Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
FLD2007-04011
FLD2007-04011 921 LAKEVIEW RD THE BOILING POT PLANNER OF RECORD: WW ATLAS # 306A ZONING: C LAND USE: CG RECEIVED: 04/02/2007 INCOMPLETE: COMPLETE: MAPS PHOTOS STAFF REPORT: DRC: CDB: CLW CoverSheet \ 1 S 'Clearwater r Planning Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Telephone: 727-562-4567 Fax: 727-562-4865 ^ SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION ^ SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION -Plans and application are required to be collated, stapled, and folded into sets ^ SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE $ CASE #: ~~~W ~~-vT~// RECEIVED BY (staff initials): DATE RECEIVED: __ * NOTE: 15 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS) FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project (Revised 04/28/2006) PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT ' A. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) APPLICANT NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: PROPERTY OWNER(S): List ALL owners on the deed AGENT NAME: I~, MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: CELL NUMBER: ---- CELL NUMBER: _..._....__7a-~-..- ~(P_..~(cQ~..f....-o~-..c"?......_._.....-----...___..._..--- ............._. _3w_l- a~~'.-_YL~t~_-___~_.__---_-____. 72~-tf6f-a-laa- _o_ #~_~ _... ~ - q~ _~.~..Z?~.~~.~..'.a-`~.~~........__._....__........-.... FAX NUMBER: ~~=Q~',~----_~ E-MAIL ADDRESS: B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) PROJECT NAME: ~~~ ~ ~_ PROJECT VALUATION: STREET ADDRESS - ~~~~~~~~~~~(~ tN~£~~-~L_ PARCEL NUMBER(S): ~~-~~_ ~~ ~~ ~~-_ p PARCEL SIZE (acres): PAR EL SI E (square feet): __ __~.- a~a,~.,_.-_-_ ___-_-__~_ __-___ _ __ ____. / LEGAL DESCRIPTION: / ,.~ l2.1 ~ ~I ~~ J! ~ 1~ ~~ IR~)l0, ~O ~./ tt~~7, PROPOSED USE(S): DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Specifically identify the request (include number of units or square footage of non-residential use and all requested code deviations; e.g. reduction in required number of parking spaces, specific use, etc.) V ~ R~CLIV~D X:\Clw Applications\2006 Applications\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2006.01.doc Page 1 of 8 ~ • DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TD A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTIFIED) SITE PLAN? YES _ NO ~! (if yes, attach a copy of the applicable 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 7) ', D WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 3-913:A) ~• / f~ Provide complete responses to the six (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA -Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail: 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk,-coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. ' /~yy ~^ (~ ~ 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. 3. The proposed development will not adversely a ect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. 4. The proposed development is~degsiglne~d to /m,;~innimi~ze traffic congestion. 5. ent is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proposed deve lopm ~ n 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. 0170{f~-L ~E-C~€~ Q of PLANNING DEPARTMENT C1Tlf OF CLEARWATER X:\Clw Applications\2006 Applications\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2006.01.doc Page 2 of 8 • • WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria) Provide complete responses to the eight (8) COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CRITERIA -Explain how each Friteria is achieved, in detail: 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations.. from the.use.and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. ---__ ---5~ _c_?~~___.___ _----__ __---- __ ____ ---- .__. _ _--------. _-----__ _ --------_ -------._-------- ---------.__ --------- -----___ . 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, in~te,,nt,and^basi~c planning o ' ctives of this Code, and with the intent and, purpose of this zoning district 3. The development or redevelopment wi not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The pro~pos~e/d~ use provides f r th development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ^ Changes in horizontal building planes; ^ Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; ^ Variety in materials, colors and•textures; ^ Distinctive fenestration patterns; ^ Building stepbacks; and ^ Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development. provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances.bettn~eeildings. __ 0 n~,ntw,2~ 3• v~o~~ APR 0 2 2007 X:\Clw Applications\2006 Applications\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2006.01.doc~ViV11VV UCt'HKltYltfV I Page s of 8 _ CITY ®F CIEARWATER .. + ~ E. STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual and 4-202.A.21) t-t/ 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 p- At a minimum, the STORMWATER PLAN shall include the following; ~/ Existing topography extending 50 feefbeyond all property lines; 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. Proposed stormwater detention/retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; 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, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562-4750. F. SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 4-202.A) V SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (including legal description of property) -One original and 14 copies; fly" 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; f [9' TREE INVENTORY; prepared by a "certified arborist", of all trees 8" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and condition of / such trees; JCS/ LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY; C~ PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (ie. Reduce number of spaces). 1'R 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; l,~ 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; ~7RIGlNAL RECEIVED APR 0 2 2007 PIAIVNING DEPARTMENT X:\Clw Applications\2006 Applications\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2006.01.doc ~mr OF CLEARWATER Page 4 of 8 • ~ ~ • G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:; (Section 4-202.A) SITE PLAN with the fdllowing information (not to exceed 24" x 36"): Index sheet referencing individual sheets included in package; North arrow; Engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet), and date prepared; All dimensions; Footprint and size of all EXISTING buildings and structures; Footprint and size of all PROPOSED buildings and structures; All required setbacks; All existing and proposed points of access; All required sight triangles; Identification of environmentally unique areas, such as watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, and specimen trees, including description and location of understory, ground cover vegetation and wildlife habitats, etc; Location of all public and private easements; Location of all street rights-of-way within and adjacent to the site; Location of existing public and private utilities, including fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes and lift stations, gas and water lines, All parking spaces, driveways, loading areas and vehicular use areas; (~/ Depiction by shading or crosshatching of all required parking lot interior landscaped areas; J Location of all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment and all required screening _t_ {per Section 3-201(D)(i) and Index #701}; Location of all landscape material; Location of all onsite and offsite storm-water management facilities; Location of all outdoor lighting fixtures; and (!W'1~ ~ ~~rJcsi~~ Oaf ~''~ ~~`~'~ 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 units; EXISTING RE UIRED PROPOSED 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 all paved parking spaces & driveways, expressed in square feet & percentage of the paved vehicular area; 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 nonresidential uses. ~" ~ REDUCED COLOR SITE PLAN to scale (8 '/z X 11); 1 IFrOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the following additional information on site plan: '/I //~' One-foot contours or spot elevations on site; ~~'"""777 Offsite elevations if required to evaluate the proposed stormwater management for the parcel; _ _ All open space areas; ORIGINAL _ _ Location of all earth or water retaining walls and earth berms; RI:C~~Q ___ _ Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned); A p Streets and drives (dimensioned); !il"R 02 Z~Q7 Building and structural setbacks (dimensioned); l~LANNING t7EPARTI~~NT Structural overhangs; ~ CITY OF CLEARWATER X:\Clw Applications\2006 Applications\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2006.01.doc Page 5 of 8 C H. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-1102.A) LANDSCAPE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36"): All existing and proposed structures; Names of abutting streets; _ _ Drainage and retention areas including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations; J Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscape buffers; ................. __ Sight visibility triangles; _ __ _ Delineation and dimensions of all parking areas including landscaping islands and curbing; Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and locations, including driplines (as indicated on required tree survey); 1 Location, size, and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant _ _____ schedule; Plant schedule with a key (symbol or label) indicating the size, description, specifications, quantities, and spacing requirements of all _~ _ existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names; Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants including instructions, soil mixes, backfilling, 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 COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8'/~ X 11); COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, as applicable. Landscape associated with the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall exceed minimum Code requirements to offset the areas where minimum Code will not be met. I. BUILDING ELEVATION PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A.23) BUILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS -with the following information; ~ f All sides of all buildings; Dimensioned; Colors (provide one full sized set of colored elevations); Materials; Sight visibility triangles; REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATIONS -same as above to scale on 8'/~ X 11. J. SIGNAGE: (Division 19. SIGNS / Section 3-1806) U~y~ ~~t~~jv,-''v~' jl~ ^ All 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). ORIGINAL ^ Reduced signage proposal (8'/~ X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application. RF~~Q APR 0 2 2007 PLANNING e7EPARTIVIEfVT X:\Clw Applications\2006 Applications\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2006.01.doc CrIY OF CLEARWATER Page 6 of 8 oRICINAL nF~~=~~ 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: PLH(VNINU C3tFAI7rIVIEN CITY OF CLEARWATER • 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. ^ Will affect a nearby roadway segment and/or intersection with five (5) reportable accidents within the prior twelve (12) month period or that is on the City's annual list of most hazardous intersections. Trip generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip General Manual. The Traffic Impact Study must be prepared in accordance with a "Scoping Meeting" held with the Traffie~ 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): 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 turning movement at all intersections identified in the Scoping Meeting. L~~~ 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. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562- 4750. L. FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY: Provide Fire Flow Calculations. Water Study by a FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER to assure an adequate water supply is available and to determine if any upgrades are required by the developer due to the impact of this project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpipe and/or fire pump. If a fire pump is required the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity. Compliance with the 004 Florida Fire Prevention Code to include NFPA 13, MFPA 14, NFPA 20, NFPA 291, and MFPA 1142 (Annex H) is required. J Acknowledgement of fire flow calculations/water study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): Fire Flow Calcula(ionsNVater Study is included. _ _~__ Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is not required. CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS/ WATER 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 Fire Prevention Department at (727) 562-4334. M. SIGNATURE: I, the undersign ,acknowledge that all representations made in this appl' f are true and accurate to the best of my knowledg authorize City representatives to visit and photogra t property described in this application. Sign~f~'e of property owner or representative X:\Clw Applications\2006 Applications\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) Page 7 of 8 STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINEL Sworn to an~srcribed before me this ~- ay of tttt , A.D. 20 O d/or by o Is personal~~~ s pro uced as identifi tion. No pu i , My commission expir s: ~ ~ I ~ JEFFREY IZZO _>°~ Nota Public - State of ~ Commission Expires Nov 14, 2tN Commission # DD 450540 Bonded By Natanal Notary Assn. Mir co 07 11:4Sa The ~Eai 1 Place 7Z7441o535 p.1 ,~.~FEE3A,181 i' Td AtlTi~d{'2'sZb= Act3EeSI7'- ~/~~ S# eCO'y~~ prayide mares of sil pro~~sn'yr o•~~n ers Df! ~aer_' - ~'~I'dT L:}i ram;ss AVa!$Fd $31~ P ~. !k~ll!i y2m,1;~Y~ wry}the r.:tvr.~r(gj a?d rNCCrau ;ifie ralcans} 0! :'1A (.^,Iiyv:itl;~ Gf9~~b0LR ~~;'Owf(:'J iFitl/~tii?5 C! 1~~f40s::ti I: Cpl;Vt`=: "h~4 ti'~i5 prnl~Grt•; r..nn:ctlt4:;ar., tFep ~r?^eriy ~k+r s:tt+v!t ~ f~Guc~~l fv' a i~1C5nr;bC rrquc:<') 4. .~i!7tl"te UM1~18rS;~fiE"t1 {C1e6traY8 i apKtis:n:PC: t'.illl td:~~rao> uppu;n:: as ;his(iNelt) ~gen{{s) t: cxecutd 2ny ;)Etitiorp cr ,3±ne° d~r:tsrten!s r7~".^4s9~3ry'b Ai¢,tt;y su:~t ;.`~"ftlit~V7' That ;his atTaAvs{ hAS ~cen executed Rs; nduc:e tnq laity o! ~ieorwai`r, ~ Cridd tG e~t7s~det~ Inc d:,i ~~~ tl:; g50~K: ~:a~e; ir,~et+. pruptr±v ~. '>tdi SltsC Vi5fl31t] ihN Gropr,;ty;,th neoC~B398r{ tv Gttd re~pt~s~rtsii~',as iii OrtlEr tee;t:cses ti,!:a dpt!liC~[Ir~•~ ~,hh #hE 4rvner -u:F;a~'Izks C~[y rA~r,:BtYi'I:1;iivCd CL1 'viaft ?rr.~y phut rca"ph `4t ).?Cfij7yt"t~--` t"•64ttr~:'y~C rrt ;!"n ~:i 3p0ill,t!011; s j 7. 7C:a CI~.vC ~ t Ur:etlr 10 ~)~~ tl' ' 4Gr '~' ~ iy ' - nt .~ f3 tr:u; d~C GOrrk;r:. , f. .=r066Ct'r ;.. ~mc. t .._.... _ .._.......`....., ...._....... _ _ . ....... II .. _"........ _.... _ ..._........... . '~opc ?rlwnES - ..... f Z.x, ~ c~€~r~re~ oft G»,g~ Rowe 3ofor*~'aie .he ;+rf~.:, a:g:+bd, an o`ftG°.r (tut} CJ~1R?+' :! ~: - a -tt.: Af Flofit:d, a. !l„^ ..~~ c.>• ~ .,,€ .+i 7r•94 . )' t f~:'r5 tf G,t? 't.. t, I I ~~~~ ~'"~`,,^.rs%1;<GfiC<?dret: ~~~.. ..., .. `V~~ hc~t:.aw~:x, gyn. fi .~t:i ), „~.,r t I j J9r7C«w^a an_ ;,ap,s t~~ai hr'.sh~c fu{ly uridr:,~suanpg :t~.: cor tetiis :tt trtE ~rl~~~tifr !i5r.~ gir~rl~t,1. t .a~r+a ' ~ ~ BOBBIE J. MCLESTcR y ~ ~ ~ y Notary Public ~ ,~ ~~L~~ _ .. ~,®• STATE OF TEXAS ~ '''~°f My CommissionExpintsNov.23.201O x,01;~~ '''```~'~ tt~~' j'~ ~._ 'vr.+, yiia" - ~~ti++•+~+.r ray l';o!"!tnl;...+:n [x.~t:'`a' -----._ '.. ``~~~ ~V~O k°tCjr F.paiic2`ionsl2C~;A~~~4wtiar~st:.:ntt:reh,~tisrvesnrtFl Prolrcl:'rLvt~•?E:.i:'; ~:`G ;:s];~a 9 pf t7 ORIGINAL REC~i1lED APR 0 2 2001 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER p:~l2~/:~0@i 13.15 72t~468Q36 NGRT!-1~;Ii~E EJJta ~;?~~S .,, ~r'3C7E s~JI J.5 fit. AFFIC~A1PlT 7t3 AUTld<?Ft1~E AGENT: 1. Prcv~de na.•nes Df al' property awnars An GaE3~J - ~!t!r4T fu!! ~7arnes: 2. 7ha ~ mh~+»ro ara) the nwr~ar(g) and record tit(o ho(de; (s) of the f~iio'.ti"ng desc<ik~~i property {t;ddress or pena;ei !ocater,). . ~. That this prapart+; r.Gnstitutes the propart)r ipr •,vh;on ~ reo.~est for a: (o2sC?f @ request! 4. That tha undersigned {has have) appointed and (drUas/da; appbn+,: . ....__.~~~~,~. .. f~.,~I~~E~,.... _ _.__...___ ....._~...._.., _ , ... . _ _ _..._. . .. ...........__._..__ ... ....__....- AS (his!tht:ir) a~er+t{s) t0 tirecub: any pr~titiC,r:g or other dorumonts raer,Yssary to affect su 11 peifl'ip~; 5. Tt?trt !f'Is affdavlt has beer, ezecuterd tc !nduoa ti7e Oity of CiaaroratEr, F;grida to consider and ^bt on the ?bcve described prpcerky: 8. That Site visits tU the prop@Ry 2rr8 neoassary by City represo,ntat!vcs .n ardor to process thi.~ ap~~,fcat!nn and tf;a ov~r~er artrhCrritic?v City reprasen:~at~vgs to vit:it and pnotagraph the properly descriued Ifs 1.h!s appiicGtinn; ;, That ('M~), t!~~? Ur ersign d a hor!ty, Hereby azrt!fy that the fyra~Oing is truo am corre , v ~~ ~raperty Her Frap `°y JniB~ ......._.... _.. .. ...... ---- ~ .1.~1..~1~-.. ... X .. ........._ ..__ ..... _..~ .. fyr party Owner F~rperty C)wnor ~~A~~ ~~ ~~.~~~~/4~ Cd3tJA~TY O~ PINER.teAJS Before me the undersigrr~d, an officer duiy commissibred Erg tho taws ~f t>se State of Florida, an tF~fs da}nt ~~i//~~~~ ~,~~/~J ~" / _ .__....._...._,........_......... """'i'-.._.._ ~ (~Sl•`_..._._._. per5ongily sppeare~~~...... s~A.,...<~~=Y~~~..,.._..._._..._.. tivh4'78v';ng t~rFr first dzrfy eve?n reposes >nti says '' r _ ? ~ ~ ~ the affidavit that'+eish? sitln@G ~`~yi~ DOREEN A. WILl1AMS _ MY COMMISSION # DD 576718 ~~*i pr ~o°' EXPIRES: October 14, 2010 1-BW3~tJOTARY Fl Notary Discamt Assoc. . ~ _ _ ~ ....~ .. ...... ~ _..~._------ --.. _- 'Votary ~e~llStamp Notary Pit51~r ~~ nature ~'ay Comrn!s,lan ExplPes:~~. ~~~~(~ ~R(G[NAI. REC+~tVEQ ` X:1CIw h\ppllcatiQnF~2~i7~ RppifcatiUnS~~Cnm7rahen5iv= ;nflil Rro;Ort (rL[3j 2;}06.0'.dca NBge 8 of !? APR 0 2 2007 PLANNfNE DEP,Qf2Try~jENT CITY 4F CLEARIN/~TE~ f • • LETTER O F AUTH O RIZATI O N This letter will serve as authorization for Housh Ghovaee (agent Name) with Northside Engineering Services, InC. to act as an agent for (Property Owner's Name) And to execute any and all documents related to securing permits and approvals for the construction on the property generally located at ~!? `~ ~~ ~E~tVE[~ APR 0 2 2007 ~tAi~iNiP~i~ ~7tPe~~i~lEN'a 921 Lakeview Road Clearwater. FL ~ (Property Location) P.If1dFL~.~A~-Oejr, State of FLORIDA. naturea~opertv Owner ~~~~ ~~~bt' ~ z ~ ~~; Address of Property Owner ~ r--~ S'~ ~, , City/State/Zip C de SEP 0 5 200 I~-'~~-r k~ _ ~ ~ .~c~ Print Name of Property Owner ~` i~'~~~ Title ~22~~ef 2fZZ. Telephone Number State ;Q.(,t~AJ The foregoing instrument was acknowledffge before me this _~ day County _ of~~, 20~, by~~LN~ , as (~-~~,..) who irrs__personally known to me or who has produced rJ ~-- as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. (Signature) &r~nmission #.~~ ~ ~~~a Z Notary Public (Name of Notary Typed, Printed or Stamped) i • t ~reF~ad by: ~~~~~ Q~ ~'E~®~~~ IChEOW ,t~LL Ivlf1V 81~ 'fl~~E la'R.~SI~"I~, t Y I, !~( >ix~tci~iglned, does hc~b end ' t, ~ _ ~~ t!y t?~iidstag at L~.~ ~,,~~~- my an ~Iaw.ful atltorney-tn- i~,ct, far brae ertd iii nny - ~la~ce, aaed st~cl. "ra Wit, bargain, seal, rc~n~vey, martgage, pte~.ge ar eneuimbar the fn3lovv~ng desc~i l:nt~x Legal A~s>fcs%ptEain of Pro~rry 1.lei,rrwr.~a«ra~urrr~e~-ev*w~r~wo*«r+~«~ar~~r+~«~+e+rr .Pan;rl 1+de>~tti>t~~atiazY Nuaabcr. ~ 1 , ~' .~ r D [~~ ,~ ,, ~..1~ F~.nar>ure asp _.W... ~ j~~,t).".a~t~,te ~ _~~. ,And I clcs hereby givz a>ntcl grant tc~ zny suid attt~xr.~y fiill I~-'~' amd BuitZ~rit~~ tee ~ and perfc~rtle at ! erend every act and tla:{ng ~u$atso~vCC necy tc- be dare in the lar~trmiae ~ finlYy to Ait oint~ts anY1 purpa~e~ ae I might ~r coe~lei cIo ifparsrrr~allY fit, with full porter ~f suErJtitutiotT and revs~r~pc~r~ he~i~y rasi.~yix,:g aaui oarifisming all tit try said attnpnc~' »;iy da pumur~nt t~ thil~ pavwer. 1;T~i VV~'1;N1~Sfi '~/[-IF,'R..~O~, I hstie her~iugto eec my h,arYd atad anal thfs 1 S~ h day cif _~q_~,.., ~tltffi. T ~"~~-N `-~,~~ ~ c~ ~ ae~ 4igfted, e~le(d~,a'ind^d~iivercd ~,n tt-~ pzt~erwe ~f W i c>~s . ~ ~! a..,_. _..._ Wiese ••• ~ o ~0. r h 9ta~r of ~`e Y~~S C'~tnaty o~~.~_°~ _ .......~ -,?~::"';;;~~,,". ~~pYO ~~ = = ~ ANITA V. TRYON Notary public. State of Texas My Commission Expires „ ~'" +` ~,, ,,, 20, 2008 ,, ~atG{NAB. a~E~[~R APR 0 ~ 2007 ~r'CAf~iNiN~~ 6E~~-f~in~EN'~ CItYAF ~LEARUVArr~ 'Ifilc frrr+bgaln~ i;Jtnt»tent v hereby a~larn~cr+l~atgrxl b~fax+a xlrlc tea 5 is a ~0 . `o U~ta~...cs`b`~z--L.~~ edr~o~U ~xirra+~ ~~wnazrung Wdl:fi =~I 9pt3W 5l ~4W FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Comprehensive InfiIl Redevelopment Project The Boiling Pot 921 Lakeview Rd. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The proposed redevelopment is to convert atwo-story masonry structure consisting of four apartments and accessory storage into a restaurant. The existing structure will not be demolished and re-built; modifications are being made to the building for a conversion and to bring the buildings original 1920's heritage. The existing structure does not meet the current code setbacks. The redevelopment proposal is the beneficial re-use of a historic 1920's beverage distribution center as a Cajun theme restaurant. Recent use of the property has been attached dwellings with a variety of non-code compliant additions to the main structure. Allowing a viable business to occupy the space will enable the restoration of the core structure and increase the likelihood of preservation. The original site development and building location do not meet current code requirements, necessitating the need for consideration of the following.. . A reduction is being requested for the following: Front (Lakeview) 25' to 19.3' to existing building 25' to 14' to sidewalk 25' to 4' to pavement Front (Dempsey) 25' to 30' to existing building 25 to 0' to dumpster enclosure 25' to 1' to pavement Side (east) 10' to 3' to existing bldg. Side (west) 10' to 5' to pavement Height: 25' to 26' to midpoint of pitched roof (existing) Parking: 29 spaces to 16 spaces Lot width: 100' to 89.77' (along Dempsey) Allow 2 parking spaces in sight visibility triangles . Allow for direct access off Lakeview Road Comprehensive Landscape Program Reduction to a 15' buffer along Lakeview to 4' Reduction to interior parking lot landscaping from10% to 5.5% ~RIGINAI. REi~14~Ea APR 0 2 20x7 1'LANNfNG EI~ARTfYtENT gym` ®F ~EARINATER WRITTEN SUBNIITTAL REQUIl2EN1<ENTS (Section 3-913) 1. The development proposal eliminates non-code compliant additions that in recent years masked the original core structure without enlargement or addition makes use of the existing structure which was built in the 1920's.; therefore the existing two-story masonry building will remain in scale, bulk, coverage and density with the adjacent properties. The top floor of the existing building will be removed to give an atrium look. This will reduce the building square footage by 975 square feet. Through this proposed conversion the ,architectural style and historical character of the building will be maintained. The majority of the reductions requested are associated with the existing building setbacks and the existing lot size therefore the site will remain in harmony with the adjacent sites. Although the use required 29 parking spaces and 16 are provided on site, a shared parking lease has been signed with the Candy Factory for additional parking meeting the required 600' distance. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and building or significantly impair the value. The non-conforming recent use of the site with substandard apartments will be eliminated and re-establishment of that undesirable situation made less likely by establishing an economically viable use for the property. The operation hours of the proposed use will be 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. while the businesses to the east and west operate from 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Being the proposed development is a restaurant in a .commercial zoning district as well as the adjacent lots, if the abutting lots decided to redevelop; the uses would have to conform to the same zoning district. While enhancing the current dilapidated site, values tend to increase. The dumpster will be enclosed per code and the owner will make every effort via hostess to ensure no vehicles are parked in unauthorized spaces. 3. There will be no adverse affects to the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. The owner-operated site will be well lit and its continued maintenance in good order is ensured by his self interest to present an attractive street appearance. Parking areas will be similarly improved and all drainage contained on site as required by code. 4. The applicant is proposing an on-site parking area for 16 cars with area for on- site maneuvering of vehicles. This will eliminate backing out movements into the right-of--way. Clearly defined access driveways will minimize vehicle conflict points. Sole access will be from Lakeview. The developer has gained joint access parking with an adjacent use within the allowance distance per code. No access will be permitted offDempsey Street. Signs will be posted. As far as delivery trucks, this will take place in the mornings when the restaurant is closed for business. Since we have decided to remove the concrete along OI~IG1NAl. REGEI~lEi~ A?P~ 0 2 2007 PiANNINC~ a~EpARTIVIENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Dempsey, they will have to deliver the goods off Lakeview at the only ingress/egress available. The owner has stated and has provided a letter stating that there will be no on- street parking in the rights-of--ways. He will make a conscious effort to deter his customer's from doing so as far as having his host/hostess ,asking to move vehicles if they are parked in unauthorized spaces. Signs will also be posted at the Candy Factory as well as The Boiling Pot letting patrons know that additional parking is available at the Candy Factory. The proposed development is consistent with the community character as the area is primarily comprised of various smaller commercial operations similar to the neighborhood restaurant being proposed. The proposed use is an allowable use within the Commercial Zoriing District and through design and operation any ill effects on the surrounding properties will be mitigated. Like many other commercially zoned corridors, the commercially designated sites are bordered by residential neighborhoods, uses such as this proposed neighborhood restaurant is intended to provide service to the surrounding residential areas and the surrounding residential areas support the local business. People and businesses have co-existed for years, whether it be old mixed with new, new mixed with new or old mixed with old. Preserving a building which was built in the 1920's is a good gesture on the part of the owner. With old buildings, come old troubles. That has not played a role in this owner's endeavor to still want to save a little piece of history in a small area of Clearwater. Also, in the City of Clearwater's Comp. Plan, it states that Clearwater will continue to protect Historical properties. Although not listed on the National Registry, any building 80 years old. still has a historic significance. The immediate vicinity surrounding the proposed development does not have any consistent "community character".. The area is completely mixed-use. You have office, manufacturing, retail, auto body, medical, residential and a cemetery. The only recognizable community character in this area would be the era the structures were building. In keeping this 1920's building, it retains its character within the area. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects on adjacent properties by utilizing the existing charming old Florida style building without expansion and providing additional upgrades to the site such as new landscaping, a paved parking lot, responsible site drainage and other site improvements not currently provided. Additional mitigation is offered by providing a smaller neighborhood restaurant with all operations completely contained within the building; the new dumpster will be screened and enclosed. The owner will also schedule additional trash pick ups to eliminate waste from sitting for days and spoiling. The dumpster will be chemically ~RIGf[VAI. 1ZEG~l~l~l~ Q~R302 2007 PLAPJNING ©EFARTfV(ENT CITY OF GLEARINATER • • treated to eliminate odor and rodents. The proposed hours of operation are intended to serve the dinner crowd with late afternoon openings and closings at 10:00 p.m. The proposed restaurant use will provide the site with a permissible use in lieu of the non-conforming use previously established on site. The owner is making every effort to keep neighbors happy while still being able to run a successful business. In order to keep headlights from shining onto the adjacent residential parcels, a 6' high fence is being proposed along Dempsey. Engineering has also allowed the owner to landscape the right-of--way for an additional buffer and also for additional greenery. WIt><TTElll SUBIO~iITTAL REQUIREMENTS (Section 2-704C) 1. As this development proposal contemplates revitalization and utilization of the existing 1920's structure the proposed redevelopment is impractical without deviations. The established setbacks for the structure and the established site area is less than the current code requires, however, to make practical use of the existing building, retaining the historic value, setbacks and reductions are required. The existing building and site restrains would make most revitalization projects for this site impractical without receiving deviations. The building as it sits today does not meet current setback, requirements. 2. This redevelopment proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive plan and through the innovative proposal to utilize the historical building the developers will be provided with an opportunity to enhance the value of their property. Further, the redevelopment and associated improvements will have a positive influence on the values of the surrounding properties. The area is beginning to see some redevelopment with the newly approved medical office located just northwest of the site, this revitalization plan will continue to breathe new life into this area and provide the surrounding area with local goods and services as desired by code. The area as a whole has such a variety of uses. The residential neighbors have been looking at this building for ~0 years and that is not changing. A parking lot will be erected in an area where a grass field was, but every effort has been made to buffer the view from neighbors. A fence is being proposed along Dempsey to block car lights from spreading onto adjacent neighbors and additional landscaping is proposed in the right of way. No matter what use this site would come to the development board, the majority of the setbacks would still be necessary. Most uses would require 16 or more parking spaces and the same retention based on the square footage of the building. ~RIGINAl. 12EC~lUED APR 0 ~ 2007 pLANNIN~ ~EPHRIMENT 4 CITY OF CLEA~w~TFp • The proposed redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. The current uses to the west and east consist of a social security office and an automotive part refiirbishment business. Although setback reductions are being requested, the reductions primarily speak to the existing building conditions; this development proposal does not contemplate additions or enlargement of the existing structure. The existing building has been on the site for over 80 years and will remain. The proposed site improvements, such as new landscaping, responsible site drainage, the development of appropriate parking surfaces, and the restoration of a charming historical building together with providing a desired service to the local neighborhood will translate into a solid improvement for the surrounding properties. Many redevelopment projects request setbacks to their sites. The most common are side setbacks. A 5' reduction is common and still provided ample amount of space for landscaping. Unfortunately, since the existing building is to remain, the east setback is at 3'. The front setbacks, which there are two has made it challenging to place parking the site without asking for reductions. We felt with some site constraints, a valiant effort has been made. 4. Adjoining parcels will not suffer due to the redevelopment parcel as mitigation is providing by offering a smaller neighborhood restaurant with all operations completely contained within the building, a new dumpster ~~vhich will be screened and enclosed, new professionally design landscape not currently found on site. The proposed hours of operation. are intended to serve the dinner crowd with late afternoon openings and closings at 10:00 p.m. The proposed restaurant use will provide the site with a permissible use in lieu of the non-conforming use previously established on site. -This neighborhood restaurant will be a catalyst of revitalization for the area; the redeveloped site will entice other necessary and desired establishments that provide good and services to the local neighborhood. The current parcels to the south are residential. Out of 88' of frontage on the proposed property, only 25' will be screened by landscaping. A large concrete pad is being removed and 29 mew Podocarpus trees and 2 Ligustrum Trees are proposed for plantings as a buffer. 5. The proposed use is .permitted by the underlying future land use category and compatible with adjacent land uses. The proposed restaurant use is a permissible use within the Commercial General Land Use category. Additionally, the proposed restaurant use will provide a few new employment opportunities.. Or7i~INAl REC~~p aPR o ~ zool PV4NNINf; l~tP,r~TflilENt CIn° OF CtEARWATER The proposed use would be an economic contribution (though small, but every little bit helps) to the City's economic base and diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs. With a new restaurant comes new jobs; cooks, wait staff, etc. Being a historic property and the City states in its comp plan that it strives to preserve historical properties, this would be a contribution to the City as there are fewer historical buildings still standing in Clearwater with all the major redevelopment taking place. The development proposed accommodates the redevelopment of an existing economic contributor. Historical sites should be preserved. The 1920's building remains with a use change only. The building has not been placed on any Historical Registry, but an 80 year old building should have its place. Preservation should be looked at more in regards to re-development. 6. Listed below are the justifications in regards to flexibility of the proposed redevelopment. a. The proposed redevelopment being a permitted use within the Commercial Zoning district will not impede normal and orderly development on surrounding properties. Surrounding properties are also of a commercial use within the Commercial Zoning district. Currently, Martin Luther King Boulevard is being reviewed to be rezoned to a commercial zoning district in order to entice redevelopment is this area. The surrounding parcels are all commercial except for the residential to the south. During operation hours of this restaurant, the majority of the businesses in the area will be closed within 1 hour of the restaurant opening. No impact will be placed on these uses. The residential community to the south consists of approximately 5 homes, 3 directly behind the restaurant. The two parcels to the west and east of the proposed parcel are an office building which has direct access on Dempsey and an automotive restoration company which is an intense use for the area, as they are a body shop working 9-5. Our site will not have any access on Dempsey reducing traffic and will not have any noise impact. b. Applicable design guidelines are not provided for this area. c. The design and scale of the proposed development supports the established character of the area as the proposal makes use of the existing 1920's building. The proposal also provides further investment in the area to encourage future improvements and investment. Although the proposed neighborhood restaurant is considered more intensive use than the existing attached dwellings, unlike the existing attached dwellings the proposed use a permissible within Commercial Zoning District. And although this use is considered intense, it is compatible with the automotive restoratal~ I2E~lVt;D ~~~ 6~ 2 zoos t'CANNINf~ DEP~RTf~ECV E CITY OF CLEARWATER business to the east which also has residential to its south in the sense of a commercial use. Additionally, the building is commercial as are the surrounding parcels. The original building will not change from its original footprint which has been on the site since the 1920's. Additional pavement will be added for parking as well as additional landscaping and property drainage which this site did not previously have. d. Listed below are visual design elements: ^ The horizontal plane will change with a pitched roof with decorative contours to the east and west side of the pitched roof. ^ Architectural details have been used on the north elevation. ^ The building will be of a tropical Mediterranean color scheme with stUCCO Wal1S. ^ Distinctive fenestration patterns will be on the north elevation. ^ The actual building is setback off Lakeview approximately 18' and off Dempsey approximately 30'. The building was building in the 1920's and is getting a new facelift. ^ The building will have distinctive roof forms. The center of the roof will be pitched and the east and west sides are very different for lack of a better word. Maybe the word is the use of cornices? ^ The building will be stucco (original). The colors will be of a tropical feel. The building will remain as it was in the 1920's with change in color only. e. The proposed development has been designed to work around an existing historical building and provides many upgrades to the site. Although the buffers are less than the code requires, all areas not needed for parking and circulation have been fully landscaped and will provided a much needed visual upgrade to the site. The area along Dempsey will receive additional landscaping where concrete currently exists to improve the view from the residential area to the south. A fence is being proposed for an additional buffer. Additional landscaping is also being proposed along the ROW Nothing can be done to the buffer along the west side of the property as the existing building will remain. The 5' reduction to the west is a request which is asked for by many developers in the area and provides adequate room to plant trees and shrubs for screening. Although there is a reduction to the south setback, it is for pavement, not building and only 25' will not have landscaping. Through three different designs we have been able to increase the north setback to its fullest. aRiG1NAl. RECEIYEQ APR 0 ~ 2007 PLANNING ©EP~iRTf~iENi CITY OF CLEA~2WATER ~ ~ Just as a side note to the proposed redevelopment project. The developer/owner of the site is caught in a "Catch 22" situation. The site must provide 29 parking spaces for the restaurant. Currently as designed, the site has 16 spaces on site with the remaining required parking being provided at the Candy Factory which is within the code allow being it is within 600' of the proposed project. Staff desires more parking on site and more landscaping. With the site constraints, both cannot be accomplished. We can remove two parking spaces closest to Dempsey and provide more landscaping (which is desirable), but staff feels less parking is undesirable even though adequate parking is being provided through across-parking agreement. The owner/developer has worked hard with removing unnecessary curb cuts, removing unnecessary concrete and redesigning the entire interior so there is no question to the amount of square use on the second floor. We hope that with the changes made and the additional parking obtained that will be able to move forward with another addition to the City of Clearwater. The building will be maintained at a higher level than most commercial uses in the neighborhood being that the owner feels the relation with the historicalness of the building. Being a small restaurant in a mixed -use community, the patrons will be drawn more from the community to this dining pleasure. ~RiG1NAL RgC~l11~~ APR 0 2 2007 l~tAl~1NItJ i~EP~innEr~~ X111° OF rE ~ aiae~ ~ . _,. 8 . ~ COVENANT RUNNING WITH THE LAND (SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT) THIS AGREEMENT is made and executed by and between Gerald S. Rehm & Associates, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the "LESSOR", and Mr Mark LeBlanc and the Boiling Pot Restaurant located at 921 Lakeview Road Clearwater Fl 33756, hereinafter referred to as the "LESSEE". WITNESSETH WHEREAS, LESSOR owns real property legally described as the front parking lot of the LESSOR'S business located at 721 Lakeview Road Clearwater Florida 33756; and, WHEREAS, LESSEE must comply with certain requirements of the City of Clearwater's (hereinafter referred to as the "City") parking regulations and, in order to .satisfy said regulations, LESSEE desires to obtain access to and use of parking facilities on LESSOR'S property; and WHEREAS, it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City's Zoni:~g pirec_tor that the LESSOR has parking in excess of parking required by Code for t:he .uses occupying LESSOR'S property; and WHEREAS, upon the request of LESSEE, the LESSOR has agreed to the use of its parking facilities on LESSOR'S property by the clientele of LESSEE upon the terms and conditions set forth herein; This document prepared by: Gerald S. Rehm & Associates, Inc. 721 Lakeview Road, Clearwater, Fl 33'756 ~R~~~~ _ APR 0 ~ 200 ~~~w~ ~E~A~~nnE~~. O~ OF OI.EARVdATEt< of Page 1 5 • • NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration consisting of the sum of $6,750 00 (OR) the satisfactory repair and re-asphalting of said parking lot in accordance with LESSOR and LESSEE a regiment. Sub'ect a ent made on or before date of Certificate of Occupancy will entitle the LESSEE to three (3) years of use of said marking lot Effective ear four (4) through year fifteen {15), LESSEE will pay LESSOR the amount of $170.00 er month (to be aid the 18t of each month). In addition, due to wear and tear of said parking lot, the LESSEE agrees to re-black top said parking lot on an annual basis and at the LESSEE'S expense. Note: If for an' reason LESSEE does not open said restaurant than this agreement is terminated in its entirety and no compensation of any kind is owed the LESSOR. LESSOR will consider the above compensation paid in hand by the LESSEE to t;he LESSOR, and other good and valuable consideration the receipt and suffici.en~;y r.. f_ which are hereby acknowledged, the LESSOR and LESSEE do hereby agree that: 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein key reference. 