Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
FLD2005-07067 (2)
ORIGINAL FLD2005-07067 1100 CLEVELAND ST 811 Date Received: 07/01/2005 CLEARWATER CENTER ZONING DISTRICT: D LAND USE: CBD ATLAS PAGE: 287A PLANNER OF RECORD: R T CLWCoverSheet LL Planning Department ~~ Cl t ^ SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION := earwa er 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 _ _ - Telephone: 727-562-4567 - - Fax:727-562-4865 ^ 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 ~to°7 -~~ • CASE #: DATE RECEIVED: RECEIVED BY {staff initials): ATLAS PAGE #: ZONING DISTRICT: LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: SURROUNDING USES OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES: NORTH: SOUTH: WEST: EAST: NOTE: 15 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS) FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Comprehensive Infill Project (Reprised o4-os-os) PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT-~- A. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) APPLICANT NAME: Clearwater Centre LLC MAILING ADDRESS: 1100 Cleveland Street Ste 900 Clearwater FL 33755 PHONE NUMBER: 727-447-2398 FAX NUMBER: 727-442-0492 PROPERTY OWNER(S): GW 8 Susan Bonneville. Sebastian 8 Elizabeth Dorner. Anthony Dorner (Must include ALL owners as listed on the deed -provide original signature(s) on page 6) AGENT NAME: Keith E. Zavac. P.E.. RLA MAILING ADDRESS: 701 Entemrise Road, Ste 404, Safety Harbor, FL 34695 PHONE NUMBER: 727-793-9888 FAX NUMBER: 727-793-9855 CELL NUMBER: E-MAIL ADDRESS: ke~keithzayac.com B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~!! ~~ STREET ADDRESS of subject site: 1100 Cleveland Street 1 ~f_ ~ ~_ ~I ~ ~~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Attached ~1 r~ to v'~~ ~ y `?~f~f1i~ rf ~t J~ (if not fisted here, please note the location of tfiis document in the sutxnittal) 1 ~l '~ ! IJ _..,J PARCEL NUMBER: See Attachment A ,ter r.. '"""`--w....__r-- ~Y~ PARCEL SIZE: ~•~~•• t:'~ii 7.C' f.;i ~ ,. .Ei, .i J~~L~.S (acres, square feet)' PROPOSED USE(S), SIZE(S) AND VALUE OF PROJECT: 71 condominium units and 44.300 sf of office/retail space (number of dwelling units, hotel rooms or square footage of nonresidential use) ~~•-~ --~~. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST(S): See Attachment B Attach sheets and be specific when identifying the request (include alt requested code deviations; e.g. reduction in required number of parking spaces, spec use, etc.) 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 x (if yes, attach a copy of the applicable documents) C. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP: (Code Section 4-202.A.5) O SUBMIT P. COPY OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY, DEED TO THE PROPERTY OR SIGN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING OWNERSHIP (see page 6) D. ^ 1. WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 3-913.A) Provide complete responses to the six (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA -Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail: The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. See Attachment C 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. See Attachment C 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. See Attachment C 5. ' The proposed developmentis consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. See Attachment C ~ 6. ".~ The design of tfie proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. See Attachment C ^ 1. Provide complete responses to the ten (10) COMPREHENSfVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CRITERIA (as applicable) -Explain how each criteria is achieved in detail: The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations~from~the uses intensity'and development standards. i 0~ ~~ ~ ~1 , '~ ~ ~ ~ t l ~ ~ ~ ~! , See Attachment D ~ ~ ~ ~~ Q ~ , L~ ~ ~ ~_.~__. 4alo(,: . s • 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a comprehensive infill redevelopment projector 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 improvements.) See Attachment D 3. The uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater. See Attachment D 4. The uses or mix of use within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are compatible with adjacent land uses. See Attachment D 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 City of Clearwater. See Attachment D 6. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project v~ill upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. See Attachment D 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. See Attachment D 8. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. See Attachment D n ~~.Jt 9. Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity 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 parcel proposed for development. --d See Attachment D 10. The design of all buildings complies with the Tourist District or Downtown District design guidelines in Division 5 of cle 3.(as-applieablej. lase separate sheets as necessary. (n ~~~n ~ ~_ ~~ ,~; j ~~ ~ !1~` ~Ir~J~~~ ~ ~~! II ~i , p 1 ~l If See Attachment D ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~r ~ ~ ~~ f E. STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteri Manual and 4-202.A.21) i A STORMWATER NARRATIVE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH ALL APPLICATIONS. All applications that involve addition or modification of impervious surface, including buildings, must include a stormwater plan that demonstrates compliance with the City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual. A reduction in impervious surface area does not qualify as an exemption to this requirement. if a plan is not required, the narrative shall provide an explanation as to why the site is exempt. ^ At a minimum, the STORMWATER PLAN shall include the following: _ Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines; Proposed grading including finished floor a-evations of all structures; All adjacent streets and municipal storm systems; Proposed stormwater detentionlretention area incuding top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; A narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including all calculations and data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City manual. _ Signature and seal of Florida Registered Professional Engineer on all plans and calculations. ^ COPY OF PERMIT INQUIRY LETTER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT SUBMITTAL (SWFWMD approval is required prior to issuance of City Building Permit), if applicable ^ Acknowledgement of stormwater plan requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): stormwater plan as noted above is included stormwater plan is not required and explanation narrative is attached. At a minimum, a grading plan and finished floor elevations shall be provided. CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A STORMWATER PLAN AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, corrtact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562-4750. F. SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 4-202.A) ^ SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (including legal description of property) -One original and 14 copies; ^ TREE SURVEY (including existing trees on site and within 25' of the adjacent site, by species, size (DBH 4" or greater), and location, including drip lines and iridicating trees to be removed) -please design around the existing trees; ^ LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY; ^ PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (ie. Reduce number of spaces). Prior to the submittal of this application, the methodobgy of such study shall be approved by the Community Development Coordinator and shall be in accordance with accepted traffic engineering principles. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved; ^ GRADING PLAN, as applicable; ^ PRELIMINARY PLAT, as required (Note: Building permits will not be issued until evidence of recording a final plat is provided); ^ COPY OF RECORDED PLAT, as applicable; G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A) ^ SITE PLAN with~the following. information (not to exceed 24" x 36'x: ~ I _.. ,_ _ All dimensions; ~ -~ I ~ ; ~ ~ _ North arrow; _ , ~ ~ i Engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet), and date prepared; D __ ._y ~~- , ~ Location map; ~ nn ~ 2005 - I ' Index sheet referencing individual sheets included in package; J~~ U Footprint and size of all EXISTING buildings and structures; __J j _ Footprint and size of all PROPOSED buildings and structures; - _, _ _ _ ___ _ f j All required setbacks; ! ~j `j~(~JT~, , ~ y ~;~ _ ,~L~j _ All existing and proposed points of access; _ _ C.1: Y Ctii~ {-_ . , _. _~ i ` i All required sight triangles; Ideritification 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 street rights-of-way within and adjacent to the site; '~ ~~ t~ and water lines; • fill parking spaces, driveways, loading areas and vehicular use areas; Depiction 6y shad'mg or crosshatching of aN required parking lot interior landscaped areas; Location of all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment and all required screening {per Section 3-201(D)() and Index#701}; Location of all landscape material; Location of all onsite and offsee storm-water management facilities; _ Location of all outdoor Bghting fixtures; and _ Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks. ^ SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in written/tabular form: _ Land area in square feet and acres; Number of EXISTING dwelling units; Number of PROPOSED dwelling unks; _ Gross floor area devoted to each use; Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular form with the number of required spaces; _ Total paved area, including aA 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 (I.S.R.); and _ Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresiderrtial uses. ^ REDUCED SITE PLAN to scale (8'r4 X 11) and color rendering if possible; ^ FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the follov~ing additional information on site plan: _ One-foot contours or spot elevations on site; _ Offsite elevations if required to evaluate the proposed stormwater management for the parcel; All open space areas; Location of all earth or water retaining walls and earth berms; _ Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned); _ Streets and drives (dimensioned); Building and structural setbacks (dimensioned); _ Structural overhangs; _ Tree Inventory; prepared by a "certified arborist", 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; _ Names of abutting streets; _ Drainage and retention areas including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations; _ Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscape buffers; Sight visibility triangles; _ Delineation and dimensions of all parking areas including landscaping islands and curbing; Proposed and required parking spaces; Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and locations, including driplines (as indicated on required tree survey); Plant schedule with a key (symbol or label) indicating the size, description, specifications and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names; Location, size, and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant schedule; Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants including instructions, soil mixes, backfilfing, mulching and protective measures; _ Interior landscaping areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressing in both square feet and percentage covered; Conditions of a previous development approval (e.g. conditions imposed by the Community Development Board); _ Irrigation notes. ^ REDUCED LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8 'r4 X 11) (color rendering if possible); .. ^ IRRIGATION PLAN (required for level two and three approval); COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, as applicable. Landscape associated with the Compreheruive Landscape Program shall exceed minimum Code requirements to offset the areas where minimum Code will not be met. ~~ ~~ 0 :~ 20U5 ~ ~ ~ C~ F,..l+t~ ~ r . ~ ~ BUILDING 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 Districts) 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 -four sides of building with colors and materials to scale (8'f: X 11) (black and white and color rendering, if possible) as required. J. SIGNAGE: (Division 19. SIGNS /Section 3-1806) ^ AlI EXISTING freestanding and attached signs; Provide photographs and dimensions (area, height, etc.), indicate whether they will be removed or to remain. ^ All PROPOSED freestanding and attached signs; Provide details including 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). ^ Reduced signage proposal (8'/z X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application. K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4-202.A.13 and 4-801.C) ^ Include if required by the Traffic Operations Manager or his/her designee or if the proposed development: • Witl degrade the acceptable level of service for any roadway as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. • Will generate 100 or more new vehicle directional trips per hour and/or 1000 or more new vehicle trips per day. Will affect a nearby roadway segment and/or intersection with five (5) reportable accidents within the prior twelve (12} month period or that is on the City's annual fist of most hazardous intersections. Trip generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip General Manual. The Traffic Impact Study must be prepared in accordance with a "Scoping Meeting" held with the Traffic Operations Manager and the Planning Department's Development Review Manager or their designee (727-562-4750) Refer to Section 4-801 C of the Community Development Code for exceptions to this requirement. ^ Acknowledgement of traffic impact study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following}: x Traffic Impact Study is included. The study must include a summary table of pre- and post-development levels of service for all roadway legs and each fuming movement at all intersections identified in the Scoping Meeting. Traffic Impact Study is not required. CAUTION -1F 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) 562-47 0_~ ~ I? ~ 1--', ~ i t ; ~ 1 - ~ ~~ 1' t ~~~ I ~ t nr-r, n 7(1~1t- L. SIGNATURE: I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize City representatives to visit and photograph the property described in this application. Signature f property; owner or representative ,~, ,, . . STATE OF FLORIDA,'C~UNTY OF,PINELLA3 - S Sworn to and subscribed ~ before me this :~ f' day of ~t A.D. 20 : 5 to me and/or by „ ~ o .~ ..~ u: ~ 1 < who is personalty known has produced '~ ~ O !-. as id~fication_.___ - sr ~ Donna Rose `-~~---- / J _.._.. _. - . ~, Commisaion DD27231t3 Notary public, ~ a Tres December 03, 2007 My commission expires: ~ a ~ 3 ~ p -~ • AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT: (Names of all property owners on deed -please PRINT full names) 1. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property (address or general location): .Guy 8 Susan Bonneville, Sebastian U Elizabeth Dorner, Anthony Dorner ~ [©o GLEtiD ~~ 2. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a: (describe request) See attachment for list of requests 3. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do} appoint: Kew ~a~, P F ~ RI O as (hisltheir) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; 4. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act 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. , ,~~~-~~ rope owner 'OFFICIAL SEAL" CynthiaFaraa %,-, Zvn'.r;~~: ~•'~~,yu, Notary Public, State of Illinois er Cook County ., ~ -~'YU'`l{}iV r My Commission Expires Feb. 21, 2009 ,Pr~(,erty er, /~~.~~ ~ Property owner ~.~~ STATE OF FLOI~It~, ~.~ _~ ~ i:a_~,i.r~ COUNTY OF f'-##f€E~5 Before me the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned by the laws of the State of ~, on this ~ ~~ day of ~~~,~;,_,~ ~{,`('~ personallyappeared.~},~~i;~~~y~. -~ SI±Z~:Yrh; i~G'~~k.z;~ 'i IKU,1'ti _i,i.,,~;t.whohavingbeenfirstdulyswom Deposes and says that he/she fully understands the contents of the affidavit that he/she signed. i L''~ ~~-~~- ti'• I t- ~'/ Notary ~ ublic 1, My Commission Expires: `} y, ,~ ~; ~~ - y i~~ i U -~ S:IP/anning Depa~finentlApplication Formstdevelopment reviewlflexible development comprehensive inbll application 2005.doc n 17 j ~ r' ~ i` ~ r P1 t! JI - -- ---------~' i{~J } ~ i , t l~ '` i 1 ~~~ 0 ~ 2005 w';~I ~ • AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT: (Names of all property owners on deed -please PRINT full names) 1. That (1 amfwe are) the ov+mer(s) and record title holder(s) of the foNowing described property (address or general location): boy 8 Susan Bonneville, Sebastian U Elizabeth Domer, Anthony Domer 2. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a: (describe request) See attachment E for list of requests 3. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint: Keith-E_Za,~r, p G , Ri n as (his/their} agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; 4. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act 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 (Ihnre), the undersigned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and orrect. Prope Gwner Property Owner Property Owner COUNTY OF PINELLAS Property Owner STATE OF FLORIDA, Beefore me the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned b the laws of the St a of Florida, on this ~ ~"~' ~ day of •JL1 u , ~~n~ personally appeared ~._~ ~ ~ n r ti e -~ who having been first duy sworn Deposes and says that he/she fully understands the conten of the affidav' that he/she signed. - --- -. , ~.V`-~ Donna Rose ~~... ._...__.__._.~'.. --._---•~. C~_. ': ~ fNy Commission DD272316 ~-------~ ~ -'-- ~' Notary Public -` My Commission Expires: aM1 Expires December o3, 2007 S:1Planning Dapa>finenttApplication Fomtsldeyalopmant raviawV/exible development comprehensive infill application .doc ~ i ~ ~~~ r, - !~ ~ ~~~' 0 ~ 2005 ,Nt :r~Y: '.1 ~: ~J • ATTACHMENT A PARCEL NUMBERS 15/29/15/03060/001 /0010 15/29/ 15/03 060/002/0090 r• ~ ,~ ~a ~ ~ ~; a 4 i r ~~ i J~ ~F~ o ~ ~oo~ 1 ' ~, r ;tea.. ~, ~~ ~./ • r: ATTACIIMENT B DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTS 1. Increase in building height from 30 ft. to 1.55 ft. plus 21.5 ft "high hat". 2. Reduction to the required sight visibility triangles to building. 3. Mixed use facility including 71 single family residences, 23,000 s.f. of specialty retail space and 21,300 s.f. of office space. The project will provide a total of 263 parking spaces including those in the garage and adjacent surface parking. ~~ ~~ ~~ j ~ ~ , ~ ~ . ~~ ~~ ~~~ 0 ~ ~ `. ~- , ~~ t c_ ~, .~r. • • ATTACHMENT C GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA 1. The proposed development is in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties as we plan to rehabilitate and transform the existing building structure according to the "vision" indicated in the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The planned rooftop high-hat and parapet walls, build-out (fattening) of the lower 10 floors on the east, south and west sides of the building, ornamental banding of the building perimeter at the 45' and 60' height levels, and the addition of the 3-story commercial shell on the south and west sides of the property will provide a visually appealing "stepped" height transformation to the surrounding properties. 2. The proposed development will significantly improve the value of the subject property and all surrounding properties and should encourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings. The transformation of the existing building elevations into a "Mediterranean" style facade will be significantly more pleasing than the existing elevations. The residential component of the development, comprised of 71 new, luxury condominium dwelling units will add to the residential core of the Downtown district and the planned commercial retail and office components are sure to attract the much needed "foot-traffic" within the area helping to revitalize the business and economic climate of the location. 3. The current use of the property is commercial office rental. The majority of the current tenancy is governmental in nature and in support of clientele of various distresses, including financial (i.e. welfare, social services, etc.), family (i.e. DCF, Coordinated Child Care, etc.), and unemployment/social (i.e. Worknet Pinellas) problems. The nature and scale of the tenant services in the existing use bring together a large contingent of distressed clientele on a daily basis that erodes the value of the property and surrounding area, has a significant impact on area traffic, and creates issues of public health and safety. The proposed development will target socially responsible tenants that are financially secure and in general, promote the health and safety of those living and working within the proposed development and those in the surrounding neighborhood. 4. The proposed development will significantly minimize traffic congestion and traffic impacts. A trip impact analysis completed by the Traffic Engineering Dept. indicates a 25% reduction in daily trips and a 62% reduction in p.m. peak hour trips. Additionally, the 2 existing vehicle ingress/egress points along Cleveland Street will be closed and redirected to the main entrance along N.E. Cleveland Street and the lower level parking entrance along Greenwood Avenue. S. The proposed development is consistent and significantly enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the proposed garcel development(s). Streetscaping and the proposed architectural appeal of the proposed development will conform with the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, add 71 new residential dwelling units, and add 44,300sf mixed-use retail and office components to engage and foster business growth and foot- traffic tothe area. 6. The most noticeable changes of the proposed development will be the significantly enhanced ~- character and visual appeal of the architectural style introduced by the architect, Gillett Associates. Gillett Associates' works have positively influenced and affected several ~-~ neighborhood improvements within Clearwater, most notably their beach developments including The Grande, Meridian, Mandalay Beach Club, Belie Harbor, and most recently the proposed ~~ Sandpearl Resort, a redevelopment of the Clearwater Beach Hotel. Also, as noted above,._the -.~ reduction of traffic and motorized vehicle trips will improve both the' acoustic ~ii~d' olfactory ~ impacts on adjacent properties. ~ ~~ ~`~"" °"~ ;~~ 0 ~ 205 ` ~..._ e~iAru. r~~ • • ATTACHMENT D COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CRITERIA 1. The existing use is commercial office rental and current tenancy is less than 50% and falling. The existing building and improvements were- completed in 1.972,. are outdated, and have outlived their useful and economic life. Additionally, the 3 largest tenants, DCF (State of Florida), PC- Social Services (Pinellas County), and Worknet Pinellas, have indicated their intentions to consolidate their operations into government owned properties within the next 12 months due to financial and political pressures. With these added vacancies, the substantial availability of similar large commercial office vacancy within the immediate area, and the costs of replacing the building's aged infrastructure (e.g. elevators, HVAC systems, tenant improvement costs, etc.), maintaining the property at its current use is economically and financially not viable. The proposed development will provide significant renovations to the exterior of the existing building, add a 3-story parking and amenities deck, 44,300sf of new office and retail space street- side, and a complete redesign and renovation of the interior into 71 new residential condominiums and associated amenities, e.g. pool, spa, fitness rooms, billiards room, caterer's kitchen, concierge, etc. The end result will add much needed residential space within the Town Lake Residential District providing a significant and new addition to the property tax base, and a commercial infrastructure to promote pedestrian traffic within the area, and support the residential base. 2. The proposed development will significantly improve the fair mazket value of the existing parcel and abutting properties. The assessed value of the existing improvements within the county tax records is $5.5 M and the proposed value of the site with proposed improvements is upwards of $35 M based on sales revenue projections of the residential dwelling units alone; nearly a 700% improvement in value. The addition of 71 new dwelling units along with the added retail operations is expected to significantly improve "foot-traffic" in the immediate area, spurring new mixed-use initiatives in the surrounding azea. 3. The uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project, i.e. addition of residential dwelling units combined with the mixed use scenario that includes office and street-level retail store-fronts, are not only otherwise permitted, but after several discussions with city planning and economic development personnel, they are preferred. 4. The proposed comprehensive infill redevelopment project falls within the Clearwater downtown "D" redevelopment district and is thus fully compatible with adjacent land uses. The Clearwater Regional Chamber of Commerce, which sits next door to the east, have indicated the proposed use would be a welcome change for the property (reference SPTIlvIES article "Downtown office building may go condo" at http://e~~i~~ev.sptimes.coir-/2005/OZ/23/?~forthpinellas/Do~i~~to~vn_office_build.shtml. Across Cleveland Street (south), Greenwood Avenue (west) and NE Cleveland Street (north), adjacent land uses include several residential and commercial uses fully compatible with the proposed project. S. Several similaz developments or redevelopments are currently planned throughout the City of Clearwater. Unique to this comprehensive infill redevelopment project, not otherwise available within the City of Clearwater, are: a. Existing building and infrastructure that support the proposed development; b. Existing use is financially not viable without the change of use; c. The proposed use is the preferred use for the property; ,~D~ ~~[~[~~IC~~~1 s~ ,. ~~~ o ~ 2oD5 • d. The proposed use provides a significant property value increase and improves the tax income to the community; and e. The proposed development is expected to promote additional new redevelopment projects within the surrounding area, which has otherwise not seen any significant improvements in decades. 6. The proposed development will significantly upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development as previously noted in ow answers for questions 1-5 of this section. 7. The form and function of the proposed project is an embodiment of the goals and objectives of the current Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and will significantly enhance the community character of the immediate vicinity of the proposed project parcel and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The proposed development provides the addition of 71 new residential dwelling units within amixed-use environment, which includes street-side and street-level retail operations, in an integrated and packaged format, with streetscaping, suitable public and tenant parking, and an architectural style taken directly from the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan documents. 8. Lot width, setbacks, and off-street parking requirements of the proposed project will be conforming. The existing building is approximately 155' in height and as-is does not conform to city height requirements. The proposed, architectural. "high-hat" roof design will add an additional 21-1/2 feet to the already non-conforming height, 6-1/2 feet more than the 20% standard allowance, however without this additional height extension, the architectural appeal and transition of heights from roof to upper floors to lower floors to third level deck to street level would not appear uniform or appealing. As the building is practically the tallest building within the downtown vicinity, and visible from all compass points, not allowing the roof to conform architecturally would create a visual imbalance of the project seen from throughout the City. Thus, flexibility in regard to building height is justified by the benefits of the project taken as a whole to community character of the immediate vicinity and the City of Clearwater as a whole. 9. Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity will be provided according to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3. Two Hundred Thirty Nine (263) parking spaces will be provided within the proposed parking garage and adjacent surface parking to serve the 71 multi-family units and 23,000 square feet of specialty retail and 21,300 square feet of office space. Based on 1.5 spaces per each unit, 4 spaces per 1000 square feet of specialty retail and 3 spaces per 100 square feet of office space, this parking adequately meeting City code requirements. 10. The design of alt building(s) shall comply with the Downtown District design guidelines in Division 5 of Article 3 as follows: • Block and Lot characteristics The existing street grid pattern is being maintained without vacation of existing rights of - way. The existing building frontage along Cleveland includes a main entrance approximately midway across the fagade with access to the main lobby and elevators. In addition several other entrances are proposed to individual office and specially retail shopper. The project is a multi-use facility that wall encourage pedestrian movement between the proposed residential units and proposed retail/ofju;e s aces. • Access, circulation and parking ~ D ~ ~ ~ ~~ fi'i7 ~ ~ ~ , ~ f7 f + I ~: ~' ~ ~ ~ _ I ~~~' 0 ~ 20D5 • The demolition plans call for the removal of the existing five driveways currently on the property. The proposed plans consolddate the driveways into two access points located on N.E. Cleveland The two access points along Cleveland Street will be replaced with an unimpeded pedestrian boulevard with tree grates and architectural pavement The exterior parking surrounding the existing building will be relocated to an enclosed parking garage. The garage first floor is surrounded by retail and office space, with the upper floors of the garage integrated into the architecture of the residential and commercial space with faux windows and enhancement features • Pedestrian access/circulation The pedestrian access points to the residential component are relocated from the current side locations to front on Cleveland Street The access is delineated with architectural pavement and tree grates. Access to the commercial components is spaced within the individual spaces. The existing driveways along the building frontage are eliminated and replaced with a continuous pedestrian boulevard • Building Orientation The building additions are located on the sides of the existing building, replacing the current surface parking. The existing building is being converted to residential units, and a new main access added along Cleveland Street The front of the existing and proposed building fs significantly enhanced with large windows, balconies and arches, replacing the current windowless facade. • Additional requirements for Downtown Core along Cleveland In order to provide a step back relief to the existing building, which is significantly taller than the surrounding buildings, a ground level entrance and commercial addition has been added to the front of the building adjacent to the pedestrian walkway. The addition will provide the stepped relief from the frontage of proposed addition to the face of the existing building. • Architecture Perhaps the most significant improvement fot this project lies within the architectural facade improvements. The existing building is void of windows and any other architectural enhancements. The proposed rehabilitation includes the addition of several large windows, sliding glass doors, balconies and Mediterranean style architectural elements. The flat roof will be augmented with ~ an extended "high top" to give the illusion of a domed peak and hide the existing mechanical equipment ~~) f~~' ~U P~+t~+f.,, 1~...7 1 +Jh i I ,, ,~~~ i `~ -- - , ~~~ ~- : ~ ~r ~ r . , oa c~~~ a~ s~-. ~C _ _..___._-___..__._ ~± .. ~~+. .. _ _. . . . _ .. ~.~aG~~sfl~~//J/ _. _ . _.G7/vim _. ~~~. c~~~ .~`' _ _ f'~a ~,° `~.~"~{__. ~ ! E / ~.........._.......... . . ~ .V/ 7 _ .. ~.~ .. ~ ~.~..... _._.. _ _......_ . __ .... ._ _ - - -approved- __ ~_ ._.. A___._...___ ~._.... ___...._..... !~ _ . .... ..._ ~L/_~~ ~.~~~ ~._._.. _ ._ .. __ ___ __ .. _.._....._ .. _ _....._._ C,ty Of Clearwater ~ ~r: _ _~_._ .. __ ..,~__~.._ ._..~. m y• B . ~, .yam ~ ~~ ~ . r~ ; ~l, o/ ~~ ~y f~. Date z _ ~_....._ ~._.__ . __.. _.~. __~ ___ _ .__.._..~., .,~__.__/ _ ~ ~.._.~.,_._.. ~_ ~ . . 7~_. un~-fs C~Onc~o vv~lvtn~t,~,i-'l"E ~ ~ z-- I~` k /~sQ. _ _... _ . . ~ t _ , . __ . _ _._._ _ _ - - . _ --.- ~ __.__ _. _ ~a) gam. Sy ~ f,-. ~~a.,Q ~~ [ ~-rE ~ ~ ~_ .~ ,,~,.~ ,. . _ _ i .. _ __ ,~' ~~ _ }' _. (~ tiv~4M{vtcuW`• ~V i~~ ~'' t ~ C~N~-"`' ~.g UK~ fi f ~. J i __~6. X ~~(g u = 3 ~ v ..___ ...._ . _ t .. __ .~ ~'' ~o,~o x C 44 ~ ~~ ~~aoc~ = 9~~ vpc~ i. ~; _ _ _. ,_. _. _ __ _. Sf~ r ~Z /. ~~~ ~~;~1 ; n .~, . ~~ k ~ ~-~ ~~ , .~ ~~ T~~f~ Ik!?t'~crs~vay AJ~Cix.~ Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineering, Landscape Architecture, Planning • 701 Enterprise Road E., Ste 404 Safety Harbor, FL 34695 (727) 793-9888 Phone (727) 793-9855 Fax keith@keithzayac.com TO: Robert Tefft DATE: October 10, 2005 City of Clearwater Planning Dept. JOS #: 407-OS 1.00 S. Myrtle Ave. RE: Clearwater Centre Clearwater, FL WE ARE SENDING YOU THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: [z ]Attached [ ]Under Separate Cover via [ J Shop Drawings [ ]Prints [ ]Plans [ ]Samples [ ]Copy of Letter [ ]Change Order [ ]Specifications [ ]See Below COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION 1 Public Amenities A plication THESE ARE TRANSMITTED As Checked Below: [ ]For approval [ ]Reviewed, no comments [ ]Resubmit copies for approval [ ]For your use [ ]Reviewed, comments as noted [ ]Submit copies for distribution [ x ] As requested [ ]Returned for corrections [ ]Return corrected prints [ ]For review and comment REMARKS: ~ CC: SIGNED: G . ~ ~ '~0 ;~`~ ,,~° NAME: Keith E. Za ac, P.E., RLA ~.. ~; •~. ~ TITLE: President , ,~ ~F '. ~~,~ `ty'„ keith@keithza ac com y . ~~ Planning De Clearwater 100 South My > Clearwater, Florida _ Telephone: 727-56. Fax: 727-562-4865 ^ SUBMIT ORIGINAL ^ SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APP 1) collated, 2) stapled and 3) folded sets OCT 1 0 200 N including_l_C ~_ - '~ NOTE: a total of 15 sets of this application and all supporting documentation is required to be submitted in conjunction with a complete Level Two Flexible Development Application. -SE #~ ,TE RELZiVED: CEIVED BY (staff initials): LAS PAGE #: ~NING DISTRICT: ND USE CLASSIFICATION: ~RROUNDING USES OF ADJACENT NORTH: SOUTH: WEST: _ EAST: PUBLIC AMENITIES INCENTIVE POOL USE APPLICATION (Revised 02/14/05) PLEASE TYPE OR PR1NT~ A. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OW'N~ER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) APPLICANT NAME: ~~I PQ r ~tJG 1-C- ~ ~e in ~ V'Q- LL c MAILING ADDRESS: ~ ~ OC7 ~ l'e V -e. \ C;~ v~ ~ ~'lf~ ~- / ©U ~pG r ~Pc~'P ~ ,. ~C 3,37~Sr PHONE NUMBER: ~~~ ( ~ ~ ~ a 3 7 (~ FAX NUMBER: ~~ 7 ~ `T a ©l CELL NUMBER: ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~l ~ ~ ~ ~ EMAIL: ~ ~ ~d~ ~ e ~ `"~C~S~ ~ ~ e~ PROPERTY OWNER(S): ~~~ ~ ~ ~~tsg~~ ~1 ~Uwl~1C'yl ~~ S'e~~~la>n t ~l1 4~T 1~(kner ( st include ALL owners as listed on the deed -provide original signature(s) on page 6) AGENT NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: CELL NUMBER: FAX NUMBER: E-MAIL ADDRESS: f B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMArT,,ION: (Code Section 4-202.A) STREET ADDRESS of subject site: l ®~ C Inc y G'~ ~j A 3 3 0. eve ~ /~ I , (. O -f-S I-- / ~/ f H C q ~ p / 7 C.I -1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: l~ d S S'Gi P.~.t 'N Pry B ~ ~C B i ~.~'34'.~ ~" ~ ~. ~t vt ~ I ~/ - ~ S (if not listed here, please note the location of this document in the submittal) PARCEL NUMBER: / s ^ 02 9 - ~ ~ ~' Q 3 O (o f~ '- ~ ~ '- ©O f (' PARCEL SIZE: a ~ r QC ~"eS (acres, square feet) HOW MANY DWELLING UNITS ARE PROPOSED TO BE USED FROM THE PUBLIC AMENITIES INCENTIVE POOL? ~ jII HOW MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE IS PROPOSED TO BE USED FROM THE PUBLIC AMENITIES INCENTIVE POOL? 7 // ~~ ~ tS A HEIGHT INCREASE REQUESTED? Y YES NO IF YES, HEIGHT REQUESTED: °~ 7 / Page 1 of 2 PROVIDE A COMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED AMENITY TO BE PROVIDED (attach photographs, drawings, etc, as applicable): :~ ~ ~~7 ~~~(O~ C. SIGNATURE: I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize City representatives to visit and photograph the property described in this application. ~ ~.~ Signat re of property owner or representative STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS •~-~ Sworn to and subscribed before me this ~ day of ' ~ P A~20 CAS to me and/or by M who ~ has produ d t~L Dri vtrr LtCt u<P as iaej~tification. _ ~ Notary public, _ / JO~ My commission expires: ?-// ~ ZI/ .alitta_ ,~* ~~.. v/~h ~I ---~`-~ ~ \ 1! t { S ~ ~ . ' ~n'" IoM . C~ i O ~~ 15 U L~ •,v '~` ~~s•Oli •.~•~~ ~r'd y•7 . QCT ~o ~ ~'~.~~ ?a ~ n •-~,. ~ ~ .mod`; i'< ~_~_~= ~--- -- r~ FLORIDA ~~ S:\Planning Department\Application Forms\development review\Public Amenities Incenfi~ Odbl~Jl~Application.doc Page 2 of 2 • CLEARWATER CENTRE DESCRIPTIONS OF PROPOSED AMENITY TO BE PROVIDED 1. Avery stark, lifeless, and out of date facade is being renovated and enhanced to add character and life to the facade and street life. 2O. New retail with articulated faced and courtyard insets on three street frontages are proposed. 3. The balconies, glass elements and roof cap will change the visual dimension of the structure to make it more slender and have transparency and light. Streetscape, including landscaping, lighting, pavers and fountains, is being added ~~ consistent with City design guidelines. ' S. Discreet, well designed signage, lighting and fountains are being added along Cleveland. 6. The existing building is being re-designed to be more pedestrian friendly, accessible and clear as to way fmding. 