Loading...
FLD2005-11111 (2)FLD2005-11111 1001 S FT HARRISON AVE LITTLE BIG MARKET PLANNER OF RECORD; WW ATLAS # 295B ZONING: C LAND USE: CG RECEIVED: 11/30/2005 INCOMPLETE: COMPLETE: MAPS PHOTOS STAFF REPORT: DRC: CDB: CLW CoverSheet Planning Department t ? 1l}0 South Myrtle Avenue ~~~ ~~ Clearwater; Florida 33756 Telephone:727-562-4567 ••`~; Fax:727-562-4865 O SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION ^ SUBMIT 14 COPSES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION including 1}collated, 2) stapled and 3) folded sets of site plans ^ SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE ~ _ , ~. * NOTE: ~5 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED, {APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS} QEL O / X005 FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Carnprehensive Infi11 Project (Revised 12/30/2004) p~IVNiNG Dl:pgK7)v~ENt CITY O~ CLEARWATER --PLEASE TYPE DR PRINT•-- A. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWN1=R AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Cade Section 4-202.A) APPLICANT NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: __~ PHONE NUMBER: ~~~~~~~~~ - _~ FAX NUMBER: PROPERTY OWNERS}: AGENT NAME: MAILING ADDRE (Must include ALL owners CASE #: ~--- -- _------------ DATE RECEIVED: ___ ____ RECEIVED BY {staff initials): _______~ ATLAS PAGE #: _~___~___~___-_ ZONING DISTRECT: ___~____________ LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: _______ SURROUNDING USES OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES: NORTH: ____-_-__-___-__ SOUTH: ---------------------- WEST: _-___- _ EAST: -- ~~G,_ rZ-~1 , on the deed -provide original signature(s) on page 6} PHONE NUMBER: ~~~~~ _~.~. FAX NUMBER: __(~2~~~1~ "_, ~3~ _-___-_- ,~~~~, CELL NUMBER; ~~-~_~~~?~=_d---_ E-MAIL ADDRESS: ~L~~~Q_~"_L~!~Q ° ~°~i ` ~ B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATI~ONnt:~(~Code Section 4-202.A} STREET ADDRESS of subject site:~(~~ 11~.1.~_SS~-_--___-__---__----..---._.-_-- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: _-;fie-~ _~L1-'-^~~ .~..LLdL_lL__ f (if not 3is d ere, I as~e qot ttia to anon of this ocument i the sub ittal)-J ~(~~ PARCEL NUMBER: ~! -~~~'!~U-~ a~~~. ~~~~~~~~~~=~-t~~~~d.~..Q©~ PARCEL SIZE: __ ~ • r~C r~~a. ~ C'~~1~~~~ -..._-- -------- ----- {acres, square feet) {{~~ ~,,~1 PROPOSED USE{S) AND SIZE{S): 2~r~e l ~ 11~~~1~5~,_~}~~_~~ t=_~~1C{ ~~3C~-_-_______- (number of dwelling units, otel rooms or square footage of nonresidential use) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST{S): -- ~ ~.~~Ll~LL1_L.a..----------...----.._-----.------ ----- Attach sheets and be specifie when identifying the request (include all requested code deviations; e.g. reduction in required number of parking spaces, specific use, etc.) ~~~1~~ Page 1 of 7 -Flexible Development Comprehensive 9nfi11 Application 2Q05- City of Clearwater b' DOES THiS APPLICATION INVOLVE THir TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR}, A PREV~FJSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED {CERTIFIED) SITE PLANT YES ___ NO ____ (if yes; attach a copy of the applicable documents) C. PROIOF OF OWNERSHIP: (Code Section 4.202.A.5} I~UBMIT A COPY OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY, DEED TO THE PROPERTY OR SIGN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING OWNERSHIP (see page 6} D". /WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Cade Section 3-913.A) q/ 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 wiEl be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. I,, 1I _, ,~ _- ~~~~°J-W~-_~__ ~---- --- ----- ------- 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. r,, , f,, ~~_~ -~r~~~~~°--- ----- ------------•------- 3. -- The proposed development wit] not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. ORIGINAL ------------ ------------- -- i2~GEIVE~ -_ 4. NOV 3 0 2005 The proposed development is des~i-gn~ed~ "te minimize traffic congestion. -£-F~IF#~-~6~~-- 5. _- The proposed development is consist~en~t'w~,ith~ t~h~e,~c~om unity character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. ~~ J~1~! ~_LL/_~ L~ ~--------- ----------- ------- 6. --.~ The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. C,~ / ~...~-----~~~~~` ~~.J--~-._--.~______-_.._._ 1. ~ Provide complete responses to the ten (10) COMPREHENS[VE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CRITERIA (as applicable) -Explain how each criteria is achieved in detail: The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use, intensity and development standards. L - - - ~~~-~~r.1-._~-- --- -- - --- ---------- Page 2 of 7 -Flexible Development Comprehensive Infiil Application 2605- City of Clearwater 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project or residential infill project will not reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. (Include the existing value of the site and the proposed value of the site with the improvements.) ~, ,p r r 3. The uses within the comprehensive infll redevelopment project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater. r.. r _ , A 4. The, uses or mix of use within the comprehensive infill rgdevelopment project are compatible with adjacent land uses. 5. Suitable sites for development or redevelopment of the uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are not otherwise available in the City of Clearwater. 6. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. __.___. _~r~__~- __-- --------____-- 7. The design of the proposed comprehensive int-ill redevelopment project creates a form and function that enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. CPP ~cti~b;r~ 8. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed far development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. - -~~._~~__.__.W~- ----- 9. Adequate off-street parking in the Immediate vicinity according to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of parcel proposed for development. 1 b. The design of all buildings complies with the Tourist District or Downtown District design guidelines in Division 5 of Article 3 (as applicable). Use separate sheets as necessary. QRIGINAL NQV 3 pIgNNING DEPARTMENT CITY OE GLEARWATER Page 3 of 7 -Flexible Development Comprehensive infill Application 2605- City of Clearwater E. STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Crite Manual and 4-202.A.21 } A STORMWATER NARRATIVE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH ALL APPLICATIONS. All applications that invol addition or modification of impervious surface, including buildings, must include a stormwater plan that demonstrates compliance with t City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual. A reduction in impervious surface area does not qualify as an exemption this requirement. If a pion is nok required; the narrative shall provide an explanation as to why the site is exempt. At a minimum, the STORMWATER PLAN shall include the following: Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines; _ Proposed grading including finished floor elevations of all structures; All adjacentstreets and municipal storm systems; ' Proposed stormwater detentionlretention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; A narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including ail calculations and data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the ' manual. / Signature and seal of FEorida Registered Professional Engineer on all plans and calculations. I~" 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 f ~ knowledgem ni of stormwater plan requirements (Applicant must initial one of the fallowing): __ 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 provided. CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN TFIE REQUIREMENT FOR A STORMWATER PLAN AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST B>E 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} ® 51GNED AND SEALED SURVEY {including legal description of property) -One original and 14 copies; J Ct 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; ~OCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY; PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (ie. Reduce number of spaces). Prior to the submittal of this application, the methodology of such study shall be approved by the Community Development Coordinator and shall 4~. be in'accordance with accepted traffic engineering principles. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether ar not t~~ deviations to the parking standards are approved; 4Y GRADING PLAN, as applicable; PRELIMINARY PLAT, as required (Note: Building permits will not be issued until evidence of recording a final plat is provided); ~' COPY OF RECORDED PLAT, as applicable; G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A) SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36°): ©RIGINAL All dimensions; North arrow; ' RECEIVED Engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet), and date prepared; Location map; Index sheet referencing individual sheets included in package; At^1/ 9 n ~nQ~ t`ilJ Y J V U Footprint and size of all EXISTING buildings and structures; Footprint and size of all PROPOSED buildings and structures; PLANNING DEPAF2TMEN1' All required setbacks; All existing and proposed points of access; CITY OF CLEgRWATER Atl 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 alt street rights-of-way within and adjacent to the site; Panes 4 of 7 - FleYihle Develnnment Cmm~rehensive Infill Aoolication 2005- Citv of Clearwater 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; Location of all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment and all required screening {per Section 3-241{D)(i) and Index#701}; Location of all landscape material; Location of all onsite and offsite storm-water mono ement facilities; /~• Location of all outdoor lighting fixtures; and QYO~O~ ~' ~ ~' Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks. 51TE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in writtenltabular form: Land area in square feet and acres; Number of EXISTING dwelling units; Number of PROPOSED dwelling units; Gross floor area devoted to each use; Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabularfarm with the number of required spaces; Total paved area, including all paved parking spaces and driveways, expressed in square feet and percentage of the paved vehicular area; Size and species of all 9andscape material; Official records book and page numbers of all existing utility easement; Building and structure heights; Impermeable surface ratio (LS.R.); and Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses. REDUCED SITE PLAN io scale ($'/ X 11}and color rendering if possible; FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the follow[ng additional informakion on site plan: One-foot contours or spot elevations on site; Offsite elevations if required to evaluate the proposed stormwater management #or the parcel; All open space areas; Location of all earth ar water retaining walls and earth berms; Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned); Streets and drives (dimensioned); Building and structural setbacks (dimensioned); Structural overhangs; Tree Inventory; prepared by a "certified arborist", of all frees 8" DBH ar greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and condition of such trees. H. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-11t)2.A) RECENED LANDSCAPE PLAN: NOU r} O ~f1~~ All existing and proposed structures; 'Y 9 J U Names of abutting streets; Drainage and retention areas including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations; PLANNIIJC DEPARTMENT Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscape buffers; sight visibility triangles; CITY OF CLEARWATER Delineation and dlmensions of all parking areas including landscaping islands and curbing; Proposed and required parking spaces; Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and locations, including driplines (as indicated on required tree survey); Plant schedule with a key {symbol or label) indicating the size, description, specifications and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names; Location, size, and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant schedule; Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants including instructions, soil mixes, backfilling, mulching and protective measures; Interior landscaping areas hatched andlor shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressing in both square feet and . percentage covered; Conditions of a previous development approval (e.g. conditions imposed by the Community Development Board); Irrigation notes. REDUCED LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale ($ % X 11) (color rendering if possible); IRRIGATION PLAN (required far level two and three approval); COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, as applicable. Landscape associated with the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall exceed minimum Code requirements to offset the areas where minimum Code will not be met. Page 5 of 7 -Flexible Development Comprehensive Infill Application 2t)05- City of Clearwater 1. BUILDING ELEVATION PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A.23) Required in the event the application includes a development where design standards are in issue (e.g. Tourist and Downtown Districts) or as part - / of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project or a Residential infll Project. V t'~BUILDWG ELEVATION DRAWINGS -all sides of all buildings including height dimensions, colors and materials; 1 REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATIONS -four sides of building with colors and materials to scale {t3 '/ X 11) {black and white and color rendering, if passible) as required. J. SIGNAGE: (Division 19. SIGNS 1 Section 3-1806) , ~~ All EXISTING r estanding and attached signs; Provide photographs and dimensions (area, heighi, etc.),. indicate whether they will be removed or to remain. ~~~-- / All PROPOSED freestanding and attached signs; Provide details including location,s,size, hei h~, colors, materials and drawing; freestanding signs shall include the street address (numerals) Jt/b ~ ~yv~OCSS~ oQ eay -fye. ~ ~ '''t y; -Comprehensive Sign Program application, as applicable (separate application and fee required}, PTA ~teduced signage proposal (8 %: X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application. K, TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4-202.A.13 and 4-801.C) N~ Include if required by the Traffic Operations Manager or his/her designee or if the proposed development: Will degrade the acceptable level of service for any roadway as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. Will generate 100 or more new vehicle directional trips per hour andlor 1000 or more new vehicle trips per day. Will affect a nearby roadway segment andlor 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 Traffic Operations Manager and the Planning Department's bevelopment Review Manager or their designee (727-562-4750) Refer to Section 4-801 C of the Community Development Code for exceptions to this requirement. J~ Acknowledgement of traffic impact study requirements (Applicant must initial one of fhe following): ', , Traffic Impact Study is included. The study must include a summary table of pre- and past-development levels of service for al[ roadway legs and each turning movement at all intersections identified in the Scoping Meeting. Traffid Impact Study is not required. CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVI>=W RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562-4750. L. SIGNATURE: t, the u dersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this ap tic on are true and accurate a best of my knowledge and au~or City represen o visit and photograph the property de ri in this anon. of property owner or representative "'~"~"`^` RI`CEIVED STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS io_ and subscribed before me this ~~~_ day of ~~~ ~ ~/ A.©, /2l)/~S io me andlor by -. ~_~ f./ is personalEy known has produced _____ ___~_T_ ______ as i e tifcation.~v Not ry public, My commission expires: ~~ j ~ . Q env ~ 0 ..ar iN .. +4'~ ~ I]OREEN A. WiLLIAMS PLANNING DERARTMENT ~ ~` MY COMMISSION ~ DD tssao2 ~~~ ~~~ ~~oF~~ EXPIRES: October t4, 2D08 Page 6 of 7 -Flex oi~~i Helve Infill Application 200 tL~oaNrvvrat~rxaysarv;~g~,~q,I~• 11/04/2005 11:55 7274468036 NDRTHSIDE ENG SVGS PAGE 04/85 CITX QF CIJEA~t1lV'.A AFFIDAVIT' TO AUTHORIZE AGENT E,LANNING & fIEVELQPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATION MUNICIPAL. SEttVICES BUILDING, 1,>Jp SQUTH MYfr,TLE AVENUE, 2"" fLppR Pl-IONE (727)-SG2-~SG7 F,~X (727) 552-9578 ~ll W!t i (Name of all property owners) t. That (I amlwe are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property: (Nature ot'revuesty 3. That the undersigned (haslhave) appointed and {does/do) appoint ~~~@ ev inis<tnafry egenl(sy to naoeeeary 4. That this affidavit has been executed to induce thB City of Ciearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; 5, That (hwe), the undersigned authority, hereby cetii that the force©ing is true a d correct. L ~"" r Owner • v' PraDti<t1r Owner STAVE OF fL~fpq, COLN7Y pF PINELLAS 8 tore a the unders' nod. an officer duly commissioned by the lawslQqi the State of Florida, on thi9 day Of . ~,~ personally eppearod „~u I)/ ~i V~P Il0 _ who having t~esn rlrst tlulp sworn deposes eras aay6 th9t hershe fully undr'ratends the contents of the affidavit that helshe signed. ?q......~:= -~~'~ `~•• MARYZARVACA5~ '": * MY C4MMISSIt`N # bD 141426 ~i1y Commission Expires: '~,F.,,,.~ FXPIAES: August 12, 2406 ~•.,~~„. Banded'thruMoraryPublicUnderwrirers g~l~-CSC S eppliCatlon Form~lQ9v91oPrnCflt E9view/Affidavit ro Autho[ite Agent ORIGINAL RECi:NED NOV 3 0 1005 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 2. That this property aonstituies the property for which a request fora: N N FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Comprehensive Inf 11 Redevelopment Proiect 1001 South Ft. Harrisan NES Project # 564 r J Description of Request: To construct fiv tory mixed use development containing twenty-seven (27} attached dwelling units and office uses with reductions to the front (west -along Ft. Harrison) setback from 25' to 10' (to building}, (north along Magnolia} from 25' to 10.3' (to building) and from 25' to 0' (to trash staging area) and from 25' to 20' (to pavement) and a reduction to side (south) setback from L O' to 5' (to pavement}. General Applicable Standards (Section 3-913(A) ; 1. The proposed development will be harmonious with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of the adjacent properties as the area is comprised of various degrees of development including a new multi-story residential development to the north which provides little setback along the property Lines, a vast paved parking lot of Mortara Plant Hospital directly to the east and the $ay Area Women's Center to the south. The proposed design will provide encouraged pedestrian level storefronts with the upper residential levels stepped back a bit from the ground level to lessen any appearance of mass or bulk 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development or, use of the adjacent land and buildings but will actually further promote investment and development in addition to increasin the values of the surrounding land. The current assessed value of th 1 an is $531,000 with a projected. value of $5,000,000 upon completed of the project. 3. No health or safety issues will arise from this proposed residential mixed use development. The proposed officefresidential use will not create any negative effects on the surrounding properties; the development of this vacant land will further create a more pedestrian friendly environment with its activity creating a higher safety factor than the existing conditions. 4. With the strong residential nature of the project together with the proposed office use, na negative traffic impacts are anticipated. Both uses generate a lower number of daily trips then other permissible uses within the Commercial district. 5. The proposed development and use is consistent with the desires for the area, will blend beautifully with the community character and will provide further enhancement and support to the downtown environment by providing additional residential living for the area. 6. Na adverse impacts or effects upon the adjacent properties will be realized as the residentiaUoffice use is minimal in intensity, trips and hours of operation. ORIGINAL RECEIVED NOV 3 0 200 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEAI~WATER N M Comprehensive Infiil Redevelopment Project Criteria 1. Effective street level pedestrian environments call for building development closer to the street and sidewalk to promote a more pedestrian friendly environment. The requested deviations will aide in accomplishing a more effective pedestrian level facade. 2. The proposed development will have a positive effect on the surrounding property values by providing and promoting further investment in this area. The current assessed value of the property is $531,000 with a projected value of $5,000,000 upon completion. 3. The mixed use development consisting of residential and office uses are permissible within the City of Clearwater. 4. The adjacent and surrounding land uses are comprised of primarily residential and office uses, therefore the proposed development is completely compatible with the adjacent land uses. 5. The proposed development will provide many improvements to the immediate vicinity such as; providing a beautiful new building designed with touches of historical details found on the old market including: striped canopies and windows similaz to those found previously on site. The installation of new landscaping which is tolerant to the Florida environment, providing appropriate site drainage, and the development of a currently undesirable vacant property which provides sufficient and effective parking will provide further benefit to the vicinity. 6. The design of the building and site further promotes a continuation of a more pedestrian friendly environment; the proposed. use will bolster the work and live attitude of the downtown area and will assist in providing additional support to the surrounding businesses. Pazking will be provided primarily within the footprint of the building to additionally enhance the form and function of the site. 7~. The proposed setbacks of the project will provide a more pedestrian friendly environment by bring the building up to the sidewalk, larger storefront windows and canopies will further enhance the streetscape. No deviations to the lot width, height, on-site parking are being requested through this application. 