~ ~ ro ~ I _ I I t "~ ,~ Irel : I ,,. ~~SS I ~~ I I ~ i~ri"°"~~.'q^ ~ /~ a (7 a $ ~ p ~tp --1~.,~ - ~tl° ai 1 II I a III .,. I ° i a tl i I I 1 ~~ ,,. Q , aj.tl' ~.'r _- 1 - - II° I `~ I Iii ~ - II ,. I .n I i , >Y nwm~, F 000000 ~ ^oono E cD N ::. ~ - 111..._. ~ d (~, 'I , ~ I F 1:.- ~~ - ~I ~ I ~~n ~" .°a' ~ • ~..el Imt iF ~ ~ ___i 14,700 S.F. a ~ ~ ....~, m' p ..~.~m'~.. ,-r."~ " ,/w,., © d . ~ I I r - .f I _ 1 FF a5.5d O - ~ n ~u la I ~.~.,~ ~ i ~I _ ~ i 1 ,«,~ 1FS50ry . ,,. ... 39,800 S.F~ °o w 1 ~ {{.~Ei~ ; >c:~l I ~~ II ~ { W, . i ,~ I 1 'i". I f I I j ~ i \ .,. a.."® ~..d "~ «. 2-St9 Fy ,.~ .._, ~ - / a6 r,1 ii I I- - I {FF1 I -~ • ...~ III I I I y( - .-,..,.. I I u /~µn li - I _ _ -- _~.~ ~, ~ ~ I I I I ~~TT ~^IL ~ - ~r I ~ II ra II i ~ rs\ ... _ - I ~ -.~....-- - .~. - - b ~ - - --------- - ~+ 6 a I i. ~y:°«. ot~ N III I n I I I i I I~ r I ~{~ 67.,.0, I . '° I ~ it • f~l~' ,c ,.~~ Iw -• ~;~.-'`~'~"" -~; ~"`~~ ! emwa, m.pf~..~ _ I ~ r, ~~rmf~ ~~I I .' wo. I ~.P ~ /I ~4CE ~ 31 ~~ .. ~II~ Y0" WI I' -- __ -- -- - ---- ~ -~ -- - ---- p -- - - - ------- ¢ ----- i _ .~~.~;' -- ~ all 1 Illy~:a~~ti~,, ~ I ,_ -~ m~.,0.1~ ~ -589 ^4~ . -..-.. ~ - - - O -a m"~6 0~ ~-'B;q, ~Im 19.~ ~.~ ~ II 0.._0 . -r' i _ 6 B .~' ~ ~-----~----'- -- - -- ~ ~ -~-- - --------------- - -- - - --- - - - II ~I.,w Yremagn ~ ~ gceue. " \ ~ a r °~ ~ a a w '^ : ~ ~ rp,p 'e II `.I ow, i .~s~ Z ~ I ~m°m"41n"..:n~r6 'i(cS' ~ mi=l ~YO;'S .....a.. ~~(`~-:. ~wesv _ j emm oe.,,,e `, ~~~^~° -'EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN ~~ I t ~ ,y (~21 Park Place Blvd. ~ ~ "" ~~I„al„.Eelo..,~osu~o,~E.e I ?' I xorts: ~ oegws~o ~n,ea~ve."~ o-: oc~o.ae..s' I 1. EIEVAIE]N9 BtSCD br1 QFM.ttFA BFnCnurRN JFIx CItMf10n . aa.C9. 6aTUe1 Bh5E6 On npnr» A.[.W. usJlrW ann lee. o S b EO ° a. msnrm rnlClp-E Sven xYO an Moue CAOaeO O'mEr6E msmrt[m eA1FAY11E Sven Br.~ ax 91E RAxS eaowm (.¢A /I aa-aoi-ow w,m z/h/9a). ® ~+ee~,:u~:'~ a. ri rmmm ~s .ua wm aaru m.s ^.eut_r°w ~/ .~nr un:="rTn cwrco~JCaluwel,~, )IC. ''...I""'`Natlmark Development of Florida, Inc. Irl,l~.~.~.,.,., °~~~^ s °° °°"°'"""""°""°" 45[)0 14d1h Avcnuc N., Swlc ]Ol PARK PLACE OFFICE SITE 4 g ' Clcanva[rr, Florida 3]762 SITE PLAN ~ - ' I ! '°'° Phole: (72i) 539-7dd2 F;Ix: (727)536-3574 ai"°,ye ° 4 • ~ ~ dPR 0 7 2~6 ~..._..~~ ~-M~+r - - - - .. ,....yam-~~ 81u4~R~.n o ~~_ CQo of "", )~N.m - o I .°a)114us-RUH ~ ° ~?)LWL` [nk. ~a) (1) LW ~pyM _. o. PaN1fTTo elyNT '{R/«+4 LF4 (b)PALMSii^ CMa. flal+f-.cYiM.RUL~~ Ka .L{o P .. ._ ~ '/ ~ EXIrcYn.IG TPrw~i -.- ~s6C 511tC~ 2aF4 ' Fat. EaNTIRa srrs 6{ Cj1LF [cy6T ~pJ',$IJL"~71-ICS InIL ~... Od47 ' .MeS - .a.~. Ps++-) ~ -~ +~' CeeVflL'K . . PaLMe~o 6-L ` da&al.t- t~r~iEPrssl~ ~. ~ ~ a o ` o ^ o o .~~ LBZ)N 5,,.. (~ ^oooo^ a ^ :MYtI ~J+ .ftYy . ry f\.ll -BNSTI44 PNnNpC, rH .Tl.-IM'Ib1t1lf.. C6R'f Yagns,. , , ~'Llif'6~'J5~ ~~HO / rK ~NR- .7uxT. lY ok:_(1?n1--- i. Pwary WILL. 6C ~aN,~<PmvfC_...,~ w.1waL..ace:.e-.Txe-iteaT - ~ He SwG99•... ~ ~ ~ PywT... ~i'IR4i..... ' ~ C .. ' 7~1M4T° .... (b}9JyNF11'O. ..,,.. (4~(fa/t M'/FII-a ~IF~ 94-MdTC ...__: b) Ppuagy (i l)ww4eo eW .... -- (a>raw~c~ ^) ~ u~s..a-~ )suwrt~ , tajf werte _ . f61 . ~ d~) Au4°IW LJ -iB - 31.~IMSt61L. ~ ~~ . v~utPgL c fWu° Sca -taee{W4. ~tE ewl.9w55 ' aF DStstetPo:i,pmr-.a_~ ' layl:•-'.GJL,~(i40h(:lS So1:19- /IEW~ LILY- -~. . FLari9n '~'1 afL P~Q' . f ..IE~, wIN4Ea erw uLHVS Als-rn ra'w2s"cs,,. ~.I~~.w....a,p+~!,Tc. I~IG~!.s~r~l-~ _-iq rac 7 LIt.E n., quBYLUS. VIC4Mlawa ro'z 1-s'r.+l-. wet{aLi.>'9.::'.Wi'[ti1 .>9..aIJ '1N6aK 'r ~d.6lL. 172 54tl611 Saw PcWIPR SERENas. R6P6hl'S 14><14~ 33+tb. +}.'n.~„ 6aL. _.eF .: TL16 ..NEw...A.NITb e++v, Spm.... Y45 X+{R4lkWh '~.'~~ ~, ,,.. V\V3QNUrA '`s'dTE*I ~l ISY18 Ywt 3q'a~o-- '';f' t) 4LL. Pl.elr( ~.ttge?iaL Yo ea. rvlT.arl~w'.~c,RCwK r2o ~-k$wF~ ~(sv Feo~e.afl.+s htalu 2µ' ~/arl z4° aa• 2 tJ LI Ltxlamt B'a~ 2' u.L 4 MY'ei~ ~4~f~~1/• IH91CS ' N6TCFlEZ 8'[w 1'cx . a'c ~~ 1... -- sv 1-c es -s++r ax~vaa ~ ar ~4"-sr~- ~ S ISC. LIq.I~1tuM LI[~rs`Wxn t.xr~wh 3~ellan Isxl~' 3'o e .. R~e_ ~._......_. u ~'n.e I. ~meekc¢L~.age 5a~ .. _. ~tlAri ~ PlANT7N4 L.~ -~I) LNa.. ow- 1 PAP .. c osl4- /~ '~.:. ~~.•'. o~.~ :' ~,' O ::. ~,`o. x. uv.c . ,. SIN4~_SjHMO ytlW~Wl/E w ~iclNy., ri.w . . FwWlL4ue P~{titf OfA11 ._ 1Yix W.. bTY6. PT i ..._ Sang ay FwWN - I'11µ`' ~ ~ !i°n~' T3[[-S PIliNTIK OvXwu VnTU._ aTe..._5ali. 11ltrp!!pY ^r. Pi 1GFtF,Y ti wu r d i :srxpe A~tOprt~r"1 Earl (ta7~ 434-uB6 ~~ Z W fl.. U wJ W ~ ~T rim Ise L 1~~ • • ~~ ~ '~ ~ ~ AP 0 ~IJ ~ R 72006 _~...~diY ~F ~'_ -' 1ru .. ,, .. .r ~~ ~ • ~~ g 1 ~_- ELEVATION _~~ ~ z ~z moo ~ n ~ ~ n~ I I ~ I r ~ ~ i - ~.f^ ca ~ 47 '-------' '-------' ~ 4 v~ ~ D m m a ~ ~ Z PLAN MC~NUM~NT SIGN I PARK FLACE - OFFICE PARK PARK PLACE HLVD. CLEARWATER, FLORIDA THOMAS J. GRAHAM LICENSE NO. AA 000051 ®(Apydght~ Greham DASIgn Aitotletes, PA All rights reserved. This material Is the exclusive property of Graham Desgn Assocfales, P.A., Reproduction in whole or in parts is stri:lly prohibited wilhaul the pdor written permission al Graham ~eslgn /NSOGlate9, P.A. and any such reproducllon may subject Yeu la dvi andlor criminal Ilahlfty under Tdle 17 d the Untied Slates Code. I I I I N \\ ~ ~~~ I I V R I I ,~ssocl~T~s, ~.~. ,4RCHITECTS-PL~I`1NER5 r7s7~ 733-9900 585 Marn Street. Surte u201 Dunedin, Fiorlda 39698 FAX '133-9555 HIGH DENSITY FOAM TRIM HIGH DENSITY FOAM GAP ORIGINAL RECEIVED ____a ~~,~ 2 ~ 200fi P;.A~IN!!`3G ~EPAPTMENT C1TY CF CLEARWATER i ~ ~~ i i ' O I__ _.__ -~---I , , I ~~ _ __.__ _ i I --~-- - I, i l I - ~I---- - -~ I i l _ ~ , I I t 15" --O" ELEVATION 24" x 24" PAINTED CEMENT PLASTER FINISH PILASTER POLISHED GRANITE """' ""fSITY FOAM TRIM HIGH DENSITY FOAM CA C I 24" x 24" PAINTED CEMENT --- ~ PLASTER FINISH PILASTER PLAN HIGH DENSITY FOAM CAP O I iv -24" x Z4" PAINTED CEMENT PLASTER FINISH PILA5TER M0~1UM~I~T SIC~I~ PARK PLACE -OFFICE PARK PARK PLACE BLVD. CLEARWATER, FLORIDA THOMA9 J. GRAHAM LICENSE NO. AA 0000752 ~ Copyright ~ Grenam Ueslgn AssoUatas, P A. All dghls reserved. This maledal is the exclusive pmparly of Graham design Associates, P.A.. 32epraductlon in whole or in parts is suiuly prohihitad without the pdar wrttlen ~ permisslan of Graham Oes[gn AssaGatea, P.A. and any such reprodualon may suhject you to eivg anNar aimnal liahllily under Title 17 of the United States Code. ~~~.~ ~~5~~~ ~SSOCf.4T~S, P.~4. AiZCHITECTS-PL,4i~1P[ERS ^ 1121) "133-9400 585 Mem Street, Swte tt201 Dunedin, Florida 34L98 FAX 133-9555 FRONT ELEV~aTfON ORIGINAL RECENED MaR 2~9 20d6 pLANNING~DEPARTMENT CI1Y OF CLEARWAI'ER ~~~ OFFICE BUILIING "~i" m ~~ rH~rt~5 J. G~AHd~H uc~r~s~ r~o. PARS PLACE BVP. CLE.~I~~'kTER, FLCPIDh ,aa cac~~s~ ~ Copyright • Graham Desiyo kssrial?s, P.P.. All rights raserved, Thls material is the exclusive prapegy of Graham Design Associates, P.A.. Reproduction in whole ar in pzlis is suietly prahlhL'ed without the prior t~~rltten palmissicn o; Graham Design Assodaies, P.A. and any such rapraduation may subject you to civil andlorcriminal liz6ilRy under Title t7 ai the United Stetes Code: LEFT SIDE ELEVATION scALa, vlt•.r-o. ~ . RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION scALa: vu•.r-o• oRIGINA< RECENEe REAR ELEVATION SCALE: I/IL'•!'-0' gas 2 ~ zoos PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY of CLEARWATER 0 REAR, LEFT g RICs~IT SlD~ ELEV,4TIONS ~ OFFICE BUILDING "A" P PLACE ~ ®P~TC~ P PARK PLACE BLVD. CLEARWATER, FLORIDA THOMAS J. GRAWAM LICENSE N0. AA 000052 ©CaPyd9hl -Graham Design Associalas, P.A. All rights reserved. This material is the exclusive property of Graham Design Associates, P.A.. Reproduction in whole or in parts is stn'Gly prohibited tu~lhcut the prior written permission a<Graham Design Assxiates, p.A. and any such reproduction may subject you to civil andlar c¢minal liability under Title 17 of the lJnitetl States Code, FRONT ~LEVATIDN ~~ ORIGINAL RECENE~ 'MAR 2 g 2006 FIAI~NINCC E~~ TA ERA C4Tf OF ~~20~1T ~~.~VATION. OFFICE BUILDING "B" PARK PLACE - ~FF~CE PARK PARK PLACE BLVD. CLEAR~GATER, FLORIDA THOMAS J. Gi2AHAM LICENSE N0. AA COOOl52 t7Capynght ~ Graham Desgn0.ssociales, P A. NI rights reserved. Thls material is the eKClusive property of Graham Design Associates, P.A.. Reproduction in whole or in parts is sbidly prohlbiled wifhcut the prior written permissien o(Graham DesignAssociafes, P.A. and any such reproduction may sugect you fo civil endlor criminal Ilabllity underTide 17 of the United Stales Gode. C~~~~~r~ D~S~C~N~ ,~SS~~I~T~S, P.~. ARCHITECTS-PLAi~R1ER5 (121) 133-9400 585 Mam Street, Suite tt201 Duned€n, Florida 34698 FAX 133-9555 ~ L~TI OFFICE BUILDING "B" P PLACE ~ ®EF~CE P PARK PLACE BL~ID. CLEARWATER, FLORIDA THOMAS J. CsRAHAM LICENSE NO, AA 0000752 ©Gopyright-Graham Vssigr Assoaales, P.4. A11 righ(s resarv~. This material Is the exclusive progeny of Graham Design Associates, P,A.. }?eproduc€ion in whole or in pans is sVictly prohibited vdfhoul the prior wnhan permission ai Grham Design Associates, P.,4. and any such reproduction may subject you to civil andlor criminal Ilabiiily antler The 17 of the United S~afas Code. ~~T 51~~ L~~°~(~~ OFFICE BUILDING "B" ~ ~~~~ PARK PLACE BLVD. CLEARWATER> FLORIDA THOMAS J. GR~,HAM LICENSE NO. AA COOa~52 OCopydghi ~ Graham Casign fssociales, P.A. All rights reserved. This material is the exclusive properly o(Graham Design Associates, P.A.. Reproduction in whale or in pans is sinetly prahiblted without the prior umtten permission of Graham Design Associates, P.A. and any such reproduction may subject you to duil andlor criminal liahlllly underTiile 1T of the Unitad States Cade. r ('~ ~ I I ~ II ~ 1 5 RIGHT SIDS ELEVATION ~ vea~ '~ ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAR 2`9 7006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CIlY OF CLEARWATER ~, I~a~T ~f ~ ~L€~~TC~ OFFICE BUILDING "B" P P~~C m FF~~ P PARK PLACE BLVD. CLEARWATER> FLORIDA THOMAS J. GRAHAM LICENSE N0. AA 0000752 ©Copyrghl ~ Graham Gesign Ass~;ialas. P.4.. 4tl dghts reserved. This malarial is the exclusive properly of Graham Gesign Associates, P.A.. Reproduction in whale or in pads is strictly prohibited tivitheut the prior wriben permission of Graham Gesign Associates, P.A. antl any such reprotluction may subject you to civil andlor criminal liability under Tllle 17 cr 9he United Slates Cade. ~`~~~I~~~T~-~L~~~~~~ (1211133-940a 585 Mam Street, 5utte tt201 DuneAdin, Elands 34698 FAX 133.9555 FRONT ELEVATION sc~~e, vu••r-o' ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAR 2'~ 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMEN~f Cliff OF CLEARWATER F~®N~T ~LE~/~TIC~I~ OFFICE BUILDING "C" PARK PLACE ~ ®FFICE P PARK PLACE BLVD. CLEARWATER, FLORIDA ~~all~~~/~ A ~~~~ /~{~~~ Vli ~T~~g 1 er \a ARCt~IIT~CTS-PL~4~d~l~R~ (121) 133-9400 5B5 Main Street, Stnte >t201 Dunedin, flonda 34b9B FAX 133-9555 THOMAS J, GRAHAM LICENSE N0. AA COOOl52 p Capynghi ~ Graham Design Assaciat~, P,A All rights reserved. This material is the exclusive property at Greham Design Associates, P.A. ReproducGcn in whole or in parts is strictly prohibited w,thcuUhe prior whiten permission of Graham Design Associates. P.A. and any such reproduction may subject you to cial andlor criminal liabilhy underTlile i7 of the United States Gade., ~ ~ LEFT SIC}E ELEVATION seaLe: inL•-r-o' RICsHT SIpE= ELEVATION senee: Inr-r-o• ORlGINA1 RECEIVED MAR 2.9 200fi pL4NNING'DEPARTMEN't CIiY OF CLFARWAiER REAR ELEVATiDN SCALE I/k"=Y-O' R~~s ~~T ~ ITT ~I~ LV~TI~I~~ A ,~SSOC9,~°~ES. ~.~. ARCHITECTS-PLANNEt~S ,.,,_. ,,,, ,,,,,, OFFICE BUILDII~TG "C" ~ ~~A,~ _ ~I ~ rHOrIAS ~. c,RA+~AM LICEly5E NO" PARK PLACE BLVD. CLEARWATER, FLORIDA AA 0000'152 ©CopyngM • Graham Design Assgciaiss, P.P- All nghls reserved. This material is the exclusive property of Graham Design Associates, R.A.. Reproduction in vrhole or in palis is s(ncUy pmhblled wi(houl the prior written permission of Graham Design Assxiales, P A. and any such reproduction may suh~ecl you to ci~Pl andlor criminal Ilahiliiy under Title 17 of the United Slates Code, (121) 133-9400 585 Maln Street, Suite tt201 Dunedin, Flonda 34698 FAX 133°9555 FRONT ELEVATION schse, inr.••r-o• ORIGINAL RECENED MAR 2`~ ZOOfi PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY Of CLEARWATER ~i~~NT ELE~/A~TI~N C~#Z~H~41"t D~SIC~IeI ~associ,A~ES. P.,4. ARCHITECTS-PLA-~11~lERS OFFICE BUILDING >rDn P:AR~ FLACE - ®FFICE PAC THOMAS J. GRAHAM LICENSE NO. PARK PLACE BLVD. CLEARWATER, FLORIDA AA C000152 ©Copynghf ~ Graham Design Associates, P.A. Ail rlgfltS reserved, This material is iheexClUSive property of Graham Design Associates, P.A.. Reproductlon in whole or in parts is stnclly prahihited without the prior vmlten permission of Graham Design Associates, P.A. and any such reproduction may subject you to eluil andlor edminal liadilify underiitle 17 of the Unlled States Cade. (1217 T33-8900 585 Mom Street, Swte X201 Dunedin, Florida 39696 FAX 133-555 LEFT SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: I/n'•Y-0' RICsHT SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: I~L'b'-0' ORIGINAL RECEIVED REAR ELEVATION SCALE: VIC'•I'•d• MAR 2'9 200fi PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER R~,4Ro L~~T ~ ~~~SHT SIDE ~~~V~1°IOPdS OF'EICE BUILDING "D" PARK PLACE BLVD. CLEAR~YATER, FLORIDA THOMAS J. GRAHAM LICENSE No. AA cooo~s2 ©Copynghl-Graham Design vlssx~le=., P.A. fill rights reserved. This material is the exclusive property of Graham Qesign Associa€es, P.A.. Reproduction in whole or in parts is siriclly prohibited wllhcut the prior vmtten permission of Graham Design Associatee P.A. and any such reproduction may subjeG you to civil andlorcriminal liahilily under Title 97 al the Unlled Slates Cade. TOP OP RODP f79^4 A.P.PJ I~IIETAI ROOPAn ~I TRUES BeARI1tD n7-b' AP.PJ BDTTbn by pASCU flb'-0' A.P.P} HEAD X~GHT IY-D' A.FJ'J S'~Rrb~UyO C~OLU~HX ~TTPY D- gal XEIGXr fY-S' A.fi.P.) PoesXeD nobR ra-m seAn C-Y RAD W-Y RAD D ~/ DEnEXT PLAST~ PASCIA 1 SDPPIT CONCRETE eEAe OiRH CEPEHi PLAST NXISX CE1~EXT PIASTER IOR s• RNIND cowrpa rrrP uunmm~ srbRePROHr DooR 1 a1HDOW srsrEn ERN Tn1Te0 PIPAC7 4LA59 rTTPICAU 1=~ONT ELEVATION scue, vu'w•a ORIGINAL RECENED MAR 2'9 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT C11Y Of CLEARWATER II°~®NT EL~~/~TI~~ I OFFICE BUILDING "A'r P PACE ~ ®FF~CE P PARK PIAACE BLVD. CLEARWATER, FLORIDA THOMAS J. GRAHAM LICENSE N0, AA G000'152 ©CoPYrgM • Graham Design Associates, P.A. All rights reserved. This material is the exclusive property of Graham Design Associates, P.A.. Reproduction in whole or In parts is strictly prohibited vdlhout the prior wrlden pemtission ai Graham Design AssorJa[es, RA and anysuch reproduction may subject you tc ciHl andfor criminal liability under Tdie 17 of the United States Code. ~~5~~1~ 1 8®!d~ P~~s ARCHITECTS-PL,4NNERS. t121y 133-9400 585 Main Street, Stnte x201 Dunedin, Florida 34L98 FAX 133-9555 TOP OP ROOF r}I'-1' AAPJ D TOP OP ARCH (n'-10' APPJ , CURVED STANDING SEAn METAL RR000OFP TRU94 BBARIxG IIY-0' A.P,P) BpttOn OP FABCU IID'-0' AP.P.1 NBAD NBGNT fY-0' A.P.PJ ~ PI °~ T ~ ~ ~ R0 13dD COL N fT T Un BLL NBwllr n'-r AAAJ }, RNL4HPD PLDOR la-0') LEFT SIDE ELEVATION BCALE Vli'•P-0' TOP OP ROOP ISq'-d' AAAJ TRU98 BEARd1G 8Y-a A.PAJ ALUmNUn sroRePROxT WNDOW STBTBI WITH TINTED BIPACT GLA59 rtmK:Au RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: wc'-r-D' BOTTOM OF FABdA m'-a A.P.PJ NEAD N~NT f8'-0' AAAJ 9 RR UO C WLUMX PO~IRL BILL NEGIIT 12'-B• A.P.PJ FlMBHED PLODR Ia-0'1 _ _-- - _ _ - T `-BRICK SOLDIER ~ D~OQR iMI~RTp~OW 8T~g1E11 COURSE ITTPMCAU RTH TINTED B1PACt GLASS ~BRK:R VEXE6I ANO "N.umn Oi~/K-'rxuN~ -DOOR 1 W171D011 SY8TET1 ~pNCRE7~ gL CK NND01P YSTEM WT1{ yALI 1TYPICALy 71NTED ACT GLA99 UrtATYNP~`)ED BIPACT GLA39 ~~ ~~ fTTPICAI.f REAR ELEVATION 9CALEr W'd-0' TOP OP ARCX fMP-10' AP.P) CURVED STANDNG 9EAM METAL ROOOfP TRUBS BEARING nt'-0' AAAJ BOTTDM OP PABC4A r10'-0' AAA,) HEAD NEI(NT Id'-0' A.P.P.1 RY ~D ~ R P ce ONiD COL BRL N®GNT rY-B' A.P.P) PINBNEO PLODR ra•o~ 15~T62 FlM9H ORIGINAL RECENED MAR 2'9 2006 PIANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEp,RWATER REAR. LEFT E RIGHT SIDE ELEVATIONS ~ OFFICE BUILDING "A" P PL1iCE ®~FFICE P PARK PLACE BLVI}. CLEARWATER, FLORIDA _ TOP OP ROOF tl~'-a' APPJ HBTAL R06PEAM ~~M THOt1A5 J. GRAHAM LIC~N9l= N0. AA COOOYS2 ®Copyright-Grahzm pesign Associates, P.A All rights reserved. This matenaE is the exdusive property of Graham Design Associates, P.A.. RepmduL'fi°n in whale or in parts is strictly prohl6ited without the prior written pennisslmT of Graham pesign Associates, P.A. and any such reprodueGon may suhjettyou to civil andfor.crirninal liahiliiy under Ttle 17 of the United States Cade. PLASTER CeMENT PLABTlR 1 80FFlT PASGA I SOPFiT P~B99H CEntNT P4A9T R IMP~O,k{ 3~RO~wTID rA~u IPT°RTp~ 3B70T COWnN !T°RrP~i ° STANDBIf~EAM ' Mn' ETTAA~LL It~ 8' CNU BLOCK HALL ITYPVCAU ~~ ,4RCHITECTS-PLy4~l1~~RS ' (121) 133-9400 583 Main Street, 51nte x201 Dlmedin, Florida 34698 FAX 133-9555 TOP OP ROOP 1$'-10' APPJ FIe~A~M ~+ ~ Ph9~gNATI LA90gPFfT~~ TRU99 BEARNID )17-0' AP.P) BOttOM OP PA9CIA INY-0' APPJ HEAD XdGVfT IC•0' A.P.P) ry CENT PLA9TER~ 1 90.1 HENilif l7'-C APPJ fl1U9HED F100R 10'-0'1 b' RO~UTND COW~N ITYO PR 1~J TOP OP ROOP I7a'-10' APP! ~-1+ ~cuRyeo stANDntr; TOP OP ARdI (W-10' A.PP.) ~PA9dA 1~90PPRR TRU99 BEARMO e3'-0' APPJ ALNMIIAIM STOREFRONT DOOR 1 EIXDg1 BYSTEM BITH TRITED IMPACT GLASS fiYPM;AU FRONT ELEVATION IaDAIe. wAr~ BOTTOM OP PA9CU 90'•0• A.f.P.l HEAD HENiHT 19'-0' APP.i IT S U - BM ~ PI tIN 3' ROI MD C 911E HEIGM 17-1' A.PP.1 J. " WNNSIIED PLOOR 10'-0') ~ BEAR iRH .ASTER MNgH ORIGINAL RECENED MAR 2`91006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER ~R~~IT ~l~~V,~TI~~I OFFICE BUILDING "B" P PIECE - ®FFICE P PARK PLACE BLVD. CLEARWATER, FLORIDA ~~ ~~j ~RCl~ITECTS-PL,4~lNERS 1121) 133-9400 585 Main Street, Suite tt201 Dunedin, Floride 34698 FAX 133-01555 THOMAS J. GRAHAM LICENSE N0. AA 0000152 ®Copyright • Graham Design Associates, P.A All rights reserved. This material is the exclusive property of Graham Design Associates, P.A.. Reproduction IN whole or in parts is stddly prohibited without the prior written permissioo of Graham Design Associates, P.A. and any such reproduction may subJect you to civil andlarcdminal (lability underTitle 17 of the United States Code. CURVED STANDSiG BBAM ME1AL ROOF TOP OP ROOF 176'-ID' APP) TOP OP ROOF 175'-Id' A.P.P) ~, pHpIH $aEA1V1ElETAL R00F g~AH~ N~ g IiETALIR00F~ ,~ TOP OP ARCH mT-10' AP.P.1 I I CEMENT PLASTER i /'-Y RAD 9'-Y RA CEMENT PLA912R PASGA 1 90PPm FASGA L SDPfli TRUS9 BBAR5IG ID'-0' A.P.P.) TRU94 BEARING 11Y-0' A,F.F) BOTTOM OP PASGA 110'-0' APP) BOTTOM OP PASGA 110'-O' APP) HEAD HEIGNT IC-0' APP) HEAD XEIGNT IC-0' APP.I CONCREIB BEAM POTH T PLA Pllr CEMENT PLASTER PORMEO CEIIHI 9 8' ROUND COLUMN fTTP> 90.L HlIGHi 17-5' A.F.PJ 91LL HEIGNT PY-5' AP.P.> - ~ ~~ MED FLOOR Id-0'1 m ' ._ ... - - - ' "` ` ~ ~ ' ' ~ -~ _ ,~ - - P 0.9 .r~ T PMLRHW FLOOR rd-0 1 CONCRETE BEAM1I WITN ~ ~ BRIG( SOLOIBi ~ AWMMUI7 STOREFRONT - . .. CON RE~BLOCK~ .. ~ . ,, Iy pApHL pO SYSTEM BRNT - ... ADOO~R 1 WND0010~9Y9TEM ICS CONCRETE~BLOC~ COU~R.42 RY~ALI 8' AND ~gLT10EM YP1 CEMENT PLASTER PMISH COURSE rtTPiCAU WMDOW DySTEM U01H I PA T LASS WALL ITYPICAU iMTED IMPACT GLASS BItN TINTED IMPACT GLA91 I LI vALI ITYPICALI TINTED M C G ITYPICAU ITYPN:AU ITYP CA REAR ELEVATION BcALm w+'P-o' ORIGINAL RECENED MAR 2'9 2006 PLgNNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEp,RWATER R~,~R EL~~,~TI®N OFFICE BUILDING "Bf5 PARK PLACE - ®FFICE PARS PARK PLACE BLVD. CLEARWATER, FLORIDA R~4 \ ~~ ,~,RCHITECTS-PL~f~li~l~RS (1211133-9400 585 Main Street, Smte u201 Dunedin, Florida 34L98 FAX 133-9555 THOMAS J. GRAHAM LICENSE N0. AA 0000'152 ©Copyrlghl-Graham Desigm Assocates, P.A All rights reserved. This material is the eKClusive property of Graham Design Associates, P.A.. Reproduction in whole or in parts is sUiclly prohibited without the prior wriden permission o(Glaham Cesigm Associates, P.A and any such reproduction may subject you to ail andlor criminal liahility under Title 17 oithe United States Cotle. TOP OP ROOP 1!F-p' APPJ PpI~NG NNGG gg2E t°D~~ °.,E~4N~MEtAL k00P BPIETAQIRODP An 41 TOP OF ARCH nY-10' APPJ TRR99 BRAKING Id-0' A.P,f,l eOttON OP FASCIA. nd-d APPJ HEAD H~GHT~rfBNN'-0' APPJ BEROUN~ fALUfIH l7YP1~ 81LL HEIGHT I?'-4' APPJ PIPa9HED PLOOR ld-0'1 ~ ~^ CENEN7 PLA97ER POR D S C 90LDiER 3' ROIam COLIINN MPY COERSE rtYPICAII TOP Of ROOF nsao' A,P,P.) -D ~1~ ih ~ rCURYED STANDING TOP OP ARCH fl1'-10' A,F.P.1 ~PA9C~U ~ LAg~R TRUS9 BLMRING n7-0' AFPJ ALtIrKNnI STOREPROHT DODR i WRIE)OiI 9YSTEn pnT ~ARI~TEO IIiPALT GLASE LEFT SIDE ELEVATfON aeu4 w+ro~ 90TTOn OP PAS6A nd-0' APPJ HEAD HEIGHT IC-0' A.P.FJ ryry~~ ~ ~ TR~ 3 LN rRI R RNR10 SEL HEIGHT (Y-C A.fP.I FINLAHED PLOOK td-07 aeAtl aPTH .ASTER PnlLSH ORIGINAL RECENED MAR 2'9 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT C1TY OF CLE{1RWATER L~~T SIDE ~1~EVATI~>~ OFFICE BUILDING "B" P! PUCE ~ CFFICE P PARK PLACE BLVD. C~LEAR~'ATER, FLORIDA ,4~CHIT EATS-PLr41V~lEi~S 1121} 133-9400 585 Matn Street, Suite tt201 Dunedin, Florida 346°16 FAX 733-01555 THOt1AS J, GRAHAM CICEN5~ M0. AA 0000'152 ©Copyright • GrahamDesignAssocfa0es, P.A WI righfa 259fV9d This material is the exclusive property of Graham design Associates, P.A. Reproduction in whole Dr in parts is strictly prohibited vnthoul the priorartitten permission of Graham Design Associates, P.A and any such reproduction may subject you to dull andPor cdm6~al Iiabil'uy urderThle 97 0l [he United States Cade. TOP Op ROOF f96'-W A.P,p.1 n C@RY@D 9TAX0@tG 9EAH METAL ROOP nE¢HDRkG 9EAfl X TOP OP ARCN SYiO' AP,F] AL OOP 11 I FASCIA 1 90PPIT CEMENT PLAlTER~ I I~ I I I I I U-I-i'!'f I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I! I I I I I I I I1.1-1~I'11 I I I I I I I I I I I I~' ~iY Y RAD TRUl9 BEARING If2'-0' AF.f.I BOTTOM OP FASGA IXY-0' APF] NEAO NEIGXT r8'-0' AFF.1 al y i °~° l vr 9NL NEIGXT FY-C A.R.P.1 .. y ~ ° ... .. .. ,: ' PIN19MED FLOOR 10'-0') .. , .. .. ~,: , COXCRETE BYAryry IATX BRICK SOLDIER CEMENT PLA9TFR FINBH CDURS@ ITYPICALI ALUMN8IM lTCREFRCNi BRX:IC VENffR AXD ALIRIMLM 9TpREPRONY CONCR@TE BLOCK WINDOW 9YSTB1 AIRMN AlIIMRr1M STOREpRONT I SYSTEM DOOR WINDOW STEM WRr1{{ ~ACT GLA9S 7 lu ACT GLA99 WALL ITTPKAU TI TI R PX:ALTED MPACT GLA99 R PICAU D~ TF RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION 9CMffi I/ktiP-0' D ~X BeAM TOP OP ARCH th•-10' AF.P] rPA~BgA IPSOPf1~T TRE99 BEARNG ID'-D' AP.F] 807TOM OP FASCA !b'-0' AFF] HEAD NBGHT 18'-0' A.P.P] -CBIENT PLASTER FARMED 0' ROLLND CDLDMN ttYP 9WL HEIGHT 1Y-B' AP.F] ~~AM yWRR~~ FAW918e0 FLOOR 10'-07 81ER RNBH ORIGINAL RECENED MAR 2 9 7006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER RiC~~#T SIDS 1~~~~-T~®1~ OFFICE BUILDING "Br' P PIECE - OFFICE P1 PARK PLACE BLVD. CLEAR~ATER, FLORIDA }4~?C~IIT~C`T~-PL,4NN~Ra !1211 133-9400 585 Mmn Street, Sate >r201 Dunedin, Flonda 39698 FAX '133-9535 THOMAS J. GRAHAM LICENSE N0. AA 000052 ©Copynyhl-Graham Desgrl Associa~s, P,A All nghfs reserved, This material is the exclusive property of Graham Design Assoaates, P.A.. Reproduction in whole or in parts is sVkdy prohibited without the prior wdtlen pemtisson of Graham t)esign Assodafes, P.A. and any such reproduction may subjeLh you to ciAtl andloraiminal liability under Title 17 of the United States Code. r1ETAQ RQOP M +~~~( 91LL NEAGHT aT-4' AlPJ HEAD iffIGNT MO'-0' A.F,PJ ALUNMM STOREFRDNr Wtm00- 9TSTEN rPfX TaITlD OIPADT GLAge RTPiGAu 71LL HEIGHT f8'-1' A,P,FA J~. PINISXlO PLDOR 10'-0'! RA9TlR `ALINXWI 9TORltRONT L6RIGK V!H!!