2. The LESSEE, its employees, officers, agents, servants, clientele and ot}-ie:r persons having business with or visiting the LESSEE shall be permitted 'to park their vehicles in the LESSOR'S designated parking spaces on LESSOR'S property during the following days and hours: DAY(S) HOURS 7 days per week 3:30 P.M. to 2:00 A.M. No one associated with, employed by or visiting LESSEE shall have the right to enter upon or the right to park a vehicle upon LESSOR'S property except during the day(s) and/or hours designated herein, and the LESSEE shall undertake to inform all. persons associated with'it and visiting LESSEE of this restriction ~R~G~NAL and prohibition. i2E~lYE~ APR 0 2 200 _ ~LAdVNiNf~ QEP~-R~inhEN~ ~~-~° OF CLEARWATEP P~ g ~ 2 c> f_ . ~ • 3. LESSEE shall instruct those persons parking on LESSOR'S property that no loitering or other activity is permitted to t"ake place on LESSOR'S property during the hours in which parking is permitted, or at any other time. 4. This Covenant shall terminate upon written notice to LESSEE by LESSOR or any successor in interest of LESSOR, or upon conveyance of LESSOR'S property or any portion thereof to another. Immediately upon such termination, LESSOR and LESSEE shall give written notice of said termination, said notice to be directed to the CITY'S Zoning Director, and any such notice shall specifically reference this Agreement. ~. Upon. germination of this Agreement, the LESSEE shall come into compliance with the Cit:y's parking regulations, or obtain a waiver thereof, failing wl;ich LESSEE shall cease any of its operations which would not be permitted under the City's parking regulations and other applicable regulations until the LESSEE shall come into compliance with said regulations. t;. ']'his Agreement shall not affect LESSEE'S obligation to comply with all other applicable City Ordinances and laws. 7. The rights granted hereby shall be personal in nature to the LESSEE, aril sha.1_l not be assignable by LESSEE. No successor in interest to the LESSEE nor ar~y subsequent grantee of LESSEE'S property shall have any rights hereunder. S. This instrument contains the entire agreement between the parties. It shall not be changed except in writing signed by both parties. This Agreement shall be governed by Florida law, and shall not be construed for or against a party because that party wrote it. 9. Each remedy afforded by this Agreement is cumulative to all other remedies provided in it or by law. No waiver of or failure to enforce a breach of t:hi.s Agreement is a waiver of any other or subsequent breach. v )R1GfI~i~i_ REG'~lVE[~ APR 0 2 2007 . PLF~I~fViNC 7EEi~Tivi t~~-, ~~ t ~> CITY OF G~EA ~vf~'~ C~ EXECUTED this /"' day of ~s/~/~c,~/~-r7 ~ ~ Jf` ~, ~ LESSOR j• ~ ~ A ~ /' ~ ay ' _ Witness Its• C /~-/z/r~ ,J Witness NOTARY FOP. LESSOR "ATE OF FLORIDA )LINTY OF _ ~~~'~'~-`-' _ g /C ~ ~, The foregoing instrument was acknowled ed before me this __ ~~- J (Date) by ~r S . ~ t e~'t-~ _~~ -^ ~~~0. .•V&ic SCOTT M. REH~i MY COMMISSION # DD 529530 * * EXPIRES: April 24, 2010 Nj9 . ~`~P Bomled ThN Budget Notary Services ~ ~ Fl. (SEAL ABOVE) --~ (Name of person acknowledging and title of position) Lessor, who is personally known to me or who has produced (Type of identificatio as ident' ' ,at' n nd wh d~j (did not) take an oath. ,,,~~ .r' ~' - Notary Public, Commission No. 1:?i~~~`~.S ~ i .S~.ziT f'~~9'~I (Name of Notary typed, printed or stamped) rTENTlON NOTARY: Although the information requested below is OPTIONAL, it could prevent fraudulent attachment thi ;certificate to unauthorized document. /' -!IS CERTIFICATE MUST BE Title or Type of Document ~-~~~` /~~~'~'"'~'•'~~' - ----- -TACHED TO THE DOCUMENT- =SCRIBED AT RIGHT: Number of Pages ~ Date of Document v ~l~ ~ ~ry ~' Signer(s) Other than Named Above ECUTED this ~ ~ day of ~''~~'~ ~ -~ ,°,. ~ ~~ ?, ~ ~,~~ ~ f~ W'it n e s s Witness ' - ~ APR 02 2007 Page 4 of 5 P~iNNfNG ~EF,4RT~EtV 1 ePTY OF C~ EARw~~t; ~. ~t~IGINAL REG~tI/~E~ r ~ NOTAP.Y FOR LESSEE: ~~.~~` ATE OF FLORIDA The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this f~/' (Date) by ~~~'--~ ~~^/i ~y (..,~ ~ i. ANC ~'t;~_-~~ . OSp,RY PUe(i SCOTT M. REHBO (Name of person acknowledging and title of position) ~ ; •••; c MY COMMISSION # DD 529530 p y p `''~~` P:s- * ~ Lessee, who is ersonall known to me or who has roduced _ EXPIRES: April24, 2010 'Tllzt /~i^~} ~c~c'i :t-Li ys ~~~"S ~" ~ ~ ~ ° C~x~ ~°qrE~ ~~`°P Bonded Thru Budget Notary Services of identification) ~=kF' ~~'-~ `f ` Icy '? o f as identification and who di (did no~take an oath. ,~ (SEAL ABOVE) (~ Notary Public, Commission No.~,;);f``3:3~? ~~ ~~-~'t2'~ (Name of Notary typed, printed or stamped) T~NT10N NOTARY: Although the information requested below is OPTIONAL, it could prevent fraudulent attachment this certificate to unauthorized document. iIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE Title or Type of Document L~~:~~_ ~~"-'"-~~Ic"~''- ~TA,CHED TO THE DOCUMENT .SCRIBED AT RIGHT: Number of Pages ~ Date of Document ~_`~G ~~ ._ Signer(s) Other than Named Above - AFPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT ONLY FOR PURPOSES OF SUFFICIENCY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, PARKING REGULATIONS: BY: CITY ATTORNEY, CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA '~~~~~~ RE~lY~[~ APR 0 2 2007 p~v~iN~ ~~~~-~r~r~rv~ ~~' QF ~LEARWATI<F~ Page 5 c:f 5 C~ LL _°'C earwater U Planning Department 100 Soul Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33156 Telephone: T27-582-4587 Fax: T27-582-4885 ^ SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION ^ SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLiCAT10N -Plans and application are required to be collated, stapled and folded into sets r~ ~;, ~' 2007 ,.?~~. .t•.. ~Fv~, it NOTE: A TOTAL OF 15 SETS OF THIS APPLICATI©N AND ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A COMPLETE LEVEL ONE OR LEVEL TWO APPLICATION. COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM (Revised 03/29/2006) PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT i'NFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) APPLICANT NAME: MAILING ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER: PROPERTY OWNERS): List ALL owners on the deed Dorothy B. LeBlanc 1418 Dexter Drive., Clearwater, FL 33786 727-461-2122 CELL NUMBER: 727-461-2122 361-729-4143 Dorothv 6. LeBlanc /Lots 13-16 Sexton Enterprise, Inc. /lot 17 AGENT NAME: Northside Engineering Services, Inc. / Housh Ghovaee, CEO MAILING ADDRESS: 601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755 PHONE NUMBER: 727'443'2869 FAX NUMBER: 727-446-8036 CELL NUMBER: 727-709-0943 E-MAIL ADDRESS: Doreent~northSldeenglneering.COm 1. ARCHITECTURAL THEME: a. The landscaping in a Comprehensive Landscape Program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for the development. REQUEST: Reduction to the front buffer from 15' to 5' along Lakeview; reduction to the front landscape buffer along Dempsey from 15' to 1' in some areas; reduction to the interior parking lot landscaping from 10°1° t0 5.5%; foundation reduction from 5' to 0'. The developer has decided to design the landscaping around the Mediterranean theme of OR the building. An extensive number of trees have been added to the site. Much of the existing asphalt is being removed to accommodate additional landscaping to the site as well as historical era planters running along the existing concrete walk in the front of the building; All possible open areas have been landscaped to their fullest. An increase to the front buffer Has added an additional 170 +i- of landscaping. b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping aiherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards. N/A CASE NUMBER: RECEIVED BY (Staff Initials): ~~tZIGIIVIAfo DATE RECEIVED: rye, fl~ <.. Y:12006 AutoCAD Projects10634 -(The Boiling Pot)ILetters & Corn3spondancelComp. landscape 9.5.06.doc Page 1 of 2 2. LIGHTING: Any lighting proposed as a part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program is automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. All lighting for the site wiH be low lights and not spread onto adjacent parcels. Lights will operate From dusk to closing. 3. COMMUNITY CHARACTER: The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. The current landscaping on the parcel & surrounding parcels consist of unkempt, dead grass, and overgrown trees. Over 8 species of plants and over 330 plantings will enhance not only the site, but the surrounding neighborhood. Every effort has been made to accommodate Ip antin~s in areas where minimum landscaping occurs in others. The landscape designer has also designed the site for draught tolerant materials. Additional landscaping is being proposed along Dempsey in the ROW for additional buffering. d. PROPERTY VALUES: The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will have a beneficial impact on the value of the property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. New sod would benefit the value of surrounding properties. The area is very old in nature 8~ surrounded by commercial & residential. The proposed landscaping will be keeping with the Florida style with draught and salt tolerant plants. This will help in the maintenance of plants for longer life and greater growth potential. 5. SPECIAL AREA OR SCENIC CORRIDOR PLAN: The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program is consistent with any special area of scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. N/A THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 3, DIVISION 12 MAY BE WAIVED OR MODIFIED AS A PART OF A LEVEL ONE OR LEVEL TWO APPLICATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IF THE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL INCLUDES A COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM, WHICH SATISFIES THE ABOVE CRITERIA. THE USE OF LANDSCAPE PLANS, SECTIONS /ELEVATIONS, RENDERINGS AND PERSPECTIVES MAY BE NECESSARY TO SUPPLEMENT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WORKSHEET. SIGNATURE: I, the un rs' ned, acknowledge that all representations made in this ap is ~ on are true and accurate to the best of my know) ge' and authorize City representatives to visit and photo ap the property described in this application. of property owner or representative RE~I~Q ~'f~IVt~ti~>}~~ ~~~~Tf~iEIYT ~l'IY rJr ^{_~'~v~~'t~p STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS wom to and subscribed before me this ~~day of A.D. 20~]_ to me andlor by c~ ,who is personally known has produced as ident~cation. ry public, My commission expires: y ~ N~ MY COMMISSION # DD 578718 ''~'orr~~~ EXPIRES: October 14, 2010 1-0003~N01'ARV FL Notuy Diooourrt Assoc. Co. Y:12006 AutoCAD Projects10634 -(The Boiling Pot)ILetters & CorrespondancelComp. landscape 9.5.06.doc Page2of2 ..~-"`~" LAKE VIE W ROAD(F) ,_.. COUNn' FIIGHWAY(P) ~ a ~,.. ~~ ..--~' a awc -~'""".~ -----' ~,.--' NE7Y N.G RAMP y ~,.«--.r"`"~~' ,~..------'"""" fDOT INDfX 304 ...»""" r"° ~ ~~>~`"~~' ~ .-'' ~,g~' ~~~ N.8836'16"W. 86.29'(M) si 9GN G~ i '.. ~ fig. ~, ~ - r~, . ~ 56 ~. ~~ S~oQ ~ ~ ~ • ' OO ~- oa ,, ~5..~' ~---~ q,; ~ - --- ~~\ ' ~~ ___"_Ifi~\ ~ 0 +a ~ n /c~"~ / NEW IZETENTIDNPOND r~MO~,_-~---- /`~° \ ~~ - ~ w \ 2s" ~' 4x4• ~ ~~ LAC ~ 0 ~ ~ t ~' ~^ nrEES m rNHEEL sTAP BE RfA10 N` ~ \ `fly F` O® ~O' \ ~ ~~ 0 \\ 25" ~~~ \ DL - ~--- ~~ ~ ~.~ ~xt11LL~1t1( ,~,s J (LLB:- ~D. ~;~ fA0' R0~ O f. ~~~ E".f CL~+G €i'AttY ...y ICI ~~ -N~sm~cAt ~- PFRI00 PLANTERS ~ o 0 I~ a I -, ~~ ~ ~ I~ ~~ ~s~•. s a f- ~ ~~ CV i0. Q ~a ~ z" ~ ~~ a. ~ suwNC DooR U ~ PAD ~ ~ NEW RETENTION POND #2 /p~q y~ i ~ RP,i KINGO ONLY I ~ SH,Y~/ ~ J ____ ---O'X10'~~~ \ ~~~ O f ~Q~ `~ 0 ~ i l'; 1 ~I~ S 0 ~IJ "^ w, rl ~~ .~e yf~ ~ ` ` 0 -- - • ~o ~5~ ~r, '~ ;~~12" ~ # ''~ I r ~~'"w~ ~ ~ ~ t i 1 s . ®. ,, r .......... -- x' P ~D ~ 4 a''DUMPS7ER \ ~ADWAY ~ -spv x:89 58'20 E. ~ } ~ 3> > ~ r ~ N655~~~ s I 2 1s" i DEMPSEY S7°1~EET(F) ,' sc~,aw .. ~r'~ _~.- °-~..~...t____~_---.... ~~ ~....., ~,..~~ / ~' F „•"" p --_--- ~-~'~- ~ ~ so'~N+n~u Rw ~' ~" / ~ IX CQNG ~' Wi1Llf /• ~~G ti -.~ ~ o N ~a ~ a 5• ~ o~ zy. =r 0 - ~O „~ - ~~~.. ~~ 0 ~ ~, 0 ~r. w , 0 ~; c' . ~ ~~ i% r i ^9 ~~ ~" ~ ~ ~ ~., ~` --~ ~~--~. 0 O ~ ~ i ~ j ,~i12" ~~ I 13 ~ 1 i ad6~ i 1 ~ ~ ~ i O 0 ~ O EX. TWO STORY CBS BUILDING #921 (LLF. =10.0') xEw xE~ox POND #2 Y , \`~~ ' 89820 f ~ 39.40'(M) ~~ i N 6y5 ~'~~~ i `~ 0 2 18" i i 7" \ I ~ ~ DEMPSEY S1`R`EET(F) .' 60RW ~~ ~~~ ~-~ -~. i' i" /~/'/' ~~ ~~ . w i~u r- ©V ~~ O z~ a~ ~ ~_ w 290D-4 P Arizona TRIM ~~lCaf~ ~~~~fi '.ref .~' ~! ~''4~vY,!~,i~T BUILDING ~ ~ ~:`~~ ~ >~, ~_ ^.. - ---- ~~~__. ?~ a r3 m N m C~ ~~ ae~wn n 2.. (,~k~/I~i ~AfLU<~, ~~~ ICI ~~' ~ II':) mat Gd o'' ~ , ~i ~~ ~~~ ,: ~ ^~~ sue---~ :.µ =D' ' ~~ ~ ~ ®~ v ~ o ~ ~~ ~~ ~.~ __ ~.~ ~:.~s~A- ~~ o ~ - .~. O -~ ~~ ___ a {. ~~~. • ~RIGINAI. RE~INE~. ~.PR 0 2 2007 ~L~NNING~ ~EP~RT~IENT ~lTY CAF GE.EgRWATER E~ ~ ~`/l~%~/ R Y SUR V~ .se.NOTEa.*• SURVEY' DRAWN BY OCCUPATION ADDRESS.• 9?_ 1 LAKEI/lEW F "`" ~ CLEARWATER, FLOI~IDf / SCALE. 7" = 20' LAKF_V/EW ROAD(P) DEMPSEY STREET(F) i ~ - 60 RW /, OAK TREE B.A:AC.M1! 3x3 ¢)5.8958'20'C. 39.40'(M) g1l ? 0 1,, ~' (• 11 9 ~ f'CA! 3x3 ~) g2) x' 1p• " • (~~ g~ (,~"% ~ (~ 2s 9 6~ ?.3 fi) l~. CONCRETE 5) ~ ~ . 6) 3„ (~ g. ><' ~ 1p 1) , g1~ ) ti~ ~ ~~ ~`l "~ ~_ 49.9' ~ 1 "r ~if~ ~, ~. G6 0 (x/(~`~ TWO STORY 10?~ ~p•41 a ~ b BUILDING o ~o' o ~ 2 U ~~ o 0 X921 ~ ~ (LLF.=10.0) ~ ~ ~ l t111 yo ~ ((~ 0 51 • % 1 ;h5 Op i 2 (g ) b) / ZT 1 S I~GR ~ G ~), K) 9" 8'V 49 ('~' p 1 (,,C' J ~ ~ ~, 11 "' ' ~, ~•U _ . . , C i h 9 ro ~ . '~B zp p) ° g6) ~ ~ ~~!.~ ) ~. (x/ FCM 4Jt~F ~ Olds 9 N8B36'16°W. 86.29'(A!) F 5~8„ ~/~ X55 ~~ ~ ~ W/ N&U _ WSJ- 5'CSW g~ ~,~ ~~i a afi2/ _ 5•'' A..? ~- ~ ~ g~6~ LAKEVIEW ROAD(F) -___.____!~x _ COUNTY HIGNWA~ -~ , 30'PARIIAL RW j (ELEVAIIUNS ARE SHOWN !N PARENTHESIS AND ARE ASSUMED.) 1 /VOTE: This survey was conducted without the benefit of an abstract of title, therefore there may be other easements, right-of-wok; setback /lnes, agreements, reservations, restrictions, or other similar matters o~ public record, not depicted an this sur~c}% ((77 CFI ^ CHORD FIP FOUND IRON PIPE M ^ AIEASUR£[,,{! f/JT PP ~ POHgR PCJLE A =ABENCH A/ARX EOP = EDCE OF PAVEMENT Mll ^ MANHCL£/ R ~ RADIUS ^ B C =BEAR/NC C~ '~ CF(A/N LINK FENCE EOW EDGE OF WATER fIR FOUND IRON RDD q/p ,~ OVER/1EA0 p0N£R LINE .SIp =SET IRGN PIPE CBS= CONCRETE BLOCK STUCCO CONC ^ CAVCRETE fCC ^ FOUND CROSS CUT FN °. FOUND NAIL p „ p~T lL ~ CSW > CpVCRE1E SIDEWALK fPP +• FOUND PINCH PIPE SAP =SET Wctli acv tl171/car }rear; ~ CALC ~. CALCUCA7E0 FCM m FOUND CONCREI£ PC ^ POINT OF CURVATURE UE e UIIUTY EASEAfEill- Lu C C =COVERED CgNCREl£ D A DEED MONUMENT LLF .. LOH£ST LINNC fLGOR pCP ~ PERMANENT Cgl1ROL rgNT WB =WATER B(7X v ~B •+ CHORD EAR/NC DE ^ OHA/NAGS EASEMENT f71 ^ FIRE NIDRANT I/EA INCRESS/EGRESS P! ^ PWNT OFOF IN~RSECIIgI IYF = HDOU FENCE ,,,.,~„ _,- FL000 INFORMATION.• LEGAL: SECno_N: rDi~r/SNIP• S RANGE: E CERTIFIED 10: ZONE: LOT 73, 14, 15 AND 16, BLOCK 1, LAY,E HELL£VIF_W ADDITION, DOROTHY LEBCANC NUMBER: LESS ROAD-RIGHT-OF-WAY, AS RECORDED CN PLAT BOOK 9, X UA ~, PAGE 141, ACCORDING TO 71lE PUBLIC RECORpS OF P/NELI_AS X COUNTY, FLORIDA. X o p Fl_ 0f?lDA L3ENCHMA RK, llV C. CER T/F/ C~a Tl C>l'~i: ~~~""•T~~~ ~.- 1 HEREBY CER IIFY THAT TH/S sUfCVFY VinS MADL~ u;Jl;f.~R MY RESPONSIBLE CHARSE AND A(EETS THF_ A!ILIIMLE41 PROFESSIONAL S(JRVEYOR •1ECHNICAL .STANDARDS AS 5E7 /-ORTH DY Dif eoA.zL~ ~~• nn PROFESSIONAL LAND S(/RVEYORS IN CHAPTER fi1G17--o' r~._ ' L/ 1298 LAKEV/EW ROAD PN. (727) 298-0?86 THE FLURiOA J1DAlINISIRA]IVE COUF: YUNSUAINT iTJ :aCaiUP 471..0<"7 OF 7}1E ELOR(UA STATU]~ES, NOT VALID H71NCUr CLEARWA7ER, FL. 33756 FAXIj' (727) 461-0696 SIGNAIUR£ AND EA}BpSSEO n1TH SURL`f YC1R ..^>F_AL. 7 AUTHORIZATION NO. LB 6947 - i r- REVISION DATE: S FlLZ.D .WORT! B}i Rf' DATF; 4-26-06 1; PAGE ~ 2: I .. ~ORPiMJ BYi CN DA7E• 5-08-06 3: /OB# Of3=0973 ---- L-~_~%:-(_!t{:.----......-_._ ~~. ~~_ h!. G. AlAYETZ ,,°LS 4995 L"'"'.":I E ~,a..~..,,m~~=.m•a.oar.,.,.~.,.,..-,.._._-.---,..,. _.---- `Y E .. 1 ~ 201 ,.,, ~, ..... .,~~'H~tY~IiENT ~~~y ~; :~~~ARWATER ~~ SCALE: 7 " = 30' C ADDRESS': 9U9 L/1CCl_-l/lL:-W DRl1~~~ CI_FARlNA7F_R, FLORIDA. DEAJPSE>' .STREEI(F) I AXEVIE;V DRIVE' P - '-- 60'RW - - -~- -- ^ 145.00'(L) S 8974'46 "W. 145.4T(M) ~~ .._._~._ 2'CVG - - _ ---- ~- ---- ------ ---- T` ~.. \ ~~~ ~ F'CM 4x4 g.4 ) g' LOT is Lor 17 LOT 18 LOT 1.9 LOT 20 LOT 21 LOT 22 BLOCK 1 I _ I I 1 HLOCIC 14 7 .~ 8'--._. T `__ _ 08 ^ _ ~ -° ~ o ~ . I I I 39I0 ~; ~ ~ I I I I I C] 'may U ~ y. CONCREIE~ n .-~ o m o ~ ID.1.') ~%~ to. 1' I I ~ I o 1 RY ~. R °o Qi to p ~ ~ I I I O ONF_ C S - F) o~ I ASPHALT PARXINC 89) COA1M ~RC1AL 7 ~ .9. # {~O7 ~ 10.'O fi) I I I ~x~ :~ 10. ~2 I I L t~ I FCM 4x4 ~ X1.2) \ 7.5.00' (P) _ i- 2'GVG _ LAl<ENE{Y ROAO(F)- 000NTY HIGIJWAr'(P) 30 %'AR77AL RW 2:i ~~ a a j ~, ~~ n R ? ~C ~ U ~2 FIF3/4 ^ __~..- - -- 5'CS{V ~--- _^ ~~ 145.00 ~(L) -----J! EAST 145.7.2'(AI) AS.SUMF.D BASf.S of BFF-ARIIJGS '`"'"~'C_LLVi~TIDNS SHD14'P1 /-IERLON TIRE' IN %~~l?E~JTI-IESIC ,gNC_I ,45'UA~FFrI !~/ L '?'` This curve wns conducted without the benel/t of on Dbslrnct o/ tine, therefore{ tilelr. rnoy he vibe!- easvrr~e^^!s rigl,l -~>i '~.~'i: ~ I _• selbnck Imes, agreements, reservotions, restrictions, or other sim[iar rna[[ers OI ~~JLJIL record, :~ dept tea ,,,~ "! /v~~ ^ AR F/P = FOUf10 lRON PI!'E Al = MFAS[/RfMENT v` P! P014£N f (x f <3M a ~ CN m CHORD EOP ~ EDf,E OF PAVEAIE'N! A1N = LiA1J1JIX F. R RADIUS D NCI/ AIARX f,L!' = CIIAIfI L/NX PENCE EOIY ,.. EDGE OF Nii TER FIR = FOVNO IRON ROU q/p pyERNEAO POIIER LINE Sll E T /lJgY F[PF ~ DRG = 9EAR[NC CONC C.ONr,RETE FCC -FOUND f,R055 CUT f'N =FOUND fJAf1 p pLAT J? r SCT h'Y.YI ri[U 1,7111 f.4!' ! 697' .~ CBS= CONCI7ETE DLOCk%S7U000C,SIV = CONCRE)E 5/DEWALK FGA( •- F'pUNpp CUNCRF.7E FPP =~ FOUND FfNCN PIPE PC a YOl1/T [.Y CUl7YA11/RE uE ., unurr cnsEA7frn ~. CALC CACC'1/LAiP:D D =GEED MONYMENT LCF ^ LOIIE-5T LIl1NG FLOOR pCp R pERA(NlEIIT LCJYIRGY. P[AN'1' Np ,.• N%+IER BUX I C C ~ CU6LRE0 CONCRF.IE DE' =DRAINAGE fASEA(ENT FN = F/RE 1YDRANT I/E- INCRESS/ECRESS PI -POINT OF INTLRSEC7i[NJ Nf•~_== IVUW FF.Nf,E -1 NB a CffOfiD BEARNJG -~------^-~•• '-`^° """" ="LOOD INFORMA7/UN: LEGAL: sEC~roN: 21 rvwwsi~l~: s2s 1zANCC:• i5E CF.1?"Ill-7F0 T0: ?ONE.• X LoT:S 17-22, !)LOCI! 1, LAKE UELLE.NEIV ADDITION, AS EBS VIJMl~ER; 12103COfO8N RECORDED IN PLAT' BOOK 9, PAGE 141, i1000R0/NG TO x THE' PCIQLIC RECORDS OF PlNE2LAS COfJNT}; FLOR/0A. X JA 7E: 05- f 7-U.5 x ~ Fl_ ~RIDA C~_E_NCHM_AI~K lNC• ~=c~~ 7-~r--LCD ~-lor~.l: ~---..__... I HERE%7Y CER ]'!FY 11~JAT 17~f1S SlIRV,r-r' NAS MADE 1/NI?F.7i r, _ _ __ f - __ AI }' RF_'.SPONSIBI_E CI fARGE' AfJO MEE LS INE AfllilAfllM - - ~ F-'/-~C.'.JFESS/ONAI_. SURV~~1~C7f~ TECNN1CAl. STANDARDS AS SET,'OR7/l 01' TI/E NL!4RD f?~ r, PROf'ESSIONAC CAfJD SURVEY<JRS !N GNAPTER GIG17-E OF U 1298 I AICEVIEW RUAU PN. (727) 298-0286' fHE FLORIDA ADhfIN157RA11VE GIJUt, PURSUII[iT lU :~G~ n~7r` 47z o27 vF 1HE R.[N7iDA SIAIUTES. NDT utLrD Na1HVl/T ~~ CLEARtNAfER, FI_. 337,56 FAX,#~ (727) 461-Oti96 SI6PlAR1RF_ AIJD FA[ROSSF.%) INTF1 .SURVEmR SEA!. i\U'TI-lOF?IZATION NO. LE3 ES947 -- --__.__ ~.. r ~~ f7EV]SIDN DATE: ~. ~~~. a ` /• ,t/ ~t'E...(.;~i;'~..., F7ELD h'ORlC Bl'• S~ DA7E: OS--19-08 1; PAGF ~ .~ - ~ __ 7.: ( _ I\ DRAWN B):' CH DATE: U.S-ZO-OG J: JOB# 06---1132 ---~ --~--~--~~-`L"7'------_._..----.._.._._...._ _ M. G. hlA1_FTr _ PLS~ x495 ..` onrC • t ~3a Butler Design Group, Inc Charles R. ButleY 4203 46°i Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33714 Ph (727) 521-1684 Fax (727) 527-7422 E-mail: bdal~?tampabav.rccom Tree Inventory 921 Lakeview As required by the City of Clearwater, I have completed an assessment of all trees (7" dbh or greater) on the subject site and within 25' beyond the property lines. My opinion is set forth below as to the viability (rating of 1-5) and any potential hazards of these trees. QTY/ TREE DBH & SPECIES /RATING AND COMMENTS 1 18" Live Oak 3, Co-dominate, Poor structure 2 7" Laurel Oak 2, Top cut off, Poor Structure 3 25" Laurel Oak 3, Poor structure, Decay 4 43" Laurel Oalc 3, Co-dominate, Decay 5 26" Laurel Oak 2, Wind-damage, Poor pruning/structure, Decay, Potential hazard 6 9" Cherry Laurel 2, Base of tree girdled 75%, Decay 7 10" Laurel Oak 3, Poor structure, Crowded 8 12" Sabal Palm 3 9 13" Laurel Oak 3, Co-dominate, Poor branching, Poor pruning I affirm that my opinions have been made in good faith, with no coercion from others. I further affirm that I have no interest with the parties or people involved with neither this issue nor any interest with regard to the outcome. Sincerely, ~~f(~{NAL REC£~® Chuck Butler, Certified Arborist, Certificate #FL-1235A Butler Design Group/ Golden Rain Nursery, Inc. QPR 0 2 2007 t~t.p-NNINC E7EFAI'tY~nENT CITY' OF CtEARW~4YE~ irthside Ci\%kL• LAND PLANNlN~ • ENVIRONMENTr.L • TRANSPORTATION • STORMWATER RE-PORT FOR THE BOILING POT RES'TA URANT ~RIG!l~MAl. RECElt1E[~ APR 0 ~ 200 I~i~'JNlNv'- C3El3AklnfiENT CITY OE CLEARWATER 601 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 930 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755 NESADMIN@MINDSPRING.COM N ESTECHQMI N DS P RI NG.COM 727 • 443 • 2869 FAX 727 • 446 8036 a..,.. ~~ Ram A. Goel, gli.I3., P.E. #47431 -: March 30, 2007 Project No. 0634 • DRAINAGE NARRATIVE ~> } !jr ' f ~~ The project is located in section 21, township 29 and range 15 in the City of Clearwater. ~" The contiguous owned property is 11,018 sf and consists of the construction of a 1 ~~ restaurant and associated utilities, parking and road infrastructure, storm management system and utilities and results in the following: • REMOVAL of 446 S.F. existing impervious vehicular use area and 3,213 S.F. of existing building and sidewalk area. • Construction of 5,522 S.F. of open impervious vehicular use area and 2,709 S.F. of new building, sidewalk and pool area. • This will yield a 5,076 S.F. INCREASE of impervious vehicular use area subject to stormwater runoff, but overall there will be an 4,572 S.F. INCREASE in total impervious area. Discharge is into a City of Clearwater ditch located east of the project area and %2" water quality is provided over the entire 11,018 sf yielding a total required treatment volume of 459 cf. This volume is provided in a dry detention pond. The pond provides 470 cf of treatment volume between the bottom of pond elevation of 7.7 and the design high water elevation of 8.95. Recovery of the treatment volume is provided through natural ground percolation and recovery of the provided treatment volume of 470 cf occurs within 20 hours. Overflow beyond the treatment volume is discharged across the weir crest set at elevation 8.95 in the control structure and discharged into a swale which discharges into Dempsey Street.through. The remaining deficit in of 1,906 cf minus the provided treatment volume of 470 cf equal to 1,436 cf of water quantity attenuation will be paid in lieu. .