7. A self contained parking program with clear entries, residential and commercial parking are being provided within a concealed three story parking garage. 8. Adding residents and retail/office downtown enhances life and character ~ downtown. (~ Project adds 71 downtown residential units. ~0. Reduction of traffic impacts and closure of two existing ingress/egress curb-cuts along Cleveland Street and one existing curb-cut along Greenwood Avenue. FLD2005-07067 1100 CLEVELAND ST 811 Date Received: 07/01/2005 CLEARWATER CENTER ZONING DISTRICT: D LAND USE: CBD ATLAS PAGE: 287A PLANNER OF RECORD: R T CLWCoverSheet ~y~10/11i/2005 16:28 727723927 - ~ sslwn~l ash °~ - " ~ k:. ate ,~- -~'° Avonuo Ciealrwetetlonda 33758 . Taa>: r2r.~-assn u Fsx: 7xi-6dZ-496S O 3UAaltt OPgOJNAt, ai dN onwa No7RKl~ APP41GATyON ^ SU81VI{; GWI#bd I2 ofd sfld 33 fGldYd iii ~ ~1Y phpi ~~ zavac u PAGE 02 CASE *: --~ DATE a~G~1VGD: ,-,r„-,~~ - RtE~(~INEQ BY (staff :hi{~Als?: ~,...~.-- ZONING DiB'fF4iG7- LANG t1SE CLA881FIGATIaN: ,,,_~~_ 6LJ12R()UNOlMG U$E$ bP ,A[7,1AGf;NT PROPERTIES: NCRTN: ~..-.... , S~UTM: EAST: ~ - ~ - --.. ~ ..,.-, ~^ ... _-~..,,,- + NOTE: a tolsl of 16 !sale of Mt'i6 appllt~~on al!tid ail earpparlM+g dowmenlatla~ ~i roquifad to bs subfidtad in aonlunctron vriff a acmPalos LavM Twa>' F1a~r41! DsvelbOm4M Appilcr>pOn. PUBI,XC AMENI'T'IES INCFNTTV'E ~Q~L USE AppI,ICA'T`IOt~ tx~~~>d oz~~aios> -:~t,E.A.s~ TYr~. ax P~x'r" A. APPLICANT, PROPlR'T1f OWNER AND A~3 INFORMATION: (Code Sectiaa A-~Z.A) APis1.IGlIN7 NAME PFiONENUM@6R: ~ ~ PAX NUMBER: ~~x`"~.~~~~ ----~--- {'TELL NUIME3~it~ [v ~,:7~~ J. ~~~..J... ENtA1L: ~YYL YIYI~ ~~~ - /~ Mtos•+e~-rY OwN~r~ss: ~ su,.At.2 ~~Yit.r-~ r ~~.a~t'~n~U~ ~Lt~.~~4d?T~i2~-S~ (Must Inalud~ AI,L owne~w ~~ filed en Nte deed - prwvide crlglnal alpf~lurbisl ~ w9e !S) fNiOfVF NUMSI~Mt: ~.._... ............. ---- FAX NUMBt:~: GALL NUfr4$~: y_... E-MAIL ACORESS: B. PROP4>3ED Df<VBLQPMENT INFORMA~'ION: (Ctxlo ~ctlon 4.2OZ~ sTf~~T aaa~ss aF ~uul~x ~n«: j 100 C~1.~~t~~ ~ .~... . 61i:t3AL oESCR~rio-~: ,;?'~~c ~ .. (q~ptGsbd rgteLYtelOKptlOP1~l~10do;u^ent:nSheeubTlCel) ~At~csL NuM$Flt: i~- ~~~ ~13 ~~,~ ^~a.l.-oalb --- -----._..._. PARCEI. SIDE: ~~~ >~~-! ...... I ^---.... ._.. (ewe. s4w-0 f~I} . M(OW MnNY C1W£L~INQ l}N17S AqE PROPOSED TO 9E i1SE0 fRQM THE PL3BLIC AM6NRIE3 INCENTIVE pOOI.? f `_____ Ht~M Mll{~1$QItARa£ FOOTRCt~ IS PROPOSEt) TQ ~ U6ED FpQM 7NE PUBLIC AbIENITIES ING€NTIVE POCL~ ~ ~~~ {S rR HEI(;-iT INCREASE REQUE$TCsC7 ~,~YES „_.,~ ~ IF Yt?8, -t£IpHT REQUES?EO: ~~; -_~ Page 1 al t ~ Wdi6~0T c00~ ~L 'zaA 59Bb i~S LZL: 'ON XFJ.~ ~daQ u~td-.tom}L~rt.ar~iatOP':5~: ld~i~ _ _ _. .. LEG/4L pESCR~PTI~N 80UtVDARY SZIRV~"Y OF.' ~ PAR EL ,4: '-' .~ N °Lofs 7 thru 14 inclusive, tot J5, less the eosf 23.0 feet fherecf, all r-n 8~~ock ':4'; BASSEOE.NA SUBDIUISJON as m m recorded in Plat Book &, Page 2&, of oll fhe public records of Pinellas County, Florida. Less the Wesf 10.0 `J' deeded fo the City of ClearWOter for right-of-way purposes. f said Lof 1 feet c , . m Lots +, 2, JfJ and frfaf part of Lols 3 and 4 wh."ch Lr'e West of a Southerly extension of tr?e 'rYesterly Ilne of the Easterly 23.G feef of Lot J5, Block 'a'; ~of B.ASSELiENA SUBL7i~llSr`ON os recorded in Plat BGOk 6, Page 26, Fubl+"c records of Pinellas Cou,~fy, Florrdal. Less the East 23.G feef of card Lot 4 thereof, all in H. A. ~ KlCG0.+4E'S St}BDI~IISION as recorded +n °+ot Bcok 3, Pope 58, public records of Pinellcs Count/ Florida. ~ N Vacated portion o.f N~" Cleveland Street ~66.~7 feet ver'dth~ described as follows. Thal portion ly~hg betsueen ( ~ Blocks "A" and "B" o.f BASSECEfJA SUBDIVISION as recorded in Plof 8aak 6, Page 26, public records of L ~ ~' P~~elias County Florida, being more particularly described as follows: Frain the ,mrasf Eosterfy corner of Lot 2~ ~ of said BfGC.k "B'; BaSSEIJENA SUBrJI~~S'Gltr; soil corner .being on the .Northwesterly righ,f-of-Tray line of NE Cleveland Street, ri~n thence continue aiarg said right-of-~vcy irne, South 51° CJG 30" West, 41.88 feet to the °;;,rf of f!~e ;3eg~~^nir?c~; ~~?pn^o r;~n Soul!: 84' !0'C?~" Fcs~. 9~.8~ feef fo o poL~~f or th.e ~vvtheaSfer/v " ' West, along said Soufheasierly JG right-of-WCy line of said .NE Cleve..+or~d Street; thence run Saut.h 58' 2.' " ° D(130 n~ght-cf-way -+Jre: 33.81 f°e t, f?~ence co.~t~r+~e, o?~ng sa~~ Sauf?~ec*ster?~ r,~ght-of-woy lane, South ~l ' rre ..lying 10.0 feet Ecst of. the 310.43 feet fo a paint, said point be+"ng an the Southerly exrensr'an of a ..lr West , Eosf right-Of-vvaj~ `'^e Of GrperwGOd a~e~U1e as s?~cvrn Ca`feCe~?f tc 8lack 'B" of sa+d BASSEnE~r`A Su`8D•+YiS?O.N; ' on of fhe thence r;lrn North GO` 12YJO" Wes', ajp,~?g c h:ne 14.0 feet Eosf of c poralie+ fc the Souther,+y extensr E4s; rr<7"~t-of-WCy l~;~e of Gree.r~s~ood venue as s.~+ocvn c,n sac' 9lc-c.~c ';~'. 84.68 feet to I!^e rVCrfF;h.acfErly " N East, along scrd nghf-of-way lL~e, -of-woy line of NE Cleveta!~d Street; the^ce run Ibrorfh 81° 00'34'x i ~~;f r 7_ .^ + 2LU.CJa feef fo t}.e `.'fi:nf Of Beg+nr;ncl. _ - _ - .- .- . c~ PARCEL B: Lot's 9 fhru 2 inc.+e,~srve and `hot part of Lol .~G, descr+"bed os follows: Begi;, of the n^asf Soufheriy corner of sa.~d Laf 5L7 for fhe ~oirif of Begi-n,.n;~g; thence run Nari<h, clang fhe e4'esf hire of sa.~~ Lof 80, to the { 1Verf.heasf corr~err of said ± of 9, thence Easf a;'ong the Easfen+y exte.?sion of fhe .N'orfh irne of sold Lof 9 to the .h'o.rtherlyr of so+~ tot 24; thence SouthWesferiy, Tong fhe Northerly fire of sold Lof 24, to fhe Point of +.~- ey^innrng, C.+i in !~?GCk "'B B•ASSEQEIV.A SfiBD~ i!~S+L7~~1, {r5 recorded' ;rr r'~lat Book 6, Page 2E public records of Fine?lay County, ~f~or+da, f!=5'S fhe fol+oW+'ng described fr.,;c;- Segir a? fhe JV~Orf.~?WESt Car!>er Of SG~id rOt J1 far ' tdst, 248.03 f'~e Po±nf of 8egr:n.n~ng; f.he,-~ce r:.c~ SOuf,~ 42' 1940' ~_asf 14.1 feef,' f?~ence South R4" 1G 09 Feet fo the r?,osf Easterly comer of said ?ot 28, sa+d Carrier .being or f.~e ~Vcrt'~wesferFy r,jht-of-woy me of +'a^d Sfreef; t'~~ence South 58° 27'.70" Wes f, o,'~ng sa+'d Northwesterly r~g.+rf-cf-woy fhe, 50.0 feet: hrE Cleve " " . ~Yest; 09 ~r?erce co^t~n;~e alrng sa,'d r;ghf-cf-;vcy !rne, South .~i' ~J0'~0" 1?Jest, 41.58 feef,' thence North 84" J0 60 feef; thence Soutt? 47° 48:76" Wesf, 26.76 feet to a point ?C.~~' feet Easf of f'~e East r,~~hf-oF-Nay +52 . j;na Uf Greerwccd Aver:.+e; f?~e,~ce Soafr 0:? +2'00 ECSt, aJGrg a ire .a,f lt".0 feef East of and ,car~lle.' to fhe East line cf Greenwood Avenue, 13&.L~r' feef fo the Nortnrv'eSteriy ,;rgrf--c~f-way l,r're cf ,b'F Clevela.d Street; -o thence Soufh 51' GC'~C„ Wesf, clcng fhe .Northwesterly right-of-way ,.{ !v'E Cleveland Sfreef, x2.83 feet fo the m Eosf r.+gh t -of- wey I+;ne of Greer, wood Avenue, fherrce North 00 ` J2 X70" NYest elo,ng fhe Eosf line of Green wood ?venue, 235.10 feet to fhe Pornf of Beginning ~rcr r+'ght-of-way purposes for real,gnment of NE Cleveland ~ Street a+~d for W~~en;~ng of Greer wood A venue } " ~. ~ ij (~--...~ i nl 1 _ ~{ -~ Pp ~ p i~~ ~ N , ' ~~nn nn O ~ .. ~1 ~ u. ~_.`~~ ~ ~~. V x~C.ii ® (%'; c'- _` z'--~ ~~ -- ` . ~ ~ a _ ~ . ~~~Cl~~~~ter Planning Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue Y', Clearwater, Florida 33756 _ \ . --, Telephone: 727-562-4567 ~ Fax: 727-562-4865 ^ 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 #: ~ / ~) d(.Y .~i ~-C~ ~[ ~l. DATE RECEIVED: RECEIVED BY {staff initials): ATLAS PAGE #: ZONING DISTRICT: LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: SURROUNDING USES OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES: NORTH: SOUTH: WEST: EAST: * NOTE: 15 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS) FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION N L Comprehensive Infiil Project (Revised o4-os-o5) PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT A. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) APPLIGANT NAME: Clearwater Centre LLC MAILING ADDRESS: 1100 Cleveland Street Ste 900 Clearwater FL 33755 PHONE NUMBER: 727-447-2398 FAX NUMBER: 727-442-0492 PROPERTY OWNER(S): _ Gw & Susan Bonneville. Sebastian & Elizabeth Domer. Anthony Domer (Must include ALL owners as listed on the deed -provide original signature(s) on page 6) AGENT NAME: Keith E. Zavac. P.E.. RLA MAILING ADDRESS: 701 Entemrise Road. Ste 404, Safety Harbor. FL 34695 PHONE NUMBER: 727-793-9888 FAX NUMBER: 727-793-9855 CELL NUMBER: E-MAIL ADDRESS: keithCrDke'rtttzavac.com B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) STREET ADDRESS of subject site: 1100 Cleveland Street LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Attached (if not listed here, please note the location of this document in the submittal) PARCEL NUMBER: See Attachment A PARCEL SIZE: (acres, square feet) PROPOSED USE(S), SIZE(S) AND VALUE OF PROJECT: 71 condominium units and 44.300 sf of office/retail space (number of dwelling units, hotel rooms or square footage of nonresidential use) DESGRIPTION OF REQUEST(S): See Attachment B Attach sheets and be specific when identifying the request (include alt requested code deviations; e:g. reduction in required number of parking spaces, specific use, etc.} DOES THiS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT pEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTiFiED) SITE PLAN? YES _ NO x (if yes, attach a copy of the appticable documents) 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) D. ^ WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 3-813.A) Provide complete responses to the six (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA -Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail: The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacen# properties in which i# is located. See Attachment C /~ The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantty impair the value thereof. See Attachment C ~`~! The proposed development wilt not adversety affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. /~ The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. See Attachment C The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. See Attachment C The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. See Attachment C ^ Provide complete responses to the ten (10) COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CRITERIA (as applicable) -Explain how each criteria is achieved in detail: The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use, intensity and developmerrt standards. See Attachment D 2. The development of the parcel proposed #or development as a comprehensive infiN redevelopment project or residential infili 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 improvements.) See Attachment D The uses within the comprehensive infili redevelopment project are otherwise permitted irr the City of Clearwater, See Attachment D The uses or moc of use within the comprehensive infili redevelopment praject are compatible with adjacent land uses. See Attachment D ~ 5. Suitable sites for development or redevelopment of the uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infili redevelopment project are not otherwise available in the City of Clearwater. See Attachment D The development of the parcel proposed for development as a comprehensive infili redevelopment project wilt upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. See Attachment D `~% The design of the proposed comprehensive infitl 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. See Attachment D f~ Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. See Attachment D ~' Adequate off-street parkng in the immediate vicinity accordmg to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of parcel proposed for development. See Attachment D 1 Q. a 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. See Attachment D E. STORMWATER PLAN SUBMfTTAL REQUfREMENTS: (City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual and 4-202.A.21) A STORMWATER NARRATIVE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH ALL APPLICATIONS. A8 applications that involve addition or modification of impervious surface, including buildings, must include a stormwater plan that demonstrates compliance with the City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual. A reduction in impervious surface area does not qualify as an exemption to this requirement. 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 foiiowing: _ Existing topography extend'mg 50 feet beyond all property tines; Proposed grading including finished floor elevations of all structures; _ All adjacent streets and municipal storm systems; _ Proposed stormwater detention/retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; _ A narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including all calculations and data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City manual. Signature and seal of Florida Registered Professional Engineer on all plans and calculations. ^ COPY OF PERMIT INQUIRY LETTER OR 50UTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT SUBMITTAL (SWFWMD approval is required prior to issuance of City Building Permit), 'rf applicable ^ Acknowledgement of stormwater plan requiremerrts (Applicant must initial one of the following): Stormwater plan as noted above is included ~~~ Stormwater plan is not required and explanation narrative is attached. At a minimum, a grading plan and finished floor elevations shall be provided. CAUTION - iF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A STORMWATER PLAN AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562-4750. F. SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 4-2Q2.A) 1 SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (including legal description of property) -One original and 14 copies; ~1 TREE SURVEY (including existing trees on site and within 25' of the adjacent site, by species, size (DBH 4" or greater), and location, including drip lines and indicating trees to be removed} -please design around the existing trees; LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY; PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (ie. Reduce number of spaces). Prior to the submittal of this application, the methodology of such study shall be approved by the Community Development Coordinator and shall be in accordance with accepted traffic engineering principles. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are / approved; d7 GRADING PLAN, as applicable; (~ PRELIMINARY PLAT, as required (Note: Building permits wilt not be issued unfit evidence of recording a final plat is provided); ~' COPY OF RECORDED PLAT, as applicable; G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 42Q2.A) ^ SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36'x: ,,~ All dimensions; / North arrow; i/ Engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 30 feet), and date prepared; Location map; Index sheet referencing individual sheets included in package; ~ Footprint and size of all EXISTING buildings and structures; I Footprint and size of all PROPOSED buildings and structures; _ All required setbacks; ~ All existing and proposed points of access; A11 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 wildl'rfe habitats, etc; Location of all street rights-of way wdhin and adjacent to the site; f 'n a to i r a st r I' s h a d' ti and water lines; ~~ _ ~J All parking spaces, driveways, loading areas and vehicular use areas; _ J Depiction by shading or crossfiatddng of aN required parking lot interior landscaped areas; _ .1 Location of ail solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment and all required scxeening {per Section 3-201(D)(i) and Index#701}; _ ~ Location of all landscape material; ~ Location of all ensile and offsite stomt-water managemerrt facilities; _ ~ Location of all outdoor fighting factures; and _ ~ Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks. ~ Gross floor area devoted #o each use; _ Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular form with the rwmber of required spaces; To#al paved area, including al paved parking spaces and driveways, expressed in square feet and percentage of the paved vehicular area; Size and species of all landscape material; c! Offidal records book and page numbers of all existing utility easement; /' Balding and structure heights; / Impermeable surface ratio (I.S.R.); and _ Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses. ~/ REDUCED SITE PLAN to scale (8'r4 X 11) and color rendering if possible; ~1 FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the following additional information on site plan: One-foot contours or spot elevations on site; Offsite elevations if required to evaluate Me proposed stormwater management for the parcel; ~ All open space areas; ~ Location of all earth or water retaining walls and earth berms; _ Lot lines an building lines dimensioned); Streets and d es imensioned); Building and structural setbacks (dimensioned); _ Structural overhangs; _ Tree Inventory; prepared by a "cert~ed arborist", of all trees 8" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip fines) and condition of such trees. -r-~~-_---~ H. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-1102.A) D LANDSCAPE PLAN: All existing and proposed structures; Names of abutting streets; _ Drainage and retention areas including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations; _ Delineation and dimensions of all requ'ved perimeter landscape buffers; _ Sight visibility triangles; Delineation and dimensions of all parking areas including landscaping islands and curbing; Proposed and required parking spaces; Existing trees on~site and immediatety adjacent to the site, by species, size and locations, including driplines (as indicated on required tree survey); / Plant schedule with a key {symbol or laben indicating the size, description, specifications and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names; Location, size, and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant schedule; 3/ Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants including instructions, soil mixes, backfiAing, mulching and protective measures; _ Interior landscaping areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressing in both square feet and percentage covered; J Conditions of a previous development approval (e.g. conditions imposed by the Community Development Board); ~ Irrigation notes. REDUCED LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8'/z X 11) (color rendering if possible); IRRIGATION PLAN (required for level two and three approval); COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, as applicable. Landscape assodated with the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall exceed minimum Code requirements to offset the areas where minimum Code will not be met. D SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in writtenltabularfoan: ./ Land area in square feet and acres; Number of EXISTING dwelling units; _,, Number of PROPOSED dwelling units; BUILDING 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 Districts) 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 -four sides of building with colors and materials to state (8'r4 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 remain. D All PROPOSED freestanding and attached signs; Provide details including 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). D Reduced signage proposal (8'h X 11) (color),rf submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application. K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4-202.A.13 and 4-801.C} Include if required by the Traffic Operations Manager or histher designee or if the proposed development: Will degrade the acceptable level of service for any roadway as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. • Will generate 100 or more new vehicle directional trips per hour and/or 1000 or more new vehicle trips per day. WIII affect a nearby roadway segment and/or intersection with five (5) reportable accidents within the prior twelve (12) month period or that is on the City`s annual list of most hazardous intersections. Trip generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip General Manual. The Traffic impact Study must be prepared in accordance witt- a "Scoping Meeting" held with the Traffic Operations Manager and the Planning Departments Development Review Manager or their designee (727-562-4750) Refer to Section 4-801 C of the Community Development Code for exceptions to this requirement. O Acknowledgement of traffic impact study requiremems (Applicant must initial one of the following): x Traffic impact Study is included. The study must include a summary table of pre- and post-development levels of service for all roadway legs and each fuming movement at all intersections identified in the Scoping Meeting. Traffic impact Study is not required. CAUTION - If APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. It you have questions regarding these requiremerrts, contact the Gity Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562-4750. L. SIGNATURE: I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS ~_ application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and om #o and subscribed before me this ~ ~ day of authorize City representatives to visit and photograph the property (, l' A.D. 20 ~~ to me and/or by described in this application. ,.~.~. who is personally known has 3 produced ~ 'O ~- as i Donna Rose Signature f property owner or representative " MY Commisaron DD272316 Notary public, o, ices December 03, 2007 My commission expires: ~ 2~ l 3 ~ D _7 AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT: of all property owners on deed -please i. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property (address or general location): Guy ~ Susan Bonneville, Sebastian U Elizabeth Dourer,Anthony Dourer 2. That this property constitutes the property for which a request fora: (describe request) See attachment E for fist of requests 3. That the undersigned (hasmave) appointed and (does/do) appoint: Kei+h F,.?ayar.,-P~., B1P~ as (hisltheir) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; 4. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act 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 (Uwe), the undersigned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. grope Owner `OFFICIAL SEAL" Cyr>tttia Faraa Notary PutNic, State of Illinois er Cook County , My Commission Expires Feb. 21, 2009 Pr erty er Property Owner h STATE OF F~:, ~~'. ~ t/~(d COUNTY OF ' ""~ l~iv~t7v~ T Before me the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned by the laws of the State of , on this ~ ~ day of personally appeared ~J~4~asha,w ~ S/~~.~ ~ Ohllt,¢.t~ i ~ t ,~.r,~who havi been first duly swum Deposes and says that fie/she fully understands the contents of the affidavit that he/she signed. 1<< ~~In~t-~(,~ .~~. Gam' My Commission Expires: ~~ a` S:tP/anning DepartmenE{Application Fomuldevelopment reviewltJexib/e developrrrent comprehensive infill application 2005.doc AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT: (Names of all property owners on deed -please PRINT tali names) t. That {I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder{s) of the folbwing described property (address or general Iocafion): Guy & Susan Bonneville, Sebastian U Elizabeth Dourer, Anthony Dourer 2. That this property constitutes the property for which a request fora: (describe request) requests 3. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint: Keith E Za;.ac, P E , RUA as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petifion; 4. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Ctearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; 5. That site visits to the property are necessary by City represenrtatives in order to process this application and the owner authorizes Ciiy representatives to visit and photograph the property described in this application; 6. That (Uwe), the undersigned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Before me the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned b the laws of the S e of Florida, on this ~ ~"~" ^ day of _~~c ),ip , ~DQ~ personally appeared ~~ -~,-,~ ` ~ r- ,~ p ; ~ who having been first day sworn Depo a and says that he/she fully understands the conten of the affidavit-that he/she signed. ---~~ ~~ Donna Rose tiny Commission DD272316 Notary P~btic ~ My Commission F~cpires: ` a r- 6cpires December 03, 2007 S:VPlanningDaparbnanflApplicafion Fom~sWevefopment reviswWexr6/e development comprehensive /nhll application 2005.doc ATTACHMENT A PARCEL NUMBERS 15/29!15/03060/001 /0010 15/29/ 15/03 060/002/0090 ATTACHMENT B DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTS 1. Increase m building height from 30 ft. to 155 ft. plus 21.5 ft "high hat". ATTACIIMENT C GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA 1. The proposed development is in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties as we plan to rehabilitate and transform the existing building structure according to the "vision" indicated in the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The planned rooftop high-hat and parapet walls, build-out (fattening) of the lower 10 floors on the east, south and west sides of the building, ornamental banding of the building perimeter at the 45' and 60' height levels, and the addition of the 3-story commercial shell. on the south and west sides of the property will provide a visually appealing "stepped" height transformation to the surrounding properties. Z. The proposed development will significantly improve the value of the subject property and all surrounding properties and should encourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings. The transformation of the existing building elevations into a "Mediterranean" style facade will be significantly more pleasing than the existing elevations. The residential component of the development, comprised of 71 new, luxury condominium dwelling units will add to the residential core of the Downtown district and the planned commercial retail and office components aze sure to attract the much needed "foot-traffic" within the azea helping to revitalize the business and economic climate of the location. 3. The current use of the property is commercial office rental. The majority of the current tenancy is governmental in nature and in support of clientele of various distresses, including financial (i.e. welfare, social services, etc.), family (i.e. DCF, Coordinated Child Care, etc.), and unempioyment/social (i.e. Worknet Pinellas) problems. The nature and scale of the tenant services in the existing use bring together a large contingent of distressed clientele on a daily basis that erodes the value of the properly and surrounding area, has a significant impact on area traffic, and creates issues of public health and safety. The proposed development will target socially responsible tenants that are fmancially secure and in general, promote the health and safety of those living and working within the proposed development and those in the surrounding neighborhood. 4. The proposed development will significantly minimize traffic congestion and traffic impacts. A trip impact analysis completed by the Traffic Engineering Dept. indicates a 25% reduction in daily trips and a 62% reduction in p.m. peak hour trips. Additionally, the 2 existing vehicle ingress/egress points along Cleveland Street will be closed and redirected to the main entrance along N.E. Cleveland Street and the lower level parking entrance along Greenwood Avenue. S. The proposed development is consistent and significantly enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the proposed pazcel development(s). Streetscaping and the proposed architectural appeal of the proposed development will conform with the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, add 71 new residential dwelling units, and add 44,300sf mixed-use retail and office components to engage and foster business growth and foot- traffic to the azea. 6. The most noticeable changes of the proposed development will be the significantly enhanced character and visual appeal of the architectural style introduced by the architect, Gillett Associates. Gillett Associates' works have positively influenced and affected several neighborhood improvements within Clearwater, most notably their beach developments including The Grande, Meridian, Mandalay Beach Club, Belle Harbor, and most recently the proposed Sandpeazl Resort, a redevelopment of the Clearwater Beach Hotel. Also, as noted above, the reduction of traffic and motorized vehicle trips will improve both the acoustic and olfactory impacts on adjacent properties. ATTACHMENT D COMPREHENSIVE INFII.L REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CRITERIA 1. The existing use is commercial office rental and current tenancy is less than 50% and falling. The existing building and improvements were completed in 1972, are outdated, and have outlived their useful and economic life. Additionally, the 3 largest tenants, DCF (State of Florida), PC- Social Services (Pinellas County), and Worknet Pinellas, have indicated their intentions to consolidate their operations into government owned properties within the next 12 months due to financial and political pressures. With these added vacancies, the substantial availability of similar Iarge commercial office vacancy within the immediate area, and the costs of replacing the building's aged infrastructure (e.g. elevators, HVAC systems, tenant improvement costs, etc.), maintaining the property at its current use is economically and financially not viable. The proposed development will provide significant renovations to the exterior of the existing building, add a 3-story parking and amenities deck, 44,300sf of new office and retail space street- side, and a complete redesign and renovation of the interior into 71 new residential condominiums and associated amenities, e.g. pool, spa, ftness rooms, billiards room, caterer's kitchen, concierge, etc. The end result will add much needed residential space within the Town Lake Residential District providing a significant and new addition to the property tax base, and a commercial infrastructure to promote pedestrian traffic within the area, and support the residential base. 2. The proposed development will significantly improve the fair market value of the existing parcel and abutting properties. The assessed value of the existing improvements within the county tax records is $5.5 M and the proposed value of the site with proposed improvements is upwards of $35 M based on sales revenue projections of the residential dwelling units alone; nearly a 700% improvement in value. The addition of 71 new dwelling units along with the added retail operations is expected to significantly improve "foot-traffic" in the immediate area, spurring new mixed-use initiatives in the surrounding area. 3. The uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project, i.e. addition of residential dwelling units combined with the mixed use scenario that includes office and street-level retail store-fronts, are not only otherwise permitted, but after several discussions with city planning and economic development personnel, they are preferred. 4. The proposed comprehensive infill redevelopment project falls within the Clearwater downtown "D" redevelopment district and is thus fully compatible with adjacent land uses. The Clearwater Regional Chamber of Commerce, which sits next door to the east, have indicated the proposed use would be a welcome change for the property (reference SPTIlVIES article "Downtown office building may go condo" at httpa/www.sptimes.com/2005/02I23/Northpinellas/Downtown office build.shtml. Across Cleveland Street (south), Greenwood Avenue (west) and NE Cleveland Street (north), adjacent land uses include several residential and commercial uses fully compatible with the proposed project. S. Several similar developments or redevelopments are currently planned throughout the City of Clearwater. Unique to this comprehensive infill redevelopment project, not otherwise available within the City of Clearwater, are: a. Existing building and infrastructure that support the proposed development; b. Existing use is financially not viable without the change of use; c. The proposed use is the preferred use for the property; d. The proposed use provides a significant property value increase and improves the tax income to the community; and e. The proposed development is expected to promote additional new redevelopment projects within the surrounding area, which has otherwise not seen any significant improvements in decades. 6. The proposed development will significantly upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development as previously noted in our answers for questions 1-5 of this section. 7. The form and function of the proposed project is an embodiment of the goals and objectives of the current Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and will significantly enhance the community character of the immediate vicinity of the proposed project parcel and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The proposed development provides the addition of 71 new residential dwelling units within amixed-use environment, which includes street-side and street-level retail operations, in an integrated and packaged format, with streetscaping, suitable public and tenant parking, and an architectural style taken directly from the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan documents. 8. Lot width, setbacks, and off-street parking requirements of the proposed project will be conforming. The existing building is approximately 155' in height and as-is does not conform to city height requirements. The proposed, acchitectural "high-hat" roof design will add an additional 21-1/2 feet to the already non-conforming height, 6-1/2 feet more than the 20% standazd allowance, however without this additional height extension, the architectural appeal and transition of heights from roof to upper floors to lower floors to third level deck to street level would not appear uniform or appealing. As the building is practically the tallest building within the downtown vicinity, and visible from all compass points, not allowing the roof to conform azchitecturally would create a visual imbalance of the project seen from throughout the City. Thus, flexibility in regard to building height is justified by the benefits of the project taken as a whole to community character of the immediate vicinity and the City of Clearwater as a whole. 9. Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity will be provided according to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3. Two Hundred Thirty Nine (239) parking spaces will be provided within the proposed parking garage and surface parking to serve the 71 multi-family units and 44,300 square feet of retaiUoffice space. 10. The design of all building(s) shall comply with the Downtown District design guidelines in Division 5 of Article 3 as follows: • TOWN LAKE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AREA Town Lake Residential District Policies The following policies shall govern development within the Town Lake 1'cesidental District, as well as City actions: Policy 1: New construction and renovations of existing single-family platted areas in the northeast section of the District shall maintain the character of the neighborhood with regard to lot sizes, setbacks and building height. The proposed development maintains the existing height of the building. The proposed additions will be lower than the existing building. The character of the building will be significantly enhanced by the addition of windows awnings and other architectural features. The lot size will remain the same. Policy 2: Preferred housing styles north of Laura Street are single-family detached, duplexes and townhouses. Other styles of attached dwellings may be considered upon assembly of at least one city block. N/A Policy 3: One dwelling unit may be permitted as accessory to asingle-family or two- family dwelling provided sufficient parking exists on site. This unit will not be considered when calculating density for the site. N/A Policy 4: Community scale commercial uses that serve the general needs of multiple neighborhoods are only permitted on Myrtle Avenue, Cleveland, Court and Chestnut Streets. The proposed community scale specialty retail and office spaces are entirely located along Cleveland Street. This space is larger than the space located on MLK Jr. Ave. Policy 5: Neighborhood scale commercial and office uses that serve the daily or convenience needs of the immediate neighborhood may be permitted on-Drew Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. The smaller scale neighborhood commercial and office space is locate along MLK Jr. Ave. which may serve the needs of the internal residential .units and surrounding. neighborhood. Policy 6: Neighborhood commercial uses may be peririitted south of Cleveland Street and east of Prospect Avenue provided such uses .are integral to a residential project. N!A Policy 7: Existing neighborhood office and commercial uses o of Laura - treet are-, encouraged to remain and be renovated. D f ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~~' ~ ~ ' ' ;' N/A ~ SF~ ~ ~ 2005 PtANt~ ~ ---_ . .. c::. ~. :._ ~. _~ BOEN'S TREE SERVICE P.O. Box 86 Ozona, Fl., 34660-0086 -- • Tree Inventory -1100 Building 3/31/2005 To: Keith Zayac &Assoc. The following report is submitted by Boen's Tree Service, Inc., and includes findings that we believe are accurate based on our education, experience and knowledge in the field of Arboriculture. Boen's Tree Service has no interest personally or financially in this property and our report is factual and unbiased. This report is the property of Triangle Development Inc., and will not be given to other entities unless so directed. Site Overview and Canopy Analysis The subject property is an existing commercial site that has been previously cleared of all vegetation. The existing trees have been planted to meet landscape requirements or to enhance the property. The dominant tree is the live oak (Quercus virginiana) which comprises approximately 70% of the canopy. The trees at this site are stressed due to improper maintenance and harsh growing conditions. The majority of trees are located in small islands surrounded by asphalt and are not receiving supplemental irrigation. The tree crowns reflect improper pruning and general neglect in the form of large branch stubs., and accumulated deadwood. Many of the trees are uplifting pavement or cracking curbs. The trees are showing decline which will continue unless the site conditions are changed. The solution is to remove pavement and increase the rooting area. In addition, hydro- aerate the existing soil and add irrigation. If this is not feasible the site should be re- designed and planted with accent trees and palm species that will adapt to small landscape islands and harsh growing conditions. Specific recommendations for individual trees are included in the tree inventory. 