<R AND 33 RODND DDOOQORR 1 WN000 9T9Tl11 CONDRlT! OLOOK ITYP1 IlTM TINTlO 11'PAOT GLA99 WALL RYPlCALS P~20NT ELEVAtION scaLl: VI{'-Y-O' n ~F FA~9dAT 1 6AOPR7R ORIGINAL RECENED MAR 2 9 X006 PIANNING DEPARTMENT Cf1Y OF CLEARWATER ~i~C~~IT ~~~v,~1°I~l~ OFFICE BUILDING 'IC" P PLACE - ®PFICE P PARR PLACE BLVD. CLEARY~ATER, FLORIDA ,4RCI~IT~GTS-PLA~IN~R~ " 112U 133-9400 583 Meru Street, Suite X201 t3unedfn, Florlde 34698 FAX 133-9555 THOMAS J. GRAHAM LICENSE N0. AA 000052 ®Capynghl ~ Graham Deaigo Associates, P.A A~ dghls reserved, This material is the exclusive property ei Graham Design Associates, P.A.. Reproduction in whale or in parts is slnetly prohibited wlhout the prior mihen permission of Gfaham Deign Assocates, P.Q. and any such repmductian may suh~ect you to ciuy andlor piminal liahillty under Thle 17 of the Unhed Slates Cade. ~~"Ae~ +r~rfT IBAD I~GNT 90'~P AP.fJ ~ AY DT ~ 7 O ~ gg TnITED MPA S E W X CT GLA99 ITYF9CAL1 YL XEGNT B'-t APfJ BN9I~OFLOOR+a~on BRICK YENEENI ANO CANCReTe BIACK uAU TTYncuJ LEFT 510E ELEVATION scALE~ vrL•+-o• PLASTER CENEHT PLASTER 1 90FPR PA9gA 1 90PFR r~ sP9Tfl1 a HNT ~NPa1 9 BTEMEa~dT0i1NT 7P1CAU ACT ~~ ~TTPI®CW AC7 GLA9S ~~ ~~ TRa94 BEARING E7-0' A.F.F.1 BOT70n OP PASdA n0'-0' A.P.P.! FA~9GA 190~R RA9dA {PLAe~9TErtR ORry~ S' AROW OR~aNaN C 3 RW~LO COWflN COWpN n ,~ TRII99 BEABNG GT-F ArrJ HPID NBGXI OT•C APPJ 96L V8GII1' 9r-t' AFFJ READ XBPArI d0'•0' APPJ BacK socoNal rauRSe IrrPruu RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION scALB~ v¢•w-o' 961 NLIGHI' d~' APlJ f0~1ED Fl00R Wd'I }~ T REAR ELEVATION 9CAL6 iK'~Y-O' ORIGINAL RECENED MAR 2 g 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER ~ i~EAR, LEFT t RIG~IT SIDE ELEVATIONS ~ OFFICE BUILDING "CI' P1 PLI~iCE ~ OFFICE Pl~R~ PARK PLACE BLVD. CLEARWATER, FLORIDA ~~ THOMA5 J. GRAHAM LICENSE N0. AA 0000~~2 i OGrpydght-Graham Design Assoaales, P.P. All rights reserved This malarial is tho oxcluslve property of Graham Design Associates, P.A.. Reproduction in whole ar in parts is str~lty prohibited wilhoul the prior written pemes~on of Graham Design Assodatas, P.A. and any such reproduction may sugeui you [o evil andforcriminal liability under Title 17 of the United States Code. J 1!'~ ~S~~CI~~I"~~, ~o~• ~RCHITECT~°PL,41~~1~R5 f121) X33-9400 385 I"lain Street, Suite X201 Dunedin, Floridn 34698 FAX 133-9555 e ~+ Tor or Roor rru~-i• A.P.rJ ntTAL R00~ D it n ~i p T 1 TRUSS BEAPSNG Di'-B' APPJ gO Flt PASC4V XEAB HFKHT I!Y-B' APPJ _ /- OB tl TT ~ ® T 9 ~ ~ ypA X iN 6 Y91 Wt GUS! RYPICAU L }, 90.L HEIGiIT R1'-i' APPS - ALI ~ -~ ~ " - BRICK VBNE6t AND _ _ CK RE 7R ^ L 0' APE) MEAD XEIGIfT n 0 - - ~ _ I TM ~ u GIAL HH ~pp r ~ ~ n ~ ~ _ A nNtl BTORBPRONY 1~NDOW T® 61PAC7 ~ N WITX TM TED IHP ACT SYST&I GLASS RYp(CAU ~ _ GL~nrT rP ICAU Y BILL rEK.HT 1!'-4 A.P.P. ~ } i ~ ~.~~ _ ~ . am. .. HNi4XE0 PLOOR 10'-0'1 ~~,#:. ,~, ,} _ '- y . BRN:K VENEER BRICK VENEER OV2R AL~pNUII 910REPRONr DDOR 1 ~N004I 9Y9TElI BRICK V@IEER DYER - C CIN BLOCK DALL BRICK VBI~R SOLDIER COIdt9! 9DLOIER COURSE ITYPICAU C Crlll BLOCK FALL RYRCALI XIYH TNTEO IPIPACT G1A99 rTTPICALI RTRCALI FRONT ELEVATION scue~ vn•-r-o• ORIGINAL RE~ENED MAR 2~9 2006 PLANNING pEPARTMEM CITY OF CLEARWATER ~~~NT L~r~/~TI01~ OFFICE BUILDING "D" PARS PUCE - OFFICE P PARK PLACE BLVD. CLEARY~ATER, FLORIDA THOMAS J, GRAHAM LICENSE N0. AA COOOT52 ®Copyrighl - Graham 6esign Associates, P.A All rights reserved. This material is the eNClusive property pf Graham ~eslgn Associates, P.A., Reproduction in wfale Dr in pads is strictly prohibtted n~thout the prior written pantission of Graham ~evrgn Associates, P.A. and any such reproduction may subjeG you !o civil andlor criminal liability under TNe f7 of the Unlted Slates Cade. i®~ ,~RCHIT~CTS-PL,4NN~RS (121} 133-9800 565 Main Street, Suite tt201 Dunedin, ~lorlda 34698 FAX 133--9555 TOP p RODP fBl'-f APIJ 5577~~~~~~X~G ~ PIETAL RODF AX ~ ~ ~+ A T TR1199 BEAfOW LH'-O' ArrJ P SCTA ! 90PFn' HEAD NlRNn ITrd APPJ ALIBIINIR~ STOREPROXT ALDNINUX BTOREPRONT LONDOW STSTEX tlRTM OGNpOR SYSTEM aRX TINTS IMPACT GLA$$ 7RlTm MPACT ~~ ITYPICALI R 9EL N89NT PP-4 AIP1 p aRICK 90LS)ttit ~N COURSR RYFTCAL) - TRII37 BFPRRG C!-0' APP1 aRICX VENEER AND - 1CR UK E U - IR:iD XRONT !D'-0' APP1 T A A Da'RCPW BLOCN WiLR fTYPN:AU LEFT SIDE ELEVATION $CALE~ vu'-r-a 98L HINam t!'-P APP1 WIEIFD ILDp! XP-Ul J~ IDP OP R00P tlC-? APP1 Y n Nr_ TRJSS SRA9ND nrr uu NPAD IlYNT 17Tx Arr1 ALUXINIDI $TDREFRON7 WSIDOU ST$T~I N9TN TINTED XIPACT GLA59 SEL Na4Nf R4-f APPJ lTTPICALI 0 Nr TRa99 BEIkNG m'-D' APJJ HPAO 1@GHT IIO'-0' APr.I S71 NeGNT 0'-/' Arr] W09XED FWOIt !C-07 DYER SALL RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION 9CALe~ W'~I'-0' PLASTER 1 90PPR 9RN:K 80LDR:R CWR9e TTYPICAU iANCREE 6~LOCK~ DA RTPN:AU RECENED REAR ELEVATION SCALE: VIL`•P-D• MAR 2'~ 1006 PLANNING DEPARTME~f CITY OF CLEARWATER READ, LEST 4 SIGHT SIDE ELEVATIONS OFFICE BUILDING HD" P PIECE - ~FFI~E P PARK PLACE BLVD. CLEARWATER, FLORIDA THOMAS J. Gi~AHAM LICEN5E N0. AA coooisa ®C4pyrighl ~ Gmham Design Assocates, RA All lights reserved. This material is the eRClusive properly of Graham Design Associates, P.A. Reproduction in whole Dr in parts is syicdy prohlhited without the prior written permissimJ of Graham Deign Associates, P:A, and any such roproducfion may subject you to civil andlorcriminal liability uMerTltle 17 of the United Stales Cade. ~~ ~~~~~~~I~~~y ~o~. ,~RCI-IIT~~TS-PLAN1~~~:S (121) 133-9440 563 Maln Street, Suite #201 Dunedin, Florida 34498 FAX '133-9555 D ~~ .; y J ~~w Sr ~ ,~~ .T~.~. _ ~ -r ._...__. - - - - - - - - i` I/ ~. f ~3 ~C.a 3 ,, 1 83 ~ ~, ~~ f g6 'a ORIGINAL. ~ RECEIVED MAR 2~9 2006 PLANNING ~DEPARTiVIENT CITY OF CL.EARWATER N T 1,3 P q3 NORTI3 PARK PLACE REDEVELOPMENT ST©RMWATER NARRATIVE The property in question is the north part of the Park Place Storz Opthalmics Light Industrial Complex which was developed in the ear]y 1990's {now Bausch & Lomb}. Existing stormwater detention ponds on the northeast and northwest corners of this site were constructed in the late 1980's as part. of the overall master drainage system for Park Place. This system envisioned two 100,000 s.f buildings and parking on Parcel 1. These two ponds in Parcel 1, along with ponds at the south end of the Bausch & Lomb property, are sized to accommodate the stormwater quality and quantify needs of the entire site. The current proposal is an actual reduction in the amount of impervious area from 167,796 s.f. to 151,147 s.f. With this reduction. of impervious area, it is apparent that the existing stormwater detention. system can handle the proposed development. ORlGlNAt RFCElVEp MAR ~'91006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT The site is located within the Park Place DRI. The DRI development Order vests the developments impacts against concurrency regulations. The area was approved for 200,000 square feet of light industrial development, whereas only 100,000 square feet was built (existing Bausch & Lomb). The DRI development Order contains a conversion factor where the remaining 100,000 square feet of light industrial entitlements can be replaced with up to 63,300 square feet of office space. The proposed development on the subject property consists of 61,200 square feet of low-rise office buildings. The expected trip generation of the project is only 638 daily trips and 91 P1VI peak hour trips. As such a traffic impact study is not required. ORIGINAL RECENED MAR 2'9 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY 4f CtEARWATER i ~ , Tree Invent©ry Park Place Office Park Clearwater, Florida March 22, 2006 Prepared by: Alan Mayberry, Consulting Arborist For: Hallmark Development of Florida, Inc. The following report. is submitted by Alan Mayberry, Consulting Arborist, and includes findings that I believe are accurate based on my education, experience and knowledge in the field of Arboriculture. I have no interest personally or financially in this property and my report is factual 'and unbiased. This report is the property of Hallmark Development of Florida, Inc., and will not be given to other entities unless so directed. Tree Canopy Analysis and Preservation Strategies The subject site is essentially an intact undisturbed tract of wooded land located in Clearwater. The tree canopy is primarily comprised of younger second growth native tree species dominated by water oak (Quercus nigra), live oak (Quercus virginiana) and. to a lesser extent longleaf pine (Pines palustris). In addition, other native tree species occur in relatively small numbers and are listed. in the inventory. The understory vegetation is dominated by the native saw palmetto (Sere~aaa repens), which covers more than 60% of the site. Other native understory plants include gallberry holly (Ilex glabra), American beautyberry (Callicarpa Americana) and rusty Iyonia (lyonia ferruginea). The site is relatively undisturbed as evidenced by the lack of invasive exotic species. As such this tract of land has significant value as built in native landscaping. The potential for significant preservation of individual trees is minimal due to the condition of the individual trees as they are for the most part even aged and growing in a dense clustered environment. The value of this tract of wooded land lies in the total functioning plant communities rather than. the trees as individuals. Most of the individual trees have poor structure and form and. even though they are healthy they provide minimal aesthetic benefits and as they are communal trees their isolation in a new landscape could lead to stnictural problems. This site did not have a single tree with a rating of 4.0 or above (see explanation below) however, as pzeviously noted there is significant value in the tree communities. The site does contain a few pine trees that would have been highly rated but they have large trunk and basal cavities from previous turpentine harvesting. Out of the 483 trees included, in this inventory less than 5°Io are considered worthy of incozporation into a new landscape design as individuals. The best two strategies for development on this site are as follows: 1} Preserve clusters of trees along with the associated palmettos into as large a grouping as possible. 2) Save the best individual trees as identified in the inventory where possible and supplement the site landscaping as needed with new native trees that will acclimate to the existing soils. ~_ 7 ~ _ ~ Tree Inventory Data A tree inventory is a written record of a tree's condition at the time of inspection. It is a valuable tool to prioritize tree maintenance and remove trees with problems that could lead to failure and cause personal injury or property damage. The tree inventory lists four codes and also has a comment section. The following is an explanation of the data used in the inventory: Tree# -location -Each tree is assigned a number for reference in the inventory that corresponds with a number on the site plan that identifies the location of the tree in the field. Size -Tree size is a measure of the tree's trunk diameter measured at 4.5' above grade. If there is a fork in the trunk at that point the diameter is measured at the narrowest area below the fork. Palm species are measured in feet of clear trunk {C.T.). Species -Each tree is listed by its common and botanical name the first time it is listed in the inventory. For simplicity the tree is listed by its common name thereafter. Condition Rating -The condition rating is an assessment of the tree's overall structural strength and systemic health. Elements of structure include: 1) the presence of cavities, decayed wood, split, cracked, rubbing branches etc., 2) branch arrangements and attachments, i.e., well spaced vs. several branches emanating from the same area on the trunk, codominant stems vs. single leader trunk, presence of branch collars vs. included bark. Elements of systemic health relate to the tree's overall energy system measured by net photosynthesis (food made) vs. respiration (food used). A tree with good systemic health. will have a vascular system that moves water, nutrients and photosynthate around the tree as needed. Indicators of a healthy systemic system used in the overall condition rating include: 1) live crown ratio {the amount of live crown a tree has relative to its mass), 2) crown density (density of the foliage), 3) tip growth {shoot elongation is a sign that the tree is making and storing energy. The overall condition rating also takes into consideration the species, appearance and any unique features. The rating scale is 0-6 with 0 being a dead tree and 5 a specimen. Increments of 0.5 are used to increase accuracy. Examples of the tree rating system are as follows: 0- A dead tree 1- A tree that is dying, severely declining, hazardous, harboring a communicable disease or a tree designated by the State of hlorida's Exotic Pest Plant Council as a category #1 ecological pest i.e., Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius). Atree with a rating of 1 should be removed as it is beyond treatment and is a threat to cause personal injury or property damage. • • 2 - A tree exhibiting serious structural defects such as codominant stems with included bark at or near the base, large cavities, large areas of decayed wood, crown dieback, cracked/split scaffold branches etc. In addition, a tree with health issues such as low energy, low live crown ratio, serious disease or insect problems, nutritional deficiencies or soil pH problems. A tree with a rating of #2 should be removed unless the problem(s) can be treated. A tree with a #2 condition rating will typically require a considerable amount of maintenance to qualify for an upgrade of the condition rating. 3- A tree with average structure and systemic health and with problems that can be corrected with moderate maintenance. A tree with a codominant stem not in the basal area that will be subordinated or cabled and braced or a codominant stem that will soon have included bark can be included as a #3. A tree with a rating of #3 has average appearance, crown density and live crown ratio and should be preserved if possible: 4- A tree with a rating of 4 has good structure and systemic health with minor problems that can be easily corrected with minor maintenance. The tree should have an attractive appearance and be essentially free of any debilitating disease or insect problem. The tree should also have above average crown density and live crown ratio. Mature trees exhibiting scars, old wounds, small cavities or other problems that are not debilitating can be included in this group particularly if they possess unique form or other aesthetic amenities relating to their age. A tree with a rating of 4 is valuable to the property and should be preserved. 5 - A tree with very high live crown ratio and exceptional structure and systemic health and virtually free of insect or disease problems or nutritional deficiencies. A tree in this category should have a balanced crown with exceptional aesthetic amenities. A tree in this category should be of a species that possesses characteristics inherent to longevity and withstanding construction impacts. A tree with a #5 rating lends considerable value to the site and should be incorporated into the site design. A tree with a #5 rating is worthy of significant site plan modification to ensure its preservation. 6 - A specimen tree. A specimen tree is a tree that possesses a combination of superior qualities in regards to systemic health, structural strength, crown density, live crown ratio, form (balanced crown), overall aesthetic appeal, size, species, age and uniqueness. A great effort should be made to preserve a specimen tree including shifting structures that would adversely impact the tree. In addition, a specimen tree should have an undisturbed area equal to its dripline (equal to the branch spread) to grow in. Only an experienced and competent International Society of Arboriculture (I.S.A.) Certified Arborist should be allowed work on a specimen tree. Comments: The comment section serves to note observations relative to the tree but not covered in the inventory data or expands on information in the inventory data. It may include maintenance recommendations to improve the tree's overall condition rating. It may also have recommendations on whether to remove or preserve a tree. • • NOTE: A tree inventory is typically valid far 3-5 years. However, events such as drought, lightning, mechanical root damage, freeze, improper maintenance and severe storms can downgrade the rating value of a tree. Conversely, remedial maintenance can upgrade the value. If you suspect that a tree has been adversely affected, have the tree inspected by a qualified International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist. Note: Whenever possible it is advised to adhere to inventory recommendations when selecting trees to be preserved.. For example, trees rated 4.0 and. higher should be preserved if at all. possible, while trees rated 2.0 and lower should be removed unless otherwise noted in the inventory. Trees rated 2.5 are generally recommended for removal unless remedial work is performed to upgrade them. Trees rated 3.fl and 3.5 are average trees that have good potential and warrant serious consideration for preservation but not to.the extent that site plan modifications are necessary. Per City of Clearwater requirements the tree inventory will provide specific information in the comments section as justification for each tree with an overall condition rating of 2.S or below. Note. This tree inventory was conducted on March 23, 24 & 25, 2006. The weather was clear with good visibility. The leaves had flushed out on all species inventoried. Site-specific notes: Many trees on this site were in tight. groupings of same species and were often grafted to each other's trunk at the root collar creating a codominant attachment. As a tree grows the basal codominant attachment is structurally weak and can predispose a tree to failure. This defect downgrades a trees overall condition rating. There are numerous references to codominant attachments in the inventory. A second factor that was common on this site and that was reflected in the inventory was poor form. Numerous trees were growing in tight clusters and had no discernable form and lacked a central leader and secondary branching. This factor also downgraded the overall condition rating of many site trees. There were many trees that received a low rating with the comment that if adjacent trees are removed they will develop into good trees. The condition rating is applied to the actual condition of the tree not its potential. However, some trees were borderline and if preserved and maintained properly should develop into good trees. They are noted in the inventory. Many of the laxge pine trees received severe wounds when they were tapped for turpentine decades ago. Although they are coping with the wounds there is considerable decay present in the trunks and in the interest of public safety they should be removed. Several site trees are covered with vines making it hard to assess the live crown ratio. They are noted in the report. There are several good trees on this property that are worthy of preservation and they are noted as such in the inventory. However this site has no individual trees of the duality that would warrant major site plan modifications to preserve. • • Tree calculations: Total. existing diameter inches on site: 3297 Total diameter inches of trees rated 3.0 or greater: 624 Breakdown of trees rated 3.0 or greater: 3.0 = 455, 3.5 = 169 There were no trees on this site rated higher than 3.5 Tree Inventory Tree # Size Species Ratin L 11" water oak (Quercus nigrc~) 2.5 Comments: Basal cavity and poor form lacking secondary branching 2. 7" live oak (Quercus virginic~na) 2.0 Comments: Poor from, restricted crown, 1.5' fram sidewalk 3. 6" water oak 3.0 Comments: This is a goad small tree that will evolve into a good tree if preserved and maintained properly. This tree should. be preserved if it falls into a green area but does not warrant site plan. modifications for preservation. 4. Less than. 10' C.T. sabal palm n/a NOTE: The site plan shows a small quantity of palms as being protected as they are greater than ~" in trunk diameter. However, palms become protected by City of Clearwater ordinance once they exceed 10' of clear trunk. This site had one protected palm and it will be noted in the inventory. S. 5", 6" water oak. 2.0 Comments: Basal codominant, poor overall structure 6. 6" live oak 2.5 Comments: Poor form, crook in the trunk 7. 5", 6" live oak 2.0 Comments: Codominant, weak upper crown structure g. 5" water oak 2.0 • • Comments: This tree is attached at the base as a codominant with tree# 9& 10 and has very poor form 9. 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: Codominant with trees# 88z 10 and poor overall form. 10. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: Codominant with trees# 8&9 anal poor overall form 11. 4" live oak 2.0 Comments: Poor form, low live crown ratio 12. 4" water oak ~ 2.0 Comments: Very poor form, 13. 4" water oak 1.5 Con7rnents: Very poor form and structure 14. 6" water oak 3.0 Comments: This is a good small tree that will evolve into a good tree if preserved and maintained properly, 1S. 4" water oak 2.5. Comments: Poor overall form, lack of structure in crown lb. 6" water oak 3.0 Comments: A good small tree worthy of preservation if possible 17. $" longleaf pine (Pious palustris) 3.0 Comments: A healthy young pine tree worthy of preservation 18. 6" water oak 2.5 Comments: Poor form, lack of crown structure 19. 4" water oak 1.5 Comments: Very poor structure and live crown ratio 20. 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: Basal codominant 21. 5" water oak 1.5 Comments: Tri-dominant at the base with tree's # 22&23 22. 4" water oak 1.5 Comments: Tri-dominant. at the base with trees# 21 &23 23. 4" water oak 1.5 Comments: Tri-dominant at the base with trees# 21 &22 24. 4", 7" water oak 1.5 Comments: Basal codominant 25. 5" water oak 1.5 Comments: Very poor form, broken branches in crown 26. 4" water oak. 2.0 Comments: Very poor foram., low live crown ratio 27. S", 7" water oak 1.5 Comments: Codominant at base 28. 6" water oak 1.5 Comments: Codominant to tree# 27 29. 4" live oak 2.5 Comments: Poor from and branch structure 30. 6" live oak 2.5 Comments: Codominant in upper crown, poor form • • 31. 4" water oak 2.0 Corninents: Poor overall form 32. 7" water oak 2.5 Comments: Poor form, one-sided crown 33. 8" water oak 2.0 Comments: Trees# 33, 34 & 35 are attached at the base and are codominant 34. 9" water oak 2.0 Comments: See note above 35. 7" water oak 2.0 Comments: See note for tree# 33 36. 4" live oak 2A Comments: Very poor form . 37. 8" water oak 3.0 Comments: A good small tree worthy of preservation 38. 5" water oak 2.5 Comments: Poor from, lack of branch structure 39. 5" water oak 2.5 Comments: Broken branches in the crown, poor forrxk 40. 10" sand pine (Pious clausa) 2.5 Comments: This species is fragile and will not tolerate const rraction impacts. It is weak rooted and prone to failure when roots are damaged. This tree already has a lean. 41. 5" water oak 2.0 Conunents: Very poor form, low live crown ratio Y 42. 5" water oak 2.5 Comments: Poor form 43. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: Dieback, poor form 44. 5" water oak 3.0 Comments: A good small tree 45. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor form, one-sided 46. 4" red bay (Persea borbonia) 0.5 Comments: The tog is broken out 47. 6" live oak 2.5 Comments: This tree has a severe lean 48. 7" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree will evolve into a good tree if the vines are removed. In addition, tree # 47 should be removed as it is growing 1' from this tree. 49. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor form lacking secondary branching 50. 4" water oak 1.5 Comments: Very poor form, low live crown ratio 51. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: Mistletoe in the crown, poor structure 52. 4" water oak 2.5 Comments: The trunk has a crook, could evolve into a good tre e with. corrective pruning 53. S" water oak 3.0 • • Comments: A good small tree that warrants preservation if it falls into a green space 54. 5" dahoon holly (ilex cassine) 1.0 Comments: This tree is infected with the deadly fungus disease, Sphaeropsis knot 55. 6" red bay 1.0 Comments: Severe crown dieback, basal codominant 56. 6" red bay 1.0 Comments: Severe dieback, basal codominant 57. 5" red bay 1.0 Comments: Severe dieback, basal codominant 58. 11" water oak 3.5 Comments: This tree has good form and structure and high l ive crown ratio. Recommend. preservation. 59. 4" live oak 2.0 Comments: codominant 1' above grade. Poor form 60. 6", 6" water oak 2.0 Comments: codominant at the base 61. 8" water oak 2.5 Comments: codominant in main scaffold branch 62. 8" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree has an exaggerated lean, but is healthy and has good structure. 63. 6", 6" water oak 2.0 Comments: codominant at the base 64. 5" water oak 2.5 • • Comments: Spindly form, sparse canopy 65. 4", 5", 6" water oak 2.0 Comments: Tri-dominant at the base 66. 4" water oak 1.0 Comments: Top is broken out of tree 67. 5' live oak 2.5 Comments: Poor farm 68. 6" water oak 2.0 Comments: Vines in crown, poor form 69. 4" water oak 1.5 Comments: Very poor form, low live crown ratio 70. 4" water oak 1.0 Comments: Very poor form, dieback 71. 6" water oak 0.5 Comments: The entire top is gone and the tree is a high stump 72. 7" water oak 2.5 Comments: Upper crown codominant, Boor form 73. 7", 7" water oak 2.0 Comments: Basal codominant 74. 5" live oak 2.5 Comments: Codominant at the base 75. 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor form, growing 1' from tree# 76 76. 7" water oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor form, growing 1' froze tree# 75 77. 13" long leaf pine 3.5 Comments: Healthy tree with good stz~cture, rec©mmend pres ervation 7 8. 15" sand pine 2.5 Comments: Sparse crown, broken branches, poor urban tree 79. 4" ~ water oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor form 80. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: Poor form, low live crown ratio $1. 5" water oak 2.5 Comments: Basal cadominant 82. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor form, sparse crown 83. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: No form, growing 6" from tree# 84 84. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: No form, growing 6" from tree# 85 85. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: Poor farm, growing 7" from tree# 84 86. 6" water oak 2.5 Comments: Poor form, upper crown codominant 87. 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor farm 88. 4" water oak 3.0 Comments: Good small tree 89. 7" water oak 2.5 Comments: One- sided crown 90. 6" water oak 2.0 Comments: Foor form, strong lean 91. 6" water oak, 2.0 Comments: Growing in close cluster with trees# 92 & 93, tight restricted crown, poor form, will evolve into basal codominant 92. S" water oak. 2.0 Comments: See note above 93. 6" water oak. 2.0 Comments: See note above 94. 7" water oak 2.0 Comments: Trees# 94, 95 &96 form a tight cluster with poor forms and. restricted crowns. If left they will form basal codominant trunks. If the two poorest trees were removed the remaining tree will have very poor form with low live crown ratio. gS. 7" water oak 2.0 Comments: See note above 96. 7" water oak 2.5 Comments: See note above 97. 6" water oak 3A Comments: Good small tree • • 98. 6" water oak 3.0 Corments: Good small tree 99. S" water oak 2.0 Comments: Poor form and structure 100. 5" water oak 1.5 Comments: Trees# 100, 101, 102 &103 are growing in a tight cluster and have very poor form with dieback in the crowns 141. 6" water oak 1.5 Comments: See note above 102. 5" water aak 1.5 Comments: See note above 103. 5" water oak 1.5 Comments: See note above 104. 5" longleaf pine 2.0 Commerts: Very poor form 105. 12" longleaf pine 2.5 Comments: This tree has dev elopment a lean and is showing signs of uplifting, poor crown 106. 8" longleaf pine 3.0 Comments: Good small tree 107. 9" longleaf pine 2.5 Comments: This tree has poo r form and a very sparse canopy 108. 12" longleaf pine 3.5 • Comments: This tree is very healthy with above average form and structure. Recommend preservation. 109. 7" water oak 1.5 Comments: The leader is broken out 110. 4" water oak 3.0 Comments: Small restricted crown, but healthy and will evolve into a good. tree if the adjacent saplings are removed 111. 4" water oak ~•0 Comments: One-sided, poor form 112. 4" live oak 2.0 Comments: Poor form, eodominant in upper crown 113. 4" water oak 2.5 Comments: Tight restricted crown, poor form 114. 4" water oak 2.5 Comments: Restricted crown, poor overall form 115. 7" water oak 3.0 Comments: Good small tree 116. 7" longleaf pine 2.5 Comments: Anemic crown, poor form 117. 7" water oak ~•5 Comments: Leaning trunk, poor form 118. 5" water oak 2.5 Comments: Poor overall form 119. 11" longleaf pine 3.5 • • Comments: This is a very good tree and should be preserved if possible. 120. 4" live oak 2.0 Comments: Poor form, low live crown ratio 121. 13" longleaf 3.0 Comments: A good overall tree with a small basal wound that the tree will solve. 22. 6" water oak 2.0 Comments: Codominant at base and poor form 123. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: Codominant at base and poor form 124. 6" water oak 2.5 Comments: This tree has a codominant stem with included bark 12' above grade 125. 11" longleaf pine 3.5 Comments: This tree is healthy with good form and structure and is recommended for preservation. 126. 4" water oak 2.5 Comments: Restricted crown lacking secondary branching. Will improve if preserved and maintained properly. 127. 10" longleaf pine 3.0 Comments: A good tree worthy of preservation 128. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: Poor form lacking secondary branch structure 129. 5" water oak 1.5 Comments: The top has broke from this tree 130. 6" water oak 2.0 • • Comments: Poor overall forth and structure 131. 6" water oak 2.0 Comments: codominant at base with tree# 130. 132. 5", 6" live oak 2.0 Comments: Basal codominant 133. 7" water oak 3.0 Comments: Good small tree worthy of preservation. This tree will evolve into a good tree if pruned correctly. 134. 4" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree has a lean but has good structure and will evolve into a good tree with proper pruning. 135. 4", 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: codominant at the base and attached to tree # 136 at the base. 136. 6", 6" water oak 1.5 Comments: codominant at the base 137. 5" water oak 1.5 Comments: Fused at the base with txee# 136 138. 4" live oak 2.5 Comments: Poor form and structure 139. 10" longleaf pine ~ 2.5 Comments: This tree has a basal cavity and a below average crown 140. 11" water oak 3.5 Comments: This tree has good form and structure with high live crown ratio. Recommend preservation. 141. 7" water oak 2.0 • • Comments: Poor form and dieback in the crown 142. 7" water oak 1.5 Comments: Poor form and dieback in the crown 143: 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: Poor overall form lacking secondary branching 144. 5" live oak 2.5 Comments: This tree has will be a good. tree if preserved and maintained properly. 145. 5" water oak 2.0 C©mments: Poor form and deadwood in crown 146. 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: This tree is codominant at the base with two adjacent sapling trees. 147. 7" live oak 2.5 Comments: This tree is healthy but has a codominant attachment with included bark in the scaffold branches. This tree will evolve into a good tree if pruned for structure and maintained properly. 148. 6" red bay 0.5 Comments: This tree is almost dead 149. 4" water oak 2.5 Comments: Codominant at the base 150. 6" water oak 3.0 Comments: Good sma11 tree that warrants preservation if possible 151. 6" water oak 3.0 Comments: Good small tree that warrants preservation 152. 4" water oak 2.0 • • Comments: Very poor form lacking secondary branching 153. 5" water oak 2.0 Cornznents: Poor form,, low live crown ratio 154. 6" water oak 2.5 Comments: This tree has a basal codominant otherwise it is a good tree 155. 5' water oak 3.0 Comments: This is a goad tree that warrants preservation if possible 156. 4", 4" live oak 2.0 Comments: Basal codominant 157. 5", 6" water oak 2.0 Comments: Poor form and basal codominant 158. 4' water oak 2.0 Corrunents: This tree is codominant to tree# 159 159. 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: This tree is codon-unant to tree# 158 160. 4" sand pine 1.5 Comments: This tree is unstable as it is partially uprooted. Zn addition, it has a sparse crown. 161. 4" water oak 2.5 Comments: This tree has poor form and no central. Leader 162. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: This tree a codominant stem in the scaffold branches 7' above grade. 163. 5", 5", 6" water oak 1.5 • • Comments: Severe codominant at the base 164. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor form 165. 6" wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) 2.0 Comments: This tree has a fungus disease of the vascular system nand is dying 166. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has poor form and stricture with a codominant stem in the scaffold branches 10' above grade 167. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: Tri-dominant at base 168. 6" water oak 2.0 Comments: Poor farm anal lack of secondary branching 169. 7" water aak ~ 2.0 Comments: This tree has overall poor form and below average systemic health 170. 7" water oak 2.5 Cormnents: This tree has above average form and structure and will evolve into a good tree if the adjacent trees are removed. 171. 4" sand pine 2.0 Comments: This tree has below average form and is a poor species for preservation in urban landscapes. 172. 4", 4", 4", ~1" water oak 2.0 Comments: All four multiple trunks are codominant at the base 173. 7", 8" water oak 2.0 Coarra_ments: This tree has a codominaant attachment with included bark in the trunk 1' above grade. • • 174. 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor form 175. 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor form 176. 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor form due to competition from adjacent trees for growing space 177. 14" longleaf pine 3.5 Comments: This pine tree is healthy with above average form and structure. Recommend preservation. 178. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has poor structure due to a codominant attachment 179. 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: this tree has an irregular crown with below average live crown ratio 180. 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has very poor form and live crown ratio 181. 8" water oak 2.0 Comments: Fused at the base with. tree # 182 182. 7" water oak 2.0 Comments: Codominant basal fusion with. tree# 181. 183.. 4", 4" water oak. 1.5 Comments: Severe basal codominant 184. 4", 4" water oak 1.5 Comments: Severe basal codominant 185. 5" water oak 1.5 • • Comments: The top is broken out of this tree 186. 5" live oak 3.0 Comments: This is a good small tree that is worthy of preservation 187. 5", 5" water oak 1.5 Comments: Severe basal decay 188. 4" water oak 2.5 Comments: This tree has poar farm. and. below average live crown ratio 189. 6" water oak 2.5 Comments: This tree has poor structure with a codominant trunk 190. 13" sand pine 2.5 Comments: This tree has an attractive appearance but has developed a lean. Sand pines are weak rooted trees not recommended for preservation in urban landscapes. 191. 7", 7" water oak 2.0 Comments: Codominant at base 192. 10" water oak 0.5 Comments: The top broke out of this tree and it is a high stump 193. 10" .water oak 0.5 Comments: The tog broke off of this tree 194. 4", 4" live oak 1.5 Comments: Codominant trunk anal heavy vines 195. 11" water oak 3.0 Comments: This is a good small tree with above average structure and live crown ratio. Recommend preservation. 196. 9" live oak 2.5 • • Comments: This tree is downgraded due to a codominant stem 15' above grade. The tree will evolve into a good tree if one of the codominant stems is subordinated through structural pruning. 197. 4" live oak 1.5 Comments: This tree has partially uprooted and it has very poor farm.. 198. 6" water oak 2.0 Comments: Trees# 198, 199, 200 & 201 are growing in a tight cluster with the root collars almost touching. They have very poor form anal structure and will eventually form basal codominant trunks. 199. S" water oak 2.0 Comments: See comments above 200. 6" water oak 2.0 Comments: See comments above 201. 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: See comments above 202. 6" water oak 1.0 Comments: The central leader is broke in the crown. 203. 7' live oak 1.5 Comments: This tree has very poor structure as it forms a codominant trunk 4' above grade. 204. 4" live oak 1.5 Comments: This tree has very poor form and structure 205. 6' water oak 1.5 Comments: codominant at the base 206. 4" water oak 1.0 • • Comments: this tree has severe dieback in the crown and very poor form 207. 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor form 20$. 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor form and low live crown ratio 209. 5" water oak 1.0 Comments: The top broke off the central leader and this tree has no structure. 210. 5' water oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor form 211. 4" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has poor form and a codominant trunk 4' above grade 212. 5' longleaf pine 2.5 Comments: This tree has a sparse crown and below average live crown ratio 213. 9" longleaf pine 3.0 Comments: This tree is healthy and worthy of preservation 214. 5" live oak 2.0 Comments: This. tree has poor form and a codominant in the trunk 5' above grade 215. 4" water oak 1.5 Comments: This tree has very poor form and virtually no branch spread 216. b' water oak 2.0 Comments: Poar form and a codominant in the scaffold branches 10' above grade 21.7. 4", 5", S" water oak 1.5 Comments: Severe basal codominant • • 218. 6' water oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has very poor structure as the root flare of this tree has grafted with trees# 219, 220 & 221.. 219. 6" water oak 2.0 Comments: See comments above 220. 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: See comments above 221, 7" water oak 2.0 Comments: See comments above 222. 4" water oak 2.5 Comments: This tree has poar form and lack of secondary branch ing. This tree will improve if the adjacent trees are removed and it is maintained properly. 223. 4" water oak 1.5 - Comments: Poor form, vines in crown and low live crown ratio 224. 5" water oak. 2.0 Comments: Codominant at the base v~ith tree# 225 225. 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: See comments above 226. S" water oak ~ 2.0 Comments: Poor form and codorninant trunk with tree# 227 227. 6" water oak 2.0 Comments: See comments above 228. 6" water oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has a basal codominant • ~ 229. 5" water oak 1.0 Comments: Basal cavity and codominant attachment 230, 4" dahoon holly 1.5 Comments: This tree is infected with the deadly fungus disease Sphaeropsis knot. 231. 10" water oak 3.0 Comments: This is a good overall tree that is worthy of preservation. 232. 4" wax myrtle 1.0 Comments: This tree is dying from a fungus disease 233. 4" water oak 1.5 Comments: Very poor form 234. 5" water oak 3.0 Comments: A good small tree that if preserved and maintained properly will evolve into a - goodtree. 235. 4" water oak 2.5 Comments: Tree has poor structure due to a basal codominant situation with tree# 236. However, it is healthy and could evolve into a good tree if tree# 236 is removed. 236. 5" water oak 1.5 Comments: Basal codominant, poor form 237. 5" live oak 2.5 Comments: This tree has a codominant in the scaffold branches 10' above grade. It could evolve into a good tree if one of the codominant stems is subordinated through structural pruning. 238. 6" water oak 2.5 Comments: Attached at the base to tree# 239. 239. 4" water oak 2.0 • • Comments: Attached at the base to tree# 238. 240. 19" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree is mostly one -sided with three large scaffold branches supporting the crown. The structure is good as the scaffold branches form wide u-shaped crotches. The downgrading factor in this tree is the below average live crown ratio due to broken branches and. a lack of secondary branches. This tree will likely improve if preserved and maintained properly. 1t should be preserved if it falls into a green area but, it does not warrant major site plan modifications. 241. 14" live oak 0.5 Comments: The leader broke off of this tree and its crown is composed of sucker growth. 242. 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor form. 243. 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: Irregular crown, poor structure 244. $" water oak 3.0 Comments: This is a good small tree that will improve once the vines are removed. 245. 5" live oak 3.0 Comments: A goad small tree that will evolve into a good tree if maintained properly. 24b. 1 b" longleaf pine 2.0 Comments: This pine is healthy but has a 7' high cavity from turpentine tapping that extends from the base upward. The open cavity represents over 25% of the circumference of the tree's base and exceeds standards for structural weakness. Recommend removal. NOTE: Trees # 247, 248, 249 & 250 are healthy but individually have poor form as they are competing against each other for growing space. However, together they would make a good stand if preserved intact. While the individual trees are not rated high, the stand as a whole is rated a solid 3.0 and recommended for preservation. 247. 5' live oak Comments: See note above 2.0 9 • • 248. 6" live oak 2.5 Comments: See note above 249. 6" live oak 2.5 Coxnxnents: See note above 25~. 5" live oak 2.5 Comments: See note above 251.. 4" water oak 2.5 Comments: Healthy but poor form, no defined central leader 252. 6" live oak 2.5 Comments: Healthy, but poor overall form with an irregular crown 253. 8" water oak 3.5 Comments: This tree is a very good small tree. It has good form and structure with above average live crown ratio. If preserved and maintained propexly it should evolve into a very good tree. Recommend preservation. 254. 4" live oak 2.0 Comments: Restricted crown 255. 7" live oak 2.4 Comments: Codominant 4' above grade 256. 6" water oak 3.0 Comments: Good small tree 257. 8" live oak 2.5 Comments: Codominant 6' above grade 258. 5" live oak 2.Q Comments: Poor form 259. 7" laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) 3.0 Comments: Good. form, will evolve into a good tree if maintained properly 260. 4" live oak 1.5 Comments: Very poor form 261. 4" live oak 1.5 Comments: Very poor form 262. 10" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree will evolve into a good tree with proper maintenance 263. 5" live oak 2.0 Comments: Poor form 264. 4" live oak 1.5 Comments: Very poor form 265. 7" live oak 3.0 Comments: The crown is res tricted but this tree is healthy, has good structure and will improve with. proper care 266. 7" live oak 2.0 Comments: Poor form 26~. 5" live oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor form 268. 7" water oak 2.0 Comrrients: This tree is fused at the base with tree# 269. 269. 7" water oak 2.0 Comments: See note above 270. 5" live oak Comments: This tree has poor form and is covered with vines 271. 6" live oak Comments: Poor form, vines 272. 7" live oak Comments: This tree will improve if the vines are removed 273. 4" live oak Comments: Essentially no crown on this tree 274. 5" live oak Comments: Very poor form.,. vines 275. 4" water aak Comments: No foliage, just vines 276. 5" live aak Comments: Heavy vines 277. 4" live oak Comments: Heavy vines, na crown structure 278. 4" live oak Comments: Heavy vines, no crown. structure 279. 4" live oak Comments: Extremely poor farm, growing at a 45 degree angle 280. 4" water oak Comments: Heavy vines, no structure 281. 6" live oak • 2.0 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 2.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.5 • • Comments: hleavy vines 282. 4" live oak 1.5 Comments: Crown is smothered with vines 283. 4" live oak 1 •~ Comments: Smothered with vines 284. 5" live oak 0.5 Comments: No observable live canopy 285. 4" live oak 1.5 Comments: ~leavy vines 286. 15" live oak 2.5 Comments: This tree has very good structure and good form although it is slightly one- sided. however, this tree is absolutely covered with vines. zf the vines are removed and adequate foliage remains, this tree could be restored to health. 287. 1.1" live oak 2.0 Comments: See note above concerning vines. 288. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: Attached at the base with tree# 289. 289. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: See note above 290. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: Poor form, low live crown ratio 291. 5" water oak 2.5 Comments: This tree has good form and above average live crown ratio, but is attached at the root collar to tree# 290. If tree# 290 was carefully removed this tree could be preserved and would evolve into a good tree. • • 292. 4" live oak 1.0 Comments: Very poor form 293. 5" live oak 2.5 Comments: Codominant in upper crown. 294 11" water oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has a 2' long cavity on the trunk starting 7' above grade that will cause structural damage as the water oak is a weak compartmentalizing tree. 295. 4" water oak 0.5 Comments: A very poor tree overall. A main scaffold branch has grown into the adjacent live oak causing a wound. 296. 5" water oak 3.0 Comments: This tree barely warrants a 3.0 rating but if preserved it will improve with proper maintenance. 297. 5" live oak ~ 3.0 Comments: A good. small tree that is worthy of preservation 298. 4" live oak 3.0 Comments: A good small tree worthy of preservation 299. 4" live oak 1.0 Comments: Extremely poor form and health 300. 4" live oak LO Comments: Very poor tree overall 301. 4' live oak 1.0 Comments: Very poor overall tree 302. 5" live oak 2.0 Comments: Severe crook in the trunk downgrades the structure • • 303. 5' live oak 3.0 Comments: Barely warrants a 3.0 rating but will improve with care 304. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: Poor form 305. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: Poor upper crown structure 306. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: Poor overall form and crown density 30~. 4" live oak 0.5 Comments: Crown has been broke off 308. 4", 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: Basal codominant, poor structure 309. 4", 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: Basal codominant. 310. 4" water oak 2.5 Comments: This tree has a severe crook in the trunk and a restricted. crown. However, if pruned properly the tree will have good structure and form. 311. 4" live oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor form 312. 13" longleaf pine 3.0 Comments: This tree has a sparse crown and barely rates a 3.0. It should be preserved only if it falls into a green space as it does not warrant shifting structures for preservation. 313. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: Poor form and this tree is attached to two small saplings at the base • • 314. 13" water oak 2.5 Comments: This tree has a basal cavity an the south side of the trunk that extends from the base to two feet up the trunk. 315. 18" longleaf pine 2.0 Comments: This pine has a very good crown and good form but suffers structurally from a turpentine tapping wound that extends 10' up the trunk and equals one third of the trunk diameter at the base. It should not be preserved as the wound could lead to failure. 316. 5" water oak 2.5 Comments: This tree could be preserved but is growing so close to the pine that it will be damaged when the pine is removed. 317. 12" water oak 3A Comments: Tk~is tree is downgraded due to the presence of codominant scaffold branches with included bark 11' above grade. However, this defect is correctable through structural pruning. 318. S" water oak 1.5 Comments: The top is broken off. 319. 6" water oak 2.0 Comments: Poor form., vines 320. 7" live oak 2.0 Comments: Foor form, vines 321. 7" live oaL~ 2.0 Comments: Bent trunk, poor form and vines 322. 6" live oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor form 323. 4" live oak 1.5 Comments: This tree has virtually no upper crown structure • • 324. 7" live oak 2.5 Comments: This tree will evolve into a good tree when the adjacent trees are removed and if it is pruned correctly. 325. 4", 4" laurel oak 1.5 Comments: Basal codominant 326. 7" laurel oak 2.0 Comments: Poor form and upper crown structure 327. 4" Iaurel oak 1.S Comments: Very misshaped crown 328. 7" water oak 2.5 Comments: This tree is covered with vines but has good structure and will evolve into a good tree if the vines are removed. and the tree is maintained correctly. 32~. 5" ~ water oak 2.0 Cornrnents: This tree has vines and. some of the branches are broken 330. 10" laurel oak 2.0 Comments: Poor form and a codominant 7' above grade 331. 8" water oak 3.0 Comments: A good tree that proper pruning will make even better 332. 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: Codominant in the scaffold branches 333. 4" laurel oak 1.5 Comments: Very poor crown formation 334. 6" laurel oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor form, vines • • 335. 8" water oak 2.5 Comments: Poor upper crown structure due to crowded conditions, but this tree would improve if the adjacent trees were removed and it was maintained properly 33b. 7" water oak 3.0 Comments: This tree is a borderline 3.0 but would improve if preserved and maintained. properly 337. 4" water oak 1.0 Comarnents: Very poox overall structure, vines, broken top 338. 5" water oak 2.5 Comments: Tall spindly tree with poor form 339. 5" water oak i.5 Comxx~ents: Very poor form and. structure 340. 8" water oak 3.0 Comments: This tree is growing 1' from the sidewalk and is a tall lanky tree, but it is very healthy and will evolve into a good tree if maintained properly. It will need room to grow if preserved. 341. 4" water oak LS Comments: Very poor form and structure 342. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: Poor form, vines 343. 4", 4" water oak 1.5 Comments: Basal codominant 344. 6" water oak 2.0 Comments: Broken branches in crown and poor form 345. 8" water oak 3.0 • • Comments: This is a tree with good structure and form that needs minor pruning to remove small dead branches. It is located 1' from the sidewalk and will need more space for future growth. 346. 8" water oak 2.5 Comments: This tree has poor form and an upper crown codorriinant 347. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: Poor form with a codominant stem in the scaffold branches. 348. 7", 7" water oak 2.0 Comments: Severe codominant trunks with included bark 349. 4", 5" water oak 1.5 Comments: Codominant in the trunk, broken branches in the crown and heavy vines 350. 4" live oak 2.5 Comments: This tree lacks a central leader 35'1. 5" laurel oak 2.0 Comments: This tree had a large lateral branch brake from the tree 352. 13" sand pine 1.0 Comments: This tree has uplifted with roots detached at the trunk base. It should be removed. 353. 4" water oak 1.5 Comments: Very poor form, broken branches 354. 7" live oak 3.0 Comments: Good small tree that has a dog leg in the trunk but has good overall form and very good live crown ratio. This tree will be a good tree if preserved and maintained properly. 355. 12" water oak 3.0 • • Comments: A good tree that will improve with proper pnining. Recommend preservation. 356. 5" laurel oak 2.5 Comments: Poor form, sparse crown 357. 6", 6" water oaks 2.0 Comments: Codominant trunks 358. 4" water oak 1.0 Comments: Very poor form, crown is loaded with vines 359. 6" water oak 1.5 Comments: Very poor form 360. 5" water oak 1.5 Comments: Poor form and branch structure and heavy vines 361. 4" laurel oak 1.5 Comments: very poor form and branching structure 362. 4" laurel oak 1.0 Comments: Very poor form and crown formation 363. 12' longleaf pine 3.0 Comments: Healthy tree with an average crown 36d. 5" live oak 2.5 Comments: Poor branching structure 365. 7" water oak 2.0 Comments: Poor form 366. 8" water aak 3.0 Comments: This tree has good stricture and the form will improve with proper pruning 367. 5", 5" water oak 2.0 • • Comments: codominant trunks 368. 5" water'oak LS Comments: Basal codominant that is badly included 369_ 5" live oak 1.5 Comments: Very poor overall form 370. 6" water oak 2.5 CamFnents: codominant in the scaffold branch 15' above grade 371. 4" live oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor form 372. 5" water oak 3.0 Comments: This tree has a good leader and the form will improve with. proper pruning 373. 15" longleaf pine 3.0 Comments: Good tree, has a crook in the upper trunk but it is not a structural concern 374. 4" water oak 2.5 Comments: Small. tree with poor form. but potential if pruned properly 375. 4' water oak 2.0 Comments: codominant at base 376. 23" longleaf pine 2.0 Comments: This tree has a beautiful crown but has aturpentine-tapping wound that is wide at the base and tapers as it extends 12' high. This tree would be too risky from a safety standpoint to preserve. Recommend removal. 377. 13" turkey oak (Quercus laevis) 3.0 Comments: This tree is healthy with good structure and live crown ratio. However, the trunk is bent and. the turkey oak does not tolerate construction impacts well Recommend removal unless this tree can be preserved in a green space equal to its dripline. • • 3'18. 22" turkey oak 2.5 Comments: The crown is supported by two large scaffold branches that are codominant but have a good u-shaped crotch. The crown has some dead wood and is thinning. Recommend removal. 379. 15" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has a good. trunk and structure in the scaffold branches but the crown is very sparse with. broken branches. It may have experienced storm damage. 380. 29" live oak 3.5 Comments: This tree has good structure and form with average live crown ratio.. The crown appears to be slightly thinning but this appearance could be attributed to the time of the year as some live oaks may still be producing buds. A live oak with this size and branching should have a densely foliated crown. However, this tree has a very interesting form and is the signature tree on this property. It should be preserved if possible. With proper caxe the crown should improve over time. If preserved this tree should have a space equal to the dripline for an undisturbed rooting area. 381. 14" live oak 2.5 Comments: This tree is covered with vines and has low live crown ratio. The crown is essentially one sided and the tree lacks proper secondary branching. 382. 14" live oak 2.5 Comments: This tree is one-sided to the southwest. The crown lacks .secondary branching and has a sparse crown. It may improve if preserved and maintained properly. 383. 4' water oak 3.0 Comments: A goad healthy but very small tree 384. 18" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has a good trunk/scaffold branch structure but lacks secondary branching and any significant crown density. 385. 17' live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree has a serpentine branch structure but lacks a healthy appearing crown. It has some deadwood. If preserved it may improve with proper maintenance. • • 386. 4" sand pine 2.5 Comments: Recommend removal due to species. 387. S" live oak 2.0 Comments: Trees # 387, 388 & 389 are growing within inches of one another and if preserved dvill form codominant trunks. They are one-sided growing to the south. 388. S" live oak 2.0 Comments: See comments above. 389. 5" live oak 2.0 Comments: See comments above. 390. 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: This tree is structurally weak with a codominant at the base, but has a healthy crown 391. 16" live oak 2.5 Comments: Poor upper crown branching structure and below average live crown ratio. This tree should only be preserved if it happens to fall into an open green space. It may improve with proper maintenance. 392. 23" longleaf pine 2.0 Comments: This is another good pine that has been damaged by turpentine tapping. It has a 10' high cavity on the trunk and although it has stood for a few decades with the wound it is too risky to leave in an environment that people will utilize daily. Recommend xemoval. 393. 18" longleaf pine 2.0 Comments: Comments for tree# 392 apply to this tree as well. 394. 4" water oak 1.0 Comments: Trees # 394, 395 & 396 are water oaks growing in a tight cluster. They will form codominant stems and all have poor form. 395. 4" water oak 1.0 • • Comments: See comments above. 396. 4" water aak 1.0 Comments: See comments above. 397. 7" water oak 0.5 Comments: The top broke out of this tree and it is a high stump 398. 16" live oak 2.5 Comments: this tree is almost a 3.0. The trunk and scaffold branches are good but it lacks secondary branching and good live crown ratio. 1t may respond to proper maintenance if preserved. 399. 9" live oak 1.5 Comments: Very poor form 400. 18" live oak 2.5 Comments: The crown form is below average and the crown has broken branches and stubs. The live crown ratio is below average. The tree may respond to proper maintenance if preserved. 401. 17" turkey oak 2,0 Comments: The crown is poor and has broken branches and deadwood 402. 4' live oak 1.0 Comments: Very poor form 403. S" water oak 1.5 Comments: Very poor form 404. S" live oak 2.0 Comments: Poor form 405. 7" live oak 2.0 Comments: Poor form, restricted crown • • 406. 7" live oak 2.0 Comments: Poor form, stubs in crown 407. 6" water oak 2.0 Comments: poor overall form, low Iive crown ratio 408. 5" water oak 1.5 Comments: Very poor form and live crown ratio 409. 4' live oak' 1.5 Comments: Very poor form and crown structure 410. 1.3" water oak 3.5 Comments: This tree has good form and structure and live crown ratio. It has a small basal sprout that should be removed. It is a good tree that wi ll get better with proper maintenance. Recommend preservation. 411. 5" water oak ~ 2.0 Comments: Top broke out 412. 4" live oak 2.5 Comments: Poor form and secondary branching 413. 6" water oak 2.0 Comments: Codominant at the base, one-sided crown 414. 6" water oak 2.0 Comments: Trees # 414, 415, 416 & 417 are growing in a tight cluster and are codominant trunks. 415. 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: See comments above. 416. 7" water oak 2.0 . • • Comments: See comments above 417. S" water oak ~ ~ Comments: See comments above 418. 4" live oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor form and lacks secondary branching 419. 4" water oak 1.5 Comments: Spindly form with little secondary branching 420. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor form and structure 421. 4", 5", 6" water oak 1.5 Comments: Basal codominant with very poor form 422. 6" water oak 1.5 Comments: This tree is grafted at the base to tree# 423 and has very poor structure 423. 5", 6" water oak 1.5 Comments: Basal codominant with. tree# 422 424. 11" water oak 2.5 Comments: This tree has a codominant attachment 8' above grade in the main scaffold branches that support the crown. The form and live crown ratio are good. This tree could be preserved if one of the codominant branches is subordinated through structural pruning. 425. 5" water oak 2.5 Comments: This tree has below average form but is healthy and if preserved and maintained properly will evolve into a good tree. 426. 12" longleaf pine 3.5 Comments: This tree is one of the best pines on the property. It has a symmetrical crown with good structure and overall is very healthy. Recommend preservation. . • • 427. 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor farm with heavy vines 42$. 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor farm with. vines 429. 9" water oak 2.5 Comments: This tree is growing an inch away at the base from tree# 43fl and will soon develop into a basal codominant which is a serious structural weakness. Tree# 430 already has a basal codominant attachment and. if that tree is removed tree# 429 could evolve into a good tree. 430. 7", 7" water oak 1.5 Comments: Weak structure with a basal codominant. 431. 7" water oak 2.5 Comments: This could be a good tree but it is growing against tree# 432. If tree #432 is removed this tree will evolve into a good tree if maintained correctly. 432. 5", 6" live oak 1.5 Comments: Codominant trunks 1' above grade. NOTE: Trees # 433, 434, 435, 436 & 437 are healthy but individually have poor form as they are competing against each other for growing space. However, they fit together like a puzzle and would make a good stand if preserved intact. While the individual trees are not rated high, the stand as a whole is rated a solid 3.0 and recommended for preservation. 433. $" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has a severe lean. to the south with very little secondary branching. 434. 6" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has good forest structure but very poor form with little secondary branching. 435. 6" Live oak 2.5 • • Comments: This tree is basically healthy but has poor form as it lacks secondary branching and the live crown ratio is below average. 436. 5" live oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor forrri 437. 4" live oak 2.0 Corntnents: Lean to the south, irregular crown, poor form 438. 5" laurel. oak 3.0 Comments: This tree is a borderline 3.0 but has goad potential and if preserved will evolve into a good tree. 439. 4", 5", 5" laurel oak 2.0 Comments: This tree cluster is structurally weak as it is codominant at the base 440. 6" laurel oak 3.5 Comments: This is a very good small tree that has good structure and form. It will evolve into a good tree if preserved and maintained correctly. 441. 5" live oak 2.5 Comments: This tree could be preserved and will evolve into a good tree if maintained properly. 442.. 6" live oak 2.5 Comments: This tree is healthy but is one-sided and grows over the parking Iot to the north. The form and structure could be improved through structural pruning. 443. 8" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree is a good tree and worthy of preservation. If preserved the surrounding trees should be removed to avoid basal codominant formations. 444. 7" live oak 2.5 Comments: This tree could be preserved as the form and structure will improve through proper structural pruning. 445. 10" live oak 3.0 . • • Comments: This tree is a solid 3.0 with the main downgrading factor being the presence of a codominant stem in the scaffold branches 8" above grade. However, the tree is very healthy and will develop into a good tree if pruned properly. Recommend preservation. 44b. 5" water oak 1.5 Comments: Very poor form 447. 8" water oak 2.5 Comments: This tree is healthy but is almost touching tree# 448 at the base. As tree #448 is rated higher this tree is recommended for removal to preserve tree# 448. 448. $" water oak 3.0 Comments: Recommend preservation if tree #447 is removed. 449. 6" water oak 3.5 Comments: This small tree is the best overall tree on the site and. almost rates a 4.0. The main concern is that it is located 2.5' from the sidewalk and may cause damage as it matures. The tree has an almost perfect central leader with well spaced scaffold branches giving this tree superior structure. It is systemically healthy with very good live crown ratio. Recommend preservation for this tree and looking into the possibility of creating additional rooting area through elimination. or shifting of the sidewalk. 450. 5", 5" water oak 2.0 Comments: Codominant at the base 451: 4" laurel oak 2.5 Comments: Good small tree that if preserved will evolve into a good tree through proper maintenance. 452. 8" water oak 3.5 Comments: This is a very good tree located 12' from the sidewalk. 1t has good overall form and structure with high live crown ratio. Recommend preservation. 453. 4" live oak 0.5 Comments: Very poor overall tree 454. 8" water oak 3.0 . • • Comments: This tree has good structure and the form will improve if the adjacent tree# 455 is removed. Recommend preservation. 455. 6" water oak 2.5 Comments: This tree should be removed to preserve tree# 454. 456. 5" water oak 0.5 Comments: This tree has a no top 457. 6" water oak 3.0 Comments: This is a good small tree that is worthy of preservation. 458. 6" live oak 2.0 Comments: Very poor form with many broken branches in the crown 459. 5" live oak 2.0 Comments: Restricted crown, poor form 460. 5" water oak 2.5 Comments: Restricted crown with below average form and broken branches in the crown 461. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: Almost a basal codominant, poor form 462. 4" live oak 2.0 Comments: Poor form and structure 463. 7", 7" water oak 2.0 Comments: Codominant at the base 464. 6", 6", 7" water oak 2.0 Comments: Codominant trunks attached at the base . • • 465. 4", 4", 4" water oak 1.5 Comments: Will develop basal codominant attachment, poor structure and form 466. 5" live oak 2.0 Comments: Sparse crown, poor form 467. 6" live oak 2.0 Comments: Codaminant 5' above grade 468. 5" live oak 2.5 Comments: This tree has a restricted crown due to competition but could develop into a good tree with proper pruning and overall .maintenance. 469. 4" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree barely rates a 3.0 but is healthy with average stricture and proper maintenance will allow it to develop into a good tree. 470. 5" live oak 2.5 Comments: Tight restricted crown. and lack of secondary branching. This tree could develop into a good tree if maintained properly. 471. 10" water oak 2.0 Comments: Codominant trunk with included bark 1.5' above grade. 472. 4" water oak 2.0 Comments: Restricted crown, poor form. 473. 6" water oak 3.0 Comments: This is a good small tree that will get better if preserved and maintained properly. Recommend preservation. 474. 10' C.T. sabal palm (5'abal palmetto) 3.5 Comments: This palm is very healthy and will have a good appearance once pruned.. ' `? 475. 5" water oak 1.0 Comments: Very poor form and structure 476. 6" live oak. 2.0 Comments: this tree has poor form and. a eodominant scaffold branch in the upper crown. 477. 4" live oak 1.5 Comments: Very poor form and stntcture 478. 4", 4" water oak 1.5 Comments: Basal codominant 479. 5" live aak 2.0 Comments: Very poor form lacking secondary branch structure 480. 5" live oak 2.5 Comments: Poor form and below average live crown ratio 481. fi" live oak 2.0 Comments: Tight restricted crown with poor form and structure 48~. 7" water oak ~ 2.5 Comments: A good small tree that will improve if preserved and maintained correctly 483. 5" water oak 1.0 Comments: This tree has a broken top and the foliage is concent rated on a lateral branch. c~~ALw~ 3/30/2006 ~,'~ ~ Receipt #: 120600000000003359 1:31:35PM -sr ~' Date: 03/30/2006 r Line Items: Case No Tran Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid. FLD2006-03017 04 Flexible Commercial 010-341262 1,205.00 Line Item Total: $1,205.00 Payments: . Method Payer Initials Check No ConOrm No How Received Amount Paid Check HALLMARK DEV OF FL WC R_D 10769 In Person 1,205.00 Payment Total: $1,205.00 ORIGINAL RECEIVED ~'' MAR 2'9 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER THIS IS NOT A PERMIT. This is a receipt for an application for a permit. . This application will be reviewed and you will be notified as to the outcome of the application. cReceipt.rpt Page 1 of l ~~'~~~ ~ • FLD2006-03017 63 PARK PLACE BLVD N Date Received: 03/30/2006 ORIGINRL RECEIVED MAC 2 ~ Z006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER ZUNING DISTRICT: IRT LAND USE: IL ATLAS PAGE: 291A HALLMARK PLANNER OF RECORD: V_ CLWCoverSheet • s Weds, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:07 AM To: Troy Perdue {E-mail) Subject: Lot Split Troy - This is what I previously sent on May 25, 2006. If you need further clarification, let me know. Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:53 PM To: 'troyperdue@tmo.blackberry.net' Subject: RE: Lot Split Troy - There is no application form and no deadline to submit the following information. You need to submit: 1. A letter of request, outlining what the proposal is and including the items we discussed regarding the improvementslchanges on Bausch & Lomb's property that will be bonded. The names of the owners {existing) as shown on deeds also must be provided for tracking purposes through the Clerk of the Court records. 2. Application fee of $150.00, payable to City of Clearwater. 3. Three signed and sealed surveys of each lot as proposed. I will prepare an Affidavit for recording in the public records and a Development Order. It should generally take me about three weeks to prepare the documents once submitted. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: troyperdue@tmo.blackberry.net [mailto:troyperdue@tmo.blackberry.net] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:07 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Lot Split Wayne, wd you fonruard the appropriate lot split application to me at your earliest convenience? Thanks. Sent from my BiackBerry wireless handheld. Bausch & Lomb ~ - ~ Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Troy J. Perdue [troyp@jpfirm.comj Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 8:09 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Bausch & Lomb 0 Big W, I thought you send me an email outlusing what I needed to say in a letter (since there is no application form) in order to initiate the lot split. Can't find that email. Could you resend it? if not, I'Il end up sending you a crappy request that will only get your blood pressure up. Graeias! Troy James Perdue, Esq. Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel, 8v Burns, LLP 911 Chestnut Street Clearwater, FL 33756 phone: 727-461-1818 f~; 727-462-0365 6/6/2006 • • Welis, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:53 PM To: 'troyperdue@trr~o.blackberry.net' Subject: RE: Lot Split Troy - There is no application form and no deadline to submit the following information. You need to submit: 1. A letter of request, outlining what the proposal is and including the items we discussed regarding the improvements/changes on Bausch & Lomb's property that will be bonded. The names of the owners (existing) as shown on deeds also must be provided for tracking purposes through the Clerk of the Court records. 2. Application fee of $150.00, payable to City of Clearwater. 3. Three signed and sealed surveys of each lot as proposed. T will prepare an Affidavit for recording in the public records and a Development Order. It should generally take me about three weeks to prepare the documents once submitted. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: troyperdueC~tmo.blackberry.net [mailto:troyperdue@tmo.blackberry.net] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:07 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Lot Split Wayne, wd you forward the appropriate lot split application to me at your earliest convenience? Thanks. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. 1 • Giilf Coast Consulting, Inc. Land Development Consulting • Engineering • Planning • Transportation • Permitting ICOT Center 13825 ICOT Boulevard, Suite 605 Clearwater, FL 33760 Phone: (727) 524-1818 Fax: (727) 524-6090 May 4, 2006 Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner III City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, 2nd Floor Clearwater, FL 33756 Re: FLD2006-03017 - 63 Park Place Blvd. N. -Withdrawal Dear Wayne: As a result of today's DRC meeting, we are preparing design modifications to meet "minimum standards development" requirements per Section 2-1302 of the Community Development Code. Therefore, a "Comprehensive Infill" application is not necessary. Please withdraw the above-referenced FLD application. We will submit Construction Plans for approval in the near future. Sincerely, ~% ~ Robert Pergolizzi, Principal RP:aI Encl. cc: Steve Engelhardt, Hallmark Development of Florida, Inc. Ed Armstrong, Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP Jim Crraham, Crraham Design Associates, P.A. File 06-009 ORIGIf~IAt, RECEIVEp MAY 0 8 2006 PLAf~RIING DEP,gRTMENt CITY OF CLEAR-lJATER /~ • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 4:17 PM Ta: Robert Pergolizzi {E-mail) Cc: Jayne Sears (E-mail) Subject: Draft DRC comments for May 4, 2006, DRC meeting RobertlJayne - Attached are the Draft DRC comments for the May 4, 2006, DRC meeting at 1:00 pm in the Planning Department offices (100 S. Myrtle Avenue) for FLD2006-03017, 63 Park Piace Blvd N. See you then. Wayne :.'~.. draft 5.4A6 dre action agenda... . ~ ~r~.~' 1:00 m Case Number: FLD2006-030I7 -- 63 PARK PLACE BLVD N • P ~i '~•~b Owner(s): Bausch & Lomb Surgical Attn: Shumaker, Phil ~ ~~ Clearwater, Fl 33759 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Representative: Gulf Coast Consulting ~ ~~~ 13825 Icot Blvd Clearwater, F133760 TELEPHONE: 727-524-1818, FAX: 727-524-6090, E-MAIL: scashen@gulfcoastconsultinginc.con: Location: 7.394 acres located. on the south side of Drew Street between Park Place Boulevard North and Hampton Road. Atlas Page: 291A Zoning District: IRT, Industrial, Research and Technology Request: Flexible Development approval to permit 61,200 square feet of offices in the Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District with reductions to the side (south} setback from 15 feet to five feet (to pavement} and from 15 feet to x feet (to dumpster enclosure) and a deviation to office use restrictions, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-1304.C. Proposed Use: Offices Neighborhood. Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Association(s): Glearwater, F133758 P O Box 8204 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Presenter: Wayne Wells, Planner III Attendees Included: Staff: Wayne Wells, Neil Thompson, Scott Rice, Lenny Rickard, Julia Babcock Applicant: Robert Pergolizzi, The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments; General Engineering: Development Review Agenda -Thursday, May 4, 2006 -Page 23 Prior to CDB: 1}Provide minimum turning. radii of 30 feet through the site to pernut City solid waste vehicles access to durnpsters. Prior to the issuance of a building permit: 2) Show all city details applicable to this project. The City's Construction Standards and Utility Information can be found on our web site: www.myclearwater.com/gov/depts/pwa/engin/Production/stddet/index. asp. 1 3) A separate right-of--way permit will be required for all work within the right-of--way of any of the adjacent street(s) that are assigned to the city. See Don Melone (727) 562-479$ in Room #220 at the MSB (Municipal Services Building). 4) The City of Clearwater will provide water tap, (Clearwater Code of Ordinances Section 32.095), set the water meter (Clearwater Code of Ordinances Section 32.096) and. set the B.F.P.D. (back flow preventor device). The applicant is responsible for the water main extension from the tap to the device. Applicant is also responsible for all associated fees and all other installation fees. 5) Provide a copy of an approved health permit for the installation of the domestic water main prior to issuance of a building permit. The health pemut application form(s) can be found at: www. dep. state . fl. us/water/drinkingwater/forms. htm 6) Provide a copy of an approved D.E.P, permit for the installation of the sanitary sewer extension prior to issuance of a building permit. 7) Need to raise tree canopy above 16.5 ft. to accommodate solid waste collection at the Dumpster location. 8) New dumpster enclosures: Maximum 6'-0" high and constructed of concrete block. Materials used should be consistent with those used in the construction of and architectural style of the principal building, see City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards, Part "C", Construction Standards, Index #701. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy: 9) Bring all substandard sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project up to standard, including A.D.A. (Truncated domes per D.O.T. Index #304.) General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall. be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in-service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Environmental: 1 . No Issues. Fire: 1 . All curb cuts for entry and exit must be a nunimum of 30' radius, street side only. Show on plan PRIOR TO CDB 2 . Add fire hydrant for 2 story 19,800sgft building. Show PRIOR TO CDB 3 . NOTE- Items to be addressed for building permit: Fire Sprinkler, Fire Alarm, Exiting, Seperation 4 . There is only one driveway into this property, would a second driveway be needed at this location. Development Review Agenda -Thursday, May 4, 2006 -Page 24 Harbor Master: 1 , No issues. Legal: 1 . No issues. Land Resources: 1 . Pictorially it appears that trees will be preserved, however, it appears that some utilities are going through trees and grade cuts are .too severe to actually save those trees. Review the proposed utilities and grading plans to insure that the trees will be able to survive the construction impacts prior to CDB. . 2 . The previous palmetto preserve area and the proposed palmetto preserve area must be shown on the Tree Preservation Plan. These areas also need to be specified in square feet. Provide prior to building permit. 3 , Provide a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by a certified arborist, consulting arborist, landscape architect or other specialist in the field of arboriculture. This plan must show how the proposed building, parking, stormwater and utilities impact the critical root. zones (drip lines) of trees to be preserved. and how you propose to address these impacts i.e.; crown elevating, root pruning and/or root aeration systems. Other data required on this plan must show the trees canopy line, actual tree barricade limits (2!3 of the drip line and/or in the root prune lines if required), and the tree barricade detail. And any other pertinent information relating to tree preservation. Provide prior to building permit. 4 , If for any reason site modifications are required, more consideration must be given to preserve all of the trees rated 3.5. Landscaping: 1 . Foundation landscaping must be composed of at least two accent trees (or palm. equivalents) or three palms for every 40 linear feet of building facade and one shrub for every 20 square feet of required landscaped area. A minimum of 50 percent of the area shall contain shrubs with the remainder to be ground cover. 2 , Per Section 3-1202.1;.1, one tree minimum per landscape island is required; one tree per 150 sq. ft. of required green space in the island is required; shrubs must comprise at least 50% of required green space; and groundcover shall be utilized for required green space in lieu of turf in the islands. All islands, whether existing or proposed, must meet these requirements (deficient existing islands need to be upgraded). Parks and Recreation: 1 . No issues -project exempt - P&R requirements met prior to 1983 (Ordinances 3128-83 and 3129-83). Stormwater: 1 _ Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant is to provide a copy of an approved SWFWMD permit or letter of exemption. Solid Waste: 1 , With the two enclosures shown to service 60,000 sq feet of commercial space, it seems that there will be inadquate service, would suggest a compactor or at minmum one more enclosure for this location. Traffic Engineering: 1 . Provide an accessible path from a building's accessible entrance to a public sidewalk compliant with Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction Chapter 11, Section l I-4.32. 2. Provide loading zones in accordance with Clearwater Community Development Cade Section 3-1406. Per Code, four loading spaces are required. This maybe reduced if the loading spaces are strategically located. The above to be addressed prior to CDB. General Note(s): Ij Comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule. 2) DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments maybe forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Planning: Development Review Agenda -Thursday, May 4, 2006 - Fage 25 • 1 . Based on the discussion at BPRC with Bausch & Lomb, it appears to~their desire to cut off cross access and pedestrian access between their "parcel" and this "parcel." This should be further discussed with Bausch & Lomb. If this is the case, then the existing pavement necessary only for the cross access can be removed and landscaped.. Alternately, if cross access (even if only for emergency purposes where devices restrict access generally) and cross pedestrian access is desired to be retained, this will not invoke any special requirements (such as required side setbacks). 2 . Unless minimum standards are met, the IRT District discourages the use of industrially zoned property for uses other than industrial. uses by restricting criteria for Flexible Standard Development and Flexible Development office uses: "The proposed use of the parcel shall be related to the uses permitted in the district and shall include, but not be limited to, office uses related to scientific or industrial research, product development and testing, engineering development and marketing development, corporate offices provided, however, that they do not provide services or uses to the general public on the premises, and such other office uses, including support services, as well as uses which are accessory to and compatible with the permitted uses. Support services for the purposes of this zoning district shall. be defined as companies that supply services utilized wholly by other companies located in this zoning district." The creation of this proposed southern property line for the subject "parcel," along with the proposed parking area are based on aself-created circumstance. The common lot line could be created anywhere so long as Code requirements are met on the Bausch & Lomb "parcel" (with or without relocation of the hazardous waste storage area and dumpster area) and the proposed parking and buildings on the subject "parcel" could be designed many ways to meet the Code requirements. Buildings can be relocated on-site or totally redesigned in the number of buildings, the shape of the buildings and the number of floors in order to attain the desired overall square footage {many available options). Staff recommends: 1. Withdrawal of the request and redesign to meet minimum standards, including setback to the existing driveway on the west. A request. for a Division of a Previously Platted Lot (DPPL) must be submitted to the Planning Department with a letter of request, a copy of the deed for the overall property, $150.00 and three signed and sealed surveys for each lot (the subject lot and Bausch and Lomb lot). Improvements on the Bausch and Lomb lot must meet Code setback requirements at the time of this DPPL. 2. Should the applicant decide to proceed to the CDB, the request must include a deviation to the office criteria, with full justification. Staff will not support the requested reduction to setbacks and the deviation to the office criteria. Should the CDB desire to approve the requested setback reductions, Staff will support a condition of approval to restrict office uses in accordance with the criteria above. This site is presently part of a much larger parcel. The proposal is to subdivide the existing parcel into two parcels (southern lot for the existing Sausch & Lomb and the northern lot for the proposed offices). The property line being created for these two lots (even though Sheet 2/4 indicates such line as "existing boundary") creates a setback issue for the southern lot, as the "hazardous waste storage area" and dumpster area on the east side do not meet the required 15-foot side setback. (as even indicated on Sheet 3/4). Bausch & Lomb has attended BPRC to discuss what they want to do for their parcel. This proposal needs to: 1) re-create this proposed lot line so that the "hazardous waste storage area" and dumpster area on the east side meet the required 15-foot side setback from the proposed common lot line; 2) Bausch & Lomb must submit a similar Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application to reduce the side setback for these structures, which Staff will not support as it is a self-created hardship; 3) Baush & Lomb relocate, as they stated at their BPRC meeting, the hazardous waste storage area and the dumpster area so that side setbacks can be met for their "parcel" and the proposed common lot line is relocated south of the proposed parking, driveway and dumpster enclosures on the subject "parcel" so that the existing/proposed. improvements meet the required side setback. requirement; or 3) Baush & Lomb must remove these encroachments, prior to the approval of any Division of a Previously Platted Lot application. Development Review Agenda -Thursday, May 4, 2006 -Page 26 f c 4 . Provide the ISR for the southern parcel for Bausch & Lomb. Additionally, provide the basis for the parking required calculation provided in the April 7th letter. 5 . Provide a dimension from the proposed south property line to the proposed dumpster enclosure south of Building B. 6 . Sheet 2/4 -Revise the Legend, as the southern "property line" is not existing but proposed. 7 . Note: Specific signage design (freestanding and attached) will be addressed at time of permitting. 8 . Minimum parking stall length is 18 feet. 9 . Note: Wheel stops are not required for the existing parking spaces on the east side where the fronts of parking stall abut. 10 . Comprehensive Infill criteria #8 response -HOW will the reduction to the south side setback benefit the community character of the surrounding area and the City as a whole, especially in light of the restriction on the type of office uses. 11 . Based on the elevations for all buildings, there are entry "porches" on each building that project from the main part of each building. These entry "porches" are not indicated on the civil plans or the landscape plan. Revise. 12 . Elevations -Since the buildings all have a pitched roof, provide the proposed building height to the midpoint of the roof. 13 . Ali on-site utilities, including electric, telephone and cable, must be placed underground. Include a note for such on Sheet 3/4. 14 . Loading space(s) are required by"Code. Irrespective of your 2/15/06 BPRC meeting, UPS, FEDEX, beverage trucks and other delivery trucks will not use regular parking spaces. The site plan must show the location. and dimension of the loading spaces}. 15 . Comprehensive Infill criteria #1 response -Unclear HOW the reduction of the south side setback from 15 feet to five feet is "necessary to provide adequate parking and circulation thoughout the site. Lack of ample parking would be impractical." The required parking is 184 spaces and the proposed parking is 248 (?). How does the setback reduction to pavement on the south side affect the provision of adequate parking? 16 . Provide the proposed grading elevations in the legend on Sheet 4/4. Other: No Comments Notes: To be placed on the 6/20/06 CDB agenda, submit 15 collated copies of the revised plans & application material. addressing all above departments' comments by noon, 5/11/06. Packets shall be collated, folded and stapled.as appropriate. Development Review Agenda -Thursday, May 4, 2006 -Page 27 °•- Message _ Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 10:49 AM To: 'Jayne E. Sears' Subject: RE: Hallmark Development/Flex Dev. App -Lot 1, Storz OpthalmicslPark Place Comments will be sent out on Monday. I will include you. -----Original Message----- From: Jayne E. Sears [mailto:JayneSC~jpfirm.com] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 10:14 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Robert Pergolizzi Subject: Hallmark Development/Flex Dev. App - Lat 1, Storz Opthalmics/Park Place Wayne, please copy me and Robert Pergolizzi with the comments on this case for May 4 DRC. Thanks. Jayne E. Sears Legal Assistant Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP 911 Chestnut Street Clearwater, FL 33756 Phone: (727} 461-1818 Fax: (727) 462-0365 4/27/2006 Clearwater April 11, 2006 Gulf Coast Consulting 13825 Icot Blvd Suite 605 Clearwater, FI 33760 L~ CI~['Y OF CLE~'R~VATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562--4576 W W W .MYC LEARWATER. C OM RE: FLD2006-03017-- 63 PARK PLACE BLVD N -- Letter of Completeness Dear Gulf Coast Consulting The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number: FLD2006-03017. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is complete. The Development Review Committee (DRC) will. review the application for sufficiency on May 04, 2006, in the Planning Department conference room -Room 216 - on the second floor of the Municipal Services Building. The building is located at 100 South Myrtle Avenue in downtown Clearwater. You will be contacted by the Planning Department's Administrative Analyst within one week. prior to the meeting date for the approximate time that your case will be reviewed. You or your representative (as applicable) must be present to answer any questions that the DRC may have regarding your application. Additional comments,may be generated by the DRC at the time of the meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 727-562-4504 or W ayne. Wells@myclearwater.com. Sincerely yours, Wa e Wells, AICP Planner lII Lerner oJCompleteness - FLD2006-03017 - 63 PARK PLACE BLVD N • • Wells, Wa ne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 10:14 AM To: Robert Pergolizzi (E-maii} Subject: FLD20fl6-03017, 63 Park Place Blvd. N. Robert - Attached is a Letter of Completeness for the above referenced project. The original is being mailed. Wayne letter of ~mpleteness 4.11.06 • i Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. Apri17, 2006 Land Development Consulting • Engineering • Planning •'1'>t~ansportation • Permitting ICOT Center 13825 SCOT Boulevard, Suite 605 Clearwater, FL 33760 Phone: (727) 524-181& D ~ ~` ! Fax: (727) 524-6080 - - ~1 ,~,~ 0 7 ~o~ ~iAIJ~INNING~.U`~~~:.~.~=a~*.c ~T Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner III: 1Qi= ~lrfiliiU.~. City of Clearwater Planning Department. 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, 2nd Floor Clearwater, FL 33756 Re: FLD2006-03017 - 63 Park Place Blvd. N. -Completeness Review Dear Wayne: We received your Letter of Incompleteness dated April 4, 2006 and are rriaking this Resubmittal to be deemed complete so we may proceed to DRC on May 4, 2006. Per our telephone conversation, we offer the following responses and are providing fifteen (15} copies of revised plans. Comment: 1. This site is presently part of a much larger parcel. The proposal is to subdivide the existing parcel into two parcels (southern lot for the existing Bausch & Lomb and the northern lot for the proposed offices). The property line being created for these two lots {even though Sheet 2/4 indicates such line as "existing boundary"} creates a setback issue far the southern lot, as the "hazardous waste storage area'" and dumpster area on the east side do not meet the required 15-foot side setback (as even indicated on Sheet 3/4). This proposal either needs 1) to re-create this proposed lot line so that the "hazardous waste storage area" and dumpster area on the east side meet the required 15-foot side setback or 2) a similar Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application must be submitted for the southern lot for Bausch & Lomb to reduce the side setback (Staff prefers and would support the former, as the latter is aself-imposed circumstance since the common property line doesn't exist}, Response: Comment: The proposed lot line was placed in the most logical location to create two lots that meet code requirements. Please note the setback issues to the existing "hazardous waste storage area" and dumpster will be eliminated since those items will be relocated by Bausch & Lomb as part of a separate application. We have noted on the plans "to be relocated by others" and I have attached documentatian that those items will be relocated. We would agree to this as a condition of approval. 