FLD2009-06019 - 1808 Drew St - 1808-1820 Drew Parking Lot~!
FLD2009-06019
1808 DREW ST
808-1820 DREW - PARI{ING LO
PLANNER OF RECORD: WW
ATLAS # 280A
ZONING: C
LAND USE: CG
RECEIVED: 06/01/2009
INCOMPLETE:
COMPLETE:
MAPS
PHOTOS:
STAFF REPORT:
DRC:
CDB:
LW CoverSheet
CDB Meeting Date: December 15, 2009
Case Number: FLD2009-06019
Agenda Item: D.1.
Owners: 1808 Drew, LLC
Applicant: Peter Marks, Manager of ECP Property Holdings, LLC
Representative: Trevor Howard, Howard Civil Engineering, LLC
Address: 1808 -1820 Drew Street
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit the reconstruction of an
existing parking lot serving retail sales and services and restaurant
uses in the Commercial (C) District with a front (south -Drew
Street) setback of 3.11 feet (to existing pavement), a front (east -
Tulane Road) setback of 10.79 feet (to existing pavement), a side
(west) setback of 2.74 feet (to existing pavement) and a side
(north) setback of 6.47 feet (to existing pavement), as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions
of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.C, and a
reduction to the perimeter buffer along Drew Street (south) from
15 feet to 3.11 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the
perimeter buffer (west) from five to 2.74 feet (to existing
pavement), a reduction to the interior landscape area required from
10% to 7% of the vehicular use area and a reduction to the width of
interior landscape islands from eight to four feet (inside curbing),
as a Comprehensive Landscaping Program under the provisions of
CDC Section 3-1202.G.
CURRENT ZONING: Commercial (C) District
CURRENT FUTURE
LAND USE CATEGORY: Commercial General (CG)
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Retail sales, Restaurant and Storage uses
Proposed Use: Retail sales, Restaurant and Storage uses
EXISTING North: Commercial (C) District Attached dwellings
SURROUNDING South: Commercial (C) District Automobile repair and Retail
ZONING AND USES: sales
East: Commercial (C) District Retail sales and Offices
West: Commercial (C) District Retail sales
Community Development Board -December 15, 2009
FLD2009-06019 -Page 1 of 11
AN4i.VQiC~
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.77 acres is located at the northwest corner of Drew Street and Tulane Road. The subject
property is currently developed with two commercial buildings. The southern building is
designed for multiple tenants for retail sales and restaurant uses with a total floor area of 7,924
square feet. The northern building is a 2,750 square-foot, 10-garage door building for storage
uses. The site has 200 feet of frontage along Drew Street and 198 feet of frontage along Tulane
Road.
Properties adjacent to the north and west are zoned Commercial District, as well as the properties
across Drew Street and Tulane Road. The property directly to the north is developed with
attached dwellings (ownership of this parcel is by another entity controlled by the applicant for
the subject application). The property to the east across Tulane Road is developed with retail and
office uses (ownership of this parcel is also by another entity controlled by the applicant for the
subject application). The properties to the west are developed with retail sales uses. Properties
across Drew Street are developed with an automobile repair facility and retail sales uses.
Development Proposal:
When Drew Street was widened, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) took a strip
of property along Drew Street from the subject property through eminent domain, making the
parking spaces closest to Drew Street nonfunctional. It is the applicant's proposal to redesign the
parking lot to make the parking functional for the retail sales and restaurant uses. The proposal
retains the driveways in their present locations; however, parking spaces have been reoriented in
their location and design. There are no proposed changes or expansions to the two existing
buildings. The advertised request has been confined to the proposed, modified parking lot south
of the main commercial building.
Besides making the parking lot functional, providing adequate parking for the existing and
proposed uses is paramount with this application. There are 32 existing parking spaces, with at
least 10 of those existing spaces nonfunctional due to inadequate drive aisle backup area closest
to Drew Street. The proposal includes increasing provided parking to 37 spaces meeting Code
design standards. Under normal circumstances, a minimum of 45 parking spaces is required for
the existing or proposed uses (retail sales, restaurant and storage uses). A Parking Reduction
Study has been submitted, which concludes adequate parking will be provided under this
proposal.
In order provide a functional parking lot with the maximum number of parking spaces possible
designed to meet Code design standards, reductions to setback and landscape requirements are
required and requested. Pavement today exists to the Drew Street property line with no
landscaping to buffer the parking lot. The proposal provides sufficient setback and landscape
area along Drew Street to provide at least a continuous viburnum and holly hedge enhanced with
crape myrtle trees and juniper groundcover. The western portion of the site along Drew Street
meets the required perimeter buffer depth of 15 feet. The proposal provides the required
perimeter buffer along Tulane Road.
Community Development Board -December 15, 2009
FLD2009-06019 -Page 2 of 11
Two design features of this proposal are important to its success. First, the applicant proposes to
place underground the existing overhead utility lines along Tulane Road. This makes a
significant visual improvement, not only for the subject property but for the parcels to the north
and east. Second, by placing these utilities underground, the construction of a Code compliant
dumpster enclosure on the attached dwelling parcel adjacently north serving both the commercial
tenants on the subject property and the residential tenants of the attached dwellings is made
possible. The placement of these utilities underground also allows the installation of shade trees
along Tulane Road that otherwise would not be possible.
Floor Area Ratio (FARZ Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan and CDC Section 2-
701.1, the maximum FAR for properties with a designation of Commercial General (CG) is 0.55.
There presently exists a total floor area of 7,924 square feet (no expansion proposed) for a FAR
of 0.237, which is consistent with the Code provisions.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable
I.S.R. is 0.95. The overall existing ISR is 0.86 and, after construction of the improvements, the
proposed ISR is 0.84, consistent with the Code provisions.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum lot area for retail
sales and restaurant uses can range between 3,500 - 10,000 square feet. The existing site is
33,420 square feet of lot area, which exceeds these Code provisions. Pursuant to this same
Table, the minimum lot width for retail sales and restaurant uses can range between 35 - 100
feet. The site has 200 feet of frontage along Drew Street and 198 feet of frontage along Tulane
Road, which exceeds these Code provisions.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum front setback for retail sales
and restaurant uses can range between 15 - 25 feet (along Drew Street and Tulane Road), while
the minimum side setback can range between 0 - 10 feet (structures on corner lots must meet
front setbacks along rights-of--way and meet side setbacks adjacent to the other property lines).
The proposal includes reductions to the front (south -Drew Street) setback to 3.11 feet (to
existing pavement), to the front (east -Tulane Road) setback to 10.79 feet (to existing pavement),
to the side (west) setback to 2.74 feet (to existing pavement) and to the side (north) setback to
6.47 feet (to existing pavement). It is noted that the northern building is a multi-use storage
building, which is not a use generally permitted in the Commercial (C) District, but exists as a
nonconforming use. There are no proposed changes to the location of this northern building
(setbacks) or how it is used.
When Drew Street was widened, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) took a strip
of property along Drew Street from the subject property through eminent domain, making the
parking spaces closest to Drew Street nonfunctional. It is the applicant's proposal to redesign the
parking lot to make the parking functional for the retail sales and restaurant uses. The proposal
retains the driveways in their present locations; however, parking spaces have been reoriented in
their location and design. The northern edge of the parking row adjacent to the building is not
changing in its location but is being redesigned from angled parking to a 90-degree orientation.
Parking spaces south of the main east/west drive aisle have been reoriented to face east and west.
Community Development Board -December 15, 2009
FLD2009-06019 -Page 3 of 11
The existing pavement setback for the parking spaces on the west side, presently located two-feet
from the west property line, is being increased to a 2.74-foot setback. Moving eastward, the
parking lot has been designed to meet the design standards of CDC Section 3-1402. The
proposed pavement setback adjacent to Tulane Road is proposed to be increased to 10.79 feet,
providing compliance with the landscape buffer requirement along Tulane Road. The setback to
pavement for the parking lot adjacent to Drew Street is being increased from the existing one-
foot to at least 3.11 feet. This proposed 3.11-foot setback is measured to the back out flair area
of the drive aisles, whereas the setback to the parking spaces is actually a minimum of six feet to
the south property line. The proposed setback is the minimum necessary to make the parking lot
functional, providing the maximum number of parking spaces necessary for the uses of the site,
where the proposal is not providing for a total redevelopment of all site improvements (including
new buildings). The proposed 3.11-foot setback will provide sufficient area to allow the
installation of a continuous hedge with accent trees to screen buffer the views of the parking lot,
while still providing for a functional parking lot for the businesses on the subject property.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum required parking for
retail sales uses can range between 4 - 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet, while parking for
restaurants can range between 7 - 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Since storage uses are not a
permitted use in the Commercial District, the proposal uses the storage parking requirement of
1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet under the Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District for
parking calculations. CDC Section 3-1405 requires two or more uses to calculate parking based
on a Shared Parking basis. When taking all three uses into account for this site and the Shared
Parking calculation, the required parking totals 45 parking spaces. The proposal includes 37
parking spaces. The proposal includes a reduction to required parking from 45 to 37 spaces. A
Parking Reduction Study (Study) has been submitted as part of the application material, which
has analyzed the parking demand against the proposed parking supply. Four parking spaces are
required for the storage uses at the northern end of the property. This storage building (10
overhead doors) appears to operate more like aself-storage facility where "tenants" park in front
of their unit when visiting the site: This storage building is accessed separately by their own
driveway on Tulane Road. The Study argues that the four spaces for the storage use actually
occurs within their drive access in front of their building and that the "tenants" do not park in the
parking lot being redeveloped, thereby reducing the demand for parking in the parking lot from
45 to 41 spaces, or a deficiency of only four spaces (37 spaces provided). Staff agrees with this
argument. The Study provides the required parking for the restaurant at 15 spaces per 1,000
square feet. Based on the use characteristics of the existing retail uses of the property, the Study
indicates a parking ratio of 3.21 spaces for the retail floor area is adequate. It is noted that the
restaurant floor area is proposed at 1,750 square feet, which is not a large restaurant. Staff agrees
with the conclusions of the Study. Reality is that the restaurant will most likely not operate at its
full capacity all day long and there will be adequate parking for the retail customers.
Driveways for this property will remain basically in the same location as they exist today. The
driveway on Drew Street and the northern driveway to the storage building on Tulane Road are
not being modified. The southern driveway on Tulane Road is being redesigned to meet City
standards. The existing sidewalk along the Drew Street site frontage is not proposed to be
modified. Tulane Road is a narrow right-of--way that does not provide any ability to construct a
Community Development Board -December 15, 2009
FLD2009-06019 -Page 4 of 11
sidewalk within the right-of--way and it dead ends at the attached dwellings parcel directly north
of the subject property. No sidewalk is proposed along Tulane Road.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section. 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
proposed driveways on Drew Street and Tulane Road, and the street intersection of Drew
Street/Tulane Road, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a
level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility
triangles. The proposal has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Department and
been found to be acceptable. Shrubbery planted within the sight visibility triangles will need to
be maintained to meet the Code requirements.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-911, for development that does not involve a subdivision,
all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such
undergrounding is not practicable. There exist overhead utility lines along the west side of
Tulane Road. The proposal includes the undergrounding of these overhead utilities for aesthetic
purposes and to allow for the placement of a Code compliant dumpster enclosure directly north
of the subject property. Undergrounding these existing overhead utilities will significantly
improve not only the subject property but other adjacent properties and will provide for the
placement of shade trees on the east side of the existing building.
Landscaping: The purpose of this proposal is to redesign the parking lot to make the parking
functional for the retail sales and restaurant uses. As such, Staff has confined this review to
primarily the Code requirements as it relates to the parking area. In addition to the discussion
herein regarding landscaping, see also the discussion above regarding minimum setbacks and
minimum off-street parking, as they are all interrelated. Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, a
15-foot perimeter buffer is required along Drew Street and a 10-foot perimeter buffer is required
along Tulane Road. A five-foot perimeter buffer is required along the west and north portio_n_s of
the main parking lot. This proposal includes, as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program, a
reduction to the perimeter buffer along Drew Street from 15 feet to 3.11 feet (to pavement), a
reduction to the perimeter buffer (west) from five to 2.74 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the
interior landscape area required from 10% to 7% of the vehicular use area and a reduction to the
width of interior landscape islands from eight to four feet (inside curbing).