8. No deviations are being request to the required parking spaces for this development application as the proposed parking meets the requirements of the shared pazking diagram within the Land Development Regulations. Please see the attached Shared Parking Analysis. ORIGINAL- RECENED Gov ~o aoo5 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 2 D RECEIVED NOV 3 0 ZU05 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Mixed. Use Calculation for 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue 1.1 /29/05 Property is zoned Commercial District (maximum FAR = 0.55 and maximum density = 24 du/acre in CG land use) and Office District (maximum FAR = 0.50 and maximum density =15 du/acre in R/OG land use) Project area ................................................. . .......................55,295 sf 2. Land. area zoned Commercial District ........................... . ............49,227 sf 3. Permitted FAR in Commercial District .................................. ~..... , .0.55 4. Floor area permitted in Commercial District .................................27,074 sf 5. Land area. zoned. Office District ....................................................6,018 sf 6. Permitted FAR. in Office District ...................................................O,SO 8. Permitted FAR in Commercial District ........................................ 27,074 sf 9. Floor area praposed .........................:.....................................- 3226,sf 10. Subtract #9 from #8 (floor area not used in C District ........................23,84$ sf i 1. Land area not used in C District (#10 divided by #6) .......................=47,696 sf i2. Land. area available in C District for attached dwellings ......................47,696 sf 13. Divide by square footage in an acre ...........................................~- 43,560 sf 14. Lot acreage available for att. dw. in. C District ((#i2 _ #13) .................1.09 acre 15. Multiply lot acreage (#14) .........................................................1.09 acre 16. By maximum density in CG land use ........................................x 24 du/acre 17. Number of dwelling units (du) available in C District ......................26 du 18. Land area in Office District ........................................................6,018 sf 19. Divide by square footage in an acre.......... ...- 43,560 sf 20. Lot acreage in Office District ....................................................0.138 acre 21. Multiply lot acreage (#20) ................... , ....................................0.138 acre 22. By maximum density in lt/OG land use ....................................x 15 du/acre 23. Number of dwelling units (du) available in Office District ..................2.07 du 24. Number of dwelling units available in C District ............. . ..................26 du. 25. Number of dwelling units available in Office District ........................2 du 26. Total number of dwelling units permitted on overall property (add #17 plus #23) ..................................................................28 du 27. Proposed Number of dwelling units .............. . ................ . .............27 du Total maximum permissible on overall property is 3,22G GFA office plus 28 dwelling units. 11/64/2605 11:55 72744t~8036 ~ NOR~HSIDE ENG SVCS ~ PAGE 65/05 v LET'T`!E~ Wit= AUTH®d~lZATI~N This letter will serve as authorization for Housh Ghovaee (agent Narne) with Northsldir; Engheerlnp S~nrlces, Inle, to act as an agent for trroperty Vwner's lvamej And to execute any and all documents related to securing permits and approvals for the construction on the property generally located at ORIGINAL RECENED Nov 3 0 2ao~ ptp~NNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CL'EARWATER PINEk_LAS County, Skate of FLQRIDA. Signature of Property Owner Address of Rraperty Ow er ~QrtNa~i(', ~C ~_~ ~ ~7 City/StatelZip Code Fu~di ~i1~fJ Print Name of Property gwner Title y®~r~ r ? ~ss$ elep one Nt~mbe Slate o The foregoing instrument was ackno a before me this _ day County of of 1'lfi 1 ~ 2p~by `~U~ Ir I/~'l I~ who ids p1_e~rsa~nalty known tom r who has produced as idenfificatlon and who did {diC not) take an oath, Notary Public ~~a 4?~ {SEAL ABQYE) ~~ '~~~~ (Name of Notary Typed, Printed or Stamped) ' _ 1 O Planning and Development Services ~~ ~ 'f 00 South Myrtle Avenue ~ ~, ~ Clearwater, Florida 33756 Telephone: 727-562-4567 U ~~~,~ ~ Fax: 727-582-4576 ORIGINAL ^ SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED ANO No~raraizen pppLICATION RECFslrpD CO SUBMIT 1 COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION including folde~~ ~I ~' 1~~5 \+ a #: DAVE RECEIVED: REGEIVED BY (staff initials: ATLAS PAGE #: ZONING DISTRICT: LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: ZONING BLAND USE CLASSIFICATION OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES; NOrtTH: / SOUTH: / WEST: / EAST: ~~-~`11VI~IJVV Vi.~~"1i\,:r?DIY! CIN OF CLEAR4{/ATER COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PR+DGRAM REQUIREMENTS (Revised 9Ai9l2001) MMp~i IW D. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section a-1001) APPLICANT NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: (~2'~~ ~~~ ~!r _] 2--2. FAX NUMBER: /r,"~'/ ~] PROPERTY OWNER(Sy: AGENT NAME: (Cool MAILING ADDRESS: (Must include ALL PHONE NUMBER: 27 _.L_~_~ _~~~~ FAX NUMBER: ~ a. ~,1 ~~,f t0 ~ ~a.~ ~ The landscaping requirements of Article 3 Division 12 may be waived or modified as a part of a Leve! One or Level Two Approval, as the case may be, !f the application for development approval includes a Comprehensive Landscape Prdgram, which satisfies the following criteria. The use of landscape plans; sections/elevations, renderings and perspectives may be necessary as supplementary information in addition to the information provided on this worksheet: 7. 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. ~~-~ ~x~ i' ~ ~~~ ~ ~ OR ~~ b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall be demonstrably more attrac#ive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards. 2. Lighting. Any lighting proposed as a part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program is actomatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. ~~ ~~~-abi ~- ~ 3. Community Character. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will enhance the community character of the City of CEearwater. ' 4. Property Values. The landsc~`'' '°fieatment proposed in the Comprehensi~ indscape Program will have a beneficial impact on the value of the property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. n f r 5. Special Area or Scenic Corridor Plan. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. ~~ ~ Please return checklist for review and verification. 6. That (I/we), the undersigned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is Owner Owner STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Before me the undersigned, an officer duly commis: on~~ / personally appeared Deposes and says that helshe fully understands the My Commission Expires; ~ ~ r ~1y~ S: application forms/development review/comprehensive landscape program application.doc t~~~~,~: 3 ref w Comprehensive Landscape Program Requirements 1001. S. Ft. Harrison Ave - NES #564 Request: A reduction to the landscape buffer along S. Ft. Harrison Avenue from 15' to 10' and from 10' to S' along the south property line. 1. Architectural Theme A: The landscape is in concert with the local development maximizing landscape treatment and enhancing architectural themes. B: The landscape treatment has been maximized on the property without jeopardizing drainage patterns, underground or overhead utilities, and the function of the building. 2. No outdoor lighting proposed at this time, any lighting fixtures proposed at a later date will be controlled to be respectful of neighboring properties 3. Landscape treatment is designed to give years of benefits without the disruption of building function, drainage and utilities. 4. The landscape treatment will benefit value by providing aesthetically pleasing views while providing climate control for building and parking areas. S. N/A Shared Parking Analysis 1001 S. Ft Harrison Ave SECTION 3-1405 WEEKDAY WEEKEND USEIOCCUPANCY TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED NIGHT MIDNIGHT 6 A.M. - DAY 9 A.M. 4 P.M. EVENING 6 P.M. MIDNIGHT DAY 9 A.M. 4 P.M. EVENINGS 6 P.M. MIDNIGHT RESIDENTIAL Based on 27du x 1.5 s aces 41 41 25 37 33 37 OFFICE Based on 3,226 sf X 4 s aces 13 1 13 2 2 1 TOTAL ~ : 42 ; '- 38 ~ 39 35 38 oR~~~~ ~~~F~Q 1~'p~ 3 Q ?005 p~'NING CI N OF C ~ ~~ ~~rNT R ;`. ,' i i E i .! ~~ i Z j O h i Q Z 0 ti~1dM21H31~ ~O ALIT 1N3W121`dd~a 9NINNffld ~ ~ 50OZ 0 ~ ro~~! I II -- -- -- -- -= -- -- --- -- -- -- -- _-..~~ _ s __~_l Q3AI3~32J s as•51'zl~ w ALLEN (P1 a2.94` 1dN191210 M A G N O L I A D R I V E (F) _~,__.~_._~a---~--- --~- --~--~'~~""~M s~ mvmxa.r: ;rs ~ I „~.s ps... acva _ ~ ., ~ _ a..._._, .. ~ _ ~ _ _.___. _ ~. _, _.~.. _ .____ _ .~.,r. _ .-_.... _._.._ _ __.__ _ .__.._ _._____ _ ~. [a ~ - s9.GS -.._.. ! is tf3'~1dtf: - -_ - ,! ~ - t ~d, •a» --_•{ EX F&u'rhilE M - _.. Gt FRC~§3i ; } . _... avae 1E 89.51 `21~ E *~ 334.60' ~r.w~ i _ (mod ~A ~ a--•._ .............1 ~~,. rc ~• ~: ~ f ,, t I I ,~ I ~, _~yFOt i O I 1r) CONDOMINIUM I ~~- ~`~? ~ ~. „~„~~ ~ ~ --' m'~ I rs' u• se• 0 GROUND FLOOR ~ ~~ I 'rNUr :~ ~ 5 ~ FIN. FL. 36.5 ~ ~,.x ~ rs• o• ,Y,. « ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ OFFICES ~ ® ~ - a, ~ ~ { 3,226 SF ,, a ~` °n° j FIN. FL. 36.5 ~° ;~' ~ ~1 ~ ~~ ~ 9 ' 1 xo. i I - J # ~ 3~ ~ rC M' ~' I ~ 1~ iV ~ b - ~ ~ o I rp. ~~ e .rF ~ I ~ '~ ~ ~ ~i ~ I srrcau~ 6 ~ s.- -- ~---- --- --~--- ~ _ I ~ 1 !~ _ _ _ t ® ~ . ~._ W '- _ 5 69.51 `21 W ~ '"~......__......,... .,_.06.43' .~~_.._....._..._.. ~ ~ ~~ ` r~ .' ,,~'~' ` a ~ ~ ~ t. ~~ . "~ I ~ rae• ~ oM ~ • {'~1..~ ~ S 89'51'21` W ~ 135.00' ~C-~ V1 ,..^n - ~-- aa~,,s ~~~ ui v ~5 ti 6 d Q' m ~I sj ~~ G~ ~ r~ ~ ~~ O ~' N~ ~\ ~NI QOl 2j ~[7 ~ z~~ G ~~ v/~l N ~I Q~ I ~_ V-rI11 E~1' ~~ W~tf ~~ II Y ~ fQ7~~ ~i Cy _~ ~ UI O~ ~I 0 U 0 ~~ ~. N i Rl +L W Q _ C~ CV ~ ~ a.. 2 %1 L ~.J t t~ ~'~ . Q gu -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 5 99'3,~2,- ALLEN (P1 MAGNOLIA DRIVE (F) ~~ ~~~ a . sar [My6r ~d er a - xo Ewa-asn NO O O n N ~.n r w t Gf-JERALlANDSCAPE NOTES ~ I- N/rrer~irrlrliN.rr.drrrryrrrr~rr Irrrlr +rrA. irdrrrr` ~ Plant Matenal5 Schedule a Nrrrrmr Pdfrrda)In a Nrrrwwwrye..rrrrr, r+wrlrradreaeelr. a rrwrlmelrrt rrr.....rd,~~rr w s e ly Grrgr Cade GsrmlNrlr Cmrm Mre '~Peefm'a '.,8ee.d J r drq~rra trr,l..rrrryrP G Nrw.rrWrYll.o.lY~Orr~ASOgYiY.B 81 QJ fA'rleble rlr SreGw 7QI..YabP a0 ae. erred + >b Grw Cwdrr ~, Mer aerw irdrr a ei. W Ir. a 8M ee*• so oa ~ dws.wdrilYr.srrrrL,, r. Nrwrrr ~I.If(r Y.YU~bra /11NWw~ad rYYr~ r ~ y ~ .s r . ~ Isreu omre rb ledlyd led„Itr-e J2~.. leea ~ s. -~r~ ~ asp. te, ee.ty ~~ M~ - aC b W r r ir l r y o orrr rarrr er. a rrrw.drrrr.rr.rr...rr~.lre.wrr.. a Nyed p.rrrrTY.Irr.r+~rY~r..wMl[.IMldrs• g um a rr or.rW 7 ed.. W r. r dY~e. as oa C NW riwrn drwde.3SrMrN drtle T+r 10 d. e S IO ea ~ ~' lap N lylreetr wd. blbr Nrbn BAL. IOr IK.a lC qr. aQ ei. ~ ' rrwrer Id fr.drdrrer If_Y ~14tMr+rlwYe.~l. II_ arrwr ~wrirYrlir r rrr r drir r r rrr ~.rr~ wal rt qerr.~ed~r.w~rrrrrruvyl. O TN TlrllrpwwJrrrmWn Vr. Cededw.r Jeraa a9d. IT Okr IN rer. av o.C. w IOR Tpl TnN+dedwwwrewWCrn lnrarer Prf Cvlrrla Jrlw 1¢. 2r, d12gn 1!!x JI ~~ r .e.elwh ~ CrerYrrreadogrw1lrM rpreiryrrrlrr8. ~ li Wl rMUO WarleyYfr trr GT.errdm tYnr FO tL ~ J Ia r Orrwdery redOlrerrr ie rr/wrrlr r ~ t a w., vs,le.,..Tr..e er.w vwe,w aes., zr ns.zr.,.. >n oa Id C Lfl Yarr YAre: ~r hr 7 ed., aO a ae Sea f I+ N~,~r~ ~y ~~~~~•~,+ ~° .I~.rrY ~ . lerrrrs•.r~rr~r4 ~r~ yp y Y y rrdddrbrrdr.. I-rera'~0'm~+ear+rrrw llrrY $ l a 2 s ~ f€RTILIATION j~~ N ~ ~ Vt~ tree'~~Yarise arr~I.drNr R t MYr rrdrMdlrwr rr;sd OlSa errrerd Ivtr rrlle/~r.y~rl..rr.~+.~ ~r ~ ~ ~O ~°'+ @, rWe. .e ier r ir~er ia ~. //y~eeewti~ qen I Or Gllrr. 1 • II Wr ~ A E L F N ~ P aarorn l.elee.rlr - our rr... ,..I ...1.. f = elolt err ~ MACNOLlA, DaJYE(Ir) ~ ~ ete '681rb rllar~rdM. frw ~ ~ ti.. naa neu . .. e ~ rNirr~+a .rrw.rra.r.rad.deorwararTwa.rsr.>,. : . .~ . O - - - - - - ~.~*.,- I ~~ - ate. _ N ~ ~_ ~~ t ~,.~y r,l ,a4~~ ~ ~ di -. `_N ,[ g ~ ~ t ~S' ar' -':~ es~ `~ ~' x ~ ~. r - !~~ !'I IIQ lIfpId110N OCfAd ~ ` a b , ....~ ~. s ~~,~ ~ '~ ~ __ x ~`=~1 i ~ 1 a 4~ ~ y tom" `~- _' . a 1 t ~: lE «9 ~ tW- Q ~: Cam. ~ ~ y ~ ~. ; . ~ ~ .,~- ~rr~ .I~,,,r .R ~ ~; F ~y *aa.~ - w~~ ,~. - ~-..-. ~~ ~ ~, - m...:~o~. .f~-f' S ~ ~ ~ s '~°y~l,,~ ~y_ ~.,;,~-3rFlsw~~, r-+X~".e~ramr. ~ t~, .~ _p ~?> (J O F~ LLi' ~ ~ y~ ~ ~ W ~ 4.' y /"l Tla9: 11rVPI81GGir~K ~o~..,~ ~.i,~ /r F~L^4~ ~ m :r .1 ~ ~ A C ~~~ - ~ U D ~.. f a ~~,ea LANGBC.APB r A0.CNlTBCTS Nl r mer ~tlee r.mNl+nr Ice NnTSUI Scab 1 • r 20"-0d ~ _ ~ ORIGI~L RECEMED ~~~ ~ ~ X005 P~~ING DEPARTMENT ClT1f OF CLEAR1~f~TER ,., !, ~,~ ~;~ ~~ nF. ~`°t~s` ORfGI~ R~GEIVEp f~0~ 3 0 Z~QS ~~~i~~ oEP~r~nE~r G~ortc~J R~! ~ c k ~~ Accl~i~!'3 ~II~~S - ST~~to P ~ ~ Wa~c-~,~M ~ az97 C ~=~!'T'A-1~J'TE~ R cam' J,,,,; +~-~~ 8~ Ma ~Kc- f Calculations Using the Allost Used Trip Generation Rates from the 7th Edition ITE Trip Generation Report Description/iTE Code Units Expected Expected PM Peak PM In PM Out Units Dail Trips Trtps -Total Truck Terminal 03D ' Acres General Li ht Industrial 110 TSF Gross Mini Warehouse i51 TSF Gross ~~ Sin le Famil Homes 210 DU ~ A artments 220 DU 23.0 155 14 9 5 Mobile Home Park 240 DU Assisted Livin 254 DU Ali Suites Hotel 311 Rooms Motel 320 Rooms Marina 420 Berths HealthlFitness Club 493 TSF Grass Church 560 TSF Gross Da care Censer 565 TSF Gross General Office 710 (Equation) TSF Gross General Office 710 Rate TSF Gross 2.1 23 3 1 3 Medical Dental Office 720 TSF Gross Buildin MaterialslLumber 812 TSF Gross Hardware/Paint Store 816 TSF Grass Nursery (Garden Center) 817 TSF Gross Not Available Not Available Shoppln Center 620 (equation) TSF Gross Lunch Hour Traffic Sho in Center 820 Rate TSF Gross Quality Restaurant 931 TSF Gross Total 1n Out Hi h Turnover/Sit Down Rest. 932 TSF Gross 0 0 0 Fast Food wlo Drive Thru 933 TSF Gross 0 0 0 Fast Food with Drive Thru 934 TSF Grass 0 0 D Drive Thrv Onl 935 TSF Gross Not Available »»»> No calculations but studies sho Service Station 944 Fuel Position Serv.Station w! Conven.Mkt 945 Fuel Position Tire Store 848 Service Sa s Not Available Su ermarket 850 TSF Gross Convenien. Mkt O n 24 hrs 851 TSF Gross Convenien. Mkt O en 16 Wrs 852 TSF Gross Nat Available Convenien. Mkt wl Gas Pum s 853 TSF Gross Discount Club 861 TSF Gross Pharmac /Dru store w! Drive-thru 881 TSF Gross . Furniture Store 890 TSF Grass Walk-kn Bank 911 TSF Gross Drive-In Bank 912 Drive-In Lanes Y:1PublictAgency Apps1FD0T1[tripcalc_t 6.xls]Calcuiations 19-Oct-05 T7t5 l7 71Y ii vKl(111jq[ RECE~D ~~ N'Lunch Peak 146-364 two way trips ~'~V 3 0 ZODS PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF GtEARWATER Calculations Using the Most Used Trip Generation Rates from the 7th Edition ITE Trip Generation Report Description/ITE Code Units Expected Ex ected PM Peak PM In PM Out. Units Dall Trips Trips • Totai Truck Terminal 030 Acres General Li ht Industrial 11D TSF Gross Mini Warehouse 151 TSF Gross ~ l: Sin le Famil Homes 210 DU 1.0 10 1 1 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ // artments 220 DU Mobile Home Park 240 DU Assisted Livin 254 DU - Akl Suites Hotei 311 Rooms Motel 320 Rooms Marina 420 Berths HealthlFitness Club 493 T5F Gross Church 560 75F Gross Da care Center 565 TSF Gross General Office 710 E uation TSF Gross General Office 710 Rate TSF Gross 1-0 11 1 0 1 Medical Dental Office 720 TSF Gross Buildin Materials/Lumber 812 TSF Gross HardwarelPaint Store 816 TSF Gross Nursery Garden Center} 817 TSF Gross Not Available Not Available Shop in .Center 820 Equation) TSF Gross Lunch Hour Traffic Sho in Center 820 Rata TSF Gross Quasi Restaurant 931 TSF Gross Total In Out Hi h TumoverlSit Down Rest. 932 T5F Gross 0 D 0 Fast Food wlo Drive Thru 933 T5F Gross 0 0 0 Fast Food with Drive Thru 934 TSF Gross 0 0 D Drive Thru Onl 935 T5F Gross Not Available »»»> No calculations but studies sho Service Station 944 Fuel Position Serv.Station w/ Conven.Mkt 945 Fuel Position Tire Store- 848 Service 8a s Not Available Su ermarket 850 TSF Gross 3.9 399 41 21 20 Convenien. Mkt O en 24 hrs 851 TSF Gross Convenien. Mkt O n 16 Hrs 852 TSF Gross Not Available Convenien. Mkt w/ Gas Pum s 853 TSF Gross Discount Club 861 TSF Gross Pharmao /Dru store wl Drive-thru 881 TSF Gross Furniture Store 890 TSF Gross _ Walk-In Barik 991. TSF Gross Drive-In Bank 912 Drive-In Lanes Y:1PubliclPkgancy AppsIFDOTI[tripcalc_i6.xls]Calculations 19-Oct-OS gay 4s cc cc ORIGINAL RECENED N~~r 3 o zoQ~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLFARWATER n~ nr'Lunch Peak 146-364 two way trips • OR1GlNA~. REGF'n rr; DEC ~ 7 ZOQS PL4NNI1Vt7 ~~+ ~;~1;~,riJT CITY OF Ct~RWATER Tree inventory -1001 South F©rt Harrison Avenue Prepared by: Alan Mayberry, Consulting Arborist March 3Q, 2Q05 I.S.A. Certified Arbarist #SO-0305 The following report is submitted by Alan Mayberry and includes findings-that I believe are accurate based on my education, experience and knowledge in the field of Arboriculture. I have no interest personally or financially in this property and this report is factual and unbiased. This report is the property of Fuluicco Divello and will not be given to other entities unless sa directed. Site Overview and Canopy Analysis The subject property includes a former commercial building and a single family residential house. Historically, the property has been cleared of all native vegetation and even the larger native trees are second growth. The tree canopy is composed primarily of the native live oak (Quercus virginiana) and laurel oak (Quercus daurifolia) trees. Palm species including the native sabal palm (Sabad palmetto) are also present, In addition, the site contains an admixture of exotic trees that were planted by the previous occupants or invasive species such as the camphor tree (Cinnamomum camphora) that grew from seed. The mid-story vegetation is comprised of planted ornamental shrubs and various grasses make up the groundcover vegetation. The overall condition of the trees is below average as the site trees reflect neglect and improper maintenance. However, a small percentage of the trees warrant preservation and they have been identified in the inventory. In addition, several trees are border line for preservation and will be upgraded if remedial maintenance is performed. Tree Inventory Data A tree inventory is a written record of a tree's condition at the time of inspection. It is a valuable tool to prioritize tree maintenance and remove trees with problems that could lead to failure and cause personal injury or property damage. The tree inventory lists four codes and also has a comment section. The following is an explanation of the inventory data: Tree# -location -Each tree is assigned a number for reference in the inventory that corresponds with a number on the site plan that identifies the location of the tree in the field. Size -Tree size is a measure of the tree's trunk diameter measured at 4.5' above grade. If a fork exists in the trunk at that paint the diameter is measured at the narrowest area below the fork. Palm species are measured by feet of clear trunk. Clear trunk (shown as C.T.) is measured from the grade to the base of the bud. NOTE: If the crown spread is required to be shown on a plan use the following formula: The crown spread is equal to l,' radius for each inch of trunk diameter. It is better to use this formula than the actual location of the branch spread as a tree will develop roots in the opposite direction of a lean or one-sided crown. The crown spread for palms is 6' radius from the trunk. Species -Each tree is listed by its common and botanical name the first time it is listed in the inventory. For simplicity the tree is listed by its common name thereafter. Condition Rating -The condition rating is an assessment of the tree's overall structural strength and systemic health. Elements of structure include: 1) the presence of cavities, decayed wood, split, cracked, rubbing branches etc., 2) branch arrangements and attachments, i.e., well spaced vs. several branches emanating from the same area on the trunk, codominant stems vs. single leader trunk, presence of branch collars vs. included bark. Elements of systemic health relate to the tree's overall energy system measured by net photosynthesis (food made) vs. respiration (food used). A tree with good systemic health will have a vascular system that moves water, nutrients and photosynthate around the tree as needed. Indicators of a healthy systemic system used in the overall condition rating include: 1) live crown ratio (the amount of live crown a tree has relative to its mass), 2) crown density (density of the foliage), 3) tip growth (shoot elongation is a sign that the tree is making and storing energy. The overall condition rating also takes into consideration the species, appearance and any unique features. The rating scale is 0-6 with 0 being a dead tree and 6 a specimen. Increments of 0.5 are used to increase accuracy. Examples of the tree rating system are as follows: 0- A dead tree 1-Atree that is dying, severely declining, hazardous, harboring a communicable disease or a tree designated by the State of Florida's Exotic Pest Plant Council as a category #1 ecological pest i.e., Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius). Atree with a rating of 1 should be removed as it is beyond treatment and is a threat to cause personal injury or property damage. 2 -Atree exhibiting serious structural defects such as codominant stems with included bark at or near the base, large cavities, large areas of decayed wood, crown dieback, cracked/split scaffold branches etc. In addition, a tree with health issues such as low energy, low live crown ratio,. serious disease or insect problems, nutritional deficiencies or soil pH problems. A tree with a rating of #2 should be removed unless the problem(s) can be treated. A tree with a #2 condition rating will typically require a considerable amount of maintenance to qualify for an upgrade of the condition rating. 