2. Bausch & Lomb was developed on all of Lot 1, Storz Qpthalmics, Inc. Park Place Subdivision. Since the proposed office lot is part of this larger parcel today, it is unknown how the southern parcel for Bausch & Lomb meets the ISR, FAR and parking requirements for its proposed lot. Provide site data for this proposed southern parcel. April 7, 2o0b Page 2 of 5 Response: 2. The parent tract is 18.255 acres of which 7.394 is being purchased /developed by Hallmark Development. The Bausch & Lomb parcel will be 10.861 acres after the lot split. This parcel currently meets ISR, FAR, and parking requirements. FAR = 100,000 s.f. / 10.861 acres (473,105 s.f) _ .2i existing, .65 max. ISR = Unknown, but much less than the maximum permitted, .85 max. Parking = 207 spaces exist / 200 spaces required Bausch. & Lomb will be filing a separate application for site modifications. Comment: 3. Provide the proposed grading, including finished floor elevations of all structures. Response: 3. Additional grading information and finished floor elevations have been added to the plans. Comment: 4. Loading space(s) are required by Code. The site plan must show the location and dimension of the loading space(s). Response: 4. At our February 15, 2006 BPRC meeting we had. explained these offices will not receive deliveries from large trucks, rather UPS, DhIL,, or Fed Ex vans/small trucks will be used. These vehicles will utilize parking spaces. Comment: 5. Site plan must depict by shading or crosshatching all required parking lot interior landscaped areas. Response: 5. The site plan was revised accordingly. Comment: 6. Site plan must show the lacation of all outside mechanical equipment and all required screening (Note: it is assumed that since all buildings have pitched roofs that the air conditioning equipment will be located on the ground). Response: 6. The site plan was revised to show the location of the A/C units and noted screening is required. April 7, 2006 Page 3 of 5 Comment: 7. Since the proposed parcel is over one acre in size and there was no proposed grading plan submitted, the site plan must show the location of all. earth or water re#aining walls and earth berms. Response: 7. The site plan. has proposed grades, the site plan shows the top of bank and toe of slope of all ponds. There are no retaining walls. Comment: 8. Since the proposed parcel is over one acre in size, a Tree Inventory, prepared by a "certified arborist", of all trees 8" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy {drip lines) and condition of such trees is required to be submitted. No site plan has been submitted indicating the tree numbers as stated in the Tree Inventory narrative. Additionally, since only one copy of the Tree Inventory narrative and a CD of such was submitted for Rick Albee, please submit one additional copy of the Tree Inventory (narrative, CD and site plan with the tree numbers an it) for the case planner/file. Response: 8. These items were submitted directly to Rick Albee by the arborist. Attached for your case file is a copy of the Tree Inventory Narrative, CD, and plan with tree numbers on it. Comment: 9. Site/landscape plan must delineate and dimension all required perimeter landscape buffers. Response: The site plan shows all perimeter landscaped areas Comment: 10. All landscape area must be protected by upright curbing and wheel stops are required for all parking spaces. The site/landscape plan does not indicate the location of existing/proposed curbing. Response: 10. The plans show the existing curbing, existing wheel stops, and proposed curbing. Comment: 11. Need to show in the existing parking areas the parking spaces striped out with the typical dimensions. Response: 11. The existing parking spaces are shown as striped. April 7, 2006 Page 4 of 5 Comment: 12. Need to dimension the width of the new landscape islands. Response: 12. Plan was revised accordingly. Comment: • 13. Landscape plan must show the location, size, and quantities of all EXISTING and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant schedule. There is no hedge/shrubs indicated (existing or proposed) on the street side of the parking area nor on the south side of the proposed parking area, to meet Code buffer requirements. Response: 13. Landscape plan was revised accordingly. Comment: 14. Landscape plan must provide typical planting details far palms, shrubs and ground cover plants including instructions, soil mixes, backfiiling, mulching and protective measures (only details for trees provided). Response: 14. Landscape plan was revised accordingly. Comment: 15. Provide as part of the site data the proposed interior landscape coverage, expressing in both square feet and the percentage of the vehicular use area covered. Note: Since parking provided exceeds 110 percent of the required amount of parking, l2 percent of the vehicular use area must be provided in interior landscaping. Response: 15. The interior landscaping within the vehicular use area is shown and is 1.6.3% of vehicular use area. Comment: 16. Foundation landscaping is required. Plantings shall be provided for 100 percent of a. building facade with frontage along a street right-of--way, excluding space necessary for building ingress and egress, within a minimum five-foot wide landscaped area composed of at least two accent trees (or palm equivalents) or three palms for every 40 linear feet of building facade and one shrub far every 20 square feet of required landscaped area. A minimum of 50 percent of the area shall contain shrubs with the remainder to be ground cover. Response: 16. Please see the landscape plans. Apr17, 2006 Page 5 of 5 Comment: i7. While building elevations showing the proposed exterior materials have been provided and colored elevations have been provided, provide the color chips/samples of the various exteriors of the building, with an indication as to what part of the building the color relates to. Response: 17. As shown on the colored renderings, the buildings will be made of brick, glass, and colored metal roofing. Sample materials are included with this submittal. Per our discussion, we assume this additional information will allow our application to be deemed complete and moved through the process such that we can obtain site review comments prior to the May 4, 2006 DRC meeting. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Robert Pergolizzi, AICP Principal RP: al Encl. cc: Steve Engelhardt, Hallmark Development of Florida, Inc. File 06-009 ~ CITY OF CL~RWATER Clearwater PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUII.DING ~ 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W WW.MYCLEARWATER.COM Apri104, 2006 Gulf Coast Consulting 13825 Icot Blvd Suite 605 Clearwater, F133760 RE: FLD2006-03017 -- 63 PARK PLACE BLVD N -- Letter of Incompleteness Dear Gulf Coast Consulting The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number: FLD2006-03017. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is Incomplete with. the following comments. 1. This site is presently part of a much larger parcel. The proposal is to subdivide the existing parcel into two parcels (southern lot for the existing Bausch & Lomb and the northern lot for the proposed offices). The property line being created for these two lots (even though Sheet 2/4 indicates such line as "existing boundary") creates a setback issue for the southern lot, as the "hazardous waste storage area" and dumpster area on the east side do not meet the required 15-foot side setback (as even indicated on Sheet 3/4). This proposal either needs 1) to re-create this proposed lot line so that the "hazardous waste storage area" and durnpster area on the east side meet the required 15-foot side setback or 2) a similar Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application must be submitted for the southern lot for Bausch & Lomb to reduce the side setback (Staff prefers and would support the former, as the latter is a self imposed circumstance since the common property Iine doesn't exist}. 2. Bausch & Lomb was developed on all of Lot 1, Storz Opthalmics, Inc. Park Place Subdivision. Since the proposed. office lot is part of this larger parcel today, it is unknown how the southern parcel for Bausch & Lomb meets the ISR, FAR and parking requirements for its proposed lot. Provide site data for this proposed southern parcel. 3. Provide the proposed grading, including finished floor elevations of all structures. 4. Loading space(s) are required by Code. The site plan must show the location and dimension of the loading space(s). 5. Site plan must~depict by shading or crosshatching all required parking lot interior landscaped areas. 6. Site plan must show the location of all outside mechanical equipment and all required screening (Note: it is assumed that since all buildings have pitched roofs that the air conditioning equipment will be located on the ground}. 7. Since the proposed parcel is over one acre in size and there was no proposed grading plan submitted, the site plan must show the location of all earth or water retaining walls and earth berms. Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2dOri-0.017 - b3 PARK ALACE BLVD N ~,.~. ~ CITY OF ~L~-RWATER. -' o ~~„1 Ira,~~r PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUII,DING ~ 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W W W. MY C L EAR W ATER . C OM Apri104, 2006 8. Since the proposed parcel is over one acre in size, a Tree Inventory, prepazed by a "certified azborst", of all trees $" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines} and condition of such trees is required to be submitted. No site plan has been submitted indicating the tree numbers as stated in the Tree Inventory narrative. Additionally, since only one copy of the Tree Inventory narrative and a CD of such was submitted for Rick Albee, please submit one additional copy of the Tree Inventory (narrative, CD and site plan with the tree numbers on it) for the case planner/file. 9. Site/landscape plan must delineate and dimension all required perimeter landscape buffers. 10. All landscape area must be protected by upright curbing and wheel stops. are required for all parking spaces. The site/landscape plan does not indicate the location of existing/proposed curbing. 11. Need to show in the existing pazking areas the parking spaces striped out with the typical, dimensions. 12. Need to dimension the width of the new landscape islands. 13. Landscape plan must show the location, size, and quantities of all EXISTING and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant schedule. There is no hedge/shrubs indicated {existing or proposed} on the street side of the parking azea nor on the south side of the proposed parking area, to meet Code buffer requirements. 14. Landscape plan must provide typical planting details for palms, shrubs and ground cover plants including instructions, soil. mixes, backfilling, rr~ulching and protective measures (only details for trees provided). 15. Provide as part of the site data the proposed interior landscape coverage, expressing in both square feet and the percentage of the vehicular use area covered. Note: Since parking provided exceeds 110 percent of the required amount of parking, 12 percent of the vehicular use area must be provided in interior landscaping. 16. Foundation landscaping is required. Plantings shall be provided for 1.00 percent of a building facade with frontage along a street right-of--way, excluding space necessary for building ingress and egress, within a minimum five-foot wide landscaped area composed. of at least two accent trees (or palm equivalents} or three palms for every 401ineaz feet of building facade and one shrub for every 20 square feet of required landscaped area. A minimum of 50 percent of the area shall contain shrubs with the remainder to be ground cover. 17. While building elevations showing the proposed exterior materials have been provided and colored elevations have been provided, provide the color chips/samples of the various exteriors of the building, with an indication as to what part of the building the color relates to. Section 4-202 of the Community Development Code states that if an application is deemed incomplete, the deficiencies of the application shall be specified by Staff. No further development review action shall be taken until the deficiencies are corrected and the application is deemed complete. Please resubmit by 10:00 am on Monday, April 10, 2006. Letter of Incompleteness - FLL~2006-0301 7 - 63 PARK PLACE BLYL3 N ~ CITY OF CL~RWATER -_: ~ ~~~,t~~ PLANNYNG DEPARTMENT - M[JNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING e 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: {727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W W W . MY CLEAR WATER. C OM April 04, 2006 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 727-562-4504 or Wayne. Wells@myclearwater.com. Sincerely yours, Wayn Wells Planner III Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006--03017 - G3 PARK PLACE BLVD N • • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 1:57 PM To: Robert Pergolizzi (E-mail) Subject: FLD2006-03017, 63 Park Place Blvd. N. Robert - Attached is a Letter of Incompleteness for the above referenced project. The original is being mailed. Wayne :~ letter of completeness 4.x}.0. a Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. Land Development Consulting • Engineering • Planning • 7lransportation • Permitting ICOT Center 13825 ICOT Boulevard, Suite 60S Clearwater, FL 33760 Phone: (7271 524-1818 Mr. Neil Thompson, Development Review Manager City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, 2nd Floor Clearwater, FI 33756 Re: Flexible Development Application Park Place Lot 1 -Lot Split Parcel ID Nos. 1.7129116185546100010010 Dear Mr. Thompson: Enclosed are the items necessary to process the above referenced Flexible Development Application (Comprehensive Infill) per Section 2-1304 of the Clearwater Community Development Code. This is a Level TWO approval process requiring CDB approval. Enclosed please find: 1. Flexible Standard Development Application (original and 14 copies). 2. Affidavit to Authorize Agent (original and 14 copies). 3. Legal Description (15 copies). 4. Park Place DRI Master Plan (15 copies) 5. Stormwater Narrative to support waiver (15 copies) 6. Traffic Impact Statement to support"waiver (15 copies) 7. Preliminary Site Plan (15 copies and one 8'/z inch by 11 inch reduction). 8. Landscape and Irrigation Plan (15 copies and one 8'/z inch by 11 inch reduction). 9. Tree Inventory Report prepared by Certified Arborist {1 copy and CD). 10. Boundary Survey {15 copies and one 8'/z inch by 11 inch reduction). 11. Building Elevations and Signage Exhibit (15 copies and 15 reductions). 12. Review Fee check for $1,205.00 The applicant, Hallmark Development of Florida, Inc. is seeking to develop 61,200 square feet of office space on this 7.394 acre property. As you know, this property is zoned IRT and office space is permitted per the DRI. We look forward to the upcoming DRC meeting on May 4, 2006. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sinc ly, Robert Pergollzz , AICP Principal cc: Steve Engelhardt, File 06-009 Hallmark Development of Florida, Inc. ®RIGINAL Ri:CENED MAR 2`9 200 PLANNING DEPq~MF~ CITY OF CI-EARWATER j . ` ~i 1'00 m Case Number: FLD2006-03017 -- 63 PARK PLACE BLVD N . ~ Owner(s): Bausch & Lomb Surgical ~ ~ ~ 6 Attn: Shumaker, Phil Clearwater, F133759 ~G TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Representative: Gulf Coast Consulting 13825 Icot Blvd Clearwater, F133760 TELEPHONE: 727-524-1818, FAX: 727-524-6090, E-MAIL: scashen@gulfcoastconsultinginc.corr Location: 7.394 acres located on the south side of Drew Street between Park Place Boulevard North and Hampton Road. Atlas Page: 291A Zoning District: IRT, Industrial, Research and Technology Request: Flexible Development approval to permit 61,200 square feet. of offices in the Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District with reductions to the side (south) setback from 15 feet to five feet (to pavement) and from 15 feet. to x feet (to dumpster enclosure) and a deviation to office use restrictions, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-1304.0. Proposed Use: Offices Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Associatian(s): Clearwater, F133758 P O Box 8204 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Presenter: Wayne Wells, Planner III Attendees Included: Staff: Wayne Wells, Neil Thompson, Scott Rice, Jim Keller, Julia Babcock, Rick Albee, Bill Buzzell Applicant: Robert Pergolizzi, Ed Armstrong, Paul Engelhart, Jim Engelhart, Jim Graham, Richard Harris The DRG reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: Development Review Agenda -Thursday, May 4, 2006 -Page 25 Prior to CDB: 1 }Provide minimum fuming radii of 30 feet through the site to permit City solid waste vehicles access to dumpsters. Prior to the issuance of a building permit: 2) Show all city details applicable to this project. The City's Construction Standards and Utility Information can be found on our web site: www.myclearwater.com/gov/depts/pwa/engin/Production/stddet/index.asp. \ 3) A separate right-of--way permit will be required for all work within the right-of-way of any of the adjacent street(s) that are assigned to the city. See Don Melone (727) 562-4798 in Room #220 at the MSB (Municipal Services Building). 4) The City of Clearwater will provide water tap, (Clearwater Code of Ordinances Section 32.095), set the water me#er (Clearwater Code of Ordinances Section 32.096) and set the B.F.P.D. {back flow preventor device). The applicant is responsible for the water main extension from the tap to the device. Applicant is also responsible for all associated fees and all other installation fees. 5) Provide a copy of an approved health permit for the installation of the domestic water main prior to issuance of a building permit. The health permit application form(s) can be found at: www. dep. state.fl.us/water/drinkingwater/forms. htm 6) Provide a copy of an approved D.E.P. permit for the installation of the sanitary sewer extension prior to issuance of a building pernut. 7) Need to raise tree canopy above 16.5 ft. to accommodate solid waste collection at the Dumpster location. 8} New dumpster enclosures: Maximum 6'-0" high and constructed of concrete block. Materials used should be consistent with those used in the construction of and architectural style of the principal building, see City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards, Fart "C", Construction Standards, Index #701. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy: 9) Bring all. substandard sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project up to standard, including A.D.A. (Truncated domes per D.O.T. Index #304.) General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in-service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments maybe forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Environmental: No Issues. Fire: All curb cuts for entry and exit must be a minimum of 30' radius, street side only. Show on plan PRIOR TO CDB Add fire hydrant for 2 story 19,800sgft building. Show PRIOR TO CDB NOTE- Items to be addressed for building permit: Fire Sprinkler, Fire Alarm, Exiting, Seperation There is only one driveway into this property, would a second driveway be needed at this location. Development Review Agenda -Thursday, May 4, 2006 -Page 26 • Harbor Master: 1 . No issues. Legal 1 No issues. Land Resources: 1 . Pictorially it appears that trees will be preserved, however, it appears that some utilities are going through trees and grade cuts are too severe to actually save those trees. Review the proposed utilities and grading plans to insure that the trees will be able to survive the construction impacts prior to CDB. 2 . The previous palmetto preserve area and the proposed palmetto preserve area must be shown on the Tree Preservation Plan. These areas also need to be specified in square feet. Provide prior to building permit. 3 . Provide a Tree Freservation. Plan. prepared by a certified arborist, consulting arborist, landscape architect or other specialist in the field of arboriculture. This plan must show how the proposed building, parking, stormwater and utilities impact the critical root zones (drip lines) of trees to be preserved and haw you. propose to address these impacts i.e.; crown elevating, root pruning and/or root aeration systems. Other data required on this plan must show the trees canopy line, actual tree barricade limits (2/3 of the drip line and/or in the root prune lines if required), and the tree bamcade detail. And any other pertinent information relating to tree preservation. Provide prior to building permit. 4 . If for any reason site modifications are required, more consideration must be given to preserve all of the trees rated 3.5. Landscaping: 1 . Foundation landscaping must be composed of at least two accent trees (ar palm equivalents) or three palms for every 40 linear feet of building facade and one shrub for every 20 square feet of required landscaped area. A rninimum of 50 percent of the area shall contain shrubs with the remainder to be ground cover. 2 . Per Section 3-1202.E.1, one tree minimum per landscape island is required; one tree per 150 sq. ft. of required green space in the island is required; shrubs must comprise at least 50% of required green space; and groundcover shall be utilized for required green. space in lieu of turf in the islands. All islands, whether existing or proposed, must meet these requirements (deficient existing islands need to be upgraded). Parks and Recreation: 1 . No issues ,project exempt - P&R requirements met prior to 19$3 {Ordinances 3128-83 and 3129-83). Stormwater: 1 . Frior to issuance of a building permit the applicant is to provide a copy of an approved SWFWMD permit or letter of exemption, Solid Waste: 1 . With the two enclosures shown to service 60,000 sq feet of commercial space, it seems that there will be inadquate service, would suggest a compactor ar at minmum one more enclosure for this location. Traffic Engineering: 1 . Provide an accessible path from a building's accessible entrance to a public sidewalk compliant with Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction Chapter 1 1, Section ll-4.3.2. 2. Provide loading zones in accordance with Clearwater Community Development Code Section 3-1406. Fer Code, four loading spaces are required. This may be reduced if the loading spaces are strategically located. The above to be addressed prior to CDB. General Note(s): 1) Comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule. 2) DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Planning: Development Review Agenda -Thursday, May 4, 2006 -Page 27 1 . Based on the discussion at BPRC with Bausch & Lomb, it appears t~their desire to cut off cross access and pedestrian access between their "parcel" and this "parcel." This should be further discussed with Bausch & Lomb. If this is the case, then the existing pavement necessary only for the cross access can be removed and landscaped. Alternately, if cross access (even if only for emergency purposes where devices restrict access generally) and cross pedestrian access is desired to be retained, this will not invoke any special requirements (such as required side setbacks). 