Loading...
FLD2010-05003; 2010 DREW ST•A FLD2010-05003 2010 DREW ST Date Received: 5/4/2010 8:30:59 AM 2010 Drew Street ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial LAND USE: Commercial General ATLAS PAGE: 280B CDB Meeting Date: Case Number: Agenda Item: Owner: Applicant: Representative: Address: July 20, 2010 FLD2010-05003 D.1. Equities Holdings Group, Inc. Tampa Bay Art, LLC d/b/a Tampa Bad Robert Greg 2010 Drew Street CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit a Problematic Use (tattoo/permanent cosmetics studio) and Retail Sales within an existing tenant space in the Commercial (C) District located adjacent to residentially zoned property with no changes to the existing setbacks or landscape buffers, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.C. CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial (C) District CURRENT LAND USE CATEGORY: Commercial General (CG) PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Restaurant and vacant tenant space Proposed Use: Restaurant and Problematic Use (tattoo/permanent cosmetics studio)/Retail Sales EXISTING North: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District SURROUNDING Detached Dwelling ZONING AND USES: South: Commercial (C) and Institutional (I) Districts Vacant Retail Sales and Place of Worship East: Commercial (C) District Offices West: Commercial (C) District Automobile Service Station ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.415 acre parcel is located at the northwest corner of Drew Street and Patricia Avenue, approximately 150 feet east of N. Hercules Avenue. On March 19, 2002, the Community Development Board (CDB) approved Case Number FL 01-12-36, with five conditions of approval, for the redevelopment of this property with the current commercial building with two Community Development Board - July 20, 2010 FLD2010-05003 - Page 1 of 7 tenant spaces (Subway restaurant [2006 Drew Street] and a retail sales and service use for Fritz's Skate Shop [2010 Drew Street]). This application included a parking reduction for the restaurant to seven spaces per 1,000 square feet and a reduction to four spaces per 1,000 square feet for the retail sales use, with a condition of approval stating: "That any change in tenant mix be evaluated for complementary operational characteristics and parking demand, and may require approval by the Community Development Board." The property was developed under Building Permit BCP2002- 05596. A Subway Restaurant is located within the southern tenant space. On August 19, 2003, the CDB denied a request to permit a Problematic Use (Amscot Financial) in the subject 2010 Drew Street tenant space (FLD2003-05022). The property to the north is zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and is developed with a detached dwelling. To the east across Patricia Avenue on property zoned Commercial (C) District and is developed with office uses. The property to the west is zoned Commercial (C) District and is developed with an automobile service station. Across Drew Street there is a vacant retail sales building zoned Commercial (C) District and a church zoned Institutional (I) District. Development Proposal: The development proposal is to permit a Problematic Use (tattoo parlor and permanent cosmetics) along with a retail sales art gallery within the existing northern tenant space. The applicant indicates the retail sales of art work involves, but is not limited to, various mediums, prints, paintings, photographs, sculpture and jewelry. Problematic Uses are defined by the CDC as "commercial retail and service uses, including but not limited to, day labor, tattoo parlors, body piercing, pawn shops, check cashing centers and blood plasma centers which are typically characterized by poorly maintained facilities, loitering and other indices of neighborhood deterioration or urban blight." Under CDC Section 2-704(M) for Problematic Uses, there are two locational criteria: a. The parcel proposed for development is not contiguous to a parcel of land which is designated as residential in the Zoning Atlas; b. The use is not located within 500 feet of another problematic use. This application would conform to the second flexibility criteria for Problematic Uses under CDC Section 2-704(M). There are no other Problematic Uses within 500 feet of the subject property. However, the subject parcel is adjacent/contiguous to residentially-zoned property. The property to the north is zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and is developed with a detached dwelling. The sole reason this application is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project is due to this locational issue of being adjacent to residentially- zoned property. It is important to note that the approval of a use at a particular location vests that right to continuing at that location so long it is in conformance with the regulations. Staff does note that the subject property was developed with a new building in 2002 and is still well maintained. While the applicant may argue that this particular site and tenant may not exhibit some of the characteristics listed in the definition, ownership of property and tenants do change over time while the "use" may still be vested. Community Development Board - July 20, 2010 FLD2010-05003 - Page 2 of 7 The above locational criteria for Problematic Uses are included in the flexibility criteria to preclude negative impacts on residentially-zoned property and to avoid a saturation of like uses within a geographic area. This proposal is not consistent with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, specifically the following General Purposes of CDC Section 1-103: a. To enhance the character of the city and the preservation of neighborhoods; b. Ensuring that development and redevelopment will not have a negative impact on the value of surrounding properties and wherever practicable promoting development and redevelopment which will enhance the value of surrounding properties; c. Protect the character and the social and economic stability of all parts of the city through the establishment of reasonable standards which encourage the orderly and beneficial development of land within the city; d. Protect and conserve the value of land throughout the city and the value of buildings and improvements upon the land, and minimize the conflicts among the uses of land and buildings; e. Establish permitted uses corresponding with the purpose and character of the respective zoning districts and limit uses within each district to those uses specifically authorized; f. Establish use limitations for specified uses consistent with the zoning district in which they are allowed and the particular characteristics of such specified uses; This proposal is not consistent with the intent and purpose of the Commercial (C) District of CDC Section 2-701, which states: "The intent and purpose of the Commercial District is to provide the citizens of the City of Clearwater with convenient access to goods and services throughout the city without adversely impacting the integrity of residential neighborhoods, diminishing the scenic quality of the city or negatively impacting the safe and efficient movement of people and things within the City of Clearwater." (underlining added for emphasis). Additionally, the adjoining property could suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed use due to its characteristics. Based on the established locational criteria, the proposal is not compatible with, nor consistent with the character of, the adjacent residential use. It is the Staff's position that the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project use should not be used to circumvent these locational criteria. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Under Case Number FL 01-12-36, parking was reduced for the retail sales use from five to four spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (from 11 to nine spaces) and reduced for the restaurant from 15 to seven spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (from 27 to 13 spaces). There are 22 parking spaces provided on-site. This parking reduction was justified based on a Parking Study that looked at parking needs, comparisons at other similar businesses and the operational characteristics of the proposed tenant mix. That prior Staff Report noted that future tenants will need to verify similar business operations and parking demand ratios. The approval of Case Number FL 01-12-36 included the following condition: "That any change in tenant mix be evaluated for complementary operational characteristics and parking demand, and may require approval by the Community Development Board." Community Development Board - July 20, 2010 FLD2010-05003 - Page 3 of 7 With this proposal, there is no change to the existing Subway restaurant use and their characteristics/parking needs. The tattoo parlor and retail art gallery is proposed to operate Monday through Thursday and Sunday from 1:00 pm to 11:00 pm and Friday and Saturday from 1:00 pm to 12:00 am, with much of their business in the later afternoon and evening hours. Subway's peak hours are from 10:30 am to 1:30 pm. The applicant has submitted information from other similar Problematic Uses (tattoo parlors) regarding the number of clients and time of day. From a parking standpoint, based on the information submitted, Staff has determined the proposed use would have complementary operational characteristics and parking demand as originally approved under Case Number FL 01-12-36 and its condition of approval. Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there is a 15-foot wide perimeter buffer required along Drew Street, a 10-foot wide perimeter buffer along Patricia Avenue, a five-foot wide perimeter buffer along the west side of the site and a 12-foot wide perimeter buffer along the north side adjacent to the detached dwelling. Buffers were modified under FL 01-12-36 and there are no proposed changes from that which exists. It is noted that under this prior approval a six-foot high masonry wall was required along the north property line with landscaping on the commercial side of the wall for buffering to this existing detached dwelling. This wall and landscaping was constructed/installed and there is no change to the buffer along the north side. Si rg_iage: There exists a monument-style freestanding sign at the intersection of Drew Street and Patricia Avenue that has an area reserved for the northern tenant space. There are no proposed changes to this freestanding sign. This sign is in compliance with the flexibility criteria for Problematic Uses. Attached signage would need to meet Code requirements. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The property was developed in accordance with the standards as per CDC Section 2-701.1 and Table 2-704 for the Commercial (C) District and the flexibility approved under Case Number FL 01-12-36. The proposal does not seek to change any of the existing conditions of the developed site. Community Development Board - July 20, 2010 FLD2010-05003 - 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 2-704.C (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. Consistent I Inconsistent 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X1 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 X1 category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The 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 buildings. See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board - July 20, 2010 FLD2010-05003 - Page 5 of 7 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 3-914.A: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X1 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 X1 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. I See analysis in Staff Report SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of June 3, 2010, 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 0.415 acre parcel is located at the northwest corner of Drew Street and Patricia Avenue, approximately 150 feet east of N. Hercules Avenue; 2. The Community Development Board (CDB) on March 19, 2002, approved the redevelopment of this property with the current commercial building with two tenant spaces under Case Number FL 01-12-36, including five conditions of approval; 3. The property was developed in accordance with plans approved under Building Permit BCP2002-05596; 4. The CDB on August 19, 2003, denied a request to permit a Problematic Use (Amscot Financial) in the subject 2010 Drew Street tenant space (FLD2003-05022); 5. The development proposal is to permit a Problematic Use (tattoo parlor and permanent cosmetics) along with a retail sales art gallery within the existing northern tenant space; 6. One locational criterion for Problematic Uses requires the parcel proposed for development to not be contiguous to a parcel of land which is designated as residential in the Zoning Atlas. The subject parcel is adjacent/contiguous to residentially-zoned property, developed with a detached dwelling; 7. The other locational criterion for Problematic Uses requires the use to not be located within 500 feet of another Problematic Use. There are no other Problematic Uses within 500 feet of the subject property; Community Development Board - July 20, 2010 FLD2010-05003 - Page 6 of 7 8. This application is being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project due solely to the locational issue of being adjacent to residentially-zoned property; 9. The subject property was developed with a new building in 2002 and is still well maintained; 10. There are no changes to the existing setbacks or landscape buffers; 11. It is noted that under Case Number FL 01-12-36 a six-foot high masonry wall was required along the north property line with landscaping on the commercial side of the wall for buffering to this existing detached dwelling; 12. From a parking standpoint, based on the information submitted, Staff has determined the proposed use would have complementary operational characteristics and parking demand as originally approved under Case Number FL 01-12-36 and its condition of approval; and 13. 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 2-701.1 and 2- 704 of the Community Development Code; 2. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Sections 2- 704.C and 2-704.M of the Community Development Code; and 3. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends DENIAL of the Flexible Development application to permit a Problematic Use (tattoo/permanent cosmetics studio) and Retail Sales within an existing tenant space in the Commercial (C) District located adjacent to residentially zoned property with no changes to the existing setbacks or landscape buffers, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704.C. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ?. R ayne M /Wells, AICP, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; Photographs of Site and Vicinity S: (Planning DepartmentlC D BIFLEX (FLD)Wending casesl Up for the next CDBIDrew 2010 Tattoo & Art (C) 2010.Ox - 7.20.10 CDB - WWIDrew 2010 Staff Report.doc Community Development Board - July 20, 2010 FLD2010-05003 - Page 7 of 7 Wayne M. Wells, AICP 100 South Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756 Phone: 727-562-4504 Email: wayne.wells(a),myclearwater.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 Wells, Wayne From: Robert Kamins [floralit@tampabay.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 6:29 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: 2010 Drew St. RE: 2010 Drew St. We are not able to attend the meeting on July 20th but have concerns. We own the properties at 209 & 210 Patricia Ave. and are opposed to the request for Flexible Development to permit a Problematic Use. 1) The classification of this request as "problematic use" speaks for itself. This classification should not be allowed next to a residential neighborhood. This is quiet residential neighborhood that seems to "close up" by dark. 2) This type of establishment tends to have clients "hanging" around. We understand they want to be open until midnight on Friday & Saturday and 11 pm every other night which leads us to believe that there will be some level of noise. Car doors slam, music plays, people talking. There are dogs and young children that live at both addresses that would be disturbed by the late night activity. 3) The parking situation for Subway is already very poor. Subway customers park up & down Patricia Ave. Recently the city placed a sign on the edge of 210 Patricia saying "No Parking on the Grass", which shows that the city is aware that there is a parking problem. 4) Not good for the resale value of the houses. We feel that this is not an appropriate use for this location Thank you for your consideration, Diana Beuder Robert Kamins 117: c,- r°--1.•.. v e .. .. GRAND AVE ' 111 WEAVER PARK DR -7771.171 -?'14 .*ALh?Effo -': T? Rv. ?•:: :;:>.•• .... s .. ?.?..=.-550 . +s . ?ht Q .-;: -:; ' r y c DR Ca nage Lantem Way lc l c v INGTON a? ??,??e? v MARILYN ST RaAR11vN ';T SHARKEY z- 7aQ„ gT 0 o o GILBERT g°Q af r ?•::::: 3 d MCKINLEY MCKINLEY ST tii FbPLAZA c c W ...... PLAZA d L4J HARDING C?' ... ........ .:.::,? I?i• :::: :r:..':::::;.? :?:- ;:: ST HARDING • - Q PLAZA '.'i:i?: SR-590 DREW CR-528 d a Q Q a Q Q emu- Q ca CLE VE LAND ST c n FA LOCATION MAP Owner: Equities Holdings Group, Inc. Case: FLD2010-05003 Site: 2010 Drew Street Property Size: 0.415 acres PIN: 12-29-15-82638-003-0050 Atlas Page: 280B Off b p?j Q 310 M R V m W '0 ?? O? p, ' Q ?g 121 121 Q 114 115 112 111 11( Z 105 106 101 10: 10( 19 20 N N 314 309 310 305 306 303 O ° 301 y 215 213 211 209 205 a O N N DREW ST n N N C. N 2007 115 111 19 Q Q V N N N 315 312 311 310 305 306 N O O Q N N O N 315 309 J D 2 b ,A\ ? '- 1 \ b 1 z 305 304 W 301 300 Y 217 218 214 a 215 0 211 N a 213 V1 OIL ao 212 211 208 `ra 0 209 a° • P?l 205 A° ???` - 207 PG ? rcQ--, h N 112 114 , 115 112 108 ' 111 V 106 Z 107 104 100 103 101 20 114 112 110 ; 110 111 Q 109 Ar T 105 - IVIIL 106 m C Z 101 100 100 Z 18 17 20 III ZONING MAP Owner: Equities Holdings Group, Inc. Case: FLD2010-05003 Site: 2010 Drew Street Property Size: 0.415 acres PIN: 12-29-15-82638-003-0050 Atlas Page: 2808 A 100 13 - - - - 14 12 10 Oj 22 9 310 Q s 1 ]Pet W Dv? In s 10 omi m ?- V HARDING _ 2 Z o N 1 g N 10 2 9 14 30 B 3 6 L ?? 10 305 D4et 30 ch7ed 3o3 Dwe llings,, 5 301 6 e? N Q g V re ? N 1 N C 1 N 315 2 2 312 3 O H 10 3 3 305 Vet ch`ed 308 o we c 5 ings o 5 c N N HARDING ST S HARDING ST Q Q. 1n m n I? I 215 218 214 215 15 I6 I Ie I , I e e1?^1,6 213 L?tt C11ed_ - 213A % 2 logs 212 211 1 M z7 z? Well p 2 c a I,+ 23 I to 1 0 209 ICI l?l ? 1 ICI DREWPLZ eAl1?o s ?7s1 11WV4c g o St o ht. N 10 "'g 60 -a-/M7 DRE - -1 T 74616 1N 5 d i 0 2 0 315 2 :14: -° t1 z z 3 9 3 13 30 = 30 _a 3 q Q °D 4 04 12 3@ L J V.1 301 30 Y Det 11 N 2117 etaiP2, W h §ales `' el ingS 208 Offices e 31 O4 6° 8 :. 1 5 L? - • C 1-4 a N N N :. : •• ?.. . t• OMAN DR 55600 NE?O o DREW Sfi 60 W- O^f n N h NM 60 60 I ?T I 80 r2 a 1f ?° Pl&c? 2 1 P?1?cel of 12 N 0 t il C" '24 0 S 7 1211 1 es WQ Ytr orslip I Q 115 3 114 Va@an12 115 D1et 11 chedll W Q 115 I Vet I 11 the Pla e o 3 1 3 Wo shi 111 11 3 111DW 2 11111510 co) 111DW 4 111n2gS11 11 1 Det ched I I Q 109 Det chid 1 7 CO) 10 Q 105 Awe ling$ 0 3 10 a V Z 107 s l I l 3 10 m 105 1We 11ngs Z 105 10 Im 10 ?? 6 (?/)) 5 0104 104 5 O10 61 11> Z 101 6 6 20 19 7 2 6 19 5 2 6 7, 18 1 5 1 17 7 7 - EXISTING SURROUNDING USES MAP Owner: Equities Holdings Group, Inc. I Case: FLD2010-05003 101 1 Site: 2010 Drew Street Property Size: 0.415 acres PIN: 12-29-15-82638-003-0050 Atlas Page: 280B View looking SW from Patricia Avenue at the southern portion of the subject property (Drew Street on left side) View looking N from Drew Street at the existing parking area on Enlarged view looking W from Patricia Avenue at the subject unit (2010) on the subject property (detached dwelling on right side) View looking W from Patricia Avenue at detached dwelling at 210 Patricia Avenue directly north of subject property 2010 Drew Street Case Number FLD2010-05003 Page 1 of 2 View looking W along the north side of Drew Street from Patricia Avenue (subject property on right side) View looking NW from Drew Street at the two-unit building on 1 .. a ? View looking S across Drew Street at vacant retail sales building at 2017 Drew Street 2010 Drew Street Case Number FLD2010-05003 Page 2 of 2 View looking E from intersection of Patricia Avenue and Drew Street at offices (east of subject property) View looking NW from Drew Street at automobile service station at 2000 Drew Street (adjacent to W side of subject property) View looking SE across Drew Street at church on SE corner of Drew Street and Patricia Avenue View looking SW across Drew Street at retail florist business at 2001 Drew Street MMI ARCHITECTURE June 8, 2010 City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 South Myrtle Ave. Clearwater, FL 33756 Re: Flexible Development Application Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project 2010 Drew Street FLD2010-05003 To whom it may concern, The following letter is a request for approval of the attached application for the project at the above referenced address. This is a request for approval of an Art Gallery & Tattoo - Permanent Cosmetic Studio to occupy the tenant space with the address of 2010 Drew Street, which would fall under the "Problematic use" per definition. There will be art work on display for sale in various mediums, prints, paintings, photographs, sculpture, jewelry, basically any of the fine arts. The actual building in question is comprised of two lease spaces one being 2004 Drew Street occupied by Subway and the other being the subject location. This development was approved under an original Development Order in March of 2002, case # FLD 10.12.36. Items to consider from the original development for the approval of this request. A. The uses as approved were Restaurant and Retail sales and services. B. The reduction in parking that was approved splitting the required number of spaces into two