Based on the purpose of this proposal, it is Staff's determination that landscaping improvements
are being achieved to the maximum extent possible. While the Code requirements for setbacks,
parking and landscaping are not being fully met, the proposal does provide a functional parking
lot that includes the maximum number of parking spaces possible. The perimeter buffer along
Drew Street is being met at least on both sides of the driveway and the required perimeter buffer
along Tulane Road is being provided. Otherwise, an adequate perimeter buffer is being provided
along Drew Street to adequately screen the parking lot. The applicant has provided the
maximum amount of interior landscape area possible with this proposal, given the site and Code
restraints. The width of the landscape islands is not optimal, but is workable given the design
constraints of the property. This proposal represents a significant improvement to the visual
appearance of this site with the landscaping proposed. The site will be planted with live oak,
Community Development Board -December 15, 2009
FLD2009-06019 -Page 5 of 11
little gem magnolia and crape myrtle trees, shrubs (Walter viburnum and dwarf yaupon holly) and
parson's juniper ground cover.
Solid Waste: The applicant proposes to construct a Code compliant dumpster enclosure on the
parcel directly north of the subject property for use by the commercial tenants of the subject
property and the tenants of the attached dwellings of the parcel where the dumpster is proposed.
While this parcel to the north is owned by a different entity, it is controlled by the applicant for
this request. This represents a significant improvement over the existing conditions. Placement
of this dumpster enclosure is contingent upon the undergrounding of the existing overhead
utilities. Construction of the dumpster enclosure will need to occur prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Completion for this project. An appropriate easement, agreement and/or
covenants/restrictions acceptable to the Solid Waste Department will also need to be recorded in
the public records prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Completion. The exterior of the trash
enclosure (material and color) will need to be acceptable to the Planning and Development
Department. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste
Department.
Signnage: There exists a freestanding sign in the southeast corner of the site at the intersection of
Drew Street and Tulane Road. The proposal removes this existing freestanding sign and includes
a new freestanding sign in the southwest corner of the site. A Comprehensive Sign Program
(CSP2009-00013) was approved for this site November 4, 2009, for the one freestanding sign
and seven attached signs. A sign permit (SGN2009-11005) was issued November 20, 2009, for
the installation of the attached signage.
Code Enforcement Analysis: There is an active Code Enforcement case at 1810 Drew Street,
where the business must obtain a Business Tax Receipt (BIZ2009-01235). This Code
Enforcement case does not affect a decision on this application.
Community Development Board -December 15, 2009
FLD2009-06019 -Page 6 of 11
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the standards as per CDC Section 2-701.1 and
Table 2-704:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.55 7,924 square feet (FAR of X
0.237)
Impervious Surface Ratio 0.95 0.84 X
Minimum Lot Area Retail sales: 3,500 - 10,000 sf 33,420 sq. ft. X
Restaurant: 3,500 - 10,000 sf
Stora e: N/A'
Minimum Lot Width Retail sales: 35 - 100 feet Drew Street: 200 feet X
Restaurant: 35 - 100 feet Tulane Road: 198 feet
Storage: N/A'
Minimum Setbacks Front: Retail sales: 15 - 25 Drew Street: 3.1 1 feet (to XZ
feet existing pavement)
Restaurant: 15 - 25 Tulane Road: 10.79 feet (to
feet existing pavement)
Storage: N/A'
Side: Retail sales: 0 - 10 feet West: 2.74 feet (to existing XZ
Restaurant: 0 - 10 feet pavement)
Storage: N/A' North: 6.47 feet (to existing
pavement)
Minimum Retail Sales: 4 - 5 spaces per 37 total parking spaces (45 X2
'Off-Street Parking 1,000 square feet spaces required per Shared
Restaurant: 7 - 15 spaces per Parking calculation) a
1,000 square feet
Storage: 1.5 spaces per 1,000
s uare feet3
' Storage is not n use permitted in the Commercinl District and the existing use is n nonconforming use
~ See nnnlysis in Stnff Report
3 Perking requirement based on storage use in the IRT District (compnr•ntive purposes)
~ Bnsed on Perking Reduction Saedy,~ See nnnlysis in Stnff Report
Community Development Board -December 15, 2009
FLD2009-06019 -Page 7 of 11
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-704.C
(Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X~
the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district.
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X
the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic
planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning
district.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X
development and improvement of surrounding properties.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X~
development.
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X
category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the
essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance
with one or more of the following objectives:
a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum
standard, flexible standard or flexible development use;
b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's
economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs;
c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment
of an existing economic contributor;
d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing;
e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area
that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan
amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning
designation; or
a. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a
working waterfront use.
6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X
parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following
design objectives:
a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses
permitted in this zoning district;
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines
adopted by the City;
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the
established or emerging character of an area;
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance,
the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the
following design elements:
^ Changes in horizontal building planes;
^ Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses,
pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.;
^ Variety in materials, colors and textures;
^ Distinctive fenestration patterns;
^ Building stepbacks; and
^ Distinctive roofs forms.
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced
landscape design and appropriate distances between buiddines.
See nnn(ysis in Stnff Report
Community Development Board -December 15, 2009
FLD2009-06019 -Page 8 of 11
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The
following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards
for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-913:
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X
residing or working in the neighborhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X~
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X'
visual, acoustic and olfacto and hours of o eration im acts on ad~acent ro erties.
~ See nnnlysis in Stnff Report.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meetings of July 2, September 3 and November 5, 2009, and deemed the development
proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB),
based upon the following:
Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence
submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that
there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact:
1. The 0.77 acres is located at the northwest corner of Drew Street and Tulane Road;
2. The subject property is currently developed with two commercial buildings. The southern
building is designed for multiple tenants for retail sales and restaurant uses with a total floor
area of 7,924 square feet. The northern building is a 2,750 square-foot, 10-garage door
building for storage uses;
3. When Drew Street was widened, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) took a
strip of property along Drew Street from the subject property through eminent domain,
making the parking spaces closest to Drew Street nonfunctional;
4. The proposal redesigns the parking lot to make the parking functional for the retail sales and
restaurant uses, while providing adequate parking for these existing and proposed uses;
5. The proposal includes increasing provided parking to 37 spaces meeting Code design
standards, with the submitted Parking Reduction Study concluding that adequate parking will
be provided;
6. The proposal includes reductions to setback and landscape requirements;
7. The proposal includes the placement underground of the existing overhead utility lines along
Tulane Road;
Community Development Board -December 15, 2009
FLD2009-06019 -Page 9 of 11
8. The proposal includes the construction of a Code compliant dumpster enclosure on the
attached dwelling parcel adjacently north serving both the commercial tenants on the subject
property and the residential tenants of the attached dwellings; and
9. The active Code Enforcement issue associated with this subject property does not affect the
development proposal.
Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
1. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Section 2-701.1 and
Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code;
2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
704.C of the Community Development Code; and
3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of
the Flexible Development application to permit the reconstruction of an existing parking lot
serving retail sales and services and restaurant uses in the Commercial (C) District with a front
(south -Drew Street) setback of 3.11 feet (to existing pavement), a front (east -Tulane Road)
setback of 10.79 feet (to existing pavement), a side (west) setback of 2.74 feet (to existing
pavement) and a side (north) setback of 6.47 feet (to existing pavement), as a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC)
Section 2-704.C, and a reduction to the perimeter buffer along Drew Street (south) from 15 feet
to 3.11 feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the perimeter buffer (west) from five to 2.74
feet (to existing pavement), a reduction to the interior landscape area required from 10% to 7% of
the veh.cular »~e area, and a rediir.tirJn tc the ~~viLlth of interinr landscape 2Slandg frnm e:baht t0 fn,.Ar
feet (inside curbing), as a Comprehensive Landscaping Program under the provisions of CDC
Section 3-1202.G, with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, a Declarations of Unity of Title be recorded in the
public records tying the two parcels together. In addition, prior to the issuance of any permit,
the owner shall request the two existing parcels be combined into one parcel by the Pinellas
County Property Appraiser's Office;
2. That, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion, existing overhead utility lines along
Tulane Road be undergrounded;
3. That construction of the dumpster enclosure on the parcel to the north of the subject property
be contingent on the following:
a. The undergrounding of the existing overhead utility lines along Tulane Road;
b. Consent by the property owner of the parcel to the north to placement of such
dumpster enclosure on such property, as evidenced through a recorded agreement,
easement or other form acceptable to the City;
Community Development Board -December 15, 2009
FLD2009-06019 -Page 10 of 11
c. Obtaining a separate building permit for such construction, with completion of
this dumpster enclosure prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the
parking lot improvements; and
d. The exterior material and color of the dumpster enclosure be acceptable to the
Planning and Development Department prior to the issuance of the building
permit for such construction;
4. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, the landscape plan be corrected for the number of
plant materials to be installed; and
5. That, prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of the General Engineering,
Stormwater Engineering and Traffic Engineering Departments be addressed.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
Wayne .Wells, AICP, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS:
^ Location Map
^ Aerial Map
^ Zoning Map
^ Existing Surrounding Uses Map
^ Photographs of Site and Vicinity
S: iPlnnning DepnrtmentlC D BIFLEX (FLD)IPending cased Up for the nest CDBIDrew 1808-1820 Perking Lot (C) 2009.xr - I2J5.09 CDB -
WWIDrew 1808-/820 StnffReportdoc
Community Development Board -December 15, 2009
FLD2009-06019 -Page 11 of 11
Wayne M. Wells, AICP
100 South Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756
Phone: 727-562-4504 ~ Email: wa4~ne.`~~el.ls{irnryclearr~°ater.conl
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
^ Planner III
Planning and Development Department, City of Clearwater, FL November 2001 to Present
As part of the Development Review Division, prepared and presented staff reports for Flexible
Standard Development (staff-level cases), Flexible Development (public hearing cases) and Plats
before the Development Review Committee and the Community Development Board and
Development Agreements before the City Council; Reviewed building permits for Code
conformance; Prepared and/or assisted preparation of Code amendments; Provided public information
(via telephone, mail, email, zoning counter or predevelopment meetings).
^ Zoning Coordinator
Zoning Division, City of Pinellas Park, FL
March 1989 to November 2001
Acting Zoning Director; Represented the Zoning Division on cases and issues before the City
Council, Community Redevelopment Agency, Planning and Zoning Commission, Board of
Adjustment and outside agencies; Prepared and presented staff reports for land use plan amendments,
rezoned, planned unit developments, conditional uses, variances and site plans; Reviewed final site
plans and building permits for Code conformance; Prepared and/or assisted preparation of Code
amendments; Provided public information (via telephone, mail, zoning counter or predevelopment
meetings).
^ Program Manager, Zoning Branch
Manatee County Dept. of Planning and Development, Bradenton, FL June 1984 to March 1989
Trained and supervised *.'nree employees; Prepared and presented variances and appeals to fhe Board
of Zoning Appeals; Coordinated final site plan and building permit review for Code conformance;
Assisted in preparation of Code amendments; Provided public information (via telephone, mail,
zoning counter or predevelopment meetings). Interim Code Enforcement Manager- Managed the
Code Enforcement Section; Supervised six employees; Prosecuted cases before the Code
Enforcement Board; Investigated and prepared cases of alleged violations of land use and building
codes. Planner II, Current Planning Section -Prepared and presented staff reports for rezones,
planned developments, special permits, plats and mobile home parks to Planning Commission and
Board of County Commissioners; Reviewed final site plans and building permits for Code
enforcement; Assisted in preparation of Code amendments; Provided public information (via
telephone, mail, zoning counter or predevelopment meetings).
^ Planner I
Alachua County Dept. of Planning and Development, Gainesville, FL June 1980 to June 1984
Prepared and presented staff reports for rezones and special permits to Planning Commission and
Board of County Commissioners; Reviewed site plans and plats for Code conformance; Assisted in
preparation of Code amendments; Provided public information (via telephone, mail, zoning counter
or predevelopment meetings). Intern -Compiled and coordinated the Alachua County Information
and Data Book; Drafted ordinance revisions; General research.