2 . Unless minimum. standards are met, the 1RT District discourages the use of industrially zoned property for uses other than industrial uses by restricting criteria for Flexible Standard Development and Flexible Development office uses: "The proposed use of the parcel. shall be related to the uses perntted in the district and shall. include, but not be limited to, office uses related to scientific or industrial research, product development and testing, engineering development and marketing development, corporate offices provided, however, that they do not provide services or uses to the general public on the premises, and such other office uses, including support services, as well as uses which are accessory to and compatible with the permitted uses. Support services for the purposes of this zoning district shall be defined as companies that supply services utilized wholly by other companies located in this zoning district." The creation of this proposed. southern property line for the subject "parcel," along with the proposed parking area are based on aself-created circumstance. The common lot line could be created anywhere so long as Code requirements are met on the Bausch & Lornb "parcel" (with or without relocation of the hazardous waste storage area and dumpster area) and the proposed parking and buildings on the subject "parcel" could be designed many ways to meet the Code requirements. Buildings can be relocated on-site or totally redesigned in the number of buildings, the shape of the buildings and the number of floors in order to attain the desired overall square footage (many available options). Staff recommends: 1. Withdrawal of the request and redesign to meet minimum standards, including setback to the existing driveway on the west_ A request for a Division of a. Previously Platted Lot (DPPL) must be submitted to the Planning Department with a letter of request, a copy of the deed. for the overall property, $150.00 and three signed and sealed surveys for each lot (the subject lot and Bausch and Lomb lot). Improvements on the Bausch and Lomb lot must meet Code setback requirements at the time of this DPPL. 2. Should the applicant decide to proceed to the CDB, the request must include a deviation to the office criteria, with full justification. Staff wiIl not support the requested reducrion to setbacks and the deviation to the office criteria. Should the CDB desire to approve the requested setback reductions, Staff will support a condition of approval to restrict office uses in accordance with the criteria above. NOTE: At the DRC meeting on Sl4/06, the applicant indicated that the project. will be revised to meet minimum Code requirements and would withdraw this application. Development Review Agenda -Thursday, May 4, 2006 -Page 28 3 . This site is presently part of a much larger parcel. The proposal is to subdivide the existing parcel into two parcels (southern lot for the existing Bausch & Lomb and the northern lot for the proposed offices). The property line being created for these two lots (even though Sheet 2/4 indicates such line as "existing boundary") creates a setback issue for the southern lot, as the "hazardous waste storage area" and dumpster area on the east side do not meet the required 15-foot side setback (as even indicated on Sheet 3/4). Bausch & Lomb has attended BPRC to discuss what they want to do for their parcel. This proposal needs to: 1) re-create this proposed lot line so that the "hazardous waste storage area" and dumpster area on the east side meet the required 15-foot side setback from the proposed common lot line; 2) Bausch & Lomb must submit a similar Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application to reduce the side setback for these structures, which Staff will not support as it is a self-created hardship; 3) Baush & Lomb relocate, as they stated at their BPRC meeting, the hazardous waste storage area and the dumpster area so that side setbacks can be met for their "parcel" and the proposed common lot line is relocated south of the proposed parking, driveway and dumpster enclosures on the subject "parcel" so that the existing/proposed improvements meet the required side setback requirement; or 3) Baush & Lomb must remove these encroachments, prior to the approval of any Division of a Previously Platted Lot application. 4 . Provide the ISR for the southern parcel for Bausch & Lomb. Additionally, provide the basis for the parking required calculation provided in the April 7th letter. 5 . Provide a dimension from the proposed south property line to the proposed dumpster enclosure south of Building B. 6 . Sheet 2/4 -Revise the Legend, as the southern "property line" is not existing but proposed. 7 . Note: Specific signage design (freestanding and attached) will be addressed at time of pernvtting. 8 . Minimum parking stall length is 18 feet. 9 . Note: Wheel stops are not required for the existing parking spaces on the east side where the fronts of parking stall abut. 10 . Comprehensive Infill criteria #8 response -HOW will the reduction to the south side setback benefit the community character of the surrounding area and the City as a whole, especially in light of the restriction on the type of office uses. 11 . Based on the elevations for all buildings, there are entry "porches" on each building that project from the main part of each building. These entry "parches" are not indicated on the civil plans or the landscape plan. Revise. 12 . Elevations -Since the buildings all have a pitched roof, provide the proposed building height to the midpoint of the roof. 13 . All on-site utilities, including electric, telephone and cable, must be placed underground. Include a note for such on Sheet 3/4. 14 . Loading space(s) are required by Code. Irrespective of your 2/15/06 BPRC meeting, UPS, FEDEX, beverage trucks and other delivery trucks will not use regular parking spaces. The site plan must show the location and dimension of the loading space(s). 15 . Comprehensive Infill criteria #1 response -Unclear HOW the reduction of the south side setback from 15 feet to five feet is "necessary to provide adequate parking and circulation thoughout the site. Lack of ample parking would be impractical." The required parking is 184 spaces and the proposed parking is 248 (?). How does the setback reduction to pavement an the south. side affect the provision of adequate parking? 16 . Provide the proposed grading elevations in the legend on Sheet 4/4. Other: No Comments Notes: To be placed on the 6/20/06 CDB agenda, submit 15 collated copies of the revised plans & application material addressing all above departments' comments by noon, 5/11/Ob. Packets shall be collated, folded and stapled as appropriate. Development Review Agenda -Thursday, May 4, 2006 -Page 29 4 •'~' ~ • Wells, Wayne From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 3:39 PM To: Babcock, Julia Cc: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: Ft.D2006-03017 -Hallmark Development I need to know how this office use meets the criteria for the IRT district. -----Original Message----- From: Babcock,-Julia Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 12:30 PM To: Clayton, Gina Subject: RE: FLD2006-03017 - Hallmark Development I am assisting Wayne with the case or really he is teaching me how to better review through this case. I am quite familiar with this project though because I have been present through two BPRC meeting regarding this site. I would be happy to meet with you. -----Original Message----- From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Tuesday, April l8, 2006 11:16 AM To: Wells, Wayne; Babcock, Julia Subject: FW: FLD2006-03017 - Hallmark Development According to the project log, it looks like you are handling this case. I need to speak to you about this. thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Jayne E. Sears [mailto:JayneSC~jpfirm,com] Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 1:37 PM To: Clayton, Gina Cc: Ed Armstrong; stevehdc@tampabay.rr.com Subject: FLD2006-03017 - Hallmark Development Gina, Hallmark Development Corporation has a pending FLD case set for set for DRC on 5/4/06 {CDB 6/24/06). They previously had a BPRC meeting on this matter concerning the proposed use as 61,200 s.f. of general office use. The property is a portion of Parcel 1 of the Park Place DRY and the development order allows conversion to office use for this site. Attached are excerpts from the development order for your convenience. As we discussed, please review this information in relation to the existing zoning (IRT) and land use designation (IL). Jayne E. Sears Legal Assistant Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP 911 Chestnut Street Clearwater, FL 33756 Phone: (727) 461-1818 Fax: (727) 462-0365 i Pi:~ellas County Property Appr~r Information: 17 29 16 85546 000 00~ Page 2 of 5 1~ I ~9 ,l ~~ / 55~~ I 000 1' 0010 03-Apr-2006 Jim Smith, GFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 19:20:04 Ownership Information Hon-Residential Property Address, Use, and Sales BAUSCH & LOMB SURGICAL OBK: 07831 OPG: 0888 ATTH: SHUMAKER, PHIL 21 H PARK PLACE BLVD CLEARWATER FL 33759-3917 EVAC: Hon-EUAC Comparable sales value as Prop Addr: 21 PARK PLACE BLVD of Jan 1, 2005, based an Census Tract: 2fi$.D$ sales from 2003 - 2004: 0 Sale Date OR Book/Page Price (Glual{Unq} Vac{Imp Plat Information 0 {0 OJ 0 a ~ ) 1992: Book 109 Pgs 810-011 0 f0 0} 0 0 ~ ) 0040: Book Pgs - 0 {0 OJ D 0 4 ) 8800: Baok Pgs - 0 10 Of D 8 ( ) 2005 Value EXEMPTIONS Just{Market: 9,550,000 Homestead: HD Ownership ~ .000 Govt Exem: HO Use ;~: . Daa Assessed{Gap: 9,650.000 Institutional Exem: HO Tax Exempt ~: .404 Historic Exem: D Taxable: 9,650,000 Agricultural: D 2004 Tax Information District: CW Seawall: Frontage: Clearwater View: 05 Millage: 23.2372 Land Size Unit Land Land Land Front x Depth Price Units Meth 05 Taxes: ?24,238.98 1} 740 x i, a62 4.•50 785, 880. 0 S Special Tax . a0 2} 50 x 200 i, D08. 00 . 23 A 3} o x D . ao . oa LJithout the Save-Our-Homes 4} 0 x 0 .00 .Oa cap, 2005 taxes will be 5) q x a .aa .Oa 224,238.98 6} 0 x 0 .DO .4a Without any exemptions, 2005 taxes will be 224,238.98 Short Legal STOR2 OPHTHALMICS, IHC., PARK RLRC E Description LOT i ~uiiding information http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-scr3?plus=l &~0%2E32&o=1 &a=1 &.b=1 &c=1 &s=4&... 4/3/2006 Pinellas County Froperty Appr Information: 17 29 16 85546 000 00~ Page 3 of 5 ParoQertv and Land. Use Code descriptions 1~ I ~9 1 10 I 8540 / 000 / 0010 :01 03-Apr-2D06 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas Gvunty Property Appraiser 19:20:04 Commercial Card 01 of 1 Improvement Type: MFG{Factory Bldgs Property Address: 21 PARK PLACE BLUR Prop Use: 520 Land Use: 41 structural E1sm~~ts Foundation Floor System Exterior Wall Height Factor Party Wall Structural Frame Roof Frame Roof Cover Cabinet & Mill Floor Finish Interior Finish Total Units Spread{Nana Footing Structural Slab Conc Black{Stucco i$ Mane Masonry Pillar&5tee1 Bar ]oist{Rigid Fram Built Up{Metal{Gyps Mane Concrete Finish Ceiling Fin Only Min 0 Heating & Air Mane Fixtures 4D Bath Tile Flaar Only Electric Above Average Shape Favtor Rectangle Quality Above Average Year Built 1,992 Effective Age 9 Other Depreciation Q Function Depreciation 0 Economic Depreciation 0 ~ulla Areas Description Factor Area Description Factor Area 1} Base Area 1. 00 22, 760 7} DO 0 2} Office Area i. 75 38, 739 8} . 00 0 3} Service Prad. Area i. 50 38, 760 ~} . 00 0 ~) Open Parch .40 800 10} .00 0 5) Carport .40 804 11) .00 0 6) .OD 0 12) .00 0 Commercial Extra F'satures Description Dimensions Price Units Value RCD Year 1} FIRE5PRIMK 10D259 1.75 100,259 175,450 159,660 1,992 2) ASPHRLT 397X250 1.75 99,250 173,690 173,690 999 3) FRGT RAMP 960 12.00 950 11,520 11,520 1,995 q} RIR CONO i$680SF 2.00 18,680 37,360 26,530 1,995 5) CANOPY 5X40 S. DD 200 1,000 1, ODD 1,992 6} AIR COMG 976 2.00 976 0 1,890 2,004 TDTAL RECOR^ VALUE: 374,290 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) oooo~~ httpa/pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-scr3?plus=l &r=0%2E32&o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &s=4&... 4/3/2006 Pinellas County Property App~r Information: 17 29 16 85546 000 0~ Page 4 of 5 5 .~ a ar 1/8 Mile Aerial Photograph (2002} http://pao.co.pincllas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-scr3?plus= l &t-0%2E32&o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &s=4&... 4/3/2006 Pinellas County Property App~er Information: 17 29 16 85546 000 0~ ~ Page 5 of 5 Pinellas County Property Appraiser Parcel Information Back to Search Page An explanation of this screen http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-scr3?plus= l &r=0°/o2E32&a=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &s=4&.... 4/3/2005 `~ a ~ -- ~ l~~ ° ~ ~~ ~- -1313 ~-=--~4 ~ ~_yo~ ~- S~7 b p+~o~~ ~. PARK PLACE {DRI NO. 92) CLEARWA'FER, FLORIDA I3RI ANNUAL STATUS REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 1, 2005 SEPTEMBER 2005 PREPARED FOR: Carmel Commercial Group Continental Plaza 3250 Mary Street; 5th Floor Coconat Grove, FL 33133 and Bausch & Lomb 21 Park Piace Boulevard Clearwater, FL 33759 PREPARED BY: GULF COAST CQNSULTING, INC. Project # 03-006 September 2005 ~ • TABLE OF CQNTENTS L INTRODUCTION ...........................................__.................,..........._... 1 II. ANNUAL STATUS REPORT ............................._............................ I III. EXHIBITS ........ .................................................................................. 5 EXHIBIT A -SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT.ORDER CHANGES EXHIBIT B -REVISED MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT C -SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY EXHIBIT D -OWNERSHIP {- EXHIBIT E - LANDS PURCHASED ADJACENT TO DRI EXHIBIT F -PERMITTING INFORMATION EXHIBIT G -COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT ORDER CONDITIONS I. INTRODUCTION • This annual status report has been prepared pursuant to the requirements contained within the Park Place DRI (DRI No. 92} Amended Development Order {as originally adopted by the City of Clearwater on September 1, 1983; amended and adopted October 20, 1983, and re-adopted December S, 1983) and as further amended by NOPC applications approved by the City of Clearwater via Ordinance # S I42-91 (December 19, 1991), Ordinance # 5722-95 (January i 9, 1995), Ordinance # 6107-96 (November 21, 1996}, and Ordinance 6678-01 (February 1, 2001). This report is being submitted simultaneously to the City of Clearwater (local government) the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC), and the Department of Corntnunity Affairs, Division of Resource Planning & Management, Bureau of State Planning (DCA). II. ANNUAL STATUS REPORT Report period September 1, 2004 to September 1, 2006. Month/Day/Year Month/Day/Year Development: Park Place (DRI No. 92) Location: Clearwater City Pinellas County Developer: Name: Bausch & Lamb Address: 21 Fark Place Boulevard. Clearwater, FL 33759 1. DESCRIBED ANY CHANGES MADE IN THE PROPOSED. PLAN OR DEVELOPMENT, PHASING, OR IN THE REPRESENTATIONS CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL SINCE THE DEVELOPMENT (~F REGIONAL IMPACT RECEIVED APPROVAL. NOTE ANY ACTIONS (SUBSTANTIAL DEVL4TION DETERMINATION) TAKEN BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO ADDRESS THESE CHANGES. Previous NOPC applications have extended the build-out date, modified the land use mixture to include light industrial uses (Bausch & Lomb), multi-family residential uses, and establishedtrade-off mechanisms within the DRI. The NOPC adapted on February 1, 2001, reduced approved retail and office space, added a land use conversion factor for Parcel 6 to allow multi-family ar hotel, and extended the build-out date to December 31, 2003. That NOPC modified Map H (dated September 18, 2000) to include a total of 81,120 s.f. retail commercial, 390 multi-family units, 685,759 s.f. office, 200,000 s.f. industrial park. During the 2003-2004 reporting year, an additional NOPC was filed on September 11, 2003 by _. Bausch & Lomb to extend the build-out date to December 31, 2008.This NOPC modified Map H (revised August 22, 2003) to note the new build-out date- Tlae NOPC was approved by the Clearwater City Commission on January 15, 2004 (ordinance # 7215-03). Please see Exhibit A. 2. HAS THERE BEEN A CHANGE IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT JURISDICTION FOR ANY PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT SINCE THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER WAS ISSUED? IF SO, HAS THE ANNEXING LOCAL GOVERNMENT ~ ~ ADOPTED A NEW DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR THE PROJECT? PROVIDE A COPY OF THE ORDER ADOPTED BY THE ANNEXING LOCAL GOVERNMENT. No. The City of Clearwater is the local government. 3. PROVIDE COPIES OF ANY REVISED MASTER PLANS, INCREMENTAL SITE PLANS, ETC., NOT PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED. A copy of Ordinance # 7215-03, which approved the revised Map H (revised August 22, 2003}, is included. Please see Exhibit B. 4: PROVIDE A SUMMARY COMPARISON O~F DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY PROPOSED AND ACTUALLY CONDUCTED FOR THE REPORTING YEAR, AS WELL AS A CIJNICTLATIVE TOTAL OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED AND ACTUALLY CONDUCTED TO DATE. During the reporting year between September 1, 2004 and September 1, 2005, there was redevelopment activity within Park Place. Please see Exhibit C. . 5. HAVE ANY UNDEVELOPED TRACTS OF LAND IN THE DEVELOPMENT .. (OTHER THAN INDIVIDUAL SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS) BEEN SOLD TO A SEPARATE ENTITY OR DEVELOPER? IF SO, IDENTIFY TRACT, ITS SIZE AND THE BUYER. PROVIDE MAPS WHICH SHOW THE TRACTS INVOLVED. Na property was sold during the reporting year. Exhibit D contains a listing of current property owners. 6. DESCRIBED ANV LANDS PURCHASED OR OPTIONED AD.IACENT TO THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT OR REGIONAL IMPACT SITE, SUBSEQUENT TO ISSUANCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER. IDENTIFY SUCH LAND ITS SIZE AND INTENDED USE ON A SITE PLAN AND MAP. No lands adjacent to the DRI have been purchased or Qptianed by the current owners of property within the Fark Place DRl to the best of our knowledge. 7. LIST ANY SUBSTANTIAL LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL PERMITS WHICH HAVE BEEN OBTAINED, APPLIED FOR, OR DENIED, DURING THIS REPORTING PERIOD. SPECIFY THE AGENCY, TYFE OF PERMIT AND DUTY FOR EACH. During the reporting year certain minor permits were obtained. Exhibit F contains pexmitting information. 8. PROVIDE A LIST SPECIFYING EACH DEVELOPMENT ORDER CONDITION AND EACH DEVELOPER COMMITMENT, AS CONTAINED IN THE ADA, AND STATE HOW Ai~TD WHEN EACH CONDITION OR COMMITMENT HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH DURING THE ANNUAL REPORTING PERIOD. • Please see Exhibit G "Compliance with Development Order Conditions and ADA _. Commitments". 9. PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION THAT IS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED BY THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ANNUAL REPORT. In addition to items required by the Annual Report form, the Park Place Development. Order specifically requires each Annual Report to include the following: "a discussion of all development activities proposed to be conducted ...for the year immediately subsequent to the submission of the Annaal Report" Site Plan approval was granted for an 55,000 s.f. office building on Parcel 6 on April 6, 2001, and re-approved without amendment in 2002. This approval has expired. New construction activity (redevelopxnent) took place during the reporting year at Parcel 9 (Parcel ID # 17/29/16/59392/001/001.0) to include a restaurant /shops in a new building. and: "a statement listing anticipated applications for Development Approvals or Permits...which the Developer proposes to submit during the year immediately following submittal of the Annual Report" The preparer has no knowledge of applications for further approvals to be submitted during the next reporting year. Park Place is substantially built-out with little developable land remaining. The lack of imminent development was the primary reasan for filing the NOPC on September 11, 2003 to extend the build-out date to December 31, 2008. and: "a cumulative report of trade-offs made pursuant to Subsection 4.A.A hereof during the reporting year." No trade-off mechanisms were implemented during the reporting year. 10. PROVIDE A STATEMENT CERTIFYING THAT ALL PERSONS HAVE BEEN SENT COPIES OF THE ANNUAL REPORT IN CONFORMAiVCE WITH SUBSECTIONS 380.06 (15} AND (18), F.S. I hereby certify that a copy of this annual report has been sent to the City of Clearwater, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, and the State Department of Community Affairs. Completed By: -, /f ' _ ''/, ,~ { J~~' Robert Pergbli~~~AICP AICP #9023 Principal Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. III. EXHIBITS EXHIBI'T' A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT E - EXHIBIT F - EXHIBIT +G - -SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT ORDER CHANGES - REVISED MASTER PLAN SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY OWNERSHIP LANDS PURCHASED ADJACENT TO DRI PERMITTING INFORMATION COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT ORDER CONDITIONS • EXHIPIT A SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT ORDER CHANGES The Park Place DRI Development Order was originally approved by the City of Clearwater as Ordinance 3205-83 on September i, i983 for 150,000 s.f retail uses and 1,103,000 of office space and have abuild-out of 1991. To annex the project into the City the ordinance was amended and readopted as Ordinance 3287-83. Ordinance 5142-91 (adapted December 19, 1991} subsequently. amended the Development Order and Master Plan to include 200,000 s_f of industrial uses, a maximum floor-area-ratio for the industrial use, a reduction of office space, a change of the phases and extension of the build-out date. Ordinance 5722-95 (adopted January 19, 1995) further amended the Development Order by changing the development to consolidate to one phase, decrease office space and extend the build-out date to 2000, adding a conversion factor to allow multi-family, and added a conversion factor from office and industrial to multi-family. The Development Order was amended by Ordinance 6107-96 (adopted November 21, 1996) to provide a land use conversion factor for Parcel 4. Ordinance 6678-01 (adopted February 1, 2001} amended the Development Order to extend the build-out date to December 31, 2003, establish a . land use trade-off mechanism to allow hotel or multi-family on Parcel 6, in exchange for office space. On September 10, 2003, an NOPC application was filed and approved by the City of Clearwater to extend the build-out date to December 31, 2008. Ordinance # 7215-03 was approved January 15, 2004. Existing development includes: 81,120 square feet retaiUcommercial 304,539 square feet office 100,000 square feet.industrial 390 multi-family residential units 03-29-04 11:14am From-JOHNSON, POPE. . 7274418617 ~ T-039 P.02/D8 F-57D ORDINANCE NO.72'15-03 AN ORDINANCE CAF THE CITY OF CLEARVVATER, FLORIDA, AMENDI[~IG ORDINANCE NO. 3205-83, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 3287-83, ORDINANCE NO. 5142-91, ORDINANCE NO. 5722-95, ORDINANCE NO. 6107-96 AND ORDINANCE NO. 6678-01, A DEVELOPMENT ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 380, FLORIDA STATUTES, FOR PARK PLACE, A~ DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT; PROVIDING FINDINGS OF FACT; PROVIDING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; EXTEND![~i'G THE BUILDOUT DATE; DETERMINING THAT SAID AMENDMENT fS CONSISTENT. W[TH THE ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR PROPER NOTICE C-F PROPOSED ENACTMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on September 1, 1983, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 3205-83 (the "Development .Order") which ordinance constitutes a development order for Park 1?lace, a' development of rzgional impact, affecting the property described on - Exhibit."A" attached hereto and incorporated herein'(the "Development"}; and WHEREAS, on October 20, 1983, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 3287-83, an amendment to the Development Order and readopted Ordinance No. 3287-83 on December 8, 1983; and WHEREAS, on December 1t+, 1991, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 5142-91, an Amendment to the Development Order; and WHEREAS, on January 19. 1995, the City Commisssinn adopted Ordinance No. 5722-95, an Amendment to the Development Order, and WHEREAS, on November 21, 1996, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No, 6107-96, an Amendment to the Development-Order; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2001, the City C~~mmission adopted Ordinance No. 6678-01, an Amendment to the Devt~lopment OrdeF; and WFIER)=.AS, on SeptPmhPr 1{7, ~no~, Bausch and Lomb Incorporated and Park Place Land, Ltd., a Florida limited p~lrtnership, the owners of certain undeveloped areas of the Development, filed an application entitled "Notification of a Proposed Change to a Previously Approved Development of Regional Impact ("DRf"} pursuant to Subsection 380.Ofi(19), Florida Statutes" (the "~IOPC"} with the City of Clearwater (the "City"), with copies provided :o the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council {the "TBRPC") and the Florida Departrr.ent or Community Affairs (the "DCA"); and I heerby certify that this 3s a true And .,...a• e.