FLD2010-04009; 220 Tulane Rd; 220 Tulane Parkling Lotr
FLD2010-04009
220 TULANE RD
Date Received: 4/7/2010
220 TULANE PARKING LOT
ZONING DISTRICT: MDR
LAND USE: RM
ATLAS PAGE: 280A
PLANNER OF RECORD: WW
CDB Meeting Date: June 15, 2010
Case Number: FLD2010-04009
Agenda Item: D.1.
Owner/Applicant: 220 Tulane, LLC
Representative: Michael Smith, Howard Civil En ineering, LLC
Address: 220 Tulane Road
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit the expansion of a
parking lot serving existing attached dwellings in the Medium
Density Residential (MDR) District with a front (east) setback of
15 feet (to pavement) where 10 feet is allowable, as a Residential
Infill Project under the provisions of Community Development
Code Section 2-304.G.
CURRENT ZONING:
CURRENT LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY:
PROPERTY USE:
EXISTING
SURROUNDING
ZONING AND USES:
Medium Density Residential (MDR) District
Residential Medium (RM)
Current Use: Attached Dwellings (4)
Proposed Use: Expanded parking lot
Dwellings
for existing Attached
North: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District.
Vacant land
South: Commercial (C) District
Retail Sales and Storage
East: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District
Detached Dwellings and Parking for office and
commercial uses fronting on Drew Street
West: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District
Detached Dwelling and Vacant land
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.41 acres is located on the west side of Tulane Road, approximately 200 feet north of Drew
Street. The subject property is currently developed with four attached dwellings and accessory
parking. The subject property has approximately 131 feet of frontage along Tulane Road, which
is aright-of--way of approximately 30 feet in width that dead ends at the north side of the subject
property. The property owner submitted an application for a building permit (BCP2010-02028)
on February 2, 2010, to construct parking lot improvements, but was advised that a Flexible
Communit;~ Developnnent Roard -June 15, 2010
FLD2010-04009 -Page 1 of 7
Development (FLD) application for a setback reduction would need to be submitted and
approved by the CDB prior to the issuance of the building permit. The property owner is also
upgrading this site by connecting it to the City sanitary sewer system under BCP2010-03135. The
site is currently served by a septic tank.
The property to the north is presently zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and is
presently vacant. Properties to the east across Tulane Road are zoned Medium Density
Residential (MDR) District and are developed with a detached dwelling and a parking lot for the
office and commercial uses fronting on Drew Street. The property to the south at 1808 - 1820
Drew Street is zoned Commercial (C) District and is developed with retail sales and storage uses.
This property to the south is presently being upgraded under the approval granted on December
15, 2009, under FLD2009-06019. Properties to the west of the subject property are zoned
Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and are developed with a detached dwelling and are
otherwise vacant.
Development Proposal:
The subject property is presently developed with four attached dwellings that are occupied.
While the property owner for the subject property is different than the ownership for the property
located adjacent to the south (presently undergoing parking lot upgrades), the managing partner
is the same for the subject property, the property to the south and the office building on the east
side of Tulane Road. He is presently upgrading or plans to upgrade all three of these properties.
The purpose of this application is to provide the current Code requirement of two parking spaces
for each dwelling unit (eight spaces proposed), rather than the 1.5 spaces per unit as was required
under prior regulations (six spaces presently provided). One of these parking spaces will be a
handicap accessible space meeting current Code provisions. Due to a large healthy tree at the
northeast corner of the northern unit restricting the placement of pavement west of the existing
northern parking spaces, additional pavement is being added on the east side of the existing
parking lot at a minimum front setback of 15 feet. This application is being processed as a
Residential Infill Project due to the ability for front setback flexibility that the attached dwelling
use does not afford. The existing driveway is being widened to meet current Code requirements
of 24 feet. The site plan will need to be revised prior to the issuance of any permits to include
vertical curbing along the edges of the driveway on-site of the subject property. Landscaping
consisting of a hedge and shade tree is being installed along the east edge of the parking lot on
both sides of the driveway. A dumpster enclosure that will serve the commercial uses to the south
(approved through FLD2009-06019), as well as these attached dwellings, is being constructed in
the southeast corner of the property. In order to place the dumpster in this location, the property
owner is currently undergrounding the overhead utilities within the Tulane Road right-of--way.
Density: Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan for the Residential Medium (RM)
land use category and Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-301.1, the maximum
density of 15 dwelling units per acre would allow for a maximum of six dwelling units on this
parcel. There exist four dwelling units on the property (9.756 dwelling units per acre), which is
consistent with the Code provisions.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-301.1, the maximum allowable ISR
is 0.75. The proposed ISR is 0.45, which is consistent with the Code provisions.
Community Development Board -June 3 5, 2010
FLD2010-04009 -Page 2 of 7
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-304, there is no minimum required lot
area or lot width for a Residential Infill Project. However, for a point of comparison, the
minimum lot area requirement for attached dwellings is 10,000 square feet. The existing lot area
for this parcel is 17,986 square feet (0.41 acres). For comparative purposes, the minimum lot
width requirement for attached dwellings is 100 feet. The lot width along Tulane Road is
approximately 131 feet. The proposal exceeds these comparative Code provisions for attached
dwellings.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-304, the minimum front setback for Residential
Infill Projects can range between 10 - 25 feet. The minimum side setback can range between 0 -
5feet and the minimum rear setback can range between 0 - 10 feet. It is noted that for attached
dwellings, the minimum required front setback is 25 feet, the minimum side setback is five feet
and the minimum rear setback is 10 feet. The proposal exceeds both the minimum side and rear
setback requirements. The design of the proposal includes the location of the expanded parking
lot at a front setback to the Tulane Road property line of 15 feet. The purpose of this proposal is
to provide the current Code requirement of two parking spaces per unit. To do so requires a
reduction to the front setback. Pavement for the existing parking lot serving the office and
commercial uses across Tulane Road is at a zero front setback. The reconstructed parking lot for
the commercial uses to the south of the subject property were recently approved with a front
setback to Tulane Road of 10.79 feet, approved under FLD2009-06019 by the CDB on December
15, 2009.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-304, the maximum allowable height for a
Residential Tnfill Project (and attached dwellings) can range between 30 - 50, feet. The height of
the existing one-story residential building is approximately 10 feet to the midpoint of the pitched
r V Vl, W lllCill is 1l.JJ L11Q11 L11L,. a.11V W CLUILJ lllil~il L.