categories Restaurant which accounted for thirteen spaces (13 or 7/1000) and the Retail use was nine spaces (9 or 4/1000) for a total of twenty two existing spaces. The reduction for the Retail we believe would be similar to the proposed Problematic use. C. There is an existing six foot high masonry separating this property from the Residential zoned to the North. This wall creates a visual and audio buffer between the two differently zoned property's. 630 Chestnut Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Tel: 727.796.8774 Fax: 727.791.6942 www.designittic.com Page 2, 06.08.10 FL request For 2010 Drew Street This request is based off of a proposed business that falls under two different uses per the Community • Development Code. The tattoo and piercing uses fall under the heading of Problematic uses and the art gallery falls under the Retail use as defined per the Community Development Code is as follows: Problematic uses means commercial retail and service uses, including but not limited to, day labor, tattoo parlors, body piercing, pawn shops, check cashing centers and blood plasma centers which are typically characterized by poorly maintained facilities, loitering and other indices of neighborhood deterioration or urban blight. Retail sales and services means a building, property, or activity the principle use or purpose of which is the sale or lease of goods, products, materials, or services directly to the consumer, including grocery stores, bicycle stores (sales, rentals and/or repair), adult day care, child care, personal services, funeral homes, art galleries, artisans, farmer markets, and including the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption provided that the sale of alcoholic beverages is subordinate to the principal use and display of alcoholic beverages occupies less than 25 percent of the floor area of the use. Not including problematic uses, street vendors or the on-premise consumption of alcoholic beverages. The basic question is can you support allowing this business (Tattoo Studio) listed in the Community Development Code as "Problematic" to operate at the requested location? Items to Consider for approval of this request: Yes we are requesting approval to operate a business that has multiple classifications, art gallery (Retail), tattooing and piercing (Problematic). The specific problematic uses according to police records would not seem to be problematic due to the lack of calls to any of the existing locations in Clearwater over the past year or longer. 2. This location is not a poorly maintained facility which would lend to the deterioration of the neighbor hood nor will this use cause it to become such as indicated in the definition listed above. This property and Subway are owned by the same people. Would they want a tenant adjacent to them that could jeopardize their business? 3. The issue of loitering is not relevant to this proposed business due to the cost of these services, the typical clientele is a person with discretionary money that chooses to spend money on body art or jewelry. These clients are not there to cash a check, sell their blood-plasma, or pawn an item for cash. 4. The Tattoo Studios are regulated by the state's Department of Health. 5. There are no other problematic business uses of any of those listed in the problematic uses definitions with in five hundred (500) feet. Page 3, 06.08.10 FL request For 2010 Drew Street 6. There is an existing six foot high wall which will offer a visual and audio buffer to the adjacent neighbors. 7. The signage will comply with all of the applicable codes. 8. The existing dumpster will be shared with Subway. 9. Parking: The original approval contained a provision for reduced parking for Subway and the retail tenant based on complementary parking. That shared use is subject to review for this proposed use. The proposed user will have reduced hours of operation due to the nature of their business. Their hours of operation will be Monday thru Thursday and Sunday from 1:00pm to 11:00pm, Friday and Saturday from 1:00pm to 12:00am. The majority of their business would be later afternoon and evenings. This works well with the peak time for Subway being 10:30am to 1:30pm, thus the peak times are not in conflict. The number of clients that would be at this location at any one time is unknown at this time. We have inquired with the other Tattoo Studios in the immediate are as to their hours of operation and their average number of customers in a day. The locations are listed below. Lou's National Tattoos 1356 Cleveland Street Knuckledown Tattoo 1606 Gulf to Bay Blvd. Moniques Body Essentials 1861 Gulf to Bay Poda Tattoo & Piercing 1882 drew Street St #B Mon.-Sat. 12:00-9:30 12-15 customers Sun 12:00-6:00 15-25 Mon.-Sun. 1:00-11:00 10-15 Tues.-Sat. 12:00-9:00 10-20 Sun. 12:00-6:00 20-30 Mon.-Sat. 12:00-9:30 10-15 Sun. 12:00-6:00 10-20 The approval of this application would be in keeping with the social acceptance that tattooing, permanent cosmetic tattooing and body piercing are not taboo. They are very socially acceptable as is seen on many of the top stars, athletes, military, police, fireman, doctors, lawyers, moms, dads, grandmas, grandpas, school teachers, politicians, and list goes on. If there are so many people that have the desire for body art and jewelry than why is it considered a problematic use. We look forward to your show of support and the approval of this request. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me directly. Sincer ly . Robert E. Greg Clearwater Planning Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Telephone: 727-562-4567 Fax: 727-562-4865 IJ SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION ? SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION - Plans and . application are required to be collated, stapled, and folded into sets ? SUBMIT 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 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: p _t' >JG P (A MAILING ADDRESS: '56 r-) ?W TV Ak- -- - P-?_? (vim------- PHONE NUMBER: ' rJz _ t-46r%- L FAX NUMBER: CELL NUMBER r zr-a l EMAIL: - -- - - - -- --- .-__ PROPERTY OWNER(S):_Y? List ALL owners on the deed n AGENT NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: CELL NUMBER: r 17- r' ?1? FAX NUMBER: r7? EMAIL: B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) PROJECT NAME: '`o 1 C) PROJECT VALUATION: $ STREET ADDRESS ( PARCEL NUMBER(S): __..Z_ ___?-_L_ _' ..C05c?_. PARCEL SIZE acres : ARCEL SIZE (square feet LEGAL DESCRIPTION: L_Q S b _.". -PROPOSED USE(S):C7T T'r.? 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.) S:\Planning Department\Application Forms\Development Review\2008 Forrns\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 UNIT DEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTIFIED) SITE PLAN? YES _ NO _ (if yes, attach a copy of the applicable documents) C. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP: (Code Section 4-202.A.5) SUBMIT A COPY OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY, DEED TO THE PROPERTY OR SIGN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING OWNERSHIP (see page 7) D. WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 3-913.A) lff 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. a 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. C:\Documents and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 070MComprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc Page 2 of 8 Response to General Applicability Criteria FL Request page 1 of 2 2010 Drew Street 060810 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of the adjacent properties in which it is located. This property was physically developed as a Comp Infill under case# FLD 10.12.36, March 2002. With that in mind this request for approval to allow for a "Problematic" use really has no effect on the existing physical characteristics of the building and or the site. 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. This specific use which is classified as problematic is typically not prone to having the negative characteristics associated with problematic use (per City's code definitions) such as loitering, and poorly maintained facilities. This property is home to a Subway store with a long term lease owned by the property owners. Are they going to jeopardize their own business with one that would degrade their center? None of us knows what will happen in the future with the adjacent residential properties. As of today there has been a reasonable level of a good neighbor situation that exists which we don't anticipate changing. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. Again this is not about any physical elements of development but types of businesses that are allowed with out board approval. This specific use which is classified as problematic is typically not prone to having the negative characteristics associated with problematic use (per City's code definitions) such as loitering, and poorly maintained facilities. This property is home to a Subway store with a long term lease owned by the property owners. Are they going to jeopardize their own business or employees with business that would degrade their center. As of today there has been a reasonable level of a good neighbor situation that exists which we don't anticipate changing. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. This property was developed with a shared/complementary parking plan approved. We believe we are similar enough with respect to hours of operation to be approved under similar conditions as approved in March of 2002. Please see page 2, Item # 4, in Items to Consider in the cover letter for this request. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. This question is typically geared toward physically change or developing a parcel of land into viable project. In this case the property is developed and we are dealing with a business that by definition is considered problematic. We do not believe that what occurs with in the building is offensive in nature (i.e. Adult use) and if the other items by definition do not exist (disrepair of the property, and loitering) then this use should have no more effect on the neighborhood than any other retail business. There is a 6' masonry wall that is a visual and auditory buffer. 6 The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. This is an existing developed property as a Comp Infill. We have an existing 6' masonry wall that separates the commercial zoned parcel from the residentially zoned property to the North. This wall was installed to offer a degree of privacy separation visually, acoustically. The existing enclosed dumpster will be used in conjunction with Subway. Again this is not about any physical elements of development but types of businesses that are allowed with out board approval. This specific use which is classified as problematic is typically not prone to having the negative characteristics associated with problematic use (per City's code definitions) such as loitering, and poorly maintained facilities. This property is home to a Subway store with a long term lease owned by the property owners. Are they going to jeopardize their own business or employees with business that would degrade their center. As of today there has been a reasonable level of a good neighbor situation that exists which we don't anticipate changing. Page 2 of 2 WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria) 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. 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 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The 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 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. C:1Documents and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc Page 3 of 8 Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria FL Request page 1 of 2 2010 Drew Street 060810 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in the zoning district. This property was developed per the Development Order as approved, FLD case# 10-12-36 on March of 2002. The requested use is categorized as "Problematic"; one of the requirements for staff approval is a separation of 500' from residential zoned property. We are adjacent to residential but we have an existing 6' high masonry wall and landscaping as a buffer. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies if the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of the Code, and with the intent and purpose of the zoning district. The request for approval of the problematic use is acceptable in the "C" District as approved by the CDB Board. It is our opinion that the actual requested use should not fall under the "Problematic" use category. The reason for that is the building is and will not be poorly maintained nor will we allow loitering. The cliental are people with discretionary money and choose to spend it on body art and jewelry. Tattoos have become common place in today's society and the studios should be given the same type of acceptance. 3. The development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. The adjacent property to the East is actually across Patricia Ave. which is another commercial use. The property to the North is residential. The property to the West is a vacant gas-service station. The property to the South is across Drew Street and is zoned commercial as well. Three of these are developed and don't appear to be a candidate for redevelopment in the for seeable future. The approval of the use in question does not pose any change in appearance to the property nor will it affect the potential future development of the adjacent properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial determent as a result of the proposed development. The approval of the change of use as requested will have no substantial impact on the adjacent properties. This property owner also owns the Subway business and would not consider a tenant that would cause his business or the value of his property to be diminished. The use as has been stated before does really not apply to this business owner that is requesting your approval. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially after the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. This requested "Problematic" use is allowable under the Flexible Development Standards for District "C" per Table 2-704. The approval of this request would not alter the physical characteristics of the property as it is today other than a sign on the face of the building. 