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 inventory data: 1~ ~C~_(~~~~ i ~~ ~~~ a ~ zoos ~ r • 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. S ecies -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 6 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 Florida's Exotic Pest Plant Council as a category #1 ~ ecological pest .i.e., Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius). Atree with arating -°°- 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 tie treated. A tree with a #2 condition rating will typically require a considerable r ~- ~--- amount of maintenance to qualify for an upgrade of the condition rating: , ~' ~ ~ SF;~ 0 ~ ZQ05 c `~ PLANNING & DE'd~~.G+~;. ° t 5'dC~~ __..• _• 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. ~ NO'I;E: A tree inventory is typically valid for 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: This inventory was performed on June 3, 2005. ~ ~°v~-"" ~"'"; ~ ~ ~l ff . ~ ~ ~~~ 0 g ZOQ~ i) ___._..._._.__ _.~'._J i Tree Inventory Tree# Size Species Rating 1 .14" live oak (Quercus virginiana) 2.p Comments: This tree has a large accumulation of deadwood in the crown and dieback at most of the branch tips. The form is average and there are several gaps in the upper crown. There are several stubs in the crown indicating previous improper pruning. The live crown ratio is below average and the foliage appears slightly chlorotic. The trunk forms five scaffold branches 3.5' above grade and two of the branches on the north side are growing against each other and will eventually cause wounds in both stems. This tree is growing in a 4' wide planter located between the sidewalk for Martin Luther King Avenue and the site parking lot. Several cars were parked with their front ends hanging over the buffer. and consequently, engine oil and antifreeze have likely dripped into the soil over the years causing harm to the trees. Recommend removal. NOTE: Several of the. trees in the landscape buffers adjacent to Martin Luther King Avenue, Cleveland Street and Northeast Cleveland Street have cracked the street sidewalks or buckled the parking lot asphalt. The inventory will reflect the tree's overall condition on arboricultural related aspects of tree health not in the context of a tree causing structural damage. However, the damage will increase exponentially as these trees grow and serious thought should be given to logic of preserving these trees in light of this factor. It is our opinion that the site conditions cannot be altered sufficiently to mitigate the impending damage. 2 19" live oak 3.5 Comments: Thi's tree has a spreading crown with high crown density and good overall structure. The tree has three scaffold branches emanating from the trunk 4' above the grade. but all the stems have wide crotches with connective tissue. The tree has several stubs cuts and deadwood that need removal. This tree will be a good tree if pruned properly. The root system of this tree is severely buckling the pavement and has cracked ~ the sidewalk previously as indicated by newly replaced sidewalk sections. This tree is ~ worthy of preservation if the site is modified to accommodate future growth. .. ~ 3 19" live oak ~ 3.0 Comments: The trunk of this tree has a slight lean to the west and actually grows about threeinches into the sidewalk adjacent to Martin Luther King Avenue. This is a ~ hazardous situation for pedestrians and bicyclist and will only worsen as the tree grows. - - This tree has caused four sidewalk panels to be replaced and has raised the parking lot. This tree forks twice and forms four scaffold branches. They are codominant but have wide crotches with connective tissues. The western fork has a large cavity 7' above grade r, .-, ~-, ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ; I ~L s~~ o ~ zoos ~ ' ~; • • where a large branch has been ripped off leaving a gaping wound. The tree is trying to close the wound but has not been successful. This tree has a very high accumulation of deadwood occurring uniformly throughout the tree. The upper crown structure is good but the live crown ratio is slightly below average. Recommend removal unless site conditions are altered to accommodate this tree. 4 16" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree has buckled the pavement and has cracked the sidewalk. The structure is good and live crown ratio is below average. This tree has deadwood and stubs present and is growing low over the parking lot and needs to be pruned. This tree could be preserved if the site conditions are altered. 27" live oak. 4.0 Comments: This tree is located near Cleveland Street in a small triangular island interior to the parking lot. The tree has a good root flare and trunk. The trunk flare is very close to the curb that surrounds the island and the lateral roots have uplifted the pavement. 'The live crown ratio is very high and crown density is also very good. The upper crown structure is good and the form and appearance are good. The tree has an accumulation of deadwood and stubs and needs to be pruned. This is a tree that should be preserved as it is perhaps the best tree on site. The tree needs a larger island and expanded rooting area. Recommend preservation. 6 25" live oak 3.5 Comments: This tree is located 3' from the sidewalk at Cleveland Street and is growing in a triangular island and has cracked the surrounding pavement. The tree has a girdling root on the west side that is growing over two root flares. The root can be removed from the southern most flare but is embedded in the easternmost flare and cannot be removed. This root could kill the impacted root in the future. This tree has good lower and upper crown structure: It has good appearance and the crown spreads over Cleveland Street. It has deadwood and stubs and needs to be pruned. The live crown ratio is above average. Recommend preservation. 7 10' C.T. Canary Island date palm (Phoenix canariensis) 4.0 Comments: This palm is healthy and has an attractive crown. Recommend preservation or transplanting on site. 8 13' C.T. Canary Island date palm 4.5 ~ Comments: This palm has a very attractive crown and should be preserved in place or transplanted on site. ~ ~ ~, i ' t !, ~~,~ ~F'~ 0 ~ 200 '...., ; ~°° F:.~u.,c.~t~ n~~c'.,1,~~...,;..~~ • • 9 14" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree is growing in a 3' wide planter interior to the parking lot and close to Cleveland Street. The tree has a girdling root that is covering the entire north side of the trunk. The east side also has a bad girdling root. The crown is one-sided to the south. The structure is below average. The tree has a codominant stem with included bark 5.5' above grade. The live crown ratio is below average and the form is poor. Recommend removal. 10 18" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree is growing in the same island as tree #9 and is located to the north. It has a large root that has grown over the curb. The tree has poor structure with a codominant trunk with included bark 5' above grade. The tree has poor form and the crown is one-sided to the east. The tree has considerable branch dieback throughout the crown and the live crown ratio is below average. Recommend removal. 11 11" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has a wound on the west side starting, 6" above grade and extending up the trunk for 2.5'. The wound has sealed over but has caused interior decay that will compromise the structure of the trunk. The tree has dieback in 30% of the crown and deadwood throughout. This tree is in a narrow interior planter and has uplifted the pavement. The'structure is below average and the form is poor. Recommend removal. 12 7" live oak 2.p Comments: This tree is in the same planter as tree # 11 and has very poor form and below average live crown ratio. It also has deadwood and crown dieback. Recommend removal. 13 10' C.T: sabal palm (Sabal palmetto) 4.0 Comments: This palm is part of a five palm cluster growing in an interior landscape island east of the building. It is healthy and attractive. Recommend preservation or transplanting on site. 14 14 C.T. sabal palm 4.0 ~~,, Comments: This palm is healthy and attractive and should be preserved on site. 15 13' C.T. sabal palm 4.0 Comments: This is the center palm of the grouping and has a slightly restricted crown but is very healthy and should be preserved on site. 16 11' C.T. sabai palm t ~ ~ . _- t ~ ~~/~C. y} 4 t ....1.. .._: 1 2.5 ~ t i ~~~ p ~ Z~QJ~ ~ `; i ~J • • Comments: This palm has a trunk restriction at the bud and is down graded accordingly. This palm could be preserved but should not be over pruned as this will cause further restriction. 17 14' C.T. sabal palm 4.0 Comments: This palm is very healthy and attractive and should be preserved on site. 18 8" live oak 1.0 Comments: This tree along with trees #19 & 20 are growing in a 30" wide island interior to the parking lot. This tree had a codominant trunk but the west side is completely sheared off. The tree has very poor structure and form and needs to be removed. 19 8" Live oak 1.5 Comments: This tree has 30% deadwood in the crown and has very poor form. The crown is anemic with very low live crown ratio. Recommend removal. 20 11" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has a codominant trunk that is about to become included S' above grade. The crown is small in proportion to the trunk diameter and has no upper center crown. The appearance is below average and the live crown ratio is low. It has deadwood and dieback present. Recommend removal. 21 18" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree is located in a triangular shaped interior island. It has good overall structure. The trunk forks into four scaffold branches that have connective tissues within the crotch. The tree has grown around a piece of garden hose used to stake it at one time and the hose is embedded in the trunk. The live crown ratio is slightly below average and the appearance is slightly above average. It is a borderline 3.0 but will improve with pruning. Recommend preservation. 22 16" live oak 3.5 Comments: This tree has a good trunk and structure. The crown spreads and has a good appearance. The crown.has an accumulation of deadwood and needs pruning. The live r~ crown ratio and crown density are very good. Recommend preservation. 23 24' live oak 3.0 ~ Comments: This tree is growing on a raised island in the interior of the parking lot. The trunk has minor basal decay possibly caused by the presence of a girdling root. The tree ~ ~~, 2 ~ `i~ ~C, t( ~` t ~ J j r^ t ~; ` .i .., • • has a large stub 9" in diameter that is decaying and several smaller stubs in the crown. It also has considerable deadwood. The live crown ratio and overall from is average. The tree could be preserved but is in need of pruning. 24 14" live oak 1.5 Comments: This tree is located at the corner of Martin Luther King Avenue and Northeast Cleveland Street. It is completely covered by a strangler fig (Ficus aurea). The Ficus is wrapped around the base and the first 8' of the trunk. Strangler figs eventually cover the entire host plant causing it to die from sunlight deprivation. It is essentially impossible to remove the ficus without doing serious damage to the oak. The oak is in poor overall condition anyway and should be removed. 25 9" ~ live oak 1.0 Comments: This tree is located in the same island as tree #24 and is in poor condition. The tree has a 6" long wound on the northwest side of the trunk 1' above grade that will result in decay and compromise the structural integrity of the trunk. The tree is growing beneath power wires and the upper crown will need to be pruned in the future. The tree has low live crown ratio and deadwood and stubs. Recommend removal. 26 12' C.T. Washington palm (Washingtonia robusta) 2.5 Comments: This palm is growing in a 4' wide buffer between the site parking lot and the sidewalk for Northeast Cleveland Street. The palm is growing against the concrete curb of th'e parking lot. This palm came up from wild seed and is in good health. However, it is growing beneath a rack of wires that run above the right of way and is in a poor location. Recommend removal. 27 17" live oak 2,0 Comments: This tree has girdling roots due to the presence of the concrete curb that acts as a 1' high retaining wall. The lower crown structure is poor as the trunk forks into four scaffold branches that will soon be included. The crown has dieback present and has below average live crown ratio. The form is also poor as the tree has very little center crown due to the wires. Recommend removal. 28 11' live oak 2,0 Comments: This tree has a codominant trunk with a wide crotch. The canopy grows directly into the wires. The crown is thinning and dying back in some areas. The tree has an accumulation of deadwood and poor overall form. Recommend removal. 29 9" live oak -------, n ~~ ~, I' . ~ ~, ~ ~F~ 0 ~ 2005 ~ : , ~. ~. '__• • Comments: This tree has good lower structure but poor upper crown structure due to previous improper pruning. The live crown ratio and foliage density is good. The tree has numerous stubs and below average form. As with alI the trees in this buffer, the crown has nowhere to grow. Recommend removal 30 15" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has a root system that is mostly on the surface due to the retaining wall and does not appear to be anchored firmly. The tree forks into three scaffold branches 4.5' above grade. There used to be a fourth branch but it has been ripped off the tree and is now a decaying stub. This tree has poor form and below average live crown ratio. In addition, it has a large amount of dieback and deadwood. Recommend removal. 31 18" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree has average live crown ratio and crown density. It is dying back at the top of three branches probably due to the asphalt covering the root system. The form and overall structure is good. The tree needs to be pruned as it has deadwood and stubs. Recommend preservation if remedial maintenance will be performed. 32 18" live oak 2.5 Comments: This tree is located near the east property line in a triangular island. The live crown ratio and overall structure are below average but the form is good. This tree will be a good tree if remedial: maintenance is performed and site conditions are improved. 33 17" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree has a good root flare and trunk although the island has been underlain with visqueyne. The upper crown has good structure. The live crown ratio is below average. The primary downgrading factor of this tree is the amount of deadwood and the thinning crown. Recommend preservation and maintenance. 34 33" live oak 4.0 Comments: This is the largest tree on site. It is located a few feet from the east property line and the crown spreads over the roof of the adjacent property. The root crown is healthy but there is a girdling root on the southeast side that impacts a lateral root. The trunk forms eight scaffold branches 7' above grade. The branches range in diameter from 8" to; l 8". A few of the branches are almost codominant but they have connective tissues in the crotch. The crown is wide spreading with good upper crown structure. The form and appearance are very good. The live crown ratio is good however there is dieback and large. deadwood presence. This tree needs maintenance to remove the deadwood, stubs and broken branches. This tree is a good tree and should be preserved. However, cabling and- bracing are recommended for the scaffold branches as they will become included. In ,I~~ 0 ~ 2IIII~ , ~~ :-~ -• • addition, the tree needs to have an increased rooting area free of pavement and have the soil hydro-aerated. This tree will evolve into a very good tree if maintained. NOTE: Trees # 35 - 45 are Podocarpus trees growing in a planter adjacent to the west and south side of the building. The trees have been pruned to establish a formal "squared" effect. The trees were not surveyed but are protected trees per the City of Clearwater code and have been added to the site plan accordingly. These trees provide an aesthetic benefit and are worthy of preservation except for tree #42. 35 6" Podocarpus (Podocarpus macrophyllus} 3.0 36 5" Podocarpus 3.0 37 6" Podocarpus 3.0 38 5" Podocarpus 3.0 39 7" Podocarpus 3.0 40 6" Podocarpus 3.0 41 6" Podocarpus 3.0 42 6" Podocarpus 1.5 Comments: This tree has a 5" wide wound that starts 6" above grade and extends 6' up the trunk. The wound is decayed and the decay is progressive. Recommend removal. 43 7" Podocarpus 3.0 44 5" Podocarpus 3.0 45 8" Podocarpus 3.0 NOTE: Trees #46 - 60 are growing in the parking lot north of Northeast Cleveland Street and were not surveyed. They have been field located on the site plan. 46 Multi-stem strangler fig (Ficus aurea) 1.0 Comments: This tree has 12 trunks which is common for the ficus family as they spread ~ by aerial roots that reach the ground and root and form rigid trunks. This tree is a native ficus; that is unique but will simply outgrow this area. It is virtually impossible to ~ maintain a ficus and they are notoriously troublesome to maintain. They produce massive ~ surface roots that are very destructive.. Due to its location next to the street it is not practical to preserve this tree. Recommend removal. l i ~ ~ ~r ~~~ Q ~+ 2U1~ ~. ~ i _.._, _ .~;s! u 47 8" laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) --. • 3.0 Comments: This tree is growing in the northwest corner of the parking lot and adjacent to Martin Luther King Avenue. It has a straight trunk with very good structure. The crown is restricted due to the presence of the nearby strangler f g. If the strangler fig is removed this tree could evolve into a good tree provided there is adequate rooting area. Recommend preservation if tree #46 is removed. 48 12" live oak 3.5 Comments: This tree is growing in a landscape island at the corner of Northeast Cleveland Street and Martin Luther King Avenue. The tree has good form and live crown ratio. It has very little dieback and is a good small tree. Recommended preservation. 49 10' C.T. Washington palm 3.5 Comments: This palm is growing in a 3' wide buffer along N/E Cleveland Street. The palm is healthy and attractive. Recommend preservation. 50 12" C.T. Washington palm 3.5 Comments: This palm is located in the same buffer as palm #49 and is worthy of preservation. 51 4" laurel oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has a chlorotic and anemic crown and has no room to grow. Recommend removal. 52 23" live oak Comments: This tree is located on the east property line of the parking lot. At one time the adjacent property owner (Thompson Auto) had a chain link fence along the property line. ,The tree has consumed the chain link fence. It is visible on both sides of the trunk and is growing through a large scaffold branch. It is difficult to determine if this situation will have an adverse effect on the structural or systemic system of the tree. The tree has a codominant trunk 2.5' above grade with a 2" long inclusion. This is the type of codominant situation that can fail and this tree should be cabled and braced if it is preserved. The lateral roots have heaved up the asphalt to 1' in height. The tree has an average appearance but needs pruning to remove deadwood and to raise the canopy. The live crown ratio is average. This tree could be preserved if it is pruned and an island is created to increase the rooting area of the tree. In addition, the codominant stem should be cabled or rodded as the embedded chain link fence may cause internal decay which could increase the chance of codominant failure. 53 9" laurel oak 2.5 --~--r 1. S ~- - - __._.__ - . ~ ~~ .. .. -.... .. .i .L., _` ~ • ., Comments: This tree has extremely poor form, dieback, low live crown ratio and is surrounded by pavement. Recommend removal. This tree may be on the adjacent property to the east. The site plan was incomplete as it did not show boundaries. 54 18' C.T. sabal palm 4.5 Comments: This palm is located inches north of a meandering chain link fence and may actually be on the property to the north. It is a very good palm. 55 14' C.T. sabal palm 4.0 Comments: This palm could also be on the adjacent property. It is very close to the property line. It is a healthy palm and should be preserved. 56 15' C.T. sabal palm 3.0 Comments: This palm is covered with vines but is otherwise healthy and could be preserved. It is growing close to the property line. 57 12' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 Comments: This palm is healthy but needs vines removed. Recommend preservation. 58 21" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree is located 5' from what appears to be the north property line and is growing within a very small cut-out in the pavement. The trunk and root flare are good and the upper crown is supported by wide v-shaped scaffold branches. The form is average and the live crown ratio is below average. The tree has a large broken branch in the crown that needs to .be removed. The tree has large deadwood and stubs and needs pruning. This tree could be preserved but needs pruning and an increased rooting area if it is to improve. *59 28" live oak N/A ~ Comments: This tree is located 15' north of the property line and is located on the _ ~ adjacent property to the north. It is included in this inventory as a significant portion of the crown and root system enters this property and per City code it will have to be ~ protected if construction occurs at this location "" . 60 20" live oak 2.5 ~~°° Comments: This. tree is growing in a small cut-out island near the north property line. The tree has a 2' long 8" diameter decaying stub on the north side that needs to be removed. The tree has been topped previously and is producing epicormic growth. This type of r~-~ ,F~ 0 ~ 200 J t' . _ - , , cs~ .,,. -. growth can fail as it is not always securely attached to the tree. There are several small stubs in the upper crown that appear to have been epicormic branches that have failed. The structure due to the previous topping is downgrading this tree. The condition will improve if a competent arborist performs crown restoration on this tree. The live crown ratio is slightly below average as the crown is slightly thinning. The form is average. This tree could be preserved if the aforementioned maintenance is performed and the rooting area is increased. r~° _~ i f~ ~, ~ !. '~ rC:.M z c ~~ c a ±: -- -- ,: ~,~ t• ~~# _ _ .. 1 - - - -_.... .___, _rt_ _ . _. __ . e_. ~ ~! ~ - . ._ _. _.._.a..~...__.__. M_..._ _ d~'' ~'/ ~~~~ - _ . _.._ ..~..~ ~ ._~~... ____._.~. . ---.___ ..... a ._ __ _. ... _....._.. ,.. ,_ _.._._......__._ C,ty Qf Cfean-vatet -__.....~..... _ __ ___4.~,_.,. T~aftic - - .-_ .._ ..._ __ .... a in . _ _.. ._ ..~ .: _._w._,.. By• '~ ~ _..._.. _. . _ ______.__ .,_ _. y __ _. _ . __ jf . r /l, o/ ~~, ~. date _...___ ___. _ ~ ~ ~.~ _ - - ., ~._.. _ . T. ~ _.~._..~-~.__~._.._ ....._ _.._ _ _ a~,~ ._-~-- ,_r._~y _._._..__~.____.___n_ .,.,.~_~.._.~._.._____~.~__~•.~.. ~ i5 x , or ~ ____~~ __ _ _ ..._...._.~ ~~ ._~ ._ .___ ___ _.F~~_.___I _ ..=M_ _ __.~. ----- _M_..°~ °°° ~ /itr°~' ~ 65.2 y~.~_._..__.~.__..._~..._._~~..~_ __~-__-~_ .~..~ __ _ .. . _ . __. _. U~-~s C~ondow~~-~,,a,an. .~- ~ ~ 2~ z ~ _ ., °~ gam- Sy Mfr- ,~~ -~~~ ( ~---r~ ~ ~ ~~ s~~`~ ,,~~ I ;, - _ _ _ __ _ _ _. _, ,,, _ ___ - ~~ 7~7~L ~~~~~ ~2~v vPc~ ~~~,M.1~e~(~ ~~~ 9 ~ _ P Z ~~,~~ , n y N~c~ ~a ~ ~~~i~c, ~~nn . ~~ 1C ~ ~~ ; ~s~ -;~.~ /110 T,"~ INf'~i~rSTv~ i BOEN'S TREE SERVICE P.O. Box 86 Ozona, Fl., 34660-0086 Tree Inventory -1100 Building 3/31 /2005 To: Keith Zayac &Assoc. The following report is submitted by Boen's Tree Service, Inc., and includes findings that we believe are accurate based on our education, experience and knowledge in the field of Arboriculture. Boen's Tree Service has no interest personally or financially in this property and our report is factual and unbiased. This report is the property of Triangle Development Inc., and will not be given to other entities unless so directed. Site Overview and Canopy Analysis The subject property is an existing commercial site that has been previously cleared of all vegetation. The existing trees have been planted to meet landscape requirements or to enhance the property. The dominant tree is the live oak (Quercus virginiana) which comprises approximately 70% of the canopy. The trees at this site are stressed due to improper maintenance and harsh growing conditions. The majority of trees are located in small islands surrounded by asphalt and are not receiving supplemental irrigation. The tree crowns reflect improper pruning and general neglect in the form of large branch stubs and accumulated deadwood. Many of the trees are uplifting pavement or cracking curbs. The trees are showing decline which will continue unless the site conditions are changed. The solution is to remove pavement and increase the rooting area. In addition, hydro- aerate the existing soil and add irrigation. If this is not feasible the site should be re- designed and planted with accent trees and palm species that will adapt to small landscape islands and harsh growing conditions. Specific recommendations for individual trees are included in the tree inventory. 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 inventory data: ~~ 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. S ecies -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 6 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 Florida'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. S - 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 for 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: This inventory was performed on June 3, 2005. • Tree Inventory Tree# Size Species Rating 14" live oak (Quercus virginiana) 2.0 Comments: This tree has a large accumulation of deadwood in the crown and dieback at most of the branch tips. The form is average and there are several gaps in the upper crown. There are several stubs in the crown indicating previous improper pruning. The live crown ratio is below average and the foliage appears slightly chlorotic. The trunk forms five scaffold branches 3.5' above grade and two of the branches on the north side are growing against each other and will eventually cause wounds in both stems. This tree is growing in a 4' wide planter located between the sidewalk for Martin Luther King Avenue and the site parking lot. Several cars were parked with their front ends hanging over the buffer and consequently, engine oil and antifreeze have likely dripped into the soil over the years causing harm to the trees. Recommend removal. NOTE: Several of the trees in the landscape buffers adjacent to Martin Luther King Avenue, Cleveland Street and Northeast Cleveland Street have cracked the street sidewalks or buckled the parking lot asphalt. The inventory will reflect the tree's overall condition on arboricultural related aspects of tree health not in the context of a tree causing structural damage. However, the damage will increase exponentially as these trees grow and serious thought should be given to logic of preserving these trees in light of this factor. It is our opinion that the site conditions cannot be altered sufficiently to mitigate the impending damage. 2 19" live oak 3.5 Comments: This tree has a spreading crown with high crown density and good overall structure. The tree has three scaffold branches emanating from the trunk 4' above the grade but all the stems have wide crotches with connective tissue. The tree has several stubs cuts and deadwood that need removal. This tree will be a good tree if pruned properly. The root system of this tree is severely buckling the pavement and has cracked the sidewalk previously as indicated by newly replaced sidewalk sections. This tree is worthy of preservation if the site is modified to accommodate future growth. 3 19" live oak 3.0 Comments: The trunk of this tree has a slight lean to the west and actually grows about three inches into the sidewalk adjacent to Martin Luther King Avenue. This is a hazardous situation for pedestrians and bicyclist and will only worsen as the tree grows. This tree has caused four sidewalk panels to be replaced and has raised the parking lot. This tree forks twice and forms four scaffold branches. They are codominant but have wide crotches with connective tissues. The western fork has a large cavity 7' above grade • where a large branch has been ripped off leaving a gaping wound. The tree is trying to close the wound but has not been successful. This tree has a very high accumulation of deadwood occurring uniformly throughout the tree. The upper crown structwe is good but the live crown ratio is slightly below average. Recommend removal unless site conditions are altered to accommodate this tree. 4 16" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree has buckled the pavement and has cracked the sidewalk. The structure is good and live crown ratio is below average. This tree has deadwood and stubs present and is growing low over the parking lot and needs to be pruned. This tree could be preserved if the site conditions are altered. 27" live oak 4.0 Comments: This tree is located near Cleveland Street in a small triangular island interior to the parking lot. The tree has a good root flare and trunk. The trunk flare is very close to the curb that surrounds the island and the lateral roots have uplifted the pavement. The live crown ratio is very high and crown density is also very good. The upper crown structure is good and the form and appearance are good. The tree has an accumulation of deadwood and stubs and needs to be pruned. This is a tree that should be preserved as it is perhaps the best tree on site. The tree needs a larger island and expanded rooting area. Recommend preservation. 6 25" live oak 3.5 Comments: This tree is located 3' from the sidewalk at Cleveland Street and is growing in a triangular island and has cracked the surrounding pavement. The tree has a girdling root on the west side that is growing over two root flares. The root can be removed from the southern most flare but is embedded in the easternmost flare and cannot be removed. This root could kill the impacted root in the future. This tree has good lower and upper crown structure. It has good appearance and the crown spreads over Cleveland Street. It has deadwood and stubs and needs to be pruned. The live crown ratio is above average. Recommend preservation. 7 10' C.T. Canary Island date palm (Phoenix canariensis) 4.0 Comments: This palm is healthy and has an attractive crown. Recommend preservation or transplanting on site. 8 13' C.T. Canary Island date palm 4.5 Comments: This palm has a very attractive crown and should be preserved in place or transplanted on site. • 9 14" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree is growing in a 3' wide planter interior to the parking lot and close to Cleveland Street. The tree has a girdling root that is covering the entire north side of the trunk. The east side also has a bad girdling root. The crown is one-sided to the south. The structure is below average. The tree has a codominant stem with included bark 5.5' above grade. The live crown ratio is below average and the form is poor. Recommend removal. 10 18" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree is growing in the same island as tree #9 and is located to the north. It has a large root that has grown over the curb. The tree has poor structure with a codominant trunk with included bark 5' above grade. The tree has poor form and the crown is one-sided to the east. The tree has considerable branch dieback throughout the crown and the live crown ratio is below average. Recommend removal. 11 11" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has a wound on the west side starting 6" above grade and extending up the trunk for 2.5'. The wound has sealed over but has caused interior decay that will compromise the structure of the trunk. The tree has dieback in 30% of the crown and deadwood throughout. This tree is in a narrow interior planter and has uplifted the pavement. The structure is below average and the form is poor. Recommend removal. 12 7" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree is in the same planter as tree # 11 and has very poor form and below average live crown ratio. It also has deadwood and crown dieback. Recommend removal. 13 10' C.T. sabal palm (Sabal palmetto) 4.0 Comments: This palm is part of a five palm cluster growing in an interior landscape island east of the building. It is healthy and attractive. Recommend preservation or transplanting on site. 14 14 C.T. sabal palm 4.0 Comments: This palm is healthy and attractive and should be preserved on site. 15 13' C.T. sabal palm 4.0 Comments: This is the center palm of the grouping and has a slightly restricted crown but is very healthy and should be preserved on site. 16 11' C.T. sabal palm 2.5 Comments: This palm has a trunk restriction at the bud and is down graded accordingly. This palm could be preserved but should not be over pruned as this will cause further restriction. 17 14' C.T. sabal palm 4.0 Comments: This palm is very healthy and attractive and should be preserved on site. 18 8" live oak 1.0 Comments: This tree along with trees #19 & 20 are growing in a 30" wide island interior to the parking lot. This tree had a codominant trunk but the west side is completely sheared off. The tree has very poor structure and form and needs to be removed. 19 8" Live oak 1.5 Comments: This tree has 30% deadwood in the crown and has very poor form. The crown is anemic with very low live crown ratio. Recommend removal. 20 11" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has a codominant trunk that is about to become included 5' above grade. The crown is small in proportion to the trunk diameter and has no upper center crown. The appearance is below average and the live crown ratio is low. It has deadwood and dieback present. Recommend removal. 21 18" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree is located in a triangular shaped interior island. It has good overall structure. The trunk forks into four scaffold branches that have connective tissues within the crotch. The tree has grown around a piece of garden hose used to stake it at one time and the hose is embedded in the trunk. The live crown ratio is slightly below average and the appearance is slightly above average. It is a borderline 3.0 but will improve with pruning. Recommend preservation. 22 16" live oak 3.5 Comments: This tree has a good trunk and structure. The crown spreads and has a good appearance. The crown has an accumulation of deadwood and needs pruning. The live crown ratio and crown density are very good. Recommend preservation. 23 24' live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree is growing on a raised island in the interior of the parking lot. The trunk has minor basal decay possibly caused by the presence of a girdling root. The tree • has a large stub 9" in diameter that is decaying and several smaller stubs in the crown. It also has considerable deadwood. The live crown ratio and overall from is average. The tree could be preserved but is in need of pruning. 24 14" live oak 1.5 Comments: This tree is located at the corner of Martin Luther King Avenue and Northeast Cleveland Street. It is completely covered by a strangler fig (Ficus aurea). The ficus is wrapped around the base and the first 8' of the trunk. Strangler figs eventually cover the entire host plant causing it to die from sunlight deprivation. It is essentially impossible to remove the ficus without doing serious damage to the oak. The oak is in poor overall condition anyway and should be removed. 25 9" live oak 1.0 Comments: This tree is located in the same island as tree #24 and is in poor condition. The tree has a 6" long wound on the northwest side of the trunk 1' above grade that will result in decay and compromise the structural integrity of the trunk. The tree is growing beneath power wires and the upper crown will need to be pruned in the future. The tree has low live crown ratio and deadwood and stubs. Recommend removal. 26 12' C.T. Washington palm (Washingtonia robusta) 2.5 Comments: This palm is growing in a 4' wide buffer between the site parking lot and the sidewalk for Northeast Cleveland Street. The palm is growing against the concrete curb of the parking lot. This palm came up from wild seed and is in good health. However, it is growing beneath a rack of wires that run above the right of way and is in a poor location. Recommend removal. 27 17" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has girdling roots due to the presence of the concrete curb that acts as a 1' high retaining wall. The lower crown structure is poor as the trunk forks into four scaffold branches that will soon be included. The crown has dieback present and has below average live crown ratio. The form is also poor as the tree has very little center crown due to the wires. Recommend removal. 28 11' live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has a codominant trunk with a wide crotch. The canopy grows directly into the wires. The crown is thinning and dying back in some areas. The tree has an accumulation of deadwood and poor overall form. Recommend removal. 29 9" live oak 2.5 • • Comments: This tree has good lower structure but poor upper crown structure due to previous improper pruning. The live crown ratio and foliage density is good. The tree has numerous stubs and below average form. As with all the trees in this buffer, the crown has nowhere to grow. Recommend removal 30 15" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has a root system that is mostly on the surface due to the retaining wall and does not appear to be anchored firmly. The tree forks into three scaffold branches 4.5' above grade. There used to be a fourth branch but it has been ripped off the tree and is now a decaying stub. This tree has poor form and below average live crown ratio. In addition, it has a large amount of dieback and deadwood. Recommend removal. 31 18" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree has average live crown ratio and crown density. It is dying back at the top of three branches probably due to the asphalt covering the root system. The form and overall structure is good. The tree needs to be pruned as it has deadwood and stubs. Recommend preservation if remedial maintenance will be performed. 