Minimum Off-Street Parkin: Pursuant to CDC Table 2.304, the minimum required parking for
a Residential Infill Project (and attached dwellings) is two spaces per unit. The purpose of this
application is to upgrade the site from 1.5 spaces per unit (six spaces existing) to the current
Code requirement of two spaces per unit (eight spaces). One of these spaces will be a handicap
space meeting Code requirements. The existing driveway is also being widened to the required
24-foot width.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the existing
driveway on 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 was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Department
and found to be acceptable.
Landscaping:, Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there is a 10-foot wide perimeter buffer
required along Tulane Road. The proposal exceeds this required perimeter buffer by providing a
15-foot wide area that will be planted with a hedge and a shade tree on both sides of the driveway
for screening of the parking area.
Community Development Board -June 15, 201Q. .
FLD2010-04009 -Page 3 of 7
Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject
property.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards of
the Residential Medium (RM) land use category and the Medium Density Residential (MDR)
District as per CDC Section 2-301.1 and Table 2-304:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
ensity 15 dwelling units per acre 9.756 dwelling units per acre X
(maximum of 6 dwelling units) (4 dwelling units)
Impervious Surface 0.75 0.45 X
atio
Minimum Lot Area Residential Infill Project: N/A 17,986 sq. ft. (0.41 acres) X
(Attached dwellings: 10,000 square
feet)
inimum Lot Width Residential Infill Project: N/A 131 feet }~
(Attached dwe]lings: 100 feet)
inimum Setbacks Front: Res. Infill Project: 10-25 15 feet (to pavement); 25 feet (to X'
feet (Attached dwellings: 25 existing building)
feet)
Side: Res. Infill Project: 0-5 feet North: 9.08 feet (to pavement); X
(Attached dwellings: five 28.8 feet (to existing
feet) building)
South: 24.9 feet (to existing
building)
Rear: Res. Infill Project: 0-]0 feet 15 feet }~
(Attached dwellings: 10
feet)
aximum Height Res. Infill Project: 30-50 feet ]0 feet X
(Attached dwellings: 30-50 feet) (to mid-point of pitched roof)
inimum Res. Infill Project: 2 spaces per unit 8 parking spaces X
Off-Street Parking (8 required parking spaces)
' See nnnlysis in StnffReport
Community Development Board -June 15, 2010
FLD2010-04009 -Page 4 of 7
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility
criteria as per CDC Section 2-304.G (Residential Infill Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is X'
otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following:
intensity; other development standards.
2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill X
project will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties.
3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. X
4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. X
5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill X'
project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function X
which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole.
7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking access X
or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character
and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of
Clearwater as a whole.
' See analysis in Staff Report.
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 olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
See nnnlysis in Staff Report
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of May 6, 2010, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to
move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following:
Comr.~.unity .1_`eveloFment Board -June 15, 2010
FLD2010-04009 -Page 5 of 7
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 0.41 acres is located on the west side of Tulane Road, approximately 200 feet north of
Drew Street;
2. The subject property has approximately 131 feet of frontage along Tulane Road;
3. The site is currently developed with four attached dwelling units;
4. The purpose of this application is to provide the current Code requirement of two parking
spaces for each dwelling unit (eight parking spaces), rather than the 1.5 spaces per unit under
prior regulations (six spaces presently provided);
5. This application is being processed as a Residential Infill Project due to the ability for front
setback flexibility that the attached dwelling use does not afford;
6. The additional pavement necessary to provide the current required number of parking spaces
is proposed at a 15-foot front setback, where 10 feet is allowable;
7. The proposal exceeds the required 10-foot wide perimeter landscape buffer along Tulane
Road;
8. The reconstructed parking lot for the commercial uses to the south were recently approved
with a front setback to Tulane Road of 10.79 feet;
9. The property owner is currently undergrounding the overhead utilities within the Tulane Road
right-of--way;
10. The property owner is also, upgrading this site to be hooked up to the City sanitary sewer
system, where the site is currently served by a septic tank;
11. A dumpster enclosure that will serve the commercial uses to the south (approved through
FLD2009-06019), as well as these attached dwellings, is being constructed in the southeast
rnmar of tha r~rnr~art~r onrl
vviaivi va uav rivrva ~y, uaiu
12. There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property.
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 Tables 2-301.1 and 2-
304 of the Community Development Code;
2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
304.G 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 expansion of a parking lot serving existing
attached dwellings in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District with a front (east) setback
of 15 feet (to pavement) where 10 feet is allowable, as a Residential Infill Project under the
provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-304.G, with the following conditions:
Commur_ity Development Board - J~:ne 1 ~; 201 0 _ .
FLD2010-04009 -Page 6 of 7
Conditions of Approval:
1. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Declaration of Unity of Title be recorded in the
public records; and
2. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the site plan be revised to indicate the following:
a. vertical curbing along the edges of the driveway on-site of the subject property;
b. turning radii for the driveway be a minimum of 30 feet; and
c. accessible parking stall and sign details compliant to City standards.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
~ W
Wayne M. ells, AICP, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS:
^ Location Map
^ Aerial Map
^ Zoning Map
^ Existing Surrounding Uses Map
^ Photographs of Site and Vicinity
S:IPlnnning DepartmentlC D BIFLEX (FLD)IPending cased Up for the next CDBITulane 220 Pnrking Lot (MDR) 2010.Ox - 6. /S. /0 CDB -
WWITulnne 220 S~nff Report.doc
Community Development Board -June 15, 2010
FLD2010-04009 -Page 7 of 7
Wayne M. Wells, AICP
100 South Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756
Phone: 727-562-4504 ~ Email: wa}ne.~~~ells~~nyclearwater.com
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 three employees; Prepared and presented variances and appeals to the 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. Petersburg, 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
z AVE
,.
L U
$
DR RICHARDS WEBE3
KEYSTONE
N
N.)