^ Graduate Assistant
University of Florida Dept. of Urban and Regional Planning, Gainesville, FL 1979 to 1981
Coordinated downtown study for Mayo, FL; Coordinated graphics for Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan.
^ Planning Technician
Planning Division, City of St. Petersbzzrg, FL
1977 to 1979
Primarily prepared graphics, for both publication and presentation; Division photographer for 1'/2
years; Worked on historic survey and report.
EDUCATION
Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning (Degree not conferred; course work completed, thesis not
completed), University of Florida, 1981
Bachelor of Design in Architecture, University of Florida, 1976
LICENSES & CERTIFICATES
American Institute of Certified Planners
American Planning Association, Suncoast Section
.~:,::~:: O A
y..°-^*^-~^ O PALMETTO ST
-
c
T -
i
w
p
D
r
a
Z DR O
~ CASLER T
AIRPORT DR Z MART
PJE KENNETH w o~ tree ~ ~ ~
Z
W 2a ~ C1
m ST
Y LL
~
GILBERT
Cir
~ RIDGEWOOD ST Z RIDGEWOOD ~
m ~ Q z MCKINLEY ST
O Y Z Q HARDiNG
Q~ O lL Y PLAZA
'A
HARDING ST ~
HAR
O O Q " DREW U
PLAZA
SR-590 DREW S
w
ST Q
D ~~ ~ <n a Q
~
ST
z
0 ~ 0 PROJECT >
SITE CLEVELAND ST
~< ¢
~
w
O
> Z w rn
HARVARD ~ ST < p ¢ ¢ ~
Z
~Y~ ~ O ~ w ~
ST ~ STAR O O =
w Q~
z
Y Z RAINBOW DR
w
LOCATION MAP
Owner: Endeavor Capital Partners I, LLC Case: FLD2009-06019
Site: 1808 - 1820 Drew Street Property Size: 0.77 acres
PIN: 12/29/15/22482/002/0010 Atlas Page: 280A
12/29/15/22482/001/0040
.- ., .- ^ ~
~ 4
R/DGEW
OOD
ST _
46
412
4 ao
1 /_ ~
f~\~
`~ AGUATIC LANDS °' y~
C
P
.
DRAINAGE 6 UTILITY EASEMENT 45
406
~
X31 ~
~
a
`o C
y
0
°° N
~
23 328 325 9 so 44 400 W 331Q 2
,
?
~
D
322 323 a' 325
24 8 ~ 43 330 ~ 33 ~
320 321 ~
316 317 319 $lo o ' ~ 1 10 318
13 ~ m ~ I'b '~ 324 ~
W 319
25
R
315 7
~
~ ~
~ 7 _ ., .- ., ., .,
316
315 i I I 314
12
11 42
318
~ 34
313
8
7
6
309 ~
31314 _I
1 9 312 41 W 35
26 308 307 6 15 I 8 ~ 30
309 40 312 ~ 307 1 D 3
_
27 302 303 307 i 30~
16 7
30
0
I
39
6
2
0 301 5 ~
_ 1 _ _
0 30
7
3131 ~
ro °
~
26 227 17 I '~2 N 300 ~
_ _ 300 38
28 ~ 4 j 225 4 225
1 D 224
Y~ g g
~ rn
L ~ 222 Q
~
223
3
I
Q
223
221
19
222
220
4
X21
m
w
m
0 ~ 22'l~ ~ 219 218
Q - - _ 143.92 tee.s3
30 1 214
0 ~ W
W ~ 217 216
215 8
s
7
s
212 Z 2 W W z12
Y
W z11 _ 2 z1o
z
E
A
2 _
os 22
i_ _208 ~ ~
31
1 111
z 1 - -~~
o1Nls 116 I~ 1$11
I
~ Q1
~~~~
2
~QC7
39 ~ ~
~1 ~ I
~
`° I~ ~ I E41 ~ ~ M ~
°
t~9~s~ p ~
148.92 788.93 ~
$ $
C ~ DREW ST
DRE W S T
~ DREW ST
~, ~
~J" 3D ~ ~ ~
I• ~~ ~ ^ ^
~ 3033 I
~ ~
I
1 ~ h h
I ° I~ I~ I I I
I 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 71
2 1 1 2 2 7 4 i 3 2 12p 1
I I 1 I O I I I
I I I I 1 1
f
114 115 ~ 11
2 3 1 3 115 5 1 T
l
Q tos
108
3 , CDR Q
6 10
2
109
104
4 ~
g 105
5
5 '
j
105 7 104
3
70182
5 102 z 103 6 6 ~ 10 O
F 8 a E
ZONING MAP
Owner: Endeavor Capital Partners t, LLC Case: FLD2009-06019
Site: 1808 - 1820 Drew Street Property Size: 0.77 acres
PIN: 12/29/15/22482/002/0010 Atlas Page: 280A
12/29/15/22482/001/0040
>~ached Attacaar
1~ DRAINAGES UTILI7V EASEMENT 45
4 4-3~ ~~/
,a~ we~in daa'velfin w 44 0 0 33z ~
0
„ 322
24 320 323
321 8
g g 330
43 W
W 325
33
z
~
10
318
2b
317
~
~
~ c c""
319 t3~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I t0 31
" " " 31
~7- 1 I-
324
a2
~
~
319
3a D
tack
8
d
7
9 314
ttaC 315
aC e ~ 31314 I ,2 I „-I g 312
-~ 4, 318 = 33~ d ellin s
8
7
well=in
j
dwe117n r~
309 - ~~ Wit- 3 8
r"
312
40
W
~
303
,
D
27 302 Q 303 7 3~
307 ,6
30 ~ ~
s~chec~6 z
6 0 ~ 301 5 0 - I - - -v-
331 oo
" ao
•.
2 6 Q z27 „ I boo ~ w e ingbbo
5 28
`°
4 ~
Z
o -
iii 18
A~tac _24
ar ng
~
~
4 tf!t
~~ ~~i>~gs ~ W l~tac~e dvvelli~ X21
3 a
wel~~3 22
Z Z
W clti'3;'~1 - 216
215 ,48.92
~Stora~e ,98.93 St
8 age
2 ~ ' 212 2 W Y
~ 7
1Z'e1!aiT -- 212
21 2 1 8
Retail Retail Y
Z
~~~z
~
zos
~
Retail ~ a
, sales sales _
_ _
- - ICI - ~,~
I Retail sales ~~~ 2
~ ~
N
~~
~+ ~ 9U ~
~ ~
~ ~I I ~ I' ~ sales
" ~ h "~- eta,
~
" " ! 170(8) " ,48.92 " ,89.93 ~ IeS "
~ $ ~ DREW ST
DREW ST
~
DREW ST
~
~ ~. r~ ~ BO ~ ~ n ~ ~ 8060
" ~ "~to " ete tion Ro wa
I
I Pair po d2 2 ,
~tet~il I Auto
~ re air
s~tl~s 3 Recall
I° I° I °~° I I I I
1 1 2 1 3 I'Sgl>yoo~ I 6 1 ' I
I I l O I I I
I I I I I I
De 114
a~-ed
----
etentiion
, 3
~e0
115 Beta
cheld 11
Q
4
3 1oa
' 1
~°n~
osadwa
j
109 We
ins
~ 10 O
S
h
l
Q Q ~ c
oo
5 4 104 ~ a y e
d
lh 5 ' 105 7 3 10 Z 70182
Q we
n z
e
dw
acs a 102
llings
~
z
103 6
6
oadwa
~
z
1a
10
lite~ O
7 6 10 19
7
7 dwel inks 20 '
19 g
EXISTING SUROUNDING USES MAP
Owner: Endeavor Capital Partners I, LLC Case: FLD2009-06019
Site: 1808 - 1820 Drew Street Property Size: 0.77 acres
PIN: 12/29/15/22482/002/0010 Atlas Page: 280A
12/29/15/22482/001/0040
'~
a ~:
n ...
~\ a
,
U. : a
~ -
a ~" ~
I Y t~
~ J
H ~ t ~~`~-:.
, ~
V
~
~, ~ ~~ ~ ~
~ .t
/ ~4
y
'
x ,
t
•
<.~:
,~ ` .
, ~.,
~
__r'
~ ~
~ T'
. I
+ ~ t
~ ~~± `
.' "tip ~ ~~ ~ ~
~ ~
L .3f'~ ~1~~,'.~~ y~ r~ r r ti: 1J ~~~
~
~..
+~+~' ' ri- _ r
- __- --
y~
yve ~ ~ ilM MN` 1~ 'a
._...._... ...._.... ~..
.:. y .__.... S &~1
... ~
i ~~.
~
._ ~as~
~1 ~" '
st~^ ~~y. ~ _.,t,,
~
'~~~
y
~
_~
~w
iL ~ ~ - x ~ -.i.i. ~
~ '~ # M1 +~,.. ,~ a
4 ~ ki5. ~,,~.Y,,~
Tii~ i
~Xt,Yf"'. v,+~F.sai',wiww 5pi'SF.a
Fm +~ ..,,.yb,
Y 'A
,
-.
T ~ 4 j 1~ 4 ~, : I ~ i s
~ ~
` ,
`i
~
R ~ J _
~
C
i t ~ F
s ~~ ~
, ~~ t "ItM.f,
J .x
J ,., ~ ~J ~,,,,~ $'
t. ~' R a KY '/ )l 7kf v' ' .. ~IF1
t I
~~
I
~."v
,
t
..._
r:Y '
..
AERIAL MAP
Owner: Endeavor Capital Partners I, LLC Case: FLD2009-06019
Site: 1808 - 1820 Drew Street Property Size: 0.77 acres
PIN: 12/29/15/22482/002/0010 Atlas Page: 280A
12/29/15/22482/001/0040
1808 -1820 Drew Street
FLD2009-06019
Page 1 of 2
View looking west of the subject property along the Drew
Street frontage
View looking northwest at subject property from Tulane Road
View looking southwest (subject property) of the rear of the
main building with the storage building on the right
View looking northwest at the subject property from the
intersection of Drew Street and Tulane Road
L~,
View looking northwest from Tulane Road at attached
dwellings directly north of subject property
. ~ ~
r~` }~~
View looking west along north side of Drew Street at
commercial businesses directly west of subject property
1808 -1820 Drew Street
FLD2009-06019
Page 2 of 2
View looking southwest at commercial businesses across
Drew Street from subject property
View looking north from Drew Street at commercial businesses
View looking south at commercial business across Drew
Street from subject property
View looking southeast at school across Drew Street from
subject property
H` H~OEW~A R D
November 11, 2009
Mr. Wayne Wells
City of Clearwater Planning Department
100 S. Myrtle Ave
Clearwater, FL. 33758
Re: 1808 Drew St.
FLD2009-06019
Dear Mr. Wells,
Please find below are our responses (in bold italic) to the comments from the last submittal.
General Engineering:
Show dumpster relocated to an acceptable location. Proposed location is unsuitable.
The proposed dumpster will be located on adjacent property to the north. The owner has
a shared dumpster agreement with the property owner. There are existing utility poles
and lines that will be removed or relocated underground. The owner acknowledges the
final approval will be contingent on the utilities being moved.
2. Show on the plans a suitably sized grease trap for the proposed restaurant.
There is an existing grease trap from a previous restaurant. It is located at the northeast
corner of the main building. See sheet C-05.
Landscaping:
1. Sheet C-06 -Revise the Landscape Plan and/or the Proposed Plant Legend for the following (while
the comments below are provided, they may be modified in light of other Planning and Landscaping
comments):
a. Plan shows 30 LI; Legend indicates 31 LI;
There are now 27 Ll. Quantities updated on sheet C-06.
b. Plan shows 73 IV; Legend indicates 71 IV;
There are now 103 IV. Quantities updated on sheet C-06.
c. Plan shows 391 JP; Legend indicates 422 JP; and
There are now 1,108 JP. Quantities updated on sheet C-06.
d. MG must be a minimum of 2.5" caliper and 10 tall.