32 18" live oak 2.5 Comments: This tree is located near the east property line in a triangular island. The live crown ratio and overall structure are below average but the form is good. This tree will be a good tree if remedial maintenance is performed and site conditions are improved. 33 17" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree has a good root flare and trunk although the island has been underlain with visqueyne. The upper crown has good structure. The live crown ratio is below average. The primary downgrading factor of this tree is the amount of deadwood and the thinning crown. Recommend preservation and maintenance. 34 33" live oak 4.0 Comments: This is the largest tree on site. It is located a few feet from the east property line and the crown spreads over the roof of the adjacent property. The root crown is healthy but there is a girdling root on the southeast side that impacts a lateral root. The trunk forms eight scaffold branches 7' above grade. The branches range in diameter from 8" to 18". A few of the branches are almost codominant but they have connective tissues in the crotch. The crown is wide spreading with good upper crown structure. The form and appearance are very good. The live crown ratio is good however there is dieback and large deadwood presence. This tree needs maintenance to remove the deadwood, stubs and broken branches. This tree is a good tree and should be preserved. However, cabling and bracing are recommended for the scaffold branches as they will become included. In • • addition, the tree needs to have an increased rooting area free of pavement and have the soil hydro-aerated. This tree will evolve into a very good tree if maintained. NOTE: Trees # 35 - 45 are podocarpus trees growing in a planter adjacent to the west and south side of the building. The trees have been pruned to establish a formal "squa.red" effect. The trees were not surveyed but are protected trees per the City of Clearwater code and have been added to the site plan accordingly. These trees provide an aesthetic benefit and are worthy of preservation except for tree #42. 35 6" podocarpus (Podocarpus macrophyllus} 3.0 36 5" podocarpus 3.0 37 6" podocarpus 3.0 38 5" podocarpus 3.0 39 7" podocarpus 3.0 40 6" podocarpus 3.0 41 6" podocarpus 3.0 42 6" podocarpus 1.5 Comments: This tree has a 5" wide wound that starts 6" above grade and extends 6' up the trunk. The wound is decayed and the decay is progressive. Recommend removal. 43 7" podocarpus 3.0 44 5" podocarpus 3.0 45 8" podocarpus 3.0 NOTE: Trees #46 - 60 are growing in the parking lot north of Northeast Cleveland Street and were not surveyed. They have been field located on the site plan. 46 Multi-stem strangler fig (Ficus aurea) 1.0 Comments: This tree has 12 trunks which is common for the ficus family as they spread by aerial roots that reach the ground and root and form rigid trunks. This tree is a native ficus that is unique but will simply outgrow this area. It is virtually impossible to maintain a ficus and they are notoriously troublesome to maintain. They produce massive surface roots that are very destructive. Due to its location next to the street it is not practical to preserve this tree. Recommend removal. • 47 8" laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) 3.0 Comments: This tree is growing in the northwest corner of the parking lot and adjacent to Martin Luther King Avenue. It has a straight trunk with very good structure. The crown is restricted due to the presence of the nearby strangler fig. If the strangler fig is removed this tree could evolve into a good tree provided there is adequate rooting area. Recommend preservation if tree #46 is removed. 48 12" live oak 3.5 Comments: This tree is growing in a landscape island at the corner of Northeast Cleveland Street and Martin Luther King Avenue. The tree has good form and live crown ratio. It has very little dieback and is a good small tree. Recommended preservation. 49 10' C.T. Washington palm 3.5 Comments: This palm is growing in a 3' wide buffer along N/E Cleveland Street. The palm is healthy and attractive. Recommend preservation. 50 12" C.T. Washington palm 3.5 Comments: This palm is located in the same buffer as palm #49 and is worthy of preservation. 51 4" laurel oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has a chlorotic and anemic crown and has no room to grow. Recommend removal. 52 23" live oak 2.5 Comments: This tree is located on the east property line of the parking lot. At one time the adjacent property owner (Thompson Auto) had a chain link fence along the property line. The tree has consumed the chain link fence. It is visible on both sides of the trunk and is growing through a large scaffold branch. It is difficult to determine if this situation will have an adverse effect on the structural or systemic system of the tree. The tree has a codominant trunk 2.5' above grade with a 2" long inclusion. This is the type of codominant situation that can fail and this tree should be cabled and braced if it is preserved. The lateral roots have heaved up the asphalt to 1' in height. The tree has an average appearance but needs pruning to remove deadwood and to raise the canopy. The live crown ratio is average. This tree could be preserved if it is pruned and an island is created to increase the rooting area of the tree. In addition, the codominant stem should be cabled or rodded as the embedded chain link fence may cause internal decay which could increase the chance of codominant failure. 53 9" laurel oak 1.5 • Comments: This tree has extremely poor form, dieback, low live crown ratio and is surrounded by pavement. Recommend removal. This tree may be on the adjacent property to the east. The site plan was incomplete as it did not show boundaries. 54 18' C.T. sabal palm 4.5 Comments: This palm is located inches north of a meandering chain link fence and may actually be on the property to the north. It is a very good palm. 55 14' C.T. sabal palm 4.0 Comments: This palm could also be on the adjacent property. It is very close to the property line. It is a healthy palm and should be preserved. 56 15' C.T. sabal palm 3.0 Comments: This palm is covered with vines but is otherwise healthy and could be preserved. It is growing close to the property line. 57 12' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 Comments: This palm is healthy but needs vines removed. Recommend preservation. 58 21" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree is located 5' from what appears to be the north property line and is growing within a very small cut-out in the pavement. The trunk and root flare are good and the upper crown is supported by wide v-shaped scaffold branches. The foam is average and the live crown ratio is below average. The tree has a large broken branch in the crown that needs to be removed. The tree has large deadwood and stubs and needs pruning. This tree could be preserved but needs pruning and an increased rooting area if it is to improve. *59 28" live oak N/A Comments: This tree is located 15' north of the property line and is located on the adjacent property to the north. It is included in this inventory as a significant portion of the crown and root system enters this property and per City code it will have to be protected if construction occurs at this location. 60 20" live oak 2.5 Comments: This tree is growing in a small cut-out island near the north property line. The tree has a 2' long 8" diameter decaying stub on the north side that needs to be removed. The tree has been topped previously and is producing epicormic growth. This type of . ~ • growth can fail as it is not always securely attached to the tree. There are several small stubs in the upper crown that appear to have been epicormic branches that have failed. The structure due to the previous topping is downgrading this tree. The condition will improve if a competent arborist performs crown restoration on this tree. The live crown ratio is slightly below average as the crown is slightly thinning. The form is average. This tree could be preserved if the aforementioned maintenance is performed and the rooting area is increased. CLEARWATER CENTER • 19 COLOR SAMPLES: WALLS: HIGH -NAVAJO WHITE #SW6126 SW 6126 Navajo White BASE -BLONDE #SW6128 SW 6128 Blonde TRIM: EGRET WHITE #SW2004 CLEARWATER CENTER • 19 COLOR SAMPLES: WALLS: HIGH -NAVAJO WHITE #SW6126 SW 6126 Navajo White BASE -BLONDE #SW6128 SW 6128 Blonde TRIM: EGRET WHITE #SW2004 BOEN'S TREE SERVICE P.O. Box 86 Ozona, Fl., 34660-0086 Tree Inventory -1100 Building 3/31/2005 To: Keith Zayac &Assoc. The following report is submitted by Boen's Tree Service, Inc., and includes findings that we believe are accurate based on our education, experience and knowledge in the field of Arboriculture. Boen's Tree Service has no interest personally or financially in this property and our report is factual and unbiased. This report is the property of Triangle Development Inc., and will not be given to other entities unless so directed. Site Overview and Canopy Analysis The subject property is an existing commercial site that has been previously cleared of all vegetation. The existing trees have been planted to meet landscape requirements or to enhance the property. The dominant tree is the live oak (Quercus virginiana) which comprises approximately 70% of the canopy. The trees at this site are stressed due to improper maintenance and harsh growing conditions. The majority of trees are located in small islands surrounded by asphalt and are not receiving supplemental irrigation. The tree crowns reflect improper pruning and general neglect in the form of large branch stubs and accumulated deadwood. Many of the trees are uplifting pavement or cracking curbs. The trees are showing decline which will continue unless the site conditions are changed. The solution is to remove pavement and increase the rooting area. In addition, hydro- aerate the existing soil and add irrigation. If this is not feasible the site should be re- designed and planted with accent trees and palm species that will adapt to small landscape islands and harsh growing conditions. Specific recommendations for individual trees are included in the tree inventory. 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 inventory data: • 'Irree# a 1;,;.ation = Each ~ ce is assigned a rium'oer 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. S eeies -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 b 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 Florida's Exotic Pest Plant Council as a category # 1 ecological pest i.e., Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius). Atree with a rating of i 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 for 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: This inventory was performed on June 3, 2005. • Tree Inventory Tree# Size Species Rating 14" live oak (Quercus virginiana) 2.0 Comments: This tree has a large accumulation of deadwood in the crown and dieback at most of the branch tips. The form is average and there are several gaps in the upper crown. There are several stubs in the crown indicating previous improper pruning. The live crown ratio is below average and the foliage appears slightly chlorotic. The trunk forms five scaffold branches 3.5' above grade and two of the branches on the north side are growing against each other and will eventually cause wounds in both stems. This tree is growing in a 4' wide planter located between the sidewalk for Martin Luther King Avenue and the site parking lot. Several cars were parked with their front ends hanging over the buffer and consequently, engine oil and antifreeze have likely dripped into the soil over the years causing harm to the trees. Recommend removal. NOTE: Several of the trees in the landscape buffers adjacent to Martin Luther King Avenue, Cleveland Street and Northeast Cleveland Street have cracked the street sidewalks or buckled the parking lot asphalt. The inventory will reflect the tree's overall condition on arboricultural related aspects of tree health not in the context of a tree causing structural damage. However, the damage will increase exponentially as these trees grow and serious thought should be given to logic of preserving these trees in light of this factor. It is our opinion that the site conditions cannot be altered sufficiently to mitigate the impending damage. 2 19" live oak 3.5 Comments: This tree has a spreading crown with high crown density and good overall structure. The tree has three scaffold branches emanating from the trunk 4' above the grade but all the stems have wide crotches with connective tissue. The tree has several stubs cuts and deadwood that need removal. This tree will be a good tree if pruned properly. The root system of this tree is severely buckling the pavement and has cracked the sidewalk previously as indicated by newly replaced sidewalk sections. This tree is worthy of preservation if the site is modified to accommodate future growth. 3 19" live oak 3.0 Comments: The trunk of this tree has a slight lean to the west and actually grows about three inches into the sidewalk adjacent to Martin Luther King Avenue. This is a hazardous situation for pedestrians and bicyclist and will only worsen as the tree grows. This tree has caused four sidewalk panels to be replaced and has raised the parking lot. This tree forks twice and forms four scaffold branches. They are codominant but have wide crotches with connective tissues. The western fork has a large cavity 7' above grade i • where a lazge branch has been ripped off leaving a gaping wound. The tree is trying to close the wound but has not been successful. This tree has a very high accumulation of deadwood occurring uniformly throughout the tree. The upper crown structure is good but the live crown ratio is slightly below average. Recommend removal unless site conditions are altered to accommodate this tree. 4 16" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree has buckled the pavement and has cracked the sidewalk. The structure is good and live crown ratio is below average. This tree has deadwood and stubs present and is growing low over the parking lot and needs to be pruned. This tree could be preserved if the site conditions are altered. S 27" live oak 4.0 Comments: This tree is located near Cleveland Street in a small triangular island interior to the parking lot. The tree has a good root flare and trunk. The trunk flare is very close to the curb that surrounds the island and the lateral roots have uplifted the pavement. The live crown ratio is very high and crown density is also very good. The upper crown structure is good and the form and appearance are good. The tree has an accumulation of deadwood and stubs and needs to be pruned. This is a tree that should be preserved as it is perhaps the best tree on site. The tree needs a larger island and expanded rooting area. Recommend preservation. 6 25" live oak 3.5 Comments: This tree is located 3' from the sidewalk at Cleveland Street and is growing in a triangular island and has cracked the surrounding pavement. The tree has a girdling root on the west side that is growing over two root flares. The root can be removed from the southern most flare but is embedded in the easternmost flare and cannot be removed. This root could kill the impacted root in the future. This tree has good lower and upper crown structure. It has good appearance and the crown spreads over Cleveland Street. It has deadwood and stubs and needs to be pruned. The live crown ratio is above average. Recommend preservation. 7 10' C.T. Canary Island date palm (Phoenix canariensis) 4.0 Comments: This palm is healthy and has an attractive crown. Recommend preservation or transplanting on site. 8 13' C.T. Canary Island date palm 4.5 Comments: This palm has a very attractive crown and should be preserved in place or transplanted on site. • 9 14" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree is growing in a 3' wide planter interior to the parking lot and close to Cleveland Street. The tree has a girdling root that is covering the entire north side of the trunk. The east side also has a bad girdling root. The crown is one-sided to the south. The structure is below average. The tree has a codominant stem with included bark 5.5' above grade. The live crown ratio is below average and the form is poor. Recommend removal. 10 18" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree is growing in the same island as tree #9 and is located to the north. It has a large root that has grown over the curb. The tree has poor structure with a codominant trunk with included bark 5' above grade. The tree has poor form and the crown is one-sided to the east. The tree has considerable branch dieback throughout the crown and the live crown ratio is below average. Recommend removal. 11 11" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has a wound on the west side starting 6" above grade and extending up the trunk for 2.5'. The wound has sealed over but has caused interior decay that will compromise the structure of the trunk. The tree has dieback in 30% of the crown and deadwood throughout. This tree is in a narrow interior planter and has uplifted the pavement. The structure is below average and the form is poor. Recommend removal. 12 7" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree is in the same planter as tree # 11 and has very poor form and below average live crown ratio. It also has deadwood and crown dieback. Recommend removal. 13 10' C.T. sabal palm (Sabal palmetto) 4.0 Comments: This palm is part of a five palm cluster growing in an interior landscape island east of the building. It is healthy and attractive. Recommend preservation or transplanting on site. 14 14 C.T. sabal palm 4.0 Comments: This palm is healthy and attractive and should be preserved on site. 15 13' C.T. sabal palm 4.0 Comments: This is the center palm of the grouping and has a slightly restricted crown but is very healthy and should be preserved on site. 16 11' C.T. sabal palm 2.5 Comments: This palm has a trunk restriction at the bud and is down graded accordingly. This palm could be preserved but should not be over pruned as this will cause further restriction. 17 14' C.T. sabal palm 4.0 Comments: This palm is very healthy and attractive and should be preserved on site. 18 8" live oak 1.0 Comments: This tree along with trees # 19 & 20 are growing in a 30" wide island interior to the parking lot. This tree had a codominant trunk but the west side is completely sheared off. The tree has very poor structure and form and needs to be removed. 19 8" Live oak 1.5 Comments: This tree has 30% deadwood in the crown and has very poor form. The crown is anemic with very low live crown ratio. Recommend removal. 20 11" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has a codominant trunk that is about to become included 5' above grade. The crown is small in proportion to the trunk diameter and has no upper center crown. The appearance is below average and the live crown ratio is low. It has deadwood and dieback present. Recommend removal. 21 18" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree is located in a triangular shaped interior island. It has good overall structure. The trunk forks into four scaffold branches that have connective tissues within the crotch. The tree has grown around a piece of garden hose used to stake it at one time and the hose is embedded in the trunk. The live crown ratio is slightly below average and the appearance is slightly above average. It is a borderline 3.0 but will improve with pruning. Recommend preservation. 22 16" live oak 3.5 Comments: This tree has a good trunk and structure. The crown spreads and has a good appearance. The crown has an accumulation of deadwood and needs pruning. The live crown ratio and crown density are very good. Recommend preservation. 23 24' live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree is growing on a raised island in the interior of the parking lot. The trunk has minor basal decay possibly caused by the presence of a girdling root. The tree • has a large stub 9" in diameter that is decaying and several smaller stubs in the crown. It also has considerable deadwood. The live crown ratio and overall from is average. The tree could be preserved but is in need of pruning. 24 i4" live oak 1.5 Comments: This tree is located at the corner of Martin Luther King Avenue and Northeast Cleveland Street. It is completely covered by a strangler fig (Ficus aurea). The ficus is wrapped around the base and the first 8' of the trunk. Strangler figs eventually cover the entire host plant causing it to die from sunlight deprivation. It is essentially impossible to remove the ficus without doing serious damage to the oak. The oak is in poor overall condition anyway and should be removed. 25 9" live oak 1.0 Comments: This tree is located in the same island as tree #24 and is in poor condition. The tree has a 6" long wound on the northwest side of the trunk 1' above grade that will result in decay and compromise the structural integrity of the trunk. The tree is growing beneath power wires and the upper crown will need to be pruned in the future. The tree has low live crown ratio and deadwood and stubs. Recommend removal. 26 12' C.T. Washington palm (Washingtonia robusta) 2.5 Comments: This palm is growing in a 4' wide buffer between the site parking lot and the sidewalk for Northeast Cleveland Street. The palm is growing against the concrete curb of the parking lot. This palm came up from wild seed and is in good health. However, it is growing beneath a rack of wires that run above the right of way and is in a poor location. Recommend removal. 27 17" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has girdling roots due to the presence of the concrete curb that acts as a 1' high retaining wall. The lower crown structure is poor as the trunk forks into four scaffold branches that will soon be included. The crown has dieback present and has below average live crown ratio. The form is also poor as the tree has very little center crown due to the wires. Recommend removal. 28 11' live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has a codominant trunk with a wide crotch. The canopy grows directly into the wires. The crown is thinning and dying back in some areas. The tree has an accumulation of deadwood and poor overall form. Recommend removal. 29 9" live oak 2.5 • Comments: This tree has good lower structure but poor upper crown structure due to previous improper pruning. The live crown ratio and foliage density is good. The tree has numerous stubs and below average form. As with all the trees in this buffer, the crown has nowhere to grow. Recommend removal 30 15" live oak 2,0 Comments: This tree has a root system that is mostly on the surface due to the retaining wall and does not appear to be anchored fumly. The tree forks into three scaffold branches 4.5' above grade. There used to be a fourth branch but it has been ripped off the tree and is now a decaying stub. This tree has poor form and below average live crown ratio. In addition, it has a large amount of dieback and deadwood. Recommend removal. 31 18" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree has average live crown ratio and crown density. It is dying back at the top of three branches probably due to the asphalt covering the root system. The form and overall structure is good. The tree needs to be pruned as it has deadwood and stubs. Recommend preservation if remedial maintenance will be performed. 32 18" live oak 2.5 Comments: This tree is located near the east property line in a triangular island. The live crown ratio and overall structure are below average but the form is good. This tree will be a good tree if remedial maintenance is performed and site conditions are improved. 33 17" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree has a good root flare and trunk although the island has been underlain with visqueyne. The upper crown has good structure. The live crown ratio is below average. The primary downgrading factor of this tree is the amount of deadwood and the thinning crown. Recommend preservation and maintenance. 34 33" live oak 4.0 Comments: This is the largest tree on site. It is located a few feet from the east property line and the crown spreads over the roof of the adjacent property. The root crown is healthy but there is a girdling root on the southeast side that impacts a lateral root. The trunk forms eight scaffold branches 7' above grade. The branches range in diameter from 8" to 18". A few of the branches are almost codominant but they have connective tissues in the crotch. The crown is wide spreading with good upper crown structure. The form and appearance are very good. The live crown ratio is good however there is dieback and large deadwood presence. This tree needs maintenance to remove the deadwood, stubs and broken branches. This tree is a good tree and should be preserved. However, cabling and bracing are recommended for the scaffold branches as they will become included. In i • addition, the tree needs to have an increased rooting area free of pavement and have the soil hydro-aerated. This tree will evolve into a very good tree if maintained. NOTE: Trees # 35 - 45 are podocarpus trees growing in a planter adjacent to the west and south side of the building. The trees have been pruned to establish a formal "squared" effect. The trees were not surveyed but are protected trees per. the City of Clearwater code and have been added to the site plan accordingly. These trees provide an aesthetic benefit and are worthy of preservation except for tree #42. 35 6" podocarpus (Podocarpus macrophyllus) 3.0 36 5" podocarpus 3.0 37 6" podocarpus 3.0 3 8 5" podocarpus 3.0 39 7" podocarpus 3.0 40 6" podocarpus 3.0 41 6" podocarpus 3.0 42 6" podocarpus 1.5 Comments: This tree has a 5" wide wound that starts 6" above grade and extends 6' up the trunk. The wound is decayed and the decay is progressive. Recommend removal. 43 7" podocarpus 3.0 44 5" podocarpus 3.0 45 8" podocarpus 3.0 NOTE: Trees #46 - 60 are growing in the parking lot north of Northeast Cleveland Street and were not surveyed. They have been field located on the site plan. 46 Multi-stem strangler fig {Ficus aurea) 1.0 Comments: This tree has 12 trunks which is common for the ficus family as they spread by aerial roots that reach the ground and root and form rigid trunks. This tree is a native ficus that is unique but will simply outgrow this area. It is virtually impossible to maintain a ficus and they are notoriously troublesome to maintain. They produce massive surface roots that are very destructive. Due to its location next to the street it is not practical to preserve this tree. Recommend removal • • 47 8" laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) 3.0 Comments: This tree is growing in the northwest corner of the parking lot and adjacent to Martin Luther King Avenue. It has a straight trunk with very good structure. The crown is restricted due to the presence of the nearby strangler fig. If the strangler fig is removed this tree could evolve into a good tree provided there is adequate rooting area. Recommend preservation if tree #46 is removed. 48 12" live oak 3.5 Comments: This tree is growing in a landscape island at the corner of Northeast Cleveland Street and Martin Luther King Avenue. The tree has good form and live crown ratio. It has very little dieback and is a good small tree. Recommended preservation. 49 10' C.T. Washington palm 3.5 Comments: This palm is growing in a 3' wide buffer along N/E Cleveland Street. The palm is healthy and attractive. Recommend preservation. 50 12" C.T. Washington palm 3.5 Comments: This palm is located in the same buffer as palm #49 and is worthy of preservation. 51 4" laurel oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has a chlorotic and anemic crown and has no room to grow. Recommend removal. 52 23" live oak 2.5 Comments: This tree is located on the east property line of the parking lot. At one time the adjacent property owner (Thompson Auto) had a chain link fence along the property line. The tree has consumed the chain link fence. It is visible on both sides of the trunk and is growing through a large scaffold branch. It is difficult to determine if this situation will have an adverse effect on the structural or systemic system of the tree. The tree has a codominant trunk 2.5' above grade with a 2" long inclusion. This is the type of codominant situation that can fail and this tree should be cabled and braced if it is preserved. The lateral roots have heaved up the asphalt to 1' in height. The tree has an average appearance but needs pruning to remove deadwood and to raise the canopy. The live crown ratio is average. This tree could be preserved if it is pruned and an island is created to increase the rooting area of the tree. In addition, the codominant stem should be cabled or rodded as the embedded chain link fence may cause internal decay which could increase the chance of codominant failure. 53 9" laurel oak 1.5 ! ~ Comments: This tree has extremely poor form, dieback, low live crown ratio and is surrounded by pavement. Recommend removal. This tree may be on the adjacent property to the east. The site plan was incomplete as it did not show boundaries. 54 18' C.T. sabal palm 4.5 Comments: This palm is located inches north of a meandering chain link fence and may actually be on the property to the north. It is a very good palm. 55 14' C.T. sabal palm 4.0 Comments: This palm could also be on the adjacent property. It is very close to the property line. It is a healthy palm and should be preserved. 56 15' C.T. sabal palm 3.0 Comments: This palm is covered with vines but is otherwise healthy and could be preserved. It is growing close to the property line. 57 12' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 Comments: This palm is healthy but needs vines removed. Recommend preservation. 58 21" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree is located 5' from what appears to be the north property line and is growing within a very small cut-out in the pavement. The trunk and root flare are good and the upper crown is supported by wide v-shaped scaffold branches. The form is average and the live crown ratio is below average. The tree has a large broken branch in the crown that needs to be removed. The tree has large deadwood and stubs and needs pruning. This tree could be preserved but needs pruning and an increased rooting area if it is to improve. *59 28" live oak NIA Comments: This tree is located 15' north of the property line and is located on the adjacent property to the north. It is included in this inventory as a significant portion of the crown and root system enters this property and per City code it will have to be protected if construction occurs at this location. 60 20" live oak 2.5 Comments: This tree is growing in a small cut-out island near the north property line. The tree has a 2' long 8" diameter decaying stub on the north side that needs to be removed. The tree has been topped previously and is producing epicormic growth. This type of growth can fail as it is not always securely attached to the tree. There are several small stubs in the upper crown that appear to have been epicormic branches that have failed. The structure due to the previous topping is downgrading this tree. The condition will improve if a competent arborist performs crown restoration on this tree. The live crown ratio is slightly below average as the crown is slightly thinning. The form is average. This tree could be preserved if the aforementioned maintenance is performed and the rooting area is increased. ~1~~ ~ ~ ~ha ~ ~ ~''.. -t ~ ''-~D'7~~~~tlNrl~ ~~'"'~ '- a~ ' s - !'S'~ ~~ ~ ~l~ City Of Clearwater ' - T~~~ic ,n y__-____ By: .;, - ~l ~ . Y~ , /~~ 0/ ._.~~D~ sy ~. Date: ~ 1 ~_____ Igo ~ x 1- ~ o t ~~ = ", .65.2. Y~ ~~ ~r ~' --- q _..__. ~n,oo~ x ~~~~~~~~ - ~~~ v~h _____ _+~~______.__ - ~° 7~ v~-~s ~on~w~t~,~n. ~~~~ 232- Y~` ~ y~s-~- ~_._ .--~ __-- __ _~ ____..___~ _~.4 f _ ___ _____________~____ ~_ ._. _. ~. - - --- -- - --- - --... ----- ~~ M . ~e~~ ~~~ ----- ------ ----- - - -~- - ---- --- ---~----------_-- -- _ __ _- - --- COtiac~cy~n 1 wi ~.~-- ~!Vq . Y~ CJ, "~ ~ pl we~ ` ~ '~ _ ~-._ .._-- .---. _ - l~ x ~~3~ o(~~ ~_.~~~ ___~___ _ __ _._- ~_ _._...______ _. - - __ - __ - ----_ ----- 9 @hx°~aX- ~' ~ia~ l ~el~ , v-~+-~: (jl • ~/ ~}~1 J ~ Uo o c,, q ° ~~ _ _ ___._ - -- -. _ _ ~~ ~~ r ~ ~_ _.. _.....- - - - ~ ..- - ~, r (t~ 2 / s l~~d uG~v~e~ ~ -1 1~. i'v1 . i~ I~ a ~'~ ~ i~S . .~.- ~In T,~,~tl~`'_ I~vP~'1CTSTv ~'~ i{J~Cl~1~ .rte--1}~. ~~ - -_._ .~ _ _~ ~/-. ~ .-- ~ - _ _ I`~Y (~~ I.~.A.RA.TER PLANN/ LNG DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 4745, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-474H MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, ZOO SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4.865 LONG RANGE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW January 13, 2006 Mr. Keith E. Zayac 701 Enterprise Road East, Suite 404 Safety Harbor, FL 34695 Re: FLD2005-07067 -1100 Cleveland Street Dear Mr. Zayac: This letter constitutes a Development .Order pursuant to Section 4-206.D.6. of the Community Development Code. On October 18, 2005, the Community Development Board (CDB) reviewed your Flexible Development approval to permit amixed-use (71 attached dwellings and 44,300 square feet of non-residential floor area) with an additional 15 feet (as measured from roof deck to mean roof line), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-803.C; and Termination of Status of Nonconformity for height (148 feet to roof deck where a maximum of 75 feet would be permitted under current Code), under the provisions of Section 6-109. The CDB APPROVED the application based upon the following finding of fact and conclusions of law and conditions. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 1. That the subject property totals 108,080.94 square feet (2.48 acres); 2. That the subject property is located within the Downtown (D) District and the Central Business District (CBD) Future Land Use Plan category; 3. That the development proposal is subject to the requirements of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Design Guidelines contained therein as it is located within the Town Lake Residential character district; 4. That the proposed use of 39,364 square feet of non-residential floor area from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool is consistent with the provisions of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 5. That the development proposal is consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines; 6. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per Section 2-903.C; 7. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Applicability Criteria as per Section 3-913; 8. That the development proposal is consistent with the Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Town Lake Residential character district; and 9. That the development proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. FRANK HIBBARD, MAYOR Bn.I. JonsoN, VICE-MAYOR JOHN DOR:W, COUNCIL,\fEMBFiR HOYT HM411.TON, COUNCIL MEMBHR CAREEN A. PGTERSEN, COUNCIF?~iFi~1BER ~~EQUAI. EMPLOYT`9I;N"1' AND APFIRMATIVI? ACTION EMPLOYIiR~~ ~~ • Conditions of Approval: 1. That the non-residential uses proposed to be located on the site are consistent with the permitted uses listed within the Community Development Code and the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 2. That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the CDB, and be approved by Staff; 3. That a Transportation Impact Fee be paid, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 4. That all proposed utilities (from the right-of--way to the proposed building) be placed underground. Conduits for the future undergrounding of existing utilities within the abutting right(s)-of--way shall be installed along the entire site's street frontages prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant's representative shall coordinate the size and number of conduits with all affected utility providers (electric, phone, cable, etc.), with the exact location, size and number of conduits to be approved by the applicant's engineer and the City's Engineering Department prior to the commencement of work; 5. That all utility equipment including but not limited to wireless communication facilities, electrical and water meters, etc. be screened from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 6. That all Fire Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any perniits; 7. That all Traffic Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 8. That any/all future signage meets the requirements of Code and be architecturally integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and fmish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits which includes: a. All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the same color and font style and size; and b. All signs be constructed of the highest quality materials which are coordinated with the colors, . materials and architectural style of the building; 9. That aright-of--way permit be secured prior to any work performed in the public right-of--way; 10. That the first building permit be applied for within one year of the Community Development Board approval (by October 18, 2006); 11. That the fmal Certificate of Occupancy be obtained within two years of issuance of the first building pernut; 12. That all streetscaping along Cleveland Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue be installed to the satisfaction of Staff prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 13. That a certified Arborist ensure that the proposed Swale will not impact the critical root zones of the trees as set forth on the tree preservation plan prior to the issuance of any building permits; 14. That a certified Arborist ensure that the canopy of the existing Oak tree located at the easternmost end of the property will not be adversely impacted by the proposed building prior to the issuance of any building pemuts; 15. That the non-residential uses along Martin Luther King, Jr. Street are limited to neighborhood scale uses; 16. That complete applications for the vacation of drainage and utility easement(s) are submitted; 17. That a turning template of a scaled passenger car making turns at comers is depicted and that vehicles must not encroach into the opposing lane; and 18. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the landscape/sti•eetscape plan is revised to provide Medj ool Palms with a minimum overall height between 12 feet and 14 feet of clear trunk in order to avoid conflicts between pedestrians, vehicles and the fronds. Pursuant to Section 4-407, an application for a building permit shall be made within one year of Flexible Development approval (by October 18, 2006). All required Certificates of Occupancy shall be obtained within two years of the date of issuance of the initial building permit. Please be advised that time frames do not change with successive owners. The Community Development Coordinator may grant an extension of time for a period not to exceed one year and only within the original period of validity. The CDB may approve one additional extension of time after the Community Development Coordinator's extension to initiate a building permit application. • ;+ The issuance of this Development Order does not relieve you of the necessity to obtain any building permits or pay-any impact fees that maybe required. In order to facilitate the issuance of any permit or license affected by this approval, please bring a copy of this letter with you when applying for any permits or licenses that require this prior development approval. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Robert G. Tefft, Planner III at (727) 562-4539 or via a-mail at robert.tefft~a myclearwater.com. Sincerely, a/~~~ Michael Delk, AIi CP Planning Director S: (Planning Department) C D BIFLEX (FLD)linactive or Finished ApplicationslCleveland Street 1100 Clearwater Center (D) ApprovedlCleveland Street 1100 -Development Order 01-13-06.doc • • City of Clearwater -, ~ Planning Department -Memorandum x Date: January 10, 2006 To: Tim Kurtz, Senior Landscape Architect From: Robert G. Tefft, Planner I~~ _ ~~ v Re: 1100 Cleveland Street (Clearwater Centre) Tim: Please find attached a copy of the streetscape plan prepared by Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. for the above referenced project. If you could review this plan and forward any comments you may have to me as soon as possible it would be most appreciated. Should you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks. Robert. 1 ~~ 6~ ~~ ~~ ~+~ t~c9c(,G-S tic ~ T~~ ~~~ ~-~v~~t~. qtr `~'t(~-~~-'Ct aNS ~ c° ~~~ ~4 ~S ~v~- ~~~U~~-- i, i~~, ~~. ;; r A(!~ jy~RKS ~n4~1~; `t f~ w~ ~.~.~ c~c ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ f ~(D ~ ~W~-5 r ~~ ~~~Z J Keith Zayac & Associate Civil Engineering, Landscape Architecture, ., ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ c In ~-~6`~' ~"" DEG 1 42005 rprise Road E., Ste 404 afety Harbor, FL 34695 (727) 793-9888 Phone (727) 793-9855 Fax '~~E 3 keith@keithzayac.com TO: Robert Tent DATE: December 13, 2005 City of Clearwater Planning I?ept. JOB #: 407-OSlpermits 100 S. Myrtle Ave. Clearwater, FL 33755 RE: Clearwater Centre WE ARE SENDING YQU TIME FOLLOWING ITEMS: ^ Attached ^ Under Separate Cover via ^ Plans ^ See Selow ^ Shop Drawings Q Prints ^ Specifications ^ Copy of better ^ Change Order ^ Samples COPIES DATE DE5CRIPTION 5 Streetscage Plans THESE ARE TRANSMITTED: ® For approval ^ Reviewed, no comments ^ Resubmit copies for approval ^ For your use ^ Reviewed, comments as noted ^ Submit copies for distribution ^ As requested ^ Returned for corrections ^ Return corrected prints ^ For review and comment CDB Meeting Date: October 18, 2005 Case Number: FLD2005-07067 Agenda Item: E. 3. Owners: Guy and Susan Bonneville, Sebastian and Elizabeth Dorner, and Anthony Dorner Applicant: Clearwater Center LLC Agent: Keith E. Zayac, P.E., RLA Address: 1100 Cleveland Street CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit amixed-use (71 attached dwellings and 44,300 square feet ofnon-residential floor area) with: ^ An increase to the building height of .an additional 15 feet (as measured from roof deck to mean roof line), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-803.C; and ^ Termination of Status of Nonconformity for height (148 feet to roof deck where a maximum of 75 feet would be permitted under current Code), under the provisions of Section 6-109. EXISTING ZONING / Downtown (D) District LAND USE: Central Business District (CBD) Category CLEARWATER Town Lake Residential DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CHARACTER DISTRICT: PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Offices Proposed Use: Mixed-use (71 attached dwellings and _44,300 square feet ofnon-residential floor area). ADJACENT ZONING / North: Commercial (C) District -Office and Limited Vehicle Service. LAND USE: South: Downtown (D) District - Office, Restaurant, and Vacant Vehicle Sales. East: Downtown (D) District -Offices. West: Downtown (D) District -Retail Sales and Service. ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 2.48-acre subject property, which is located at the northeast corner of Cleveland Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue, is situated within the Downtown (D) District and the Town Lake Residential character district of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The subject property consists of a 151,000 square foot, 148-foot high office building with an accessory 164-space parking lot. The surrounding area consists of a variety of uses including: automotive sales (vacant), detached dwellings, Community Development Board -October 18, 2005 Case FLD2005-07067 -Page 1 • offices, overnight accommodations, restaurant, and retail with these uses being located within structures that are typically between one and three stories in height. Development Proposal: The development proposal consists of the conversion of the existing 151,000 square foot office building into 71 attached dwelling units; the construction of a building addition consisting of 21,300 square feet of office floor area, 23,000 square feet of retail floor area, and a 237 space parking garage; and the addition of a 15-foot tall "high-hat" for architectural embellishments and screening of mechanical equipment. The development proposal also includes the development of the parcel to the north across NE Cleveland Street as a 26-space parking lot. Density: Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the maximum allowable density for attached dwellings within the Town Lake Residential character district is 30 dwelling units per acre. As such the 2.48-acre subject property is permitted a maximum of 74 attached dwelling units and only 71 attached dwelling units are proposed (28.63 du/ac). Therefore, the development proposal is consistent with the Plan with regard to density. Non-Residential Floor Area: Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) for properties located within the Town Lake Residential character district is 1.0. Based upon the above and as the development proposal for the 2.48-acre subject property will consist of 71 attached dwelling units, a maximum of 4,936 square feet of non-residential floor area is permissible. However, the development proposal consists of 44,300 square feet of non-residential floor area - 39,364 square feet more than is allowable. As such, the applicant has requested the use of 39,364 square feet of floor area from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool as made available by the Plan. The development proposal's compliance with the requirements for the use of this floor area from the Pool is discussed later in the staff report. Termination of Status of Nonconformity: The development proposal includes a request for termination of status of nonconformity with regard to the existing building height of 148 feet (to roof deck) where a maximum of 75 feet would otherwise. be permitted under current wiz. The criteria for termination of status of nonconformity, as per Section 6- 109, including compliance with perimeter buffer requirements, the provision of required landscaping for off-street parking lots and bringing nonconforming signs, lighting and accessory uses/structures into compliance with the Code will be met with this development proposal. Consistent Inconsistent 1. Perimeter buffers confomung to the requirements of Section 3-1202.D shall be X installed. 2. Off-street parking lots shall be improved to meet the landscaping standards X established in Section 3-1202.E. 3. Any nonconforming sign, outdoor lighting or other accessory structure or X accessory use located on the lot shall be terminated, removed or brought into conformity with this development code. 4. The comprehensive landscaping and comprehensive sign programs may be X used to satisfy the requirements of this section. Building Height: Pursuant to Section 2-903 and the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the maximum allowable height within the Town Lake Residential character district is 75 feet. As previously discussed, the existing building that is to remain as a part of this development proposal has a nonconforming height of 148 feet (to roof deck), for which the nonconformity is to be terminated. In addition to terrninating the status of nonconformity with regard to the existing building height, the Community Development Board -October 18, 2005 Case FLD2005-07067 -Page 2 • plicant has also proposed the addition of a 15-foot tall "high-hat" (as measured from roof deck to mean _.,of line) to provide balance between the architectural improvements to the building facade and the roofline, as well as to conceal the buildings' elevator overruns and associated mechanical equipment. Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the Community Development Board (CDB) may consider granting an increase in the maximum building height specified in a character district if the developer of a site plan application provides a major public amenity, and the increase in height does not exceed 20% of the maximum permitted height. The maximum permitted height within the Town Lake Residential character district is 75 feet; therefore an increase in building height may not exceed 15 feet. To obtain the additional 15 feet of height permitted by the Plan, the development proposal will provide major public amenities including: residential dwelling units within the Downtown area, amixed-use project that will further the Plan's major redevelopment goals and character district vision, as well as K.~o ~ significant contributions to the Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan. Based upon the provision of 7 y/~ the above amenities, the requested additional 15 feet of height for the "high-hat" is supportable. It is noted, however, that extending above the pitched roof component of the "high-hat" is a six-foot tall rounded parapet. This parapet serves to conceal the elevator overruns within the building; and therefore as per the defmition of building height (Height, building or structure), is permitted to project up to 16 feet higher than the maximum height otherwise specified for the zoning district. Thus, the six-foot tall parapet is allowed. Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to Section 2-903, parking is required to be provided at a rate of 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling units for attached dwellings; 3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for offices; and 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for retail sales and service. Therefore, the proposed 71 attached dwellings (106.5), 21,300 square feet of office floor area (63.9), and 23,000 square feet of retail floor area (92) requires a total of 263 parking spaces. Pursuant to Section 3-1405, when any land, building or area is used for two or more uses that are listed in the shared parking table, the minimum number of required parking spaces shall be determined by multiplying the individual minimum parking requirements by the appropriate percentages listed in the table. The following table depicts the development proposals parking requirement as per the shared parking table: WEEKDAY WEE KEND Use.• Midnight 6 A.M. 9 A.M. 4 P.M. 6 P.M. Midni ht 9 A.M. 4 P.M. 6 P.M. Midnight Residential (35.5) 100% = 35.5 60% = 21.3 90% = 31.95 80% = 28.4 90% = 31.95 Residential 71)* 100% = 71 100% = 71 100% = 71 100% = 71 100% = 71 Off ce (63.9) 5% = 3.195 100% = 63.9 10% = 6.39 10% = 6.39 5% = 3.195 Retail (92 5% = 4.6 70% = 64.4 90% = 82.8 100% = 92 70% = 64.4 Totals: 115 221 193 198 171 * The shared parking table takes into account the reservation of 71 parking spaces (1 per unit) for the attached dwelling units. Based upon the above, the development proposal requires a minimum of 221 parking spaces. As proposed, a total of 263 parking spaces will be provided; thus the development proposal exceeds its parking requirement. Solid Waste: The development proposal includes the provision of a refuse/recycling holding area or "trash room" at the ground level of the tower. The holding area will have access to the internal Community Development Board -October 18, 2005 Case FLD2005-07067 -Page 3 • • circulation drive aisles of the parking garage, which in turn access the proposed staging area on the north end of the development with access to NE Cleveland Street. Si~na~e: The applicant is not proposing any signage concurrent with this development proposal. Any future signage must be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building. Utilities: All on-site utility facilities (i.e. electric and telecommunication lines) are required to be placed underground as part of the redevelopment of the site. Provisions for the future undergrounding of existing aboveground utility facilities in the public right-of--way must be completed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy in a manner acceptable to the utility companies and the City. Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan: The subject property is located within the Town Lake Residential character district of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan envisions the district as being redeveloped as a residential district with neighborhood commercial uses and more intense commercial and office development along Myrtle and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenues, and Cleveland, Court and Chestnut Streets. The Plan further states that the addition of new residences in the Town Lake Residential District will enliven Downtown and provide a market for new retail and restaurant development. Public Amenities Incentive Pool: To assist in the transformation of downtown Clearwater into a quality place in which to live, work and play, the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan establishes a Public Amenities Incentive Pool of 2,296 dwelling units and 2,119,667 square feet of floor area for non- residential uses. The applicant is proposing the use of 39,364 square feet of non-residential floor area from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool. The amenities provided by this development in order to justify the request from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool include the provision of 71 residential units in the Town Lake Residential District and a streetscape consistent with the City's Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan and including landscaping, lighting, pavers and fountains. Based upon the provision of these amenities, which are consistent with the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the request for 39,364 square feet of non-residential floor area from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool can be supported; however it is noted that a formal streetscape plan must be submitted for review and be deemed acceptable by staff prior to the issuance of a Development Order. Design Guidelines: The development proposal consists of two distinct parts: the architectural redesign of the existing 148-foot high tower, and the construction of the new 47-foot high office/retaiUparking addition along Cleveland Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. The existing tower's architectural elevations are very stark and the tower does not relate well to the immediate vicinity. The proposed revisions include the outward extension of the lower ten levels on the south, east and west elevations to give the tower step-backs within its elevations, the addition of numerous windows and balconies (tempered glass and aluminum) across the whole of the elevations, the provision of ornamental bandings (stringcourses) at 45 feet and 60 feet in height, and the addition of a "high-hat" atop the tower to provide architectural balance to the building elevations and conceal the elevator overruns and mechanical equipment. The "high-hat" will consist of a barrel the hip roof, while a decorative parapet cap with varying heights will be provided for the balance of the tower. With regard to high-rise buildings, the Design Guidelines state the following: ^ Building stories or step backs differentiated by architectural features including but not limited to coping, balustrades, cornice lines, change in materials, etc; and ^ A proportional relationship between the height of a building and the number and dimensions of step backs used to mitigate the height of the building. Community Development Board -October 18, 2005 Case FLD2005-07067 -Page 4 • • As previously stated, the proposed modifications to the existing tower will create step-backs within the elevations and will provide decorative stringcourses a 45 feet and 60 feet in height to differentiate various levels of the tower. The height of the existing tower will be mitigated by its setbacks from abutting rights-of--way and property lines, as well as the proposed office/retail/parking addition, which will provide pedestrian scale development along the abutting rights-of--way and create a buffer between the rights-of--way and the tower. The new office/retaiUparking addition will conceal the base of the tower, and the office/retail component of the addition will conceal the parking garage from view. The architecture of the new addition will be consistent with that proposed for the tower, including barrel the hip roofs at varying heights, windows with decorative E.I.F.S. trim, pre-cast simulated stone architectural columns, decorative storefronts with awnings above the entrances, and faux balconies for the upper level offices. As previously stated, the proposed addition will be approximately 47 feet in height at its highest measured point (corner of NE Cleveland Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue), while the balance of the addition will be between 33 feet and 24 feet in height. The proposed heights are consistent with the standards set forth in the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and will provide pedestrian scale development along the abutting rights-of--way, as well as creating a buffer between these rights-of--way and the existing tower. The color scheme for the development proposal consists of light tan (Navajo White-SW6126) and gold (Blonde-SW6128) for the upper and lower portions of the building, respectively, and pale beige (Egret White-SW2004) for the trim and accents. The balcony railings will be painted bone white. The design of the development proposal is consistent with the intent and direction of the Design Guidelines contained within the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The office and retail portions of the new addition will conceal the associated parking garage from view along the abutting rights-of--way. It is noted that within the Design Guidelines there exists a provision that it is appropriate that buildings on corner lots emphasize their prominent location through the use of additional height, massing, distinctive architectural treatments, andlor other distinguishing features. With regard to the proposed office/retail/parking addition, the building will not arrive at or exceed the maximum height stated in the Plan; however the tallest portions of this building are located at the corners of the property. With regard to the site as a whole, the existing/proposed 148-foot tower will provide the emphasis sought by the above referenced provision. It is noted that the surrounding area predominantly consists of one and two-story buildings with a minimal inclusion of three-story buildings, specifically the property located at 1024 Cleveland Street being adjacent to the subject property across Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. As such, the existing 148- foot (15-story) tower is neither in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of the adjacent properties, nor is it consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. However, the improvements associated with this development proposal will result in a building that is more architecturally appealing to the surrounding areas, and the provision of the office/retail/parking addition will result in development that is of a pedestrian scale and consistent with the scale, bulk, coverage, and character of the adjacent properties. Based upon the above, the development proposal will result in a significant improvement upon the current state of the subject property and will be more harmonious with the immediate vicinity. Visions, Goals, O~ectives and Policies: A review of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan was conducted and the following applicable Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies were identified: ^ Vision: Downtown Clearwater is a major center of activity, business and governments. The development proposal will result in the adaptive reuse of an existing 151,000 square foot office building as 71 attached dwelling units. The development proposal also includes the construction of a Community Development Board -October 18, 2005 Case FLD2005-07067 -Page 5 pedestrian scale addition consisting of 21,300 square feet of office floor area, 23,000 square feet of retail floor area, and a 237 space parking garage. According to the applicant, the existing building is less than 50% occupied and it is anticipated that occupancy will drop further; therefore the existing development is not operating in accordance with the above Vision statement. The proposed redevelopment will generate new "traffic" that will help to stimulate the surrounding neighborhoods and further this Vision statement. ^ Vision: Downtown will be an integrated community with a mix of retail, residential, office and recreational opportunities. The development of a variety of residential projects to attract new residents to Downtown is critical to the success of a revitalized Downtown. The development proposal will provide neighborhood and community-scale commercial uses, urban residential dwelling units, a streetscape consistent with the City's Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan, and buildings located along and oriented towards the abutting streets. As such, the development proposal will further this Vision statement. ^ Vision: Quality urban design is critical to new construction and renovated buildings. The development proposal will rehabilitate and transform the existing building in a means consistent with the Plan. The redevelopment of the "tower" includes, but is not limited to, the provision of a roof top "high-hat" and parapet walls, the build out of the lower 10 floors on the east, south and west sides of the building, and the addition of ornamental banding along the building perimeter at 45 feet and 60 feet in height. In addition, atwo/three-level commerciaUparking addition will be constructed around the "tower" providing pedestrian level amenities, and giving the existing "tower" the appearance of being stepped back from the surrounding properties. The level of architectural detail being provided in this renovation will transform the existing bland tower into a Mediterranean Revival development that is consistent with the quality urban design envisioned in the above Vision statement. ^ Vision: An adequate parking supply must be available coterminous with new uses. As previously discussed under the Off-Street Parking analysis, the development proposal requires a total of 221 parking spaces and will provide 237 parking spaces within the on-site parking garage, and 26 parking spaces within the parking lot across NE Cleveland Street. Therefore a total of 263 total parking spaces will be provided for the development proposal, which exceeds the requirements of code and is consistent with this Vision statement. ^ Goal 1: Downtown shall be a place that attracts people for living, employment and recreation. The City shall encourage redevelopment that will attract residents and visitors to Downtown as a recreation, entertainment and shopping destination. The development proposal consists of 44,300 square feet of non-residential floor area and 71 attached dwelling units within the Town Lake Residential District. Therefore, the development proposal is consistent with this Goal. ^ Objective lA: All development within Downtown shall further the goals, objectives and policies of this Plan and shall be consistent with the character districts, the design guidelines and the Downtown zoning district. The development proposal will provide for 71 attached dwellings and 44,300 square feet of non-residential floor area as part of an attractive mixed-use development. As such, the development proposal is consistent with this Objective. ^ Objective lE: A variety of businesses are encouraged to relocate and expand in Downtown to provide a stable employment center as well as employment opportunities for Downtown residents. As previously stated, the existing 151,000 square foot office building is less than 50% occupied and it is anticipated that occupancy will drop further. The development proposal will replace the existing square footage with 71 attached dwelling units and ancillary facilities (i.e. lobby, storage, etc.). A building addition will also be constructed around the existing "tower" consisting of 21,300 square Community Development Board -October 18, 2005 Case FLD2005-07067 -Page 6 • • feet of office floor area and 23,000 square feet of retail. The new residences and redesigned commercial floor area will provide a more stable employment center for Downtown residents; therefore the development proposal will be consistent with this Objective. ^ Objective lI: The City shall use all existing incentives to encourage Downtown housing and shall evaluate other incentives to encourage residential uses to locate Downtown. The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan provides for a Public Amenities Incentive Pool from which development proposals may acquire additional non-residential floor area in excess of what the applicable Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) would otherwise allow. This development proposal includes a request to utilize 39,364 square feet ofnon-residential floor area from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool that will be used to provide ground floor retail as well as office floor area along Cleveland Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. The provision of the non-residential floor area will serve to increase the viability and vibrancy of the project. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with this Objective. ^ Objective 2I: Redevelopment and public improvements shall create and contribute to pedestrian linkages throughout the Downtown. The development proposal includes the provision of streetscaping along Cleveland Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue that is consistent with the City's Master streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan; thus compliance with this Objective has been achieved. ^ Polic~l: The Design Guidelines establish the quality and design features expected for renovation, redevelopment and new construction in the Downtown with which all projects must be consistent. The development proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines as it incorporates a cementitious finish over concrete block construction with decorative E.I.F.S. trim and accents. The pitched roofs will be clay barrel tile, while the flat roof sections of the building will be accented with decorative parapets. The building design incorporates both vertical and horizontal architectural elements providing relief throughout the elevations and the provision of numerous windows of various sizes and styles. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with this Policy. ^ Policy 2: The character of each district shall be reinforced through the site plan and design review process. Projects shall be consistent with and contribute positively to the vision of the character district in which it is located. As discussed later in this staff report, the development proposal is found to be in compliance with the policies governing development within the Town Lake Residential District. Therefore, the development proposal is consistent with this Policy. ^ Policy 3: The design of all projects in Downtown shall make meaningful contributions to the pedestrian environment through site and building design. The proposed office/retail/parking addition will establish a pedestrian scale building on the subject property abutting the Cleveland Street, NE Cleveland Street, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue rights-of--way. In addition to the provision of non-residential floor area, the development proposal will also provide 71 new dwelling units within the Downtown, and streetscape improvements including landscaping, lighting, pavers, fountains and a PSTA bus shelter (the shelter will need to be designed to be consistent with the Design Guidelines). Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with this Policy; however it is noted that a streetscape plan that is consistent with the City's Master Streetscaping and Wayfmding Plan must be submitted for review and be deemed acceptable by staff prior to the issuance of a Development Order. ^ Policyy 6: The City shall establish a Public Amenities Incentive Pool that provides density and intensity increases for projects located in all character districts, except as limited in Old Bay, in excess of the allowable maximum development potential based on a provision of selected amenities. Community Development Board -October 18, 2005 Case FLD2005-07067 -Page 7 • • To overcome the numerous constraints affecting redevelopment, the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan establishes the Public Amenities Incentive Pool, consisting of 2,296 dwelling units and 2,119,667 square feet of floor area for non-residential uses, available to all property within the Plan area. This provides an opportunity for the private sector to gain additional development potential while assisting the public to achieve its redevelopment goals for Downtown Clearwater. This development proposal will utilize 39,364 square feet ofnon-residential floor area. from the Pool. The amenities provided by this development to justify the request include the provision of 71 residential units in the Downtown Plan area and a streetscape consistent with the City's Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan. Based upon the above, compliance with this Policy has been achieved. ^ Policy 19: Residential development shall provide appropriate on-site recreation facilities based on the scale of the project. The development proposal will provide several amenities for the residents, including: a swimming pool with spa, fitness spa, resident storage facilities, clubhouse, and a concierge. Based upon the above, the development proposal has provided sufficient amenities for the scale of the project and is consistent with the above Policy. Town Lake Residential District Policies: The following policies shall govern development within the District, as well as City actions: ^ New construction and renovations of existing single family platted areas in the northeast section of the District shall maintain the character of the neighborhood with regard to lot sizes, setbacks and building height. The subject property is not located within an existing single-family platted area; therefore this policy is not applicable to the development proposal. ^ Preferred housing styles north of Laura Street are single family detached duplexes and townhouses. Other styles of attached dwellings may be considered upon assembly of at least one city block. The subject property is not located within the area north of Laura Street; therefore this policy is not applicable to the development proposal. ^ One dwelling unit may be permitted as accessory to a single family or two family dwelling provided sufficient parking exists on site. This unit will not be considered when calculating density for the site. The development proposal does not involve either asingle-family or two-family dwelling; therefore this policy is not applicable to the development proposal. ^ Community scale commercial uses that serve the general needs of multiple neighborhoods are only permitted on Myrtle Avenue, Cleveland, Court and Chestnut Streets. The development proposal includes the provision of large-scale commercial tenant spaces (ground level retail /second level office) along Cleveland Street that will serve the general needs to the surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, compliance with this policy has been achieved. ^ Neighborhood scale commercial and office uses that serve the daily or convenience needs of the immediate neighborhood may be permitted on Drew Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. The development proposal includes the provision of small-scale commercial tenant spaces (ground level retail /second level office) along Martin Luther King, Jr. Street. It is a condition of approval that the non-residential uses along Martin Luther King, Jr. Street are limited to neighborhood scale uses so that continued compliance with this policy can be achieved. ^ Neighborhood commercial uses may be permitted south of Cleveland Street and east of Prospect Avenue provided such uses are integral to a residential project. The subject property is not located south of Cleveland Street and east of Prospect Avenue; therefore this policy is not applicable to the development proposal. Community Development Board -October 18, 2005 Case FLD2005-07067 -Page 8 • • ^ Existing neighborhood office and commercial uses north of Laura Street are encouraged to remain and be renovated. The subject property is not located north of Laura Street; therefore this policy is not applicable to the development proposal. Based upon the above and subject to conditions of approval, the development proposal is found to be in compliance with the policies governing development within the Town Lake Residential District. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the development proposals level of consistency with the standards and criteria as per Section 2-903 and the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Density 30 dwelling units per acre 28.63 du/ac X (74 dwelling units) (71 dwelling units) Floor Area 1.0 0.66 X Ratio Impervious 1.0 0.76 X Surface Ratio Lot Area N/A 2.48 acres X Lot Width N/A 402 feet X Height 75 feet 148 feet X* Parking Spaces Attached 1.5 spaces per unit 263 parking spaces X Dwellings (106.5 spaces) Offices 3 / 1,000 square feet GFA (63.9 spaces) Retail 4 / 1,000 square feet Sales GFA (92 spaces) * See discussion under Analysis COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the development proposals level of consistency with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-903.C.: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development X is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use, intensity and development standards. 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a X Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project will not reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. 3. The uses within the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project are X otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater. 4. The use or mix of uses within the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment X Project is compatible with adjacent land uses. 5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a X Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for develo ment. Community Development Board -October 18, 2005 Case FLD2005-07067 -Page 9 • • Consistent Inconsistent 6. The design of the proposed Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project X creates a form and function that enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. 7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X parking are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. 8. Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity according to the X shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 9. The design of all buildings complies with the Downtown District design X guidelines in Division 5 of Article 3. COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL APPLICABILITY STANDARDS: The following table depicts the development proposals level of consistency with the General Applicability Standards as per Section 3-913: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, X bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and X use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of X persons residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of X the immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, X including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on Community Development Board -October 18, 2005 Case FLD2005-07067 -Page 10 • COMPLIANCE WITH DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES: The following table depicts the development proposals level of consistency with the Downtown Design Guidelines as per the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan: Consistent Inconsistent 1. Site Design: Blocks and Lot Characteristics X 2. Site Design: Access, Circulation and Parking X 3. Site Design: Site Elements X 4. Building Placement: Location X 5. Building Placement: Orientation X 6. Building Placement: Separation X 7. Building Placement: Building Coverage X 8. Building Placement: Additional Requirements for Character Districts and X Special Areas 9. Building Design: Form X 10. Building Design: Architecture X 11. Signs N/A N/A 12. Lighting N/A N/A 13. Property Maintenance N/A N/A 14. Pinellas Trail N/A N/A 15. Utility/Infrastructure Facilities N/A N/A 16. Co orate Design N/A N/A SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials on August 5, 2005. The applicant has worked with Staff over the past several months to provide an attractive, well-designed development that will enhance the local area and City as a .whole. The development will further the City's goals of improving the character of the area and promoting private sector investment within the Downtown. Further, the development proposal is in compliance with the standards and criteria for Flexible Development approval for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, General Applicability Standards, as well as the Downtown Design Guidelines. The Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development approval to permit a mixed-use (71 attached dwellings and 44,300 square feet of non-residential floor area) with an additional 15 feet (as measured from roof deck to mean roof line), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-803.C; and Termination of Status of Nonconformity for height (148 feet to roof deck where a maximum of 75 feet would be permitted under current Code), under the provisions of Section 6-109, based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law and with the following conditions of approval: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 1. That the subject property totals 108,080.94 square feet (2.48 acres); 2. That the subject property is located within the Downtown (D) District and the Central Business District (CBD) Future Land Use Plan category; 3. That the development proposal is subject to the requirements of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Design Guidelines contained therein as it is located within the Town Lake Residential character district; 4. That the proposed use of 39,364 square feet of non-residential floor area from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool is consistent with the provisions of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 5. That the development proposal is consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines; Community Development Board -October 18, 2005 Case FLD2005-07067 -Page 11 6. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexible Development criteria as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per Section 2-903.C; 7. .That the development proposal is consistent with the General Applicability Criteria as per Section 3- 913; 8. That the development proposal is consistent with the Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Town Lake Residential character district; and 9. That the development proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts. Conditions of Approval: 1. That the non-residential uses proposed to be located on the site are consistent with the permitted uses listed within the Community Development Code and the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 2. That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the CDB, and be approved by Staff; 3. That a Transportation Impact Fee be paid, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 4. That all proposed utilities (from the right-of--way to the proposed building) be placed underground. Conduits for the future undergrounding of existing utilities within the abutting right(s)-of--way shall be installed along the entire site's street frontages prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant's representative shall coordinate the size and number of conduits with all affected utility providers (electric, phone, cable, etc.), with the exact location, size and number of conduits to be approved by the applicant's engineer and the City's Engineering Department prior to the commencement of work; 5. That all utility equipment including but not limited to wireless communication facilities, electrical and water meters, etc. be screened from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 6. That all Fire Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 7. That all Traffic Department requirements be met, prior to the issuance of any permits; 8. That any/all future signage meets the requirements of Code and be architecturally integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits which includes: a. All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the same color and font style and size; and b. All signs be constructed of the highest quality materials which are coordinated with the colors, materials and architectural style of the building; 9. That aright-of--way permit be secured prior to any work performed in the public right-of--way; 10. That the first building permit be applied for within one year of the Community Development Board approval (by October 18, 2006); 11. That the final Certificate of Occupancy be obtained within two years of issuance of the first building permit; 12. That all streetscaping along Cleveland Street and Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue be installed to the satisfaction of Staff prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy; 13. That a certified Arborist ensure that the proposed Swale will not impact the critical root zones of the trees as set forth on the tree preservation plan prior to the issuance of any building permits; 14. That a certified Arborist ensure that the canopy of the existing Oak tree located at the easternmost end of the property will not be adversely impacted by the proposed building prior to the issuance of any building permits; 15. That complete applications for the vacation of drainage and utility easement(s) are submitted; Community Development Board -October 18, 2005 Case FLD2005-07067 -Page 12 16. That a turning template of a scaled passenger car making turns at corners is depicted and that vehicles must not encroach into the opposing lane; 17. That the non-residential uses along Martin Luther King, Jr. Street are limited to neighborhood scale uses; and 18. That a formal streetscape plan is submitted for review .and is deemed acceptable by staff and consistent with the City's Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan prior to the issuance of a Development Order. Prepared by Planning Department Staff: ~~~~"C e ~ .~tl~ Robert G. Tefft, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Photographs of Site and Vicinity Aerial Map Location Map Future Land Use Map Zoning Map Existing Surrounding Uses Map Application S: (Planning DepartmentlC D BIFLEX (FLD)IPendtng cases) Up for the next CDBICIeveland 1100 -Clearwater Center (D) - 10-18-OS - R71Cleveland Street 1100 -Staff Report 10-]8-OS.doc Community Development Board -October 18, 2005 Case FLD2005-07067 -Page 13 • • 1100 Cleveland Street FLD2005-07067 Looking southwest from subject property across Cleveland Street Looking northeast from subject property across existing on- site parking lot Looking east from subject property across existing on-site parking lot. Looking southeast from subject property across Cleveland Street. Looking west from subject property across existing on-site parking lot. Looking northwest at subject property from across Cleveland Street • • , ~ r • ~ ~ 1~~ ~• iti~~ ~ ~!••~". ~. i . 1 .~ t ~ ~ -cr' 4 "~ ' 3 r ' S w j _J ( ~ .bt ic_ ti _~ r . ~ . + •w b \ s .. ~~~~ - _ ~j. v e - a ~ _ ~, _ :; j tia r Q ~t i y~ - ~ Y • a1d w . - ~ ^ ~ w' ,~ l , 4 - a . . n. ~~ ^^ _A , ~• _ ' w a~ j ~,-rn,•- , ~Y k r ~ ~2~ Y~ ~, ' ~ ~': ~ F + ~ 'w ~ .a4 ~ ~ L w - Q ~ r ~, .O~_ ~ 4 n 1! _~~ ~ t~ rrSS ~~~ 'ter. }~~ ^~ z~ ~ r ~ r y 1 '~ ~ r~. t •r _ J• ~ 1 M ~ rrr i ~ J' ' , •.r j~ ],v ~a • ~ ~^ it .~~t' W~9 ~. ~~•~ ~ . s'ti' ~ '~ .~ ±--'~. ~~ ti w }~ `• ~ `~ ' r ~ ... ~~ ~~ ~ 4 z ~~ ~ ) .-fir rrr • ~ • • ..- . -..- S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FtDJ\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Cleveland 1)00 -Clearwater Center (DJ - 10-1&OS- RT\Maps\Aerial Map.doc • • P ~ IA S.ALL.E ~ Sr ~ ~^ a7 A A411 BLUFF ~ ~ O4oPai AOMI i~S~O~I 2 PALM BWFF Sr W P~ ~ < ~ ^ zS' ~,"° ~ o o= _ € ~ ~ BAR H~I3~3 O ~ ~ $~ ~ a s ~ sr o d ~ MErro ~ ~ u ^ ~ g PALAETTO ~a Q NAnrfl yy Q Q NI610LSON ST ' ~ MCMQSON ^ ~ ~ ~~ S ~ ~ ~ 111®YU ~ ~ l~ MIw.E ~ ( ~~aDWDGE SF ~ ~~1 J' U~ Sf TiEOROU ~ ¢ PLAZA ~ k ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Sa~~a a HARE Sr JAC160N FOREST RO ~~ ~` ~ ~ PROJECT '~ ~ ~NJ~N ^> [~ _ ~ _ SITE a ~ ^ a CiEBN ^^®^owa^^ OtiEW Sr S.R. 590 <~a~~~ a~ ^~~aO ~ ~~~~^a~b~sCy ~ g ~ a (AURA 3 1A1R2A So ST !4 ST W ^~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ^ ^ ^m ~ ^ ^ ~ CAW a s aEYEUrto ~ t~ ~ D -^ ^ ^ ~ ~ °~ ~^~~~o o ° ~ g Da^ o ~ ~ ann~tt ~ ~ o~ a ^ ^a PIERCE sr a w a p sr s ' _ ~ r mein V c~ O PERCE sr pI~E Y f^^ \Q ~_ ~ ~~^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ ~aal (A1 Y~~ ~ 0 0 FPAMO_w a z~i~ ~ LL11 LLJJ ~ ^ ~ g z~ M `~ . couRr sr a ® ^ ~~ g c ~ ~ f clR a ~ ~~ sT ~ ~ 1II~'~1I1 g F- OOULD Sr UE IEQI a ~ ^ 1---~J ^ ^ ~ ~ .3 ~ ^ I~-.--~A ROSH 'e~ BROWNELL ST U O ~ COURT ST COURT Sf S. ROGERS 37 moo^~^~~ ^^c~ ^ TURNER ST ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ^ ~ PME ~ }~~~~~~~}yyy~yyy~ a ~, oeam ~ P~ mNE 9T PINE ST ~ ^ ~ ~~ _~ Q 3 ~< L~JJ ``ww 8 ~ mNE ^ ~~ P9~E ~ ~ ~ E D ` < ~ ~ 3 oRUlo RD w cauro Ro ~ J oRU4 / L-~-~ ~~ ^ ^ ^ z y ~ •WSMOIE ~ WAY g ~ o Q JASMINE L.-~ ~~ ~ ^ wAa ORN a~ pP ~~~~ f ~ { ,AUTxow I1TIl1S PA TH LOTUS PATH LOTUS PATH IDTUS PATN Location Map Owner. Guy and Susan Bonneville, Sebastian and Elizabeth Donner, and Anthony Donner Case: FLD2005-07067 Site: 1100 Cleveland Street Property Size(Acres): 2.48 PIN: 15/29/15/03060/001/0010 15/29/15/03060/002/0090 Atlas Page: 287A S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for fhe next CDB\Cleveland I J00 -Clearwater Center (Dj - i0-J8-OS- lZT\1Naps\Locatlon Ivlap.doc 1 J - ___ ^ ~ N N ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~r I ' I ~ ' I 1 I I r III ~ t---~A ~- '1~ = I 1 ~ _ 11 I 1 1 I ~ I~ d ~ ~ t 1 1 --- 1 ~_~ o r- L_L _J -7 I--j ~ _- I ~ ~ i_ r I 1 1 11 I I L ~ L- I I~ - J t_ --~.I 116 _-j ' r-1 r ~ ~ t-J Y V --i --- ~ Syr _ j i -~ r- ~ i--1 N 1 ~ -, f_~-_1,r 1 1 ~ f-~' r- 1 2 I 1 I -1 ~\ ~ vi -J I 1 - I .J ~ -r _ \ ~ ~ GROVE ST ! 7146 ~.~'' ~~ Y~ c 121 $ N ~ 119 .- ' '~ 'di ~ \ ~i ~~ ~ ~i 1 j 115 ~ ~ /\ \ 4~ ~ - ~~ \\ o+ \e i ~ „~\ CBD ^ \ Q 113 , 111 ;- , ~. ~ ~ ~ _ ~\\ ; \ ; ~ , \ a '7119 ~ ^\ \\ \\ n ~•~ • ` \ ~' 1 ; ~ ~~O ~ \ `G Z ~~ _ 103 CG. ~ J Y a GVE ~ LAURA ST W ~ CBD ; ~ ~~~~~ _ __ I ~ i I -'I 998 I I I I -- i - 000 j 1 ~ -~_ - I --- I r-------1 \ \ r \ \ ~~\ ~y~ \ ~ \ 1 1 !~ , \ I ~ I `- I I I 1----~ i --1 1-l I I ~ \~ i \ \ ~~ ~ \ to ~ I 1 I 1 I i i ~ 1 O ~ b p I I ~ p N I v 'i __N O I ~ w l s CLEVELAND ST 2 1 a l3D ~ ~ ; ~J 0 5 1 G ~ ~--; -- q 1 0 II I I D C 5 I ~ ~~rt I A I I I 10 9 j I--IJ r- I 1 1 12 11 j I ~--~-- 17 1 I 14 J3 ~ 10 CBD za ~ 15 I I i ~ CBD ~----- ------- ~ I I 1 _-- PARK ST ~' L ~ 1131 `---- 41 42 rn 1-v-eB $ ~ ----~ 1 1 ~ 46 ~ __ `--------~ L I ~ 1 5 I `---- ~ t--------i Future Land Use Map Owner. Guy and Susan Bonneville,. Sebastian and Case: FLD2005-07067 Elizabeth Donner, and Anthony Donner Site: 1100 Cleveland Street Property 2.48 Size~Acres) PIN: 15/29/15/03060/001/0010 15/29/15/03060/002/0090 Atlas Page: 287A S:\Ptanning Department\C D B\F EX (FLDJ\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Ctevetand t I00 - Ctean+vater Center (DJ - )0-18-OS - RT\Maps\Future Land Use Map.doc • • - --- -°'- ~1_P i\ ~ ~ ~~ i ' ~GROV 1_-- T 1148 (~i\~ / -~ y o° 121 $ N M 118 ~ I ~\ ~ \ \ ~~ i 1 \\ 117 ~ i _ \ '\ 115 ? /\ - ~ \ ~'a \ a~ \ ~~ ~' 113 ~ ~ 111 ~^\ ~ V y -1\ 1\ ' \ ~ \ ~ ."1118 /^\ \\ \\ " \ ~ I ~ N ~ ~ ; `O / \ t \ \ ~ i I i 103 ~ ~a~ ~ ~ ~ LAURA ST W i ~ ~ -t i = i _ ~ ~ __ 1 I 1 1 I 998 1 ~ 1 ~ -----1 ~ Z I I --- I 000 I I ~ 1 1 ~ -~_ t ~~\ °y~ \ ~ r-------t \ \ \ ~ t ~9 I I ~ ~ j I__--~ --I I- I I i' I I \\~ ~ \~ \ so I O I I # Z -ZV o I I °o O I 1 C N 1 V~ /~~ ' ' 1 ~ \ s CtEVELAND ST 2 1 o I i ~- ~ r-~ F r--' -- q 1005 1 1 I I 1 I_1r.. i I j 1 10 ~ I 1 i__IJ r_ ~ ' 17 1 I t I 1 >2 11 I I r-- --- 1 14 13 10 20 ~ I I 15 ~----- r------- ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 17 ~ ------ L ~ 1131 ---- PARK ST Z' 40 41 42 ~n ~ m •- `13 1-v----- ~ o °o ~ ~ -----i 1 I 44 qy I' 1 1-J ~_____~_~ 29 ~---- ~ I______~t 46 005 I Zoning M ap Guy and Susan Bonneville, Sebastian and Owner: Elizabeth Dourer, and Anthony Dourer Case: FLD2005-07 067 Property Site: 1100 Cleveland Street 2 48 Size(Acres): 15/29/15/03060/OOi/0010 PIN: 15/29/15/03060/002/0090 Atlas Page: 287A ___i ~ L__J 1 1 II _j ^ I ~ r-- ~+ ~ I o ~Z_tJ ~ l o r = 118 . r--7 I ~ _, r1 -1 I j g ~--~ 1 o J o -J L ~ _ r I ~j i ~° 1 -- I 1 ~-I~r~l ~r I o i : I - ~ I I ~_ ~ ti~ I I 1_ ` _J I t_ dr-~ r ~ M~ , r 1 N .P- I 1 w I 1 w I rr, 1 I r I ~ r I I r I I ' ~ ~ j /f/~~//j r -- i '- - - - ' _ -~ J _ I -- , i/ cI _r r- r~ 1 _ __ 7127 t f _~ ~ ~~ g ~- _ I~ ~ t r-tL: ~ r- 1 ~. 2 m . J r r- ~ 1 I r-t ~~ / ~- t I I i \~ ~ ~ 1231 1 =~ :.~ Ja' ~ - _ -'' ~ '~ 1_ ~ S:\Pianning Department\C D B\FLEX (FtD)\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Cteveland 1100 -Clearwater Center (D) - t0-18-05 - RT\Maps\Zoning Map.doc ~ I ^ ' I ^ ` I I----I ~ -1 r -J L L-i -~I 116 et a --- ; ~~ ~ I 1 -1 r-~ I '~+ - ~~ -- i I ;~_ i ~ I ~`~~ -=1 - I I ~~_ ~~ I I I t ' ~~ ~ I~ I I ~~ ~ ~r1 r-~ - r - L_J LJ t I - --II r 1 r l I _ -~ ~ -~ _ ~ r- 1 ~J 1 2 D to h r-- d; ~-~ I 1251 ~ ~ ~ t o ~ I ~- I i~ ~ y cV "f ° , Jj m -- I 1 ~' S~ ~ \ 1231 I_ J ~ ~ -r - ~ -- - ^. -GROVE ST 114s ~~>,,~~ Y 0 121 ~ _ 119 ~ ~j.: ' 117 7 ; ~- > G . 1 W 115 + 1 \` \`~ ~` >~ i \ i 1i ~ \ ~ - \ ~ Vi \ ~> \y~\ -I Vacant Q ;;; ; -°\ > 3 ~ ~ = - ; `\ ~ >a 7 1 i \ t OS 1 \ \ ~i ~ = P Z 103 ~> ~ G LAURA ST W ~ i j ~!!~ - ~ i--- I ----- 999 ~ .1 ; ta>~ra t ~ ? Offices ,~, --, \ _, --' ~ ~ r-------, \ \ ~y' \, --- ----- I ; I I I \\ \ \ ~ /~ ----; ~ ' e~'ni ~t ~`~ ; ; Of is ~ I s \r CLEVELAND ST 1, s -- _ 1 1005 i~ ; i' i 1 r -J 5 ~ ~staura t I ~. ~. ~ . .. ~ Offices ,~ ., , ---~ r- 17 .la~ ; ~ 11 I 1 ~--~--~ I ; I 14 13 I 10 20 1 ; 48 15 r------- ~ I I ; ----- 18 17 ~ -___-_ L! ii31 `----- PARK ST ~ 40 41 42 ~ I-v----- b o o ~~ I I ~ I 45 ~~ -------J L__I ~ I I `---- 46 1005 I r--------1 Existing Uses Map Owner. Guy and Susan Bonneville, Sebastian and Case: FLD2005-07067 Elizabeth Dorner, and Anthony Dorner Site: 1100 Cleveland Street Property 2 48 Size (Acres) PIN: 15/29/15/03060/001/0010 15/29/15/03060/002/0090 Atlas Page: 287A S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLDJ\Pending cases\Up for the next CDB\Cleveland 1 100 -Clearwater Center (D) - 10-IS-OS- RT\Maps\Existing Uses Map.doc ttbm, tlabibne or eubet%sbm wtthoN the written eppovel of the owner odor shell Buaremee, In IMtbp, Olem euNNeblllly for a perbtl al Iwelve (12) momm mm (mel eb-oheckad q the Landscepe Conhedor pMr to IantlecepB metedel benliatbn. Dleaeperxdp shell !ty to the owrar. ee epeekbtl on the lentlecepe plan. II mmemn or nbor do rM edmn to epedlkntbne, Ihey w1% r Project Meneper wen pnpm Imn%etbn cenletl oul q Lentlecepe wnteaerel ro edtlttbnal poet. em n be Provided q the Imnnlnp comroam unep dhenvlp evdnmM steles m the epedlketbm. albn tlpne shell be permkted on Me proles, axcepl lortlro projea IMOrtmibn elem. emped ee mceepry to ecoomoden new pknlnpe. d ere tllaunetl tludnp me krMecepe Inetelnllon Men be nmtltletl wRh St. Aupuellm odor x111 be reepontlde for Ine mAectlOn, romovel, end paper Clepoeel Dreg em ell mbrb netelbkon olmb projea. ~.hln dphl o/way shell be eodtletl. IRRIGATION NOTES 1. a bw volume mlpetlon eyenm, iml provpee I00% coverepe to e0 propoead pentllpe, will De tleeipned end Ineniktl q lm CAmndor. 2. Tm propopd ImpeOOn Syenm muel meet m axceetl ek epp%cehb Gly wade requlremegme, (I.e., Seok Frk~rvaipeProveMlon, Automatic Reln ShNOR Oevke, etc...) 0. pnrloOto lnW I°~atlon of l mkh. IngBibn mupm ealddlgy Wtleeed~bn 372 3.C to provide 10096 cperope, eM Irxdutle a airs pmor end timer. 4. Irtlpetbn eelnan dnwlnpe, whkh eowrMely and dpdy beniiry eA modMcetbm Rror wWikulbm, mutl be wbmMletl prior to flml Inapealon eM ecceptence. 5. The LeMecepe Contnaor must cool0lnete the gecement end powm wppy lorihe Irtipetbn cenlel Ilmar wllh lm Oananl Conndor, S. The /dbwlry iPlpetbn sytlem comporome Mrs be MAked, per seal menufeaumn' spednmtlom. Toro-Nenflm TeMllm Selr Gpninp, PrepunCOmpemellnp Emrier Um HARGE - Ralnd°I S Snlbn Ondoor Cmkrol Timer Rbmele -214APR i' Elecbk VeNe Amlec - 70-Routs VeNe Sp. PLANT LIST Q o,.ee. vnew~,., u.. on,: ra ~. na ar.l ea mw.wa,.n.,w,c.nereemow n.m,tlx4r.H.t m nero.Pewe ree„. v.np. v.roreeneww,.neo~u.aer.uooa vw,~a„e ee.we.~. e,enm+ aw.aarnaroc. fie ne mpxbege iron, nbn lamrom,a u uNp uu.nn ayew WiM.> M M Messrs Res etwmM1, aeYUU ee.4;(x xr.}x6'04 TREES TO BE REMOVED OAKS PAlM9 r ovi rP now Y GNt rrax rro,ue z~ ~ ~, '.I '.1 S i ~, ~ ': ~ ~~I I 1 ~ '$x N ~d~i ~e 6 ¢Q`3 `~g" a O C w F a d W J U I s16tr ONLY B OF F> r~ 1, GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES 7. The IaMecepe Comnaor theA ends PWminp belle, ea required, to provbe potltNe drolnepe entl promote optlmum Olen erowm. s erM pl t metedeln will be ended es Nursery Orede No. 1 or better ae oWlnetl by Ins FbMe on end Cornumer SeMcee, ONhbn o! Plan Induevy ^CUedee eM SnrMarM tm ry Plene', vieed hom Ilme to nme. ~ce In eooonaxe wnh me Flodtle Nulprymen'B erd Orowem Aesodetbm epprped preabea. IILed wkn Apolann 20.104 tehlen ee per the mewfaaurere epedAcetbm In mrllundbn veth m the epproxlmele proponbm ee bllow°: 50% end erM 5096 opI k meterlal cemMinp of epencetbn0tllei e~pa entlowaterfiop Blmpedty ~ IIP pie~eM~ hee Disk extren sun OebN, ~weeda, etc. I receive a 3" nyer of 4yprep molts, wnkh b to be wetenMan eRer %Mellemn. etlub le pneened for the convenience of Me LeMecepe CAnrodm. In the pen of a dieaepewy lne Dlant keY, Me plea Mell prevell. mntlmr, and epeanp epeaflcetbne. Any metedel nd meennp epedAmlbm even m rempee mnaoreexpeme. aaor Mell be reepomlble for emminlrg Mly both Ms the erM Rie bb doartlarde. Geuepentlee e ectusl eke cerMkbm shell be npodell n the Lendecepe Arohkea f dtleNp of tllemveryry No eoo0uni shell be made BRer coned mmpkibn nr hlbn to npod Peon on tm pert of the LenOecepe Conntlor et Ob Ihm of dddlrg. odor shell be roepombb for eaudnp all mceepry epplbebb pemae end Ikencp to peeorm N plan eel end fm cpedncelkme. hid ae epetlfietl unkm umvenese, et welch time Ole landecepeA lhlled Porq of wemetl Nenpee. cenceminp the pars set eM/or °pedlketlom shell ba dlradad to Me LeMecepe Amhkea t ~ ~ • LEARWA~TER~ CEI~TTER C A l~~XED" USE DEUE~;O ~ MENT • ~,._ ~ - _s -~-~~-~--mss ~- _. .- - . , C~,EARWA'TErR~, F~I,ORIIDk ~~' _ t-~ ~_ - ~ !_ ~Y .4111 ~•' '-.~" 1 ' T ~ ~r ~ ' r.'. r Z _, ""k .T '^ ~ ~"- f 4 .dR .'3 s ; ..,,7~~ y ~ i. ;. + ,'' -~, J4 ; t ~ ~ } :~ _ . r ~~ r . "" rte. ' ~. ~" , ~fF -. u, . .~ ~.. ~ _ _ ~ ~ .. .. ~ i ~ i x., ~ ~ n ' F .yw~,~ ~~~ .. M / .rW ,'I~ r L I. .. . { f ~ ~xi ~ AL Y * f .' - aro f ~' fC ' ` e ~ ~ ~ .w.. . ~..~ mJ° ~ ! e ~ a: ~kr a~ ~i ~. _. ~' _ z, .; "'" " n ~ ` _ _ . ~ A _ ._ ,~ _ n Yr^w- .i. _ ~ __ --.._..~..~ y,~ .._ ..w.~.~ ti.~~".a'....,,.v.w'.rw.~w';'k'".Y`P Y".dM"°^W^ 1: J!~C"11^s'k1•%f{~'''v} y,{"y, y,y, _L..7 {.~ t .. .. ~.sn...-L N.n.wrwr'-ii~..r.~:3C~!~..f.1 Iro.Y?~~~1 (~~i.~fx+ii' .. per ... rr ..~ ter. ~1 ~^~. a.,.~-~ ~~ •<r"`t I ~( BBB ~ BBB L J sass sao 481 sass m ~ sass saga sass sass ' ~t» : .~.~ ~~~ „~" "`: 2 ~ {~ 110 IK ~ s ~e~a~ar~~iww~ •~rw ~era~a~~ao Mw~r aNr~ ~Yr• 1~~ Ar/~It~•~1~11/~1! r1iSA~f10~~~.~ ~(~ O®~~ ~r , roa r A/,ol s~r~ '1=~~=~..Rt 1/20 '~"' .~~ N 4 u1 4 ~3Uf ~D (1~1C~ ~fi~~~ ~'~~1~~.~~101~15 RESIDENTIAL OFFICE/RETAIL SPACES UNITS ENCLOSED BLDCx ENCLOSED BLDCx AREA l SF) CsROSS AREA l SF) CsROSS PARK(NCs LEVEL 1 117 + 26 0 56,332 15,6'i5 PARKINCs LEVEL 2 64 0 33~01~ 14,730 PARK(NCs LEVEL 3 ~ 56 6 31,01 13,895 TYPICAL LEVEL 4 6 ll,'160 TYPICAL LEVEL 5 6 11,"160 TYPICAL LEVEL 6 6 11,760 TYPICAL LEVEL ~ 6 11,760 TYPICAL LEVEL 8 6 11,6® TYPICAL LEVEL 9 6 11,60 TYPICAL LEVEL 10 6 11,60 TYPICAL LEVEL 11 6 11,160 TYPICAL LEVEL 12 6 11,'160 TYPICAL LEVEL 13 4 11,352 TYPICAL LEVEL 14 4 11,352 TYPICAL LEVEL 15 3 11,352 TOTAL BUILDI1~Ks RESIDENTIAL UNITS : 'T1 UNITS TOTAL ENCLOSED BUILDINCs AREA: 261,546 SF 44,300 SF PROVIDED PARIGINCs: 263 SPACES (INCLUpINCx ~ NC + 26 ACROSS STREET PARKINC~c) REQUIRED PARKING: l71 UNITS X 1.5 10~ + 44,300SF RETAIL/OFFICE ~ 3/1000 = 133) = 240 C: ~~ '~;~, ~.•.- ~_.. .»~..~ ~' '"1 m~ t... /a Z.o/ sr ~MIC/CM~ ~iMl~ '.t-~..F~'..Fr 1 /20 i f ~I ~- ~ ~~~ 04 ~' ~1~F1ANp g~T OItiN a b a I ~. t~ DN p s~ e . X44 ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~' ` ~r ~aa ~ a 64 O ~ ~. ~ b ~~ ~ e ~® s r n s r• a s w s ~® OII[sN ~® .. ~~~ ~~~ a1r1K OICf M ~ Altf 0 S • j f~Z.DZ Z .rm '~J-~ F~.~~' 1 /20 s rt t ~ 2.a3 3 Ro ~J-~ N..1~T 1/20 x+•- a,- , .., t~ ~ a ..1 Q t ~ .>..~ ~ dl t°:; ~ ~ .~ 8T1QE~r ~2.0~ ~~ .~'~.~-C.1~~' 1 /20 a s .. UNIT 04 f~oanr~w~ nroM~a~~awr wi ~ '~.. s w~a •: ~ ~wr ~ poor b ...r -n om . '*. n+~ w+...J ~~' UNIT 06 ~ eaoavs~ as ~~~ rt~~ce ~~~ UNIT 02 ~rawioonisw~ Y{ f IYC 1t f 11~iCt Tl1001 UNIT 05 ~eaaanisusaw ~~~c w~~wia ~wr~~ia UNIT 03 ~~oanisuwW ~R~~ uw~toor UNIT Ol i~~oav-~a~ ~~AiC s~~w~ ~~1GfR ~LO~t PLAN Y ~~ •.,. ..._,_ i .,,~ PH UNIT 04 ~oa+isai ^w~re w«ww~es ~~w~oa PH UNIT 02 t~oc~+iagx ~r~~c ~~~a ~wr~~ooa #~O~OR PLAN ~ L ~' '~' 1 /8'~,. PH UNIT 03 PH UNIT 01 e~eon+iaai ~naniMx dLQll~ w~Z~ N.~Aw-~1~1 M•~Iw~~ N.~I~~Iw ~~ ~A~1 M• w111r1 N.~~~w~Il~f M.~w~~I~~l~ w.a~wwww*~wswwD N.N~AM•IM~LU~1 N • ~wA/r11MRaNM ~K sy ~, wv..:. M.w .~/ M.'a~ . ~~~ °i N•1{R~~RYMIII~1 ~~ IM.IM/t M•ar M. ~'IN~*LtiO~ M.O OIYA~Iww M.wI~AAI~r M.w]IrAw•II~ItM~w M. iM1~M1M11w)IA~MIM~ i~M11 m m m m w •A ~~ C~iM11G EG4L8 AG/t~ N i$T~ ' ~'' '~" ~'' 1/30 s ~~ w ~~ir~ N•A111A1 M.O~Ir~Nr N~~1~/~Ir ~~~{ H• wl~l~l N.~~~I~ M~~M~/~w1A~C «•~~~wwwsa~ w.~e~~~swMM ,~~- . ,~.-~. .r~..., ~'~ ~ ~•a. ~~! «~~ ~.. _.. ti.: M.OI~~Y/!~1 M~~M>f M•~~Irs M~IM~I~MaMwA ~1N7~L0~ ~~~ ar+ur nMi:~ ,~Mi~iw~ M.AM~A~/IM~Iq M•~IYaMAMINMIIII ~r • f~IRd'NC 6CALG i ~ N FEE7~ !~~ Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineering, Landscape Architecture, Planning September 8, 2005 Mr. Robert Tefft City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Ave. Clearwater, FL 33756 407-05 Permits 701 Enterprise Road E., Ste 404 Safety Harbor, FL 34695 (727) 793-9888 Phone (727) 793-9855 Fax keith ~ keithzayac. com RE• ~°' Dear Mr. Tefft: ~ ~Od ~~~~~~ Enclosed please find 15 sets of information addressing comments received from City staff including the following items: General Engineering: 7. Please delete Sheet 2 of 7. This level of detail is not warranted for site review. Response:Deleted 2. Provide sidewalk easement where public sidewalks cross into private property. Response:Easement added to plans 3. Submit complete applications for vacation of drainage and utility easement(s). Alf of the above to be addressed prior to CDB. Response:Application is being submitted to Steve Doherty under separate cover. Prior to building permit.' 7. Revise detail of sanitary. c/eanout on Sheet 6 of 7 to conform with current City standard Response:Detail added 2. A right-of-way permit will be required for all work within the ROW of Gulfview Blvd. Contact Engineering at (727) 562-4750 in Room 220 at the Municipal Services Building. Response:Acknowledged 3. Provide detail of doghouse manhole proposed for installation in MLK, Jr. ROW. Response: Detail added General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, additional comments maybe forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Fire: 1. **''PLEASE NOTE'" REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION SHALL NOT RECEIVE THE APPLICANT OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE FLORIDA FIRE PREVENTION CODE 2004 EDITION. ~_ _ ~ i . SEP08 ~ ~ . ~e-'hf l i s .. ~ ~.) fi LJ C '. 1 t~trtY ~F CC t _,_- .a _.R- ~. -~... _._._. C_Y_ 0 • Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineering, Landscape Architecture, Planning 407-05 Permits 701 Enterprise Road E., Ste 404 Safety Harbor, FL 34695 (727) 793-9888 Phone (727) 793-9855 Fax keithCa~keithzayac.corn September 8, 2005 Mr. Robert Tefft City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S Myrtle Ave. Clearwater, FL 33756 RE: FLD2005-07067-1100 CLEVELAND ST. 0 ~~~~,~. S( i ~ wi ~J ~ i ~ I f __~ ,i a P[AN h Irv , ~~ t~:= ~. ~. -'_ _ ~ ~ r Dear Mr. Tefft: Enclosed please find 15 sets of information addressing comments received from City staff including the following items: General Engineering: 1. Please delete Sheet 2 of 7. This level of detail is not wa-ranted for site review. Response: Deleted 2. Provide sidewalk easement where public sidewalks cross into private properly. Response:Easementaddwi to plans 3. Submit complete applications for vacation of drainage and utility easement(s). All of the above to be addressed prior fo CDB. Response:Application is being submitted to Steve Doherty under separate cover. Prior to building permit: 1. Revise detail of sanitary cleanout on Sheet 6 of 7 to conform with currant City standard. Response:Detail added 2. A right-of-way permit will be required for all worf~ within the ROW of Gulfview Blvd. Contact Engineering at (727) 562-4750 in Room 220 at the Municipal Services Building. Response:Acknowledged 3. Provide detail of doghouse manhole proposed for installation in MLK, Jr. ROW. Response: Detail added General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, additional comments maybe forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Fire: 1. ***PLEASE NOTE` REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION SHALL NOT RECEIVE THE APPLICANT OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE FLORIDA FIRE PREVENTION CODE 2004 EDITION. ~~ C., i O • 407-05 Permits 2. Clearances of 71/2 feet in front of and to the sides of the fire hydrant with a 4 foot clearance to the rear of the hydrant are required to be maintained as per NFPA-1, please acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB. Response: Note has been added to plans 3. Fire Department Connections shall be identified by a sign that states "No Parking, Fire Department Connection" and shall be designed in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation standards for information signage and be maintained with a clearance of 7 % feet in front and to the sides of appliance as per Florida Fire Protection Code 2004. Please acknowledge intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB. Response: Note has been added to plans 4. The existing property is protected by a fire sprinkler system. Any and all additions and improvements to this properly must also be protected by a fire sprinkler system meeting the requirements of NFPA-13 2002 edition. Please acknowledge intent to comply PR/OR TO CDB. Response: Note has been added to plans 5. This building has been detem~ined to meet the criteria of a High Rise Building as defined by both the Florida Building Code, 2001 Edition and the Florida Fire Prevention Code, 2004 Edition, therefore the requirements of a High Rise structure must be met. These requirements include, but are not limited to Building Code and Fire Code items such as: Fire Pump and generator if pump is electric, sprinkler system throughout with control valve and water flow device on each floor, Class I Standpipe System, Fire Alarm using voice/alam~ communication, Central Control Station, firefighter phone system, Emergency lighting, and Standby Power as per NFPA 70, Pressurized Stairwells, Stairwell marking and Elevator Lobbies Please acknowledge intent to comply with the requirements fora High-rise Building PRIOR TO CDB. Response: We acknowledge intent to comply with frnal consbvction plans. 6. Any vaults or ramps over which emergency vehicles may have to travel must meet the requirements of HS-20 specifications. Please acknowledge intent to comply with this requirement PRIOR TO CDB. Response: A note has been added to plans 7. If this is to be a "gated" property a gate type lock box must be provided for emergency access to comply with the requirements of Pinellas County Orrf 98-04. Applications for gate type lock box may be obtained from the Life Safety Management office at Clearwater Fire and Rescue, 610 Franklin Street. Please acknowledge of intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB. Response: We acknowledge intent to comply with final construction plans. 8. The minimum clearance for any Porte cocheres, overhead walkways, pedestrian bridges, etc. beneath which emergency vehicles must travel is 14 feet. P/ease acknowledge intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB. Response: The minimum clearance for listed overhands will be a minimum of 14 fit 9. Where pavers are to be used in areas over which emergency vehicles must travel they musf be of a type to support live load of 80, 000 lbs. Please acknowledge intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB. ;i . ., _, __ _ _ 2 SEP 0 ~ 20 _~ 0 ~~ 407-05 Permits Response: Pavers are proposed in pedestrian areas only. Vehicular areas are designed with concrete and asphalt pavement designed to support live load of 80,000 !bs Hacbor Master: 1 . No Issues Legal: 1 . No Issues Land Resources: 1. Insure that the proposed swale does not impact the critical Hoot zone s of tree #32,33, and 34. GeneraNy berms have less impacts. Clarify prior to CDB. Response: The swale has been revised to more closely retain the existing grades surrounding the existing trees. The swale will be a minor depression -to maintain flow of runoff from grassed areas around building. 2 . Clarify how the canopy of tree #34 will not adversely be impacted prior to CDB. Response: Enclosed is a picture of the existing tree including height of existing canopy. The intention is to trim both branches and roots in preparation of building construction based on arbonst recommendations. 3 . Show to be removed the declining trees #26, 29 and 30 prior to CDB. Response: The trees are shown to be removed. 4. Verify the location of tree #59 as the tree inventory places it 25' to the north. Provide prior to CDB. Response: The survey location has been verified as accurate. Please note the plans call for the removal of existing pavement in the existing parking lot allowing additional open space around the tree. Stormwater: 1. Portion of project north of NE Cleveland St. (parking area) is not included in the Town Pond Buy-in District and is subject to stormwater criteria for redevelopment in accordance with City of Clearwater Stom~water Design Criteria; thus, r+eyuiring treatment and attenuation. Response • The portion of the property that is not within the Buy-in district is not being repaved, but rather existing pavement is being removed, without addition of additional new pavement which will reduce runoff and not require additional stormwater treatment or attenuation. .~.,. 2. Please contact Terry Finch at 562-4742 to discuss and calculate buy-in to the ~ Town Pond for the Commercial ahd Residential portion of the project. '~ All of the above prior to CDB. ~ Response: Terry Finch will be contacted and the application submitted ito calculate fee. Solid Waste: ~ ,~~ ~-~ ,,, 1 . Please explain how solid waste and recycling will be handled D ~~ ~ ~~~- ~•1 '.-.'-~..-~. ! F ~' . SEP o ~ 2005 _.- ~: ---- , , • • 407-05 Permits Response: Architectural plans have been revised. 9. Based upon sheets A2.01, A2.02 and A2.03, a total of 243 parking spaces are proposed in the garage. This figure does not include the surface lot across NE Cleveland Street, which based upon the civil and architectural drawings will contain either 26 or 34 parking spaces (this obviously must be corrected as well). In either case the total number of parking spaces noted as proposed under the site data table (239) is inco-rect. Please revise for consistency. Response: The parking count is correctly denoted within the civil notes as 263 spaces total. , 10. The parking garage contains a total of two (2) handicap accessible parking spaces. This is insufficient with regards to ADA requirements. Further, those handicap accessible parking spaces thaf have been provided do not have a safe accessible route within the development to the residential units or the non-residenfial areas. Response: Additional handicapped spaces have been added to the garage. 11. How is access to the "tower" proposed to be achieved from the garage? Remember to consider handicap accessibility into the "towe-': Response: Access is provided from the garage to the east side of the existing structure at the area graphically indicating tite door location to the lobby. 12. Provide floor plans for the "tower" which clearly identify the individual units from one another. The plan submitted appears to depict six (6) dwelling units per floor, however this figure does not evenly divide into the total number of units proposed. As such, also provide floor plans for each typical level of the "tower': Response: Floor plans have been added. 13. The architectural elevations denote two (2) levels of office floor area. The floor plans, however, do not depict any floor area on the second level or third level above the otfice/retail on the first floor. Clarify what is intended for these areas. Response: Plans have been revised to delineate intent 14. Clarify, through the provision of floor plans, what is intended for the non- residentiallevels of the "towe-': Response: Plans have been revised to delineate intent 15. The architectural elevations depict nothing on the north elevation of the "tower" and no elevation has been provided for the east side of the development. Response: Elevations have been revised as requested. 16. While the height dimensions are to scale, the architectural elevations themselves have not been drawn to scale. Response: Elevations have been revised to scale. 17 . Clarify how mail delivery is to be handled. Response: Mail will be delivered to a central mailbox facility located in the lobby of the building to residential customers and to individual retail otTice spaces. 18 . Clarify how recycling is to be handled. Response: Trash recycling has been labeled on site and architectural plans. 19. Depict the locations of all mechanical equipment and the means by which it is to be screened fivm view. Response: The mechanical equipment is located on the roof and totally screened by requested "high hat" cover. C!~ t~° -, t~;, 1 SEP ~ a ~ 5 .. I • 407-05 Permits 20 . What is the depth of the swimming pool? Provide a section drawing of the entire building. Response: See revised section for swimming pool. 21. The architectural elevations depict awnings, roof overhangs, balconies, etc; however these details are not reflected on the floor plans or site plan. Response: See revised architectural plans for details 22 . Provide individual square footages for all office/retail spaces. Response: The revised attachment b indicates individual square footages for office and retail spaces. 23. Attachment "B" -Description of Requests, denotes a request to reduce the non- residential parking requirement from 5/1, 000 to 3h, 000. Clarify what uses are intended in the non-residential areas as the highest parking ratio for retail or office floor area is 4/1, 000. Further, based upon the previously noted parking space count as per the plans, the reduction would be closer to 3.6fi/1,000. Revise the request so that it is consistent with the revised plans. Response: Attachment B has been revised to delineate retail and office square footages which cannot be exceeded. The request is consistent with parking requirements and does not require a reduction. Physical locations of retail and office space arse proposed to remain flexible but monitored for conformance by building owner. 24. The response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #8 states that "off-street parking requirements of the proposed project will be conforming" This is an inaccurate statement -provide justification for the requested reduction to the non- residential off`--street parking requirement. Response: Response has been reevised. 25. The response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #9 states that adequate off-street parking is in the immediate vicinity to serve the proposed development. How is this the case? Provide evidence to support this statement. Response: Response has been revised to delineate internally provided parking space count and it's compliance wifl- requested residential, office and retail space. 26. The response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #10 does not contain a response to the following design guidelines: (a) Vehicular CirculatioNAccess & Parking; ~ ~ (~ , (b) Block & Lot Characteristics; ~ ~ 1 ~ `~l ~ ~ ~ I i ~ ~ ~ (c) Size Elements; ~FP 0 ~ 2005 (d) Buffering & Screening; and (e) Landscaping. _.__.._ .... The additional responses have been added to narrative ~~''~ Additionally, a response was provided to the design guidelines pertaining to 'Additional Requirements for the Downtown Core Along Cleveland Street" however the subject property is not located within the Downtown Core, but within the Town Lake Residential Area, and therefore a response to those design guidelines must be provided. Response has been modified to address Town Lake Residential policies. t~ 6 Since ly, Keith E. Zayac, P.E., R.L.A. Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc. 407-05 Permits ~ (~~~ ~iFt;~ i-~~, I ?, ' ,i I~ J~~ a ~ ~ ~-,~ . ~., ... ...,~:.,.,~F~ 7 ~-~ _~ ~~ n 9'45 am Case Number: FLD2005-C'_/ -- 1100 CLEVELAND ST 811 • . Owner(s): Clearwater Centre Llc 307 Scotts Ct Bolinbrook, I 60440 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Representative: Keith Zayac 701 Enterprise Rd East Ste 404 Safety Harbor, Fl 34695 TELEPHONE: 727-793-9888, FAX: 727-793-9855, E-MAIL: keith@keithzayac.com Location: The 2.48 acre property is located at the northeast corner of Cleveland Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue and also consists of the parcel located at northeast corner of Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue and NE Cleveland Street. Atlas Page: 287A Zoning District: D, Downtown Request: Flexible Development approval to permit 71 attached dwellings and 44,300 square feet ofnon-residential floor area, to increase the building height from 30 feet to 155 feet plus 21.5 foot "high hat", as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Section 2-803.C., and a Termination of Status of Nonconformity for height under the provisions of Section 6-109. Proposed Use: Mixed use Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Association(s): Clearwater, FI 33761 2544 Frisco Drive TELEPHONE: 727-725-3345, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: Djw@gte.net Presenter: Robert Tefft, Planner III Attendees Included: Neil Thompson, Scott Rice, Rick Albee, Robert Tefft Applicant Representative: Keith Zayac The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: 1 . 1. Please delete Sheet 2 of 7. This level of detail is not warranted for site review. 2. Provide sidewalk easement where public sidewalks cross into private property. 3. Submit complete applications for vacation of drainage and utility easement(s). All of the above to be addressed prior to CDB. Prior to building permit: 1. Revise detail of sanitery cleanout on Sheet 6 of 7 to conform with current City standard. 2. Aright-of--way permit will be required for all work within the ROW of Gulfview Blvd. Contact Engineering at (727) 562-4750 in Room 220 at the Municipal Services Building. 3. Provide detail of doghouse manhole proposed for installation in MLK, Jr. ROW. 