O
N
ND
N
O BAKER
MACRAE
0
t<` u
C C CASLER 7p AVE Q
Cn
N Q
(D Q
(D UUNCAN AVE
DUNCE
I
N
O Q n JUPITER AVE JUPITER ? 01
N
O
-01
CD s
SATURN AVE X1 SAT
rn
Q v, FM
MARS AVE
O 1 C7
CR
-
RD
KEENS RD
AVE VENUS AVE y,
-
0
> feath ,?
ORION AVE ?
n
O
Z R7 FEATf TREE DR
AVE
Q
0 n
Q tiO
yL
CORONA
I11
AVE o Q
n -f, W
(Q -<
N ~ jj& { m
I VD
(
ARCTURAS AVE BRANDON
?
O
-n E= p
fe{ETEOR rid AVE ? Na l
CD
IV
Q
C)
?tJ
O
O
O
COMET AVE {??NN{O?{
fd
O
O AVM t
O
m
O o
AURORA AVE.:
J
Y (?) fTl .
HERCULES AVE CR-425
]?S] -Not fo Scnfe-
U
CIRUS AVE -
r
PATRI AVE
t
-Not n.Survey-
o C'J
?
F7
507
503
501
415
413
411
407
325
k
321
317
315
309
307
303
301
227
225
223
221
I
W
Z
W
? Y
Z Z
W
Y
Z
DREW
1866
1862
1858
1854
w ,a
m ? m
319 ooo?`b 318
317 316
315 314
313 312
311 310
309 308
307 306
F3(,?? T
/
K 304
` 302
Vl
0 1
301
225 224
223 222
221 22 221
219 21
217 216
215
212
211
210
209 208
0 0 N O 7 fp W O N
a0 ? ? O
eD W W O N ?
N
120
cl 507
rn
501
431
425
419
0
W 413
412 407
W 401
406 =
400
Q 331
325
330
324 319
318 313
312
307
306
301
300
505
500
° Z
h y
186y GILL H r;
0
1 410
m
400
MCKINLEY ST
ro ?
312
Q
Z
Q
<o
m O
m ^
m m
m Q
V
Z
HARDING ST
`O
ro m m 212
Lil
DREW ST
I
1?I
ZONING MAP
Owner: 220 Tulane, LLC Case: FLD2010-04009
Site: 220 Tulane Road Property Size: 0.412 acres
PIN: 12-29-15-22482-002-0040 Atlas Page: 280A
507 14
g 1866
00 LO
CO
00 M
co
D 3
A
503 17 1e s 2% 505
13 ?
s2
i4 et C?le " 50
1 ell>ingg00 z
501 e
aC 5 h y
7p we lin
415
Ugtache w?llf S 13v 1 v 1j ?8 41g
$65 2 2
51
GIL K
e ing 121854
425
?69
^
n 41 so q
407 11 419
s
28 7 8
10 n r- - 1 o etach d
27520 J W 4 f§
D
elli
s
Detached12 1 4 g
30 , 2
45
406 C4 40311 o
n ro a
40
4
g ? aaroi
ae [ICU
5o as 40o W 3 MCK/NLEYST
? 4
93 A
,y
'
L W eying .
c 330 to ^
321
43
33
o
o
? o
p
ro
"
317 319 000-
13 100 am 1 10 3?
31Z
42 324
334 31
W 3
7
315 -
-
315
11 I
12
s 2
"'318
3 e 7 s 5
309
g
I
3
1314
41
35
Deta
hed
Q
307 6 311
`'
y,$CAnt ?3
309
40 312
3p7
?6
1
D
W
e
3
ings
Q
Z
303 _
-I - - -
307
16 I ' I 5
30
39 306
?
2
n
301 5 -
0 I
3?1
Go
00
co
CO
V
102 N 300 3
Mache 1' 38 Z
M
lti 22
274 Det ed o HARDING ST
e
n Q 225 22
223?
3
W
t4 z2 j ll n s
z2 g co 00 CO z1
22'I? 21 Det the
21
O
Z 215 i1 8 Dnv
( li?ig 5
g272
Retail 210
.
-
e
ssro
Lu eta
R
8 Offices I
Sales
i Z
111 - -
aT I 1?1
co 1?
a3roa
O tail
,Sales Q Q
3m?m I
2
i'z? °
ail
a^p4 co
ail
1 Cc S s
es 'S ales
ILL
DREW ST
10
DREW S T 9 DREW ST
6060 0
R
a I Ve I1tC1
1 60 I? IQ* I? I 1 I I 60 ?Go
Ret ntia n il
et i
R
1 1 2 1 3 SC110b1 5 1 s l ' I 8 00
"?-
P
d
SA a
r
ejR
2 n 1 S 3 I 1 I
I
2
X20, I
G 1
EXISTING SURROUNDING USES MAP
Owner: 220 Tulane, LLC Case: FLD2010-04009
Site: 220 Tulane Road Property Size: 0.412 acres
PIN: 12-29-15-22482-002-0040 Atlas Page: 280A
'W l x
View looking NW from Tulane Road at parking lot area of the
subject property
A?
A
View looking NW along Tulane Road from commercial
properties south of subject property (utilities being placed
underground)
a._
View looking SW from Tulane Road at parking lot area of the
subject property
View looking SW from Tulane Road at commercial property to
the south of the subject property
220 Tulane Road
Case Number FLD2010-04009
Page 1 of 2
View looking NW from Tulane Road at subject property
parking lot location in relation to terminus of Tulane Road
r
It Mc»'
View looking S at rear of 1822 Drew Street (SE of the subject
property
,.C
t
View looking S along Tulane Road from subject property (on
right; utilities being placed underground)
r
View looking E at rear of 300 Feather Tree Drive (driveway
access to Tulane Road; E of subject property)
220 Tulane Road
Case Number FLD2010-04009
Page 2 of 2
_.. m. .. .ism .. ".K9?
View looking E at 221 Tulane Road (E of subject property)
-1111
HOWARD
CIVIL ENGINEERING
May 12, 2010
City of Clearwater Planning Department
100 S. Myrtle Ave
Clearwater, FL. 33758
Ref; 220 Tulane Rd
FLD2010-04009
Please find below are our responses (in bold italic) to the comments from the last submittal.
Fire Review
Provide 30' radius at drive
Per our meeting we have provided the max radius we could fit. We have provided a 16' radius on
the north side and a 25' radius on the south.