The tree information has been updated on sheet C-06.
2. Sheet C-06 -For shade trees (QV+MG) -Need to provide a minimum of 20-foot spacing between
these shade trees. There must also be for shade trees a minimum distance of five feet to any
impervious surface. There are some MG's too close to each other and to impervious surfaces. Revise.
The trees have been relocated to provide adequate spacing and separation.
3. Sheet C-06 -There are indicated by the plant indicator 2 LI to be planted within the landscape area
at the NW corner of the parking lot, but only one LI tree symbol is shown. Revise.
The quantify on sheet C-06 has been revised to one (1).
Howard Civil Engineering, LLC 4805 Independence Pkwy.- Suite 2508 Tampa, FL. 33634
Office 727 490-1784 Fax 727-490-1787 ~~ ~ ~ ^y~~~r~~i~~"~~~~ -~°~c~.corrr
4. Sheet C-06 -There are various areas indicated on the Landscape Plan that appear to have no
landscaping proposed (blank white). With the amount and location of the landscaping proposed on the
plan, it does not make sense, as well as the Code discourages, to have turf in interior landscape areas
(no turf is presently indicated on the Plan). Recommend to fill in these blank/white areas with shrubs
and/or groundcovers to reduce maintenance requirements. Need to specify what these blank/white
areas are intended to be.
These areas have been updated and are now proposed as ground cover.
5. Based on the stormwater grate elevation, the stormwater pipe invert elevation, the size of the pipe
and the location of the pipe, there will be insufficient planting area and depth for the proposed
landscaping along Drew Street. Regrade the backup flair and relocate the stormwater pipe to the north
to the edge of the pavement to provide sufficient landscape planting area and depth.
The pipe has been relocated and the Hairs reduced as noted to increase the landscape
area width. Shrubs have been added between the flairs and the sidewalk for Drew Sf.
stormwater:
1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be
forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application.
Acknowledged.
2. At building permit application, applicant shall submit drainage report, soil report, and any
other drainage related document for review and record.
Acknowledged.
Solid Waste:
1. New Dumpster location will not work for solid waste, power pole with guide lines will block access.
The developer is working with fhe existing utility owners to remove the poles and
relocate the lines underground. The owner acknowledges the final approval will be
contingent on the utilities being moved.
Traffic Enpineering:
1. Strategically install bollards along the accessible route where it traverses behind the accessible
parking space.
Bollards have been placed along the route. See sheet C-04.
2. Show 20 x 20 sight visibility triangles at the intersection of Tulane Road and Drew Street.
Site visibility triangles have been added to the intersections. See sheets C-04 and C-06.
3. Applicant shall all substandard sidewalk ramps adjacent driveway up to standard, including A.D.A.
(Truncated domes per F.D.O.T. Index #304.)
Detectable warning surfaces have been added to the sidewalk at the Drew St. driveway.
See sheet C-04
Planning•
1. Overall property is made up of two parcels. Will need to record a Declaration of Unity of Title prior to
the issuance of any permits. Will be a condition of approval may require the owner to have the Property
Appraiser combine the parcels together.
Acknowledged. Prior to the issuance of any permits, Owner will either record a
Declaration of Unity of Title or combine the parcels.
2. Sheets C-04 and C-06 -Show 20x 20 visibility triangles at the street intersection of Drew Street and
Tulane Road and on the northern driveway on Tulane Rd. Trees cannot be located within the visibility
triangles. Revise.
Howard Civil Engineering, LLC 4805 Independence Pkwy.- Suite 2508 Tampa, FL. 33634
Office (727) 490-1784 (Fax) 727-490-1787 vy,v.v.N^ ""'~~"c~~~,~.~,r' :_ __ -:_~,
Site visibility triangles have been added to the intersections. See sheets C-04 and C-06.
3. Ensure that, when resubmitting the application package, Page 8 of the application (Affidavit to
Authorize Agent) is included (Authorized Agent form submitted is insufficient for application purposes).
4. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6 -Revise for the following:
a. Unclear why there are two sets of responses for a - d that are different;
See revised Addendum
b. Response to -Line 6 -Recommend removing "is there any"
See revised Addendum
c. Response to "e" -Line 7 - I would not characterize the proposed internal landscaping to the
site as lush.
See revised Addendum
5. Sheet C-01 -Site Data -Parking
a. Revise "Required by Code" to add in the Shared Parking table from the Parking Reduction
Study after the first three lines. Revise "Total Required" to 45 spaces (per Shared Parking table)
Sheet C-01 has been updated with the requested information.
b. Remove "Required Per Study" entirely; and
Sheet C-01 has been updated with the requested information.
c. Revise "Proposed" to include "Per Parking Reduction Study".
Sheet C-01 has been updated with the requested information.
6. Sheet C-01 -Revise Site Data for the following:
a. Impervious Area Ratio -Allowed -Revise from "0.90" to "0.95"
Sheet C-01 has been updated with the requested information.
b. Existing Area Breakdown under Building -Revise "office" to "retail" and "garage/storage" to
"storage";
Sheet C-01 has been updated with the requested information.
c. Proposed Area Breakdown under Building Coverage -Revise "office" to "retail/restaurant" and
"garage" to "storage".
Sheet C-01 has been updated with the requested information.
7. Sheet C-04 - Provide a setback dimension from the north property line (west of the main building) to
the existing pavement (this represents a reduction to the 10-foot side setback reduction -include in the
request as a setback reduction).
The setback distance of 6.47' has been added to the site plan Shee# C-04.
8. Ownership of this property has changed to 1808 Drew, LLC. Revise Page 1 of the application for
"Property Owner(s) and "Applicant Name" and provide a new Affidavit to Authorize Agent, signed by the
new owner.
9. Dumpster enclosure has been relocated off-site onto the adjacent attached dwelling parcel to the
north, owned by a different entity than the subject property. In order to place such dumpster enclosure
serving the subject property on this adjacent parcel, the following must occur:
a. The adjacent property owner must consent to such placement of the dumpster enclosure on
their property;
Included in this re-submittal is an agreement between the property owners for a
shared dumpster.
b. if this dumpster is to serve multiple properties, there must be appropriate agreements and/or
covenants/restrictions between the property owners and the Solid Waste Department
Howard Civil Engineering, LLC 4805 Independence Pkwy.- Suite 2508 Tampa, FL. 33634
Oftice (727) 490-1784 (Fax) 727-490-1787 yv:~;v.H~~varc3~ivi(Ent~~n- "~,_carr~.
Included in this re-submittal is an agreement between the property owners for a
shared dumpster.
c. overhead utility lines, utility poles and guy wires conflict with the proposed location. For this
location to be acceptable, all overhead lines would need to be placed underground
The developer is currently working with the utility owners to remove/relocate the
overhead line along Tulane Rd.
d. for a - c above to work, an appropriate condition or conditions of approval would be
necessary to be placed into the staff report requiring the undergrounding of the utilities, the
obtaining of a building permit and completion of construction of the dumpster enclosure prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Completion for this project.
Developer acknowledges that final approval is contingent on items a-c above.
10. Sheet C-04 -Provide dimensions for the following:
a. distance from the south property line to pavement on each side of the Drew Street driveway
Dimensions have been added to the Site Plan Sheet C-04.
b. width of the landscape areas on both sides of the stairs to the deck in the middle of the main
building.
Dimensions have been added to the Site Plan Sheet C-04.
11. Sheets C-03 - CO6 -There appears to be a concrete pad between the building and the pavement of
Tulane Rd. at the northeast corner of the main building. Based on a site visit, unclear of the purpose
and need for such concrete. Sheet C-05 indicates this - is to be seal coated (?). Remove pad and
landscape this area.
The area in question is now shown on fhe Demo Plan to be removed (Sheet C-03) and
has landscaping (C-06).
12. Reduce the backup Hairs adjacent to Drew Street to three feet (instead of five feet). This would
provide a planting area between the property line and the backup Hairs of 3.15 feet, sufficient for a
continuous hedge along Drew Street.
The (lairs have been reduced and landscaping has been added in the new area.
13. Responses to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria -
a. Provide a response to criteria #4
See Revised Addendum
b. It makes better sense to consolidate all responses to the criteria into the addendum, not
leaving one response (criteria #2) on Page 3 of the application.
See Revised Addendum
14. Parking Reduction Study
a. Page 1, Introduction, Paragraph 2, Line 4- Revise storage area to 2,750 square feet
(consistent with that indicated on Sheet C-01);
See revised Parking Study
b. Page 2, Comparison of Future Supply and Demand, Paragraph 1, Line 24- Revise storage
area to 2,750 square feet (consistent with that indicated on Sheet C-01 );
See revised Parking Study
c. Preference is to have the analysis should look at the location of the existing storage area in
relation to the front parking lot (located to the north of the main building), the fact that the
Howard Civil Engineering, LLC 48051ndependence Pkwy.- Suite 2508 Tampa, FL. 33634
Oflice (727) 490-1784 (Fax) 727-490-1787 byvyv~ ;H~wa,r~Civiln,e~ineerin~,_~anz.
storage use has their own access (drive aisle), the frequency of use of the storage area and the
particular use of this storage area to determine whether the storage users park in the front
parking lot while visiting their storage units and whether the four spaces required for the storage
use should be "discounted" from a "needed" parking, which in turn, could provide additional
parking for the retail users;
See revised parking study
d. If, based on the analysis of above, one could argue that, given the unknown nature of the
existing unoccupied retail floor area, that a higher parking ratio than two spaces per 1,000
square feet could be provided to still justify the parking reduction requested. The conclusion
should incorporate "c" above and also emphasize that the restaurant parking is being provided
without any reduction.
See revised parking study
15. Exterior of dumpster enclosure is supposed to be of the same material and color as the buildings
on-site of this request Need to indicate on the detail on Sheet C-07 the exterior material and
color of the enclosure.
A note has been added to Sheet C-07 specifying that the dumpster enclosure materials
match the buildings.
Sincerely,
ichel erra~o
Project Manager
o ar Civil r~ ineeri
Mobile (813) 881-1676
Howard Civil Engineering, LLC 48051ndependence Pkwy.- Suite 2508 Tampa, FL. 33634
Office (727) 490-1784 (Fax) 727-490-1787 Y~x~~~:H~rvv~,rclGivilEnr~ineerinr~,_cor~~.
~ ~ ~~ ~ Planning Department
'~i~'`'j 100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 33756
Telephone: 727-562-4567
Fax: 727-562-4865
i$t SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION
~ SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION -Plans and
application are required to be collated, stapled, and folded into sets
)$1 SUBMIT FIRE PRELIMARY SITE PLAN: $200.00
^ SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE
CASE #:
RECEIVED BY (staff initials):
DATE RECEIVED: __
* NOTE: 75 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS)
FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project
(Revised 07/11/2008)
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT
A. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A)
APPLICANT NAME: .Peter Marks ,Manager of_ECP_Property Holdings, LLC.
MAILING ADDRESS: 107 Moore Street Princeton, New Jersey 08540
PHONE NUMBER: Tel; ~609~ 497-9640 FAX NUMBER:
CELL NUMBER EMAIL: peter allingtOn_markS@yahOO.COm
PROPERTY OWNER(S): 1$08 Drew, LLC (ECP1808 Dreyy, LLC Prope~Holdings, LLC is the manager and soleLLC is the manager and sole
List ALL owners on the deed shareholder of 1808 Drew, LLC)
AGENT NAME: TreVOr HOWard
MAILING ADDRESS: 4805 Independence Pkwy_~_Suite 250B______ Tama, FL. 33634 _______~___
PHONE NUMBER: (727) 490-1784 FAX NUMBER: (727)490-1787
CELL NUMBER: EMAIL: treVOr(Cf)_hOWardClVllenglneerlnq.COm
B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A)
PROJECT NAME: 1808-20 Drew St. Parking LOt Replacement PROJECT VALUATION: $ e
STREET ADDRESS 1808 Drew Street Clearwater, Florida 33756
PARCEL NuMBER(s): 12/29/15/22482/002/0010 and 12/29/15/22482/001 /0040
PARCEL SIZE (acres): 0,77 PARCEL SIZE (square feet): 33
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See attached deed Or SUPVey
PROPOSED USE(S): ReStaUrant. Retail Sales/SerVICeS an
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
Specifically identify the request
(include number of units or square
footage of non-residential use and all
requested code deviations; e.g.
reduction in required number of
parking spaces, specific use, etc.)