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 . See stormwater conditions Fire: Development Review Agenda - .Friday, August 5, 2005 -Page 14 l , ***PLEASE N~*** REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE A~HORITY HAVING JURISDICTION SHALL NOT RECEIVE THE APPLICANT OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE FLORIDA FIRE PREVENTION CODE 2004 EDITION. This DRC Review by Fire is not an approval or review of any construction plans or documents other than site work. Please acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB. 2 . Clearances of 7 1/2 feet in front of and to the sides of the fire hydrant with a 4 foot clearance to the rear of the hydrant are required to be maintained as per NFPA-1, please acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB. 3 , Fire Department Connections shall be identified by a sign that states "No Parking, Fire Department Connection" and shall be designed in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation standards for information signage and be maintained with a clearance of 7 1/2 feet in front and to the sides of appliance as per Florida Fire Protection Code 2004. Please acknowledge intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB. 4 . The existing property is protected by a fire sprinkler system. Any and all additions and improvements to this property must also be protected by a fire sprinkler system meeting the requirements of NFPA-13 2002 edition. Please acknowledge intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB. 5 . This building has been determined to meet the criteria of a High Rise Building as defined by both the Florida Building Code, 2001 Edition and the Florida Fire Prevention Code, 2004 Edition, therefore the requirements of a High Rise structure must be met. These requirements include, but are not limited to Building Code and Fire Code items such as: Fire Pump and generator if pump is electric, sprinkler system throughout with control valve and water flow device on each floor, Class I Standpipe System, Fire Alarm using voice/alarm communication, Central Control Station, firefighter phone system, Emergency lighting, and Standby Power as per NFPA 70, Pressurized Stairwells, Stairwell marking and Elevator Lobbies Please acknowledge intent to comply with the requirements for aHigh-rise Building PRIOR TO CDB. 6 . Any vaults or ramps over which emergency vehicles may have to travel must meet the requirements of HS-20 specifications. Please acknowledge intent to comply with this requirement PRIOR TO CDB. 7 . If this is to be a "gated" property a gate type lock box must be provided for emergency access to comply with the requirements of Pinellas County Ord. 98-04. Applications for gate type lock box may be obtained from the Life Safety Management office at Clearwater Fire and Rescue, 610 Franklin Street. Please acknowledge of intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB. g . The minimum clearance for any pone cocheres, overhead walkways, pedestrian bridges, etc. beneath which emergency vehicles must travel is 14 feet. Please acknowledge intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB. 9 . Where pavers are to be used in areas over which emergency vehicles must travel they must be of a type to support live load of 80,000 lbs. Please acknowledge intent to comply PRIOR TO CDB. Harbor Master: 1 . No Issues Legal: 1 . No Issues Land Resources: 1 , Insure that the proposed swale does not impact the critical root zone s of tree #32,33, and 34. Generally berms have less impacts. Clarify prior to CDB. 2 . Clarify how the canopy of tree #34 will not adversely be impacted prior to CDB. 3 . Show to be removed the declining trees #26,29 and 30 prior to CDB. 4 . Verify the location of tree #59 as the tree inventory places it 25' to the north. Provide prior to CDB. 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 tree to be preserved and how you propose to address these impacts ie; crown elevating, building lintels, 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 the arborist feels relates to tree preservation. Provide prior to building permit. Development Review Agenda -Friday, August 5, 2005 -Page 1 S Landscaping: • • No Comments Parks and Recreation: 1 . No issues -project in downtown (CRA) Stormwater: 1 . 1. Portion of project north of NE Cleveland St. (parking area) is not included in the Town Pond Buy-in District and is subject to Stormwater criteria for redevelopment in accordance with City of Clearwater Stormwater Design Criteria; thus, requiring treatment and attenuation. 2. Please contact Terry Finch at 562-4742 to discuss and calculate buy-in to the Town Pond for the Commercial and Residential portion of the project. All of the above prior to CDB. Solid Waste: 1 . Please explain how solid waste and recycling will be handled Traffic Engineering: 1 . Vertical height clearance of parking garage must be a minimum of 8'2" to accommodate a h/c van from entrance, route ,parking stall and exit. 2. H/C parking stalls must be strategically placed in a location close to accessible entrace. 3. Show turning template of scaled passenger car making turns at corners. Vehicle must not encroach in opposing lane. 4. Provide bus shelter per PSTA standards. 5. Provide pedestrain crosswalk from satellite parking lot to site preferably at the intersection MLK /Cleveland Street. All of the above to be addressed prior to CDB. Planning: General note: Transportation impact fees to be determined prior to a C.O.. Development Review Agenda -Friday, August 5, 2005 -Page 16 1 . Clarify which site ,an is intended. The site plan included with theZTil drawings (sheet 4 of 7) differs from the site plan included with the architectural plans (sheet A1.01). Be advised that any changes made to bring about consistency between the site plans may/will result in changes to the architectural elevations and floor plans. 2 . The pool & amenities plan differs from the other plans with regard to the improvements proposed. Also, revise the pool & amenities plan so that it is to scale and the amenities are clearly identified. 3 . Revise all drawings for consistency with one another. 4 . Clarify the intended use of the proposed kiosk. 5 . How is handicap accessibility proposed to be accommodated to the office/retail uses along Cleveland Street and MLK Jr. Avenue? 6 . The total site area figure under General Notes (sheet 4 of 7) indicates 91,411 sq. ft. or 2.09 acres. This is inconsistent with the total site area listed in the site data table (also sheet 4 of 7) of 108,080 sq. ft. or 2.48 acres. Revise for consistency. 7 . Sheet A2.01 (parking level 1) denotes 120 parking spaces; however a count reveals a total of 121 parking spaces. 8 . Sheet A2.02 (parking level 2) appears to denote 63 parking spaces; however a count reveals a total of 65 parking spaces. 9 . Based upon sheets A2.01, A2.02 and A2.03, a total of 243 parking spaces are proposed in the garage. This figure does not include the surface lot across NE Cleveland Street, which based upon the civil and architectural drawings will contain either 26 or 34 parking spaces (this obviously must be corrected as well). In either case the total number of parking spaces noted as proposed under the site data table (239) is incorrect. Please reivse for consistency. 10 . 'The parking garage contains a total of two (2) handicap accessible parking spaces.. This is insufficient with regards to ADA requirements. Further, those handicap accessible parking spaces that have been provided do not have a safe accessible route within the development to the residential units or the non-residential areas. 11 . How is access to the "tower" proposed to be achieved from the garage? Remember to consider handicap accessibility into the "tower". 12 . Provide floor plans for the "tower" which clearly identify the individual units from one another. The plan submitted appears to depict six (6) dwelling units per floor; however this figure does not evenly divide into the total number of units proposed. As such, also provide floor plans for each typical level of the "tower". 13 . The architectural elevations denote two (2) levels of office floor area. The floor plans, however, do not depict any floor area on the second level or third level above the office/retail on the first floor. Clarify what is intended for these areas. 14 . Clarify, through the provision of floor plans, what is intended for the non-residential levels of the "tower". 15 . The architectural elevations depict nothing on the north elevation of the "tower" and no elevation has been provided for the east side of the development. 16 . While the height dimensions are to scale, the architectural elevations themselves have not been drawn to scale. 17 . Clarify how mail delivary is to be handled. 18 . Clarify how recycling is to be handled. 19 . Depict the locations of all mechanical equipment and the means by which it is to be screened from view. 20 . What is the depth of the swimming pool? Provide a section drawing of the entire building. 21 . The architectural elevations depict awnings, roof overhangs, balconies, etc; however these details are not reflected on the floor plans or site plan. 22 . Provide individual square footages for all office/retail spaces. 23 . Attachment "B" -Description of Requests, denotes a request to reduce the non-residential parking requirement from 5/1,000 to 3/1,000. Clarify what uses are intended in the non-residential areas as the highest parking ratio for retail or office floor area is 4/1,000. Further, based upon the previously noted parking space count as per the plans, the reduction would be closer to 3.66/1,000. Revise the request so that it is consistent with the revised plans. 24 . The response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #8 states that "off-street parking requirements of the proposed project will be conforming". This is an inaccurate statement -provide justification for the requested reduction to the non-residential off-street parking requirement. Development Review Agenda -Friday, August 5, 2005 -Page 17 25 . The response to .;prehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteri 9 states that adequate off-street parking is in the immediate vicinity to serve the proposed development. How is this the case? Provide evidence to support this statement. 26 . The response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #10 does not contain a response to the following design guidelines: (a) Vehicular Circulation/Access & Parking; (b) Block & Lot Characteristics; (c) Size Elements; (d) Buffering & Screening; and (e) Landscaping. Additionally, a response was provided to the design guidelines pertaining to "Additional Requirements for the Downtown Core Along Cleveland Street"; however the subject property is not located within the Downtown Core, but within the Town Lake Residentail Area, and therefore a response to those design guidelines must be provided. Other: No Comments Notes: This application is insufficient for the CDB. Submit revised plans and application package by Noon, September 1, 2005 for review by DRC on September 29, 2005. Development Review Agenda -Friday, August 5, 2005 -Page 18 LL~ AMR ~ CITY OF CLE~RWA'hER >~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT ° ~arwater '_ °~- > " ~-- MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING ~ 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W W W . MYCLEARWATER. COM July 13, 2005 Keith Zayac 701 Enterprise Rd East Ste 404 Safety Harbor, Fl 34695 RE: FLD2005-07067 -- 1100 CLEVELAND ST 811 -- Letter of Completeness Dear Keith Zayac The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number: FLD2005-07067. 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 August 06, 2005, 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. Please call Sherry Watkins, Administrative Analyst, at 727-562-4582 no earlier than 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 maybe generated by the DRC at the time of the meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 562-4539 or Robert.Tefft@myclearwater. com. Sincerely yours, Robert Tefft Planner III Letter of Completeness - FLD2005-07067 - 1100 CLEVELAND ST 811 f • • 407-05 Client Keith Zayac & Associates, inc. Civil Engineering, Landscape Architecture, Planning July 11, 2005 Mr. Robert Tefft City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S. Myrtle Ave. Clearwater, FL 33756 701 S. Enterprise Road E., Ste 404 Safety Harbor, FL 34695 (727) 793-9888 Phone (727) 793-9855 Fax keithCcr~Jceithzayac. com RE: FLD2005-07067 -1100 Cleveland Street 811- Letter of Incompleteness Dear Mr. Tef#t: 1.) Pursuant to Section D of ~ Flexible Development Application, responses to the ten (10) Comprehensive Infill Redeveloprnerrt Pro}ect Criteria are required. A response has not been provided with regard to cr~berion #10. ATTACHMENT D HAS BEEN REVISED TO INCLUDE RESPONSES TO THE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CRITERIA. 2.) Pursuant to Section G of the Flexible Development Application, a site plan is to be submitted w~h all required sight triangles depicted. ALL REQUIRED SIGHT AND INTERSECTION V/S/BlL7Y TR/ANGES ARE SHOWN ON THE SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS (SHEET 4 and SHEET ~. /N ADDITION, A SITE TRIANGLE VARIANCE REQUEST HAS BEEN ADDED TO ATTACHMENT B. 3.) Pursuant #o Section G of the Flexible Development Application, a she plan is #o be submitted wiiti the location of all public and private easements ident~ed. THE EASEMENTS ARE IDENTIFIED ON THE CML PLANS AND WILL BE VACATED AS PART OF THE REDEVELOPMENT OF CLEARWATER CENTER 4.) Pursuant to Section G of the Flexible Development Application, the site data table must include the Floor Area Ratio (F.AR.) for alt nonresidential uses. FLOOR AREA RATIOS j1=AR.) ARE IDENTIFIED ON SHEET 4 NOTE NUMBER #15C FOR BOTH EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS. 5.) The parking for the new nonresidential floor has been calculated at the r~io of three (3) parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. However, the proposal indicated that retail uses are proposed and the base-parking requirement for retail uses is free (5) parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Therefore, the application must be revised to include a request for a reduction in the parking requirement for the development. • • 407-05 Client ATTACHMENT B HAS BEEN REVISED TO REQUEST AREDUCTION /N PARKING FROM 5 PER 1,000 SF TO 3 PER 1,000 SF FOR TtIE NEW NONRESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA. ATTACHMENT B HAS BEEN REVISED TO REFLECT SUCH REQUEST. 6.) Pursuant to Section G of the Flexible Development Application, for developments over one (1) acre the site plan is to be submitted with lot fines and building tines dimensional. , THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONTAINS D/STANCES AND BEARING ALONG ALL PROPERTY ONES ALSO, WE HAVE ADDED BLDG DIMENSIONS AS SHOWN ON SHEET 4 OF THE S/T E PLAN. 7.) Pursuant to Section G of the Flexible Development Application, for developments over one (1) acre the site plan is to be submitted with structural ovefiangs depicted. STRUCTURAL OVERHANGS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE CML PLANS AND ARE SHOWAI ON SHEETS 4, 5 AND 7. 8.) Pursuant to Section H of the Flexible Development Application, the landscape plan shall delineate and dimension all n~uired perimeter landscape buffers. ON SHEET 7 VVE HAVE ADDED DIMENSIONS AND CALL OUTS TO ALL LANDSCAPE BUFFERS. 9.) Pursuant to Section H of the Flexible Development Application, the landscape plan shall depict the required sight visibility triangles. REI~SED PER NOTE #2. 10.) Pursuant to Section. H of the Flexible Development Application, the landscape plan shall delineate and dimension all parking areas including all landscape islands and curbing. THE PARKING AREAS, LANDSCAPED ISLANDS AND CURBING HAVE BEEN DELINEATED AND DIMENSIONED. 11.) Pursuant to Section H of the Flexible Development Application, an irrigation plan is required. IRRIGATION DESIGN ANO CONSTRUCTION PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS ARE SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. 12.) Pursuant to Section I of the Flexible Development Application, building elevation plans are required for a!1 sides of all building and are to include height dimensions, colors, and materials. THE ARCHITECTURAL PACKAGE HAS BEEN AUGMENTED IMITH COLOR LABELS AND MATER/ALS FOR ALL SIDES OF THE BUILDING 2 i .. ~ • • 407-05 Client 13.) Pursuant to Section I oP the Flexible Development Application, reduced (8 %2 x 11n) building elevations for all sides of the building with colors and materials to scale are required (black/white and color rendering). REDUCTIONS HAVE BEEN ADDED. 14.) The Affidavits to Authorize Agent submitted were completed incorrectly. the affidavits list the names of the property owners where the subject property is to be described and does not provide an address or general location for the properties relating to the development. TIME APPLICATION HAS BEEN REVISED TO SHOW THE OWNERS NAME 1N THE CORRECT L/N~ AND THE ADDRESS OF TIME PROPERTYADDED. Si IY eith E. Zayac, P.E., R.L.A. Keith Zayac $ Associates, inc. 3 - - • • .-~ ;~; ,~, LONG RANGE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW July 5, 2005 Keith Zayac 701 Enterprise Rd East Ste 404 Safety Harbor, F134695 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, ZOO SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4576 RE: FLD2005-07067 -- 1100 Cleveland Street 811 --Letter of Incompleteness Dear Keith Zayac The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number FLD2005-07067. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is incomulete with the following comments: 1. Pursuant to Section D of the Flexible Development Application, responses to the ten (10) Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria are required. A response has not been provided with regard to criterion #10. 2. Pursuant to Section G of the Flexible Development Application, a site plan is to be submitted with all required sight triangles depicted. 3. Pursuant to Section G of the Flexible Development Application, a site plan is to be submitted with the location of all public and private easements identified. 4. Pursuant to Section G of the Flexible Development Application, the site data table must include the Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses. 5. The parking for the new nonresidential floor area has been calculated at a ratio of three (3) parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. However, the proposal indicates that retail uses are proposed and the base parking requirement for retail uses is five (5) parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Therefore, the application must be revised to include a request for a reduction in the parking requirement for the development. 6. Pursuant to Section G of the Flexible Development Application, for developments over one (1) acre the site plan is to be submitted with lot lines and building lines dimensioned. 7. Pursuant to Section G of the Flexible Development Application, for developments over one (1) acre the site plan is to be submitted with structural overhangs depicted. 8. Pursuant to Section H of the Flexible Development Application, the landscape plan shall delineate and dimension all required perimeter landscape buffers. 9. Pursuant to Section H of the Flexible Development Application, the landscape plan shall depict the required sight visibility triangles. 10. Pursuant to Section H of the Flexible Development Application, the landscape plan shall delineate and dimension all parking areas including all landscape islands and curbing. 11. Pursuant to Section H of the Flexible Development Application, an irrigation plan is required. BR1AN J. Auncsr, MA~~oR I'R?~`K HiI~ISARn, VICE MAYOR Horn HA:~fll:l'ON, Cou~cu~tr~Iri>;R BILI. Jouso~~, COUNCIL~IL•\gBLR ® CARLeN A. PereRSrN, Co~~~~cii ~te~uir:H ~~EQUAL EAIPLOYA'tEN'I' AND AFFIR~~.ATIVE ACTION E\4PLOYEK~~ • • 12. Pursuant to Section I of the Flexible Development Application, building elevation plans are required for all sides of all building and are to include height dimensions, colors, and materials. 13. Pursuant to Section I of the Flexible Development Application, reduced (8 1/2" x 11") building elevations for all sides of the building with colors and materials to scale are required (black/white and color rendering). 14. The Affadavits to Authorize Agent submitted were completed incorrectly. The affadavits list the names of the property owners where the subject property is to be described and does not provide an address or general location for the properties relating to the development. 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 Noon, Monday, July 11, 2005. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (727) 562-4539 or at robert.tefft(a,myclearwater.com. Sincerely yours, ~~~-~~~~ Robert G. Tefft Planner IlI Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2005-07067 - 1100 CLEVELAND ST 811 • • Jul. 05 2005 02:54PM YOUR LOGO City0fClearwater-Plan Dept YOUR FAX N0. 727 562 4865 N0. OTHER FACSIMILE START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT 01 97939855 Ju1.05 02:52PM 01'52 SND 03 OK TO TURhI OFF RI~ORT, PRESS ' f'E~#J' #04. THEN SELECT OFF BY USING '+' OR '-'. FOR FAX ADVANTAGE ASSISTAhICE, PLEASE CALL 1-800-HELP-FAX C435-73291. July 5, 2005 CITY OF CLEARWATER o ~~- ~ ~- <<~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT rwa ~r 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE _ `-' ~ . , .A' CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 U TEL: (727) 562-4567 FAx: (727) 562-4865 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET Date: To: From: Re: Keith E. Zayac, Keith Zayac & Associates, Inc., (727-793-9855) Robert G. Tefft, Planner III 1100 Cleveland Street / Clearwater Center LLC / FLD2005-07067 Number of Pages Including Cover Sheet: 3 Comments: ** Please confirm receipt via a-mail at: Robes•t.Te~(c~,mvclearlvater.com ** ** Visit the Planning Department online at x~x~w.myclearwater.com ** f ~`_ Thompson Auto Repair & Alignment, Inc. 1128 NE Cleveland Street Clearwater, FL 33755 City ofCl~uwateu October 11, Zoos 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 Dear Sir or Madam: As owner of Thompson Auto Repair & Alignmern, Inc. located at 1128 NE Cleveland St., I submit a letter of recommendation for proposed plans located at 1100 Cleveland St. After reviewing plans for the proposed improvements, I can only foresee positive results for the downtown community including a potential increase of customer volume and an increase in property value for Thompson Auto Repair. If approved, I look forward to being a neighbor to the residents and business owners at ~00 Cleveland~Street. Sincerely, ,~ / r Michael P. Farewell Owner/President Thompson Auto Repair & Alignment, Inc. lab `fff6 ~ ~ `_ ~. _. _; r-__ ` OCT { 7 2005 3 f ~. 3 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ClT';~ OF r;LEARWATER „y~~. CITY U1F CLEA,R.VVATER NOTICE OF C0143M,UNITY DE~'EIdOiP11KENT BOARD FUBILIC HEARINGS _Cleg~v;},ter Centre i,I.i'_(Gny:&.Susari:Bonnevflle; Slebascian~ & Eii2abeth Romer, & Anthony Dorner) are requesting (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for ht (1~8 ft to roof deck where a maximum of 7.3 ft would be permitted under current Code), under the provisions of Sec 5-109; and (2) Flexible Development approval to permit a tmixed-use (7 ]. attached dwellings and 44,300 sq ft of non-residential floor area), and to increase the building ht an additional 27 ft far architectural embellishments (from roof deck), as part of a Comprehensive Inf'ill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Sec 2-903.0. [JProposed User Mixed-Use (71 attached dwellings and 44,300 sq ft of non-residential floor area)J at I,lOa Clevelaatd St, Bassadena Blk A, Lots 1-14 incl part of Lot 1S, and Bassadena Blk B Lots 9-lI, and 14-25. Assigned Planner: Robert C,,. Tefft, Planner III. FLD ~... a a .. F'. Interested ..parties may appear and b° heard.. at the hearings; or ryfiile"written notice of .approval or. ,;,,, objection with the: Plaxining Interested parties.. may -appeal= aa~d~ be llearu at;.the hearing, or,'file written notice of approval" or objection -.with the. P_lantiirig ..Director or City .Clerk prior to ~ the hearing, Aay Berson who decides to appeal -any decisions made by the ,Beard or Council, with respect to any matter considered at such hearings, wiU need to request a record of the proceedings and. for such purpose, naay need to ensure that a verbatim record. of the proceedings is made, which record includes the teseimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based per Florida Statute 286.O1OS. Community Development Code Sec 4-206 states that party status shall be granted by the Boats in quasi judicial cases if the person requesting such status demonstrates that s/he is substantially affected. Parry status entitles parties to personally testify, present evidence, argument and witnesses, cross-examine witnesses, appeal the decision and speak on reconsideration requests, and needs.to be requested and obtained during the case discussion before the CDB. An oath will. be adnninistered swearing in all persons giving testimony in quasi judicial public hearing Gases. If you wish to speak at the sleeting, please wait to be recognized, then state and spell your name and provide your address, Persons without party status speaking before the CDB shall be 1anuted w three nninutes unless an individual is representing a group in which case the Chairperson may authorize a reasonable amount of time up to 10 minutes. Five days prior to the meeting, staff reports atx! recomruendations on the above requests will, be available for, review by interesied,;parries- between ~che hauzs .of 8 30. a.m. and 4:.3Q p.rri.. weekdays,. at the City of :Cle~vatei; ~lanzting Department, .10Q S. Myrtie,'Ave., Clearwater,: FL 33756.. Please. contact the,caserpresenter,.at 562-45b'7 to discuss,any question s.about the project andlor iu better understand'the proposal and ir`cview the~site p - ~"~ ~ ~`! '~~~ " I ~ __. OCT 1 7 200 ~ ~.;~':: ~ : ~.---- - . _~, _ . i i 'I`he Comu~unitg+ Development Baard of the City of Clearwater, Florida, wi11 hold public hearings on Tuesday, Qctober i8, 2Q05> beginning at 1:00 p.cn., in the City Council Chambers, in City Hall, 3rd floor, 122 South Osceola Ave, Clearwater, Florida, to consider the following regteests: Community Response Team Planning Dept. Cases - DRC ~~ Case No. ~,~~6~5 `~~d~ ~ Meeting Date: Ac/~: ~~~y~ Location: o[/ C L ~` ~S~ ~'~tG J ^ Current Use: ~ ~~4ctive Code Enforcement Case yes: Q~ddress number~~no) (vacant land) ~ndscapin es o) la~Overgrown (yes) no Debris (yes) ~,~'~" Inoperative vehicle(s) (yes) ~~ ,e~uilding(s) (good) fa' poor) (vacant land) Q~Fencin ~ (good) (dilapidated) (broken and/or missing pieces) giPaint (good) (fair) poor garish) ra~rass Parking (yes)~~'y~' .e-R~si~ele~i~-Pat~iny 1~/ioia~ie~ ~ignage (none) k (not ok) (billboard) q/f3arking (n/ (stripe (handicapped) (needs repaving) r~Dumpster enclo (not enclosed) door storage (ye no Commen Status Report {attach any pertinent documents): ~~9 ~ of 7" I S .~ A~ f=. Date: Reviewed by: Telephone: Revised 03-29-01; 02-04-03 :~ l~...... _ _. _~_ - -- P 5 ?V ~A ~?4 CITY EJf CLI;,~,itYldAlf; R P€~Fn;EU Gr".TEY1'.A'f ECFi7F~d ;t , ., ~~ , 1 -..-- J~~~ 1.1 i. C'JG .- ~a'J~ 5illEFli.:ii -~~ ~ ~ 0 ~j ~~o~oKarai-FvK ~.~~?-~ ,~, ~ cep-~:; ~A'[ c~CtriSaarFa+~ Di'_•T~ °fd,E IPE P_AT£RS rmgts w.~ ..,..~.-.ter ~.. ~e i ~- I,..NRaL GAkGt'Y ~~5 ~~ ~ CiY. Ca~It't~' SGRr:~.!_ PA~N6 k `. { ~IiY GAF Cl.EARWkI'ER 3~ tr;N33L~~ .. ~, Y~ Y{.i"r =~ ~ X7i J i Tt~ i i ~n ~ C -.-_ ce. :.'.S'A '- .M~ awr ~.~hc~m rN~et~alp f...fv.u.1_~Mn llr.cMr[wl I~.vs R.nr. _ ~I~;~. .: H.' 1). b~b3ew-ret bStlnt;. 3sr,41u:dui?.atlDl~rho9%asw'i<-aarq?enSMfafic cahi~glertmiuos.lMC~prcdlatc hil~arce .-. _.., ..~ Z~ tM_ ' D~d~.+ ~'_. ..__ ... _.._ ~T~ tb i }'iISTI~R C: }i1lR~t I FI+Y~k'~Sf:AfE L AHl]Y~t4Ek_ ~ SIGEIYw.IK 1Vd4iRC:J"cllli~iES.UhI~?L~F~MLf+ME. ~ `TSVL~lS'rAJi3.L0.NF5 ~ SIDf:I'i~P}1t ~I ~iNLt~ill~~ LAI![]5LJtf?E ~ _ ._ .... ... .. ........y... ... ~~~~ ~~~ 4? ~ ? eE .?,L" 2A ~~~ ~ri~~ GlTY Q~ CL~~.R~kf~~ER li~.~'i~fir; r~.nanaarr.~r~; .~. F...r r~~. ~~/4YVV'~L iT;I i; I"1L i^ ... - -.1"'.. c~ r. rr iii c- f. r-: r_;~ G~ ~f: I- r~ ~i~ r ~L' .n tTi ~t:~ 'i ,?~: l _.._. 3 ~ a e. 4 p~ ~R~-"r~+'' ~ttr'i~i'}~i r, CET' ©F ~[.E~4Rl~~TER uh~i~ t ~~:~v~~~r~~~i,~_ ~~, r~€~or c~s®:MFEEtSG~S. F~ J1 ~_~ r m -~ 1-= Ui rn r~ ~r_-= ....,, I. , ~ T l:: ~~~~ Q~ M 91a1iy f ill Lwni•~~te c~ic 1 T Hafiark: Faa~by~im~ Cry .~ s (_IT'f ~F f°.1 Fb,RUW;c~FF:R ~v hau~~:st~, bti~3lre~~ 9`ixu~~eta~.~dgc 1?' P~pr ~riai y~~~ane`hv ~--s hs£f ~^tone ~rn~~r;~ ara€i ~ aa}~rx Caxz.-Ae ~cF~ ~aiyc~ter SiT= F.! ~~~!SNEN G ~~ ~'..~z zS:. df Y ~'`.`+ _4.. K:.i ' ° ~: r•: ~~~ i ~~ kstie t'~~1: L:tsa~a.F~saekuM, ~ertds:`~-eFc~s Tnah~rr,td' ~t rm itm :Tnfo-t ho.:h~KZ}~+M'ark ..• ,. ~N&K ~tM~ircerceram,ga•:aa a'tYahp~Gay~,' ~` ~ - ~;~:vKk~rw~1 Fria! ~r3p palkfl }~ 1 ~T q'~fi ~+,~f1ey' a•~kUr~F, 3R ce;. k~ i ; sa, • i I fira,r;~ .~., _....' ~n I~ CITY OF CLEARWATER NOTICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD PUBLIC HEARINGS The Community Development Board of the City of Clearwater, Florida, will hold public hearings on Tuesday, October 18, 2005, beginning at 1:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, in City Hall, 3rd floor, 112 South Osceola Ave, Clearwater, Florida, to consider the following requests: NOTE• All persons wishing to address an item need to be present at the BEGINNING of the meeting Those cases that are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. will be placed on a consent agenda and approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting. 1. (cont'd from 09-20-OS) KP 23 Enterprises Inc, Peter & Kelly L Nascarella, and KP 26 LLC are requesting Flexible Development approval (1) to permit vehicle sales/display and an automobile service station in the Commercial District with reductions to the front (east) setback from 25 ft to 5 ft (to pavement), from 25 ft to 13.7 ft (to existing building) and from 5 ft to zero ft to retain existing signage (to the leading edge of the sign), reductions to the side (south) setback from 10 ft to 5.8 ft (to carport) and from 10 ft to 3.9 ft (to pavement), reductions to the rear (west) setback from 20 ft to 3.5 ft (to pavement and existing building), a reduction to required parking from 55 spaces to 30 spaces, an increase to sign ht from 14 ft to 15 ft (for existing signage), a deviation to allow vehicle sales/display contiguous to residentially-zoned property, a deviation to allow the display of vehicles for sale outdoors and a deviation to allow direct access to a major arterial street, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Sec 2- 704.C, and reductions to the landscape buffer width along S Missouri Ave from 15 ft to 5 ft (to pavement) and from 15 ft to 13.7 ft (to existing building), a reduction to the landscape buffer width along the south property line from 5 ft to 3.9 ft (to pavement), a reduction to the landscape buffer width along the west property line adjacent to single family dwellings from 12 ft to 5.8 ft (to pavement), a reduction to the landscape buffer width along the west property line adjacent to a nonresidential use from 5 ft to 3.5 ft (to pavement and existing building), a reduction to the foundation landscaping adjacent to buildings from 5 ft to zero ft and a reduction to reduce the interior landscape area from 10 percent to 7.45 percent of the vehicular use area, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Sec 3-1202.G; and (2) to permit non-residential off-street parking in the Low Medium Density Residential District, with a deviation to allow landscaping on the inside of a perimeter fence, as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Sec 2-204.E. (Proposed Use: Vehicles display and sales) at 1460, 1470 & 1480 S Missouri Ave, A H Duncan's Resub Parts of Lots 11-13, and Zephyr Hills Sub Lots 7- 10. Assigned Planner: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. FLD2003-08039 2. Alan Rophie Ralph Rophie, Cecila Betech, & Cheryl Cohen (Rophie Family Partnership) are requesting Flexible Development approval to allow Vehicle Service Major in an existing 9,000 sq ft building located in the Commercial zoning district with a reduction to front (north along Shelly St) setback to pavement from 25 ft to 11.39 ft, reduction to front (east along Kilmer Ave) setback from 25 ft to zero ft (to existing pavement), reduction to front (south along Gulf to Bay Blvd) setback from 25 ft to zero ft (to existing pavement), reduction to the minimum number of required parking spaces from 14 spaces (1.5 spaces per 1000 sq ft of gross floor area) to 13 spaces (1.44 spaces per 1000 sq ft of gross floor area) and to permit a 6-ft high non-opaque fence within the required front setbacks (north along Shelly St and east along Kilmer Ave), as a Comprehensive Infill Project under the provisions of Sec 2-704.C; with a reduction to front (east along Kilmer Ave) landscape buffer from 10 ft to zero ft (to existing pavement) and reduction to front (south along Gulf to Bay Blvd) landscape buffer from 15 ft to zero ft (to existing pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Sec 3-1202.G. (Proposed Use: Vehicle Service Major) at 2430 Gulf to Bav Blvd, Sec 18-29-16, M&B 13.04. Assigned Planner: John Schodtler, Planner I. FLD2005-07075 3. Liberty Mirabel LLC (Raxit & Punit Shah, and Battle Creek Hospitality Inc) are requesting Flexible Development request to permit 12 attached dwellings with an increase to building ht from 30 ft to 47 ft (to roof deck) with an additional 3 ft for perimeter parapets (from roof deck) and an additional 13 ft for architectural embellishments (from roof deck), a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 ft to zero ft (to pavement), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 ft to 4.75 ft (to pavement), a reduction to the rear (south) setback from 1 S ft to zero ft (to pool deck) and 10 ft (to pool), and a reduction in the lot width from 150 ft to 142 ft as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Secs 2-404.F and 2-1602.C and H. (Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings) at 211 & 221 Skiff Pt, Island Estates of Clearwater Unit 5-A Lots 33 & 34. Assigned Planner: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III. FLD2005-04036 4. Clearwater Centre LLC (Guy & Susan Bonneville, Sebastian & Elizabeth Dorner, & Anthony Dorner) are requesting (1) Termination of Status of Nonconformity for ht (148 ft to roof deck where a maximum of 75 ft would be permitted under current Code), under the provisions of Sec 6-109; and (2) Flexible Development approval to permit amixed-use (71 attached dwellings and 44,300 sq ft of non-residential floor area), and to increase the building ht an additional 27 ft for architectural embellishments (from roof deck), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Sec 2-903.C. [Proposed Use: Mixed-Use (71 attached dwellings and 44,300 sq ft of non-residential floor area)] at 1100 Cleveland St, Bassadena Blk A, Lots 1-14 incl part of Lot 15, and Bassadena Blk B Lots 9-11, and 14-25. Assigned Planner: cRobert-Z':,Tefft;-Planner II F~D2005-070 67~ 5. Melodie A Ferguson Melodie A Ferguson Tre Rem, Robert M Pennock, Robert M Pennock II Tre Rem, and Paul & Tracey Kelley are requesting (1) Flexible Development approval to permit 12 attached dwellings with an increase to ht from 35 ft to 65 ft (to roof deck), with an additional 6 ft for perimeter parapets (from roof deck), a reduction to the north (side) setback from 10 ft to zero ft (to pavement), a reduction to the south (rear) and east (rear) setbacks from 20 ft to zero ft (to pool deck), as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Sec 2-803.C; and (2) Transfer of Development Rights (TDR2005-07025) of 2 dwelling units from 120 Brightwater Dr under the provisions of Secs 4-1402 and 4-1403. (Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings) at 665 & 667 Bav Esulanade, Mandalay Unit No 5 Replat Blk 77, Lots 6 & 7. Assigned Planner: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III. FLD2005-07078 6. Lenny Cristino is requesting Flexible Development approval to permit the expansion of a restaurant with a reduction to lot width from 100 ft to 96 ft, reductions to the front (west) setback from 25 ft to 15 ft (to existing outdoor seating deck), from 25 ft to 22 ft (to canopy), and from 25 ft to 9 ft (to pavement), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 ft to 5.8 ft (to existing building), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 ft to zero ft (to existing pavement), reductions of the rear (east) setback from 20 ft to 14.3 ft (to building), from 20 ft to 4 ft (to existing pavement) and from 20 ft to zero ft (to dumpster enclosure) and a reduction of parking spaces from 43 spaces to 9 spaces, under the provisions of Sec 2-704.M, and a reduction to the front (west) landscape buffer from 15 ft to 9 ft (along S Fort Harrison Ave), and a reduction to the rear (east) landscape buffer from 5 ft to zero ft (to dumpster enclosure), as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Sec 3-1202.G. (Proposed Use: Restaurant) at 1101 S Fort Harrison Ave, Magnolia Park Blk 39, Lot 1, parts of Lot 2 & Vac Lotus Path Adj on N. Assigned Planner: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III. FLD2005- 06053 7. Thomas C & Dorothy J Jessup are requesting a Flexible Development approval (1) to permit the expansion of retail sales in the Commercial District with reductions to the front (west along Mars Ave) setback from 25 ft to 3.5 ft (to pavement) and from 25 ft to 15.5 ft (to building), a reduction to the front (south along Drew St) setback from 25 ft to 4.2 ft (to pavement) and reductions to the front (east along North Keene Rd) setback from 25 ft to 5 ft (to pavement) and from 25 ft to 9 ft (to existing building) and a reduction from 38 parking spaces to 28 parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Sec 2-704.C; (2) to permit non-residential parking in the Medium Density Residential District with reductions to the front (west along Mars Ave) from 25 ft to 8.5 ft (to pavement) and from 25 ft to 11 ft (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the front (east along N Keene Rd) from 25 ft to 5 ft (to pavement) and a deviation to place landscaping on the inside (south) side of the fence rather than the outside (north) side, as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of 2-304.D; and a reduction to the front (west along Mars Ave) landscape buffer from 10 ft to 3.5 ft (to pavement), a reduction to the front (south along Drew St) landscape buffer from 15 ft to 4.2 ft (to pavement), and reductions to the front (east along N Keene Rd) landscape buffer from 15 ft to 5 ft (to pavement) and from 15 ft to 9 ft (to existing building), as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Sec 3-1202.G. [Proposed Use: Bicycle shop (retail sales and services) with parking] at 1770 Drew St, Woodmere Hts, Lots 1 & 2. Assigned Planner: Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III. FLD2005-06054 8. Patrick E & Toni V Hickey are requesting a Flexible Development approval to permit a doctor's office in the Office (O) District with a reduction to the minimum lot width of 100 ft to 63.75 ft, a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 ft to 16 ft (to pavement), reductions to the side (north) setback from 20 ft to 10.7 ft (to existing building), from 20 ft to 1 ft (to pavement) and from 20 ft to S ft (to sidewalk) and reductions to the side (south) setback from 20 ft to 7.1 ft (to existing building), from 20 ft to 9.7 ft (to pavement) and from 20 ft to 7.3 ft (to sidewalk), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Sec 2-1004.B, and reductions to the landscape buffer along the north property line from 12 ft to 10.7 ft (to existing building), from 12 ft to 1 ft (to pavement) and from 12 ft to 5 ft (to sidewalk), reductions to the landscape buffer along the south property line from 12 ft to 7.1 ft (to existing building), from 12 ft to 9.7 ft (to pavement) and from 12 ft to 7.3 ft (to sidewalk) and a reduction to foundation landscaping from 5 ft to zero ft, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Sec 3-1202.G. (Proposed Use: Doctor's office) at 107 McMullen Booth Rd, Sec 16-29-16, M&B 21.05. Assigned Planner: ~?Vayne.N1: Wells,.