Traffic Engineering
Provide accessible parking stall and sign details compliant to City standards. (See weblink below and
use Index No. 118 & 119.)
http://www. myclearwater.com/gov/depts/pwa/eng in/Prod uction/stddet/index.asp
Details have been added to sheet C2
General Note(s):
1) Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and
paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.).
2) DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming
upon submittal of a Building Permit Application.
Acknowledged
Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit:
Turning radii at all driveways shall be a minimum of 30 feet per City of Clearwater Contract
Specifications and Standards index #108
Per our meeting we have provided the max radius we could fit. We have provided a 16' radius on
the north side and a 25' radius on the south.
Planning Review
Required sight triangles on both sides of the driveway are drawn in the wrong location. Relocate
triangles to property line.
The site triangles have been revised.
Sheet C-1 - Proposed area breakdown must include the dumpster enclosure/approach as proposed
impervious surfaces.
The area has been added to the table.
Howard Civil Engineering, LLC 4805 Independence Parkway - Suite 2508 Tampa, FL. 33634
Office 813.341.0496 Fax 813.341.0498 '-','!F - 71
Since the proposed vehicular use area does not exceed 4,000 square feet, no interior landscape area
is required. Revise calculations on Sheet C-1.
The calculations have been revised.
In lieu of providing building elevations, provide color photographs of the building(s) (all four sides).
Color photographs have been provided of the existing building.
Sheet C-1 - As part of the perimeter landscape buffer along the front of the parking lot, add a Code-
sized shade tree on both sides of the driveway (minimum 10' tall and 2.5" caliper).
A Little Gem Magnolia have been added to each side of the driveway.
Page 1 of the application - Revise the parcel number to 12-29-15-22482-002-0040.
The parcel number has been revised.
Response to General Applicability criteria #1 - Unclear in the 4th line of the meaning of "MFO". Spell
out.
We have revised the response as required.
Response to Residential Infill Project criteria #2 - Provide a response that corresponds to the criteria:
"The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will not
materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties" (include the existing value of the site and
the proposed value of the site with the improvements).
We have revised the response as required.
Response to Residential Infill Project criteria #3 - Provide a response that corresponds to the criteria:
"The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district."
We have revised the response as required.
Addendum sheet for Response to Residential Infill Project - Change the heading for criteria 1-7 from
"Residential Inill Redevelopment Project" and "Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project" to
"Residential Infill Project."
The heading has been changed.
Provide a setback dimension from the north property line to the edge of the proposed pavement.
The dimension has been added to the plan.
Sheet C-1 - Do not provide curbing along the edge of the driveway within the Tulane Rd. right-of-way.
The curbing has been removed from within the right-of-way.
Sheet C-1 - On the north side of the driveway, would prefer to have the shrub hedge planted adjacent
to the first parking space rather than at the front property line, similar to the south side of the driveway.
The shrubs have been relocated next to the parking area.
Should you need any further information, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Michael Smith
Business Development Manager
Howard Civil Engineering
Howard Civil Engineering, LLC 4805 Independence Parkway - Suite 2508 Tampa, FL. 33634
Office (813) 341-0496 (Fax) (813) 341-0498 www How !rdCiyil nc ineeri n.g,curn
Clearwater
Planning Department
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 33756
Telephone: 727-562-4567
Fax: 727-562-4865
5[ SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION
1 SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION -Plans and
application are required to be collated, stapled, and folded into sets
? SUBMIT FIRE PRELIMARY SITE PLAN: $200.00
? SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE $.
CASE #:
RECEIVED BY (staff initials):
DATE RECEIVED:
* NOTE: 15 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS)
FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
Residential Infill Project
(Revised 07/11/2008)
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT-
A. 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, Manager of 220 Tulane, LLC
107 Moore Street, Princeton, NJ 08540
....
.............. -.......... ............... --....... ................ ............................................................................. ................... _................. ........... ..._..._.......................................... .................................................. _..... _............... --....._._................................................................
(609) 497-9640 FAX NUMBER:
EMAIL: peter_al1ington_marks@yahoo.com
220 Tulane, LLC
Michael Smith - Howard Civil Engineering, LLC
4805 Independence Pkwy - Suite 250B, Tampa, Fl 33634
...... _..._.._........_.__...._...._ ............ ....... ............ ..................._............................................ ......_............ _........................ _.. __..__......................... ....... ....._............ ................ ............. -.._._.......... _............. ..._.._....................... ........ _...
(813) 341-0496 FAX NUMBER: (813) 341-0498
..........__.
........... ..... ........ ................. .............. ......... ....................................... ...........
EMAIL: msmith@howardcivilengineering.com
B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A)
PROJECT NAME:
STREET ADDRESS
PARCEL NUMBER(S):
PARCEL SIZE (acres):
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
220 Tulane Parking Lot Replacement PROJECT VALUATION: $8,500.00
................ .................. . .
220 Tulane Rd, Clearwater, Fl 33756
..
........... ............ ........ _........... ........................... ........ ........... _...... ............................. ......... ....... ................ ............................ .......................................................... .......................................... .............. ........... ....... ................_............................
12-29-15-22482-002-0040
....... .... .. ............................. ..... .... _...........
0.41 Acres PARCEL SIZE (square feet): 17,986 SF
See attached deed or survey
PROPOSED USE(S): Multi-family residential
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: owner wishes to repave the existing parking lot and in doing so comply
Specifically identify the request with the Fair Housing Act & ADA by provinding HC parking. In doing so
......._._._......___.._............
(include number of units or square _.-_____.......... ............._._._.__...._....__...................._._._.......______, _.................__.......... _..._..........._...._........ _........ _......_...._.-_...._........ .... .... -.._..__....__.__.............. -....__.._._.._._..:.........
footage of non-residential use and all the complex will lose parking & to provide adequate parking for the
- --..........__.._..__......_.........._...........------...._.._...._........---- ................_.............._....__.._..__...._...._........___....__..........__....___........__......__..---..........__....._....._....__.._..__.._.._......_..__-._..............____.._......_.._..__..__.._........__... --
requested code deviations; e.g. tenants the owner requests a variance to the front setback from 25' to 1
reduction in required number of -------- --
parking spaces, specific use, etc.)