~-x. i. r e .~ ~~IGIC~Ak. RE~lt-lc~ APR 0 ~ 2007 PLAf~1Nf~f~ ©Ef3Afz1NlEldT ~;IT`Y OF CI.EARWATER ,'. .: .4 .t;, • PROJECT NAME: BOILING POT RESTAURANT PROJECT NO.: 0634 ~~ PRECONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= 11,018 SF = 0.25 ACRES IMP. AREA= 3,659 SF = 0.08 ACRES ' POND AREA= 0 SF = 0.00 ACRES PERV. AREA= 7,359 SF = 0.17 ACRES C CALCULATIONS TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= 11,018 SF IMP. AREA= 3,659 SF OF IMP. AREA @ C = 0.475 POND AREA= 0 SF OF POND AREA @ C = 1 PERU. AREA= 7,359 SF OF PERV, AREA @ C = 0.2 C = 0. 29 T.O.C. = 15 MINUTES POST CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= 11,018 SF = 0.25 ACRES IMP. AREA= 8,231 SF = 0.19 ACRES POND AREA= 862 SF = 0.02 ACRES PERV. AREA= 1,925 SF = 0.04 ACRES C CALCULATIONS TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= 11,018 SF IMP. AREA= 8,231 SF OF IMP. AREA @ C = 0.9 POND AREA= 862 SF OF POND AREA @ C = 1 PERV. AREA= 1,925 SF OF PERV. AREA @ C = 0.2 C = 0. 79 T.O.C. = 10 MINUTES ~~~G~ RE~~~ ELAi~N~Nt3 pE~AC~1NiEl~~ Q!~ QF GtEARti~lA~'El~ • PROJECT NAME PROJECT NO. <' :~f ,..:. WEST POND STORAGE DATA ,.fi• T.O.B. EL.= W.Q. EL.= B'C~T.~TOM EL.= ~~i'K7`POND STORAGE DATA T.O`.B. EL.= W.Q. EL.= -f= B{)TTOM EL.= T'D~AL WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS: DRAINAGE AREA = :;. REQUIRED WATER QUALITY DEPTH = REQUIRED WATER QUALITY VOLUME _ PROPOSED OUTFALL ELEVATION = AVAILABLE WATER QUALITY = ,,~~.::} °r;;' :ti~~`y} ; BOILING POT RESTAURANT 0634 STAGE ft-NGVD AREA SF AREA AC STORAGE CF 9.20 434 0.010 438 8.90 377 0.009 316 8.95 387 0.009 335 8.40 283 0.006 151 8.30 264 0.006 124 8.10 226 0.005 75 7.90 188 0.004 34 7.80 169 0.004 16 7.70 150 0.003 0 STAGE ft-NGVD AREA SF AREA AC STORAGE CF 9.20 255 0.006 194 8.90 205 0.005 125 8.95 213 0.005 135 8.40 121 0.003 43 8.30 104 0.002 32 8.10 70 0.002 15 7.90 37 0.001 4 7.80 20 0.000 1 7.70 3 0.000 0 11,018 SF Of7fGINAL 0.50 I N REG`filVEQ 459 C F APR 02.2007 t LAi~iNING ®EFART(V1ENT 8.95 FT Cf1Y OF CLEARWATER 470 CF NORTHSIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES 25 YEAR STORM EVENT PROJECT: BOILING POT RESTAURANT PROJECT NO. 0634 RUN-OFF COEFFICIENTS PRECONSTRUCTION TOTAL (OFFSITE & ONSITE) DRAINAGE AREA 11,018 SF 0.25 AC IMP. AREA= 3,659 SF OF IMP. AREA @ C = 0.475 POND AREA= 0 SF OF POND AREA @ C = 1 PERV. AREA= 7,359 SF OF PERV. AREA @ C = 0.2 C = 0.29 POST-CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (OFFSITE & ONSITE) DRAINAGE ARE/ 11,018 SF 0.25 AC IMP. AREA= 8,231 SF OF IMP. AREA @ C = 0.9 POND AREA= 862 SF OF POND AREA @ C = 1 PERV. AREA= 1,925 SF OF PERV. AREA @ C = 0.2 C = 0.79 STORAGE CALCULATION PRE-DEVELOPMENT (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TOTAL SITE AREA) DRAINAGE AREA = 0.25 AC TIME OF CONC. Tc = 60 MIN I @ Tc =60 (25 YEAR EVENT= 3.60 IN/HR Q(out) = C x I x A= 0.27 CFS POST-CONSTRUCTION 25yr INFLOW OUTFLOW (CF) (CF) 25yr/24hr 25yr/24 TIME I - 25yr O(in) post pre STORAGE MIN.) (IN/HR) (CFS) develo ment development (CF 60.00 4.00 0.79 2,861 955 1,906 MAX. STORAGE = 1,906 REQUIRED WATER QUALITY = PROVIDED WATER QUALITY VOLUME _ REQUIRED WATER QUANTITY VOLUME _ PROVIDED WATER QUANTITY THROUGH PAYMENT IN LIEU = 459 CF 470 CF 1,906 CF 1,436 CF ~11~iGINAI RE~IVI;R APR 0 2 2007 PLANNING ©EPARiIVIEI~'t eITY OF CLEARVUATrrR MODRET • SUMMARY OF UNSATURATED & SATURATED INPUT PARAMETERS PROJECT NAME : 0634 -The Boiling Pot POLLUTION VOLUME RUNOFF DATA USED UNSATURATED ANALYSIS EXCLUDED Pond Bottom Area Pond Volume between Bottom & DHWL Pond Length to Width Ratio (L/W) Elevation of Effective Aquifer Base Elevation of Seasonal High Groundwater Table Elevation of Starting Water Level Elevation of Pond Bottom Design High Water Level Elevation Avg. Effective Storage Coefficient of Soil for Unsaturated Analysis Unsaturated Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Factor of Safety Saturated Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity Avg. Effective Storage Coefficient of Soil for Saturated Analysis Avg. Effective Storage Coefficient of Pond/Exfiltration Trench 150.00 ftz 466.00 ft3 3.80 4.60 ft 7.10 ft 7.70 ft 7.70 ft 8.95 ft 0.03 29.60 ft/d 2.00 59.20 ft/d 0.06 1.00 Hydraulic Control Features: Top Bottom Left Right Groundwater Control Features - Y/N N N N N Distance to Edge of Pond 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Elevation of Water Level 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Impervious Barrier - Y/N N N N N Elevation of Barrier Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Of71GIIVAL REC~NEf~ APR 0 2 2007 PLANNING DEP/~~ciiviEiV~t eITY OF CLEARWATFR MODRET TIME -RUNOFF INPUT DATA PROJECT NAME: 0634 -THE BOILING POT STRESS PERIOD NUMBER INCREMENT OF TIME (hrs) VOLUME OF RUNOFF (ft3) Unsat 0.00 0.00 1 1.00 470.00 2 2.88 0.00 3 2.88 0.00 4 2.88 0.00 5 2.88 0.00 6 2.88 0.00 7 2.88 0.00 8 2.88 0.00 9 2.88 0.00 pRtG1~i~-~ RE~N~~ ApR 0 2 2007 ~cA~vr~i~v~ ~c~H~~~Er~ OlTli' O~ ~I_FAR~E~y~k MODRET SUMMARY OF RESULTS PROJECT NAME : 0634 -The Boiling Pot CUMULATIVE TIME (hrs) WATER ELEVATION (feet) INSTANTANEOUS INFILTRATION RATE (cfs) AVERAGE INFILTRATION RATE (cfs) CUMULATIVE OVERFLOW (ft3) 00.00 - 0.00 7.100 0.000 0.00000 0.00 7.100 0.03594 0.03096 1.00 8.662 0.02599 0.00 0.01168 3.88 8.338 0.00943 0.00 0.00719 6.75 8.138 0.00615 0.00 0.00511 9.63 7.996 0.00450 0.00 0.00389 12.50 7.888 0.00349 0.00 0.00309 15.38 7.802 0.00281 0.00 0.00253 18.25 7.732 0.00232 0.00 0.00211 19.81 7.700 0.00195 0.00 0.00179 24.00 7.623 0.00 ,Q,~ ~ Aa r r t ~ 1 ! Maximum Water Elevation: 8.662 feet @ 1.00 hours Recovery @ 19.813 hours * Time increment when there is no runoff Maximum Infiltration Rate: 7.176 ft/day INFILTRATION : 0634 -THE BOILING POT /~q I' ~ ~ m~ O ~~ o ~G?_ ~® p ~ ~~ ~' --~ ~n m ~~ a~ ~. ~a L y., ZF- C E \~ Total Volume Infiltrated = 470 ft3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Time (hrs) INFILTRATION : 0634 -THE BOILING POT ry O~ ~ m ~ ~ O ~ dpi G~ ~ ~~ o ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~m ~~ 8.5 _~ w 8 ,. -- s ~; ---- - - . ._ _ ,~, ~ ~~ l I ~~ i \\ a ` ~4 a~ ` A~ ~ ,, 1 r~`'' w~_ -p"^~.a 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Time (hrs) Max Water Elevation = 8.66 ft ~ ~ ~ pra3~ - 7NE GULF COAST TESTING LABORATORY IN~~'~~~' ~67 5745 PARK BOULEVARD c~ `j,Q~~INELLAS PARK, FL 33781 CONpJC 6N MATERIALS ENGINEERING COUNCIL CERTIFIED for 2005 CERTIFIACTE ofAUTHORTZ.4TION # 00002370 PHONE: (7"~ , ; `44_4080 _ FAX.• (727) Saa-:, 532 I_ti'1-fL TR:: ~ ~ 1~).ti h:-1 I'fOF,SDIL.S Lti~ FIB-LI) _ .. r~ L .51.1"(,~ IU(~L b'LL- Izl \ G~Y~~'1L7I~(~ 11~ 71_.1 .. _ - -~-~ CLIENT: Sexton Enterprises, Inc. PROJECT: The Boiling Pot, 921 Lakeview Road, Clearwater, FL DATE TESTED: 9/14/06 LOCATION OF TEST: 13' N x 8' W of NW Corner of Existing Building DEPTH TO EXISTING WATER TABLE: 4' 7"' Below the Existing Ground Surface ESTIMATED SEASONAL HIGH WATER LEVEL: 2' 6" Below the Existing Ground Surfac REMARKS: WATER TEMP: WATER pH: •= INNER RING READINGS 16.00 i ~ ; ~ - I ~ i --~- - --=- j '' N -- -- -- 15.50 ~~ 1 ~ F I F 15.00 \ -- ---- i I ---- ' - • ' - L 14.50 - - - - ': ~ --- T i i , ~ ~ i ' k 14.00 _ ~---- A E - _ ~ T 13.50 ~ ? -- ._ - ~ -- ~ -( I 13.00 : : ~. : O ~ ~ ~ ' _ J. N f ' i 12.50 ~ ~ ~ --~--. ~ i _ - -- _-_ 1 12.00 - ' - - - t -- - s T 11.50 -- - - ---- 1 --=-----s--;----~-----i E 11.00 ~ i ~ INCH .5 1 2 3 4 5 6 PER Elapsed Tune (Hours) HOUR INFILTRATION RATE = 14.80 INCHES / HR LAB NO: 12093 DATE REPORTED: 9/15/06 SOIL PROFILE Depth CLASSIFICATION 121 feet. \'-^'STiNG SURFACE APPROX. ELEV.) --_-` -- _ Dark Gray Fine SAND w/ _:::il _ ~" Rock & Few Roots _ ,_ Gray Fine SAND w/Few Roots & C~' I 1 " ,.= Few Silt Nodules 1 1 ' Light Gray Fine SAND -_ !~ Brown Fine SAND w/ Few -- ] ' 6" _ Silt Nodules Light Pale Brown Fine SAND w/ ?' l (i_'_-_~ Few Silt Nodules , =~ ~ Light Pale Brown/White SAND w/ -- ' -1" "_= Slight Trace Silt -_,. Very Light Pale Brown SAND w/ - ~~ `'' -- Slight Trace Siits Hole Terminated at 81" Respectfully Submitted, Ground level - -- ~~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ TEST Depth -~ 2-0 . 127 finer ~ 1/4" •. 2: f , ; ~ ' ~ r ~ 3~~ below Existme G~ aue , = - 1 __ ~- F ~ ~ it -' ~ .Gun ekaran ~~: - - ~ ~' ~ _ _: _ -- - - - ---- -' - - t ' ` ~ ~ ~ I~x 6"water ~ Fla. Reg. No. 20402 1 Test Elevation ---- ; _~_-- ---'-- - ~= - -_'~ „ + 6 rin set g .: _ cc: Sexton Enterprises, loc. - 2 -=~=_=~ _ ~ _~ l Northside Engineering 1 ~~ 24." Outer ring ~jRi(;ii~~ File I REG£lVEi~ APR 0 2 2007 P1.AiJNIfVG ®EPA~ZifviEN~ CfTY 4F .CLEARVIIATER ~~~~FST p~O ~. ~~.b T f; e ~ ~ b,~~~~ fiv M Equar Opportunity Employer Talmadge G. "Jerry" Rice Chair, Pasco Judith C. Whitehead Vice Chair, Hernando Noll Combos Secretary; Polk Jennffer E. Closshey Treasurer, Hillsborough Edward W. Chance Manatee Thomas G. Dabney Sarasota Heidi B. McCrea Hillsborough Sallie Parks Pinellas Tadd Pressman Pinellas Maritza RoviraForlno H it Isborough Patsy C. Symons Desoto David L. Moore Executive Director Wi111am S. Bllenky General Counsel ~~~uth~(est Florida eater Management District Bartow Service Office 170 Century Boulevard Bartow, Florida 33830-7700 (863) 5341448 or 1-800-492-7862 (FL only) SUNCOM 572-6200 Lecanto Servlce Office Suite 226 3600 West Sovereign Path Lecanto, Florida 34461-8070 (352) 527-8131 SUNCOM 667-3271 October 18, 2006 Dorothy LeBlanc 1418 Dexter Drive Clearwater, FL 33786 2379 Broad 9.reef, Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 (352) 796-7211 or 1-800-423-1476 (FL only) SUNCOM 628-4150 TDD only 1-800-231-6103 (FL only) On the Internet at WaterMatters.org Sarasota Servlce Office 6750 Fruitville Road Sarasota, Florida 34240-9711 (941) 377-3722 or 1-800320-3503 (FL only) SUNCOM 531-6900 ~3'~ Subject: Notice of Final Agency Action for Approval ERP General for Minor Systems Permit No. 460317.09.000 Project Name: Boiling Pot County: Pinellas Sec/Twp/Rge: 21 /29S/ 15 E Dear Ms. LeBlanc: Tampa Servlce Otflce 7601 Highway 301 North Tampa, Florida 33637-6759 (813) 985.7481 or 1-800-836-0797 (FL only) SUNCOM 578-2070 ACT 1 ~ ,'~'',~ ~C~ 19 2006 This letter constitutes notice of Final Agency Action for approval of the permit referenced above. Final approval is contingent upon no objection to the District's action being received by the District within the time frames described below. You or any person whose substantial interests are affected by the District's action regarding a permit may request an administrative hearing in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statute, (F.S.), and Chapter 28-106, Florida Administrative Code, (F.A:C.), of the Uniform Rules of Procedure. A request for hearing must: (1) explain how the substantial interests of each person requesting the hearing will be affected by the District's action, or proposed action, (2) state all material facts disputed by the person requesting the hearing or state That there are no disputed facts, and (3) otherwise comply with Chapter 28-106, F.A.C. Copies of Sections 28-106.201 and 28-106.301, F.A.C. are enclosed for your reference. A request for hearing must be filed with (received by) the Agency Clerk of the District at the District's Brooksville address within 21 days of receipt of this notice. Receipt is deemed to be the fifth day after the date on which this notice is deposited in the United States mail. Failure to file a request for hearing within this time period shall constitute a waiver of any right you or such person may have to request a hearing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. Mediation pursuant to Section 120.573, F.S., to settle an administrative dispute regarding the District's action in this matter is not available prior to the filing of a request for hearing. Enclosed is a "Noticing Packet" that provides information regarding the District Rule 40D-1.1010, F.A.C., which addresses the notification of persons whose substantial interests may be affected by the District's action in this matter. The packet contains guidelines on how to provide notice of the District's action, and a notice that you may use.. The enclosed approved construction plans are part of the permit, and construction must be in accordance with these plans. ~~IG1NAf:. RE~111~a APR 02 2007 ~~fti~ ~~~t~i~ cn~oF er..crwv~~~~ Permit No.: 46031709.000 Page 2 of 2 October 18, 2006 If you have questions concerning the permit, please contact Michelle L. Maxey, at the Tampa Service Office, extension 2065. For assistance with environmental concerns; please contact Alberto J. Martinez, P.W.S., extension 2007. Sincerely, Alba E. Mas, P.E., Director ' Tampa Regulation Department AEM:MLM:gjn Enclosures: Approved Permitw/Conditions~Attached Approved Construction Drawings Statement of Completion Notice of Authorization to Commence Construction , Noticing Packet (42.00-039) Sections 28-106.201 and 28-106.301, F.A.C. cc/enc: File of Record 46031709.000 Ram A. Goel, Ph.D., P.E., Northside Engineering Services, Inc. f ~._. • • SOUTF~WEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE.... GENERAL FOR.MINOR SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS PERMIT N0.46031709:000 Expiration Date: October 18, 2011 Issue Date: October 18, 2006 ~a ~ This permit is issued under the provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, (F.S.), and the Rules contained in Chapters 40D-4 and 40D-40, Florida Administrative Code, (F.A.C.). The permit authorizes the Permittee to proceed with construction of a surface water management system in accordance with the information outlined herein and shown by the application, approved drawings, plans, specifications, and other documents, attached hereto and kept on file at the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District). Unless otherwise stated by permit specific condition, permit issuance constitutes certification of compliance with state water quality standards under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341. All construction, operation and maintenance of the surface water management system authorized by this permit shall-occur in compliance with Florida Statutes and Administrative Code and the conditions of this permit. PROJECT NAME: Boiling Pot GRANTED TO: Dorothy LeBlanc 1418 Dexter Drive Clearwater, FL 33786 ABSTRACT: This permit authorizes the construction of a 0.25-acre commercial project and the associated surface water management system. Water quality treatment will be provided via effluent filtration. OP. & IuIAINT. ENTITY: Dorothy LeBlanc GOUNTY: Pinellas SEC:~T'WP/RGE: 21/29S/15E TOTAL ACRES OWNED OR UNDER CONTROL: 0.25 . PROJECT SIZE: 0.25 Acre C~ 19 Zp06 d LAND USE: Commercial DATE APPLICATION FILED: September 6, 2006 AMENDED DATE: N/A SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 1. If the ownership of the project area covered by the subject permit is divided, with someone other than the Permittee becoming the owner of part of the project area, this permit shall terminate, pursuant to Section 40D-1.6105, F.A.C. In such situations, each land owner shall obtain a permit (which may be a modification of this permit) for the land owned by that person. This condition shall not apply to the division and sale of lots or units in residential subdivisions or condominiums. ~RtGtIVAE. ~E4'fIU~Ep APR o 2 2007 PLAIVIVIht~ ~~~~+krtvrl:~_ r CITY CF (,`I ~~R~lr~ TAR '' Permit No.: 46031709.000 Page 2 of 3 October 18, 2006 2. Unless specified otherwise herein, two copies of all information and reports required by this permit shall be submitted to: - Tampa Regulation Department Southwest Florida Water Management District 7601 U.S. Highway 301 North Tampa, FL 33637-6759 The permit number, title of report or information and event (for recurring report or information submittal) shall be identified on all information and reports submitted. 3. The Permittee shall retain the design engineer, or other professional engineer registered in Florida, to conduct on-site observations of construction and assist with the as-built certification requirements of this project. The Permittee shall inform the District in writing of the name, address and phone number of the professional engineer so employed. This information shall be submitted prior to construction. 4. Within 30 days after completion of construction of the permitted activity, the Permittee shall submit to the Tampa Service Office a written statement of completion and certification by a registered professional engineer or other appropriate individual as authorized by law, utilizing the required Statement. of Completion and Request for Transfer to Operation Entity form identified in Chapter 40D-1.659, F.A.C., and signed, dated and sealed as-built drawings. The as-built drawings shall identify any deviations from the approved construction drawings. 5. The District reserves the right, upon prior notice to the Permittee, to conduct on-site research to assess the pollutant removal efficiency of the surface water management system. The Permittee may be required to cooperate in this regard by allowing on-site access by District representatives, by allowing the installation and operation of testing and monitoring equipment, and by allowing other assistance measures as needed on site. 6. The operation and maintenance entity shall submit inspection reports in the form required by the District, in accordance with the following schedule. For systems utilizing effluent filtration or exfiltration or systems utilizing effluent filtration or exfiltration and retention or wet detention, the inspections shall be performed 18 months after operation is authorized and every 18 months thereafter. 7. Prior to installation of the filter media, the Permittee's contractor shall submit a certified test of the media to the Permittee's Professional Engineer and the District. The test shall address the following parameters: uniformity coefficient, effective grain size, sieve analysis, percent silts, clays and organic matter, and permeability testing (constant head). If testing indicates the actual permeability rate is less than the value specified in the permitted design, a permit modification will be required to lengthen the effluent filtration system. The Permittee shall also notify the Surface Water Regulation Manager, Tampa Regulation Department, at least 48 hours prior to commencement of construction of the effluent filtration system, so that District staff may observe this construction activity. This permit is issued based upon the Permittee's certification that the surface water management system meets all applicable rules and specifications, including the Conditions for Issuance of Permits provided in Rule 40D-40.301(1), F.A.C. If at any time it is determined by the District that the Conditions for Issuance have not been met, upon written notice by the District, the Permittee shall obtain a permit modification and perform any construction necessary thereunder to correct any deficiencies in the system design or construction to meet District rule criteria. The Permittee is advised that the correction of deficiencies may require re-construction of the surface water management system. Permit No.: 46031709.000 ;~ Page 3 of 3 ~ October 18, 2006 GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. The general conditions attached hereto as Exhibit "A" are hereby incorporated into this permit by reference and the Permittee shall comply with them. Authorized Signature. (~ ~ ®C~ 19 200fi ~~iGf~fA~ ~E~l11E~ APR 0 2 2007 Pi.RNPIIiU~ ®tFARYNIENT CITY' QF CLEARWATER I#: 2005245184 BK: 19403 PG: 2602, 06/005 at 06:46 PM, RECORDING 1 PAGE5 $10.00 D DOC STAMP COLLECTION $1575.00 KEN BURKE, CLERK OF COURT PINELLAS COUNTY, FL BY DEPUTY CLERK: CLKPRIB i4 1~ `1 ' , Pre~argd,F,y' ~ ~; ~- ~r Title Clearinghouse 423 Mandalay Avenue ~ ",.. Clearwater Beach, Florida 33767 ~' `', f File Number. OS-1123-03 (~ ;`_l~%'~ ti ,~" General Warranty Deed Made this May 31, 2005;P::D.,BX%Sadlon Properties, Inc., a Florida corporation, whose address is: 411 Cleveland Street #1 10, Clearwater, FL 33755„#i~r'einafter called the grantor, to Dorothy B. LeBlanc a married woman, whose post office address is: 201 S. Fulton Beach Rd., Ful[ott; TX' 78358, hereinafter called the grantee: ;~.. t. •:'~. ', (Whenever 4Sed:Iiejein~~the term "grantor" and "grantee" include ell the parties to this instrument and the heirs, Icgal representatives and assigns of individuals. and ttic suaessors end assigns of corporations) W itpds.setil, that the grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars, ($10.00 and other valuable considerations, receipt whefeof is,heteby acknowledged, hereby grants, bargains, sells, aliens, remises, releases, conveys and confirms unto the grantee, all that certain=land situate in Pinellas County, Florida, viz: i. .: ,'~I.o`t~ -.L3,14, 15 AND 16 BLOCK 1, LAKE BELLEVIEW ADDITION, LESS THAT PART CONVEYED TO PINELLAS +~ '" ~:OUNTY FOR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY IN OR BOOK 1367. PAGE 279, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, • ~'~.F.LORIDA, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE 141 OF THE PUBLIC -• RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA m. ' Parcel JD Number: 21/29/l5/474ti6/001/0130 Together with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. To Have and to Hold, the same in fee simple forever. C". And the grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that the grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrances except taxes accruing s'tibsequent to December 31, 2004. In Witness Whereof, the said grantor has signed and sealed these presents the day and year first above written Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence: f~~ Sadlo ro ~t~ Inc. /1 /11 QL7(//./+`t ~ (nj ~, (/~/.f lO~ (Seal) witness Primed Name C?IthQ.. CXVVIr1 B . Ju y ei and as P ,far Mark Nickels I : V'ce Pre tdent Ad ress: 411 Cleveland Street # 110, Clearwater, FL 33755 i :.. :~ J Witness Printed Name ,`Q~w•~"Q-~ ~ "~y C State of Florida Cotirity of Pinellas The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 31th day of May, 2005, by Sadlon Properties, Inc., a Florida corporation, who is/are personally known to me or who has produced drivers license as identification. /~, r ^w ^ ,/1 ~ ?,,•. ~ ~ Notary Pubs 11,A~^^,, {.