3- A tree with average structure and systemic health and with problems that can be corrected with moderate maintenance. A tree with a codominant stem not in the basal area that will be subordinated or cabled. and braced or a codominant stem that will .soon have included bark can be included as a #3. A tree with a rating of #3 has average appearance, crown density and live crown ratio and should be preserved if possible, 4- A tree with a rating of 4 has good structure and systemic health with minor problems that can be easily corrected with minor maintenance. The tree should have an attractive appearance and be essentially free of any debilitating disease or insect problem. The tree should also have above average crown density and live crown ratio. Mature trees exhibiting scars, old wounds, small cavities or other problems that are not debilitating can be included in this group particularly if they possess unique form or other aesthetic amenities relating to their age. A tree, with a rating of 4 is valuable to the property az~d should be preserved. 5 - A tree with very high live crown ratio and exceptional structure and systemic health and virtually free of insect or disease problems or nutritional deficiencies. A tree in this category should have a balanced crown. with exceptional aesthetic amenities. A tree in this category should be of a species that possesses characteristics inherent to longevity and withstanding construction impacts. A tree with a #5 rating lends considerable value to the site and should be incorporated into the site design. A tree with a #5 rating is worthy of significant site plan modification to ensure its preservation. b --- A specimen tree. A specimen tree is a tree,that possesses a combination of superior qualities in regards to systemic health, structural strength, crown density, live crown ratio, form (balanced crown), overall aesthetic appeal, size, species, age and uniqueness. A great effort should be made to preserve a specimen tree including shifting structures that would. adversely impact the tree. In addition, a specimen tree should have an undisturbed area equal to its dripline {equal, to the branch spread} to grow in. Only an experienced and competent International Society of Arboriculture {I.S.A.) Certified Arborist should be allowed work on a specimen tree. Comments: The comment section serves to note observations relative to the tree but not covered in the inventory data or expands on information in the inventory data_ It may include maintenance recommendations to improve the tree's overall condition rating. It may also have recommendations on whether to remove or preserve a tree. NOTE: A tree inventory is typically valid for 3-5 years. However, events such as drought, lightning, mechanical root damage, freeze, improper maintenance and. severe storms can downgrade the rating value of a tree. Conversely, remedial maintenance can upgrade, the value. If you suspect that a tree has been adversely affected have the tree inspected by a qualified International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist* *****'~*~` At the time of this inventory several trees were in a total or semi- deciduous state, It is difficult to assess the Live crown ratio and overall systemic health of a tree when the foliage is not present. However, most of the oaks are now producing catkins {flowers) consequently the density of flowers and/or leaf buds were used to calculate systemic issues. ************** Tree Inventory Tree # Size Species Rating 14" laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) 2.5 Comments: This tree was not identified on the tree survey but has been added. The tree is growing in a planter and. is located 3' from the rear wall of the commercial building fronting South Fort Harrison Avenue. The root collar and trunk are free of decay or cavities. The tree has three codorninant stems located approximately 9' above grade that have severely included bark and that support most of the tree's canopy. The tree has average live crown ratio and below average form. The codominant stems could be mitigated by subordinate pruning but this procedure would be costly and take at least three years before structure was restored. Recommend removal of this tree. 2 7" deciduous ~, 5 *Note: The crown of this tree was totally bare at the time of the inventory and the branches are growing over the roof so an identification of species based on morphological elements was not passible. The species will be provided as soon as foliage appears. Comments: This tree was not identified on the tree survey. The tree is growing in the same raised planter as tree # 1. It is located 5' south. of tree # 1 and 3' from the rear building wall. The trunk is situated against the edge of the planter. This tree has a tight v- shaped crown that is composed of two scaffold branches. The tree has average form and structure and good live crown ratio. Recommend removal.. 3 8" live oak {Quercus vrrginiana) 2,p Comments: This tree is not identif ed on the survey. The tree is growing 5' from the rear of the commercial building, The crown of this tree is composed of three scaffold branches that are codominant with included bark present in the crotches. The overall form and structure is poor. The tree has above average live crown ratio and is systemically healthy. Recommend removal. 4 8" laurel. oak 2.5 Comments: This tree is situated 1' from a shed located in the rear of the commercial building. This tree has below average form with average structure and live crown ratio. It has 6 surface roots which is unusual for a small tree (surface roots grow on top of the grade and can be attributed to site conditions or genetic characteristics). As this tree grows the surface roots will increase in size and cause problems to structures and create a trip hazard. Recommend removal. 5 22" laurel oak 0.5 Comments: This tree is not shown on the site plan and is actually growing in the right of way of S. Fort Harrison Avenue where it grows through an awning attached to the old produce stand. This tree is severally declining. It has basal wounds, trunk cankers, internal decay and a dysfunctional systemic system. It is in imminent danger of falling and should be removed immediately. Contact the City of Clearwater's Urban Forestry Division (562-4950) as they are responsible for right of way trees. NOTE: There is a palm growing in the right of way and also some on the property that were not inventoried because they had less than 10' of clear trunk and are not considered protected trees by City of Clearwater code. A11 palms having clear trunks greater than 10' will be inventoried. 6 34" laurel oak 0.5 Continents: This tree has massive internal decay indicated by the presence of heart rot sporophores colonized all over the trunk. The root collar and large root flares are suffering from decay as a result of previous physical wounds. There is a large area of decay in the form of decaying stubs 6' above grade. This tree has no upper crown structure as the only foliage is resulting from vigorous suckers growing from the decaying scaffold branches. This tree is hazardous and needs to be removed. 7 30" live oak 3.5 Comments: This tree was in full flower (catkins) at the time of inspection and appears to have above average live crown ratio based on the amount of catkins. The trunk and root collar are healthy and free of any debilitating problems. This tree has two major scaffold branches that form the crown. They are codominant but have a wide u-shaped crotch with connective tissue present. There is an S" dead stub that needs to be removed if the tree is preserved. The tree has good form with interesting serpentine branches. The crown is somewhat irregular in appearance but still has above average aesthetic qualities. This tree will benefit from pruning to remove stubs and small deadwood in the crown. If preserved and maintained properly this tree will evolve into a very good tree. Recommend preservation. $ 34" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree has a 4" diameter girdling root that wraps around approximately 30% of the tree's root collar. This root will injure the tree but has not caused damage yet and could easily be removed. The trunk is sound. The crown is composed of two scaffold branches that aze codominant. The crotch has a tight u-shape that has connective tissue at this time but could become included in the future. The upper crown has above average overall structure. Part of the crown grows to the west over the rear pazking lot of the commercial building and has some damage in the form of torn branches and branch wounds likely caused from large trucks that drove beneath this .tree. This portion of the crown will need to be raised if the tree is preserved. The crown of this tree is barely average in appearance. The foam is irregular and there aze gaps in the canopy and it has very little crown to the east. However, the tree is systemically healthy and could evolve into a good tree if preserved and maintained properly. The main crotch should be cabled and braced as it is codominant with a tight crotch that will become included. As live oaks are long-lived trees that adapt well to construction, this tree could be preserved if it falls into a green area. However, it does not warrant site design modifications for preservation. 9 29" laurel oak 1.5 Comments: The trunk has a 12" x 12" area of decay on the lower east side close to the base. The decay is not causing structural problems at this time but will progress and. cause problems to the root collar area in the future. This tree has an 12" and an-18" diameter codominant trunk that forms the base structure for the crown. The codominant is severally included and there is.a lazge bulge on the west side of the inclusion indicating internal cracks/wounding. The upper crown has poor structure with small cavities, decay sporophores, suckers and large dead wood. The crown has low live crown ratio. This tree is not salvageable and needs to be removed. 10 9" Schefflera (Brassaia actinophylla) 1.0 Comments: This tree was not shown on the site plan. It is growing 2' from the chimney located on the west side of the old house. The tree is not recommended for preservation as the schefflera is very cold sensitive and produces a large surface root system. 11 16" laurel oak 1.0 Comment: This tree was attached by connective tissue at the root collar to a 24" diameter laurel oak that is now a 6' dead stump infected with Hypoxylon canker. The decay from the stump will affect this tree's root collar azea as the decay progresses into the basal area. There is also a queen palm that is growing against the trunk of the laurel oak. The tree has an old flush cut wound on the northwest side of the trunk that is causing internal decay. The tree has virtually no upper crown and structure is non-existent. ~ This tree needs to be removed. 12 10' C.T. queen palm (Syagrus romanzo~ana) 2.0 Comments: This palm has below average crown and appearance for a queen palm. The base is growing against tree #11 and this condition will prevent the palm from being able to be transplanted. Recommend removal. 13 15" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree is growing against the concrete wall of the front porch of the old house. In addition, it has an avocado tree growing against its trunk. The root flare is healthy but is somewhat asymmetrical where the avocado tree interferes with its growth. The trunk is sound and forks 8' above grade into three scaffold branches that form the upper crown. The tree has good upper crown structure with average overall form. The live crown ratio is above average. The appearance is only average but will improve if maintained properly and given room to grow. It is a borderline tree in regards to desirability for preservation and should only be preserved if it falls into a green space. 14 6" avocado (Persea Americana) 1.0 Comments: This tree has poor form and structure and is an undesirable species due to its cold sensitivity. Recommend removal. 15 ~ 20" laurel oak 0. S Comments: The trunk of tree # 16 grows at an angle into the basal area of this tree. If they continue to grow in this manner they will wound each other and cause structural problems at the critical root collar area. This tree has a very poor upper crown structure. One leader is dead with sporophores growing along the branches. The other two branches have been previously topped and are dying. Recommend removal of this hazardous tree. 16 12" live oak 1.0 Comment: This tree grows at angle out from the base of tree # 15. The tree has poor structure as it has virtually no crown. One branch grows on top of tree # 13 causing damage to a lateral branch. This tree will be damaged when tree # 15 is removed. 1ecommend removal. 17 30" live oak 2,0 Comments: This tree is growing east of the old house and abuts the east side of the driveway. The root collar and lower trunk are sound. At 4.5' above there is a galvanized steel cable embedded into the trunk all the way around the trunk and again about a third of the way around and six inches higher on the trunk. The cable is totally embedded except for one area where the cable tip protrudes from the trunk. The girdling has caused the trunk to grow callus tissue around the wound resulting in a pronounced bulging of the trunk tissues. I estimate that the girdling occurred approximately 20 years ago. Just above the girdled area the tree forks into two 15" diameter codominant stems that have an 8" bark inclusion. The upper crown has good structure and appeazance. However, there is approximately 25% dieback probably due to the girdling activity that destroyed part. of the tree's vascular system. The tree has apparently restored most of its vascular system as evidenced by its growth. A major concern for this tree however relates to the location of the decay resulting from the girdling. It is located just beneath the bark inclusion and the chance of coalescing decay creating a structural hazard is probable. This tree has an overall attractive appearance but giving the potential for structural failure it is recommended for removal. The only alternative is to place rods in the crotch and cables in the upper crown to secure this tree. However, the procedure is expensive and impractical for a tree with the above described damage. 18 23", 29" live oak 3.5 Comments: This tree was not shown on the site plan. This tree has a galvanized one quarter inch steel cable going horizontally through the 29" diameter trunk but it is not girdling the tree and is not causing a structural problem. This tree splits into two trunks 3' above grade. The trunks form a u-shaped crotch with connective tissue present and do not appear to have a structural weakness. The 23" diameter trunk grows to the north and develops an average crown inform and above average in regards to live crown ratio and structure. This side of the tree is somewhat restricted due to competition from an adjacent tree to the west. The 29" trunk forks 6.5' above grade and develops a crown above and to the east, west and south. The overall crown of this trunk has above average form with good live crown ratio. The fork has a slight inclusion that should be cabled and braced to ensure stability. The tree needs pruning to remove small deadwood and stubs. This is a good overall tree but should be cabled and braced in the southern trunk fork and have a rod installed between the two trunks for extra protection. If this work is performed the tree would be upgraded to a 4.0. Recommend preservation. 19 25" laurel oak 0.5 Comments: This tree has. a wound on the south side of the trunk that starts 6" above grade and goes 3' high up the trunk causing internal decay. The tree forms a codonvnant 8' above grade. The trunk an the west side is completely dead with sporophores growing along the trunk. The trunk on the east side is dead at the top anal only has sucker growth. This tree is hazardous and needs to be removed.. 20 12' C.T. queen palm 2.5 Comments: This palm is not shown on the plan. The palm has a below average crown and has been affected by competition from adjacent trees. Transplanting on site is not recommended for this palm as it would be more cost effective to plant a new palm.. Recommend removal. 21 7" laurel oak 2.0 Comments; This tree has a good trunk that forks 5' above grade and forms a narrow vase shaped crown. The fork produces a codominant situation that will become included in the future. The live crown ratio is good but this tree has very poor form due to overhead branches and is not recommended for preservation. 22 3", 3" 3", 2" 2" schefflera ~ 1.5 Comments: This tree is not shown on the survey but is a protected tree by def ninon of size for a cluster tree in the City of Clearwater code. The cluster has average aesthetic appeal but is not recommended for preservation as it is an undesirable species. 23 10' C.T. sabal palm (Sabal palmetto) 5.0 Comment: This is an exceptional palm that would be a specimen if it was taller. This palm has a near perfect trunk and crown. The boots (frond stubs) remain from top to bottom but they serve to protect the trunk and can be pruned off to have a clean trunk. Recommend preservation or transplanting on site. 24 40' laurel oak. 1.0 Comments: This tree is growing 1' from the sidewalk along Magnolia Drive. The sidewalk has been jogged to save this tree. The tree is also growing just east of a power pole into an area labeled vacated easement on the site plan. This tree has four codominant trunks that form the crown. The east codominant trunks are severely included. The north and west side trunk attachments are not included but have weak attachments. The root collar on the north side of the trunk has had two flare roots severed and decay is present in the affected basal area. There is also a large trunk canker (sunken tissue) an the north side. A large scaffold branch growing to the southwest that is dead is cracked and ready to fail. The tree has cavities on the scaffold branches on the east side that are affecting the tree's stability. The upper crown structure is very poor as the crown has large deadwood; old stubs and major dieback, This tree is hazardous and needs to be removed as so©n as possible. 25 10' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 Comments: This palm is growing 15' due south of tree #24 and is also located in the vacated easement. This palm is healthy and has a good crown. The condition has been downgraded slightly because the crown has been impacted by branches from tree #24 that have affected the symmetry of the crown. This palm will evolve into an attractive palm. Recommend preservation or transplanting on site. Nate: There is a small five stem cluster Senegal date palm (Phoenix reclinata) located just east of tree #25 that is not large enough to be protected by City code so it is not inventoried. However, it has value and can be preserved in place or moved, on site. 26 5" Citrus 0.5 Comments: This tree is 90% dead. Recommend removal. 27 9" laurel oak ~ 2.0 Comments: This tree is growing beneath the crown of adjacent trees and has very poor overall form. The crown is mostly one-sided growing toward the northeast and the live crown ratio is average. The structure downgrades the overall condition rating as the main fork is a codominant stem with included bark. The inclusion will worsen over time and could lead to structural failure in the main crotch. If this tree had a balanced crown the codominant situation could be corrected through subordinate pruning, however, it is not practical for this tree. Recommend remaval. 28 5" laurel oak 1.S Comments: This tree was not shown on the survey but is inventoried as it is a protected tree according to City Code. This tree is growing 1' from the base of tree#29. This tree has virtually na crown as it is suppressed by tree #29. The canopy is small and grows to the east. The tree has poor structure and essentially no aesthetic value. Recommend removal. . 29 14" laurel oak 3.0 Comments: The trunk and root flare are structurally sound but this tree has a girdling root on the south. side that has caused very minor damage to the root flare. The girdling root can be removed. This tree has good overall structure and. above average live crown ratio. This tree is a healthy and structurally sound tree with the only downgrading factor being the form. The tree has very little crown to the south due to competition from tree #30, a large live oak tree. This tree could be preserved or removed to reduce the competition to the more desirable live oak tree (#30). 30 33" live oak 4.0 Gominents: The trunk of this tree is sound and forks into two large codominant stems 6' above grade. The crotch of the fork. is slightly pinched on one side and will become included in the future. The crown spreads to the north and east but is somewhat restricted due to competition on the north and south. The crown is slightly thinning on the west side but overall. has very good live crown ratio. This tree is a good tree overall and the crown will develop symmetry if the adjacent trees are removed. Potentially this could be the best tree on the site. In the future the main crotch. should be cabled and braced if the bark becomes included. This tree is worthy of moderate site plan modifications for preservation. If this tree is preserved the site design should allow an undisturbed rooting area equal to three fourths the tree's dripline. Paved surfaces can count towards undisturbed rooting area if the paved surface is built on grade and aerated. . 31 2S" live oak 2.5 Comments: This tree has a sound trunk and root flare and the upper crown structure is average. The south side has a few sucker branches that grow upward forming a mass of foliage. These branches should be removed, as they will not form a canopy and are not attached with a branch collar. There is an S" diameter lateral branch that grows to the northeast that has a badly decayed area. and this branch should be removed. There is a b" diameter branch that has suffered storm damage and needs to be removed. In addition, the tree has a lazge dead stub and minor deadwood that needs removal. The overall form is poor as the crown is mostly one-sided and lacks aesthetic appeal. The tree is systemically healthy with above average structure and could be preserved. if it falls into a green area. 32 47" laurel oak 0.5 Comments: This tree is very old with large trunk flutes and cankers (sunken tissue areas}. The trunk has sporophores present indicating internal decay and there are many old stub cuts on the trunk. The tree has two very large codominant trunks about 25" in diameter that have a pocket cavity in the crotch. The upper canopy has seven scaffold branches that form the crown and each one is broken at the top with major dieback and deadwood present. The only growth is from suckers. This tree has poor structure, form and live crown ratio and is a hazard. Recommend removal. 33 X10 C.T. Senegal date palm (Phoenix reclnata) 4.5 Comments: This palm is not shown on the site plan but is a protected palm as it has stems with over 10' of clear trunk. This palm actually has 5 stems with over 10' of clear trunk. In addition, it has several other stems of various sizes. The palm cluster has not been pruned for a very long time and presents a wholly appearance. However, the palm .cluster is healthy and once pruned would be extremely valuable. This palm cluster should be pruned and preserved in place or moved on site. A second alternative would. be to contact a palm broker about buying this cluster. 