:.o:.. - t ?+ C:\Documents and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Residential 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 UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTIFIED) SITE PLAN? YES _ NO X (if yes, attach a copy of the applicable documents)
C. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP: (Code Section 4-202.A.5)
31 SUBMIT A COPY OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY, DEED TO THE PROPERTY OR SIGN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING OWNERSHIP
(see page 7)
D. WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 3-913.A)
EX 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 or 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 Addendum
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 Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Residential Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 2 of 8
WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Residential Infill Project Criteria)
? Provide complete responses to the seven (7) RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT CRITERIA - Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail:
1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the intensity and
development standards.
See Addendum
2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting
properties. (Include the existing value of the site and the proposed value of the site with the improvements.)
See Addendum
3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater.
See Addendum
- ---.--................ ___----- -----............ ...._.._.._..................... ------ -- - - .:.- ...-- t- ....... _.__...-.-----
4. The uses or mix of use within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. `
See Addendum
_..... ..... _._..........._..._....._..._..._.._ ............................... _..... --................ _............ ............. ............... ...........__........ _................................ ...._.._....._...................... .._...._.._..........._.........._..._......... ................................ ......._._..._.............._._..._..__...._....._.__.................. .....__.........
......._........._...._........_.............._
5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed
fnr dcyelnnmenf
See Addendum
_.......................... ..........._._.........._............_..........._._.._._............_...._..............-_.............._..-....................................._..............................................._...................................-_...._......__.._....._._........_._._..._........_..................._.._..............................................._.._..........._.....-........_...._._..._....__......_....._..........
6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function that enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of
the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole.
See Addendum
7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified by the benefits to community character and the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole.
See Addendum
............. ...... ......... ........................... ............. ..................... ................................. ............... .......... ...................... .............. _.......... ....................................... -.......... ........................ ................................................... ............................................................................................................................ ....
C:\Documents and Settings\derek.ferguson\Deskiop\planning dept forms 0708\Residential 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.
IX 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.
CfJ COPY OF PERMIT INQUIRY LETTER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT
SUBMITTAL (SWFWMD approval is required prior to issuance of City Building Permit), if applicable
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF STORMWATER PLAN REQUIREMENTS (Applicant must initial one of the following):
X& 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)
EyJ SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (including legal description of property) - One original and 14 copies;
2? 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;
?J LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY; t-?
PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (ie. Reduce number of spaces).
Prior to the submittal of this application, the methodology of such study shall be approved by the Community Development Coordinator and
shall be in accordance with accepted traffic engineering principles. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not'
deviations to the parking standards are approved;
GRADING PLAN, as applicable;
? \? PRELIMINARY PLAT, as required (Note: Building permits will not be issued until evidence of recording a final plat is provided);
COPY OF RECORDED PLAT, as applicable;
CADocuments and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708tResidential Irtfhl Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 4 of 8
G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A)
W
SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36"):
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;
..................
X Footprint and size of all EXISTING buildings and structures;
n /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, including
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, including 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 all required parking lot interior landscaped areas;
Location of all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment and all required screening
X {per Section 3-201(D)(i) and Index #701);
Ca
23
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 One (flexible standard development) and Level Two approvals. A floor plan of each floor is
n/a required for any parking garage requiring a Level One (minimum standard and flexible standard) or Level Two approval.
SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in written/tabular form:
EXISTING REQUIRED PROPOSED
. 17 986 cf 0
41 Ac
__.._-_
`_
_'
X
L -_d
_
e 17.986 sf 0.41 Ac
.
nd acres
area alto In
et and mica,---
c
i
ayuaic
M
in
Land
X Number of EXISTING dwelling units; 4 4
X Number of PROPOSED dwelling units; 4 4
X Gross floor area devoted to each use; 3,981 sf
_............... ....__.._ .................................... ...... ........... ......... ......_....... 3,981 sf
.............................. ........................ .......... _..................................
.
Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular form with the 4 8
X number of required spaces; -....__..__
.
_
.
..
_
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
..
.
..
.
.._ ......
.
.......... ..._................................ _..
Total paved area, including all paved parking spaces & driveways, 2
551 sf 14
2% .. __.... --..._..... -_... -............... _....
237 Sf 18
3
0%
.
,
X expressed in square feet & percentage of the paved vehicular area, ,
.
Official records book and page numbers of all existing utility
X easement; none
............
X Building and structure heights; 251 25,
251
X Impermeable surface ratio (I.S.R.); and 0.41
....... ......... 0.41
......._..
Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses.
REDUCED COLOR SITE PLAN to scale (8'%X 11);
FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the following additional information on site plan:
One-foot contours or spot elevations on site;
Offsite elevations if required to evaluate 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;
Q\Documents and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Residential Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 5 of 8
H. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-1102.A)
§4 LANDSCAPE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36"):
X All existing and proposed structures;
J X _
X_ Names of abutting streets;
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;
J Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and locations, including driplines (as indicated on required
X
1
J X
f
X
X
X tree survey);
Location, size, and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant
schedule;
Plant schedule with a key (symbol or label) indicating the size, description, specifications, quantities, and spacing requirements of all
existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names;
Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants including instructions, soil mixes, backfilling, mulching and
protective measures;
Interior landscaping areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressing in both square feet and
percentage covered;
Conditions of a previous development approval (e.g. conditions imposed by the Community Development Board);
FQ X Irrigation notes.
? REDUCED COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8 %X 11);
? COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, as applicable. Landscape associated with the Comprehensive
Landscape Program shall exceed minimum Code requirements to offset the areas where minimum Code will not be met.
1. 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 %4 X 11.
i
1
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.
CADocuments and Settingaiderek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept fors 0708\Residential Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 6 of 8
K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4-202.A.13 and 4-801.C)
IJ Include if required by the Traffic Operations Manager or his/her dasignoe or if the proposed development
• Will degrade the accaptabie lovel of service for any roadway as adopted In the Comprc+hansive Plan.
¦ Will ganerate 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 ha2ardous intersections.