~t,~ ,.,i;,, Print Name: ItW LlJ.t V~ My Commission Expires: ~d'7 ~~~ Gina Boivin ~:~%. -, ,~. `~r. Commission HDD217338 ~:• 6xpir nN 2001 ~ ~: '• w aonaeaT ,? w Atlantic f3ondingCo., Inc. DEED Individual Warranty Deed - Legal on Face Closers' Choice ~RiGlNtfit. ~~~~~ ~~~ 0 21007 pLt4iVNiNG i~Eppi~7l~ENr ~~~ ~~ ccEARw~r~~ I#':.~i2006083781 BK:.14971 PG: 1631, 03/2006 at Ol $10.00 D DOC STAMP COLLECTION $1876.00 KEN BURKE, CO.LTIQTY, FL BY DEPUTY CLERK: CLKPR03 Prepared by and return to: ~ ~ ~~- ` .,' Ameriran National Title, LLC '~ 1250 S. Belcher Road, Suit! 105 ~ ' Largo, FL 33771 File No.: (16.5677 ~ ~ '''}'` Parcel No.: 2t/29/15/47466/001/0170 ..... , i TRUSTEE'S DEED THIS TRUSTEE'S` D~ED; made the ,~`~ ~-----day of February, 200ti, by and between, Edward B. Smith and Yvonne B. Smith, as Trustees of the Edw~td B. Smith and Yvonne B. Smith Family Trust under trust date of November 11, 1998, as " ~""'"'' ' ~ ,irsilant to said Trust has the ower and authori either to rotect, conserve and to sett, or to lease or to ::,amended, which TrusteC.p',• S p ty P ....encumber or otherwise.,tpana$a and dispose of the real property described in this Trustee Deed, "Grantor" whose past office address is: 901 Lakeview Road,'irlearwater, Florida 33756, and Sexton Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation, Grantee", whose address f.;:ais;;2023 Winding Oaksa?rlve, Palm Harbor, Florida 34683, terms "Grantor" and "Grantee" are used for the singular and plural, as ;.jithe~context dematidsj: ~, ~_~. WITNESSETH ,,; .,, , j , Tlie Grantor, for and inconsideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration to said Grantor in hand ;:.,.paid by Said Grantee the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold to the~said grantee, and grantee's 'successors;=hei;s and assigns forever, the following described land, situate, lying and being in Pinellas County, Florida, to-wit: ~~ `'~., Lots 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22, Block 1, LAKE BELLEVIEW ADDITION, according to the map or plat thereof as ~.._-recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 141, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, less and except the road right- of-way. Subject to easements, restrictions and reservations of record and to taxes for the year 2005 and thereafter. ' TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditament and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same in fee simple. j „ . .;,, A`NI) the Grantor hereby covenants with the Grantee that the Grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the Grantor has .good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that the Grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the~same against the lawful claims of all persons whosoever; and that said land is free of all liens and encumbrances except for taxes and assessments for 2005 and subsequent years. ;'b;:i'¢'I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year first above written. ^~:~$igned, Sealed and Delivered in the presence of: ' i ::.:WITNESSES: "GRANTOR(S)" Witness bl Signature Edward B. Smith, indtvtdunlly and as Trustee under the Edward B. Smith and Yvonne B. Smith Family Trust under ~~ ~:~ trust date of November 11, 1998, as amended Pri to Name of ass kl l es ry Signa re ~ Y nne B. Smith, individually and aS Trustee under the Qw~n `T ~ ward B. Smith and Yvonne B. Smith Family Trust under y \ 1~N'~At f ~ trust date of November 11, 1998, as amended Printed Name of Witness N2 STATE OF FLORIDA ) >..: i ) S.S itiOUNTY OF PINELLAS ) t~; r'~ VtC)GINAL ::i> n~t - The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this, day of February, 21106, by Edward B. Smith and ~E~tYGf~ -:Yvonne B. Smith, individually and as Trustees under the Edward B. Smith and Yvo it Trust under trust date of November 11, 1998, as amended, who are personally known to me or wh ave produced driver's license identification. ASR 0 2 2007 .i: ~;~~~,..., srevEnw.ttt>ot,E ._. s7Lr~hfNfNG ~Ef3~f2T111itENT ;;.... ~~'~ Ilrcol,,ralssla+~oo~+xe,s CfTYpF~LEARWATEf2 ' EXPINES pctaber 18, 2009 Nota (SEAL) ~~irL.. •£ ea,amnwuwomrnceuaardr. 5-f 2N'~in l~l _ (Y1oo-rte . Printed Name j :15 PM, RECORDING 1 PAGES • CLERK OF COURT PINELLAS Septa 4/2/2007 ,,I_, ~ 12:29:06PM _ Receipt #: 1200700000000002846 -p = Date: 04/02/2007 r~ Line Items: Case No Tran Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid FLD2007-04011 04 Flexible Commercial 010-341262 1,205.00 Line Item Total: $1,205.00 Payments: Method Payer Initials Check No Confirm No How Received Amount Paid Check DOROTHY LEBLANC R_D 1210 In Person 1,205.00 Payment Total: $1,205.00 THIS IS NOT A PERMIT. This is a receipt for an application for a permit. This application will be reviewed and you will be notified as to the outcome of the application. cReceipt.rpt Page 1 of 1 FLD2007-04011 921 LAKEVIEW RD THE BOILING POT PLANNER OF RECORD: WW ATLAS # 306A ZONING: C LAND USE: CG RECEIVED: 04/02/2007 INCOMPLETE: COMPLETE: MAPS PHOTOS STAFF REPORT: DRC: CDB: CLWCoverSheet • • Wells, Wayne From: Root, Dana Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 1:37 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Garriott, Kevin Subject: 921 Lakeview Wayne The owners son will be calling you on the parking situation. He said they bought the lot next door that they were going to lease for parking. This still does not give them enough spaces: He is looking to purchase a lot within 500 feet for additional parking. If the restaurant does not work out he said he could put in a retail store or some other business. Dana • • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 3:16 PM To: Root, Dana Cc: Delk, Michael; Tefft, Robert; Garriott, Kevin Subject: 921 Lakeview Rd There is no restaurant approved for this site, we have no current application pending for such and we are unaware of any additional land proposed for any parking for this restaurant. They appear to be attempting to backdoor approval of the restaurant, which is not an acceptable path. The restroom amendment should have not been issued. -----Original Message----- From: Root, Dana Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 2:21 PM To: Garriott, Kevin Cc: Wells, Wayne Subject: 921 Lakeview Rd Nobody was working when I stopped at 921 Lakeview Rd. We have a wrong # for the owner. I called the contractor. He said it is going to be a restaurant and the owner has acquired additional land for the required parking. Dana E ~ _ °' IB~~'~+ q .~~ ~~~w i°°"`"` CITY OF CLEARWATER Y`om' ; `~.,~ ~~ r POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 `"°~` "-< +'ayr~4® MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, IOO SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 p ~/~ ~ ~'r.~+.+~'.* ~~y4 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727). 562-4865 °-ry~~ ~iS3~;tit PLANNING DEPARTMENT Doreen Williams Northside Engineering Services, Inc. PO Box 4948 Clearwater, FL 33758-4948 Re: FLD2007-04011, 921 Lakeview Road Dear Ms. Williams: August 20, 2008 The above referenced application was filed with our office on April 2, 2007. This application was reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC) on May 3, 2007, and found sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB) even though Planning Staff is not supportive of the proposal. On November 9, 2007, Building Permit #BCP2007-10647 was issued to resolve an unsafe building violation. Zoning's review of this building permit, approved by Neil Thompson, stated "no use of the site is approved or implied by this building permit approval." My last communication with you regarding the status of the application was on June 5, 2008, where you indicated Mr. LeBlanc was still negotiating for additional adjacent .d-.. /F .. ...,._L:„,_\ ..~.] Q,.,.a ,. ~,.,...L...,.: u..l ~: ..: ~., ~,..7 __.:aL:~ t.. t W,.~~L_ ~I7~ prvpci~y ~lvi yarniii~l aiiu ~iia~ a iwuviiiiuai was ari~iviya~cu wi~iiiii a Gvupic vl iii~iiui~. vvc are now at August 20, 2008, and I am still unclear what the status of the FLD application, irrespective of any building permit that has been issued. The last inspection on Building Permit #BCP2007- 10647 was April 11, 2008. Unless a resubmittal addressing the last DRC comments is submitted by noon on September 15, 2008, for the October 21, 2008, CDB meeting, this application will be deemed withdrawn. Alternately, a letter of withdrawal may be submitted prior to September 15, 2008. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me at (727) 562-4504 or ~~- ayne.wel lsr~mycl earwater.com. Sincerely, ~ ~~-~~ Wa M. Wells, AICP Pla er III S: (Planning DepartmentlCD BIFLEX (FLD)IPending caseslReviewed and PendinglLakeview 0921 Boiling Pot #2 (C) - 5.3.07 DRC - WWIStatus Letter 8.20.08.doc ~~EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" • :~ Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 3:13 PM To: Doreen Williams (E-mail) Subject: FLD2007-04011, 921 Lakeview Rd Doreen - The above referenced application was filed with our office on April 2, 2007, and was reviewed by the DRC on May 3, 2007. On November 9, 2007, Building Permit #BCP2007-10647 was issued to resolve an unsafe building violation. Zoning's review of this building permit, approved by Neil Thompson, stated "no use of the site is approved or implied by this building permit approval." My last communication with you regarding the status of the application was on September 11, 2007, where you indicated Mr. LeBlanc was negotiating for additional adjacent property (for parking) and that a resubmittal was anticipated within a couple of months. We are now at June 5, 2008, and I am still unclear what the status of the FLD application, irrespective of any building permit that has been issued. Movement on this application needs to occur soon or it needs to be withdrawn until Mr. LeBlanc has a better picture of what he wants to do, especially in relation to providing adequate parking for a restaurant (or other use). Please advise if a resubmittal of this application is forthcoming within the next 30-60 days. Wayne M. Wells, AICP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756-5520 Phone: 727-562-4504 Fax: 727-562-4865 • • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 8:18 AM To: Doreen Williams (E-mail) Cc: Clayton, Gina Subject: FLD2007-04011, 921 Lakeview Rd. Doreen - Could you please advise as to the status of this application? I last contacted you in September 2007 regarding the status and you indicated he was negotiating for additional acreage and a resubmittal was anticipated within a couple of months. We are now almost at June 2008 and there doesn't appear to be much movement on this request. This case was reviewed by the DRC at their meeting of May 3, 2007, and was found sufficient to move forward to the CDB. Planning Staff will not support the application as currently presented. Should the applicant desire to not go forward with this application, please submit a letter withdrawing the application from further consideration. Thanks. Wayne M. Wells, A/CP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756-5520 Phone: 727-562-4504 Fax: 727-562-4865 W •~ • • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 3:19 PM To: 'Doreen Williams' Cc: Thompson, Neil; Watkins, Sherry Subject: Status of Projects Doreen Regarding #1 - If it was your intention to withdraw such application, please send me an email or letter of withdrawal. If you want to withdraw the case, I would recommend coming over and picking up the 14 copies sitting in Sherry's office, as there may be information that you can re-use (such as surveys) for. the new application. Regarding #2 - Is there some time table that he is working on, as this was the response back in September 2007? Thanks. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: Doreen Williams [mailto:doreen@northsideengineering.com] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 2:21 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Thompson, Neil; Watkins, Sherry Subject: RE: Status of Projects 1. FLD 2007--09028 - 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Ave., I was planning on submitting revised Site plan on February 4th - not enough time. Will be submitting revised plans in March. I thought we sent you a letter withdrawing this. application since we had to start over. 2. FLD2007-04011 - 921 Lakeview Road - Owner is trying to purchase additional property for parking. Hang on to it. 3. FLD2006-06035 - 2701, 2720, 2751 & 2770, Regency Oaks. I have been desperatly trying to complete these plans to make Rick Albee happy. Hold on to this. I will try to get it in for the March submittal. Doreen -----Original Message----- From: Wayne.Wells@myClearwater.com [mailto:Wayne.Wells@myClearwater.com] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 2:01 PM To: Doreen Williams Cc: neil.thompson@MyClearwater.com; Sherry.Watkins@myClearwater.com Subject: Status of Projects Doreen - Can you bring me up to speed with the current status of the following projects? 1. FLD2007-09028, 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue - Is this going to go forward as submitted? We are holding on to 14 copies of the submittal and it is taking up space in Sherry's office. 2. FLD2007-04011, 921 Lakeview Road - The last status report was in September 2007 and it was anticipated a revised request package being 1 submitted in November 2007 • 3. FLD2006-06035, 2701, 2720, 2751 and 2770 Regency Oaks Blvd. - This last went to DRC in April 2007. Additionally, as we have discussed regarding any density issue, please make sure the resubmission includes an accounting of the density on the "nursing home" outparcel to ensure the density on this outparcel is compliant with the maximum density regulations based on its proposed "revised" lot area. Thanks - Wayne • • Wells, Wayne From: Doreen Williams [doreen@northsideengineering.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 8:44 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Wright, Bill; Thompson, Neil Subject: RE: FLD2O07-04011, 921 Lakeview Rd. Wayne, the owner of the 921 Lakeview Road is in the process of negotiating the purchase of additional land adjacent to the existing site. Pelase keep this case on file as we will be re-submitted showing the additional acreage within the next couple of months. Thanks -----Original Message----- From: Wayne..wells@myClearwater.com [mailto:Wayne.WellsC~myClearwater.com] Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 2:51 PM To: Doreen Williams Cc: Bi11.Wright@myClearwater.com; neil.thompsonc~MyClearwater.com Subject: FLD2007-04011, 921 Lakeview Rd. Doreen - Could you please advise as to the status of this application? This case was reviewed by the DRC at their meeting of May 3, 2007, and was found sufficient to move forward to the CDB. Planning Staff will not support the application as currently presented. Should the applicant desire to not go forward with this application, please submit a letter withdrawing the application from further consideration. Thanks. Wayne 1 • • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 6:42 PM To: Doreen Williams (E-mail) Subject: FLD2007-04011, 921 Lakeview Road Doreen - Attached are the Draft DRC comments for the May 3, 2007, DRC meeting. The review of the above referenced case will be at 1:30 pm in our offices. Should you have any questions, feel free to email or call me. PS: Regarding the 445 Hamden Drive case, comments will be sent tomorrow. Wayne draft 5.3.07 action agern • • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:23 AM To: Doreen Williams (E-mail) Cc: Thompson, Neil Subject: FLD2007-04011, 921 Lakeview Blvd. Doreen - The above referenced application was filed to permit a restaurant at this location. Since Case FLD2006-05032 was denied by the Community Development Board on February 20, 2007, to permit a restaurant at the same location, Section 4- 202.G.1 does not permit the resubmission of a substantially similar application within nine months of the CDB decision. It is the Planning Departments determination that this new application filed is substantially different than the prior application, based on a reduction of floor area requiring parking and the opportunity for/availability of off-site parking within 600 feet. Please note that this determination that the application is substantially different does not imply staff support for this new . application. Attached is a Letter of Completeness for the above referenced application. The original letter is being sent in the mail. Should you have any questions, feel free to email or call me. Wayne letter of ~mpleteness 4.6.07., 'Clearwater Apri106, 2007 Housh Ghovaee 601 Cleveland Street Suite 930 Clearwater, F133755 VIA FAX: 727-446-8036 RE: FLD2007-0401 1 -- 921 LAKEVIEW RD -- Letter of Completeness Dear Housh Ghovaee The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number: FLD2007-04011. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is complete. The Development Review Committee (DRC) will review the application for sufficiency on May 03, 2007, in the Planning Department conference room -Room 216 - on the second floor of the Municipal Services Building. The building is located at 100 South Myrtle Avenue in downtown Clearwater. You will be contacted by the Planning Department's Administrative Analyst within one week prior to the meeting-date for the approximate time that your case will be reviewed. You or your representative (as applicable) must be present to answer any questions that the DRC may have regarding your application. Additional comments maybe generated by the DRC at the time of the meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 727-562-4504 or Wayne. Wells@myclearwater.com. Sincerely yours, Wayne ells, AICP Planner III CITY OFCLE~RWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICII'AL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W W W . MYC LEARW ATER. C OM Letter of Completeness - FLD2007-04011 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD • • hNtMLY I I ICJ RO~ BROWNELL 5T 57 OHEBIAUT 5T S.R. 80 ~ ~ ROGERS RO.^.ER ¢ a ^ ^ <^ ~ ^ ^ ~ GOURT ST g > R~ S~ B~ TURNER ST c ^ a P PAE q, µt re PINE PAE cT PINE ST w EO 3p ~p [T ~ ~ CiucvK ^ ~^ S PINE Z 5 O g <^o =o _ DRUro RD w DaulD RD ~ DRUn z .1A5h11NE ~ ~ ~ WA~ O`Q- y -~ hacHau ~ ~ ~ DRd~ as ~ MAG~ ~~ ya a a ^Qa ^~o LOTUS PATH L~ P~ LOTUS PATH JEFFORDS ST _^ ~ ~ ^a0 0-^ PROJECT ,7 ~ ^ ~~ ~ 0 ~ ~ SITE ` k ~ •_~~(~~.' PAELLAS p~ R O ~ . as•. ~ wwrrx«e-~ ~ iuslv~wl! LA r~ano d ~ C ~;..~. • ~ 7H9EiT._:::.•::.: .,..•.: ~.•. •.'~~1:~7.1 A gT ~ _ ._~ .--. ^-. .-.:T.~J ..~.:a1 g a ~~W JEFFORDS g~~C . .:.. ..:: .'..:'.':'•'•: •::.::'.'.'.::~.::' • I-Jt~J'~ u.4' ALMA I I ^ LJ W p¢..:.:~.::::~'::.•:.':.':•: :.: •.:'.: i; ::.::•. •: :•:~ BLVD. 3 H .•.~E BLVD 6EL16VfEW: ~ 4 ~ I •, ~,~•••..~CW •••••~'yy WAY ~•1: ~ ~. ~ ¢ `'' ,.., ~••JM1 WOO ST ~ < w ma < Srrt LNODDLAW'}.:• 57 ... . . . _ _ _ ..••RDEBUt ~ ~ a ~.' vemm ^ a ^ ^ 5 ~Toa~oFocoo Location Map Dorothy B. LeBlanc I Case: FLD2007-04011 owner: Sexton Enter rises, Inc. site: 921 Lakeview Road I Property 0.252 Size(Acres): PIN: Atlas Page: 306A 21/29/15/47466/001/0130 21/29/15/47466/001/0170 • • .. ,- ~ , ,,, , t _ ,. .. ,_ - ~., ~ ~, ~ ~ ' ~ ' yam= t ~ ~ U- Fr I a ~ a f , .^ . ' AKEVIEW ' ~ , , I -_ ~ i ~ .... i .. ~- ~ --~ i~ '~ ~ '' '~ '. 