34 22" laurel oak 2.~ Comments: This tree has minor basal decay on the southeastern side that should not debilitate the tree's structural integrity. The major downgrading factor of this tree is two severely included codominant scaffold branches forking 5' above grade. The bark is deeply included and the condition will predispose the crotch to fail. The scaffold branches support a vase shaped crown. with below average live crown ratio, structure and form. The crown is restricted and grows to the Werth acid south. The upper crown is in decline indicated by tip dieback.l7ecornmend removal. 35 32" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree is growing 6' from a retaining wall for a retention pond located just south of the south. property line. The tree suffered root loss when the grade was cut far the retention pond as reflected by branch dieback in the upper crown. The trunk and root flare are sound. The truzilc forks into an equal codominant stem S' above grade and the crotch is u-shaped with connective tissue present. The west codominant has a 4" diameter 'cavity from a previous stub cut that is causing minor decay. The form and associated aesthetic appeal is low and the crown has a heavy vine infestation. The live crown ratio is above average on the south side but low elsewhere in the canopy. This tree is not recommended for preservation. However, if it falls into a green space buffer rt could be preserved but will require remedial maintenance to improve the structure. In addition, it should be inspected every'two years for the presence of included bark and the need for cabling and bracing. 35 4" camphor (Cinnamomum camphora} 0.5 Comments: This tree is not shown on the site plan but is protected per City code. This tree is actually a cluster of sucker stems (one was 4" diameter at 4.5' above grade} growing from an old stump. The tree has no structure or form. Recommend removal. 37 10 C.T. Senegal date palm 3.0 Comments: This palm cluster was not shown on the plan but has two stems with over 10' of clear trunk and several others stems of various sizes, This cluster has not been pruned in a very long time and if cleaned up could be preserved in place or transplanted on site. 38 " 10" citrus (calamondin) 2.0 Comments: This citrus has a basal decay caused by a fungus that is progressively deadly. The fungus destroys vascular tissue which is reflected by dieback in this tree's crown.. Recommend removal. 39 8" citrus (grapefruit) 1.5 Comments: This tree has- major dieback in the crown and is declining. Recommend removal. 40 12" citrus (calamondin} 2.0 Comments: This citrus is in poor condition and is not recommended for preservation. 41 10 C.T. Senegal date palm. 4.0 Con~rxrents: This palm has four trunks that have at least 10' of clear trunk. This cluster has not been pruned in a long time but. would be valuable if cleaned up. This palm cluster is located 3' from the west wall of the house and may not be able to be successfully transplanted. As this palm cluster is valuable, preservation is recommended in place: However, if the palm does not fall into a green area, a palm moving company could be contacted to determine if transplanting is feasible. Recommend preservation. 42 28" live oak 3.0 Comments: The root flare and trunk are sound. The lower and upper crown has good structure. The live crown ratio is above average. The form is below average as the crown is irregular and branching is xnirumal with foliage often tufted at the ends. The tree is systemically healthy and has good structure and will improve with. remedial pruning. Preservation is not recommended unless the tree falls into a green area. 43 21" laurel oak 0.5 Comments: This tree has a very large cavity on the southeast side of the trunk that is causing major structural problems. The tree has very poor upper crown structure with codominant stems with included bark in the crown. The live crown ratio is below average and the form is. very poor. This tree is a hazard tree and should be removed. 44 38" laurel oak 0.5 Comments: This tree has an open cavity on the south side 6" above grade that reveals a hollow trunk. This tree is very hazardous and needs to be removed as soon as possibXe. 45 15" camphor 2.0 . Comments: This tree has a straight trunk but very poor upper crown form and. structure. The crown resembles a stalk of celery. The live crown. ratio is average. The camphor tree is identified as a category one ecological pest plant by the State of Florida Pest Plant Council. Recommend removal. 46 18" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has a good trunk that divides into three scaffold branches that support a crown with very, poor form. The majority of the tree's crown grows to the southwest. The tree offers very little aesthetic appeal. The live crown ratio and upper crown structure is average. The downgrading factor of this tree is its appearance. Recommend removal. 47 24" camphor 0.5 Comments: This tree is covered top to bottom with vines. The tree has essentially no crown structure or form. The tree consists of a trunk with only a few lateral branches that have foliage tufted at the ends. The live crown ratio, structure and form are extremely poor: Recommend removal. P e ared b and return to: Elwood Hogan, ,lr. Attorney at Law McFarland, Gould, Lyons;~~Sullivan & Hogan, P.A. 311 S. Missouri Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 'File Numberr 240281 ~ o~l~lNAl. RECEIII~D " NOV 3 0 2005 . PIANNINGC ~R TA ERI" C1TY 4F fCEi1fBURKE CLERK QF COURT ' p1RELLAg COUIV7l-FLORlDA lNS7# 2005074g6102/2g~00S ~ 03:40 PAS DFF REC BK: 74143 P(;; 92i~922 p ryPe:DMP RECORDING: ;i$.50 Doc srA s9i0a.oa (Space Above This I/ine Far Recording Data] 'V'Varranty Deed Thls Warranty Deed made this 24th day of February, 2005 between Virginia Morelli, a single woman whose post office address is 507 Magnolia Dr, Clearwater, FL 33756, grantor, and DiVello Family, L.L.C., a Florida limited liability company whose post office address is 400 Island Way, No. 703, Clearwater, FL 33767, grantee: {Whenever used herein the terms "grantor" and "grantee" include ail the parties to this instrument and 'the heirs, legal representatives., and assigns of individuals, and the successors and assigns of corporations, trusts and trustees} Witnesseth, that said grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of TFN AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable considerations 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 heirs and assigns forever, the following described land, situate, lying and being in Pinellas County, Florida to-wit: Lot 24, Block 32, and Lots 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10, and SO foot strip of vacated Railroad Right of Way on the East and Lat 11, Block 34, MAGNOLIA PARK, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Boak 3, page 43, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. Parcel Identification Nnmber: 15/29/15/54450/032024 and ,f Parcel Identification Number: 1Sl24/15/54450/034/0010 and Parcel Identification Number: 15/29/15/54450/034/003 and Parcel Identification Number: 15/24/15/54450/034/004 and Parcel Identifcation Number: 15/29115154450/0341011 Together with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. DoubleTime® To Have and to Hold, the same in fee simple forever. Ana 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 subsequent to December 31, 2004. QRIGINAL RECEIVED ~n Witness Whereof, grantor has hereunto set grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. sealed and del~red in our presence: Witness Name: ,d ~! Witness Name: / ~~~` •~c-.~,~ ~/l.- ` r'a'y/G~Seal} Virg' Morelli NOU 3 0 2Q05 RLANNING DEPARTMENT Cm( OF CLEARWATER State of F.~arida County of Pinellas The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this personally known or [X] has produced a driver's license as ides Notary Seal] Z of February, 2C ific o Notary Public- . Printed Name: ~i My Commission Expires: Virgin~a Morelli, who ~] is MYCOMM5310 ~H~2~1960b ~, BONDE~iHRUTR0YFAININSURANCg fNC tYnrrnn~y Deed -Page 2 ElOUble7ime® ~ .. Prepared by and return to: Elwood Hogan, Jr. Attorney at Law McFarland, Gould, Lyorts; Sullivan & Hogan, P.A. 311 S. Missouri Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 File Number: 240281 .- P1N~ BURKE, CLEFU(OF C011RT INST;x LAS COUIyn. FLORIDA 20D6D74661 Dy28p20D5 ~ Q3;40 ply OFF RFC BIK: 14143 p0; y DOC STgMp RECORDING 518.5D sstoo.oo [space Above This Line For Recording Data] V~arranty Deed Thls Warranty Deed made this 24th day of February, 2005 between Virginia Morelli, a single woman whose post office address is 507 Magnolia Dr, Clearwater, FL 33756, grantor, and DiVella Fondly, L.L.C., a Flarrda limited liability company whose post office address is 400 Island Way, No. 703, Clearwater, FL 33767, grantee: (Whenever used herein the terms "grantor" and "grantee" include al! the parties to this instrument and the heirs, legal representatives, and assigns of individuals, and the successors and assigns of corporations, trusts and trustees) Witnesseth, that said grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN AND NO/100 DOLLARS {$ ]0.00) and other good and valuable considerations to said grantor in hand paid by said grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby aclrnowledged, has granted, bargained, and sold to the said grantee, and grantee's heirs and assigns forever, the following described land, situate, lying and being in Pinellas County, Florida to-wit: Lot 24, Block 32, and Lots 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10, and 5D foot strip of vacated Railroad Right of Way on the East and Lot 11, Block 34, MAGNQLiA PARK, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3, page 43, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. Parcel Identification Number: 15/29115/544501032024 and Parcel Identification Number: 15129/15/54450/034/0010 and Parcel Identification Number: 15/29/15/54450/034/003 and Parcel Identification Number: 15/29/15/54450/0341009 and Parcel Identification Number: 15/29/15/54450/034/011 ORIGINAL RECEIVED NOV 3 0 2005 PLANNQF CLEARWA ERT Together with all the tenements, hereditaments and. appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. DoubleTirne® To Have and to Hold, the same in fee simple forever. And the grantox hereby covenants with said grantee tha# 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 subsequent to December 31, 2044. ORIGINAL RECENED NOV 3 0 2005 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER In Witness Whereof, grantor has hereunto set grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. sealed and del~red in our presence: Witness Name: .~ - JR Witness Name: ~ ~~~`- ~'c-.~r~ ~/lr Virgir~~Morelli State of F,,}orida County of Pinellas The foregoing instrument was acla~owledged before me this personally known or [X] has produced a driver's license as idea [Notary Seal] Z of February, 20 ifc o Notary Public_ Morelli, Who L~ 15 Printed Name: My Commission Expires: MYCOMM530N~NDDY 8606 E~PlI BOnOFO THRU TROY FAIN 1NSl1RANC~ fNC Warrnnly !?eed -Page 2 Dou6leTfine® North~l~e CIVIL• LAND PLANNING • ENV1 RONMENTAL • TRANSPORTATION • STORMWATER REPORT FOR 1 ~Ol ~'. Ft. HARRIS~N A VENUE oRr~rNAl RECEIVED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY' OF C~EARWATER ` <, } ` .,: .~ ~, ~•... Ram A. Goea;-~~.L., ~P.E: #~'~7431 ` ., , ., ~,, , Novem~aer l6, 2005 Project No. 0564 604 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 930 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755 NESADMIN@MINDSPR6NG.COM NESTECH~MI NDSPRING..COM 727 • 443 • 2869 FAX 727 • 446 • 8a3b N N DRAINAGE NARRATIVE The project is located in section 15, township 29 and range 15 in the City of Clearwater. The contiguous owned property is 55,295 sf and consists of the construction of condominiums and associated utilities, parking and road infrastructure, storm management system and utilities and. results in the following: Construction of 20,910 S.F. of impervious vehicular use area and 13,365 S.F. of new building, sidewalk and pool area. • This will yield a 20,910 S.F. INCREASE of impervious vehicular use area subject to stormwater runoff and overall there will be a 34,275 S.F. INCREASE in total impervious area. Discharge is into the City of Clearwater's storm system and 112" water quality and 25yr/24hr quantity attenuation is provided over both lots totaling 55,295 sf. This yields a quality requirement volume of 2,304 cf and a quantity requirement volume of 6,209 cf. 2,334 cf of quality volume is provided between elevations 33.25 and 34.05 and recovered through 45 If of 6" perforated socked PVC underdrain within 20 hours. Because the quality discharge is recovered within 24 hours this volume is used as part the required quantity storage volume and 6,247 cf is provided between elevations 33.25 and 35.02. OverFlow is discharged through the top of grate of the control structure and enters the City of Clearwater°s storm system through a roadside inlet. ORIGINAL. RECENEQ NOV 3 0 2005 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITX OF CLF.ALtWATEit N h PROJECT NAME: 1001 S. FT. HARRISON AVENUE PROJECT N0.: 0564 PRECONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= 55,295 SF = 1.27 ACRES IMP. AREA= 0 SF = 0.00 ACRES POND AREA= 0 SF - 0.00 ACRES PERV. AREA= 55,295 SF - 1.27 ACRES C CALCULATIONS TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= 55,295 SF IMP. AREA= 0 SF OF IMP. AREA @ C = 0.9 POND AREA= D SF OF POND AREA @ C = 1 PERV. AREA= 55,295 SF OF PERV. AREA @ C = 0.2 C = 0.20 T.O.C. = 20 MINUTES POST CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= 55,295 SF = 1.27 ACRES IMP. AREA= 34,275 SF = 0.79 ACRES POND AREA= 5,249 SF = 0.12 ACRES PERW. AREA= 15,771 SF = 0.36 ACRES C CALCULATIONS TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= 55,295 SF fMP. AREA= 34,275 SF OF IMP. AREA @ C = 0.9 POND AREA= 5,249 SF OF POND AREA @ C = 1 PERV. AREA= 15,771 SF OF PERV. AREA @ C = 0.2 C = 0.71 T.O.C. = 15 MINUTES ORIGINAL RECENED NOV 3 0 2005 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER N PROJECT NAME PROJECT NO. VAULT STORAGE DATA T.O.B. EL.= D.H.W. EL.= W.Q. EL.= BOTTOM EL.= 1001 S. FT. HARRISON AVENUE 0564 STAGE ft-NGVD AREA SF AREA AC STORAGE CF 35.50 5,249 0.121 8,621 35.02 4,644 0.107 6,247 34.75 4,304 0.099 5,039 34.50 3,989 ~ 0.092 4,002 34.25 3,674 0.0$4 3,044 34.05 3,422 0.079 2,334 33.75 3,044 0.070 1,365 33.50 2,729 0.063 643 33.25 2,414 0.055 0 ORIGINAL RECEIVED NOW 3 0 2005 TOTAL WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT CIN OF CLEAR~JVATER DRAINAGE AREA = 55,295 SF REQUIRED WATER QUALITY DEPTH = 0.50 IN REQUIRED WATER QUALITY VOLUME = 2,304 CF PROPOSED OUTFACE ELEVATION = 34,05 FT AVAILABLE WATER QUANTITY = 2,334 CF w r NORTHSIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES POND DRAWDOWN ANALYSIS PROJECT: 1001 S. FT. HARRISON AVENUE PROJECT NO.: 0564 VOLUME PROVIDED = BOTTOM OF SLOT ELEV. BOTTOM OF POND ELEV. _ UNDERDRAIN INVERT ELEV. _ K= LENGTH OF UNDERDRAIN = SIZE OF UNDERDRAIN = 2,44$ C.F. 34.05 332.5 3250 0.09 FT/MIN 45 FT 6 INCH POND AREA (SF)r 3,422 S.F. POND AREA (SF) = 2,414 S. F. ELEV. AVG. HEAD INCR HEAD L (AVG) HG ILTER ARE FLOW POND AREA INGR VOL. INCR TIME FT FT FT FT S.F. CFM S.F. C.F. MIN. 34.05 3,422 1.20 0.20 2.75 0.44 71 2.77 659 238 33.85 3,170 1.00 0.20 2.75 0.36 71 2.31 609 263 33.65 2,918 0.80 0.20 2.75 0.29 71 1.85 558 302 33.45 2,666 0.60 0.20 2.75 0.22 71 1.39 508 366 33.25 2,414 TIME= 1,169 MINUTES TIME = 19.5 HOURS ORIGINAL RECEIVED NQV 3 0 2Q05 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER M NORTHSIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES 25 YEAR STORM EVENT PROJECT: 1001 S. FT. HARRISON AVENUE PROJECT N0. 0564 RUN-OFF COEFFICIENTS PRECONSTRUCTION TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= IMP. AREA= POND AREA= PERV. AREA= C = 0.2C POST-CONSTRUCTION TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= IMP. AREA= POND AREA= PERV. AREA= C = 0.71 STORAGE CALCULATION PRE-DEVELOPMENT (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TOTAL SITE AREA) DRAINAGE AREA = 1.27 AC TIME OF CONC. Tc = 20 MIN I @ Tc =20 (25 YEAR EVENT= 6.40 IN/HR Q(OUt) = C x I x A= 1.62 CFS POST-CONSTRUCTION {BASIN No. 1 AND 21 25yrl24hr M 55,295 SF 1.27 AC 0 SF OF IMP. AREA @ C = 0.9 0 SF OF POND AREA @ C = 1 55,295 SF OF PERV. AREA @ C = 0.2 55,295 SF 1.27 AC 34,275 SF OF IMP. AREA @ C = 0.9 5,249 SF OF POND AREA @ C = 1 15,771 SF OF PERV. AREA @ C = 0.2 IME MIN. - 25yr/24hr INIHR (in} CFS INFLOW (CF} 25yrl24hr post develo ment OUTFLOW (GF) 25yr124 pre devePO ment TORAGE CF 15.00 7.40 6.67 fi,001 1,462 4,539 20.00 6.40 5.77 6,920 1,950 4,970 30.00 5.30 4.78 8,596 2,925 5,672 40.00 4.fi0 4.14 9,948 3,900 6,048 50.00 4.1fl 3.69 11,083 4,874 6,209 60.00 3.65 3.29 11,840 5,849 5,991 MAX. STORAGE _ 6,209 WEIR DESIGN WATER QUALITY DEPTH = WATER QUALITY = TOTAL VOLUME REQUIRED = TOTAL VOLUME PROVIDED = TOP. OF WEIR ELEV.= 35.02 FT BOT. OF WEIR ELEV.= 34.05 FT H = 0.97 FT O = 1.62 GFS L=QI3.3*HM.5 = 0.52 FT 0.5 in. TOTAL POST CONST. AREA* DEPTH * 1ft/12in= ORIGINAL RECEIVED NOV 3 0 2005 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 2,304 CF < 38 HRS. RECOVERY 6,209 CF 6,247 CF ~~~~~ _ ORIGINAL NOV 3 02005 ~ 1- P~~~a~~ ~~ I~'S~O ~9~ ~~ ~9.~92NPATER FLD2005-11111 1001 S FT HARRiSON AVE Date Received: 11/30/2005 LITTLE BIG 1VTARKET ZONING DISTRICT: C LAND USE: CG ATLAS PAGE: 2958 PLANNER OF RECORD: NOT ENTERED CLWCoverSheet Northside August 9, 2007 Mr. Wayne Wells Planner III City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 RE: FLD2005-11111 - 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Ave NES #564 Dear Mr. Wells: ~J `''11 ~.~:~IID f~C~6~a~~`~UC~C~, ~I~C~Ia~t~DG~w~ ~I~'I'4'~~ Please accept this letter as a formal request to withdraw the above referenced project/application from the Development Review Committee process. The property has recently been sold; a new submittal with a new development proposal will be forthcoming. The information previously submitted may be destroyed as much of it is now obsolete. Thank you and please feel free to contact me if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, •- .- Renee Ruggiero, Project Planner cc: Doreen Williams, Project Birector James Evans, Project Manager NE4 File 56~ ~~nu ~~~~~;z~~~ s5°~~~iEV, ~~8~'~€ ~~~ C~G~I~~"~~sia'~~`88. i~iSQDlI~~~~ ~~5"~~ ~~c~~a~~a~u~ ~ ~r~~l~~~a~~~~l~~;~a~~~~.~c~~ ~~~~~~ AI~G { 3 2~O1 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF CLEARWATER ~,y~ ~ ',.;~,ETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Page 1 of 2 a Wells, Wayne From: Renee Ruggiero [renee@northsideengineering.com] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 1:04 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Request to withdraw application 8.9.07.doc Original to follow in the mail. XXOO Renee Northside Engineering Services, inc. August 9, 2007 Mr. Wayne Wells Planner III City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 RE: FLD200S-11111-- 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Ave NES #564 _ Dear Mr. We11s: CIVIL LAND PLANNING ~ ENVIRUNM.EN'L'AL Please accept this letter as a formal request to withdraw the above referenced project/application from the Development Review Committee process. The property has recently been sold; a new submittal. with a new development proposal will be forthcoming. The information previously submitted maybe destroyed as much of it is now obsolete. Thank you and please feel free to contact me if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Renee Ruggiero, Project Planner 8/9/2007 ,, .r.ti -~,ETTER OF TRANSIVIITTAL ce: Doreen Williams, Project Director James Evans, Project Manager NES File 564 8/9/20107 Page 2 of 2 Wells, Wayne __ From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 6:50 PM To; Renee Ruggiero (E-mail) Subject: Corrected Mixed Use Calc for 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Renee - I went back to print out my version of the mixed use calculation and found that I had not changes some of the item numbers. So...l fixed it and am attaching the correct calculation. ;>) Wayne Mixed Use .alculation for 10Q1, 1119/06 Mixed Use Calculateon for 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue Property is zoned Commercial District (maximum FAR = 0.55 and maximum density = 24 du/acre in CG land use) 1. Land area zoned Commercial District .......................................49,277 sf 2. Permitted FAR ....................................................................0.55 3,600 s 3. Floor area proposed .......... . ................................................... 4. Land area attributable/necessary for offices (#3 divided by #2)...........6,545 sf 5. Land area available for attached dwellings in C District (Subtract #4 from #1) ..........................................................42,732 sf 6. Divide by square footage in an acre ........................................- 43,560 sf 7. Lot acreage available for att. dw. in C District (#5 - #6) ..................0.980 acre 8. Multiply lot acreage available for att.. dw. in Commercial District (#7) ................................................................................0.980 acre 9. By maximum density in CG land use ........................................x 24 du/acre 10. Number of dwelling units (du) available in C District ......................23.52 du 11. Total number of dwelling units permitted on property .....................23 du (Code requires calculation to round down to whole number) Mixed Use Calcs 1-19-06.doc Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 6:40 PM To: 'Renee Ruggiero' Subject: RE: Mixed Use Calcs 1-19-06.doc Renee - Page 1 of 1 i have attached my mixed use calculation. The difference between yours and mine is that you multiplied the maximum permissible FAR times the proposed floor area rather than dividing the proposed floor area by the maximum permissible FAR. What you have to remember is, working backwards, that it takes 6,545 square feet of land area to develop 3,600 square feet of floor area on this 49,277 square-foot parcel. Therefore, only a maximum of 20 dwellings units can be constructed on the property on the south side of Magnolia Drive with 0,600 square feet of nonresidential floor area (offices). Wayne -----Original Message----- From: Renee Ruggiero [mailto:Renee@northsideengineering.com] Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 4:29 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Mixed Use Calcs 1-19-06.doc «Mixed Use Calcs 1-19-06.doc» Wayne - Please review this calc form for correctness, the format is the same one used for the latest calcs for Playa Del Sol as we have a mixed use on a single zoned site. Thank you for your assistance and direction. Respectfully, Renee Ruggiero 1/1.9/2006 ;..