Trip generation shall be based an 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 Manageror their designee (727-562-4750)
Refer to Section 4501 C of the Community Development Code for exceptions to this requirement-
Acknowledgement of traffic Impact study requirements (Applica(it must initial one of the following):
Traffic Impact Study is included. The study must include a summary table of pro- and post-development hovels `of service for -611
roadway logs and each turning movement at all intersections identified in the Scoping Meeting.
- Traffic Impact Study is not required. I
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 it
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
s inkler, standpoe 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
;112004 Florida Fire Prevention Cade to include NFPA 13, MFPA 14, NFPA 20, NFPA 291, and MF'PA 1142 (Annex H) is required.
Acknowledgement of fire flow calculations/water study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following):
Fire Flow CaiculationslWater Study is Included.
Fire Flow Calculation& Water Study Is not required.
CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A FIRE FLOW
CALCULATIONS/ WATER, STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST RE
RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR.
if you have questions regarding these requirements, cantactthe City Fire Prevention Department at (727) 562-4334,
M. SIGNATURE:
I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS
In this application are true and accurate to the best of my Sworn to and subscribed before me this 2t?9 day of
knowledge and authorize City representatives to visit and / c_ A.D. 20 /,,fo me and/ar by
photograph the property described in this application. o r Vj rrA# who i personalty known has
produced
` as idon 'tication. LISA R, F
Notary Public -stela o Florida
""?? ??!!? _ _ - •_ .Comaalsslon.Ex Ires 8 2011
public
T Signatureof rops?ty o er or representative Notary missi , y ; .^F p 8 '
Commission II 00 -'a 2780
ZZG rG /ak e, L-4, C- My commission exp r 7A it '•,,P,f? •" Bonded By Notional No ry ,Assn.
?r .Ch
C,1Coano.rg* and SeltingSWorekteig?onl0o.^IQORN?nn??0 dept romps 070$1Rosloenud InOU ProJed (FLD) 2008 07-11.doe
Page 7 of A
Y
N. AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT:
1. Provide names of all property owners on deed - PRINT full names:
220 Tulane, LLC
2. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property (address or general location):
220 Tulane Rd Clearwater, F1
3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a: (describe request)
Reduction of front setback
4. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint:
Howard Civil Engineering, LLC
as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; C-3
5. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; r , a
t
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; ;r
7. /wZthet signed authority, hereby certify that the fore oing is true and correct.
as authorized agent o? HM Florida Holdings, LLC,
---- --------
Property Owner Property Owner
..... __............... ......... ......._.................._...._......._.._....__..._......--.---.._.._.---..._._..._._.._.._.............. ........... .... _........... _...... _......... ----- ._....... .... --.................. _.... _._.._.._.................... _..._..... -
Property Owner Property Owner
STATE OF FLORIDA,
COUNTY OF PINELLAS
Before me the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned by the laws of the State of Florida, on this
March, , 2010 personally appeared Robert V. Potter **
30th
who having been first duly sworn
day of
Deposes and says that he/she fully understands the contents of the affidavit that he/she signed.
** as authorized agent of HM Florida Holdings, LLC as Manager of 220 Tulane, LLC
., "mcrr?.
R „ JEANrE E HAWGEN
$« : r MY M M<MSSION A DD 882106
EXPIRES: June 18.2013 ..._......s. v!./._...
RFh 0. Bonded ThruNafayPubhcundwmtero .N_otary Publi i nature
9
Notary Seal/Stamp My Commission Expires:
CADocuments and Settingslderek.ferguson%Desklop\planning dept forms 0708%Residentia: k :fill Project (FLD) 20OF i. -i i.doc
Page 8 of 8
Addendum
General Applicability Criteria #1
1. 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 Medium Density Residential (MDR) for this property. The neighboring
properties are 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 will not reduce the fair market value of abutting properties.
The existing fair market value of the property is estimated at $250,000. Although it is
difficult to put a value on the property after improvements with the housing market
down, the owner believes it will not reduce the value but keep the value as estimated by
making the parking lot 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.
General Applicability Criteria #3
3. The new parking lot is permitted in the City of Clearwater within the existing zoning.
The new parking lot will have stalls and drive aisle that will now meet city code and will
provide for a HC space.
General Applicability Criteria #4
4. The proposed parking lot design has a more organized layout than existing with
parking bays more clearly marked and will allow for each tenant to make an easier
parking decision 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.
General Applicability Criteria #6
6. The visual affects will be improved by providing enough parking for the tenants on
site as to not have them parking on the street.
Residential Infill Project Criteria #1
In order to provide a HC space for the complex and to be in compliance with The Fair
Housing Act and ADA as well as to provide adequate parking for the tenants the
encroachment is needed.
Residential Infill Project Criteria #2
The redesign of this parking area will not only bring the current spaces and driveway
width to code but also address ADA compliance.
Residential Infill 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.
Residential Infill Project Criteria #4
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.
Residential Infill Project Criteria #5
The proposed parking lot will upgrade the immediate vicinity by providing a parking lot
that meets code and will now blend in with the new improvements with the adjacent
property to the south.
Residential Infill Project Criteria #6
The project creates a form and function by providing a parking lot that meets city codes,
provides HC parking, and will allow tenants to park on site.
Residential Infill Project Criteria #7
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:
1. The proposed improvements to the existing apartments 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.
2. 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.
??# Yom., ': ? Wu:
pr`.'.'..:- ? ?- ?. ..-?---•.. -?._.'v?.». -..._-.-...` _? ----.-?J-?--?__.? ice..- ?_-? pzl _??c..?.?1 ?}?1 .. .. ? . ? .. _ - _
Ms .....r .rC?CWC'- rte.-. ...... - r-o.?... __ .."?n•ry_? ?_ - _ f.... ??