11i 1 ti i ~~ i • 11 12 13 14 ~' n a m o a /~ /J $ o y ssosb 5 4 3 2 1 I 1 2 30 12 >tn~s 13 12 zz,oe 3.8 Ac(a ~ ~ g 30 30 33 33 1301 Met 14~fH 1300 AC(C) ~O 19 21 ~~~ ~ O ~ 4 3 71 8 6 •~~ 0 ~g 7 ~ 13 9 7 6 OI/I i t f1A4 '~ 14 6 4 10 ~~, 3 z if ~ 1 >~ 1z ~ 7 14 13 ^~ 3 2 1 16 4 0 18 6 17 8 18 ~ 7 0 ~ B 9 10 11 12 28 ~ 13 14 a p 13. ~ s l 8 1fi 7 1 8 13 12 8 3 11 4 Zoning Map Owner. I Dorothy B. LeBlanc case: FLD2007-04011 Sexton Enter rises, Inc. Site: 921 Lakeview Road Property 0.252 Size(Acres~: PIN: 21 /29/15/47466/001 /Ol 30 21/29/15/47466/001/0170 Atlas Page: 306A 1 2 5 6 7 9 14 15 16 17 18 6 ~ $ c v 'A ~' i6 1y m ~ m ~ vi 13 R f1 10 6 ~ 4 2 1 to P:~- 8 6 7 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~ ~ rn rn ~ m i b p oW f] A Of O i ~ ~ h ~ O~ W 4 6 5 3 2 1 18 1 7 8 11 1295 12 ~ N ~ 0 °i a a ~ • • -~ a e ~ Q a X11 ,a n ~ 0 ~ n ~ w J ~ a 5 6 7 Il a ae a ,6 „ ,8 2 0 ~ ll' gs ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ v~ m C me ery 30 4 3 2 1 5 5 4 3 2 1 7 ~ ~ ~ „ , d elli z ~ ~ °° $ a ~ ~+ '° ;, o TUSKAW/LLA ST Q V W Cemetery o ~z'°" 4 3.8 Acrc~ h so 30 30 93 y9 m w 33 'emetery 1301 Met n 'slate ~ E~ (s ~~ 1 1300 ~ ~~~ ~O 18 13 It f0 ~ 7 C (C) ~.~~ ~ _ Y 47466 O~1CeS n ~~ ~~ _~ ir; Existing Surrounding Uses Map 1 iriL O~ o W $ 8 ~' Q s8o8s z_ 3 et b ui t e 1s 13 e,~ e llI] so Park ~, 13.9 A Owner. I Dorothy B. LeBlanc Case: FLD2007-04011 Sexton Enter rises, Inc. Site: 921 Lakeview Road Property 0.252 Size (Acres) PIN: 21/29/15/47466/001/0130 21/29/15/47466/001/0170 Atlas Page: 306A a ta°' a ~, ~, d li ~s 6 5 2 1 18 7 T 2~ taC ~ N 1 d elli gs 1295 $ ~ ~ t ~ 0 View looking south at vacant area on west side of 921 Lakeview Road proposed for parking lot i ~ ~ ,,,. ~--- __ :<~~ .- ~ti~ ~ -, _.. ~~~ s., View looking southwest at 901 Lakeview Rd (auto parts remanufacturer) 921 Lakeview Road FLD2007-04011 -~ - View looking southeast at existing subject building at 921 Lakeview Road Page 1 of 2 View looking west showing curvature of Lakeview View looking south at existing subject building at 921 Lakeview Road t View looking northwest at cemetery across Lakeview Road 921 Lakeview Road FLD2007-04011 . "r View looking southeast at offices at 925 Lakeview Page 2 of 2 View looking east along Dempsey St (detached _ ~ View looking north at dwellings north of Lakeview View looking west showing curvature of Dempsey St (subject property on right) View looking northeast at offices at Lakeview Rd View looking north at the rear of the subject building at 921 Lakeview Road . ~ , ~~~~ 1.00 ~m Case Number: FLD2007-040T1 -- 921 LAKEVIEW RD Owner(s): Dorothy B Le Blanc . P ~~ ~ ~? Po Box 266 Fulton, Tx 78358 '~ TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Representative: Housh Ghovaee ~~ 601 Cleveland Street Clearwater, F133755 TELEPHONE: 727-443-2869, FAX: 727-446-8036, E-MAIL: renee@northsideengineering.com Location: 0.253 acres located on the south side of Lakeview Road, approximately 600 feet east of South Myrtle Avenue and 50 feet west of Prospect Avenue. Atlas Page: 306A Zoning District: C, Commercial Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a restaurant in the Commercial District with a reduction to the lot width from 100 feet to 89.77 feet (south along Dempsey Street), reductions to the front (north along Lakeview Road) setback from 25 feet to 18.1 feet (to existing building), from 25 feet to 14 feet (to sidewalk) and from 25 feet to four feet (to pavement), reductions to the front (south along Dempsey Street) from 25 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), an increase to building height from 25 feet to 29.5 feet (to existing midpoint of the pitched roof), an increase from three feet to six-feet for a fence within the required front setback, in lieu of a brick or other masonry wall or wall with masonry columns linked by substantial grill work, and without the required three-foot wide landscaped strip on the outside of the fence, and a deviation to allow direct access to Lakeview Road, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, with reductions to the perimeter landscape buffers along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to four feet (to pavement) and from 7.5 feet to five feet (for the front slope of the retention pond), along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure) and along the east from five feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to 5.5 percent and a reduction to the foundation landscape area from five feet wide to zero feet wide, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Restaurants Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Association(s): Clearwater, F133758 P O Box 8204 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Neighborhood Harbor Oaks Neighborhood Assoc Association(s): Clearwater, Fl 33756 320 Magnolia Drive TELEPHONE: 461-9657, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Presenter: Wayne Wells, Planner III Attendees Included: City: Wayne Wells, Neil Thompson, Scott Rice, Steve Doherty, Lenny Rickert, Tom Glenn Applicant: Doreen Williams, Renee Ruggiero, Mark LeBlanc The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: No Comments Environmental: No Comments Fire: 1 , This building has an exiiting residential fire sprinkler system. This must be redesigned to be in accordance with NFPA 13 as a commercial occupancy. Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB 2 . Show on the plan the location of the FDC and of the hydrant to be used for the Fire Sprinkler system that is 25 to 50 feet from FDC. If none one will be required to be installed. PRIOR CDB Harbor Master: 1 . No issues. Legal: Development Review Agenda -Thursday, May 3, 2007 -Page 23 ,~ 1 . 1. Parking Easement is terminable at will by Grantor, and needs to be signed by the correct person with Boiling Pot. Y 2. Parking Lease is terminable at will after opportunity to cure by Lessor. Thus current parking arrangements may not last the length of the use. A condition should be added that if applicant loses necessary parking, applicant will cease use of property. Land Resources: 1 . No Issues. Landscaping: 1 . Response to Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria #la: Unclear as to the meaning of the last sentence. 2 . Response to Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria #3: Any allowances by the Engineering Department for landscaping within Dempsey Street right-of--way should not be viewed as negating the requirement for on-site landscape buffering. Additionally, the proposed fence along Dempsey Street will block views of any on-site landscaping, thereby not providing any beneficial aspects to the residential neighbors to the south. 3 . Sheet L1.1 -Lot width along Dempsey Street is 89.77 feet. Perimeter buffer along Dempsey Street requires three shade trees. Since there are overhead utility lines along Dempsey Street, only accent trees can be planted (two accent trees =one shade tree). Provide the required number of trees along Dempsey Street. 4 . Code requires a 15-foot perimeter buffer along the north property line, which is not being met. Section 3-1202.D.2 requires the stormwater retention areas not exceed 50% of the buffer area (7.5 feet), the front slope not to exceed a slope of 4:1 or flatter, all required shrub plantings to not be more than six-inches below the top of bank and the buffer width be at least five feet in width. Proposal does not meet these requirements. Plan provides the five-foot wide planting area adjacent to the retention pond, but the retention pond location encroaches into the 7.5-foot area of the perimeter buffer (total 15 feet required perimeter buffer width along Lakeview Road), leaving insufficient area for required landscaping in the buffer. Unless redesigned to meet Code requirements, need to include in the request this reduction to the landscape buffer due to the pond design as part of the Comprehensive Landscape Program. Staff may not support the reduction. 5 . Sheet Ll.l -The plan specs 4 CL at the northeast corner of the building, 3 CL west of the building and 3 CL in the southeast corner of the property, but the Table does not include CL. Revise. (. Response to Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria #2: Provide information as to the meaning of "low" lights. Parks and Recreation: 1 . No issues -converting existing structure into restaurant -interior renovations. Stormwater: No Comments Solid Waste: 1 . Dumpster enclosure needs to be built to city specfications and shown on detail sheet elevation may be to steep to service safely Traffic Engineering: 1 . The applicant shall provide a letter to the City stating employees and customers shall not park on right-of--way along Lakeview Road. The above shall be addressed prior to a Community Development Board (CDB) hearing. Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy: 1) Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.). Planning: Development Review Agenda -Thursday, May 3, 2007 -Page 24 1 . Provide some logic~easoning for the removal of the rear portion o e second floor. If the intent of this proposal is to remove the second floor flooring to make it open to the first floor, unclear why the rear portion of the second floor is being removed and a new roof is proposed in its place. Couldn't you keep the existing back wall of the second floor and just remove more flooring to open up to the first floor? Why is it necessary to be able to get from west side of the second floor to the east side by installing more roof area at the rear? A door on the east side similar to that proposed on the west side provides such access to the west and east sides of the roof area on the second floor. What use is being proposed on the roof? Why is the historic appearance/character of the building proposed to be altered on this second floor? 2 . Sheet R1 (Elevations) - Provide a dimension for the existing/proposed height of the building (to the midpoint of the pitched second floor roof). Ensure the dimensioned height is accurately depicted in the Site Data table on Sheet C1.1. 3 . Provide on Page 1 of the application the Project Valuation. 4 . Solid Waste -There are overhead utilities within the right-of--way of Dempsey Street adjacent to the subject property. These overhead utilities may impair the ability of Solid Waste from accessing and dumping the proposed dumpster. The angle of the dumpster may also preclude the truck from accessing the dumpster in the enclosure and its location is at the bend in the road of Dempsey Street, which also creates issues. 5 . Sheet C1.1 - If the existing building coverage is 1,996 sf, unclear how the proposed building coverage is different, especially since there is no proposed removal of building on the ground floor. Advise/revise. Sheet C2.1 indicates the outside dimensions of the building to be 40 feet by 49.9 feet, which equals 1,996 square feet. However, on Sheet A2, the outside dimensions of the buidling are indicated as.38'-4" by 50 feet, which equals 1,916 square feet. Which drawing is correct? Revise appropriate plans (and site data, if necessary, on Sheet C1.1). 6 . Under the prior application (FLD2006-05032), there was a Commercial Lease with Sexton Enterprises, Inc. for the western 25 feet of the subject area under this application. If the Commercial Lease is still applicable, need to submit this document for this file. A Commercial Lease is between the applicant and the property owner of Lot 17. This Lease provides for a time period of 15 years, with the ability for an additional five years. Any approval of this request by the CDB will be conditioned on the continued possession of Lot 17 with its parking and landscaping improvements for the restaurant and the failure to have such parking and landscaping improvements available and assignable to this restaurant will require the closure of the restaurant, until such time as required parking (in location[s] approved by the City) is procured. This shall additionally apply should the Lessee default on the lease and the Lessor takes back possession of the parking and landscaping improvements thereon. 7 . Provide a reduced scale (8.5 x 11) copy of the first floor plan. 8 . Sheet C2.1 indicates "historical period planters" on the north side of the building, but does not provide any drawings or pictures of what these "historical period planters" look like. 9 . South elevation -Based on site inspection, the existing sliding door is not an appealing feature. Plans don't indicate what improvements are to be made to this existing sliding door. This sliding door also has a separate "person" door within the slider. Will this sliding door be opened during the restaurant operation (for ventilation, etc.)? 10 . Response to Comprehensive Infilll Redevelopment Project criteria #5: a. Need to expand on HOW the proposal is compatible with adjacent land uses. b. Staff is supportive of re-using a historic structure. It is the proposed use, which is a use with the highest parking requirement, that is the concern, where all required parking is not on-site and required setbacks and buffers are not being proposed. Re-use of the structure is possible with other permitted/allowable uses in the Commercial District, but with uses where all required parking could be on-site. 11 . Sheets C1.1 and C2.1 -Based on the survey, the northeast comer of the building is at 18.1 feet from Lakeview Road. Revise Site Data Table on Sheet C1.1 and revise dimension on Sheet C2.1. Also revise the Description of Request as part of the application. 12 . Sheet C2.1 -Revise dimension line for 30-foot setback from Dempsey eastward to the southeast comer of the building. Development Review Agenda -Thursday, May 3, 2007 -Page 25 v 13 . Revise the Description of Request for the following: a. Add the reduction to lot width along Dempsey Street from 100 feet to 89.77 feet; b. Revise the height to what it actually is (see prior comment); c. Add under the Comprehensive Landscape Program a reduction to the required perimeter buffer along Lakeview Road from 7.5 feet to five feet (for the front slope of the retention pond); d. Add under the Comprehensive Landscape Program a reduction to the required perimeter buffer along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure); e. Add under the Comprehensive Landscape Program a reduction to the required perimeter buffer along the east from five feet to three feet (to existing building); and £ Add under the Comprehensive Landscape Program a reduction to the required foundation landscape area from five to zero feet. 14 . Need to include narrative as part of the Description of Request or simply Project Narrative, since a similar request was previously denied by the CDB, outlining (in detail) what changes have been made to the application to warrant a re-review by the CDB and why the CDB should decide differently on this application (make your pitch). Need to provide specifics as to how especially parking is being handled. 15 . Proposal now includes the installation of a six-foot high fence along Dempsey Street. Section 3-804.A permits a maximum wall or fence height in the front setback of 36-inches. Section 3-804.A.2 permits within the required front setback a brick or other masonry wall or wall with masonry columns linked by substantial grill work at a maximum height of six feet, not a fence, so long as there is a three-foot wide landscaped strip on the street side of the wall. The proposal is for a fence, not a wall, at the property line, not providing the required three-foot wide landscaped strip on the outside of the wall. Fence/wall is subject to sight visibility triangle requirements. Need to show location of driveway on the property to the east and the sight visibility triangle for that driveway. Need to include in the request as deviations to Code requirements. Staff may not support the request. 16 . Response to Comprehensive Infilll Redevelopment Project criteria #4: It is noted that the residential area to the south will enjoy the trash dumping operations by the restaurant operator and by the trash truck and they will be looking at a fence to be erected along the property line of Dempsey Street, with only the City right-of--way to provide any screening of the fence. 17 . While signage is not being approved through this application, the north building elevation indicates attached signage. Code provisions permit one attached sign per business with the sign area not to exceed one square foot per 100 square feet of building facade facing the street frontage to which the sign is to be attached or 24 square feet, whichever is less. However, a minimum of 20 square feet is permitted. It is noted that it appears that the sign shown exceeds what is permitted by Code under the above minimum standards. Alternately, a Comprehensive Sign Program application may be submitted, complying with the provisions of Section 3-1807. Include a condition regarding signage on any approval by CDB. Any freestanding sign should be a monument-style sign a maximum of six feet high, finished to be compatible with the building material and color. Attached signage must meet Code requirements. 18 . Due to State smoking laws, there will be no smoking indoors. Unclear if there is any provision of any area where patrons can sit and eat outdoors (sidewalk cafe) and/or sit to smoke. Concerned with inadequate provided parking on-site. Staff may not support any sidewalk cafe for additional seating where patrons can eat/drink and may include in any approval by CDB a prohibition for a sidewalk cafe due to inadequate on-site parking. 19 . Response to General Applicability criteria #6: a. Need to discuss potential noise issues with dumping of trash in the dumpster late at night. b. Any allowances by the Engineering Department for landscaping within Dempsey Street right-of--way should not be viewed as negating the requirement for on-site landscape buffering. 20 . Response to General Applicability criteria #5: Staff is supportive of re-using a historic structure. It is the proposed use, which is a use with the highest parking requirement, that is the concern, where all required parking is not on-site and required setbacks and buffers are not being proposed. Re-use of the structure is possible with other permitted/allowable uses in the Commercial District, but with uses where all required parking could be on-site. 21 . All on-site utilities must be underground. Note such on Sheet C3.1. Existing electrical service to the building is overhead at the northwest corner of the building. Include as a condition that this overhead service must be revised to underground if approved by the CDB. Development Review Agenda -Thursday, May 3, 2007 -Page 26 • 22 . nsive Infilll Redevelopment Project criteria # Response to Comp a. The proposal meets the required site area requirement of 10,000 square feet. There may not be enough land area to meet all Code requirements for parking and landscaping, but there is no reduction to lot area required with this application. b. Staff does not have any issue with the location of the building regarding setbacks. It is the other site improvements that cause Staff concern that has not been adequately justified. 23 . Response to Comprehensive Infilll Redevelopment Project criteria #3: a. Disagree that the proposed setbacks regarding the parking and dumpster will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent properties. Inadequate setbacks can be viewed as not upgrading the area, which could lead to additional requests for noncompliant setbacks on adjacent properties. b. Disagree that a majority of the reductions are related to the existing building. Many of the reductions requested are due to the other proposed improvements, such as pavement, dumpster and sidewalks. c. Staff does not have any issue with the location of the building regarding setbacks. It is the other site improvements that cause Staff concern that has not been adequately justified. 24 . Provide one signed and sealed survey for each parcel. 25 . Response to General Applicability criteria #4: a. The proposed shared parking is not with an adjacent use, but is with a business located 600 feet to the west. Revise. b. No letter has been submitted regarding no on-street parking restriction. A letter was submitted with the previous application. With regard to the prior letter, it indicates that Mark LeBlanc will not park vehicles along the rights-of--way, but doesn't say anything about being liable for patrons parking in such locations. c. Provide information as to how the host/hostess will know if customers have parked in unapproved locations. It is the City that usually receives such complaints, not the business owner/operator. d. Provide specifics as to what type, location, size, etc. of signage to be posted on-site AND at the Candy Factory informing customers of such additional parking. Potentially signage posted at the Candy Factory for this restaurant may affect existing signage allowances at the Candy Factory. 