~ ~..>ulixed Use Calcs 1-19-06.doc Wells, Wayne Page 1 of 1 From: Renee Ruggiero [Renee@northsideengineering.com] Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 4:29 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Mixed Use Calcs 1-19-06.doc «Mixed Use Calcs 1-19-06.doc» Wayne - Please review this calc form for correctness, the format is the same one used for the latest calcs for Playa Del Sol as we have a mixed use on a single zoned site. Thank you for your assistance and direction. Respectfully, Renee Ruggiero 1./19/2006 .... ,.-~ aln l/06 Mixed Use Calculation for 1001 S. Fort Harrison Avenue A. Property is zoned C (maximum FAR = 0.55 and maximum density = 24 du/acre) 1. Permitted FAR ..................................................................0.55 2. Multiply #A1 by bldg sq. ft. of office proposed .........................x 3,600 sf 3. Lot area required to support #A2 in the building .........................= 1,980 sf 4. Lot area ........................................................................ 49,277 sf 5. Subtract the lot area required to support non-residential use in the building (#A3) ...................................- 1,980 sf 6. Lot area (sf) to calculate the maximum number of dwelling units ....= 47,297 sf 7. Divide #A6 ..................................................................... 47,297 sf 8. Land area in an acre .........................................................= 43,560 sf 9. Lot acreage for residential portion ..........................................- 1.08 acres 10. Multiply #A9 ................................................................. 1.08 acres 11. Maximum density ..........................................................x 24 du/acre 12. Maximum number of dwelling units permitted ....................... = 26.05 du ].001 S. Ft. Harrison Welds, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 11:49 AM To: 'Renee Ruggiero' Cc: Angel Haines; Rice, Scott; Thompson, Neil Subject: RE: 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Renee - Page 1 of 1 Based on the discussion and display of a revised plan at the DRC meeting, it is the consensus of Neil, Scott and myself that the project needs to come back to DRC prior to being scheduled for the CDB. Looking at the schedule, revised plans need to be submitted by noon on January 30, 2006, for the March 2, 2006, DRG meeting with a potential April 18, 2006, CDB meeting. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: Renee Ruggiero [mailto:Renee@northsideengineering.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 9:18 AM To; Thompson, Neil Cc: Angel Haines; Wells, Wayne; Rice, Scott Subject: 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Neil, Wayne and Scott - Goad Morning Gentlemen, I met with the Developer and Architect after the DRC meeting and all agreed to hold off a month to make revisions to the plans. Please provide direction regarding the resubmittal process to make the NEXT available agenda. This project was on line for the Feb 21, 2006 CDB meeting, we would like to make revisions in time to make the March 21, 2006 CDB agenda if at all possible. It is understood that Wayne would like a preliminary meeting once plans are revised. I am looking for new target dates for the next agenda. Do we need to request a formal deferral or is that only once you are placed on the CDB agenda ? Thank you for your kind direction and assistance. Respectfully, Renee Ruggiero, Project Planner Northside Engineering Services, Inc. T- 727-443-2869 F- 727-446-8036 l~a~zoo6 _~ Wells, Wa ne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 6:19 PM To: Renee Ruggiero (E-mail) Cc: Doreen Williams (E-mail); Patti Stough (E-mail) Subject: FLD2005-1 1 1 1 1, 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue Renee - Attached is the Draft January 5, 200F, DRC comments for the above case. mixed use calculation. The scheduled time for this case is 1:00 pm. Wayne I am also attaching the Word document for the draft 1.5.06 drt Mixed Use action agenda... :alculation for 1001. Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Patricia Stough [parch@gate.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 7:11 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: 1001 Ft Harrison Happy new Year Wayne! I pray that you and your family and work associates all had. a peaceful and joyful Christmas season. Now its back to work! Well only for a few days here... I will be leaving for Continuing Education classes on Friday. Jan 6th, returning to work on the 16th. If you have any city comments on 1001 Ft Hamson, please forward as soon as possible,. as I will only have one day to respond to our DRC Meeting. Thank you, It is a true pleasure working with you! t t Patti Patti the Architect, Inc 1634 San Roy Drive Dunedin, FI 34698 (727)733-3769 1 /9/2006 Clearwater December 07, 2005 Housh Ghovaee 601. Cleveland Street Suite 930 Clearwater, Fl 33755 CITY OF CLE~RWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICLPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: {727} 562-4567 FAX: {727} 562-4576 W W W.MYCLEARWATER. COM RE: FLD2005-11111 -- 1001 S FT HARRISON AVE -- Letter of Completeness Dear Housh Ghovaee ; The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system. and assigned the case number: FLD2005-11111. 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 January O5, 2006, in the Planning Department conference room -Roam 216 - on the second floor of the Municipal Services Building. The building is located at 100 South Myrtle Avenue in downtown Clearwater. You will be contacted by the Planning Department's Administrative Analyst within one week prior to the meeting date for the approximate time that your case will be reviewed. You or your representative (as applicable} must be present to answer any questions that the DRC may have regarding your application. Additional comments may be generated by the DRC at the tinrie 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, r`2 1 l ' it ~/ (XJ~ Wells AICP W ayn , Planner 111 Letter of Completeness - FLD2005-11111 - 1001 S FT HARRISON AVE Norths~e ~~. CIVIL • LAND PLANNING • ENVIRONMENTAL • TRANSPORTATION • LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date: December 8, 2005 To: Wayne Wells, Planner III City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S. Myrtle Ave, #210 Clearwater, FL 33756 Reference: 1001 S. Ft Harrison Ave NES Proj# 564 We Transmit: Enclosed Mail Pick-Up Per Your Request X For Your Use Far Your Files Under Separate Cover UPS Overnight X Hand Delivered For Your Review & Comment For Your Approval For Your Information X Originals Prints Addendum Shop drawings Specifications Applications Floppy Disk Co ies Date Descri tion 15 Tree Surveys Please contact us at (727) 443-2$69 should you have any questions or comments. By: Angel Hairies, Executive Admin. Assistant Copies To: FILE N. Pelzer 601 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 930 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755 NESADMI N@MI NDSPRI NG.COM NESTECHC~MINDSPRING.COM 727 • 443 • 2859 'FAX 727 • 446 • 8036 °t Northsi~e ~~. December 5, 2005 Mr. Wayne Wells Planner III City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 RE: FLD2005-11111 - 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Ave NES #564 Dear Mr. Wells: CIVIL • LAND PLANNING • ENVIRONMENTAL • TRANSPORTATION • Please find listed below responses to the letter of incompleteness dated December 2, 2005. 1. Application has been modified to show the corrected parcel. numbers. 2. The proposed uses and sizes have been revised to show 27 dwelling units and 3,226 SF office space. 3. See sheet C3.1 for the top of bank and toe of slope elevations. 4. The parking lot interior landscape areas have been crosshatched. See revised sheet C2.1. 5. See revised C2.1 for waste containers. Per the architect, the outdoor mechanical equipment will be placed on the roof and will be shielded by a mansard roof. 6. See revised Sheet Ll. l . 7. See revised C2.1 and L1.1 for structural overhangs and dimensions. $. A tree inventory has been provided. 9. See revised Sheet LL 1 for dimensions. 10. See Sheet C2.1 for dimensions of landscape islands. 11. Curbs have been added to all edges of pavement per your request. See revised plans. 12. Landscape designer has provided the Comprehensive Landscape Program application and criteria. This should satisfy the incompleteness of the above project. if you have any additional comments, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Renee Ruggiero Project Planner 601 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 930 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755 NESADMIN@MINDSPRING.COM NESTECHQMINDSI'RING.COM 727 • 443 • 2869 FAX 727 • 446 • 8036 4121GINAL RECEIVED DEC 07 2005 PLANNING DEPARiIvIEt.',.~ CITY OF CLEARWATER ~ 1 CIVIL • LAND PLANNING • ~~~~~„~;,,,, ~~ ~I ENVIRONMENTAL • ~~~ TRANSPQRTATION • LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date: Dcce~~aber 7. 2005 To: Sherry L. Watkins, Administrative Analyst City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S. Myrtle Ave, #210 Clearwater, FL 33756 OR[GffVgl. R~C~tI~Et~ Reference: 1{)Ol S. Ft. Ilarrison Ave NES Proj# 0564 QEQ o ~ ZQ>~5 We Transmit: PUWNlfVC~~~:iQrigna~l~ crN o~ ~•Ifi1~~ER X Enclosed Under Separate Cover Addendum Mail UPS Overnight Shop drawings Pick-Up X Hand Delivered Specifications X Applications Floppy Disk Copies Description 1 Response Letter 1 S Comp Infill Application (Cover Page} 15 ~ Com Landsca e A lication 15 Set (3sheets) Of Civil Plans, 1 Signed And Sealed 15 Landsca e Plans Please contact us at (727) 443-2$69 should you have any questions or comments. Copies to: FILE By: ~ N. Pelzer Renee M. Ruggiero, Project Planner A. Haines 601 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 930 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA.33755 NESADMIN@MINDSPRING.COM N ESTECHCMI N DSPRI NG.COM 7z7 • 443 • 2869 FAX 727 • 446 • 8036 1 J } ~ ~~ r- December 02, 2005 Housh Ghovaee 601 Cleveland Street Suite 930 Clearwater, Fl 33755 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 ;7'EEPHONE: (727} 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 ~` WWW.MYCLEARWATER.COM RE: FLD2005-111 I 1 -- 1001 S FT HARRISON AVE -- Letter of Incompleteness Dear Housh Ghovaee The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number: FLD2005-1 1 1 1 1. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is IneompEete with the following comments. 1. Revise the parcel numbers on the first page of the application to modify the numbers to: 15/29/15/54450/032!0240 15/29/ 15/54450/034/0010 15/29/ 15/54450/034/0030 15/29/ 15/54450/034/0090 15/29/ 15/54450/034/01.10 " 2. Revise the "Proposed Use(s) and Size(s)" on Page 1 of the application from 28 to 27 dwelling units and 3,226 "retail" space to "office" space. 3. Provide on Sheet C3.1 the proposed top of bank and toe of slope elevations for the retention pond. 4. Depict by shading or crosshatching all required parking lot interior landscaped areas. 5. Show or indicate the location of all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment and all required screening. 6. Unclear why the landscape plan indicates what appears to be a two-story sales office when. the civil plans nor the architectural plans indicate such development on the north side of Magnolia Drive. Revise. 7. Show/indicate and dimension all structural overhangs on Sheets C2.1 and L-1. 8. Provide a. Tree Inventory, prepared by a "certified arborist", of all trees 8" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and condition of such trees. 9. On the landscape plan, need to delineate and dimension all required perimeter landscape buffers (along Ft. Harrison Avenue - 15 feet required; along Magnolia Drive - 10 feet required; along the east property line - 10 feet required; along south - 10 feet required}. 10. Need to dimension width of landscape islands. 11. Need to curb all edges of pavement (except ends of parking spaces where wheel stops are provided). ' 12. Need to submit a completed Comprehensive Landscape Program application, due to proposed reductions to at least required perimeter buffers. Leiter of Incompleteness - FLb20lJ5-11II l - 1001 S FT NARRISON AVR' CITY 4F CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUI*IICIP,4,L SERVICES BL]ILDING 100 SOUTIH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727} 562-4576 WWW.MYCLEARWATER.COM December 02, 2005 Section 4-202 of the Community Development Code states that if an application is deemed incomplete, the defciencies of the application shall be specified by Staff. No further development review action shall be taken until the deficiencies are corrected and the application is deemed complete. Please resubmit by noon on Wednesday,. December 7, 2005. If you have any questians, please do not hesitate to contact. me at 727-562-4504 or Wayne. W ells@myclearwater.corn. Sincerely yours, ~ ~- ~~ l~~ Wav e Weils Planner III Cetter ojlncompleteness - FLD2005-1111 ! - 100! S FT IIARRISON AVE Wells;, Wayne From: j Wells, Wayne Sent: ~ Friday, December 02, 2005 2:54 PM ~o: I Renee Ruggiero {E-mail) Subjeiit: FLD2005-11111, 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue Renee~- Attach lei d is a Letter of Incompleteness for the above referenced project. Please resubmit no later than noon on Wednisday, December 7, 2005. Wayn ~, letter of completeness 12.2.. NOrthsi~e ~~~~. y. LETTER QF TRANSMITTAL Date: ;~ioven~l~cr 3{?. 7()OS To: Sherry L. Watkins, Administrative Analyst City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S. Myrtle Ave, #210 Clearwater, FL 33756 Reference: 1.001 S. Ft. Ilarrison. Ave NES Proj# {)564 We Transmit: X Enclosed Under Separate Cover Mail UPS Overnight Pick-Up X Hand Delivered ., CIVIL• LAND PLANNWG• ENVIRONMENTAL • TRANSPORTATION • QRIGINAL RECENED pIA{VN1NG DEPARTMENT Ct'[Y OF CLEARINATER X Originals X Prints Addendum Shop drawings Specifications X Applications Floppy Disk Copies Description 1 Check #1.035 for~Sl,205 15 Flex Development A plication (Comp..infill} 15 Letter of Authorization & Affidavits 15 Warranty Deeds 15 • Surve s 1 si ed and sealed 15 Stormwater Re ort & Narrative (1 signed and sealed) •15 ITE Tri Generation $c Shared Parkin Anal sis Re orts 15 Civil & Landscape Drawings (3 sheets) 15 8.5" X 11"Civil Site Plan 15 8.5" X 11" Colored Landsca e Plan 1.5 8.5 X 11" Colored Renderings 15 8.5 X 11" Buildin Elevations 1 ~ Color chip attached to Original Arc. Drawing 15 24 X.36 Architectural Drawings rlease contact us at (7Z7) 443-2869 should you have any questions or comments. °`~ Copies to: FILE By' i ~ +~ N. Pelzer Renee M. uggiero, roject lanner A. Haines 601 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 930 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755 NESADMIN@MINDSPRING.COM N ESTECH@MI N DS PRI NG.COM 727 • 443 • 2869 FAX 7Z7 • 445 • 8036 Vllells, Wayne From: Rice, Scott Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 10:09 AM To: Quillen, Michael Cc: Wells, Wayne Subject.: RE: Fulvio Divello Mike, The project is FLD2005-11111 - 1001 S Ft Harrison and was reviewed at DRC on 1/5/06. As submitted this project produced many concerns from Engineering -Land Resources -Traffic -Planning. At DRC, Patti Stough dominated the discussion with a new proposed layout that could address most of the issues with the exception of Planning. Planning's major concerns are: Building too large for area. ` Building height not in harmony with area. Proposed density too high. Lack of amenities As we understand, the development team is redesigning the project in accordance with our comments with the intent to resubmit. Since this project must go to CDB, it is 2 - 3 months from receiving a D0. D. SCOtt iRiCe Land Devel. Engr: Manager 72T-562-4781 scott.riceLa~MyClearwater.eom -----Original Message----- From: Quillen, Michael Sent: Thursday, January 19, 200G 11:05 AM To: Rice, Scott Subject: Fulvio Divello Owns the property at 504 S. Gulfview where we are trying to get an easement for a traffic signal as part of Beach Walk. Issues on that property are worked aut and we thought everything was fine. Now he says he has another project in for review somewhere on Fort Harrison and he is getting jerked around by Wayne Wells and is holding the easement hostage until that is resolved. Is there any way you could figure out what and where that project is and what the issue is? Thanks. M.Q. .~ ~f ~~~ 1,;00 pm Case Number; FLD2005-11111 -- 1001 S FT HARRISON AVE Owner(s): Di Vello Family Llc ~ . 400 Island Way N # 703 Clearwater, Fl 33767 ~~ 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: 1.27 acres located at the southeast corner of South Ft. Harrison Avenue and Magnolia Drive (1001 and 1009 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue and 507 and 600 Magnolia Drive). Atlas Page: 295E Zoning District: C, Commercial Request: Flexible Development approval. to permit a mixed use (27 attached dwelling units and. 3,226 square feet of offices) in the Commercial and Office Districts with a reduction to lot width from 50 feet to 4294 feet (within the Office District), reductions to the front (west along S. Ft. Harrison Avenue) from 25 feet to 10 feet (to building) and from 25 feet to 5.4 feet (to trash staging area}, reductions to the front (north. along Magnolia Drive) from 25 feet to 10.3 feet (to building) and from 25 feet to 20 feet (to pavement}, reductions to the side (south) from 10 feet to 7.33 feet {to building) and from 10 feet to five feet. (to pavement) and an increase to building height of an additional 10.67 feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck -roof deck at 45.33-foot height), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Sections 2-704.C and 2-1004.8, and reductions to the landscape buffer along South Ft. Harrison Avenue from 15 feet to 10 feet. (to building) and from I S feet to 5.4 feet {to trash staging area} and reductions to the landscape buffer along the south property line from 10 feet to 7.33 feet (to building) and from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Mixed use Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Association(s): Clearwater, F1 33758 P O Box 8204 TELEPHONE: 727-725-3345, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: Djw@gte.net Neighborhood Harbor Oaks Association Association(s): Clearwater, F133756 301 Druid Rd. West TELEPHONE: 727-447-$081, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Presenter: Wayne Wells, Planner III Attendees Included: City Staff: Wayne Wells, Neil Thompson, Scott Rice, Lenny Rickart, Rick Albee, Tom Glenn Applicant: Renee Ruggiero, Doreen Williams, Patti Stough, Fulvio Divello, Mark Jensen The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: Development Review Agenda -Thursday, January 5, 2006 -Page 23 1. Provide on the plans the F.D.O.T. street designation (S.R. 595). 2. Provide a note or dimension on the plan indicating that the Fire Department. Connection (FDC) shall be installed at least 15-feet from the face of building.. 3. Provide a note or dimension on the plan indicating that the Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall be located no further than. 40-feet from the nearest Fire Hydrant Assembly {FHA). 4. Sidewalk along Ft. Harrison right-of--way shall be 5-feet wide. All of the above to be addressed prior to CDB. , The following shall be addressed prior to issuance of a Building Permit: 1. Provide a copy of an approved right-of way permit from D.O.T. prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Add Nate: "The City of Clearwater will provide water tap, (Clearwater Code of Ordinances Section 32.095}, set the water meter (Clearwater Code of Ordinances Section 32.096) and set the B.F.P.D. (back flow preventor device). The applicant is responsible for the water main extension from the tap to the device. Applicant is also responsible for all associated fees." 3. The applicant shall pay the applicable sewer and water impact fees. (Contact Steve Doherty at [727] 562-4773 for assistance). 4. Provide a copy of an approved health permit for the installation of the domestic water main prior to issuance of a building permit. The health permit application form(s) can be found at: www. dep. state. fl. uslwater/drinkingwater/forms.htm 5. Bring all substandard sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project up to standard, including A.D.A. (Truncated domes per D.O.T. Index #304.) General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Environmental: 1 . Dry Detention systems shall have a grassed bottom and side slopes no steeper than 4:1. Prior to CDB, provide cross-section for the pond to include SHWT and side slope information. Fire: 1 . Provide Fire Flow Calculations /Water Study by a FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER to assure an adequa#e water supply is available and.to determine if any upgrades are required by the developer due to the impact of this project. Calculations I Water Study due PRIOR TO CDB. 2 . An automatic Class I standpipe system with a Fire Pump is required. 100psi at roof is required. Show location on plan. PRIOR TO CDB. 3 . An emergency generator is required as a back up source of power for elevators and fire pump. Show location on plan. Emergency lighting should also be connected. PRIOR TO CDB Harbor Master: 1 . No issues. Legal: l . Na issues. Land Resources: 1 , It appears that no consideration was given to preserving trees, modifications must be made to preserve tree #30. Consult with your arborist to review potential plan modifications and preservation techniques to preserve this tree prior to CDB. 2 , Provide a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by a certified arborist, consulting arborist, landscape architect or other specialist in the field of arboriculture. This plan must show how the proposed building, parking, stormwater and utilities impact. the critical root zones {drip lines) of tree to be preserved and how you propose to address these impacts ie; crown elevating, root pruning and/or root aeration systems. Other data required on this plan must show the trees canopy line, actual tree barricade limits (2/3 of the drip line and/or in the root prune lines if required), and the tree barricade detail. And any other pertinent information relating to tree preservation. Provide prior to building permit. Development Review Agenda -Thursday, January 5, 2006 -Page 24 Landscaping: 1 . Sheet L-1 -Show on the plan the lot on the north side of Magnolia Drive and what landscape treatment is proposed for this lot. 2 , While Sheets C2.1 and C3.1 indicate a sidewalk in front of the parking row that abuts the east side of the building {open parking area), the landscape plan Sheet L-1 landscapes this proposed sidewalk. Unclear whether this is a sidewalk or a landscaped area. Revise either Sheets C2.1 and C3.1 or Sheet L-1. 