Owner wishes to red_esign_the
of the parking lot taken by the
. _ ...
and-safiety concerns: Request
area. The existing_site had a_portio
;w St. causing traffic flow problems
i-th-e sfructure~set ac s. a uc Ion
C:\Documents and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 1 of 8
DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNI
DEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTIFIED) SITE PLAN? YES _ NO ~ (if yes, attach a copy of the applicable documents)
C. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP: (Code Section 4-202.A.5)
jai SUBMIT A COPY OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY, DEED TO THE PROPERTY OR SIGN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING OWNERSHIP (see
page 7) Copy of deed, ORB 15476, Page 1417
D. WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 3-913.A)
)$( Provide complete responses to the six (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA -Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail:
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it
is located.
See addendum
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly
impair the value thereof.
See addendum
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use.
See addendum
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion.
See addendum
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
See adendum
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on
adjacent properties.
See addendum
C:\Documents and Settingslderek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 2 of 8
WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria)
J$[ Provide complete responses to the six (6) COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CRITERIA -Explain how each criteria is
achieved, in detail:
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this
zoning district.
See addendum
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general
purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district
..See. addendum---..-.---.._...._._.._...._.-.._._.__..._._.__._.___....-.---.....____.._-.._.._..._---.__.___...._...--.---..----._..__.-__.._...--------.----.---._.._.._._
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties.
See addendum.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development.
See addendum
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent tarid uses, will not
substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following
objectives:
a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use;
b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating
jobs;
c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor;
d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing;
e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a
land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or
f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working watertront use.
See addendum
6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of
the following design objectives:
a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses
permitted in this zoning district;
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City;
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area;
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of
the following design elements:
^ Changes in horizontal building planes;
^ Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.;
^ Variety in materials, colors and textures;
^ Distinctive fenestration patterns;
^ Building stepbacks; and
^ .Distinctive roofs forms.
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings.
See addendum
C:\Documents and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 3 of 8
E. STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria
Manual and 4-202.A.21)
® A STORMWATER NARRATIVE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH ALL APPLICATIONS. All applications that involve addition
or modification of impervious surface, including buildings, must include a stormwater plan that demonstrates compliance with the City of
Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual. A reduction in impervious surface area does not qualify as an exemption to this requirement.
® If a plan is not required, the narrative shall provide an explanation as to why the site is exempt.
^ At a minimum, the STORMWATER PLAN shall include the following;
^ Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines;
^ Proposed grading including finished floor elevations of all structures;
^ All adjacent streets and municipal storm systems;
^ Proposed stormwater detention/retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure;
^ A narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including all calculations and data necessary to demonstrate compliance with
the City manual.
^ Proposed stormwater detention/retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure;
^ Signature and seal of Florida Registered Professional Engineer on all plans and calculations.
^ COPY OF PERMIT INQUIRY LETTER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT
SUBMITTAL (SWFWMD approval is required prior to issuance of City Building Permit), if applicable
01 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF STORMWATER PLAN REQUIREMENTS (Applicant must initial one of the following):
stormwater plan as noted above is included
stormwater plan is not required and explanation narrative is attached. At a minimum, a grading plan and finished floor
elevations shall be provided.
CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A STORMWATER PLAN
AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY
MAY OCCUR.
If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562-4750.
F. SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 4-202.A)
~ SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (including legal description of property) -One original and 14 copies;
B1 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;
^ TREE INVENTORY; prepared by a "certified arborist", of all trees 4" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and condition of
such trees;
~ LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY; See sheet C-01 of the site plan set.
^ PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (ie. Reduce number of spaces).
Prior to the submittal of this application, the methodology of such study shall be approved by the Community Development Coordinator and
shall be in accordance with accepted traffic engineering prindples. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not
deviations to the parking standards are approved;
® GRADING PLAN, as applicable; See sheet C-05 of the site plan set.
^ 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;
C:\Documents and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktoplplanning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 4 of 8
G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A)
® SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36'x:
X Index sheet referencing individual sheets included in package;
X North arrow;
X Engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet), and date prepared;
X All dimensions;
~( Footprint and size of all EXISTING buildings and structures;
IV/A Footprint and size of all PROPOSED buildings and structures;
X All required setbacks;
X All existing and proposed points of access;
X All required sight triangles;
Identification of environmentally unique areas, such as watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, and specimen trees, inGuding
__ X description and location of understory, ground cover vegetation and wildlife habitats, etc; Location of all public and private easements;
X Location of all street rights-of--way within and adjacent to the site;
Location of existing public and private utilities, incuding fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes and lift stations, gas
X and water lines;
_..
X All parking spaces, driveways, loading areas and vehicular use areas;
X Depiction by shading or crosshatching of afl required parking lot interior landscaped areas;
Location of all solid waste containers, recyGing or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment and all required screening
X {per Section 3-201(D)(i) and Index #701 };
X Location of all landscape material;
X Location of all onsite and offsite storm-water management facilities;
X Location of all outdoor lighting fixtures;
X Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks; and
--..._.
Floor plan typicals of buildings for all Level Two approvals. A floor plan of each floor is required for any parking garage requiring a
N/A Level Two approval.
® SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in writteNtabular form:
EXISTING REQUIRED PROPOSED
X Land area in square feet and acres; 33,420 sf 0.77 Ac. 10,000 sf 0.23 Ac. 33,420 sf 0.77 Ac.
Number of EXISTING dwelling units; 1 1 1
X Number of PROPOSED dwelling units; 1 1 1
~ Gross floor area devoted to each use; 5,174 sf Retail, 2,750 Storage __~~~_ *** se_ a below _
Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular form with the
X number of required spaces; __~ _ 38 see parking study see parking study
Total paved area, including all paved parking spaces & driveways,
X expressed in square feet & percentage of the paved vehicular area; 19,088 sf 57.1 % 17,881 sf 53.5%
Official records book and page numbers of all existing utility
)( easement; none none
X- Building and structure heights; 25 ft 25 ft
_..- -- ---. -------------.r_ 25 ft
~.------......__._...~...._
~ Impermeable surface ratio (I.S.R.); and 0.86 0.95 0.84
X Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses. 0.24 0.55 0.24
~ REDUCED COLOR SITE PLAN to scale (8'/: X 11); ...
^ FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the following additional information on site plan: 1,750 sf Restaurant
3,424 sf Retail
One-foot contours or spot elevations on site; 2,750 sf Storage
Offsite elevations if required to evaluate the proposed stormwater management for the parcel;
All open space areas;
Location of all earth or water retaining walls and earth berms;
Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned);
Streets and drives (dimensioned);
Building and structural setbacks (dimensioned);
Structural overhangs;
C:\Documents and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 5 of 8
H. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-1102.A)
® LANDSCAPE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36"):
x All existing and proposed structures;
X Names of abutting sVeets;
X Drainage and retention areas including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations;
X Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscape buffers;
X Sight visibility triangles;
X Delineation and dimensions of all parking areas including landscaping islands and curbing;
Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by spedes, size and locations, induding driplines (as indicated on required
_ X tree survey);
Location, size, and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant
X schedule;
Plant schedule with a key (symbol or label) indicating the size, description, specifications, quantities, and sparing requirements o all
_X.._._ existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names;
Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants including instructions, soil mixes, backfilling, mulching and
X protective measures;
Interior landscaping areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressing in both square feet and
X percentage covered;
Conditions of a previous development approval (e.g. conditions imposed by the Community Development Board);
X Irrigation notes.
Qn REDUCED COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8'/: X 11);
® COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, as applicable. Landscape assodated with the Comprehensive Landscape
Program shall exceed minimum Code requirements to offset the areas where minimum Code will not be met.
I. BUILDING ELEVATION PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A.23)
^ BUILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS -with the following information:
All sides of all buildings
Dimensioned
Colors (provide one full sized set of colored elevations)
Materials
^ REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATIONS -same as above to scale on 8'/: X 11
J. SIGNAGE: (Division 19. SIGNS /Section 3-1806)
^ All EXISTING freestanding and attached signs; Provide photographs and dimensions (area, height, etc.), indicate whether they will be
removed or to remain.
^ All PROPOSED freestanding and attached signs; Provide details including location, size, height, colors, materials and drawing;
freestanding signs shall include the street address (numerals)
^ Comprehensive Sign Program application, as applicable (separate application and fee required).
^ Reduced signage proposal (8'/: X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application.
C:\Documents and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 6 of 8
K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4-202.A.13 and 4-801.C)
^ Include if required by the Traffic Operations Manager or his/her designee or if the proposed development:
^ Will degrade the acceptable level of service for any roadway as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan.
^ Will generate 100 or more new vehicle directional trips per hour and/or 1000 or more new vehicle trips per day.
Will affect a nearby roadway segment and/or intersection with five (5) reportable accidents within the prior twelve (12) month period or
that is on the City's annual list of most hazardous intersections.
Trip generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip General Manual.
The Traffic Impact Study must be prepared in accordance with a "Scoping Meeting" held with the Traffic Operations Manager and the
Planning Department's Development Review Manager or their designee (727-562-4750)
Refer to Section 4-801 C of the Community Development Code for exceptions to this requirement.
® Acknowledgement of traffic impact study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following):
Traffic Impact Study is included. The study must include a summary table of pre- and post-development levels of service for all
roadway legs and each turning movement at all intersections identified in the Scoping Meeting.
Traffic Impact Study is not required.
CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A TRAFFIC IMPACT
STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND
SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR.
If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562-
4750.
L. FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY:
Provide Fire Flow Calculations. Water Study by a FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER to assure an adequate water supply is available and to determine if
any upgrades are required by the developer due to the impact of this project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire
sprinkler, standpipe and/or fire pump. If a fire pump is required the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity. Compliance with
the 2004 Florida Fire Prevention Code to include NFPA 13, MFPA 14, NFPA 20, NFPA 291, and MFPA 1142 (Annex H) is required.
® Acknowledgement of fire flow calculations/water study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following):
Fire Flow Catculations/Water Study is included.
Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is not required.
CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FORA FIRE FLOW
CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE
RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR.
If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Fire Prevention Department at (727) 562-4334.
M. SIGNATURE:
I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made
in this application are true and accurate to the best of my
knowledge and authorize City representatives to visit and
photograph the property described in this application.
~'~~~~
Signature of property owner or representative
STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF ~t(-l~~ ~G( 5
Sv{o{n to~nd u~ _bscribed befor A.D. 20~toame and/or by
NOY~ ll'l Y~ I' who is Rersonally known has
produced L r Ltc.~rt~e.
as id tification. ~NNII 111111
s\`i~~~~NpM. SU~/l~i~~i~
Not ry public, _ ; ,,~ ~~\ 13, 20 ,off ~ Z .__...
My commission expires: * ~ ~ ~ y~ 9N ;
s^.~ •.LS
,,~ ; #DD 769399 : Q
C:\Documents and Settingslderek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill
Page 7 of 8
N. AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT:
1. Provide names of all property owners on deed -PRINT full names:
ECP Property Holdings, LLC. is the Manager and sole shareholder of 1808 Drew, LLC. ____
2. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property (address or general location):
1808 Drew Street Clearwater, Florida
3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a: (describe request)
Site Plan approval and reductions to the setbacks
4. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint:
Trevor Howard (of Howard Civil Enqineerinq, LLC.)