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 physical building and property were developed under a an FLD case which was approved in March of 2002. The approval of the requested use will not alter the existing building nor property. b. This property was designed to the applicable design guidelines and that will not be affected by the change of use as requested. c. As has been stated this property was designed as a Comp Infill and the building will not be modified by the approval of the requested change of use. d. This building was designed taking into account all of the desired elements that we could incorporate into final design. As you can see by the attached photos, we did an admiral job. e. The original design offered not only a landscape buffer but a 6' high masonry wall between our commercial property and the residentially zoned property to the North. The wall offers a visual and audio buffer. The approval of the requested change of use would not be detrimental to the existing conditions. Page 2 of 2 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. X 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 ? 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; 1? ? TREE SURVEY (including existing trees on site and within 25' of the adjacent site, by species, size (DBH 4" or greater), and location, including drip lines and indicating trees to be removed) - please design around the existing trees; ? TREE INVENTORY; prepared by a "certified arborist", of all trees 4" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and condition of such trees; X LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY; ? PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (ie. Reduce number of spaces). Prior to the submittal of this application, the methodology of such study shall be approved by the Community Development Coordinator and shall be in accordance with accepted traffic engineering principles. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved; ? 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; S:\Planning Department\Application Forms\Development Review\2008 Forms\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"): Index sheet referencing individual sheets included in package; North arrow; Engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet), and date prepared; All dimensions; Footprint and size of all EXISTING buildings and structures; Footprint and size of all PROPOSED buildings and structures; All required setbacks; All existing and proposed points of access; All required sight triangles; Identification of environmentally unique areas, such as watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, and specimen trees, including description and location of understory, ground cover vegetation and wildlife habitats, etc; Location of all public and private easements; Location of all street rights-of-way within and adjacent to the site; Location of existing public and private utilities, including fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes and lift stations, gas and water lines; All parking spaces, driveways, loading areas and vehicular use areas; Depiction by shading or crosshatching of all required parking lot interior landscaped areas; Location of all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment and all required screening {per Section 3-201(D)(i) and Index #701}; Location of all landscape material; Location of all onsite and offsite storm-water management facilities; Location of all outdoor lighting fixtures; I? 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 Level Two approval. SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in written/tabular form: Land area in square feet and acres; Number of EXISTING dwelling units; Number of PROPOSED dwelling units; ,yvs+?Nh'? I??OC> , („ b Gross floor area devoted to each use; ,pa-. "e e %,-7 Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular form with the number of required spaces; t?u?u- t-pO °T?t * s r I , tZt* rh l . 4/10 o a Total paved area, including all paved parking spaces & driivewa ?s expressed in square feet & percentage of the paved vehicular area; Official records book and page numbers of all existing utility easement; Building and structure heights; Impermeable surface ratio (I.S.R.); and Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses. 13 REDUCED COLOR SITE PLAN to scale (8 %X 11); EXISTING REQUIRED PROPOSED ------ - --- - - - ?-gig--- --- - ?..._ .. ._...._.....? ? 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; -A_bf3__cq - IMP ------.. ............ I S:\Planning Department\Application Forms\Development Review\2008 Forms\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc Page 5 of 8 H. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-1102.A) 0 LANDSCAPE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36"): All existing and proposed structures; Names of abutting streets; Drainage and retention areas including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations; Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscape buffers; Sight visibility triangles; Delineation and dimensions of all parking areas including landscaping islands and curbing; Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and locations, including driplines (as indicated on required tree survey); Location, size, and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant schedule; Plant schedule with a key (symbol or label) indicating the size, description, specifications, quantities, and spacing requirements of all existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names; Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants including instructions, soil mixes, backfilling, mulching and protective measures; Interior landscaping areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressing in both square feet and percentage covered; Conditions of a previous development approval (e.g. conditions imposed by the Community Development Board); Irrigation notes ? REDUCED COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8 '/2 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'/z 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'/2 X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application. S:\Planning Department\Application Forms\Development Review\2008 Forms\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 rpnuirpri_ ? Acknowledgement of fire flow calculations/water study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): _ Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is included. Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is not required. CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Fire Prevention Department at (727) 562-4334. -M. SIGNATURE: I, the L ndersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this application are true and accurate to the best of my know] ,dge and authorize City representatives to visit and photo graph the property described in this application. Sirtnature of prope n r or re resentative STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Sworn to and subscribed before me this '2,- day of A.D. 20 10 to me and/or by who is personally known has produced as ide tification. )p 47 ry pub' ;OTC Y pL*pLiC•STATE ORIDA My commission expires: Lynn A. Matthews Expires: OCT. 13, 2011 - --------- -- 130INDED 1HRU ATLLIMC BONDING CO., INC. S:\Pkinning Department\Application Forms\Development Review\2008 Forms\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc Page 7of8 N. AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT: 1. Provide names of all property owners on deed - PRINT full names: 2. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property (address or general location): D a A ,ro property y constitutes ? "Z 0 the property or ? which a request or a: describe request) 3. That this - ---- - ---.--?__ 4: That the undersigned (has/have) appoii and (does/do) appoint: 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 (11we), the undersi ned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. t ----- 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 -- J- day of c?- Q0 -personally appeared" ppeared !?_-S.L qjq A-._. C C? S.__..__ who having been first duly sworn Deposes an says that he/she fully understands the contents of the affidavit that he/she signed. Wtary Seal/Stamp Notary OPyb t?, ' rgTATE OF FLORIDA 1IVV ,'1,A.1.?ews Lynn A. Matth „ '.'1l(.nn My Commission Expires: ray., THRU ATLANTIC BONDING CO., INC. S:\Planning Department\Application Forms\Development Review\2008 Forms\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc Page 8 of 8 Pinellas County-Taxes.com Iq Diane Nelson.cK r?rwremmcrrrrencroro:ae , Home Help Real Estate Accounts Bills Certificates Reports Tangible Central Shopping Cart TourlstExpress Specify search criteria above and then click search Note: Accuracy of the information provided on this website is not guaranteed for title searches and closing agents Copyright © 1997-2010, Grant Street Group. All rights reserved. PoMMnway ImGXANT 9xlw_-rGRot a Srgiwwe M# weds v Page 1 of 1 ;q Home Pinellas County-Taxes.com Account History Account Information Roll Tax Status Due Roll Year: 2009 Class Value: 0 2009 2009 Acct: Paid-in-full View Tax Year: 2009 Just Value: 465,000 2008 2008 Acct: Paid-in-full View Account Number: 130256 School Assessed Value: 465,000 2007 2007 Acct: Paid-in-full View « Prev Next w Assessed Value: 465,000 2006 2006 Acct: Paid-in-full View Parcel Number: 12/29/15/82638/003/0050 Exemption Value: 0 2005 2005 Acct: Paid-in-full view « Prev Next w Taxable Value: 465,000 2004 2004 Acct: Paid-in-full View Millage Code: CW - CLEARWATER, TR Ad Valorem: $9,777.98 2003 2003 Acct: Paid-in-full View Certified EQUITIES HOLDINGS Non-ad Valorem: $0.00 Roll Owner(s): GROUP INC 2002 2002 Acct: Paid-in-full View ! 630 CHESTNUT ST Total Tax: $9,777.98 2001 2001 Acct: Paid-in-full View CLEARWATER, FL 33756- » Print a copy of this bill 2000 2000 Acct: Paid-in-full View 5337 1999 1999 Acct: Paid-in-full View Situs Address: 2006 DREW ST, Total Due: $0.00 CLEARWATER Links: Property Appraiser Loca tion Details " Ad Valorem Details Non-a d Valorem Details Account Search - - - - Search - - Clear Parcel Number Owner Name Property Address (e.g. Smith, John or Tax Yr _ Smith Enterprises) (e.g . 123 Main St) - --- https://www.pinellas.county-taxes.comltcblapplre/accounts?alternate key=12/29/15/82638... 4/13/2010 Property Appraiser General Information Interactive Map of this Sales Back to Query. New parcel Query Results Search Page I of 4 Tax Collector Home QuestiorVComment about this Page page 12-29-15-82638-003-0050 Portability Data Current as of April 13, 2010 Improvement Value Calculator [9:48 am Tuesday April 13] Print Radius Search per F.S. 553.844 Ownership/Mailing Address Site Address EQUITIES HOLDINGS GROUP INC 2006 DREW ST CLEARWATER 630 CHESTNUT ST 33765- CLEARWATER FL 33756-5337 Property Use: 1121 (Strip Store - (2 or more stores - some may include an office, convenience store, bar and/or restaura) [click here to hide] 2010 Legal Description SKYCREST TERRACE BLK C, LOTS 5 & 6 Living Units: 0 2010 Exemptions Homestead: No Save-Our-Homes Cap Percentage: 0.00% Non-Homestead 10% Cap: Yes Government: No Institutional: No Agricultural: $0 Historic: $0 1 2009 Parcel Information 2009 Original Trim Notice 11 Most Recent Conveyance Sales Comparison Census Tract Evacuation Zone Plat Book/Page 12072/0418 j Sales Query 1 121030267031 NON EVAC IF-033/047 2009 Value Information Save-Our- Just/Market Assessed Value/ County Year School Municipal Taxable Homes Cap Value SOH Cap Taxable Value Taxable Value Value 2009 No $465,000 $465,000 $465,000 $465,000 $465,000 Save-Our- Year Homes Cap 2009 No 2008 No 2007 No 2006 No 2005 No 2004 No 2003 No 2002 No 2001 No 2000 No 1999 No [click here to hide] Value History Just/Market Assessed Value/ Coun School Municipal Value SOH Cap Taxable Value Taxable Value Taxable Value $465,000 $465,000 $465,000 $465,000 $465,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $520,000 $520,000 $520,000 N/A $520,000 $460,000 $460,000 $460,000 N/A $460,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 N/A $400,000 $360,800 $360,800 $360,800 N/A $360,800 $78,900 $78,900 $78,900 N/A $78,900 $78,900 $78,900 $78,900 N/A $78,900 $79,000 $79,000 $79,000 N/A $79,000 $99,100 $99,100 $99,100 N/A N/A $96,400 $96,400 $96,400 N/A N/A http://www.pcpao.org/general.php?pn=152912826380030050 4/13/2010 Property Appraiser General Information rage L 01 4 1998 No $95,800 $95,800 $95,800 N/A N/A 1997 No $92,900 $92,900 $92,900 N/A N/A 1996 No $92,900 $92,900 $92,900 N/A N/A 2009 Tag Information Ranked Sales See all transactions Click Here for 2009 Tax Bill Tax District: CW Sale Date Book/Page Price Q/U V/I 2009 Millage Rate: 21.0279 14 Dec 2001 11733 / 2164 ® $155,000 U V Taxes without any $9,777.97 26 Oct 2000 11099 / 2621 ® $136,100 U I exemptions: 13 Jun 1990 07301 / 2097 ® $160,000 U I A significant change in taxable value may occur when sold due to changes in the market or the removal of exemptions. Click here for more information. 2009 Land Information Seawall: No Frontage: None View: Land Use Land Size Unit Value Units Method Drive-In Rest (22) 140x129 13.00 18060.0000 SF [click here to bide] 2010 Building 1 Structural Elements Back to Ton Site Address: 2006 DREW ST CLEARWATER 33765- Quality: Above Average Square Footage: 4120.00 Foundaton: Continuous Footing Floor System: None Exteri or Wall: Concrete Blk/Stucco Roof Frame: Bar Joint/Rigid Frame Roof Cover: Bit Up Metal/Gypsum Stories: 1 Living units: 0 Floor Finish: Hard Tile Interior Finish: Dry Wall Fixtures: 8 Year Built: 2003 Effective Age: 7 Open plot in-New-Window h4://www,pcpao.org/general.php?pn=152912826380030050 4/13/2010 6 1 1 1D- , tt Property Appraiser General Information rage -i or 4 Cooling: Heat & Cooling Pkg Building 1 Sub Area Information Description Building Finished Ft2 Gross Area Ft2 Factor Effective Ft2 Base 4,087 4,087 1.00 4,087 Open Porch 0 33 0.30 10 Total Building finished SF: 4,087 Total Gross SF: 4,120 Total Effective SF: 4,097 [click here to hide] 2010 Extra Features Description Value/Unit Units Total NewValue Depreciated Value Year ASPHALT $1.75 4,400.00 $7,700.00 $7,700.00 0 PATIO/DECK $12.00 490.00 $5,880.00 $4,880.00 2003 FENCE $16.00 120.00 $1,920.00 $1,594.00 2003 click here to hide Permit Data Permit information is received from the County and Cities. This data may be incomplete and may exclude permits that do not result in field reviews (for example for water heater replacement permits). Any questions regarding permits should be directed to the permitting office in which the structure is located. Permit Number Description ?jj Issue Date r Estimated Value 200102093 DEMOLITION 01 Jun 2001 r- $3,650 200102128- PARTIAL DEMO 12 Mar 2001 F $0 Radius (feet): -- - - - Aerials: IF 2009 Color - Transparency:[ 0.5 1 Update Map 420 If you do not see map, the SVG viewer has not been installed. Click here for information and installation. How to copy and paste a static map using Internet Explorer: Right-click on the map; Select "Copy SVG"; Open a Word document; Select "Paste Special" from Edit menu on toolbar, Select Bitmap, then OK ow to copy and paste a static map using Mozilla Firefox: Right-click on the map; Select "This Frame"; Select "Open Frame in New Window"; Print from the new window. http://www.pcpao.org/general.php?pn=152912826380030050 4/13/2010 Property Appraiser General Information Page 4 of 4 http://wvw -.pcpao.org/general.php?pn=152912826380030050 4/13/2010 Interactive Map of this Sales Back to Query New Tax Collector Home Question/Comment about this parcel ue Results Search Page nape 2029 6 =(.1) 208 210 , "ril 1 " I t'Ji t 201 1165E ? 