f ?+ t alt ?? ?? ? na
.pr„ R-'ma'y, r..Tarv y 3' , ,r, •j. -• C _ _ y... Y _ - +/'. .+R'v?•' -??. ??.?€??jr.. ?v, ^i: V _ °K^.°?.°a ai_
V _
Slo
VA
+c 1 a
'_:.r? - ? .,,,?„ ^.,r. - - "?? T x `- ? ' ? ? "'.r.. - - ?° c. •...?, av ,?i? t , ? .. . r•.i r y? .. hs,.w. , .....;1
??4?.? ' ??? ?"'«. :':.?7nz 5.-?-., ?4 •r*»,~ti-: YT ?C6 5 ..Y?? ^"Sa 5` ? srs""??''" 1.,• :x??+1.,+Y'ilb??r ...?' ?r? '?-?.?w.Cti.^.:.'..:'?'? ..'?".'.r,."'n?:'?{'"_*". ? °r??a",iFG"•ti?"i.-
_ y
^??-? lx.r-: t-... .- ? °--- :. -.? .:. -. !n _ .-..z - .:.t.:? rY?;?- ?-`:-%-r??-?-w?+?a•!+?,?`?is?.:>,[.?e-=_.-aw??! a-m?..?avx.'•--?..ri
??•}?i'- •-. f--'+a S,?i:,u. . ? '='?`'.?•,?' J'. __? ?.. - ,. ?Y. „ "x.._ ..?"-,rY; w ••-?S'G?is'^• .ra' ?;r:?•?I 'X? _ 'ro!,-^-. ? .?t?^vc'? - %?c ..x;, F' Y; w - -,aas ?
°' `? x? - ????-" 1 S . ? ?.:.f:., rr' ?c???'?E'X?.:t?'Y`?- +l^ ff ? ?? ? ? k.» : ?}.r1?4:v r?"??tw•?_ 'T"a ?? '-$??r ;4... ?'?'a
?wy3 „, s .'iY...i_.y?,..:;" +v7?..-•??IaF??? i?:?.. .S'? .,..?"r .? :, Sv??''?t.
?" ?a'-'cu . _ i _ ..... 4:.:,i- a •.? ,a ? > s '4 ..?.. Y ` .: "',?rtro..R.?.; ?? s: i+c,L a ??` - € s'::.,w-.? .e. • }.?tf'• '
'?--r-; "xc ???'S.•= - - ."?.'.. -"r.. ..?. ''^'??' ?:';A:2's' _.`su"? ?.Y,.? »t?:?? "?N..c...av.'.r. v'l*-: '? :?, _ _ ^u't,.. ??,
?y? ?' i,' t_ '..s. .. •. _ ?- :?.. y _ _ •?'Y A ? `ran w?»L w' q, r? C F-??a n?i- ',•.??.r r nY
r-.L. .«•?,.. .i ?'.-'?``' ,..L:r '1r?' _"" t.=... _` ?y? '..6i<" .«i ?. -9i.;:.,,s `? ?E.«>s1? .:?f" :."'":'r -
-x?'?.-:«?.. ••?. ?:? t„?.-r"k.14'?.4,yy..,,'?,:;,•S ,.%..: ``yt ?t.s. ,%".?+'?.. w?+.+'- .,'"s.,...": _ 'X? .:.3 r?; s'"r,s«..C? 1?*; _
?'?.«< _ -? :-i..:"- ti`„+r ? ;;?- -.'. ?,;?.::.-t ?aa.ai.t??psr?ci br?'ts .?'.. x ri,.,.,fh?z` -•?.-_?:'?25.'F'w?- ?.0=7?,?--L ;t.,.ti. '".die;^rrI ?=^sa.r.,»..J3°.?. tic •v= ,?Y ,? ?;'?-" ??1
" "'?. ?'?:?_+k.t.,.:?r _- ',?t..f..,??..t?? - ..::.i.?? _ _. .c k '?i.?`. .a-t4-. ?.k?.!rR ws--*... ,L`:c?? ,. ?.YC r:'-. ..irFS'?• v-.ra.: .taF' ,?. `L«Jr"" -rs•?_,- ?€'?`?: .?".
- "L-,s?'` ?. ,a_- T r., .?r?? - ?,?i. ."r? ,? ::y^:`',?,at•:tt? :,y- -'r-:_at? - - - - - ?.: _ Y?' ,?%:r 's
?? ?^""g. ?....a,,.L, ,i.._`..r -?s,?i-« . ? ? ?.. "."'' .t°?..-•,?? cttr '"? . ...-? _.?, :? =.'`E?^?'. '5??. .,?"?"K .Y-a^ ? Lt _?o-?-, ,..?,,,?'r « ??'r? .? . '?
_ ? r--i= ,. - _ .,v "F;,ti-,'?:-q'« ,+---_ _ >,., a.. t 4?." ? - - _?,.,.a:?.F.?...? w x'^; ..h ?,ie•v.!;,C d' __
?».? '7?ra._ ;.;.. .,- _r. .`.w„ ,_ w-..,t y>:.?'^k?'::>;:nrr ?.» 3w:`i.4g..m,:.. "'"'aor a?.. - -¢? ?,?Va'". .,.,da. .k. -? .?•-.?.?'- ?'"" ? - x ,i,,.;• pia r. >a
'-:? . 'r-?a.+c . ^.?. ?n .A?".F x isr xi - „i 'g'1?..? ?u., ? "..-K m ;9?c`?. y " .4y. .?r,f?'??:. ? .- ? i:, _ °» .sp, »?'y?{r?;3 " y1VW..•« -
• ? . ? - - ?,. s T--mar _ M.?;..
aaF' ? ' »b. _ ? ~a. .?" 1!..'?r+.:a :?w r,. » s c .: " .+*+ `? ?r?,. a .., t, :;•s '?• t,:.»:,,.,?, hY?!„.:. .. b x ,fo -•...r
...j,? x.. s^ r^a... k ",',? w,.. a•w w'? : F' '?--. a :rv:..",?` ?y"« tiw:' +1 7 "F?•S/?r«= '=3"+
wr*• .,r.?. »A. ? ,rte,.,, -? ....'. ? :.. i,. 'K" .. .. ? ,,.::F•, "'"' _ >. .., 4
w? ?'.-4'w f,?,".7.y,?atxs-Sr.?F?&ti?w1C?+N?A??1r '*?+H?,.;-^f Ffi ?s ^a:. .sr ?.s? ' .? _ «c;.1•:CkY?'z .Rt-?.JC ?` S'?" r?'"'„ 'ts'••? .. ?? ,#?#? r is: y.
` fS
4 ? t
rcz? ??? ?,rKy?? 'i`?:,a • ,.,?r?.,3
-•- o ° • ,.,. ::r - r.nsx ,Cep: ,
00-
^??4?.:.
w,01
i ?rt
Arm? ZOO VW '
r/O
a
.