Michael Serrano (of Howard Civil Enqineerinq, LLC.)
as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition;
5. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property;
6. That site visits to the property are necessary by City representatives in order to process this application and the owner authorizes City
representatives to visit and photograph the property described in this application;
7. That (I e), the undersigned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct.
v
Property Owner * Property Owner
Property Owner Property Owner
~ ~
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
Before me the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned by the laws of the State of New Jersey, on this ~ L- day of
who having been first duly sworn
d ~ ~
~0~
ll
~~
_
y appeare
t
persona
Deposes and says that he/she fully understands the contents of the affidavit that he/she signed.
Notary ~lu~~~~~1
Notary Seal/Stamp My Commission Expires: -_~-~-~ _____.________
i 9'k/ f 12e1 9 a sr NxNlO '.s9 9 nw s
C:1Documents and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 8 of 8
Addendum
General Applicability Criteria #1
1. Adjacent properties generally have no interior or property line landscaping. The
parking lot will be of the same scale, bulk, coverage and density as the neighboring
properties. This will be achieved by providing more or less the required number of
parking spaces as required by City code for the associated building use which is
commercial for this property. The neighboring properties are also zoned commercial
uses and they also provide the required parking spaces required by code. Therefore
the parking lot to building area ratios will remain consistent throughout the area.
General Applicability Criteria #2
2. The proposed parking lot is consistent with the parking lots on the neighboring
properties and therefore will not create any future or use that is not consistent in the
area. The improvement to the parking lot will consist of the planting of new trees to
make the area aesthetically pleasing. These trees will be installed as per City code and
will not be overly large so as to negatively affect neighboring properties.
General Applicability Criteria #3
3. The widening of Drew Street affected the existing parking layout by removing the
drive isles between Drew Street and the parking bays. A parking hazard was caused
when cars did not have adequately sized drive isles to navigate the site. This caused
cars to exit the site directly onto Drew Street via driving over the sidewalk and not
exiting via the driveway. No traffic circulation areas were demarcated and traffic
circulated in a haphazard fashion. The new parking lot will have traffic circulation areas
clearly marked by landscape islands and pavement striping.
General Applicability Criteria #4
4. The proposed parking lot design has a greater driveway throat depth than the
existing site does. This will allow two or more cars to more safely enter the site off of
Drew Street. The proposed parking lot also has a more organized layout than existing
with parking bays and travel lanes more clearly marked. This allows for easier parking
decisions for drivers entering the site which in turn reduces traffic congestion.
General Applicability Criteria #5
5. The revised parking lot will be consistent with the community character in that the
parking lot is located in the front of the building as is the case with neighboring
properties. The parking lot layout will be designed to City code and will have the same
standards as neighboring properties. The site will also provide landscaping which will
improve the area. This landscaping is aesthetically pleasing and reduces the heat
island effect of a totally bare asphalt parking lot as is the case with neighboring
properties.
General Applicability Criteria #6
6. The visual affects will be improved by providing landscaping in an otherwise lacking
area. The landscaping will also reduce acoustic effects as plants are known to dampen
the transmission of noise. Plant life generally provides a pleasing olfactory experience
which does not currently exist. Plant life will also encourage more wildlife such as
insects and birds to inhabit the area. The hours of operation for the commercial use will
be consistent with those allowed by the properties zoning.
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria #1
The right of way taking along Drew Street left an entire row of parking inaccessible to
customers of the site. This amounted to losing approximately 1/3 of all parking spaces.
With these spaces being inaccessible under normal circumstances, (the drive isle for
these spaces was reduced to approximately 7 feet wide) patrons of the site would
endanger themselves as they tried to find a parking space in anon-functional lot. There
were not enough parking spaces available to serve the facility by code. In order for the
building to have any form of practical use, the parking lot had to be redesigned to allow
for the number of parking spaces to serve a commercial building of that size. For the
length of a parking bay and associated drive isle to be met, the parking area has to
encroach into landscape islands and setback areas. The geometry of the site does not
allow for a similar layout without losing an entire row of parking.
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria #2
The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to discourage decaying of properties within
the city and increase the safety for it citizens. The redesign of this parking area will not
only add some new landscaping to an old site but also address some potential safety
hazards.
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria #3
The redesign of the parking lot will occur entirely on the property and no aspect of the
parking lot will encroach off-site whereby it could impede other properties. The parking
lot will be designed to acceptable codes and standard design practices and ingress and
egress locations on and off the site will not change.
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria #5
The adjacent land uses all have similar layouts where the parking lots are between the
main street and the building. This makes the site compatible with others in the vicinity.
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria #6
a) The proposed parking lot will not impede the development of the surrounding
properties because the layout of the parking lot will be in accordance with what is
required of a parking facility to serve a commercial building such as the one that
currently exists and will be of a similar nature to the neighboring properties.
b) The proposed parking lot will have the required geometric dimensions as required by
City code.
c) The proposed parking lot is a replacement of an existing lot that was negatively
impacted by the taking of right-of-way along Drew Street, returning the site to its former
scale.
d)
1. The building planes are existing and will not be altered.
2. The owner is committed to improving the building. The painting of outdoor
balconies and walls will occur.
3. The owner has recently replaced the roof and a new metal roof is in place which
complements the facade of the building.
4. The existing fenestration has been painted and repaired
5. The building is existing but has distinctive dormer type windows in place.
Revisions to Addendum as per comments from Wayne Wells 6/24/09
General Applicability Criteria #6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and
off-street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design
objectives:
a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of
the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district;
The proposed improvements to the existing retail center will not impede the normal and orderly
development of the surrounding properties; rather, it will set an example for other properties to make
improvements internal to the site.
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the city;
The proposed changes to the parking area complies with design guidelines. There are no changes being
proposed to the actual building on the site -this application is solely for parking and landscaping
improvements.
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging
character of an area;
The proposed changes to the lot support the commercial district along Drew Street. The property was
negatively impacted by the Drew Street expansion. As a result of that taking, the parking lot became
dysfunctional. This proposed development allows a better flow of traffic in this commercial area and a
more attractive lot with increased landscaping.
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development
incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements:
• Changes in horizontal building planes;
The building planes are existing and will not be altered.
• Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies,
railings, awnings, etc.;
The owner is committed to improving the building by painting of outdoor balconies and walls.
• Variety in materials, colors and textures;
The new metal roof, recently replaced by the Owner, complements the building style.
• Distinctive fenestration patterns;
No changes to the existing building are proposed; existing fenestration has been repaired and painted.
• Building stepbacks; and
No changes to existing building is proposed and it is not multi-storied.
• Distinctive roofs forms.
The existing building does have dormer windows in place to create character.
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and
appropriate distances between buildings.
The applicant proposes improvements to the property to better the flow and attractiveness of the
parking area, specifically in response to the negative impact created by the Drew Street expansion. The
proposed parking design includes internal landscape islands and a landscape buffer along Tulane Road
between the existing building and the right of way. The southwest corner of the property will be improved
with a (monument) sign and increased landscaping, creating a buffer between the commercial property to
the west. Currently there is minimal landscaping [is there any?] between the Drew Street Right of way
and the existing lot. This plan improves the parking area and provides increased, lush landscaping
internal to the site while providing the appropriate number of parking spaces and increased flow of
movement through the parking area. The applicant wishes to provide improved access to the site for his
visitors and tenants. This is a voluntary application for the improvement of a parking area. Without these
proposed improvements, the parking area could remain the same, dysfunctional and poorly landscaped
area that it is today.
Clearwater
Planning Department
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 33756
Telephone: 727-562-4567
Fax: 727-562-4865
^ SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION
^ SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION -Plans and
application are required to be collated, stapled and folded into sets
CASE NUMBER:
RECEIVED BY (Staff Initials):
DATE RECEIVED:
* NOTE: A TOTAL OF 15 SETS OF THIS APPLICATION AND ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED IN
CONJUNCTION WITH A COMPLETE LEVEL ONE OR LEVEL TWO APPLICATION.
COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM
(Revised 04/24/2007)
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT
APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A)
APPLICANT NAME:
MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE NUMBER:
CELL NUMBER:
PROPERTY OWNER(S):
List ALL owners on the deed
AGENT NAME:
MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE NUMBER:
CELL NUMBER:
Peter Marks , Mana er of ECP Pro ert Holdin s, LLC
107 Moore St. Princeton, NJ. 08540
(609 497-9640 FAX NUMBER: _ _
EMAIL: peter_allington_marks@yahoo.com
1808 Drew, LLC. (ECP Property Holdings, LLC is the manager and sole shareholder of
1808 Drew, LLC.)
Trevor Howard
4805 Independence Pk . - Suite 2506 Tampa, FL. 33634
727-490-1784 FAX NUMBER: 727-490-1787
EMAIL: Trevor@howardcivilengineering.com
1. ARCHITECTURAL THEME:
a. The landscaping in a Comprehensive Landscape Program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings
proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for the development.
OR
b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall be
demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape
standards.
Z:IEndeavor Capital PartnerslDrew StreetlApplicationslECP Drew Comp Land App 2009-11-12.doc
Page 1 of 3
Reductions are being requested to the width of the landscape buffers along all the property lines. These buffers width are
current as the building is already in place. We also request a reduction to the width of the intemal parking islands. The
landscape plan proposed is an enormous improvement to what is currently in place, where there are no buffers along Drew
Street or any adequately landscaped intemal islands.
The minimum landscape buffer cannot be met along Drew Street but the plan proposes a larger buffer than is currently in
place. These buffers are too narrow to plant shade trees therefore accent trees and shrubs are heavily planted in almost
every available green area. The area along Tulane is also heavily landscaped with accent trees and shrubs. The code is
exceeded by placing trees closer together than the required 35 feet separation and shrubs are placed in more than 50% of
the green areas. The plan proposes a higher percentage of accent trees than is typically required by code, but the site
constraints of having overhead power lines as well as the width of landscape buffers necessitate this. The plan
demonstrates that landscaping is shown in almost every possible open space on the site. Avast improvement to what is
currently in place or is shown on any other property in the area.
2. COMMUNITY CHARACTER:
The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater.
The neighboring properties have virtually no landscaping. This property will be the only one on the block with adequate
landscaping. This added landscaping will enhance the community character by making the area more pleasing to the eye as
landscaping typically does. The landscaping will reduce the area of asphalt on site which in turn will reduce the heat island
effect on the community and set a standard for nei hboring properties to aspire to.
3. PROPERTY VALUES:
The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will have a benefiaal impact on the value of the property in the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
The landscape added to the site will make the site visibly more appealing which will encourage potential customers to visit the
center. This higher rate of visitation will strengthen the business activity on the site whereby making the property more
profitable. A profitable center will be able to justify higher rent values for the landlord. The neighboring property will be able to
benefit from a profitable center as he will get spill over customers to his property thereby increasing his business and potential
rents.
4. 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.
The proposed landscaping will enhance the scenic corridor along Drew Street by heavily landscaping all open areas on site.
Although the taking of the right of way along Drew Street and the site constraints do not allow the site to meet every letter of the
landscaping code, all places where the code is not able to be met, other areas are over compensated (Please see 1 b above).
thus meeting the intention of the landscaping code.
THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 3, DIVISION 12 MAY BE WAIVED OR MODIFIED AS A PART OF A LEVEL ONE OR LEVEL
TWO APPLICATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IF THE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL INCLUDES A COMPREHENSIVE
LANDSCAPE PROGRAM, WHICH SATISFIES THE ABOVE CRITERIA. THE USE OF LANDSCAPE PLANS, SECTIONS /ELEVATIONS,
RENDERINGS AND PERSPECTIVES MAY BE NECESSARY TO SUPPLEMENT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WORKSHEET.
Z:IEndeavor Capital PartnerslDrew StreetlApp/icationslECP Drew Comp Land App 2009-11-12.doc
Page 2 of 3
SIGNATURE:
I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in
this application are true and accurate to the best of my
knowledge and authorize City representatives to visit and
photograph the property described in this application.