3 . Sheet C1.1 -Indicate in the Site Data table the required square footage of interior green space for the south parcel (based on 10 percent of the VUA). 4 , Required perimeter buffering: along S. Ft. Harrison Ave = 15 feet; along Magnolia Drive = 10 feet; along the east property line = 10 feet; along south property line = 10 feet. Cannot count perimeter buffers as part of interior green space. Revise that indicated along S. Ft. Harrison Ave to only count that area beyond the perimeter buffer (Sheet C2.1). 5 . Sheet C2.1 -Landscape island on east side of building on south side of row of eight parking spaces does not meet the required eight-foot interior width to qualify as interior green space. Enlarge to a minimum. of eight-foot interior width. 6 . Sheet L-1 -Note in the southeast portion of the parking lot east of the building indicates that " 33 senagal date palm to be relocated on site." Unclear where these are being relocated to. Plant Materials Schedule does not indicate these palms in the table. Revise. Additionally, in the drive aisle south of the three ground-floor condos it indicates " 37 sengal date palm reloc on site". Unclear how this relates to the above. 7 , Sheet L-1 -Revise perimeter buffer note along south property line from 8.2 feet to 7.33 feet. 8 . Remove Sheet IR-1. Place irrigation notes on Sheet L-1. 9 . Sheet L-1 -Three WR are indicate to be planted on the north side of the center of the three ground-floor condos, yet there is no symbol shown on the plan (thet are counted in the schedule). Revise. 10 . Tree Inventory plan -Legend indicates "highlighted" trees will be removed and "non-highlighted" trees are being preserved. Since the plan is black and white, there is no highlighting. Suggest revising the legend to indicate which trees are being removed by a black and white method (such as an asterisk). 11 . In accordance with Section 3-1202.B.1, only a maximum of 25 percent of the required trees can be palms and, where used, staggered clusters of three palms equal one shade tree. Ensure the number of palms does not exceed this maximum. 12 . Comprehensive Landscape Program -Inadequate justification has been given for the reductions, in light of the insensitivity to existing trees {all being removed). The reduction to the southern buffer only allows for the planting of palms, which will do little for providing climate control for the building and parking areas. Parks and Recreation: 1 . Open space/recreation impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permits or fmal plat (if applicable) whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Art Kader at 727-562-4824 to calculate the assessment. Stormwater: 1 , Prior to issuance of a building pemut: 1) The applicant is to provide a copy of the SWFWMD pemut. 2) The existing city stormwater inlet where the entrance driveway is proposed is to he converted to a storm M.H, and the inlet moved south of the driveway connected by a properly sized storm P1Pe• Solid Waste: 1 . Staging area for condo's needs to be on Magnolia Street, Recycling area needs to be shown for Condo's Dumpster enclouser needed for Offices built to city Specifications. Traffic )Engineering: Development Review Agenda -Thursday, January 5, 2006 -Page 25 :, Planning: The driveway along Magnolia Drive closest to the intersection with rt. Harrison does not meet the City's access managment spacing requirements of 125 feet (Community Development Code Section 3-102.D.). 2. Gate for driveway along Fort Harrison Avenue shall not open outward. 3. The spacing between face of gates and back edge of sidewalks to be 40' along Fort Harrison Avenue and 20' along Magnolia Drive. 4. Indicate note on the civil & architectural plans that the vertical. clear height of parking garage is 8' 2" to accommodate handicap van. 5. Recess columns from ends of parking stalls and at intersections to improve maneuverability. 6. Provide accessible route from public sidewalk.to accessible entrance. All of the above to be addressed prior to CDB. Prior to building permit, obtain FDOT permit for driveway access or other work within the state road right-of--way. General note: Comply with the current Transportation Tmpact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule. Development Review Agenda -Thursday, January 5, 2006 -Page 26 Sheet IR-1 -Remove the two-story sales office from the plan. Based on the following mixed use calculation, only a maximum of 25 dwelling units and 3,226 square feet of nonresidential floor area are permitted on the overall. property: 12/27/05 Mixed Use Calculation for 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue Property is zoned Commercial District (maximum FAR = 0.55 and maximum density = 24 du/acre in CG land use} and Office District (maximum FAR = 0.50 and maximum density = 15 du/acre in R10G land use) 1. Total project area.~~UG~GG4GG4~~,~~~,~~L~..55,295 sf 2. Land area zoned Commercial District~~,~~~~~~~~~~,~49,2.77 sf 3. Permitted FAR in Commercial District~~~~~,~~~~~~~..~0.55 4. Floor area. permitted in Commercial District~,~~i,~~~,~i,~.27,102 sf 5. Floor area proposed~~~,G~~i,~...i,~~~~~~~~,~~..3,226 sf 6. Land area attributable/necessary for offices (#5 divided by #3)..~~~5,865 sf 7. Land area available for attached dwellings in C District (Subtract #6 from #2}LLLGLGLLGLG-GLLI,Ll,LG43,412 sf 8. Divide by square footage in an acre~~~~~~~,L~~,~i,....= 43,560 sf 9. Lot acreage available for att. dw. in C District (#7 - #8)L~~~,i,~0.996 acre 10. Multiply lot acreage available for att. dw. in Commercial District (#9}LLLGGI,LGGGLLLGI,LL000GLLGG•~•0.996 acre 11. By maximum density in CG land use~~~~~,~~~,~~~...~.x 24 du/acre 12. Number of dwelling units (du} available in C District~~,~~~~~.23.904 du 13. Land area in Office District~~~~~~~,~~~,~G~~G~...~6,018 sf 14. Divide by square footage in an acre~~~~~~~~,~,~G~,L. ~ 43,560 sf 15. Lot acreage in Office Districts,~~~,~~~~~~~~~G~...~.0.138 acre 16. Multiply lot acreage (#15)~~~s,~~s,~~~...s,~~~~~~..0.138 acre 17. By maximum density in R/OG land use~~~~~Gs,~~~~~x 15 du/acre 18. Number of dwelling units (du} available in Office District~~~~~...2.07 du 19. Number of dwelling units available in C District~~~~~s,.~~..23.904 du 20. Number of dwelling units available in Office Districts,~~~s,.~~2.07 du 21. Total number of dwelling units permitted on overall property (add #19 plus #20)~~,~~i,~~~i,~~~,~~~~~~~~,..25.974 du (or a total of 25 dwelling units; Code requires calculation to round down to whole number) Total maximum permissible on overall property is 3,226 GFA office plus 25 dwelling units. Condition of approval: That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Unity of Title be recorded in the public records; Note: There has been some discussion in the past regarding the potential donation of the lot on the north side of Magnolia Drive to Pinellas County to straighten out the Pinellas Trail. However, if this lot is to be used for density calculations, then it cannot be deeded off (see condition requiring a Unity of Title). Alternately, if the applicant desires to work with the County regarding straightening out the Trail,. granting an easement, tliis maybe workable. Need to check with Engineering whether placing impervious surface on this lot would trigger any drainage issues. Sheet C2.1 -Unclear as to "new trash holding area" in what appears to be a parking space south of the office area and the "new 15'x 10' trash staging area" south of the driveway on S. Ft. Harrison Avenue. Why are there two trash areas? Additionally, unclear (need justification) for the 15'x10' size of the staging area.. Why so big? How many dumpsters will be wheeled out. to this staging area and what size are the dumpsters? Development Review Agenda -Thursday, January 5, 2006 -Page 27 5 . Sheet C2.1 -Trash room depicted is only 4'x6.5' inside dimensions. This is too small for a dumpster to fit. Room would otherwise only fit one dumpster. One dumpster for 25 dwellings plus 3,226 sf office -doesn't compute. Need additional room for dumpsters, plus full {or empty) dumpsters must be stored indoors. Revise. 6 . Sheet C2.1 indicates a roofed area over the southern parking spaces that projects at an angle 7.5 feet from the building, which is also indicated on the west and east elevations as a cantilevered roofed structure. Architect needs to provide information that such a roofed structure can be constnacted cantilevered at the angle shown at a projection of 7.5 feet with a concrete/clay the roof material without any columned support. 7 . Proposal is for a mixed use project of 3,226 sf of offices and 25 dwellings {riot 27 as designed). However, based on the elevations, all under-'the-building parking is proposed to be gated. Unclear how the public coming to the offices have access to parking, especially handicap parking, that is closest to the offices. Advise/revise. 8 . Sheet C2.1 -Indicate proposed gates at the building edges to the under-building parking. Indicate how these gates open (according to the building elevations, there are two doors hinged at the outside edges and appear to swing in). Ensure gates do not block parking spaces. 9 . Based on First Floor Plan on Sheet A-1, the northeast comer of the building is not accurately depicted on the site plan on Sheet C2.1, as the columns north of the stairs are back next to the unit facade and there is no dashed "'overhang" as indicated on the site plan. Additionally, as such, unclear the need for this area to be concreted and should be converted to a landscaped area. Revise. 10 . Sheet C1.1 -Site Data table indicates the paved vehicular use area (WA) to be 20,910 sf. Since this number is used to calculate the square footage of interior green space required, and since the Planning Department does not count under building parking into the ViJA (since landscape material won't grow too well under the building), I calculate only approximately 5,700 square feet of WA that is open to the sky. Unclear the discrepancy of VLJA. Recalculate and revise. 11 . Angled sidewalk from the entry/stairwell at the corner of S. Ft. Harrison Avenue and Magnolia Drive is excessively wide (15 feet wide). The function of this stairwell is to provide required egress from the upper floors and only secondary, nondirect access to the offices. There is no focal feature at this intersection, nor is there any huge pedestrian traffic anticipated, that such importance is given to this sidewalk. Reduce to maximum of six to seven feet wide. 12 . Code has been amended to require two parking space per dwelling unit. Revise calculation in Shared Parking Analysis. 13 . Sheet C2.1 - Provide a dimension from the front properly line of Magnolia Drive to the edge of pavement. adjacent to row of eight parking spaces east of building. 14 . Unless the three ground-floor condos have a rear door access on the south side of the units accessable from the open parking to the east, suggest extending sidewalk in front of the row of eight parking spaces east of the building to the public sidewalk in Magnolia Drive. 15 . Elevations - Provide a dimension from the roof deck to the top of the stair and elevator towers. 16 . Building is flat roofed and, as such, its height is measured to the highest point of the roof deck. (which is indicated as 45.33 feet). The dimension to the midpoint of the mansard roof is unnecessary. Remove from the elevations Sheet C-1 and the Site Data table on Sheet C1.1. 17 . For this proposal with 25 permitted dwellings, there are no amenities proposed. Rooftop sunset view will provide limited use by the residents and is recommended to be eliminated (see comment regarding height of mansard parapet height). With other attached dwelling projects, sometimes with fewer number of units, swimming pools have been desired at a later date, which creates site design issues. Provide an explanation for the provision of no amenities for the attached dwellings. 1$ . l;levations -The west and east elevations indicate a column in the center of the gates at the driveway on S. Ft. Harrison Avenue or at the drive aisle on the east side of the building. Based on the floor plans, there is no column at that Iocation, and a column would block traffic movement. Remove column from both the east and west elevations. 19 . The mansard roof parapet of 10.67 feet from the top of the roof deck is excessively tall and Staff will not support such a parapet height. Any height above 30-inches is advertised as part of the request. Reduce to at least half of present request and/or change the type/design of the parapet. 20 . North and west elevations -Unclear of the material indicated as part of the western stair tower, but assumed. to be glass block. Identify the material on the elevation. However, unclear why it is used only in this location and no where else on the building. Advise. Development Review Agenda -Thursday, January 5, 2006 -Page 28 21 . Elevations -While not indicated, it appears that shutters are proposed on the sides of each set of windows. Shutters are nonfunctional, decorative only and seem out of place on this type of building, especially with windows with five panes. Advise/revise. 22 . Sheet A-1 -Indicate on the 3rd Floor Plan that the roof deck extends over the alcove between Units A and C on the south. side of the building. 23 . Sheet C1.1 -Revise Project Site Map to include the one lot on the north side of Magnolia Drive. 24 . Sheet C 1.1 -Aerial map is too dark. Lighten. 25 . Sheet C1.1 -Add the shared parking calculation (per Section 3-1404) onto this sheet (not on an 8.5"x11" sheet of paper). 26 . With the location of the elevators, and since it is indicated that residents will access the roof, it is assumed that the elevator will also access the roof. If, as such, the elevations should be showing an elevator tower extension above the roof and the roof plan shoul also show the elevator tower {which they don't}. Revise. 27 . Narrative -Description of Request - a. Revise five-story to four-story; b. Revise the number of units from 27 to 25; and c. Revise the reductions and add in the height increase as indicated above. 28 . General Applicability criteria #1 -Staff disagrees with the project being harmonious with the scale, bulk and character of adjacent properties. This area, especially between 7effords Street and Druid Road. but more generally except for the hospital west of South Ft. Harrison Avenue, is low . scale (one to two stories, except for the emerging townhome attached dwellings at three stories) and with no massive buildings, where the reduced front setback to existing or proposed buildings is rrutigated by their height and smaller buildings. Any massing of the townhome attached dwellings is broken up by having a few units in a row. Combined with the front setback of existing or proposed buildings along South Ft. Harrison Avenue, the proposal is out of character for this area and Staff will not support it. The height of the building is an issue (maximum of three stories), as well as the reduced setbacks and the scale/bulk of the building. 29 . Sheet A-1 -The alcove between Units A and C on the south side of the building is nonfunctional, especially since there is a roof overhead, and would function better if the Units were joined into Unit floor area. Likewise, there is a tat of wasted, nonfunctional space on the western portion of the building on the north side of Unit A around the northern stairwell and between Units A and C. The area between Units A and C could be better converted to Unit floor area with one unit with an angled balcony. 30 . General Applicability criteria #2 -Fix word in last sentence from "1 and" to "land". 31 . General Applicability criteria #2 -Due to the scale, bulk and setback of the proposed building, it is questionable how this project will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development of adjacent properties. 32 . General Applicability criteria #5 -Staff disagrees that the proposal is consistent with the desires for the area, that it will blend beautifully with the community character (see discussion above under criteria #1}. 33 . General Applicability criteria #6 -Response is inadequate as to how this project will minimize the visual impact of this development on the surrounding area and that along S. Ft Harrison. Avenue {see discussion under criteria #1}. 34 . Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 -The property is not in the Downtown area and the existing and emerging character of this area is not where reduced setbacks are trying to promote a pedestrian environment. Access to the offices will be via vehicles, with a very low percentage from pedestrians and from residents. Inadequate justification has been provided as to HOW the redevelopment of this parcel is IMPRACTICABLE without the deviations requested. 35 . Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #4 -Inadequate justification has been provided as to HOW this proposal is compatible with the surrounding area, espcially in light of the height, scale bulk and reduced setbacks in relationship to the existing and emerging character of this area of South Ft. Harrison Avenue. Development Review Agenda -Thursday, January 5, 2006 -Page 24 36 . Comprehensive Intill Redevelopment Project criteria #5 response -Building does not exhibit; nor is it necessary to exhibit, "touches" of historical details of the old market building. There is no new "market" proposed to have any links to the past. To my knowledge, the old market was not a historical structure that requires some consideration and, if there was, it would have been dealt with at the demolition permit time. This is purely a new development and the old has been demolished. There are no striped canopies proposed. No one remembers the windows of the old market, in light of the decrepit condition it was in the last few years, and this was only one building on the property (there were two others). The proposed building does not model the old building at all and is massively different. The insensitivity to the existing tree canopy on the site is not indicative of HOW this proposal upgrades Che property, which eliminates ALL relationships to the past. 37 . Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6 response -Inadequate justification has been provided as to HOW this proposal furthers the form and function of the existing and emerging character of the surrounding area, in light of the height, scale/bulk and setbacks of the proposed building. 38 . Comprehensive Infi11 Redevelopment Project criteria #~7 response -Inadequate justification has been provided as to HOW flexibilty regarding this proposal's height and setbacks are justified in relationship to the existing and emerging character of the surrounding area (community character) and its benefits thereof. 39 . Sheet A-1 -Identify on the floor plans the proposed function of the small rooms {nan-Units) on the first, second and third floors. Other: No Comments Notes: Due to the discussion & display of a revised plan @ the DRC meeting, it is the consensus of Neil, Scott & Wayne that the project needs to come back to DRC, with revised plans need to be submitted by noon on 1/30/06 for the 3/2/06 DRC meeting. Development Review Agenda -Thursday, January 5, 2006 -Page 30 1:00 pm Case Number: FLD2005-111 i 1 -- 1001 S FT HARRISON AVE Owner(s): Di Vello Family L1c ~ ~ ~` 400 Island Way N # 703 Clearwater, F133767 ~~~ TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Representative: Roush Ghovaee ~~~~ 601 Cleveland Street Clearwater, F133755 TELEPHONE: 727-443-2869, FAX: 727-446-8036, E-MAIL: renee@northsideengineering.com Location: 1.27 acres located at the southeast corner of South Ft. Harrison Avenue and Magnolia Drive (1001 and 1009 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue and 507 and 600 Magnolia Drive). Atlas Page: 295B Zoning District: C, Commercial Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a mixed use (27 attached dwelling units and 3,226 square feet of offices) in the Commercial and Office Districts with a reduction to lot width from 50 feet to 42.94 feet {within the Office District}, reductions to the front (west along S. Ft. Harrison Avenue) from 25 feet to 10 feet. (to building) and from 25 feet to 5.4 feet {to trash staging area), reductions to the front (north along Magnolia Drive) from 25 feet to 10.3 feet (to building) and from 25 feet to 20 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side {south) from 10 feet to 7.33 feet (to building) and from 10 feet to five feet {to pavement}'and an increase to building height of an additional 10.67 feet for perimeter parapets (from roof deck -roof deck at 45.33-foot height}, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions.of Sections 2-704.C and 2-1004.B, and reductions to the landscape buffer along South Ft. Harrison Avenue from 15 feet to 10 feet {to building} and from 15 feet to 5.4 feet (to trash staging area) and reductions to the landscape buffer along the south property line from 10 feet to 7.33 feet (to building) and from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Mixed use Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition. Association(s): Clearwater, F1 33758 P O Box $204 `T'ELEPHONE: 727-725-3345, FAX: No Fax,. E-MAIL: Djw@gte.net Neighborhood Harbor Oaks Association Association{s}: Clearwater, Fl 33756 301 Druid Rd. West TELEPHONE: 727-447-8081, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Presenter: Wayne Wells, Planner III Attendees Included: City Staff: Wayne Wells, Neil Thompson, Scott Rice, Lenny Rickart, Rick Albee Applicant: Renee Ruggiero, Patti Stough, The DRC reviewed. this application with the following comments: General Engineering: Development Review Agenda -Thursday, January 5, 2006 -Page 22 1. Provide on the pI`~ans the F.D.O.T. street designation (S.R. 595). 2. Provide a note or dimension on the plan indicating that the Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall be installed at least 15-feet from the face of building. 3. Provide a note or dimension on the plan indicating that. the Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall be located no further than 40-feet from the nearest Fire Hydrant Assembly (FHA). 