12 .umo,o
h ? la"
b 6
1
6aS +b9 +6A
0
+600
"I NO NOTE:
THERE ARE NO PROPOSED UGHTNO h
I CHANDES TO THE EXISTING SRE n0 +
I+ I
I I
I ?r
I
19 I
- - - -- - - - - - - - -
+
A h
bq } O
??+se 6 e
B 9
ery+
m
sa' Compno,
eh
L1 -
h
+?O _ e:rw.nu
?y5' t o?.Pl h '
6
\\ 4? h 57 h0 m m 00
?h DFa°E,?IREMOVfro„? \ ao? i?+? ?
Pt ?9fP 6
bry 0
mo
A? 50"
r
w
`?
? 'k A$PHAL? RfYING
AREA TO BE
RY MASONAAY- RESURFACED &
BUILDING RE BTRIPPF?D .
RTMENT UNIT
(1 UNIT)
f 4
9
14
Pc
?
? J
220 TULANE
Parcel ID: 12- SO 224882-0024)040 mBTw alxwAlx
,99 A6
L5 1 STORY MASONARY BUILDING
APARTMENT UNIT (3 UNITS)
EXCAVATION NOTE STfR AU9 un ArnaN
CONTRACTOR TO ROOT PRUNE ARE- OF ARE NOT YKWMO NMB
PIMP
EXCAVATION T
CANOPES 11 D fRwT.FGPAn9n„>s
HAT OCCUR UNDER TIE
111-0 TREES.
Q
`
h+
c
1 6
+ r
9 i i 2 ?H
_
1
1
41 L______ N TC$
a
h
B;8 8
J.
O 9' ?
.
•
,Y .
,
0 3
9.5.x..._... a.Q ...?... ?. 0 ? ...?
SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST
OWNER:
220 TULANE LLC
107 MOORE STREET
PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 08540
SURVEYOR
GeOData Services, Inc.
1822 Drew Street - Suite 8
Clearwater, FL 33765
Office (727) 447-1763
Fax (727) 448-4384
I BEFORE YOU DIG CALL
SUNSHINESTATE ONE
CALL OF FLORIDA
I-fi00d32.4770
PRDr?".FreA_
Location Map
U
J
m
Ld
z
Q
J
I-
iB 47
Is
N
WE
S
CONCRETE HEADWALL
INV - 64.34
SIGHT TRIANGLE PER CLEARWATER
COMM. CODE SECTION 3-904
THERE CAN BE NO OBSTRUCTIONS
BETWEEN 2.5 AND EIGHT FEET WITHIN THE
VISIBILITY TRNNGLES (NO TREES OR
FREESTANDING SIGN).
APPROX LOCATION OF
PROPERTY LINE
?6 b
60. a
?b
p
rb?
1
Aerial Photo
u ECNnuTKXN. J _
:
ec-TaA.an.6.n y ?1 ?
s s NaYIIaR 40 onvu acwriNnurnN
wxumuAC-9ow1 ?.. ?
N
Z ? B.?
.
N? °?" REaARfPSTOPAOfvOWME ..9u can W Lu
n
eaa Ron om 9i0MGE V0UMf P1gVIDfO-IU Can I
Z U C
r
PRDP05ED PUNT LEGEND W y
s .ea E2
z un. ?. wTb.. w , r,wmo., Luc zs a P•.. I G rT s.r sP.?,e, w N4 E
J p
9N!.Da V
o w > ?m W,?m e. Ivor 6 ., y x, P . 31 1.. r D O
c E
j
LbUwncal N.ms Abbrawxon
e` ld F 0-
J
-
Ouan6ty O
SHEET INDEX:
C-1 SITE PLAN
C-2 DETAILS
gg
PROPERLY INFO:
-Em IwZw'5/22.?OMO
41 ACRES (1)
908 9.F4
TOTAL PROJECT AREA: 0
{
.
.
20NIN0: 4 tl e
MDR-M DENSfrV PESIOENML Fp
MURE LAND US 9
RN - NULTH' -1 RESIDENTNL
PRDPERTY USF:
EXISTING: MULTI-FAMLY RESIDENTML
PROPOSED: MULTLFAMG Y RESIDENRAL
W
FLDODZONEI
FEIM PANEL 125098010DH >
m
}
DATED NAY 17, 2006
ZONE % ¢
F
j,
6 Q J
B J J
STRUCTURE 5ET5ACKE:
REOUIREO
EXISTING
PROPOSED F
? LULL W
FRONT (TULME ST) 25 Fi.
le..T 25.0 FT.
T 15.0 Fi.
1:
' F T J ct
DRTHI 6 FT.
DE j 11.8 T :
:
SIDE (SOUTNI 6 IT. 248
D FT. 24.9 IT.
REM IREST) 6 FT. I50 FT.
. 15.0 IT. cc ~
PROPOSED.UILDNO:
Sg ¢ O
fps 1
NO ADDTDONAL STRUCTURE PROPOSED W
1 N J
FLDOR AREA M110: V
ALLOWED: 030
E%ISRN0:012 1WU
F
IMPERVIOU6 AREA
ALLOWED: O.T5
EX NO:—
PROPOSED: 0.46 u
PARKNO:
REOUNED: B (2 PER ONEWNO UNIT)
PROVIDED: B (INCLUDES I HAND" SPACE).
6YI.TINO AREA BREAKDOWN;
AREA IS
F
1
1 OF 637E
.
.
VEHICLE USE AREA 2,651
981
BUILDING D 14.24
14
22
.
BIOEWALK 886 .
4.84 - -
OPEN GREEN SPACE 1G'- SB.B4 - --
TOTAL COY[M6E 17,9.E 100.04
PROPOSED AREA, BREAKDOWN:
AREA IS.F.) 4 OF SITE
VEHICLE USE AREA 2,992 18,81
BUIL01N0 .:1
DUM STER ENCLOSURE E APPROACH 2485
22.14
1.14
. IO FEET
BIOERALK BBB a. B4
OPEN GREEN SPACE 9'882 55404
TOTAL mVFM9F 11,986 100.0%
C-1