Signature p perty owner or representative
STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF Pt ~ ~ ~a S
Swom to and subscribed before me this l~- day of
~ N~V~YY~~t', A.D. 20Q~_ to me and/or by
who is personally known has
produced k= L 1~c\1f+r'S L~[OY1CP ~7y~t~NHliuii.. /
as id ntification. `~~~ p,M• SU(~'~ii,
~a~p\l`~ ~........ ~i ~~i
`( ~.~~MIS310N~1 ;9~i ~
Notary public, ~ ; ~ ~ u,~;
My commission expires: -* : .-.~
a _ . ..-- ------
Z:IEndeavor Capital PartnerslDrew StreetlApplicationslECP Drew Comp Land App 2009-11-12.doc
Page 3 of 3
', '', L_N ~ ~ LOT 4 1 STORY I ~ I L, ~ - - -
'. I BLOCK B MASONRY ENCLOSURE P ~c~rrv I ~ I III ~ III '.
' I STRUCTURE CODE. SEE DETAIL ; - III ;' iii ~ ~ n
_____ ~ (RESIDENT44L -MULTI FAMILY) I I-~}{t?-- 3D' I% (n pp
i43.1zszl% __ - __.. ........_ ..... .....__. r---~,._.. --_ r-.._ ___. .......... ..._. ... .....__. __ ...... .._.. ___ ~ .. .._.. III`° III ~- J f~
N ,4e.ezlGl i °w i L_ i III III ' ~ ~ LL r
- ~ p.tc r -------- 'o ~ III c0
'. i= i ac. r 1 „~ I UNPLATTED Z C_
y ~- LOT3 ~'; ~ III ~~ ~ ~
i ~ i _„ BLOCKB 131.00'(0) ~ ~' .,;71 ^- III ~ C td
W E +"~z;.Nk svan i=i ry ti,~ (NOT INCLUDED) ,~ ~)I s VIII W ~J,J ~ CV
LOT 20 i.°>a t- `,I tq 1 5r S89'28'46"E(C) ,^.,5 ~~ .n; ~ ..~, ~ :III W -_ L%
BLOCKB r--_ f~ "w~ " =r elll ', Z ~~_ ~
. . .. . ... ... ... ...
' '----1 a] I \3000 P.S.I. CONCRETE SIAB WIRi
~ r ~•~ j ..1 STORY-MASONRY ~IREINFORCING- 1 y `` -______. Als:al ~ ~ j ~
II I /~ I ..
1 rw~• I 'I_ •.V` ..................GAFiAG~3°~`tSfU1~'aE UN1YS`...M~DlSdiil~: niSfLc lHlawESS. ~~ c~ .'a~ .tu~y>; W ~. f~
FRAME I IF11ry -STRUCNRG lFE-~~ 6,pgw~~W,.tyA 1
.... . __. _. __...... __.... .. _. ........_ _. ___ __ ..... .......... .4uHED......j ......... __ ....)1.1' 1 i IINE R'!F7 2.]50 S.F. 1 a
_ J ~ a v
I '_ ~ I
'. ~I 401 --- -' s.4' -a----------------------------~4-----_"-------------F---------ysa'~- ~ N
'' LAND USE • (25) AUTO REPAIR SHOP ~ ~ ~. ~ ~-- ' ..._..Ji____________________ N C N
I v ,tc ~ , ~ n
I $S~ ~~ rsnwJ; A.vr<aza•c „~p'xa I i 1 STORY Q Q C
:~. n- I
SCALE. 111 = 401 LOT 21 -- -----J ~ ~ J,!- ~ ~-~ ~r ® ~ 'i GARAGE UNRS
i N ~
BLOCKB ----f-s_ ~~: -fr__a G~ ~a c~ oa~o: I ~ ~ C
" :[ L~ l - -L-I Lam- - ~ rl 2 J C L
ril' - - - - jig ~ - - t ~ - _ - t~ _ - t~ - _ - L=L'~ ~ t-L - ~ :L____________________ /
2.,•~iW--- -----------------------w>~_rJ __C•urr----- ----------- -~- 18®I ~ ;------------------- O ~ a
LAND USE - (41) UGHT MANUFACTURING ~ i ,v ~ ~ ~~ I .a1
..........~ ( I
-i~-! EXISTING BU6.DR6G ~ I Qd ~ ~ ',' y
~' s,mate,a '
____. _ _........ ~i , i 1 STORY ~1T0.4nPTO R~EMNN;~
__ ... ....... ... .... ..... ._ ._ .. ...._... A ~ ,,„_...... zl i MFRAMEY R cl
i--------------------------------- ----------------~ 8. i= 3 ST Eu]CTURE 4,850 S.F.- 1st FLOO ~ ; cs~
I
. 777
s2o~ LOT zz ; ~ ~ 324 S.F. -LOFTS , ~
1 STORY BLOCK B I =t i N 1 ...... a„ L
MASONRY m Fii ~ 1 i ~ ? ~ I
_.. ~ __ .. .._ STRUCTURE. __ 'I I i i 3 i 4~1822
~ I ........ ..... __. __ r` ___ T~.SHED.I. '.S,__~I e- "~ ?-'r 1 ~ `~_--_ - '----------- -- I 0 i 1 SS ORY
---
1
I I
`--------------------------------- - -- - IL--__~ E; ax rn ..~:. Ra~ ~ ~<` ~ r a:u%x cx Yrn 6 le.e 0 .i STMRUCTURE
.~ ~ IJ
were,'. •~~ ~_ el _~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y 's.'~Ld ._.Yi
Sx:n ..a
,... _ ...._ _._... .. __ __.. ..._. ... " ....._:~ ~ - j ,_~' '~ . ..- _ i -_.. _ ` _ ~ ~ Z tic L EXISTING OVERHEAD UTI `Z
............. ...... .:.-. ..... ~ ~ ~ ~ 4
~ L ALONG TULANE RD. ARE ~~
' us..,;~u ,r.~a, vnan ~~ ~ ~ m ~ ICI ~ ~ ~~ zf .~ r 4 1 ~° ~ y~ ~ i . ~i RELOCATED UNDERGROU 0 ~ Q
a I J c,~~ j ~s~ , _, W~
~, L~ y `~ , / f- DEVELOPER IS CURRE W Q
jj i
~~ I W W
v -_------- ------------ r ---s-~ ~ i R_.J i , ~ ~-_ - ^I WORKING WRH THE Uil
0 - --° ---- - I n ~ ~ I ` I I 1 - I ~r ~ ~ ' , I ~/ ~ OWNER9 AND ACKNO U ~ U
THAT FlNAL APPROVALIS Q ~ ~ O
0 1 i II j \ ~ LCA4CRETE N'Irt EL ' ~ ~SOL(JC 1
C ~ ( - : `--nrF n,x7NC. i STw'TrrJ '_ ~ i-~~PA ~ ~ - ~„~, i CONTINGENT ON THESE -~
m ~ ~ t =~ne(~'J ` i = srtiw:~p v>A C,~r,LL ~% rnvJ i-PLACED UNDERGROUND. M ~ W
w ' ' ~ 3 ~ 37 PARKING SPACES ~ " I Li
W sleoo-leo6 i ~~ -~ ; m ]luFnc:3rnute I ~ ,-rraEO~NC ~ ' ^ ~~ W
1 ~ ~ ~~ W
' I , g 4aoc_1rrP7 I
1 STORY 1 , ~ (l9 ~ \ 1 cone IrrP~ ~ ~_ $ ~~ (~
MASONRY ~ ~ ' ~ _L"I FTiOi'OSEf) ~ - T `-wHSDlesroP I ~ 0 ~ Q
STRUCTURE ~ I I ASPtiA1T ~ /,; - sror SlGr+- U
~ I G, r /~~ ~. _1 ~ ~ ~-- BAR I
R = LAND USE - (11) STORES ~ i ' ts~ ~"rrve o mrlc, i ~ ~ a: ~~ ~ ~q~ ~'r _',~ ~ I I ~ ~
I ~ _ cuN~rn f _ ~ ; ~ srnucn,ac ~ `- ~ I ' i ~ CV
' 1 ~ ~ ~ se ac I ~ lrr ~ ~ (~ Q
ra c t
I
" f- _v---... z. .f.... ~ ~' i ~ i ;' ~_ N ~' e _.iu ~pJ , a -........ 2+. ~ ,e' J ~ I g u aaa.~'r W p Z J
' ~ ~
' CcfC ~ 1JLInd I (4~ ~ WHfIE PAR~lX3 T
I I y/
-, - - - -' 2.74 ~ t _
PEAMiI YC1 lGW TY~1 ~ ~~j / STFI~E II'RGi 9 ~ : .9 L.. ,~Lie:~
LOT1 L0T2 ~ ~ on,e~ I ~ -_..~ - -~ _ ! ~l Q
BLOCK A LOT 3 ~ i ' \i~ $ Y' O ` ~ PPO~ SED `_ ~ u I /! I~
(III(
BLOCK A ~~~ r BLOCK A ~, v ~, ,~, x n I
a
- .. ...
C.c - _. __ STO --- _ --_- . _~ ~
SIGN ~~ ~ N89 ~ c ;2000 ~ ..~...1 J.. (~\~i__
. _ -~ can- .,.n ;w P~ ~s °2648 (C8M) 1yC&M) .. - - -I``I 1- - -- - - - - -~-
--- - _ - --- - ------
--- --- - _
-------- --
........................ ........_ \ J _'. - -
r~
----_-
2'OFDETECTABLE .-.... ............. ~ ! --
~~ WARNING SURFACE 24'SOLO \ -----~ -~.._....... ~
2791% PER FDOTINDEX 306 WHT1E -/ Tru: X:.'tJ~ 7~„a:a%~.:f' (~f
...EACH aIDE OF DRIVE SOP BAA 271.]1'(q ~~. ax: ;.bmet= ~ ,
_.-.-_.... '-____.. ........ Q Y1
...._,.,_., Z
~ ~
........... ~. ............ V ~
..._..-...._..._. ............_____„_ N
DREW STREET -____ -~
far.,...==c=- Q m 2 ~ Q
~ -__=__- d ~ U 0 ~
r WEBER ROAD(P)
F
III m i
III I~ 55 ~ ~-----------~
i 1 1
~
~ O
•: ~ x~ 1
~ ~~~ ;~ I D~ I ;
I I, ., I I
[ III I I 1
O i ~. 1 1
I ~ 1 1
I ~'
m ~
~ (n Z
~~,~
~_ c 1
~ III ~ Occ I
III S, I
• ~o I mDfD;~N~
~VO
~ I I j
I I ~I
'
m
III ?t D N c~! I
III I~ I"`,
III ~ I i v
$
S~+
~m<
s j I I
i i i
i I ~~~ 1 I
O ~ R
~
i ti i i cg
rn i
,/
^IYI I 5mcc 1
III I
I i
I 1 nQLO~ 1
~ I
~ ~ ~ I y ~pr
OO
CjV
clig yl~i I i
;III I I ~ D
~ i ~ i m ,
38~ I r, , ,
m
` ar mo
~o
'
`
~' mss- ~ -i-
I II I I 1 -------
--------- r
J i
V RI m i
-- r 1 ~ ~ 1
~ ..
>
.
Z ~
(
€ III I •:i ;:~'~: :'
' .~+.a. _ ~
.«~w~
,,, r ~
~
~j m ~ j N Z
1j I II I G/ 11. ~
:C~' i?:. '. i i i m c
iinlG
j III
j
j ~ •~
~ ~ I
~
C
] ~] I
13
13
13
III 14.5 P~1
Uiiil ,
1 1
~~ ~ N JIB 1 1
~
~~ I $ F = $ F
~ ~ I ~ 1 Om ~
~ y I
11 m _
~ _
'~r ,
_--- __--J
~ ~ VV
~----_;
~ I D 4,
~ I ~ ~.
I
.,
- r
~~
~
C-~
i i
~
~ .
I y ~.
c
~ I I ~ I
3,
,
~ ~ a"
{ ~`
/ -;
<~
~~i$ ~ ro,~
f i
I r s
, ~ ~ t ,
~ ...
_ _ _
; yy - ~- -- - -- I ~ L_~ x
I L _ I
IZ ~ .. ~.. - -~~ I ---
_ _ a-, -----
~ ~ I SHEDi SHED i -
~. j
4 ~~~. 1
~' I rn C / L_
'~ ~ -.- 1 1 ~.