-AICP, Planner III. FLD2005-07077 9. Two to One LLC (T. Edward Entreken, V.P.) are requesting a Flexible Development approval to permit the re-establishment of retail sales and services (financial institution) as a primary use within the Office (O) District with a reduction to the side (west) setback from 20 ft to 4.7 ft (to existing pavement) and a reduction to the side (north) setback from 20 ft to 4 ft (to existing pavement), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Sec 2-1004.B, and a reduction to the side (west) landscape buffer from 5 ft to 4.7 ft (to existing pavement) and a reduction to the side (north) landscape buffer from 5 ft to 4 ft (to existing pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Sec 3-1202.G. [Proposed Use: Retail sales and services (financial institution) and office] at 1825 Sunset Point Rd, Pinellas Groves, Parts of Lots 7 & 8. Assigned Planner: ~W- -ayne~ Wells; AICP, Planner III. FLD2005-07079 10. Hamilton Family Trust (Regatta Bay of Clearwater, LLC, Roland Rogers) are requesting a Flexible Development approval to permit 5 attached dwellings in the Tourist (T) District with a reduction to the minimum lot area from 10,000 sq ft to 7,280 sq ft, a reduction to lot width from 100 ft to 60 ft, reductions to the front (south) setback from 15 ft to 9 ft (to building) and from 15 ft to zero ft (to trash staging area), reductions to the side (west) setback from 10 ft to 8 ft (to building) and from 10 ft to 4 ft (to sidewalk), reductions to the side (east) setback from 10 ft to 7 ft (to building) and from 10 ft to 8 ft (to pavement), reductions to the rear (north) setback from 20 ft to 18 ft (to building) and from 20 ft to 15 ft (to pavement), an increase to building ht from 35 ft to 77 ft (to top of lighthouse) and a deviation to permit the building within the sight visibility triangles, under the provisions of Sec 2-803.B. [Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (5 condominiums)] at 862 Bayway Blvd, Bayside Sub No 6, Unit C, Blk D, Lot 16. Assigned Planner: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner IlI. FLD2005-07080 11. Clearwater Retail Groun LTD is requesting a Flexible Development approval to permit attached dwellings as part of a mixed use in the Commercial (C) District with a reduction to the front (east along S Missouri Ave) setback from 25 ft to 10 ft (to pavement), reductions to the front (north along Druid Rd) setback from 25 ft to 10 ft (to pavement and dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 ft to 5 ft (to pavement), reductions to the side (west) setback from 10 ft to 5 ft (to pavement) and from 10 ft to 9.7 ft (to dumpster enclosure) and an increase to building ht from 25 ft to 52.25 ft (to midpoint of pitched roof] with an additional 15.5 ft for a decorative clock tower, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Sec 2-704.C, and a reduction to the landscape buffer along S Missouri Ave from 15 ft to 10 ft (to pavement), reductions to the landscape buffer along Druid Rd from 15 ft to 10 ft (to pavement and dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the landscape buffer along the south property line from 10 ft to 5 ft (to pavement) and a reduction to the landscape buffer along the west property line from 10 ft to 5 ft (to pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Sec 3-1202.G. [Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (32 condominiums)] at 810 S Missouri Ave, Clearwater Retail, Lot 10. Assigned Planner: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. FLD2005-07076 Interested parties may appear and be heard at the hearings or file written notice of approval or objection with the Planning Interested parties may appear and be heard at the hearing or file written notice of approval or objection with the Planning Director or City Clerk prior to the hearing. Any person who decides to appeal any decision made by the Board or Council, with respect to any matter considered at such hearings, will need to request a record of the proceedings and, for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based per Florida Statute 286.0105. Community Development Code Sec 4-206 states that parry status shall be granted by the Board in quasi judicial cases if the person requesting such status demonstrates that.s/he is substantially affected. Party status entitles parties to personally testify, present evidence, argument and witnesses, cross-examine witnesses, appeal the decision and speak on reconsideration requests, and needs to be requested and obtained during the case discussion before the CDB. An oath will be administered swearing in all persons giving testimony in quasi judicial public hearing cases. If you wish to speak at the meeting, please wait to be recognized, then state and spell your name and provide your address. Persons without party status speaking before the CDB shall be limited to three minutes unless an individual is representing a group in which case the Chairperson may authorize a reasonable amount of time up to 10 minutes. • Five days prior to the meeting, staff reports and recommendations on the above requests will be available for review by interested parties between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., weekdays, at the City of Clearwater, Planning Department, 100 S. Myrtle Ave., Clearwater, FL 33756. Please contact the case presenter, at 562-4567 to discuss any questions or concerns about the project and/or to better understand the proposal and review the site plan. Michael Delk Planning Director Cynthia E. Goudeau, CMC City Clerk City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748, Clearwater, FL 33758-4748 NOTE: Applicant or representative must be present at the hearing. A COPY OF THIS AD IN LARGE PRINT IS AVAILABLE IN OFFICIAL RECORDS AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES. ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY REQUIRING REASONABLE ACCOMIVIODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING SHOULD CALL (727) 562-4093 WITH THEIR REQUEST. Ad: 10/02/05 f FLD2005-07067, 68 ANDRUS, DONNA 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # PH-E CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3933 BODDY, TERRA A 1132 GROVE ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - CHITRANEE-A INC 1003 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1019 t BALOW, RONALD D PO BOX 279 DUhJEDIN FL 34697 THE - 0279 BRICOUR DEV INC 1522 SAND HOLLOW CT PALM HARBOR FL 34683 - 4641 CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SVC 503 CLEVELAND ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4007 ~~ ERNAL, HANSA MESA-SAVAGE, SHANE 1145 DREW ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4818 CHESNUT, TOM T CHESNUT, ARTHUR C SR & JEANNE 4411 MELROSE AVE TAMPA FL 33629 - 5523 CLEARWATER CENTRE LLC 307 SCOTTS CT BOLINBROOK IL 60440 - 1135 Clearwater Centre, LLC Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition CLEARWATER POWER 1100 Cleveland St, Ste 900 Doug Williams, President SQUADRON Clearwater, FL 33755 2544 Frisco Drive 1000 CLEVELAND ST Clearwater, FL 33761 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4514 CLEARWATER PRINTING INC 1002 GROVE ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4529 CRUM PROPERTIES II LLC 100 S MISSOURI AVE 2ND FL CLEARWATER FL 33756 - DESPER, IRA A TRUST 613 S HANCOCK ST PHILADELPHIA PA 19147 - 2404 ENTEL RADIOLOGY ASSOC MD PA PENSION PLAN & TRUST 1003 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1019 FIRST NATL BANK NAPLES 2150 GOODLETTE RD N STE 800 NAPLES FL 34102 - 4812 CLEARWATER VILLAGE 423 CLEVELAND ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4005 CURRIE, LINDA N 1122 GROVE ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4823 DOWNTOWN LOFTS HOMEOWNER'S ASS 423 CLEVELAND ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4005 FAREWELL, RALPH B FAREWELL, CAROLYN A 1128 CLEVELAND ST NE CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4812 FORESTER, SALLY BOND, WAYNE THE 613 S HANCOCK ST PHILADELPHIA PA 19147 - 2404 COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PO BOX 4748 CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 4748 DEEULIO, MARK GONZALES, LEON 1650 WINDSOR CLEARWATER FL 33755 - DRESSER, CHRISTOPHER J 1123 DREW ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4818 FERRY, LYNN 8651 BULL CREEK RD COULTERVILLE CA 95311 - 9521 GOLDEN KEY MGMT INC PO BOX 1664 CLEARWATER FL 33757 - GREATER CLW CHAMBER COMM GREEN, DONNA M THE GUY, ALBERT L INC PO BOX 6681 GUY, LINDA M 1130 CLEVELAND ST OZONA FL 34660 - 6681 1689 OAK PL CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4841 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1351 HARN-WAGNER, NANCY HARTLEY, MICHAEL D 1108 GROVE ST PO BOX 86074 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4823 MADEIRA BEACH FL 33738 - 6074 HENNESSY, PAMELA F Keith E. Zayac, P.E., RLA 1133 DREW ST 701 Enterprise Road East, Suite 404 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4818 Safety Harbor, FL 34695 LENDEX FINANCIAL LIGGINS, MARTHA A THE 1127 GROVE ST PO BOX 10787 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4824 ST PETERSBURG FL 33733 - 0787 MELVIN, WALTER O MERRIWEATHER, BENNIE J 1109 GROVE ST KIGHT, MABLE F CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4824 50 HAMLIN RD BUFFALO NY 14208 - 1536 P B M ENTERPRISES PRESTON, MICHAEL G THE 1170 NE CLEVELAND ST 419 EASTSHORE DR CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4836 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2028 REMBERT, JAMES C RICARTE, ERICA H 1400 OVERLEA ST 1112 GROVE ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3425 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4823 SADLON PROPERTIES INC SAOULIS, CHRISTOPHER H 411 CLEVELAND ST # 110 933 LAURA ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4004 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4545 SHALES INC SOCIETY ST VINCENT DE PAUL 1115 CLEVELAND ST COU CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4808 1015 CLEVELAND ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4515 SUNNE & LOCKE SYDON INC 1151 NE CLEVELAND ST 1010 CLEVELAND ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4815 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4514 UNGER, JOHN L WARD, DEBRA K UNGER, LOIS 225 HILLCREST N 1007 PARK ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 5013 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5742 . ~HENEGAR, DENNIS H HENEGAR, JACQUELINE 1115 CLEVELAND ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4893 LEAHON, LAWRENCE P THE 2552 HIGHLAND AVE TARPON SPRINGS FL 34689 - MELO, ALFREDO MELD, CONCEICAO 6 PANORAMA CRES BRAMPTON ON L5G 3T9 00030 - CANADA MORROW, SCOTT L 1141 DREW ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4818 QUALITY APPL SERV PIN INC 1155 NE CLEVELAND ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4815 S & P PROPERTIES 2808 MANATEE AVE W BRADENTON FL 34205 - 4237 SCHOEPPE, MATTHEW CO 13190 MADISON AVE LARGO FL 33773 - 1113 SOUTHWIND MGMT SERVICES INC PO BOX 10293 CLEARWATER FL 33757 - 8293 TROCKELS, FRITZ W TROCKELS, KAREN 1941 SEVER DR CLEARWATER FL 33764 - 4713 WILDER, FRED J GOODGAME, BETTIE W PO BOX 1808 CLEARWATER FL 33757 - 1808 WITTER, WILLIAM P 1156 NE CLEVELAND ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4814 WOODRUFF, DARRYL W WOODRUFF, JOAN 1415 MAPLE ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 5031 a WONG, HARRY K WONG, SAFARI V 90 IROQUOIS TRL PORTOLA VALLEY CA 94028 - Z J L PROPERTIES CO 2551 INDIGO DR DUNEDIN FL 34698 - 6520 WOODBURY, WALLACE 1138 GROVE ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4823 ~ ~ rmi~nl ~ I~Y~ncm~O~m~~ ~y4~{ --- -~'~ ~ ay~ ~~ o - "" ~ ~ ~ j5 ,~ ,d _ ~ ~~ - -w.e_m?asurz S~ - pvV.lm~ mua~~CUU-/~~-~-~ ~ m,'G~.pti9, E C ~t~S_5_~acn.S - ~~" V~ ~10.~~'_. ~~ CR5~,4~1~$ ~~ FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Comprehensive Infill Project May 2, 2005 A.APPLICANT Clearwater Centre LLC 1 i 00 Cleveland Street, Suite 900 Clearwater, FL 33755 TEL: (727) 447-2398 FAX:(727) 442-0492 E-M: gmbonne@comcast.net OWNERS: Sebastian and Elizabeth Dorner, Guy and Susan Bonneville, Anthony Dorner B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION Description of Request(s): PROJECT OVERVIEW Owner/Developer proposes to rehabilitate and change the use of its one-hundred, fifty thousand (150,000) square foot, fifteen (15) story commercial office building located at 1100 Cleveland Street, parcel number 15/29/15/03060/001/0010, consisting of ninety-one thousand, four-hundred eleven (91,411) square feet, or 2.1 acres (see legal description in Exhibit A), in the Town Lake Residential District, into an up-scale, yet affordable, mixed-use, condo /retail /office environment with seventy-one (71) residential dwelling units within the existing tower and forty-four thousand, three-hundred (44,300) square feet of commercial space within a new three (3) story, attached structure along the south and west perimeter of the property along Cleveland Street and Greenwood Avenue. The first story of the new commercial structure will provide underneath, public parking in support of the street-side retail spaces, such as a beauty salon, deli, pastry shoppe, coffee shoppe, trendy clothing boutiques, etc. to promote pedestrian traffic and retail business into the area The second and third stories of the structure will provide office spaces and additional parking for office tenants and condominium owners An amenity deck on the east side of the property will provide anOlympic-sized pool and spa package including private cabanas with wet bars for condominium owners. Reserved, underneath parking spaces and some private garages will be provided under the amenity deck structure. The streetscape facade for the amenity deck will be comparable to the commercial shell facade and hide the underneath parking facilities. A "half-roundabout" leading to inclined ramps and aport-cochere is proposed on the back (north) side of the property as the main property entrance for tenant and visitor parking eliminating all ingress/egress from Cleveland Street. An entirely new building streetscape based on the concepts presented in the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, including paver sidewalks, landscaping, lighting, and a water fountain at the building entrance on Cleveland Street, will be provided along Cleveland Street to the south, Greenwood Avenue to the west, and NE Cleveland Street to the North. Clearwater's Regional Chamber of Commerce borders the property to the east. The parking facilities throughout the project will be hidden or obscured by the new streetscape. We have contracted the firms of Gillett Associates and Zayac & Associates to provide the architectural and engineering services to prepare the architectural plans and provide construction guidance on the project. PUBLIC AMENITIES INCENTIVE POOL REQUEST In order for our project to become a reality and proceed in the most successful manner, we hereby request the following incentives from the City's Public Amenities Incentive Pool: Eleven (11) condominium dwelling units -the density for our property provides for thirty (30) dwelling units per acre, or a total of sixty (60) dwelling units for our parcel of just over two (2) acres. So as to keep our unit sizes within reason and maintain affordability, and to keep condominium fees reasonable for the home buyer, we have established a plan to provide six (6) units per floor for floors three (3) through twelve (12) and four (4) penthouse units per floor for floors fourteen (14) through sixteen (16) with one (1~ duplexed penthouse unit between the fifteenth (15~') and sixteenth (16` ) floors, providing a total of seventy-one (71) dwelling units; eleven (11) more than our density provision. II. Forty-four thousand, three-hundred (44,300) square feet commercial space (equivalent to twenty-four (24) dwelling units) - to improve pedestrian foot traffic and the retail and office business environment within the project area, we propose the project's best use is mixed use, i.e. residential, retail, and office combined in a packaged, secure environment. The conversion of the existing building into condominiums eliminates one- hundred, fifty thousand (150,000) square feet of run-down, end-of--life commercial office space, that primarily supports a multitude of distressed clientele today. Establishing a new commercial environment of trendy retail outlets and professional offices will enable us to renew and expand the business climate in our district. III. Parking Dispensation - of the total oftwo-hundred, sixty-eight (268) integrated parking spaces proposed for the project, one and a half (1.5) spaces per dwelling unit, or one-hundred eight (108) spaces are provided for residential purposes; and approximately three and six-tenths (3.6) spaces per thousand (1,000) square feet of commercial space, or one-hundred sixty (160) spaces are provided for commercial tenants and their visitors. In order to be open to new business and in support of smaller, pedestrian-oriented, eating establishments within our retail environment, such as a deli, pastry shoppe, and/or coffee shoppe, etc., we request approval to allow such pedestrian- oriented businesses within our project at the planned two-hundred, sixty-eight (268) spaces available. IV. Height Dispensation -our existing tower stands at approximately one- hundred fifty-five (155) feet, well above the current height maximum for our district. The existing roof is a flat-roof design with a penthouse structure that contains the elevator controls, and several wireless (cellular) tenants that have several transmitters and un-sightly antennas protruding from the roof, that will remain after the conversion. We propose to develop a parapet wall structure at the perimeter of roof-line that will integrate these antennas and beautify the roof structure. Additionally, in order to improve the architectural appeal of the project, we propose ahigh-hat roof design as shown in the conceptual drawing attached. Given the current height of our building, we understand we are allowed an additional sixteen (16) feet of height. The proposed high-hat roof will require twenty-one and one-half (21.5) feet above the existing height, thus we request an additional five and one-half (5.5) feet height dispensation. The appropriate elements of our project that support our request for Public Amenities Incentives per the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan are: - Residential uses in the Downtown Plan area through addition of 71 "Downtown" residential, condominium dwelling units; and - Uses in particular locations and/or mixed use projects that further the Plan's major redevelopment goals and character district vision through our mixed use development that provides residential, and forty-four thousand, three-hundred (44,300) square feet of new office and retail operations; and - Provision for public parking on site through the addition of ground level, shared, parking in support of public clients visitation to the commercial tenants; and - Contributions to Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan through the new building streetscape including paver sidewalks, landscaping, lighting, and a water fountain at the building entrance; and - Rehabilitation and beautification of existing, out-dated, "eye-sore" property; and - Significant reduction in traffic impacts and the closure of two (2) existing ingress/egress curb-cuts along Cleveland Street. OTHER REQUESTS (TB ) 1. vacate of easement - .~ p ~~ 2. storm-water buy-in 3. impact fees a) environmental b) traffic c) recreational d) other D. WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS • GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA 1. The proposed development is in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties as we plan to rehabilitate and transform the existing building structure according to the "vision" indicated in the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The planned rooftop high-hat and parapet walls, build-out (fattening) of the lower 10 floors on the east, south and west sides of the building, ornamental banding of the building perimeter at the 45' and 60' height levels, and the addition of the 3-story commercial shell on the south and west sides of the property will provide a visually appealing "stepped" height transformation to the surrounding properties. 2. Quite the contrary, the proposed development will significantly improve the value of the subject property and all surrounding properties and should encourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings. The transformation of the existing building elevations into a "Mediterranean" style facade will be significantly more pleasing than the existing elevations. The residential component of the development, comprised of 71 new, luxury condominium dwelling units will add to the residential core of the Downtown district and the planned commercial retail and office components are sure to attract the much needed "foot-traffic" within the area helping to revitalize the business and economic climate of the location. 3. The current use of the property is commercial office rental. The majority of the current tenancy is governmental in nature and in support of clientele of various distresses, including financial (i.e. welfare, social services, etc.), family (i.e. DCF, Coordinated Child Care, etc.), and unemployment/social (i.e. Worknet Pinellas) problems. The nature and scale of the tenant services in the existing use bring together a large contingent of distressed clientele on a daily basis that erodes the value of the property and surrounding area, has a significant impact on area traffic, and creates issues of public health and safety. The proposed development will target socially responsible tenants that are financially secure and in general, promote the health and safety of those living and working within the proposed development and those in the surrounding neighborhood. 4. The proposed development will significantly minimize traffic congestion and traffic impacts. A trip impact analysis completed by the Traffic Engineering Dept. indicates a 25% reduction in daily trips and a 62% reduction in p.m. peak hour trips. Additionally, the 2 existing vehicle ingress/egress points along Cleveland Street will be closed and redirected to the main entrance along N.E. Cleveland Street and the lower level parking entrance along Greenwood Avenue. 5. The proposed development is consistent and significantly enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the proposed pazcel development(s). Streetscaping and the proposed architectural appeal of the proposed development will conform with the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, add 71 new residential dwelling units, and add 44,300sf mixed use retail and off ce components to engage and foster business growth and foot-traffic to the area. 6. The most noticeable changes of the proposed development will be the significantly enhanced character and visual appeal of the architectural style introduced by the architect, Gillett Associates. Gillett Associates' works have positively influenced and affected several neighborhood improvements within Clearwater, most notably their beach developments including The Grande, Meridian, Mandalay Beach Club, Belle Hazbor, and most recently the proposed Sandpearl Resort, a redevelopment of the Clearwater Beach Hotel. Also, as noted above, the reduction of traffic and motorized vehicle trips will improve both the acoustic and olfactory impacts on adjacent properties. • COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CRITERIA 1. The existing use is commercial office rental and current tenancy is less than 50% and falling. The existing building and improvements were completed in 1972, aze outdated, and have outlived their useful and economic life. Additionally, the 3 largest tenants, DCF (State of Florida), PC-Social Services (Pinellas County), and Worknet Pinellas, have indicated their intentions. to consolidate their operations into government owned properties within the next 12 months due to financial and political pressures. With these added vacancies, the substantial availability of similar large commercial office vacancy within the immediate azea, and the costs of replacing the building's aged infrastructure (e.g. elevators, HVAC systems, tenant improvement costs, etc.), maintaining the property at its current use is economically and financially not viable. The proposed development will provide significant renovations to the exterior of the existing building, add a 3-story parking and amenities deck, 44,300sf of new office and retail space street-side, and a complete redesign and renovation of the interior into 71 new residential condominiums and associated amenities, e.g. pool, spa, fitness rooms, billiards room, caterer's kitchen, concierge, etc. The end result will add much needed residential space within the Town Lake Residential District providing a significant and new addition to the property tax base, and a commercial infrastructure to promote pedestrian traffic within the area, and support the residential base. 2. The proposed development will significantly improve the fair market value of the existing parcel and abutting properties. The assessed value of the existing improvements within the county tax records is $5.5'M and the proposed value of the site with proposed improvements is upwazds of $35'M based on sales revenue projections of the residential dwelling units alone; nearly a 700% improvement in value. The addition of 71 new dwelling units along with the added retail operations is expected to significantly improve "foot-traffic" in the immediate area, spurring new mixed use initiatives in the surrounding area. 3. The uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project, i.e. addition of residential dwelling units combined with the mixed use scenario that includes office and street-level retail store-fronts, are not only otherwise permitted, but after several discussions with city planning and economic development personnel, they are preferred. 4. The proposed comprehensive infill redevelopment project falls within the Clearwater downtown "D" redevelopment district and is thus fully compatible with adjacent land uses. The Clearwater Regional Chamber of Commerce, which sits next door to the east, have indicated the proposed use would be a welcome change for the property (reference SPTIMES article "Downtown office building may go condo" at Across Cleveland Street (south), Greenwood Avenue (west) and NE Cleveland Street (north), adjacent land uses include several residential and commercial uses fully compatible with the proposed project. S. Several similar developments or redevelopments are currently planned throughout the City of Clearwater. Unique to this comprehensive infill redevelopment project, not otherwise available within the City of Clearwater, are: a. Existing building and infrastructure that support the proposed development; b. Existing use is financially not viable without the change of use; c. The proposed use is the preferred use for the property; d. The proposed use provides a significant property value increase and improves the tax income to the community; and e. The proposed development is expected to promote additional new redevelopment projects within the surrounding area, which has otherwise not seen any significant improvements in decades. 6. The proposed development will significantly upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development as previously noted in our answers for questions 1-5 of this section. 7. The form and function of the proposed project is an embodiment of the goals and objectives of the current Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and will significantly enhance the community character of the immediate vicinity of the proposed project parcel and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The proposed development provides the addition of 71 new residential dwelling units within a mixed use envirorunent, which includes street-side and street-level retail operations, in an integrated and packaged format, with streetscaping, suitable public and tenant parking, and an architectural style taken directly from the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan documents. 8. Lot width, setbacks, and off-street parking requirements of the proposed project will be conforming. The existing building is approximately 155' in height and as-is does not conform to city height requirements. The proposed, architectural "high-hat" roof design will add an additional 21-1 /2 feet to the already non-conforming height, 6-1 /2 feet more than the 20% standard allowance, however without this additional height extension, the architectural appeal and transition of heights from roof to upper floors to lower floors to third level deck to street level would not appear uniform or appealing. As the building is practically the tallest building within the downtown vicinity, and visible from all compass points, not allowing the roof to conform architecturally would create a visual imbalance of the project seen from throughout the City. Thus, flexibility in regard to building height is justified by the benefits of the project taken as a whole to community character of the immediate vicinity and the City of Clearwater as a whole. 9. Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity will be provided according to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3. One-hundred eight (108) parking spaces, or just over 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit will be provided for residential tenants and their guests/visitors and one-hundred sixty (160) parking spaces, or just over 3.6 spaces per 1,OOOsf commercial space will be provided for commercial tenants and their public visitors for access to the commercial operations. 10. The design of all building(s) shall comply with the Downtown District design guidelines in Division 5 of Article 3 as applicable. Exhibit "A" Attachment PARCEL A: Lots 1 thru 14 inclusive, Lot 15, LESS the East 23.0 feet thereof, all in Block "A", BASSEDENA SUBDIVISION as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 26 of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. LESS the West 10.0 feet of said Lot 1, deeded to the City of Clearwater for right-of--way purposes. Lots 1, 2, 10 and that part of Lots 3 and 4 which lie West of a Southerly extension of the Westerly line of the Easterly 23.0 feet of Lot 15, Block "A", (of BASSEDENA SUBDIVISION as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 26, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida), LESS the East 23.0 feet of said Lot 4 thereof, all in H.A. KILGORE'S SUBDIVISION as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 58, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. Vacated portion of NE Cleveland Street (66.0 feet width) described as follows: That portion lying between Blocks "A" and "B" of BASSEDENA SUBDIVISION as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 26, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: From the most Easterly corner of Lot 25, of said Block "B" BASSEDENA SUBDIVISION, said corner being on the Northwesterly right-of--way line of NE Cleveland Street, run thence South 58° 27' 00" West, along said Northwesterly right-of--way line, 50.0 feet; thence continue, along said right-of--way line, South 51° 00' 30" Jest, 41.58 feet to the point of beginning; thence run South 84° 10' 09" East, 99.84 feet to a point on the Southeasterly right-of-way.line of said NE Cleveland Street; thence run South 58° 27' 00" West, along said Southeasterly right-of- way line, 33.81 feet; thence continue, along said Southeasterly right-of--way line South 51° 00' 30" West, 310.43 feet to a point, said point being on the Southerly extension of a line lying 10.0 feet East of the East right-of--way line of Greenwood Avenue as shown adjacent to Block "B" of said BASSEDENA SUBDIVISION; thence run North 00° 12' 00" West, along a Line 10.0 feet East of and parallel to the Southerly extension of the East right-of--way line of Greenwood Avenue as shown on said Block "B", 84.68 feet to the Northwesterly right-of--way line of NE Cleveland Street; thence run North 51 ° 00' 30" East, along said right-of--way line, 20.09 feet to the point of beginning. i ~~~.~Q.~1_P~ . ~--GDS-.$~c~ _ J~,i - -~ 1- Z - r _ ~ _ ~~ \ZrA - 3otx~ ~j~ ~2 - ~~ - ~o-~ ~ ~ - ~-l.l.~~ S?-~Gt~- Is-ice - 7-~d~ve~x~-~ ~!'~I" V -1 o~+r-t l ~r~~ ~{a~ ~L~'IS~ ~~ ~P ~ ~ ~ Nom ~S u~V~ u~ S rE c~~, ~ _ -~Z ~~s IP~s &~ ~e~, ~cs~a~-~ b~ . _ S ~ ~ S ~ - ~~ .'~ u d- &2,~' 8=711, c.~l~'L~ _ _ ~x.~ t'~p~ Dc~~ -~ ~ m S ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~- _1J~ ~ G@ mT~ems- - - S - 1~ - - Y~or~- J~ _ - - _~.~ > k~Su re auF ~ltw io h'bJ(P `ii/u~ -~~ -- - ,~ -27--f1- ~BSz --~~li:' W Gam- . ~ ~C~ ~ ---.__ --~ .1~-~,Y t. .- __ ___~_ _ _ _.~. _ __ ~ C~_c./~.o~-- ' :PUBLIC AMENITIES INCENTIVE POOL REQUEST ~ ,~ -. , .r ' = .In order for our`.project to become a'reality and proceed in the most successful manner, . _ - - we hereby request-the following incentives from the Citp's Public Amenities Incentive "; .. Ponl: : - . _ __- ~ ~ - - ~ F , - ~ ~ I; Eleven (1-1) condominium dwelling units =the density for our property , provides for thu~ty(30) dwelling units per acre, or a total of sixty"(60) . ,- , '~ dwellin units for :our arcel~of'ust over two 2 acres., So as to: kee our.unit " ~ _ ~ sizes-within reason and maintain affordability;, and to, keep condominium fees .: .: ", - reasonable for.the•home buyer,,we,have established.a plan to provide six '(6j, units=per floor for.floors three (3) through twelve (12) and four(4).penthouse. - • units per floor for floors fourteen (14)ahrougli sixteen (16) with one (1 ' ~ du lexed enthouse unit-between-the fifteenth 15th- and sixteenth {16~) `- ; . p. p . ~ ( ) . ~ ' floors; providing a total of seventy-ope (71) dwelling units; eleven (11) more ~ - - than our~den§ity~provison. • ~ - , three hundred 44 00 s ware feet commercial II. ~ Forty-four thousand, ( ,3 ) q . space (equivalent. to :twenty-four (24) dwelling units)' - to improve ~ ° - . _ ' . ~ ~ . ~.. pedestrian, foot traffic and; the retail ,arid office business environment within ~ , . ~ ~_ , • ` ~ theproject;area,,we propose t11e project's`best:use is mixed use; i e • - , residential, retail;: and office combined iii a packaged, secure environment..: "~ • ~ ~ _ The conversion ofthe:existing building mto condominiums eliminates one=' Hundred, fifty thousand (150,000) square feet of run-down, end-of-life ~- ~ commercial offce`space, that primarily supports a multitude,`of:distressed '~, -~ . = ~ ~clieritele today •.EStablishing anew commereial,env~ronment of trendy retail- - - ~ .. . .. ~ outlets and professional offices will enable us to renew and. expand the - . ~ ~ ,business climate in our distract.. ~ '. _ III:- . ; Parking Dispensation -°of-the total of two:-hundred;.sixty-eight (268) ~ . - ~ integrated parking paces proposed for the project, one=arid a half (1~.5) spaces - ~ • ;per dwellingunt, or one-hundred eight {1:08) spaces'are'provided-for ~ , ° ~ " ~ -residential>purposes; and approximately,three and-six.tenths (3.6) spaces per _ ~tliousand{1;00(}) square feet~of commercial space,--or one-hundred: sixty (160)' _ spaces are~provided°for commercial tenants and their` visitors. In order to be- ~ ' open'to new business and.in support ofsmaller,~pedestrian-oriented, eating. _ establishments~within our retail."environinent, such as a.deli, pastry, shoppe; ~ ~ . ~ - ' and/or: coffee shoppe,: etc.; we request approval to allow such pedestrian- •.oriented businesses within~our project atthe planned two-hundred, sixty-eight ' " - (268) spaces available. `~~ ~ - - . IV. Height Dispensation -our existing tower stands,at approximately. one- , `~ hundred'fifty-five (155) feet;'we11 above the.current height maximum for our ; - district, The existing roof is aflat-roof des- ign with a penthouse structure that. •contains the elevator controls, andseveral wireless {cellular) tenants that have ' ~~ ~ _ several transmitters and un sightly antennas protruding~from the~roof, that will - ' ~ remain after the conversion: We propose to develop a parapet wall structure . . . ~. ~ ~. ,. - ., eP "~ Y ~_ `. *. t . ~Y a ~~ • ~, . -.a. ..~.., .. • z:sA~ .,.-,f3.~fi3''+F'SdF^:^ax":t^`+~'.7^.+Y.~asnf:.~'a?, ^PAR+, a:' ~ .. .... m .. _ ... _ . . .... +~~~'^F G.^:- .... ~ .. x+RpMMwf~DtMf~'fMfIK.K~}1:L^~9^!~r WS'dLTY9 `N~r' ~:f.Yrku1:T. •.e~.b,vt -. p'i ^ m =+! ~ .~'Z~J 'rG~,~,'n }fie' ~~vne n~c~Fte'~ 0 ~ aS8'on . _ .. „~ ~ ~ _ .....r_ - - - ~~(~~ ~ 11 lV. ICJ l1SJ rYXUS ~ L+Q - d, Q + m L~. C' A.Gf~ --~ ss S L an. -' ~_a~Q~ S.~ ~- ~ ~ -zS ~u- ~~.~~ r ~ 1 (2 ~ ar b ,r - Ya C a ~ ~W - c.e. Y u`.U> ~."d CYN Y ~ tRY~ _ 2 c~ aC6- ~anNGt .~~~ n.~~S Yn~ Ulf. „~ 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~. 1 • ~ ~ 0 J ~ m ~ ~l S ~ t n'- ~n`I~~, Y U 3 ~~ 97b~_ _c~y~ -- ~o ~.., r ~c i '~Gv~ _i(Y1~ ~ r ~tJr-_sz. ~earv` ----- - - - - - ---- -- ~NU,SSfi/r~ -l.aU!~`_~u'!~ bj~cA-!~a~~ ~ wt,1!l_ --- - 1212~~2~~ Ca_~ ~~ _~ ~--~ - .~ -~~„ ~~~n~ C~s~ r ,. A55 - ~ /~vt~i ,aC,~,1~Y1.L • ~s?5 J ~ ~ y~ ~a~-s~~ =~~ ~ '?yS' ~.~~ ~ ~ tXu~j ~n ~, ~Q ~~ ~~!1Q ~vom, ~( loos - 43S T ~ ~1S ~DC~- . ~ ~ '1_r~~--~r~- I a ~ - ~ t_~ tg~o ~ ~~~e~~~~- ~.,r~,,, - ~o °~~ ~~~ I ~ ~~_~o~~ _ _ ! tk~ x.lvo ~~ v 1~ . -~k~~~ot,¢5~ ~~ i~~ ~ ~~~ i ~~ k~i~~~`-~-c~!l 3 ~ t~~ l~er~a ~ ~ u~" U~ ~ctKn.~i a'~0 ~,