1 ar DREW?PL-Z Q. i 1 15 77 1*3 .' ?? 205 ,^ 1 9. , b !!II??klll? :.: 6 'Lu .'.? f^. i `+ti ?? }• I.r `I ?:?Y' '1*lfinet t'.t. - N:a J...?Wt .ti?'? j?*r ARML J w ? .Ka 1 ? -? - •^- -.._ . "? ! ?_ ,rye Ir, _qm 57 DREV DREW?ST DREW-ST _*? ---- 4 w?-i'., g1 2 100 } 219,9,;. I ' b 206 'L A Page 1 of 2 1x1 MAP QUEST Search Results 1-10 for "tattoo palors" near 2010 Drew St, Clearwater, FL 33765-3115 Poda Tattoo & Body Piercing 1882 Drew St # B Clearwater, FL (727) 446-7632 Knuckledown Tattoo 1606 Gulf To Bay Blvd Clearwater, FL (727) 461-6699 414 Lou's National Tattoos 1356 Cleveland St Clearwater, FL (727)461-0454 Vintage Ink Tattoos 2471 N Mcmullen Booth Rd # 7 Clearwater, FL (727) 474-3734 Mom's Tattoos 1379 Main St Dunedin, FL (727) 736-5350 Captain Memo's Original Pirate Cruise 25 Causeway Blvd Clearwater, FL (727) 446-2587 Notes Plush Gallery Tattoo 1140 Main St # 7 Dunedin, FL (727) 738-8377 Atomic Tattoos LLC 8238 W Waters Ave Tampa, FL (813) 884-4445 Wicked Ink Tattoo 27839 US Highway 19 N Clearwater, FL (727) 726-7070 Atomic Tattoos LLC 30137 US Highway 19 N Clearwater, FL (727) 787-4444 Atomic Tattoos LLC 9041 Ulmerton Rd Largo, FL (727) 518-7819 Curves 1300 E. Bay Dr., Unit I Largo, FL (727) 559-7741 http://www.mapquest.com/print 4/12/2010 Page 2 of 2 MAPOWEST. ACt'r'r ',• ? 0 ` ik te 1$ d rd W West Chnsg O ry _ _ =jr4err P. 1 .._ ; - ' Y ? , . g '' ._ ? ST ? ??=Oldsmar' , - • /O+.JL CP wi V'Hit ,? 0 St7UN Dunedin ? - - : Town 'n' Country "? f y Safet Harbor } 0 y 0 1-rwaterBeach 1! GLJL MEMO 3200 m... 0,9600 ft' 1 t Eip OFF a 60 J?" 1? ! f i f.,:L.-L- S' E-"C7._. R G H _, 1 G`LL7 r 4A'PA ,°raY ,t3$Ileair iE- ?,s ? ' I , Belleair8luty !"', ;? o il IL High Point 'i Harbor Bluffs li iLar is (?1 qJ 14 t3?askin c I? ?L__._ ?Q6.J3 t?R?r?Qrosa Indian Rocks t3each (? 2010 w ii._EI .: MapQuest PArtons6(20.10NAV?E4,Interma P All rights reserved. Use subject to License/Copyright ( Map Legend Directions and maps are informational only. We make no warranties on the accuracy of their content, road conditions or route usability or expeditiousness. You assume all risk of use. MapQuest and its suppliers shall not be liable to you for any loss or delay resulting from your use of MapQuest. Your use of MapQuest means you agree to our Terms of Use http://www.mapquest.com/print 4/12/2010 Page 1 of 2 a AP QU E'ST Notes Search Results 1-10 for "amscott" near 2010 Drew St, Clearwater, FL 33765-3115 Amscot 1825 Gulf To Bay Blvd Clearwater, FL (727) 447-9393 Amscot 922 S Missouri Ave Clearwater, FL (727) 447-3130 Amscot 2760 Gulf To Bay Blvd # A Clearwater, FL (727) 791-3141 Amscot 1874 N Highland Ave Clearwater, FL (727) 449-1360 Amscot 1001 Missouri Ave N Largo, FL (727) 584-9700 http://www.mapquest.com/print Amscot 1250 Main St Dunedin, FL (727) 736-8320 Amscot 29101 US Highway 19 N Clearwater, FL (727) 787-6550 Amscot 4100E Bay Dr#16 Clearwater, FL (727) 533-0006 Amscot 9501 Anderson Rd Tampa, FL (813) 885-7100 Amscot ?++ 7250 Ulmerton Rd # H Largo, FL (727) 524-6136 4/12/2010 Page "l of L MAPQNEST. 4 . Q. asoo m11 ST I JOSEPH SOUND - Harbor Safet : ;Q,i Su nset Poi nt Pd y _ _Wu 1? K 7 ? ? I L ? ?' ?5$0 Clearwater Beach IT, n o m Y' j D r t ' DF-w t GULF Ciei' Zi I OF r ? "4!E41Cf? -4 ulf To Bay h d w --- - _ - - U] t - L Ileair FJ Belleair , Y Belleair Beach Belleair Bluffs Q ` ID201UMapQuest P&tions02010NAVY0,Intermap All rights reserved. Use subject to License/Copyright I Map Legend Directions and maps are informational only. We make no warranties on the accuracy of their content, road conditions or route usability or expeditiousness. You assume all risk of use. MapQuest and its suppliers shall not be liable to you for any loss or delay resulting from your use of MapQuest. Your use of MapQuest means you agree to our Terms of Use h: 1 //www.mapquest.com/print 4/12/2010 9OUNDAR Y, ,S'U._, VEY ADDRESS.-I"1006 DREW STREET CLEARWATER, FLORIDA. LOT 7 5.89723'02 "E. 129.02'(M) LOT 2 I ilk S 89'25 27 E. 129.00'(P) FIR 51q" I ?0.1'ON CONC WALL SCALE.' 9 30' 28 7 CONC 15.4 i LOT 3 I I ONE STORY BUILDING N ti #2006 4 a Z LLF 73.51 41 I O O 4j A I FIR 5/8" 0.1 CONC CURB Eu U Z ??QG ASPHALT 4js4i I ---- ---------------------- - --- GREEN LO rP o ao 8 N rr I oz ? o Z 5 O 5 Qi ? 4 I CONC L G Q \ LOT 4 g , NET 32.7' I L LL TOB ASPHALT ?Q ry v'Q TOB N FCM 3X3 5'CONC WALK 2' GUTTER N.89'25 27"W. 129.04'(M) N.89'25 27"W. 129.00'(P) _ DREW STREET _ 50' 1/2 R/W W m ? J ?O v o Lui Z `Q g o N o ? `O i i 'R':I, N O TE: This survey was conducted without the benefit of an abstract of title, therefore, there may be other easements, right-of-way, setback knes, agreements, reservations, restrictions, or other similar matters of public record, not depicted on this survey. A =ARC CHB = CHORD BEARING DE = DRAINAGE EASEMENT FH = FIRE HYDRANT MH = MANHOLE PP = POWER POLE Cj BM % BENCH MARK CH = CHORD EDP = EDGE OF PAVEMENT FIP = FOUND IRON PIPE OHP = OWRHEAD POWER LINE R RADIUS BRG BEARING CLF = CHAIN LINK FENCE EOW EDGE OF WATER FIR = FOUND IRON ROD P = PLAT SIP = SET IRON PIPE SIR = SET IRON ROD MY C4P 4495 W C =CURVE CONC. = CONCRETE FCC = FOUND CROSS CUT FN = FOUND N41. PC = POINT OF CURVATURE # CALC = CALCULATED CSW = CONCRETE SIDEWALK FCM = FOUND CONCRETE FPP = FOUND PINCH PIPE PCP = PERAMNENT CONTROL POINT UE =UTILITY EASEMENT CB - CATCH BASIN D = DEED NOUNUMENT M =MEASUREMENT PI =POINT OF INTERSECRON WB = WATER BOX WF = WOOD FENCE FLOOD INFOPWATION: LEGAL: SECTION: 12 TOWNSHIP: 29S RANGE.: 15E CERTIFIED TO: ZONE.: X LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK C, SKYCREST TERRACE, AS RECORDED IN PLAT EQUITIES HOLDING GROUP, INC. NUMBER.' 125096-00 1 6D BOOK 33, PAGE 47, ACCORDING TO THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF FLORIDA BANK STEWART TITLE DATE. 08-19-91 PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY FL ORIDA BENCHMARK, INC. CER TI FI CA T/ ON: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS MADE UNDER D MY RESPONSIBLE CHARGE AND MEETS THE MINIMUM D PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR TECHNICAL STANDARDS AS SET FORTH BY THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS IN CHAPTER 61G17-6 0 1882 DREW STREET PH. (727) 298-0286 THE FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, PURSUANT TO SECT101 472.027 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES. NOT VALID WITHOUT CLEARWATER, FL. 33765 FA X1 ("727) 461-0696 SIGNATURE AND EMBOSSED WITH SURVEYOR S 4L. AUTHORIZATION NO, LB 6947 S I?? FIELD WORK BY: CU DATE.: 05-03-03 REVISION DATE. ? j DR 1 PAGE IV ??? E, 1. C?-+?}(?`°' DRAWN BY..: WDB DATE., 05-03-03 JOB # 03- 0980 EP M. G. MAYER PLS 4 4495 DATE. i % N t4fi L .t