~.
i ~ I
' 1
~ 1
- .. ~ I i I: ________
1 `""~ I F I~ 1
1 hm ~ _'p i ~ i ~ °F 1
~ µ~1, ~; 1 F I y ~
€[
{
((
~ }}
`
31 f ~
~ ~ "~ .I.
3 II ~. o.
l Z
~ ~
I~~
~ 9
p,. - :
~ 1 (A
1 1b ~ 4
~1jt ~ I ~.•.. ~ i; ,~~om~~a
.
, ~;
o~
I din i i i ~ `+~ 1 „
1 ~ILI 1 ~ 1 1 I m
1 r I ; 1 1
ii:l`~ i ~$ F i i m
~ 1 y
~ I
~
~
I ~ c
~ ~.
c. Y G
~~ ~
g
.n'..' a+Se rt SDms~m
f.4 1m m <
'I(`~ la
j
~w.L
I
/~
~
~ ~~I J ; 3~ ~
_I~fTin I II z~0 i o
~~ iu i ~ i. ~ y I z
x ~ 1
i i O i• ,mm 7, S~~y
~
~~
~ ,,. r.,~ I
~
; ~
I
l'I~
~.s
~ C Al ~ yg0
1 I IP N~~
< ~I I
f
III ~
I
~~ ., U<<i
II ) pi
N C k
(II;If.
~
~
t. ~ •~
`~ ~ .V
~ ~ r++C
k.' 1
I I I tt,I
~.I';3iu o
N ~ b ~ 4 I
i 171n ~ yr^ ii I ~m
I Il~ll 1 I ~ T
1 I I D I~:i ~ ; m
~ ~I~i ~~o
i ~ i m i
111:., ~~
111 ~
11
i '/., ';I
m < : ~1y3/
1
o
~~ ~~`°' is
~ ~ ~ i •
1 ~lu 1 Xc9g 1 R -i
i ! -~ s' j ; @ zr i ~ ~ `~
~
~
1_
111
11~ ~Iia,
Y ~ ANC
~~j
'
L
/
^~ 1
~ CC
i mp N C
I I i I~~ I ~
1•
~'
QQ
i 1f7I{I~ i F o 11 2yF7 ~ r7
~i
~4 1
I
~
~
11 !1!1!1
111
111
111 ~ ~
r
333 ~ ' ...yyL
L /' }' ' i fm C
< ~~ } o t 1q r'r . ~ `~%'
,r, u
1~, y. g.._.. _.
a ~ 1
~
u
v
>:.
~ I j~ I
~ I i l________ __
Rsm: ~ 1 -..p i r ~ $ i S
c ~:~ '~' I ~ I
._. r-~_1,~,~,. f q ~ '•~.. e: .'2:.. ~ ~.--.~ _ - ~-- ~ 1
~ °°
~~
~
III
111
111 ~
111 `
'
J _ ~ ,
~ s -
~ ..
;viz c
: ~ _
. A{ ... ..
~ ~--~ a
~
'~` n~ ~ ' ~
..
>
,~,,. ~ O ro ~ '~ ~... ®..~....}.
_ _
~nr
fl». .r ~-a 9^ r ~ .= _ _ _
r ...n:. Gr..n~
,
.... .......
111
q~
III ~ ~
_ -
TULAN ROAD
n n <
~~.a.rr
~ µ
° ~
r r
c
III
III
III
III
(
~
~` ~~~rwvu rl~~o
I
~ ~i °~1
~~ ~-~~
~ ,~\o,.l ,~
r!`_ _
,
~ - - - -
oh ~
~~~~~~ i ,, ~
.. .~ m
- - -
---- -
- -L_]-- ~- ~ ~--~------ ~ ---1--~-----
vo~O~goaa
m~~l~+la~$s~ .
~~
w
_ _
rr„mcan =_-___---
; ---------- ~ h
- ~ -+
I i i II
~ i i II
III 1t
1 .
x
(( ,_
.: 77(( r/ .~
ffff(((( [~
1 ~i~L~°m~ j
5 z
_ ~n rn
~
~ ~m~mL7m D~G!
Z ,~j C
m
~
D 0
C N
~ i j ~
1 1 L) 1 µ~
I ~ I W
III
? 5" ?I
~~~I ,~~ ~
f
~ ®{ .~
2m~
~~ ~, !
6 n I y
o
o y
C p~x ~y~!
~2Sn
9 H O I~ 111 O O
~m
a
& ~ I m~1 I ~ II Z
11 O 1 II
zgs
III
I .
...,~ J ~,
$
~ ~f,#
I ~~ ~ i
~ ~m~
my
jgo ~~~
~ O
~ m
m i i
i II ~ I
i ~ i
~
~
_
_ _ $_
i m
o
W
c II o
i
1 1 I
PROJECT No.: LANDSCAPE PLAN (REDUCED)
D.B.:
cH.: 1808-20 DREW STREET HOWARD CIVIL ENGINEERING, LLC
Land Development Civil Engineers
DWG: PARKI NG LOT RE PLACEMENT 4805 Independence Pkwy.- Suite 2508 Tampa, FL. 33634
P
DATE: 2009-05-28 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA hone: (727) 490-1784 Fax: (727) 490-1787
.~
PARHING REDUCTION STUDY
FOR
1808 -1820 DREW STREET
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
PREPARED FOR:
1808 DREW, LLC
PREPARED BY:
GULF COAST CONSULTING, INC.
REVISED NOVEMBER 2009
PROJECT # 09-029
Robert Pergol z', P, PTP
AICP #9023, PTP #133
L
I. INTRODUCTION
The applicant proposes to redevelop the parking area and obtain development
approval to include a restaurant use within an existing shopping center, located on
the north side of Drew Street east of Keene Road and contains 36 parking spaces.
(See Figure 1) During the expansion of Drew Street several years ago, the
Property's parking lot was impacted to the point that the flow of the parking lot
and several parking spaces are non-functioning and the landscaping on the site is
minimal. The Property currently has 36 parking spaces, landscaping islands and
no landscape buffer along Drew Street.
The Property is the subject of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment in the
Commercial "C" zoning district which requests a reduction in required parking, to
accommodate the proposed 1,750 square feet of proposed restaurant space, 3,424
square feet of retail space (total 5174 sq. feet of existing retail space), and 2,750
square feet of existing storage space. This request requires an assessment of the
parking characteristics of the redevelopment.
Based on City of Clearwater requirements, on-site parking should include 15
spaces per 1,000 square feet of restaurant space, 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of
retail space, and 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of storage space. This would
result in a code requirement of 47 total parking spaces (26 for the restaurant, 17
for the retail, and 4 for the storage). Per Section 3-1405 "Shared Parking" of the
Community Development Code the peak shared parking requirement is 45 spaces
between 6PM and Midnight on weekdays, and normal weekday parking would be
29 parking spaces as shown below.
Land Use Weekday
12 - 6 AM Weekday
9AM - 4PM Weekday
6PM-12 PM Weekend
9AM - 4PM Weekend
6 -12 PM
Retail 5% (1) 70% (12) 90% (15) 100% (17) 70% (12)
Storage 100% (4) 100% (4) 100% (4) 100% (4) 100% (4)
Restaurant 10% (3) 50% (13) 100% (26) 50% (13) 100% (26)
Total 8 29 45 34 42
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The City of Clearwater has requested a detailed analysis estimating the number of
parking spaces actually needed to service the proposed redevelopment based on
site specific operations. Based on observations, the existing tenant mix contains
retail services including, a body waxing operation with normal business hours of
10 AM-7 PM Monday through Saturday, and a hair salon, with business hours of
9 AM - 5 PM Monday through Saturday, with occasional evening appointments.
Approximately 1,950 square feet of retail/services space is occupied.
1
.~
N
N
M
O
O
O
N
O
I PROJECT LOCATION - 1808 DREW STREET IPROJECTNO: I
09-029
Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. DATE:
Land Development Consulting 102009
DRAWN BY:
G.J.S.
FIGURE:
1
Existing parking characteristics were established by conducting hourly parking
observations between 10 AM - 6 PM on Tuesday September 29, 2009. The
results of these observations are shown in Table 1. At the time the observations
were conducted, only 1,950 square feet of space was occupied by the two tenants
mentioned above.
TABLE 1
1808-1820 DREW STREET -PARKING OBSERVATIONS
TIME OF DAY OCCUPIED SPACES TOTAL SPACES % OCCUPIED
10 AM 2 36 6%
11 AM 1 36 3%
12 NOON 3 36 8%
1 PM 2 36 6%
2 PM 4 36 11%
3 PM 2 36 6%
4 PM 3 36 8%
5 PM 2 36 6%
6 PM 1 36 3%
Peak parking demand occurred at 2 PM when the parking lot was 11 % occupied.
Parking demand is relatively low. Given the occupancy of the center (1,950 sf),
the actual parking ratio is two (2) spaces per 1,000 occupied square feet.
In addition, the driveway aisle in front of the storage building serves as short term
parking for the storage area. It could be argued the code required striped parking
is 41 spaces.
III. COMPARISON OF FUTURE SUPPLY AND DEMAND
The proposed tenant mix for the Property, at full occupancy, is 1,750 square feet
of restaurant space, 3,424 square feet of retail/services space, and 2,750 square
feet of storage space at the north end of the property. The applicant proposes 37
parking spaces with access from Drew Street and Tulane Road.
Given the actual parking usage for retail space, the future retail parking demand is
reduced to seven (7) spaces, although 11 spaces are provided (3.21 spaces per
1000 sf), the short-term parking for storage space is accommodated in the drive
aisle, and the code required parking for the proposed restaurant space would be 26
spaces (15 spaces per 1000 sf). As such the total realistic parking demand would
be reduced to 37 spaces for the entire site.
IV. CONCLUSION
This analysis was conducted based upon actual observations and reasonable
assumptions regarding the parking characteristics of retail/services space,
2
restaurant space, and storage space. The recommended parking supply for the
redevelopment is 37 parking spaces and has assumed full code required parking
for the restaurant space. The parking lot redevelopment proposes 37 parking
spaces and makes improvements to the appearance and safety of the parking lot. It
also provides for more uniformity of traffic flow. The types of businesses
presently occupying space and future businesses are not expected to be heavy
parking generators, but a restaurant use creates additional parking demand.
Therefore the parking demand can be reduced as compared to the shared parking
table. This analysis demonstrates operations can be accommodated with the
proposed 37 on-site parking spaces and justifies a reduction from the code-
required 41 striped spaces.
3
HM Florida Holdings, LLC
107 Moore Street
Princeton, NJ 08540
1808 Drew, LLC
107 Moore Street
Princeton, NJ 08540
Re: Properties located at 220 Tulane Road and 1808-20 Drew Street, Clearwater, Florida
To Whom It May Concern:
220 Tulane, LLC owns the 4-plex located at 220 Tulane Road, Clearwater, Florida,
immediately to the north of 1808-20 Drew Street. HM Florida Holdings, LLC is the Manager and
sole shareholder of 220 Tulane, LLC.
1808 Drew, LLC owns the seven tenant retail strip and the ten stall storage garage located
at 1808-20 Drew Street, Clearwater, Florida. ECP Property Holdings, LLC is the Manager and
sole shareholder of 1808 Drew, LLC.
Peter Marks and William Hamill are the sole shareholders of HM Florida Holdings, LLC
and ECP Property Holdings, LLC. Peter Marks is the sole Manager of HM Florida Holdings,
LLC and ECP Property Holdings, LLC.
HM Florida Holdings, LLC hereby authorizes 1808 Drew, LLC to place a dumpster on
the properly owned by 220 Tulane, LLC and thereafter to permit tenants of 1808 Drew, LLC to
use that dumpster for the disposal of solid waste.
HM Florida Holdings, LLC hereby declares that it will be responsible for disposing of
any solid waste generated by the tenants of 1808 Drew, LLC.
Sincerely,
Peter Marks
Manager
HM Florida Holdings, LLC