26 . Response to Comprehensive Infilll Redevelopment Project criteria #6: a. Staff is unaware of any rezoning proposals to commercial for Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Additionally, staff is unaware the business to the west is an automotive body shop, but is an automotive parts re-manufacturing business. c. Staff is unaware of an automotive restoration business to the east. There is an automotive parts re-manufacturing business to the west. d. Reread and rewrite verbiage to be more accurate in what you are trying to say. e. The fence installation along Dempsey Street will block any views of on-site landscaping by the residents to the south. The residents will view the fence. Next to last paragraph on Page 8 -Provide details as to how the owner will provide a higher level of maintenance than most commercial uses in the neighborhood. Development Review Agenda -Thursday, May 3, 2007 -Page 27 27 . Shared Parking Agreement with the Candy Factory: • a. Third Whereas -Staff is unaware the LESSOR'S property has parking in excess to Code requirements for the use occupying LESSOR'S property. Provide calculations to verify such information. b. Document refers to the City's Zoning Director, which should be revised to Planning Director. c. Application material indicates the restaurant hours of operation to be 4:00 pm to 10:00 pm. Provide information as to why the Agreement indicates hours of use for the shared parking to be from 3:30 pm to 2:00 am. d. What assurances does the City have as to the hours of operation of the Candy Factory only to 3:30 pm today and for the next 15 years. e. Terms of this Agreement is only for 15 years. What is to happen after the end of the 15th year? f. The Agreement calls for the maintenance of the parking surface. Today, one cannot see the parking stripes, parking locations indicated on Sheet C2.2 do not function (west side) relating to required drive aisles, and there is little to no landscaping of this parking lot. By Sheet C2.2, there is no area along Lakeview Road to provide any landscaping. This parking lot on the Candy Factory property is providing required parking for the proposed restaurant, but there is little to no improvements that will benefit the public for the use of this parking area. It is also unclear what signage requirements are necessary to inform the public as to this parking area being the required parking for the restaurant. Such necessary signage may affect existing on-site signage for the Candy Factory. 28 . Response to General Applicability criteria #3: Need to address hours of operation, odor and noise control of the dumpster (dumping trash late at night), late night noise control in relation to the surrounding detached dwellings and the control of unapproved parking by restaurant patrons and employees. Be specific. Need to address the safety of customers parking at the Candy Factory and walking between the parking at the Candy Factory and the restaurant as part of any justification of required off-street parking distant from the restaurant (600 feet to the west). 29 . Response to General Applicability criteria #2: Disagree that the proposed setbacks regarding the parking and dumpster will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent properties. Inadequate setbacks can be viewed as not upgrading the area, which could lead to additional requests for noncompliant setbacks on adjacent properties. 30 . Response to General Applicability criteria #1: a. The first part of the response deals with the proposed removal of non-code compliant additions. Hasn't that already occurred at the rear of the building. Because the proposal is removing the rear portion of the second floor, is this what you are referring to as the non-code compliant addtition? If appears that rear portion of the second floor was part of the original structure. Reword/rephrase. b. It is the ceiling of the first floor/the floor of the second floor that is proposed to be removed to create the atrium appearance, not the top floor of the existing building. Revise/reword. c. Creating the atrium appearance will not remove 975 square feet, as this was the original square footage of the second floor, and a 220 square-foot office area is to be retained/created on the second floor. This office area must be included in the gross floor area for parking calculations. Revise. d. Unclear how the architectural style and historical character of the building will be maintained if the rear portion of the second floor is proposed to be removed. e. Disagree that a majority of the reductions are related to the existing building. Many of the reductions requested are due to the other proposed improvements, such as pavement, dumpster and sidewalks. £ Ensure the correct number of required parking spaces is used in the last part of the response. 31 . Sheet Rl and A2 - If circular stairs are proposed to the second floor office area, as indicated on Sheet R1, unclear why the same circular stairs are not shown on the fast floor plan on Sheet A2. Also unclear on Sheet A2 why the existing stairs from the front of the building, with its own door, is shown as remaining if a circular stair is proposed to get to the second floor office. 32 . Sheet C1.1 -Site Data Table -Revise Existing Usage from 4 apartments to 2 apartments. Other: No Comments Notes: While this application is sufficient for the CDB, with the revisions requested, the proposal will not be supported by Staff. Submit revised plans and application package no later than noon on 5/11/07 for review by CDB on 6/19/07. Development Review Agenda -Thursday, May 3, 2007 -Page 28 ~ .~ , ~ ~ N~ • 1.00 pal Case Number: FLD2007-040 1 -- 921 LAKEVIEW RD •`~ Owner(s): Dorothy B Le Blanc ~~ ~ ~ ~~ Po Box 266 - Fulton, Tx 78358 ~~~ TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Representative: Housh Ghovaee ~~ 601 Cleveland Street Clearwater, Fl 33755 TELEPHONE: 727-443-2869, FAX: 727-446-8036, E-MAIL: renee@northsideengineering.com Location: 0.253 acres located on the south side of Lakeview Road, approximately 600 feet east of South Myrtle Avenue and 50 feet west of Prospect Avenue. Atlas Page: 306A Zoning District: C, Commercial Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a restaurant in the Commercial District with a reduction to the lot width from 100 feet to 89.77 feet (south along Dempsey Street), reductions to the front (north along Lakeview Road) setback from 25 feet to 18.1 feet (to existing building), from 25 feet to 14 feet (to sidewalk) and from 25 feet to four feet (to pavement), reductions to the front (south along Dempsey Street) from 25 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), an increase to building height from 25 feet to 29.5 feet (to existing midpoint of the pitched roof), an increase from three feet to six-feet for a fence within the required front setback, in lieu of a brick or other masonry wall or wall with masonry columns linked by substantial grill work, and without the required three-foot wide landscaped strip on the outside of the fence, and a deviation to allow direct access to Lakeview Road, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, with reductions to the perimeter landscape buffers along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to four feet (to pavement) and from 7.5 feet to five feet (for the front slope of the retention pond), along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure) and along the east from five feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to 5.5 percent and a reduction to the foundation landscape area from five feet wide to zero feet wide, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Restaurants Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Association(s): Clearwater, F133758 P O Box 8204 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Neighborhood Harbor Oaks Neighborhood Assoc Association(s): Clearwater, F133756 320 Magnolia Drive TELEPHONE: 461-9657, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Presenter: Wayne Wells, Planner III Attendees Included: City: Wayne Wells, Neil Thompson, Scott Rice, Steve Doherty, Lenny Rickert, Rick Albee, Tom Glenn Applicant: Doreen Williams, Housh Ghovaee, Mark LeBlanc The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: 1 . Applicant shall comply with the following prior to CDB review: 1. Dumpster pad shall have a minimum dimension of 14'-8" wide by 14'-8" deep and shall be constructed in accordance with City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Index #701, page 1/3. 2. The parking space located in the furthest southeast corner of the parking lot does not appear to meet dimensional requirements. Provide dimensions of the parking space and aisle serving this parking space to demonstrate this space meets dimensional requirements. Applicant shall comply with the following prior to the issuance of a building permit: 1. Applicant shall include with construction plans City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Index #701, page 1/3. Development Review Agenda -Thursday, May 3, 2007 -Page 24 Environmental: 1 , Please Note: renovations. ' information. • An Asbestos Survey is usually required prior to conducting any interior or exterior Please contact Mickey Long at Pinellas County Air Quality (464-4422) for further Fire: 1 . This building has an exiiting residential fire sprinkler system. This must be redesigned to be in accordance with NFPA 13 as a commercial occupancy. Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB 2 . Show on the plan the location of the FDC and of the hydrant to be used for the Fire Sprinkler system that is 25 to 50 feet from FDC. If none one will be required to be installed. PRIOR CDB Harbor Master: No issues. Legal: 1. Parking Easement is terminable at will by Grantor, and needs to be signed by the correct person with Boiling Pot. 2. Parking Lease is terminable at will after opportunity to cure by Lessor. Thus current parking arrangements may not last the length of the use. A condition should be added that if applicant loses necessary parking, applicant will cease use of property. Land Resources: 1 . No Issues. Landscaping: 1 . Response to Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria #la: Unclear as to the meaning of the last sentence. 2 . Response to Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria #3: Any allowances by the Engineering Department for landscaping within Dempsey Street right-of--way should not be viewed as negating the requirement for on-site landscape buffering. Additionally, the proposed fence along Dempsey Street will block views of any on-site landscaping, thereby not providing any beneficial aspects to the residential neighbors to the south. 3 , Sheet L1.1 -Lot width along Dempsey Street is 89.77 feet. Perimeter buffer along Dempsey Street requires three shade trees. Since there are overhead utility lines along Dempsey Street, only accent trees can be planted (two accent trees =one shade tree). Provide the required number of trees along Dempsey Street. 4 . Code requires a 15-foot perimeter buffer along the north property line, which is not being met. Section 3-1202.D.2 requires the stormwater retention areas not exceed 50% of the buffer area (7.5 feet), the front slope not to exceed a slope of 4:1 or flatter, all required shrub plantings to not be more than six-inches below the top of bank and the buffer width be at least five feet in width. Proposal does not meet these requirements. Plan provides the five-foot wide planting area adjacent to the retention pond, but the retention pond location encroaches into the 7.5-foot area of the perimeter buffer (total 15 feet required perimeter buffer width along Lakeview Road), leaving insufficient area for required landscaping in the buffer. Unless redesigned to meet Code requirements, need to include in the request this reduction to the landscape buffer due to the pond design as part of the Comprehensive Landscape Program. Staff may not support the reduction. 5 . Sheet L1.1 -The plan specs 4 CL at the northeast corner of the building, 3 CL west of the building and 3 CL in the southeast comer of the property, but the Table does not include CL. Revise. 6 . Response to Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria #2: Provide information as to the meaning of "low" lights. Parks and Recreation: 1 , No issues -converting existing structure into restaurant -interior renovations. Stormwater: Development Review Agenda -Thursday, May 3, 2007 -Page 25 ^, • 1 . The following to a addressed prior to building permit: 1. Elevations shall be based on NAVD88 datum with actual benchmark and not assumed. Drainage calculation is based on NGVD29 datum. Please show on grading plan the type of datum was used for design and revise the drainage calculation accordingly. Survey shall include 50 foot of adjacent topography. 2. Show countours of ponds to clearly depict where the retaining walls stop and 4:1 slope starts. 3. Grading plan shows pond # 1 has the miter end section but the drainage calculation shows the control structure. Please revise plans accordingly. 4. Move the 12" PVC and structure at pond #1 further south to allow the structure lie on the pond bottom and not out of the sloped side of the pond. 5. Splash pad or other erosion control measures shall be used at outfall Swale. Revise the cross section accordingly. 6. Provide some erosion control method around the weir where it meets the pond's bank. Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments maybe forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Solid Waste: 1 . Dumpster enclosure needs to be built to city specfications and shown on detail sheet elevation maybe to steep to service safely Traffic Engineering: 1 . The applicant shall provide a letter to the City stating employees and customers shall not park on right-of--way along Lakeview Road. The above shall be addressed prior to a Community Development Board (CDB) hearing. Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy: 1) Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.). Planning: Development Review Agenda -Thursday, May 3, 2007 -Page 26 ~~. 1 . Provide some logica reasoning for the removal of the rear portion ot~7ie second floor. If the intent of this proposal is to remove the second floor flooring to make it open to the fast floor, unclear why the rear portion of the second floor is being removed and a new roof is proposed in its place. Couldn't you keep the existing back wall of the second floor and just remove more flooring to open up to the fast floor? Why is it necessary to be able to get from west side of the second floor to the east side by installing more roof area at the rear? A door on the east side similar to that proposed on the west side provides such access to the west and east sides of the roof area on the second floor. What use is being proposed on the roof? Why is the historic appearance/character of the building proposed to be altered on this second floor? 2 . Sheet Rl (Elevations) - Provide a dimension for the existing/proposed height of the building (to the midpoint of the pitched second floor roof). Ensure the dimensioned height is accurately depicted in the Site Data table on Sheet C1.1. 3 . Provide on Page 1 of the application the Project Valuation. 4 . Solid Waste -There are overhead utilities within the right-of--way of Dempsey Street adjacent to the subject property. These overhead utilities may impair the ability of Solid Waste from accessing and dumping the proposed dumpster. The angle of the dumpster may also preclude the truck from accessing the dumpster in the enclosure and its location is at the bend in the road of Dempsey Street, which also creates issues. 5 . Sheet C1.1 - If the existing building coverage is 1,996 sf, unclear how the proposed building coverage is different, especially since there is no proposed removal of building on the ground floor. Advise/revise. Sheet C2.1 indicates the outside dimensions of the building to be 40 feet by 49.9 feet, which equals 1,996 square feet. However, on Sheet A2, the outside dimensions of the buidling are indicated as 38'-4" by 50 feet, which equals 1,916 square feet. Which drawing is correct? Revise appropriate plans (and site data, if necessary, on Sheet C1.1). 6 . Under the prior application (FLD2006-05032), there was a Commercial Lease with Sexton Enterprises, Inc. for the western 25 feet of the subject area under this application. If the Commercial Lease is still applicable, need to submit this document for this file. A Commercial Lease is between the applicant and the property owner of Lot 17. This Lease provides for a time period of 15 years, with the ability for an additional five years. Any approval of this request by the CDB will be conditioned on the continued possession of Lot 17 with its parking and landscaping improvements for the restaurant and the failure to have such parking and landscaping improvements available and assignable to this restaurant will require the closure of the restaurant, until such time as required parking (in location[s] approved by the City) is procured. This shall additionally apply should the Lessee default on the lease and the Lessor takes back possession of the parking and landscaping improvements thereon. 7 . Provide a reduced scale (8.5 x 11) copy of the -fast floor plan. 8 . Sheet C2.1 indicates "historical period planters" on the north side of the building, but does not provide any drawings or pictures of what these "historical period planters" look like. 9 . South elevation -Based on site inspection, the existing sliding door is not an appealing feature. Plans don't indicate what improvements are to be made to this existing sliding door. This sliding door also has a separate "person" door within the slider. Will this sliding door be opened during the restaurant operation (for ventilation, etc.)? 10 . Response to Comprehensive Infilll Redevelopment Project criteria #5: a. Need to expand on HOW the proposal is compatible with adjacent land uses. b. Staff is supportive of re-using a historic structure. It is the proposed use, which is a use with the highest parking requirement, that is the concern, where all required parking is not on-site and required setbacks and buffers are not being proposed. Re-use of the structure is possible with other permitted/allowable uses in the Commercial District, but with uses where all required parking could be on-site. 11 . Sheets C1.1 and C2.1 -Based on the survey, the northeast comer of the building is at 18.1 feet from Lakeview Road. Revise Site Data Table on Sheet C1.1 and revise dimension on Sheet C2.1. Also revise the Description of Request as part of the application. 12 . Sheet C2.1 -Revise dimension line for 30-foot setback from Dempsey eastward to the southeast corner of the building. Development Review Agenda -Thursday, May 3, 2007 -Page 27 13 . Revise the Description of Request for the following: a. Add the reduction to lot width along Dempsey Street from 100 feet to 89.77 feet; b. Revise the height to what it actually is (see prior comment); c. Add under the Comprehensive Landscape Program a reduction to the required perimeter buffer along Lakeview Road from 7.5 feet to five feet (for the front slope of the retention pond); d. Add under the Comprehensive Landscape Program a reduction to the required perimeter buffer along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure); e. Add under the Comprehensive Landscape Program a reduction to the required perimeter buffer along the east from five feet to three feet (to existing building); and f. Add under the Comprehensive Landscape Program a reduction to the required foundation landscape area from five to zero feet. 14 . Need to include narrative as part of the Description of Request or simply Project Narrative, since a similar request was previously denied by the CDB, outlining (in detail) what changes have been made to the application to warrant a re-review by the CDB and why the CDB should decide differently on this application (make your pitch). Need to provide specifics as to how especially parking is being handled. 15 . Proposal now includes the installation of a six-foot high fence along Dempsey Street. Section 3-804.A permits a maximum wall or fence height in the front setback of 36-inches. Section 3-804.A.2 pernuts within the required front setback a brick or other masonry wall or wall with masonry columns linked by substantial grill work at a maximum height of six feet, not a fence, so long as there is a three-foot wide landscaped strip on the street side of the wall. The proposal is for a fence, not a wall, at the property line, not providing the required three-foot wide landscaped strip on the outside of the wall. Fence/wall is subject to sight visibility triangle requirements. Need to show location of driveway on the property to the east and the sight visibility triangle for that driveway. Need to include in the request as deviations to Code requirements. Staff may not support the request. 16 . Response to Comprehensive Infilll Redevelopment Project criteria #4: It is noted that the residential area to the south will enjoy the trash dumping operations by the restaurant operator and by the trash truck and they will be looking at a fence to be erected along the property line of Dempsey Street, with only the City right-of--way to provide any screening of the fence. 17 . While signage is not being approved through this application, the north building elevation indicates attached signage. Code provisions permit one attached sign per business with the sign area not to exceed one square foot per 100 square feet of building facade facing the street frontage to which the sign is to be attached or 24 square feet, whichever is less. However, a minimum of 20 square feet is permitted. It is noted that it appears that the sign shown exceeds what is permitted by Code under the above minimum standards. Alternately, a Comprehensive Sign Program application maybe submitted, complying with the provisions of Section 3-1807. Include a condition regarding signage on any approval by CDB. Any freestanding sign should be a monument-style sign a maximum of six feet high, finished to be compatible with the building material and color. Attached signage must meet Code requirements. 