+nr of the oh~tinL3 is it npt~CSr1 {a the filz5 bf the city of Clt~nrr wi=a sR my haa.t nod oSricini Scat Vi t,~y of Ordinance Na. 7215-133 ~ ~~ >~tY ~~ ~ Received Time Mar•29. 12~lOPM :.:. :::... ..... ::... z.. .. .... _.... .. ... ......... .......... . 03-Z9-04 11:14am Frcm-JOHNSON,POPE• 7274418617 ~ T-039 P.03/08 F-570 WHEREAS, the NOPC proposes to amend the Development Order to extend the build-out date by five years to E~ecember 31, 2008 (the "Proposed Change"); and WHEREAS, the f'ropose~~ Change, combined with previous amendments to the Development Order, is presumed to create a substantial deviation, pursuant to Subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the NOPC has satisfactorily addressed all regional issues related to the Development and the presumption of a substantial deviation has been rebutted; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, as the governing body of the local government having jurisdiction pursuant to Chapter 3£30, Florida Stalu[es, is authorized and empowered to consider applications for proposed changes to previously approved ~Rls; and WHEREAS, the public notice requirements of Chapter 380. Florida Statutes, and the City have been sa#isfied; and WHEREAS, .the City Commission has reviewed the NOPC, as wet! as all related __ testimony and evidence submitted by each party and members of the general public. } BE IT ORDAINED. BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: S,~ctj-on 1 _ In#roduction -This Ordinance shall nnnstitutQ an amendment to the Park Place Development Order as previously amended. ~ . Section 2.___Findings -The City Commission, having received. ap related comments, testimony and evidence .submitted by each party and ~ members of the general public, finds that there fs substantia! competent evidence to support the following #indings of'fact: A. The Park Place Development Order, as adopted by Ordinance No_ 3205- 83, and .amended by Ordinances No. 3287 83, No. 5142-01, No. 5722-95, 6107-96 and 6fi7$-01, is a valid final development order within the provisions of Section 163.3167(8)L Florida Statutes, affecting the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein_ B. Bausch.:and Lomb Incorporated and Park Place Land, Ltd., a Ftorida.lirnited partnership, the owners of undeveloped portions of the DRt, have proposed that the Development Order be arr,ended to extend the build-out date by fcve years to December 31, 2008. z Ordinance No. !11 b-U3 Received lime Mar~29. 12:IOPM p3-29-pd~ 11:14am From-,lOHiYSOPI,POPE.~ 7274418617 ~ T-p39 P.p4/08 F-570 C. A comprehensive review of the Impacts generated by the Proposed Change, together with all previous amendments, has been conducted by the City's departments, the TBRPC and the pCA. D_ The Proposed Char~c~e is not located in an area of critical state concern designated as such pursuant to See#ion 380.05, Florida Statutes (1993). E. The. Proposed Change, together with all previous amendments, does not increase the external traffic impact of the develorrnent, nQr does it crate additional impacts on other public facilities, including wa#er, wastewater, drainage, solid waste, recreation and mass transit, from the original projections set forth in the Application for Development Approval ("ADA"). F. The Proposed Change. hereby. approved (s determined not to be a substantial deviation to the Development Order.. Section 3. Conclusions gf- I..aw -The City Commission; having made the above findir7gs of fact, reaches the fallowing conclusinn~ of law: A. ,The Development as built to date is consistent with the local comprehensive plan and local land development regulations under which it was developed. 1 B. The Development as modifed herein, and as depicted on the Revised Map H, Master Plan, attached hereto as .Exhibit "B," will not unreasonably interfere with the achievement of the objectives of the adopted state land development parr applic-abla to the area_ C_ The Proposed Change is consistent with the local land develoQment regulations currently in effect. 1.3. ! he F'ropased Change, together with all previous amendments, does not create a reasonal,le likelihood of additional impact or any type of regional impact not previously reviewed by the TBRPC and DCA, over those treated under the Development Order. The Proposed Change, therefore, does not constitute a "substantial deviation" from the Development Order, pursuant to Chapter 38fl.06, F=lorida Statutes. The Proposed Change is exempt from the provisions of Ordinance No. 4933-90, City of Clearwater and the Park Place DRl remains vested thereunder. E. No#fiing herein shall limit or modify the rights originally approved by the Development Order or the protection afforded under Section 183.3157(8), Florida Statutes, ext;ept to the extent that specific rights and protections are limited or modified try the Proposed Change to the Development Order as . approued by this ordinance. 3 ordinance No. 72'! X03 Received Time Mar.29• I2~19PM "03-29-04 1i:14am From-,EDNNSON,PDPI:.~ 7174418617 ~ T-039 P.05/O8 F-570 F_ The Proposed Change is within th;~ threshold guidelines of Ordinance No. 4983-90 of the City, relating to determinations of vested development rights, and the Park Place DRl remains vested thereunder. G. These proceedings have been duly conducted pursuant to applicable law and regulations, and based upon the record in these proceedings, the -- var-loos- departments-of the City; -Bausch--and -Lomb dncorpoi•a#ed;--Parts Place Land, Ltd., and ether owners of the Development are authorized to approvelconduct development as dryscribed herein. H. The review by the City, the TBRPC, and other participating agencies and interested citizens reveals fhat~imp~3cts are adequately addressed pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 38Q, Florida Statutes. Section 4_ Order -Having made the above fndings of fact and drawn the above conclusions of law, it is ordered that the Development Order be amended as follows: R. The Conceptual Pian described in Sections 4.A_ and 4:,1, of the Development Order is amended to tae as shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and inoorporated herein. Ali references to the Cc~rrc:eptuaf Plan set forth in the Deve}opment Order shalt refer to the Amended Conceptual Pian __ attached hereto as F-xhibit "B." B. The build-out date is hereby extended to December 31, 2008. C. The amendments stated herein, together with all previous amendments, do not constitute a substantial deviation, pursuant to Chapter 380.06, Florida Statutes_ U, Nothing herein shall limit or modify the rights originally approved by the Development C?rder or the protection afforded under Section 1fi3.3167(8), Florida Statutes, ext:ept to the extent that specific rights and protections are lirnited or modified by the proposed amendments to the Development Order as approved by this ordinance, E.. The City Clerlt shall send copies of this ordinance; within five (5) days after passage of this .ordinance on second reading to Bausch and Lomb Incorporated, Park Flace Land, Ltd.., DCA and TBRPC. F. This ordinance shall be deemed rendered t~poh transmittal of copies hereof to the TBRPC and the DCA. G. Notice of adoption of this ordinance shall be recorded by the Developer in the pubtia retards of Pinellas Co+anty, FluricJa, as provided in Section 38fl.Q6, Florida Statutes. 4 Ordinance No. 721 X03 Received Time I~ar.29. 12:1~PM 93-29-I34 11:15am From-JONN30td,POP1r.P~ 7274418617 ~ T-039 P.06/(18 F-57U Section 5_ Effieetive Date. This ordinance shall take effect when filed as provided by law, unless this ordinance ins appealed, in which event this ordinance shall not take effect until such appeal has been decided. PASSEd ON t='1RST REAf3tNG !]ecember ~$, 20a3 PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING AND ADOPTED Approved as to form= ~.~ ~ -~_ Leslie K. Dauga(S es Assistant City Attorney . January 15, 2004 E3nar~ . Aungst Mayor-Carnrnissioner Attest: G to E. ~oudeau City lark . ,J C?rdirsanCe Flo. 7215-03 Received Time Mar,29~ 12~lOPM 03-29-Q4 11:15am From-JQHNSON,POPB.E~ - TZ74418617 ~ t-~39 P-07/08 F-570 E~CH1l31T `'A" _ TO ORDINANCE NO. 7215-03 f_EGAL L~ESCR1PTlON, C)F PARK lal CE ommence-at-the-ce:'7ter-af Section T7; Town::tip 29-South, Range 1~ East, Pinellas County, Flflrida and go S 89`°46'01" W, 660.00 fee#, along the South boundary of the Northwest 1l4 of said Section 17 (the East-West centerline of said Section 17;} thence N 00°19'21" W, 50,Q0 feet, to a~ .point on the North right-a~ way tine of Guff-to-Bay Boulevard -State Road fi0 for a POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, following said North right-of--way line, S 89°46'01° W, 58,49 feet; thence N p0°13'Sg° W, =p_pp feet; thence S 29°46'01" W, 1319.21 feet; t}~ence, leaving said North right-of way tine, N 01°04'04° E, x99.99 feet; thence S 89°4fi'Q1p W, 198.43 fee#; thence N 00°62'2'1" E, 554.70 feet; thence S $9°54'49 W, 400.ps feat, to a point on the East right-of--way line of U.S. Highway 19; thence, following said East right-of--way line, N 01°04'04" E, 28.16 feet; thence along a curse to the right that has a radius of '192.00 feet, an arc length of 72.82 feet, a chord. length of 72.39 feet, a chord bearing of N 11 °5fi'04a E, thence N 22°47'58" ~, 11.93 feet; thence aior2g a curve to the left tfzat has a radius of 238.00 feet, an arc length of 16. ~ 3 fcct, a chord 1en!~th of 1 G_'13 fee4, a c;t~c.~rd bearing of N 20°51'2 /" E, to a point an the North boundary of the Southwest 114 of the Northwest 114 of said Section 17; thence, leaving said East ~°igh# of-way line of U_S. Highway 19, N 89°54'49" E, '- 1222.19 feet, along the North boundary of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 114 of said Section 17 to the Southwest comer of the Northeast 1I4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 17; thence N 00°2'?'28" !_, 1337.33 feet, along the West boundary of the Northeast 1f4 of the Northwest 1/~l of Section 17 to the Northwest corner of said Northeast 114 of the Northwest 114; thence S $9°56'11" E, 13'12.06 feet, along. the .North baundary of said Nartheast 114 Uf the Northwest 114 to a point on the Wes# right-of-way line of Ramp#on Road-~- County Road '144; thence S QQ°19°21" E, 2337.71 feet, alnnp said West right-of--way line; thence S 89°46'01" W, 627.00 feet; thence S 00°10'21° E, 280.00 feet, to the PO1N7 OF BEGINNING, cont,~ining 99.133 acres,. more or less. Subject to easements and rights-of--way of record. Information taken from survey by Lloveras, Baur & Stevens, Consulting Engineers-Land Surveyors, Clearwater, Florida, February 23, 1982. 4eceived lime Mar~29~ 12:lOPNi N 0 250 500 EXISTING ACCESS 6~ a O p, D= V7 ~ Z pi=~FICE 82,179 SF ... PARCEL 6 (az,no ss EwsnNS) PARCEL 3 MULTI-FAMILl 234 p.U. (3]i MULn-FAMILY D.U. E70a1) . OFFICE 1o),soo sF PARCEL 4 (191,000 of E%Ia11NC) COMMERICAL (RETAIL) 55,278 SF PARCEL 7 (6@.178 SF F70ST DN pAR9Ei9 7 AND B) PARCEL 10 I'L-JII (11,]0] SF E1aSTN9) GULF-TO°B PARCEL 1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 200,000 SF (i99.DDD sr cmanNa) `EXI5TING ACCESS NATURAL AREA O aCg PARCEL 2 dSv 0 MULTI-FAMILY 156 D.U. (188 MULTI-FANILY D.U. EM1aT}~ Q f Qj ~ / ~J QP PARCEL 5 ~/ PARCEL 6 (140,540 SF CFRCE E10anN0) (10a,a0a SF 9FF(CE PLANNED] ~J ElE 220, 560 SF COMMERCIAL PARCEL 1 t (14,4]a of Ewanrl9} LAND USE EXISTING PLANNED TOTAL RETAIL/ COMMERICAL 81,120 SF', I 0 81,120 SF OFFICE i~ 304,639 SF II 100,000 S 404,639 SF LT. INQUSTRIAL 100,000 SF 100,000 SF 200,000 SF MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 390 DU ~~ 0 DU 390 DU TOTAL 485,759 SF 200,000 SF 685,759 SF 390 DU ;; 0 DU 390 DU 0 0 a a = yQTgg: a 1. THE PROPOSED AMOUNT OF SgUARE FOOTAGE FOR INDIVIDUAL UNpEVELOPED PARCELS ARE @ASEO ON @EST AVAILABLE MARKET INFORMATION AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. FUTURE THE AMOUNT OF TOTAL pEVELOPMENT, HOWEVER 1S1LL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVED BY THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER. ACCESS 2. THAT PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT REMAINS TO BE pEVELOPEO IS REFERRED TO AS T}1E "PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE BUILD-OUT PATE FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND FOR THE TOTAL PROJECT~,IS DECEMBER 31, 2008. 3. CpNVERSiON RATES OF 1,000 SgUARE FEET OF LIOHT INDUSTRIAL pEVELOPMEN7 TO 633 SgUARE FEET OF OFFICE DEVELOPMENT ARE HEREBY ESTABLISHED ON PARCEL 1 AS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE 1(15722-95 4. ANY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL flE LIMITED TO PARCELS 2, 3, 6 AND B. 5. PARCEL b IS PLANNED FOR 100,OD0 SF OF OFFICE DEVELOPMENT. CONVERSION RATES OF ~; 1,000 SF OF OFFICE DEVELOPMENT TO 2.40 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS W1TH A MA%IMUM OF 240 UNITS, 4R ti,000 SF OF OFFICE DEVELOPMEN Ti TO 2.44 HOTEL ROOMS WITH A MAj(IMUM OF 744 UNITS ARE HEREBY ESTABLISHED FOR PARCEL 6 AS APPRDVEO BY ORDINANCE bfi78-D1. AY BOULEVARD ~~ COMMERCIAL 25 842 SF ~' (RETAIL) (4a.a41 SF EYISTING) PARK PLACE DRI - MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MI~'' P H GLllf Coast ConsU~tants, ti1C. DATE: 1 FIGURE; Land Development Consulting REVISED: I1 AUGUST 22, 2003 DRAWN BY: RAW I ___ ~ ~ E~IISIT C SITIVIMARY OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY During the reporting year from September 1, 2404 to September 1, 2405, new construction was initiated on Parcel 9. It included demolition of the former Key West Grill and construction. of a new building cantaining a restaurant and shops. • • EXHIBIT D OWNERSHIP DR3 PARCEL PARCEL TD # PROPERTY OWNER MAXIMUM APPROVED DEVELOPMENT 1 17/29/16/$5546/000/0010 Bausch & Lomb 200,000 s.f 21 Park Place Blvd. Light Industrial. Clearwater, FL 33759 2 17/29/16/$5546/000/0020 California State Teachers 156 Multi-Family Retirement System Dwelling Units c/o Parcdigm Tax Group 3645 Ruffin Road, # 310 ' San Diego, CA 92123 3 17/29/16/85546/000/0030 Same as Parcel # 2 234 Multi-Family Dwelling. Units 4- 17/29/16/00000/230/0130 Park Place Land, Ltd. 101,900 s.f. '' c/o Carmel Commercial Group Office 3250 Mary Street, 5`~ Floor Coconut Grove, FL 33133 5 17/29/16/00000/240/0600 Glenborough Fund VIII 120,560 s.f. 400 South E1 Camino Real Office San Mateo, GA 94402 6 17/29/16/000001240/0400 Park Place Building, Ltd. 1110,000 s. f: c/o Carmel Commercial Group Office 3250 Mary Street, 5~' Floor Coconut Grove, FL 33133 7 17/29/i6/00000/230/1100 Glenborough Fund VIII 49,906 s.f. 400 South El Camino Real Retail - San Mateo, CA 94402 8 17/29/16/00000/230/0100 Highwoods/Florida Holdings $2,179 s.f. 3111 W. MLK Blvd., Suite 300 Office Tampa, FL 33607 9 17/29/16/59392/001/0010 K B Investment Holdings, Ltd. 5,372 s.f: c/o Boulder Ventura Retail /Restaurant 2226 S.R. 580 Clearwater, FL 33763 l0A 17/29/16/66373/000/0010 Clant, Inc. 11.,303 s.f Restaurant on 10B 17/29/16/66373/000/0020 F.O. Box 916464 l0A & lOB. 11C 17/29116/66373/000/0030 Longwood, FL 37291 14,539 s.f: Retail / 11D 17/29/16/66373/000/0040 Restaurant on 11C, 11D, l ll/ 17/29/16/66373/000/0050 & 11E . • • EXHIBIT E The developers have not purchased or optioned to purchase any additional Iands adjacent to the I~RI. EY>~TT F PERMIT INFORMATION SEPTEMBER 1, 2004 -SEPTEMBER i, 2005 ;KNI'T' # DATE ADDRESS TYPE ,P2004-09154 :P2004-09163 ;P2004-12538 ;P2005-06615 ',P2005-06621 ;P2005-06685 ',P2005-06689 'P2005-07364 'P2005-07365 September 9, 2004 September 9, 2004 December 23, 2004 June 17, 2005 June 17, 2005 June 24, 2005 June 24, 2005 July 13, 2005 July 13, 2005 2660 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd. 2660 Gulf to-Bay Blvd. 2660 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd. 2660 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd. 2660 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd. 2660 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd. 2660 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd. 2660 Gulf=to-Bay Blvd. 2660 Gulf to-Bay Blvd. Demo Key West Grill Cap off sewer Construct 10,200 s.f. building Interior buildout, restaurant interior buildout, shops Fare alarm Mechanical hood Plumbing lnsta.ll fire sprinkler 'P2005-04156 April 6, 2005 'P2005-06445 June 13, 2005 P2005-07010 July 1, 2005 P2005-08330 August 10, 2005 P2005-08411 August 12, 2005 P2D05-08588 August 19, 2005 P2005-08637 August 22, 2005 P2004-10596 P2004-12037 P2004-12610 P2005-01020 '2005-07640 ?2005-07761 October 21, 2004 December 1, 2004 December 28, 2004 January 3, 2005 July 22, 2005 ' July 26, 2005 L 0016655 September 27, 200.4 '2004-09115 '2004-10063 '2004-12035 '2005-02227 '2005-02540 '2005-08224 ,0018612 September 8, 2004 October 4, 2004 December 1, 2004 February 8, 2005 February 22, 2005 August 8; 2005 July 1, 2005 `2005-01082 January 5, 2005 '2005-01087 January 5, 2005 2005-02229 February 8, 2005 0017667 February 8, 2005 . 0017668 February 8, 2005 2670 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd Remodel restaurant 2670 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd. Interior Demo 2670 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd. Dumpster enclosure 2670 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd. Roof 2670 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd. Tree removal 2670 Gulf to-Bay Blvd. Install awning 2670 Gulf to-Bay Blvd. Install alarm 21 Park Place Blvd. 21 Park Place Blvd. 21 Park Place Blvd. 21 Park Place Blvd. 21 Park Place Blvd. 21 Park Place Blvd. Interior renovation Install fire alarm Install f re sprinkler Canopy Install fire alarm Install fire alarm 380 Park Place Blvd., #210 Renew Occupational License 311. Park Place Blvd., #640 311 Park Place Blvd., #640 311 Park. Place Blvd., #600 311 Park Place Blvd., #640 311 Park Place Blvd., #600 311 Park Place Blvd., #500 311 Park Place Blvd, #190 Fire alarm Fire alarm Interior remodel Fire sprinkler Fare alarm Security system Renew Occupational License 430 Park Place Blvd., #600 430 Park Place Blvd., #600 430 Park Place Blvd., #600 430 Park Place Blvd., #600 430 Park Place Blvd.,. #600 Interior Demo Interior Remodel Fire sprinkler Renew Occupational License Renew Occupational License •. ~ EXHIBIT G - COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT ORDER CONDITIONS . AND ADA COMMITTMENTS All conditions of approval and Developers com~rnitments, as contained in the Park Place DRI Development Order (amended January 15, 2004} and the ADA are sti11 in effect and being met. A statement of compliance is included: SECTION 4 A Preliminary and Final Site Plans Submitted for each Phase and Consistent with the "Conceptual Plan." All development activity must receive the appropriate city approval consistent with the Master Development Plan (Map H). All developrrient levels comply. AA Prior to issuance of any permit utilizing the conversion factors, DCA and TBRPC will be notified. Developer has complied. Conversion factors have not been t~tilized~ to date. B All development shall be consistent with applicable land development codes. All development has been reviewed by City of Clearwater staff for compliance with codes. BB. 1. Portion of Park Place Blvd. dedicated to City of Clearwater. Developer has complied. All of Park Place Blvd. is City right-of--way. BB 2. Portion of Park Place Blvd. constructed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for Parcels 4 or 6, no later than 12/31./98. Final segment of Park Place Blvd. was constructed, and accepted by City of Clearwater. • r C. lYlaxirnum floor area of i,i45,520 s,l: (795,520 office, 154,000 s.f retail, 200,000 s.f. light industrial) subject to conversion factors. Current floor area does not exceed allowable amounts. Developer has reduced the planned amounts further. CC. Mass transit requirements. Developer has constructed bus shelters on Park Place Blvd_ Developer will. continue to comply D. Acquire land for ingress/egress west of the project Access to the west was previously acquired and still exists. - E. Funding commitments for transportation improvements prior to first Final Site. Plan approval. after i/19/95. All developer transportation funding commitments have been met. EE. Prior to issuance of any permit for Parcel 4, owner of Parcel 4 shall grant City a i0 foot easement for pedestrian ingress/egress_ Developer has complied. FF. Parcel 4 is entitled to curb cuts on Park Place Blvd. for access purposes. Curb cut and left turn lane constructed with Park Place Blvd. construction. G. Funding. cormitments for transpartation improvements. The developer has paid it's proportionate share and mitigated it's impacts. • r H. Requiring certain City cooperation. No action during the reporting year. I. Deleted via Ordinance # 5142-91 J. Responsibility for alI construction. anal improvements aaade an-site and maintenance thereof lndividual owners have continued to maintain respective their properties and any construction projects and are being monitored by City inspectors. K. Designated aquatic lands shall remain undisturbed, exceptiztg as approved for use consistent with the City retenfiaz~ policies. No development activity has occurred affecting the aquatic lands. L. Measures to control water quality and erasion.. Individual property ownez's have continued to maintain water quality and erosion_ Any construction is monitored by City inspectors. . M. Monitoring of on-site water quality in the project drainage systenat. The issued SWFWNID permit contains water quality monitoring provisions where appropriate_ Individual contractors are held responsible for compliance with conditions. ~ ~ - N. Paved surfaces cleaened periodically as part of water quality maintenance, Paved surfaces are cleaned as needed by individual owners. All previously approved development complied with the City drainage requirements. Any future development will comply with Final Site Plan submittal requirements (including drainage glans). P. Final Drainage Plans to meet FGFWFC recommendations. All previously approved development has complied Future development will also comply. Q. Bicycle and pedestrian paths required. Sidewalks have been constructed on Park Place Blvd_ R_ Soil limitations corrected and mitigated, additional soils testing as required. All previously approved development activity complies with the stated requiremen# as a condition of plan approval by the City. S. Construction phased to keep any trees with active osprey nests in place through nesting season. Osprey nest has been successfully relocated. T. Capture-release program established and approved by FGFWFC far certain wildlife species. Developer has complied. Acapture-release project approved by FGFWFC was completed December 6, 1991. U. Any historic. or archeological resources discovered to be reported to appropriate state agency. All previously approved development complied. All future development will corriply. ,t'"..., , , , rid V. Site Plans must include provisions for preservation and transplanting of trey clusters and individual trees where possible. All previously approved development complied. All future development will comply and undergo review by City arborist prior to approval. W. Encouragement of energy conservation measures. All previously approved development complied. All future development will comply as a condition of approval by the City. X. Maintenance of on-site wells. Well on Parcel # 2 required. rerouting to provide fresh water. SWF'1WMD permit was issued and well repaired in prior reporting year. ~'. NOT APPLICABLE (City requirement) Z. Contribution of proportionate share of construction costs for certain traffic improvements. The developer has paid its proportionate share and fully mitigated its transportation impacts.