4. Sidewalk along Ft. Harrison right-of--way shall be 5-feet wide. All of the above to be addressed prior to CDB. The following shall be addressed prior to issuance of a Building Permit: 1. Provide a copy of an approved right-of--way permit from D.O.T. prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Add Note: "The City of Clearwater will provide water tap, (Clearwater Code of Ordinances Section 32.095), set the water meter (Clearwater Code of Ordinances Section 32.096) and set the B.F.P.D. (back flow preventor device). The applicant is responsible for the water main extension from the tap to the device. Applicant is also responsible for all associated fees." 3. The applicant shall pay the applicable sewer and water impact fees. (Contact Steve Doherty at [727] 562-4773 for assistance). 4. Provide a copy of an approved health permit for the installation of the domestic water main prior to issuance of a building permit. The health permit application form(s) can be found at: www.dep. state.fl.us/water/drinlcingwater/forms.htm 5. Bring all substandard sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project up to standard, including A.D.A. (Truncated domes per D.O.T. Index #304,) General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Environmental: 1 . Dry Detention systems shall have a grassed bottom and side slopes no steeper than 4:1. Prior to CDB, provide cross-section for the pond to include SHWT and side slope information. Fire: 1 . 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. Calculations /Water Study due PRIOR TO CDB. 2 , An automatic Class I standpipe system with a Fire Pump is required. 100psi at roof is required. Show location. on plan. PRIOR TO CDB. 3 _ An emergency generator is required as a back up source of power for elevators and fire pump. Show location on plan. Emergency lighting should also be connected. PRIOR TO CDB Harbor Master: 1 . No issues. Legal: 1 . No issues. Land Resources: 1 , It appears that no consideration was given to preserving trees, modifications must be made to preserve tree #30. Consult with your arborist to review potential plan modifications and preservation techniques to preserve this tree prior to CDB. 2 , Provide a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by a certified arborist, consulting arborist, landscape architect or other specialist in the field of arboriculture. This plan must show how the proposed building, parking, stormwater and utilities impact the critical root zones (drip lines) of tree to be preserved and haw you propose to address these impacts ie; crown elevating, root pruning and/or root aeration systems. Other data required on this plan must show the trees canopy line, actual tree barricade limits (2/3 of the drip line and/or in the root prune lines if required), and the tree barricade detail. And any other pertinent information relating to tree preservation. Provide prior to building permit. Development Review Agenda -Thursday, January 5, 2006 -Page 23 Landscaping: 1 . Sheet L-1 -Show on the plan the lot on the north side of Magnolia Drive and what landscape treatment is proposed for this lot. 2 . While Sheets C2.1 and C3.1 indicate a sidewalk in front of the parking raw that abuts the east side of the building (open parking area), the landscape plan Sheet L-1 landscapes this proposed sidewalk. Unclear whether this is a sidewalk or a landscaped area. Revise either Sheets C2.1 and C3.1 or Sheet L-1. 3 . Sheet C1.1 -Indicate in the Site Data table the required square footage of interior green space for the south parcel (based on 10 percent of the VUA). 4 , Required perimeter buffering: along S. Ft. Harrison Ave = 15 feet; along Magnolia Drive = 10 feet; along the east property line = 10 feet; along south property line = 10 feet. Cannot count perimeter buffers as part of interior green space. Revise that indicated along S. Ft. I-Iarrison Ave to only count that area beyond the perimeter buffer (Sheet C2.1). 5 . Sheet C2.1 -Landscape island on east side of building on south side of row of eight parking spaces does not meet the required. eight-foot interior width to qualify as interior green space. Enlarge to a minimum of eight-foot interior width. 6 , Sheet L-1 -Note in the southeast portion of the parking lot east of the building indicates that " 33 senagal date palm to be relocated on site." Unclear where these are being relocated to. Plant Materials Schedule does not indicate these palms in the table. Revise. Additionally, in the drive aisle south of the three ground-floor condos it indicates " 37 sengal. date palm reloc on site". Unclear how this relates to the above. 7 . Sheet L-1 -Revise perimeter buffer note along south property line from 8.2 feet to 7.33 feet. g . Remove Sheet IR-1. Place irrigation notes on Sheet L-1. 9 , Sheet L-1 -Three WR are indicate to be planted on the north. side of the center of the three ground-floor condos, yet there is no symbol shown on the plan (thee are counted in the schedule). Revise. lp . Tree Inventory plan -Legend indicates "highlighted" trees will be removed and "non-highlighted" trees are being preserved. Since the plan is black and white, there is no highlighting. Suggest revising the legend to indicate which trees are being removed by a black and white method (such as an asterisk). 11 . In accordance with Section 3-1202.B.1, only a maximum of 25 percent of the required trees can be palms and, where used, staggered clusters of three palms equal one shade tree. Ensure the number of palms does not exceed this maximum. 12 . Comprehensive Landscape Program -Inadequate justification has been given for the reductions, in light of the insensitivity to existing trees (all being removed}. The reduction to the southern buffer only allows for the, planting of palms, which will do little for providing climate control for the building and parking areas. Parks and Recreation: 1 •, Open space/recreation impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permits or final plat (if applicable} whichever occurs first. These fees could. be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Art Kader at 727-562-4824 to calculate the assessment. Stormwater: 1 . Prior to issuance of a building permit: 1) The applicant is to provide a copy of the SWFWMD permit. 2} The existing city stormwater inlet where the entrance driveway is proposed is to be converted to a storm M.H. and the inlet moved south of the driveway connected by a properly sized storm pipe. Solid Waste: 1 . Staging area for condo's needs to be on Magnolia Street, Recycling area needs to be shown for Condo's Dumpster enclouser needed for Offices built to city Specifications. Traffic Engineering: Development Review Agenda -Thursday, January 5, 2006 -Page 24 The driveway along Magnolia Drive closest to the intersection with rt. Harrison does not meet the City's access managment spacing requirements of 125 feet (Community Development Code Section 3-102.D.). 2. Gate for driveway along Fort Harrison Avenue shall not. open outward. 3. The spacing between face of gates and back. edge of sidewalks to be 40' along Fort Harrison Avenue and 20' along Magnolia Drive. 4. Indicate note on the civil & architectural plans that the vertical clear height of parking garage is 8' 2" to accommodate handicap van. 5. Recess columns from ends of parking stalls and at intersections to improve maneuverability. 6. Provide accessible route from public sidewalk to accessible entrance. All of the above to be addressed prior to CDB.. Prior to CDB, obtain FDOT pemut for driveway access or other work within the state road. right-of--way. General note: Comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule. Planning: Development Review Agenda -Thursday, January 5, 2006 -Page 25 Sheet IR-1 -Remove the two-story sales office from the plan. Based on the following mixed use calculation, only a maximum of 25 dwelling units and 3,226 square feet of nonresidential floor area are permitted on the overall property: 12/27/05 Mixed Use Calculation far 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue Property is zoned Commercial District (maximum FAR = 0.55 and maximum density = 24 du/acre in CG land use) and Office District {maximum FAR = 0.50 and maximum density = 15 du/acre in R/OG land use) 1. Total project area.~~~~~~,u~i,G~~G~~~~i,~~..55,295 sf 2. Land area zoned Commercial District~~~G~~~~,~~~~~49,277 sf 3. Permitted FAR in Commercial District~,~i,~~~~~~~~,~..~0.55 4. Floor area permitted in Commercial District~~,~~~~~~~~,.27,102 sf 5. Floor area proposed~i,~G~~~~...i2~G~~GLi~~~~..3,226 sf 6. Land area amibutable/necessary for offices {#5 divided by #3)..~~~5,865 sf 7. Land area available for attached dwellings in C District (Subtract #6 from #2)~,~~~,~~~~~~~,.~~~~~~~,~43,412 sf 8. Divide by square footage in an acre~~~,~~~~~~~,~~....= 43,560 sf 9. Lot acreage available for att. dw. in C District {#7 - #8)~~~~~~0.996 acre 10. Multiply lot acreage available for att. dw. in Commercial District (#g)LLii,LLLLLLi.LL~i,~~~~i,~~~~~.i..0.996 acre 11. By maximum density in CG land use~,~~~~~~~~~i,...~,.x 24 dulacre 12. Number of dwelling units (du) available in C District~,~~~~,~~.23.904 du 13. Land area in Office District~~~,~~~,~~~~~~~~~~,...~,6,018 sf 14. Divide by square footage in an acrei,~~~~~~~~~i,~~.= 43,560 sf 15. Lot acreage in Office District~L~~~~~,i,~~G~GGG...~.0.138 acre 16. Multiply lot acreage (#15)~~~,~~G~i,~i,...~,G~~~~~,..0.138 acre 17. By maximum density in R/OG land use~~~,~i,~,~~~i,G~x 15 du/acre 18. Number of dwelling units {du) available in Office District~~~~i,...2.07 du 19. Number of dwelling units available in C District~~,~G~~.~~..23.904 du 20. Number of dwelling units available in Office District~,~~~~.~~2.07 du 21. Total number of dwelling units permitted on overall property {add #14 plus #20)~~~~G~~~~~~~~~~,~~~~G..25.974 du {or a total of 25 dwelling units; Code requires calculation to round down to whole number) Total maximum pernussible on overall property is 3,226 GFA office plus 25 dwelling units. Condition of approval: That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Unity of Title be recorded in the public records; Note: There has been some discussion in the past regarding the potential donation of the lot on the north side of Magnolia Drive to Pinellas County to straighten out the Pinellas Trail. However, if this lot is to be used for density calculations, then it cannot be deeded off (see condition requiring a Unity of Title). Alternately, if the applicant desires to work with the County regarding straightening out the Trail, granting an easement, this maybe workable. Need to check with Engineering whether placing impervious surface on this lot would trigger any drainage issues. Sheet C2.1 -Unclear as to "new trash holding area" in what appears to be a parking space south of the office area and the "new 15'x 10' trash staging area" south of the driveway on S. Ft. Harrison Avenue. Why are there two trash areas? Additionally, unclear (need justification) for the 15'x10' size of the staging area. Why so big? How many dumpsters will be wheeled out to this staging area and what size are the dumpsters? Development Review Agenda -Thursday, January 5, 2006 -Page 26 5 . Sheet C2.1 -Trash room depicted is only 4'x6.5' inside dimensions. 1 his is too small for a dumpster to fit. Room would otherwise only fit one dumpster. One dumpster for 25 dwellings plus 3,226 sf office -doesn't compute. Need additional room for dumpsters, plus full (ar empty) dumpsters must be stored indoors. Revise. 6 . Sheet C2.1 indicates a roofed area over the southern parking spaces that projects at an angle 7.5 feet from the building, which is also indicated on the west and east elevations as a cantilevered roofed structure. Architect needs to provide information that such a roofed structure can be constructed cantilevered at the angle shown at a projection of 7.5 feet with aconcrete/clay the roof material without any columned support. 7 . Proposal is for a mixed use project of 3,226 sf of offices and 25 dwellings (not 27 as designed). However, based on the elevations, all under-the-building parking is proposed to be gated. Unclear how the public coming to the offices have access to parking, especially handicap parking, that is closest to the offices. Advise/revise. 8 . Sheet C2.1 -Indicate proposed gates at the building edges to the under-building parking. Indicate how these gates open (according to the building elevations, there are two doors hinged at the outside edges and appear to swing in). Ensure gates do not block parking spaces. 9 . Based on First Floor Plan on Sheet A-1, the northeast corner of the building is not accurately depicted on the site plan on Sheet C2.1, as the columns north of the stairs are back next to the unit facade and there is no dashed "overhang" as indicated on the site plan. Additionally, as such, unclear the need for this area to be concreted and should be converted to a landscaped area. Revise. 10 . Sheet C1.1 -Site Data table indicates the paved vehicular use area (ViJA) to be 20,910 s£ Since this number is used to calculate the square footage of interior green space required, and since the Planning Department does not count under building parking into the Vi1A (since landscape material won't grow too well under the building), I calculate only approximately 6,700 square feet of VLTA that is open to the sky. Unclear the discrepancy of VLTA. Recalculate and revise. 11 . Angled sidewalk from the entry/stairwell at the comer of S. Ft. Harrison Avenue and Magnolia Drive is excessively wide (15 feet wide). The function of this stairwell is to provide required egress from the upper floors and only secondary, nondirect access to the offices. There is no focal feature at this intersection, nor is there any huge pedestrian traffic anticipated, that such importance is given to this sidewalk. Reduce to maximum of six to seven feet wide. 12 . Code has been amended to require two parking space per dwelling unit. Revise calculation in Shared Parking Analysis. 13 . Sheet C2.1 - Provide a dimension from the front property line of Magnolia Drive to the edge of . pavement adjacent to row of eight parking spaces east of building. 14 . Unless the three ground-floor condos have a rear door access on the south side of the units accessable from the open parking to the east, suggest extending sidewalk in front of the row of eight parking spaces east of the building to the public sidewalk in Magnolia Drive. 15 . Elevations - Provide a dimension from the roof deck. fio the top of the stair and elevator towers. 16 . Building is flat roofed and, as such, its height is measured to the highest point of the roof deck (which is indicated as 45.33 feet). The dimension to the midpoint of the mansard roof is unnecessary. Remove from the elevations Sheet C-1 and the Site Data table on Sheet C1.1. 17 . For this proposal with 25 permitted dwellings, there are no amenities proposed. Rooftop sunset view will provide limited use by the residents and is recommended to be eliminated (see comment regarding height of mansard parapet height). With other attached dwelling projects, sometimes with fewer number of units, swimming pools have been desired at a later date, which creates site design issues. Provide an explanation for the provision of no amenities for the attached dwellings. 18 . Elevations -The west and east elevations indicate a column in the center of the gates at the driveway on S. Ft. Harrison Avenue or at the drive aisle on the east side of the building. Based on the floor plans, there is no column at that location, and a column would block traffic movement. Remove column from both the east and west elevations. 19 . The mansard roof parapet of 10.67 feet from the top of the roof deck is excessively tall and Staff will not support such a parapet height. Any height above 30-inches is advertised as part of the request. Reduce to at least half of present request and/or change the type/design of the parapet. 20 . North and west elevations -Unclear of the material indicated as part of the western stair tower, but assumed to be glass block. Identify the material on the elevation. However, unclear why it is used only in this location and no where else on the building. Advise. Development Review Agenda -Thursday, January 5, 2006 -Page 27 21 . Elevations -While not indicated, it appears that shutters are proposed on the sides of each set of windows. Shutters are nonfunctional, decorative only and seem out of place on this type of building, especially with windows with five panes. Advise/revise. 22 . Sheet A-1 -Indicate on the 3rd Floor Flan that the roof deck extends over the alcove between Units A and C on the south side of the building. 23 . Sheet C1.1 -Revise Project Site Map to include the one lot on the north side of Magnolia Drive. 24 . Sheet C1.1 -Aerial map is too dark. Lighten. 25 . Sheet C1.1 -Add the shared parking calculation (per Section 3-1404) onto this sheet (not on an 8.5"x11" sheet ofpaper}. 26 . With the location of the elevators, and since it is indicated that residents will access the roof, it is assumed that the elevator will also access the roof. If, as such, the elevations should be showing an elevator tower extension above the roof and the roof plan shoul also show the elevator tower (which they don't). Revise. 27 . Narrative -Description. of Request - a. Revise five-story to four-story; b. Revise the number of units from 27 to 25; and c. Revise the reductions and add in the height increase as indicated. above. 28 . General Applicability criteria #l -Staff disagrees with the project being harmonious with the scale, bulk and character of adjacent properties. This area, especially between Jeffords Street and Druid Road but more generally except for the hospital west of South Ft. Harrison Avenue, is low scale (one to two stories, except for the emerging townhome attached dwellings at three stories) and with no massive buildings, where the reduced front setback. to existing or proposed buildings is mitigated by their height and smaller buildings. Any massing of the townhome attached dwellings is broken up by having a few units in a row. Combined with the front setback of existing or proposed buildings along South Ft. Harrison Avenue, the proposal is out of character for this area and Staff will not support it. The height of the building is an issue (maximum of three stories), as well as the reduced setbacks and the scale bulk of the building. 29 . Sheet A-1 -The alcove between Units A and C on the south side of the building is nonfunctional, especially since there is a roof overhead, and would function better if the Units were joined into Unit floor area. Likewise, there is a lot of wasted, nonfunctional space on the western portion of the building on the north side of Unit A around the northern stairwell and between Units A and C. The area between Units A and C could be better converted to Unit floor area with one unit with an angled balcony. 30 . General Applicability criteria #2 -Fix word in last sentence from "1 and" to "land". 31 . General Applicability criteria #2 -Due to the scale, bulk and setback of the proposed building, it is questionable how this project will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development of adjacent properties. 32 . General Applicability criteria #5 -Staff disagrees that the proposal is consistent with the desires for the area, that it will blend beautifully with the conununity character (see discussion above under criteria #1). 33 . General Applicability criteria #6 -Response is inadequate as to how this project will minimize the visual impact of this development on the surrounding area and that along S. Ft. Harrison Avenue (see discussion under criteria #1). 34 . Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 -The property is not in the Downtown area and the existing and emerging character of this area is not where reduced setbacks are trying to promote a pedestrian environment. ,Access to the offices will be via vehicles, with a very low percentage from pedestrians and from residents. Inadequate justification has been provided as to HOW the redevelopment of this parcel is IMPRACTICABLE without the deviations requested. 35 . Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #4 -Inadequate justification has been provided as to HOW this proposal is compatible with the surrounding area, espcially in light of the height, scale bulk and reduced setbacks in relationship to the existing and emerging character of this area of South Ft. Harrison Avenue. Development Review Agenda -Thursday, January 5, 2005 -Page 2$ 36 . Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #5 response -Building does not exhibit, nor is it necessary to exhibit, "touches" of historical details of the old market building. There is no new "market" proposed to have any links to the past. To my knowledge, the old market was not a historical structure that requires some consideration and, if there was, it would have been dealt with at the demolition permit time. This is purely a new development and the old has been demolished. There are no striped canopies proposed. No one remembers the windows of the old market, in light of the decrepit condition it was in the last few years, and this was only one building on the property (there were two others). The proposed building does not model the old building at all. and is massively different. The insensitivity to the existing tree canopy on the site is not indicative of HOW this proposal upgrades the property, which eliminates ALL relationships to the past. 37 . Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6 response -Inadequate justification has been provided as to HOW this proposal furthers the form and function of the existing and emerging character of the surrounding area, in light of the height, scale bulk and setbacks of the proposed building. 3$ : Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #7 response -Inadequate justification has been provided as to HOW flexibilty regarding this proposal's height and setbacks are justified in relationship to the existing and emerging character of the surrounding area (community character) and its benefits thereof. 39 . Sheet A-1 -Identify on the floor plans the proposed function of the small rooms (non-Units) on the first, second and third floors. Other: No Comments Notes: To be placed on the 2/21/06 CDB agenda, submit 15 collated copies of the revised plans & application material addressing all above departments' comments by noon, 1/11lOb. Packets shall be collated, folded and stapled as appropriate. Development Review Agenda -Thursday, January 5, 2006 -Page 29 12/27/as Mixed Use Calculation for 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue Property is zoned Commercial District (maximum FAR = 0.55 and maximum density = 24 du/acre in CG land use) and Office District (maximum FAR = 0.50 and maximum density =15 du/acre in R/OG land use) Total project area ...............................................................55,295 sf 2. Land area zoned Commercial District .......................................49,277 sf 3. Permitted FAR in~ Commercial District .........................................0.55 4. Floor area permitted in Commercial District ................ . ..............27,102 sf 26 s 5. Floor area proposed ..............................................................3,2 6. Land area attributable/necessary for offices (#5 divided by #3}...........5,865 sf 7. Land area available for attached dwellings in C District (Subtract #6 from #2} ..........................................................43,412 sf 8. Divide by square footage in an acre ...... . .................................- 43,560 sf 9. Lot acreage available for att. dw. in C District (#7 ~ #8} ..................0.996 acre 10. Multiply lot acreage available for att. dw. in Commercial District (#9) ............. . ................... .............................................0.996 acre ... 1 l . By maximum density in CG land use ............ . ...........................x 24 du/acre 12. Number of dwelling units (du) available in C District ......................23.904 du 13, Land area in Office District ......................................................6,018 sf 14. Divide by square footage in an acre ........................................- 43,560 sf 15. Lot acreage in Office District ....................................................0.138 acre 1 acre 16. Multiply lot acreage (#15} ........................................................ . 17. By maximum density in R/OG land use ................................... :x 15 du/acre 18. Number of dwelling units (du} available in Office District ..................2.07 du 19. Number of dwelling units available in C District ...........................23.904 du 20. Number of dwelling units available in Office District ......................2.07 du 21. Total number of dwelling units permitted on overall property (add #19 plus #20) ..............................................................25.974 ciu (or a total of 25 dwelling units; Code requires calculation to round down to whole number} Total maximum permissible on overall property is 3,226 GFA office plus 25 dwelling units. ~~,..~_~ _Di~ris~ollO~rc~~,~~,„~~I~~~~II~s j 1 _ .~ ~~.,, ~ a _ 'r.'i i 1~ ~., ~ Icy ] ~ li ra :"f~~~l f~.„s-~I Y ff~t ~, ~F (31j~ f8} ~A~.~r 7~ 1 F:IT ~j 1 ti. c . _.~. .. >-.tea ~ ifi- 3'' ~~,~{~-)~ ~ t $S,~S~ '~ Y~.~ ~ It ~1~~"_.~ J a+ ~1 ._ ~..~ Florida Limited Liability DIVELLO FAMYLY, L.L.C. PRINCIPAL ADDRESS 400 ISLAND WAY, NO. 703 CLEARWATER FL 33767 ` MAILING ADDRESS 400 ISLAND WAY, NO. 703 CLEARWATER FL 33767 Uacl~ment Number FEI Number Date Filed L0=1000060408 201534925 08/I3/2004 State Status Effective Date FL ACTIVE NONE ~I~Ittal Contribution 0.00 Registered Agent Name & Address RUNNELLS, KENT B ESQ 101 MAIN STREET, SUITE A SAFETY HARBOR FL 34695 Page 1 of 2 Manager/Member Detail ;, '~ Name & Address Title i, DIVELLO,FULVIO 400 9SLAND WAY, NO. 703 MGRM ~; CLEARWATER FL 33767 I Annual Re orts Report Year Filed I?ate http://wrww.s~mbi r.c~r ~/scriptsfcordet.exe?a1=DETFIL&n1=L04000060408&n2=NAMFW... 12/2/2005 ~ ,, ~ ,~~IS1011 0 E GOl']~4r~1C1 OC1S ~~ - z~os i~ _ o„zb,zoos _ ~~ Previous Filing ~ Return to, List ' Next Filing No Events No Name History information m ._~~-_ ___ - ~ __ - - - ~-- --_- --- Document Images Listed below are the images available for this filing. Page 2 of 2 _~ ~_ ~Ol, 26,?_Q(>> -=AN'NUAL REPORT 08r' 13/2Q[~d~ _ ~ Florida Limited Liabilites TH I S IS ]~'~~"'v' v hFICIAL RECORD; SEE DOCUMENTS IF QUESTION OR CONFLICT - C:or},~~r~t~ki,~~»~ "lr~~~uir,~~ ~s ,: }~ar~ar~a~bns~,H~el r~. http:/h~~ww. s ~~ n h i,~.c>r~~/scripts/cordet.exe?al =DETFIL&n1=L04000060408&n2=NAMFW... 12/2/2005 ~• _ P,~ ellas County Property Appr~ •-pr Information: 16 29 l5 00000 440 O1 ^^ Page 2 of 5 yl 15 I ~9 l 15 / 5445 ~ 032 10240 02-pec_2p05 .Jim Smith, CFR Pinellas County Property Appraiser 08:01:00 ,_r~~ir-~rr:_f-cip Ir-~rormation Vacant Property Use and Sales DI VELLO fAHILY LLC O DK: 14143 LlPG: 0921 400 ISLANO WAY Fi # 703 CLEARWATER fL 33767-2134 EVAC: Nan-EVAC COr~IN•y.r.~.f~1M ~..~.1~::-~ 5ralue as Prop Rddr; 0 of 1•~.n is ?iiCi5: h~ased on Census Tract: 259.02 sales tr~_~r~~ 2D~r3 - 20Q~; D Sale Date DR Baok/Page Price (Qua//UnQ) Vac/Imp F'l.at Info-.rr~ra#.ion 2 / 2, 005 14, 1431 921 i, 300, 004 {M} U 1914; 6+~+_~~; 003 Ps° 043- 0 10 0} 0 0 ~ } 191 3; E~ o ~~~ k. 0 01 '='=. ~~ 0 7 0- 0 I D 0} 0 0 ~} 0 0 0 4; E~~ ~r~F; F='~:_; - 0 10 0} 0 0 t) ~iig5 +,r.~,lr_~r, E7CENiPTIONS 3ust;'f~b~.rket; 34,500 Homestead: NO Dwnership ~ .000 Govt Exem: NO Use ~; .000 Asse~~:_e~.~lr=;•~.~,, 34, 500 Institutional Exem: MO Tax ExeMpt ~: .000 Historic Exem: 0 T,~.::aL~le; 34,504 Agricultural, 0 ~iiC~~l T•~+.;; Ir~f~~rr~~ation Dist.ri~_:t: CW Seawall: Frontage: Clearwater View: 05 i'+tilla:_r, 23.2372 Land Size Unit Land Land Land Front x Depth Price Units Nteth 05 Ta::r°; 801.68 1} 43 x 135 7. 44 5, 805. DO S Special T•a:•: . 00 ~} 0 x 0 .00 . 00 3) 0 x 0 .00 .40 With-n_~i_lt t.f-~e :~~=.•~,~-UUr-Hcmeg 4) 4 x 0 .40 .04 Cap , 2 0 ii 5~ #. ,~,.:•: e :~, ~~~ i l l b e 5) O x 4 . 0 0 . 0 0 801.58 6} 0 x 0 .40 .OD LJitt-~r~r_,t ,y.n.,~ e:•:c.ni~~tions, 240 t. a:•:e: ~~~il] be 801.68 Shur'#. Lc[.a.l MAGHOLTA PARK BLK 32, LOT 24 Descrip#.i~ar-, Building Tnforn~atioil http://pao.co.pi Hellas. il.us/htbn/cgi-click?o=1 &a=t &b-1 &c=1&1=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 12/2/2005 ~~ f'~~nellas County Prop:~rty App~r Information: 16 29 15 00000 440 0~ 15 / 9 / 15 1 54450 ~' 032 I 0240 Page 3 of 5 02-Dec-2005 Jir~~'smith, CFA Pinellas COunty Property Appraiser 08:00:59 Vacant. F'a.rcrl Property Use: 000 Land Use: 40 Vacant Extra Features Or:-scrip t.i~_~n Dimensions Price Units Value RCD Year 1} .00 0 0 0 0 2} . 00 0 0 0 0 3} .00 0 0 0 0 4} .00 0 0 0 0 5} . 00 D 0 0 0 6} .00 0 0 0 0 TOTAL RECORD VALUE; p Map With Yrope~-ty Address (non-vacant) ~~~ http://p ao. co.}~> >ze 11 as. fl. us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 12/2/2005 ;` j,,nellas County proparty Appr~~' 'r Information: 16 29 15 00000 440 fll'"' page 4 of 5 ~~ ,= -. ~~ u~~~ ~~J 118 Mile Aerial Photograph (2002) http://pao. co.p i nel l as. fl. us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s-4&t3=1 &u=fl&... 12/2/2005 I'~,nellas Cotmty Pro}~:.rty Appr'' 'r Information: 16 29 i5 00000 440 01 "`' page S of 5 j, .n +~+r Pinellas ~~~~ qty Property Appraiser Parcel ~~f~r~~ation httna/na~~.co.oincllas [1.us/htbi-1/c~i-click?o=1&a=1&b=I&c=1&r".16&s=4&t3=1&u=0&... 12/2/2005 Pnel,las County Property Appr^-~,er Information.: 16 29 15 36270 000 OF°`~ ~~J ~ ~~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~ t ~~~~ Page 3 of 5 0?-Dac-?a05 aim Smith, CFR Pinellas County Property Appraiser D7: 59:?2 'vacant Parcel Property Use: D00 Land Use; 1D Vacant E~ctra Features Description Dimensions Price Units Value RCD Year 1~ . 00 0 o D o 2) . a0 0 0 0 D 3) . Da a 0 0 0 4} .Oa a a 0 0 5) . oa o D a a s) . as o a a o TOTAL RECORD VALUE: 0 Map With Property Address {non-vacant) ®I ~ ~~ http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/egi-click?o=1 &a=1&b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 1.2/2/2005 Pinellas County Property Apprr`~er Information: 16 29 15 36270 000 OF°`~ L ~~~ ~~ IIrLY ~~~d ;~-F' ~T ~4 ~~E~ H~F'Rl'}GI~~ 1R1~1 G~~L.I, ~~ ~" T HA-RR I ~Or"~ ~c~ ~ II]LG PSA~. G r~ at_ I ~. 1-T DR H FPI~{ )F~U~~L~T~~ ~ L~~~ S I~O~T~ ~ ~~5 Il~fi ~-~ L~T~iS ~ Pt~.TN H .RF?IS~:~ Page 4 of 5 118 Mile Aerial Photograph (20U2) httpa/pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/hfbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a-1$zb=1 &c=1 &x.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 12/2/2005 ;,~ Pinellas County Property Appr ~ ~er Information: 16 29 15 36270 000 OF"`' Page 5 of 5 Pinellas County Property Appraiser Parcel Information http a/pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1&u=0&... 12/2/2005 Pa~nellas Caunty 1?ropLrty Appr ~ °r Information: lb 29 15 00000 44fl 0~ "~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ I ~~~~~ / ~~~ ~ ~~~~ Page 3 of 5 02-Dec-2005 .zirr ar~ith, CFR Pinellas County Property Appraiser 08:00:59 Vacant, P~.r~=:e1 Property Use; 000 Land Use: 40 ~facant Extra F~atur~s Lre_:~vri~:~tior~ Dirrrer~sions Price Units Value RCU Year 1} .00 0 0 0 0 z} . 00 o a o 0 3} .00 0 .0 0 0 4) .00 0 0 0 0 5} .00 0 0 0 0 6) .00 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 'RECORD VALUE: 0 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) ~~~ ~ I ~~ http:/lpao.co.pi nel las. fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=18cc=1 &r=. l b&s=4&t3=1 ~u=0&... 12/2/2005 -''~nellas Coun v Property Appr' ~ °r Information: 16 29 15 00000 440 Ol ^~' ~' ~~,.. ~~~~~ ~• •~ ~ , N,r~RF''~~ r~-'~- ~F - ?}~~ ¢ - J ~~ ;~~~. ~. _;._~ __ ~~ ~_ -k __~' ; . ~T ~_ ~ W...~~ 17~ . , ~~ lf8 Mile Aerial Pltofograph (2002) ~~ I. c,~ ~-. ,-- ~~ III L~P~'IC~ ~~ ~ PDT Page 4 of 5 .III ~t- G~F~~ ~ _~ httpa/p~tiaco.pi Hellas. Fl.us/htbinlcgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1&c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &~=0&... 12/2/2005 ,.,~, X'~ne1}as County Property Appr` ` 'r Information: 16 29 15 OflflflO 440 Ol "`' Page 5 of S Pinellas ~o~~ Y~ty Property Appraiser Pareei Il~i'or~aation http://p<<o.co.pincllz~:, fl.tis/htbin/cgi-click?o^1&a=1&b=1&c=1&r=.16&s=4&t3=1&u=0&... 12/2/2005 ~ PinelAlas County Property Appr~~aer Information.: 16 29 15 36270 000 Oh4~ Page 2 of 5 1~ l 2~ 1 1~ 1 54450 ~ 034 ~ 0410 02-Dec-2045 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 07:59:22 Ownership Information Vacant Property Use and Sales DI UELLD FAMILY LLC OBK: 14143 OPG: 0921 400 ISLAND WAY H # 703 CLEARWATER FL 33767-2134 EVAC; Hvn-EUAC Cv~'~parable sales value as Prop Addr; 0 of Jan 1, 2005, based vn Census Tract: 259.02 sales from 2003 -- 200; 0 Sale Date OR BooklPage Price {GluallUnQ) Vac/Imp Plat Information 2 12.005 14,143/ 921 1,300,000 {M) I 1914: Doak 003 Pgs 043- 0 10 01 0 0 { ) 1913: 6aok 001 Pgs 070- 0 10 0/ 0 0 { ~ 0000; Baok Pgs - 0 10 01 0 0 { ~ 2005 Value EXEMPTIONS JustlMarket; 175,000 Homestead: HD Ownership ~ .000 Govt Exem, HO Use ~; .000 AssessedlCap; 175,DD0 Institutional Exem; HO Tax Exempt x; .000 Historic Exem: 0 Taxable; 175,0.00 . Agricultural; D 2004 Tax Information District: CW Seawall: Frontage; Clearwater View: 05 ~~~lillage; 23.2372 Land Size Unit Land Land Land Front x Depth Price Units Meth 05 Taxes; 4, 066. 51 13 108 x 135 12. 00 14, 580.00 S Special Tax .OD 2) 0 x D .00 .40 3) 0 x 0 .00 .44 lJithaut the Save-Our-Homes 4} 0 x 0 .00 .00 ca.p, 2Crb5 taxes will be : 5} D x 0 .00 .00 4, D66. 51 6) 0 x 0 . 00 . 00 Without any exemptions, 2005 taxes will be 4, 066. 51 Short Legal MRDHOLIA PARK BLK 34, L DTS 1 AND 2 ^escription Building Information httpa/pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 12/2/2005 ~ Pinel,las County Property Appr°=~er Information: 16 29 15 36270 000 ON°`~ ~.~ ~ ~~ ~ ~.~J ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~ 1 ~~~~ Page 3 of 5 02-Dec-2005 Jim Smith, CFR Pinellas County Property Appraiser 07:59:22 Vacant Parcel Property Use: 000 Land Use: 10 ~acan~ Extra Fe~~ur~s Description Dimensions price Units Value RCD Year 1} .00 0 0 0 0 2) .00 0 0 0 0 3) .Op 0 0 0 0 4) .00 0 0 0 0 5) .00 0 0 0 0 6j .00 0 0 0 0 TOTAL {RECORD VALUE: 0 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) ~~~~~® http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi~click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &z-:16&s=4&t3=1&u=0&... 12/2/2005 ~: Pinellas County Property Appr~`,er Information: 16 29 15 36270 000 OF°`~ ._~~~~~~ ~T ~~ ~~~~ H.~RF'I"='I~hd IC~I~# GC~d~LI. 1R DR gUQ ~T H~.RR I ~`~~~ ~c~ II]~I~ reA~.U~~LIl~ F-I FPI~C )~~~;ILi~~i~S I LL'iT~JSI IrF~~T ? ~ X25 I II~~ 1~ L O T lJ 5 It", ~ F'~.TH H .Ppl~~ lam[ ~..~~~ F- 1I8 Mile Aerial Photograph (2002) Page 4 of 5 httpJ/pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1$cb=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 12/2/2005 ,,,~ Pinellas County Property Appr ' ~er Information: 16 29 15 36270 000 OF"`' Page 5 of 5 Pinellas County Property Appraiser Parcel Information http a/p ao. co.pinellas. fl.usChtbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=18cr=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... l 2/2/2005 ~µ,a :Pinellas County Property Appr°- ~er Information: 15 29 15 54450 034 00"~ Page 2 of 5 15 I ~9 f 1~J I ~J~4~JO I O34 I 030 02-Dec-2005 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 07:59:46 O~~nership Information Vacant Property llse and Sales D'I UELLO FAMILY LLC OBK; 14143 OPG; 0921 440 ISLAND WAY H # 703 GLEARWATER FL 33767-2134 EVAC: Non-EUAC C~_~rr~par•aL~le sales value as Prap Rddr; 9 of Jan 1, 20D5, based an Census Tract; 259. OZ sales Pram 20p3 - 2004; 0 Sale Date OR BooklPage Price {Qua1/UnQ} Vac/Imp Plat Information 2 12,005 14,143/ 921 1,300,040 {M} I 1914; Boak 003 Pgs 043- 0 /1,972 3,892/ 96 15,000 {Q} I 1913: Book 001 Pgs 070- 0 /0 0/ 0 0 { } 0000: Book Pgs - D /0 0/ 0 0 { } 20nG 4'alue EXEMPTIONS Just 1t•~1~~rket; 140, 000 Homestead; NO Ownership ~ . ODO Govt Exerr: NO Use ~: .000 RssessedlCap: 100,000 Institutional Exem: ND Tax Exempt ~: .000 Historic Exem: 9 Taxable: 109,000 Agricultural: 0 2004 Tax lnformatian ^iytrict: CW Seawall: Frontage; Clearwater View; C15 Milla~~e; 23.2372 Land Size Unit Land Land Land Front x Depth Price Units Meth CJ5 Ta::es, 2, 323.72 1} 54 x 135 12.00 7, 290.00 S Special Tax .00 2} 0 x 0 .00 .00 3} 0 x 0 .00 .00 ldithout the Save-Our-Homes 4} 0 x 0 . 00 ~ . 00 cap, 2005 taxes will be : 5} 0 x 0 .09 .00 2, 323.72 6} 0 x p . 00 . 00 LJit.haut any exemptions, 20u5 ta::es ~~ill be , 2, 323. 72 Short Legal MAGNOLIA PARK BLK 34, LGT 3 Description Building Information http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &x.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 12/2/2005 Pinellas County Property Apprr~~er Information: 15 29 15 54450 034 O(~' `~ ~. 15 1 ~9 ~ 1~ I 5440 ~' ~~~ ~ 0030 Page 3 of 5 l12-Uec-2005 .7im Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 07:59:46 Vacant Parcel Property Use; 000 Land Use: 10 Vacant Extra F~a~ures Description Dimensions Price Units Value RCD Year S) .00 0 D 0 4 2) .00 0 0 0 0 ~) . 00 0 o v o ~) , o© 0 0 0 0 5} .00 0 0 0 0 6) .00 0 0 0 0 TOTAL RECORD VALUE; 0 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) ~~:J®~®® http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1&a=1&b=1 &c=1 &x.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 12/2/2005 Pinellas County Property Appr-",er Information: 15 29 1554450 034 O('' `' ...~ J,~Stvilf~d~ ~T 'CFA'' ,+~PRfSC}~ d~~ lttid ~ ~~t~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~T NL~~'P'1~;~1r~d ha1,~t G I'~ C?L I A T Di= H ~.F~F?I~LJ~! ~~TN F'~.TN P,s.TN ~.RRfSf~r'J f 1~ N s a ~ ~~~~I~~~ I , ~ ~~ ~ S~~ ii y Tg I _~r ~~ 1/8 Mile Aerial Photograph (2002) L Page 4 of 5 http a/pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1&a=1&b=1 &c=1 &i-.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 12/2/2005 ~~~ a~~ .t ~J ~~~1 Pinel3as County Property Appr~',er Information: 15 29 15 54450 034 Ot'' `' Page 5 of S Pinellas County Property Appraiser Parcel Information httpa/pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1&r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 12/2/2005 ~.- Pti,~,ellas County Property Appr-'-er Information: 15 29 15 54450 034 0~ "` page 2 of 5 r 1~ 1 20 I ~5 ~ 54~~0 I 034 I 000 02-Dec-2005 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Rppraiser 08:00:21 Ll~!~r-~er~f-~ip Information Uacant Property Use and Sales D1 UELLO FAMILY LLC OBK: 14143 OPG: 0921 400 ISLRf~D WRY N # 703 CLEARWATER FL 33767-2134 EVRC: Non-EUAC Car~rpa.rable sale ~~alue as Prap Addr; 0 of Jan 1, CiiG5, based on Census Tract; 259.02 f ~ 10G:= l CGGA sa rar ~ es - ; 209,700 Sale Oate OR BooklPage Price {QuallUnQ} `v'aclIrop Plat. Ir-~forr7ation 2 12, 005 14, 143/ 921 1, 300, 000 {M} I 1914: B~«~F: 003 Pgs 043- 7 11,982 5,376/2,162 14,900 {U} I 1913: Bo~_~k 001 Pgs 070- 0 10 0/ 0 0 { } 0000: Bank Pgs - 0 10 0/ 0 0 { } WGGF '~•,'~~lue EXEMPTIONS Just; E•~1s.rk.et.; 181, 900 Homestead: YES Ownership ~ 1. 000 SRUE-OUR-HOMES CAP Govt Exem; N0, Use ~: 1.000 A:s:ses,.sedr C~~.~~: 156, 100 ' Institutional Exem; WO Tax Exempt ~; .000 Historic Exem; 0 Tax~~r~le: 131, 100 Agricultural; 0 2Gu~l Ta:•: Tr-~furr~~ation Gistri~~t.; GW Seawall; Frontage: Clearwater View; G5 hlilla~~e: 23.2372 Land Size Unit Land Land Land Front x Depth Price Units Meth G5 Ta::?°,: 3, 046.40 1} 152 x 135 7. 00 20, 385. 00 S Special T.~:•: .00 2} 0 x 0 .00 . 00 3} ~ 0 x 0 .00 .00 LJith~~~_it. t.E-ie :~~a••re-Our-Homes 4} 0 x 0 .00 .00 ca.p, ~'GG5 t.a.:e:= will be 5} 0 x 0 . 00 .00 3, 645. 92 6} 0 x 0 . 00 . 00 lJitfit~~_~t a.r~y c:xariptions, 2GG5 t.axe:1 ~:~ill be 4, 226. 85 Shore. Le;~al MAGNOLIA PARIC BLK 34, L OTS 9 & 10 & 50FT C~es~eript.ior-~ STRIP UAC RR R/W ON E Buildil~g Liforrnatioii httpa/pao.co.pnellas.fl.tis/htbin/cgi-click?o=i &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 12/2/2005 1'i~ellas County Pro}~erty Appr' ' '°r Information: 15 2'9 15 54450 034 OJ ' `' d 15 / ~9 ~ 15 15440 f 034 10090 Page 3 of S 02-iaec-2005 Jir~~ Sr7ith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 0$:00:21 Vac.ar-,±. Par~~:el Property Use: 000 Land Use: 00 V~-canrt Ex-tr~ F~arturss ~es~riptior~ Uimensians Priae Units Value RCD Year 1) .00 0 0 D 0 ~) .00 0 0 0 0 3) .00 0 0 0 0 4) .00 0 0 0 0 5) - .00 0 0 0 0 ~;~ .00 0 0 0 0 TOTAL RECORQ VALUE: 0 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) I~® http://pao.co.pii}ellas. fl. us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=18ic=18ir=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 12/2/2005 ~. Fi~ellas County Property Appr ~'°r Information: 15 29 15 54450 034 0~ "` Page 4 of 5 I ~ I lj~.i ?RI.`.i~~hd - ~ - ~T ?I~G~C~J .r T 'I ~i~hd iQl~i] FT Rl~t I~. ,, ~T ,~.RRISOf•J J J ,~ ;- ~', I I ~ ~~ N `'. R ~l I ii t~J 1/8 Mile Aerial Photograph (2002) http://pao.co.pi Hellas. f1.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0& 12/2/2005 F;,~ellas County Property Appr ~ °r Xnformation: 15 29 15 54450 034 0~ ' ~ Page 5 of 5 Pinellas County Property Appraiser Parcei ~nfQrmation http a/pao.co.pinel las- fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1&b=1 &c=1 &r=:16&s=4&t3=1&u=0&... 12/2/2005 ~, ;. Pinellas County Property Appr~~~er Information: 15 29 15 54450 034 00~~ Page 2 of 5 1~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~o ~ a~4 ~ a~~~ 02-Dec-2005 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas Caunty Property Appraiser OD:00:02 Owr-~er=:hip Ir-~tormation Vacant Property Use and Sales DI UELLO FAMILY LLC OBK: 14143 DPG: D9?i 4'00 ISLAND WAY H # 703 CLEARWATER FL 33767-2134 EVRC, Hon-EUAC Careparable sale:' value as Prop Addr; 0 of Jan 1, 2005, based an Census Tract; 259,02 sales frur~j 2003 - 2004; D Sale Date OR Book/Page Price {QuaIIUnQ) Vac/Imp Plat Information 2 12,005 14,143} 9 21 1,304,D00 {M) U 1914: Eaak 003 Pgs 043- 0 !0 0} 0 0 { ) 1913: Bank DDi Pgs Q70- 0 10 0} 0 D { ) GOOD: Eo~~k. Pgs - 0 10 0} 0 0 { ) 2UL5 'Vo.lue EXEMPTIONS .7usr.lh~4arket: 40,?OQ Homestead: HO Ownership X .000 Gavt Exem: HO Use ~t .000 Asspssed~Cap: 40,200 Institutional Exem: HQ Tax Exempt ~: .000 Historic Exem: 0 Ta::able: 40,?DO Agricultural: 0 2004 Tax Information District; GW Seawall; Frontage; Clearwater 'View: 05 ~°+tillage; 23.2372 Land Size Unit Land Land Land Front x Depth Price Units Meth 05 Taxe~~, 934.14 1} 50 x 135 7. QO 6, 750. 00 S Special Tax .00 2) 0 x 0 .00 .OD ~) o x a . Do . 00 U7ithaut the Sava-Our-Haines 4} 0 x D .OQ .00 cap, 2005 taxes will be 5) p x 0. .OQ .00 934.14 6) 0 x 0 . QO . 00 Wik.h~~ut. ,~+.n~.,~ exer~~ptions, 2005 t.L.xr_ ~~ill be 934.14 Sfiurt Legal MAGNOLIA PARK BLK 34, LOT 11 Descriptian Building Information httpa/pao.co.pinellas. fl.us/htbiz~/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s~4&t3=1 &u=0&... 12/2/2005 Pinellas Co~inty Property Appr~~~er Tnformation: 15 29 15 54450 034 00'`' ~5 I 29 ~ 15i ~ ~i44~0 ~ X34 ~ X110 Page 3 of 5 02-Dec-2005 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 08:00:02 Va~Tsnt PKrcel Property Use: 000 Land Use: 10 Va~~nt Extra F~a~u.r~s Description Dimensions Price Units Value RCD Year 1} .00 0 0 0 0 2} .00 0 0 0 0 3} .00 0 0 0 0 4} .00 0 0 0 0 'D) .00 0 0 0 0 E~) .00 0 0 0 0 TQ~AL RECORD VALUE, 0 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) ~L.~J®® httpa/pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbinlcgi-click?o=1 &a=1&b=1 &c=1 &x.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 12/2/2005 I;'inetlas County Property Appr- ~ °er Information: 15 29 15 54450 034 0~'"' ~-~? '`i 5h ~iP~~E L w r~~ ~ ~. P ~ I ~ ~1 fi~l I i n.~~:'~I ~~C~! i T ~ (~~ N~.~°Ri~~t'1 ~ c ~ I ~Cl a J' L Lam. T N PPI~r~ ~~ ~ LG~U~ ii~T ~-~rr~ 118 Mile Aerial Photograph (2402) Page4of5 http a/pao.co.pinellas.fl.~is/htbin/cgi-click?o=1&a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &z=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 12/2/2005 ;,, Pinellas Cou~aty Property Appr~~~er Information: 15 29 15 54450 034 00"~ Page 5 of 5 Pinellas ~©unty Property Appraiser Parcel Information http:l/pao.co.piz~ellas. ~. tis/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=. l b&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 12/2/20x5 ~, . F~`~e11as County Property Appr°'-Pr Information: 16 29 15 00000 440 O1 ^'~ Page 2 of 5 15 ~ ~9 I ~5 1 54450 I 03~ ~ 0240 02-Dec-2005 .?ire=smith, CPA Pinellas Caunty Property Appraiser 08:01:00 Oi~iriar:=_;~-~ip Ir-~rc~rr-ration Vacant Property Use and Sales DI UELLO FAMILY LLC OBK: 14143 OPG: 0921 400 ISLAND WAY N #.703 CLEARWATER FL 33767-2134 EVAC: Non-EVAC COrrikJ~~.T'd.fJ1C ~~~-.1 t'=~ 5{,7,1LJe as Prop Addr 0 of .~•~.n 1: 2Uii5: Lased ^n Census Tract: 259. D2 sale:-; frorn :uu3 - 2004: 0 Sale Date OR BaakJPage Price (Qua1JUnQ} Vac/Ir~p Flat Ir-~f~~rr~rat.ion Z 12, 005 14, 1431 921 i, 300, 000 {M} V . 1914; Burk:. 003 P~~° 043- 0 /0 01 0 0 { } 1913: E:~~~-~F; 001 ~':=.= 070- 0 /0 01 0 8 ~ } 2nns 'V'a.l~_r~ EXEMPTIDN5 Justlt~9arF:et.; 34,500 Homestead: NO Ownership ~ .000 .Gaut Exem: NO Use ~: .000 Asse_°ed;'C~~.~~, 34,500 Institutional Exem: NO Tax Exempt ~: ,000 Historic Exem: 0 Ta.:•:~~L~le; 34, 5D0 Agricultural; 0 ~iiiia T•~:•: Tr~far°r~~~tion District; CW Seawall: Frontage: Clearwater View: 05 h~till,~,;~e; 23.2372 Land Size Unit Land Land Land Front x Depth Price Units Meth 05 T~~.::rs: 801.68 1} 43 x 135 7.00 5, 805. 00 S Special T~s:: .00 2) 0 x 0 .00 .00 3} 0 x 0 .00 .00 l,1it1-~[~~_It. tl-ie '=a.~,~r-Glut-Homes 4} 0 x 0 .00 .00 cap, 2i~G5 t.•ti..:f"- IJ1111 bye 5} p x D . 00 . DO 801.68 6} 0 x 0 .00 .00 Witl-~n~_at ,,.r~~r M:;er,~pt.ior-rs, 2405 t.,~.x~--=~ ~~~ill Lie 801.68 5h~~rt- Le:_.•~.I MAGNOLIR PARK BLK 32, LOT 24 ~JES'C:r' lp t.l~ ~r-i ' Building Infoi-rn~~lion httpa/pao.co.pi ~eilas.fl.us/htbn/cgi-click?o=1&a=1&b=1&c=1&1=.16&s=4&t3-1&u=0&... 12/2/2005