18 . Due to State smoking laws, there will be no smoking indoors. Unclear if there is any provision of any area where patrons can sit and eat outdoors (sidewalk cafe) and/or sit to smoke. Concerned with inadequate provided parking on-site. Staff may not support any sidewalk cafe for additional seating where patrons can eatldrink and may include in any approval by CDB a prohibition for a sidewalk cafe due to inadequate on-site parking. 19 . Response to General Applicability criteria #6: a. Need to discuss potential noise issues with dumping of trash in the dumpster late at night. b. Any allowances by the Engineering Department for landscaping within Dempsey Street right-of--way should not be viewed as negating the requirement for on-site landscape buffering. 20 . Response to General Applicability criteria #5: Staff is supportive of re-using a historic structure. It is the proposed use, which is a use with the highest parking requirement, that is the concern, where all required parking is not on-site and required setbacks and buffers are not being proposed. Re-use of the structure is possible with other permitted/allowable uses in the Commercial District, but with uses where all required parking could be on-site. 21 . All on-site utilities must be underground. Note such on Sheet C3.1. Existing electrical service to the building is overhead at the northwest comer of the building. Include as a condition that this overhead service must be revised to underground if approved by the CDB. Development Review Agenda -Thursday, May 3, 2007 -Page 28 22 . Response to Comprehensive Infilll Redevelopment Project criteria #I- a. The proposal meets the required site area requirement of 10,000 square feet. There may not be enough land area to meet all Code requirements for parking and landscaping, but there is no reduction to lot area required with this application. b. Staff does not have any issue with the location of the building regarding setbacks. It is the other site improvements that cause Staff concern that has not been adequately justified. 23 . Response to Comprehensive Infilll Redevelopment Project criteria #3: a. Disagree that the proposed setbacks regarding the parking and dumpster will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent properties. Inadequate setbacks can be viewed as not upgrading the area, which could lead to additional requests for noncompliant setbacks on adjacent properties. b. Disagree that a majority of the reductions are related to the existing building. Many of the reductions requested are due to the other proposed improvements, such as pavement, dumpster and sidewalks. c. Staff does not have any issue with the location of the building regarding setbacks. It is the other site improvements that cause Staff concern that has not been adequately justified. 24 . Provide one signed and sealed survey for each parcel. 25 . Response to General Applicability criteria #4: a. The proposed shared parking is not with an adjacent use, but is with a business located 600 feet to the west. Revise. b. No letter has been submitted regarding no on-street parking restriction. A letter was submitted with the previous application. With regard to the prior letter, it indicates that Mark LeBlanc will not park vehicles along the rights-of--way, but doesn't say anything about being liable for patrons parking in such locations. c. Provide information as to how the host/hostess will know if customers have parked in unapproved locations. It is the City that usually receives such complaints, not the business owner/operator. d. Provide specifics as to what type, location, size, etc. of signage to be posted on-site AND at the Candy Factory informing customers of such additional parking. Potentially signage posted at the Candy Factory for this restaurant may affect existing signage allowances at the Candy Factory. 26 . Response to Comprehensive Infilll Redevelopment Project criteria #6: a. Staff is unaware of any rezoning proposals to commercial for Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Additionally, staff is unaware the business to the west is an automotive body shop, but is an automotive parts re-manufacturing business. c. Staff is unaware of an automotive restoration business to the east. There is an automotive parts re-manufacturing business to the west. d. Reread and rewrite verbiage to be more accurate in what you are trying to say. e. The fence installation along Dempsey Street will block any views of on-site landscaping by the residents to the south. The residents will view the fence. Next to last paragraph on Page 8 -Provide details as to how the owner will provide a higher level of maintenance than most commercial uses in the neighborhood. Development Review Agenda -Thursday, May 3, 2007 -Page 29 27 . Shared Parking A• ent with the Candy Factory: a. Third Whereas -Staff is unaware the LESSOR's property has parking in excess to Code requirements for the use occupying LESSOR'S property. Provide calculations to verify such information. b. Document refers to the City's Zoning Director, which should be revised to Planning Director. c. Application material indicates the restaurant hours of operation to be 4:00 pm to 10:00 pm. Provide information as to why the Agreement indicates hours of use for the shared parking to be from 3:30 pm to 2:00 am. d. What assurances does the City have as to the hours of operation of the Candy Factory only to 3:30 pm today and for the next 15 years. e. Terms of this Agreement is only for 15 years. What is to happen after the end of the 15th year? f. The Agreement calls for the maintenance of the parking surface. Today, one cannot see the parking stripes, parking locations indicated on Sheet C2.2 do not function (west side) relating to required drive aisles, and there is little to no landscaping of this parking lot. By Sheet C2.2, there is no area along Lakeview Road to provide any landscaping. This parking lot on the Candy Factory property is providing required parking for the proposed restaurant, but there is little to no improvements that will benefit the public for the use of this parking area. It is also unclear what signage requirements are necessary to inform the public as to this parking area being the required parking for the restaurant. Such necessary signage may affect existing on-site signage for the Candy.Factory. 28 . Response to General Applicability criteria #3: Need to address hours of operation, odor and noise control of the dumpster (dumping trash late at night), late night noise control in relation to the surrounding detached dwellings and the control of unapproved parking by restaurant patrons and employees. Be specific. Need to address the safety of customers parking at the Candy Factory and walking between the parking at the Candy Factory and the restaurant as part of any justification of required off-street parking distant from the restaurant (600 feet to the west). 29 . Response to General Applicability criteria #2: Disagree that the proposed setbacks regarding the parking and dumpster will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent properties. Inadequate setbacks can be viewed as not upgrading the area, which could lead to additional requests for noncompliant setbacks on adjacent properties. 30 . Response to General Applicability criteria #1: a. The first part of the response deals with the proposed removal of non-code compliant additions. Hasn't that already occurred at the rear of the building. Because the proposal is removing the rear portion of the second floor, is this what you are referring to as the non-code compliant addtition? If appears that rear portion of the second floor was part of the original structure. Reword/rephrase. b. It is the ceiling of the first floor/the floor of the second floor that is proposed to be removed to create the atrium appearance, not the top floor of the existing building. Revise/reword. c. Creating the atrium appearance will not remove 975 square feet, as this was the original square footage of the second floor, and a 220 square-foot office area is to be retained/created on the second floor. This office area must be included in the gross floor area for parking calculations. Revise. d. Unclear how the architectural style and historical character of the building will be maintained if the rear portion of the second floor is proposed to be removed. e. Disagree that a majority of the reductions are related to the existing building. Many of the reductions requested are due to the other proposed improvements, such as pavement, dumpster and sidewalks. £ Ensure the correct number of required parking spaces is used in the last part of the response. 31 . Sheet Rl and A2 - If circular stairs are proposed to the second floor office area, as indicated on Sheet R1, unclear why the same circular stairs are not shown on the fast floor plan on Sheet A2. Also unclear on Sheet A2 why the existing stairs from the front of the building, with its own door, is shown as remaining if a circular stair is proposed to get to the second floor office. 32 . Sheet C1.1 -Site Data Table -Revise Existing Usage from 4 apartments to 2 apartments. Other: No Comments Notes: While this application is sufficient for the CDB, with the revisions requested, the proposal will not be supported by Staff. Submit revised plans and application package no later than noon on 5/11/07 for review by CDB on 6/19/07. Development Review Agenda -Thursday, May 3, 2007 -Page 30 • • Wells, Wayne From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:25 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: Marquesas & Boiling Pot Re 921 Lakeview: 1. Parking Easement is terminable at will by Grantor, and needs to be signed by the correct person with Boiling Pot. 2. Parking Lease is terminable at will after opportunity to cure by Lessor. Thus current parking arrangements may not last the length of the use. A condition should be added that if applicant loses necessary parking, applicant will cease use of property. Leslie K. Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 (727) 562-4010 phone (727) 562-4021 fax Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law Admitted in Florida, Oregon, and the District of Columbia Senior Professional in Human Resources -----Original Message----- From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:15 AM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: Marquesas & Boiling Pot Leslie - Please forward any email you send to Ed Armstrong regarding the TDR and Unity of Title discussion for the Marquesas project, 715 South Gulfview Blvd., for my files. As to the Boiling Pot, 921 Lakeview Road, FLD2007-04011, this case is on the DRC this Thursday, May 3, 2007. Any comments you may have regarding the application, including the Shared Parking Agreement with the Candy Factory, would be appreciated today, so that I can include in the DRC comments being sent to the applicant at the end of the day. Thanks - Wayne I~ Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:15 AM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Subject: Marquesas & Boiling Pot Leslie - Please forward any email you send to Ed Armstrong regarding the TDR and Unity of Title discussion for the Marquesas project, 715 South Gulfview Blvd., for my files. As to the Boiling Pot, 921 Lakeview Road, FLD2007-04011, this case is on the DRC this Thursday, May 3, 2007. Any comments you may have regarding the application, including the Shared Parking Agreement with the Candy Factory, would be appreciated today, so that I can include in the DRC comments being sent to the applicant at the end of the day. Thanks - Wayne i~ - ;~ ~ . U Fax Cover Memo CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 TO: G_._ 5 ~ Q„ O C, ~ -- J t ~ DATE: ~` Lj `~ 7 FAX: S ~ 2 - ~"O 2 I TELEPHONE: FROM: Wayne M. Wells l TELEPHO~N`E: (727) 562-4504 , SUBJECT: q~( La. K-e.v`- ~-~-.) ~C~o1. . MESSAGE: S ~ ~ p_ ~, Par<<~ NUMBER OF SHEETS (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): {Q I .~ Apr. 25 2007 11:55AM YCIUR LOGO YOUR FAX N0. 7275624865 N0. OTHER FACSIMILE START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT 01 95624021 Apr. 25 11:53AM 02'20 SND 06 OK TO TURN OFF REPORT, PRESS ' MENU' t#O4. THEN SELECT OFF BY USING '+' OR '-'. FOR FAX ADVANTAGE ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CALL 1LP-FAX C435-7329). ~ ~ Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 5:12 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Cc: Thompson, Neil Subject: FLD2007-04011, 921 Lakeview Road Leslie - The above referenced application has been filed and is scheduled for DRC review on May 3, 2007. I assume you received your DRC package of application materials (if you don't have it, let me know). A similar application was recently denied by the CDB on February 20, 2007. This application was deemed to be substantially different as they have removed floor area, which calculates as reducing the required parking amount, and have submitted a Covenant for Shared Parking with the Candy Factory property at 721 Lakeview Road. Do you have any comments regarding this application, especially the Covenant for Shared Parking? The parking at the Candy Factory will be required parking for the restaurant at the subject 921 Lakeview Road. With the former application, the applicant has a Commercial Lease for 25 feet of the property to the west (owned by Sexton Enterprises, Inc.), which is enveloped into the applicant's property and is proposed for required parking as part of this development. I will send over a copy of the Commercial Lease through interoffice mail for your review as part of this application. I don't know if you also will have any comments on the Commercial Lease. Since the DRC meeting is on May 3rd, forwarding any comments to me as soon as possible for inclusion into the DRC comments would be helpful. Thanks. Wayne Pin Silas County Property Aper Information: 21 29 15 47466 001 0~ Page 2 of 5 '3 ~1 ~ 29 / 15 1 4400 ~ 001 1 010 24-Apr-2007 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 17:25:02 Ownership Information Hon-Residential Property Address, Use, and Sales LE BLANC, DOROTHY B OBK: 14403 OPG: 2602 PO BOX 266 FULTOH TX 78358-0266 EVAC: Non-EVAC Comparable sales value as Prop Addr: 921 LAK EUIEW RD of Jan 1, 2006, based on Census Tract: 258.00 sales from 2004 - 2005: 0 Sale Date OR BooklPage Price {QuallUnQ? VaclImp Plat Information 6 I~2,005 14,403/2,602 225,000 {q} I 1925: Book 009 Pgs 141- 6 12,002 12,072/1,708 145,000 {Q} I 0000: Book Pgs - 9 /1,991 7,680/1,638 94,000 {Q} I 0000: Book Pgs - 9 /1,990 7,388/1,548 60,000 {U) I 2006 Value EXEMPTIONS Just/Market: 183,000 Homestead: HO Ownership ~ .040 Govt Exem. NO Use ~: .000 Assessed/Cap: 183,000 Institutional Exem: NO Tax Exempt ~: .000 Historic Exem: 0 Taxable: 183,000 Agricultural: 0 2006 Tax Information District: CW Seawall: Frontage: Clearwater View: 06 Millage: 21.7640 Land Size Unit Land Land Land Front x Depth Price Units Meth 06 Taxes: 3, 982. 81 1) 0 x 0 14.00 $, 018.13 5 Special Tax .00 2) 0 x 0 .00 .00 3~ 0 x 0 .00 .00 LJithout the Save-Our-Homes 4} 0 x 0 .00 .00 cap, 2006 taxes will be 5) 0 x 0 .00 .00 3, 982. $i 6) 0 x 0 . 00 . 00 LJithout any exemptions, 2006 taxes will be 3, 982. 81 Short Legal LAKE BELLEUIEW ADD BLK i, LO TS 13,14,15 AND Description 16 LESS ST Building Information htttp://136.174.187.13/htbin/cgi-scr3?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r-.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p=21... 4/24/2007 ~ Pinellas County Property Ap~er Information: 21 29 15 47466 001 0~ Page 3 of 5 Pro erty and Land Use Code descriptions ~1 1 29 / 15 / 4400 / 00.1 1 0130 :01 24-Apr-2007 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 17:25:03 Commercial Card 01 of i Improvement Type: Retail w/Apts Above Property Address: 921 LAKEVIEW RD Prop Use: 327 Land Use: 12 St r uc~ ur a1 E 1 ~msn~ s Foundation Sp readlMono Footing Floor System Slab on Grade Exterior Wall Face Brick Height Factor 0 Party Wall Hone Structural Frame Wood Beam 8c Calumn Roof Frame Gable & Hip Roof Cover Composition Shingle Cabinet & Mill Average Floor Finish Carpet Combination Interior Finish Drywall Total Units 0 Heating & Air Heating&Cooling Pckg Fixtures 6 Bath Tile Hone Electric Average Shape Factor Rectangle Quality Average Year Built 1,925 Effective Age 30 Other Depreciation 0 Function Depreciation 0 Economic Depreciation 0 Sub Arsas Description Factor Area Description Factor Area 1} Base Area 1.00 2,000 7) .00 0 2} Apartment i. 10 910 8} .00 0 3} .00 0 9} .OD 0 a} . 00 o so} . 00 0 5} . aD o 11} . 00 0 ~} . o0 o rz} . 00 0 C omm~ r c i a1 E x t r a F a a-t ur s s Description Dimensions Price Units Value RCD Year 1) FIRESPRIHIC 2000 2. 00 2, 000 4, 000 3, 200 i, 994 2} .00 0 0 0 D 3} .00 0 0 0 0 q) .00 0 0 0 D 5} . 00 0 0 0 0 6} .00 0 0 0 0 TOTAL RECORD VALUE: 3,200 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) http://136.174.187.13/htbin/cgi-scr3?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p=21... 4/24/2007 a rs CEMETERY C L i~ tJ"t 3!fS} f, ~;, ~rti~ ~, . ~ ~;,~~ t-~~ i r i e ~ ~r~S C_ r~.x, 'r '~ ~?~~~ ~~ ~I~ ~ '~~~ aEMSTSE`~~f ~ ~' ~C7 DEhAPSE'~t 931 L~ ~~~1Eh,~9P5 ~~Y ST DEf*~T EY ~C71 ST ~t ~ Et ~P ~ E~1 ~r~~ ~~ ~~ Pinellas County Property App~er Information: 21 29 15 47466 001 0~ 1/8 Mile Aerial Photograph (2002) ~~ r~ 41! Page 4 of 5 90! t~Ckt~t 9 ~~: ~1 ~ 1 4 C'S ~ ~ `~I r c n'sr 4 , ~T . ~ ,. ~ 5T ee~ ~~~ ~~T' ~: ~ ~~ G. L .tt"I ~'~4 ' ~C)~ 912 Ji~+ I ~L L~. ,RC11E E~ t[ '~D E , RDI 'rr R I F ~~ L .~;1 I ~^ I I ~ ~~I X25 ~~~~ 911 r~t~lE~V L.4KR'~IE't+~ L,~ Pd ~~Ct~ '171 LAKE1~'IEUV RD f http://136.174.187.13/htbin/cgi-scr3?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p=21... 4/24/2007 ,~ Pinekllas County Property Aper Information: 21 29 15 47466 001 0~ .>~ti Pinellas County Property Appraiser Y ~ ` ~ ,, `- ,~ Parcel Information f ~ ~~ - %''; Back to Search. Page An explanation of this screen Page 5 of 5 http://136.174.187.13/htbin/cgi-scr3?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p=21... 4/24/2007 `'~ - - Pinellas County Property App~er Information: 21 29 15 47466 001 0~ Page 2 of 5 ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~~~~~i ! ~~~ I ~~~~ 2d-Apr-2007 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 17:25:36 Ownership Information Non-Residential Property Address, Use, and Sales SEXTON ENTERPRISES INC OBK: 14971 OPG: 1631 2023 WINDING OAKS DR PALM HARBOR FL 34683-6653 EVRC: Non-EVAC Comparable sales value as Prop Addr: 901 LAK EUIEW RD of Jan 1, 2006, based on Census Tract: 258.00 sales from 2004 - 2005: 0 Sale Date OR Book/Page Price {Qual/UnQ) Vac/Imp Plat Information 3 12,006 14,971J1,631 268,000 {Q} I 1925: Book 009 Pgs 141- 0 10 0/ 0 0 { } 0000; Book Pgs - 0 10 0I 0 0 { } 0000: Book Pgs - 0 10 O1 0 0 { } 2006 Value EXEMPTIONS Just{Market: 210,000 Homestead: HO Ownership ~ .000 Govt Exem; NO Use ~: .000 AssessedlCap: 210,000 Institutional Exem: NO Tax Exempt ~: .000 Historic Exem: 0 Taxable: 210,000 Agricultural: 0 2006 Tax Information District: CW Seawall: Frontage: Clearwater View: 06 Millage; 21.7640 Land Size Unit Land Land Land Front x Depth Price Units Meth 06 Taxes: 4,570. d4 1} 145 x 100 14.00 15, 019. 32 S Special Tax .00 2} 0 x 0 .00 .00 3} 0 x 0 .00 .00 lJithout the Save-Dur-Homes 4} 0 x 0 .00 .00 cap, 2006 taxes will be 5} 0 x 0 .00 .00 4, 570. dd 6} 0 x 4 . 00 . 00 LJithout any exemptions, 2006 taxes will be ; d, 570.44 Short Legal LAKE BE.LLEVIEW ADD BLK i, LO TS 17 TO 22 Description LESS ST Building Information http://136.174.187.13/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p=2... 4/24/2007 Pif~llas County Property Ap~er Information: 21 29 15 47466 001 0~ Page 3 of 5 ~ 1 ~ 2~ I 15 / 4 X400 1 001 ~ 0170 : 01 ?4-Apr-?007 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 17:?5:36 Commercial Card 01 of i Improvement Type: Warehouse Property Address: 901 LAKEUIEW RD Prop Use: 343 Land Use: 27 Structural E1~m~nts Foundation Continuous Footing Floor System Slab on Grade Exterior gall Concrete Block Height Factor 0 Party LJall Hone Structural Frame Masonry Pillar&Steel Roof Frame Flat Roof Cover Built Up/Composition Cabinet & Mill Hone Floor Finish Concrete Finish Interior Finish Hone Total Units 0 Heating & Air Hone Fixtures ? Bath Tile Hone Electric Average Shape Factor Rectangle Quality Average Year Built 1,956 Effective Age 30 Other Depreciation 0 Function Depreciation 0 Economic Depreciation 0 Sub Aromas Description Factor Area Description Factor Area 1} Base Area i. 00 2, 048 7} . 00 0 2} .00 0 8} .00 0 3} .00 0 9} . 00 0 4} .00 0 10} . 00 0 5} .00 0 11} .00 0 6} .00 0 12} .00 0 Corruncrcial Extra Fcaturss Description Dimensions Price Units Value RCD Year 1} ASPHALT 1400 1.75 1,400 ?,450 2,450 1,956 2} FENCE 8.00 56 450 330 1,997 3} .00 0 0 0 0 4} .00 0 0 0 0 5} .00 0 0 0 0 6} .00 0 0 0 0 TOTRL RECORD VALUE: ?,780 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) o®®a http://136.174.187.13/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p=2... 4/24/2007 • Piri~:•llas County Property App~er Information: 21 29 15 47466 001 0~ 4~ CEMETERY h~ 5~ L LAI R~IEV+~ 1(~~Ji' C~ CU ~~~ ~~ 37._j ~ ~,t~ s~~ ~~~ ~~~ D Ef~~~~ E ~~` Sao}*~~~wl ~ ,fr 1/8 Mile Aerial Photograph (2002) Page 4 of 5 ~~ ~- I I ~IEV~ L~.rE~V~IE'~ L~. ~RC1 RC~~ ~~~ http://136.174.187.13/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p=2... 4/24/2007 PinFellas County Property Ap~er Information: 21 29 15 47466 001 0~ Page 5 of 5 Pinellas County Property Appraiser Parcel Information http://136.174.187.13/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p=2... 4/24/2007