FLD2010-06005; 1472 JORDAN HILLS CT; KOBERMICK DENTIST OFFICEFLD2010-06005
1472 JORDAN HILLS CT
Date Received: 6/1/2010 2:00:04 PM
Kobermick Dentist office
ZONING DISTRICT:
LAND USE:
ATLAS PAGE: 315A
PLANNER OF RECORD:
PLANNER: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
CDB Meeting Date: August 17, 2010
Case Number: FLD2010-06005
Agenda Item: D. 1.
Owner: Malke Teresa L THE Empire Management Trust
Applicant: Dr. Stephen Kobernick, D.D.S., PA.
Representative: Todd Pressman
Address: 1472 Jordan Hills Court
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development request for a 392 square foot addition to an
existing office in the Commercial (C) and Office (O) Districts with
a lot area of 10,000 square feet; a lot width of 105.86 feet; a front
(east) setback of zero feet (to pavement) and 10.41 feet (to
building); a side (north) setback of 6.41 feet (to pavement) and 50
feet (to building); a side (south) setback of 15 feet (to pavement)
and 10 feet (to building); a rear (west) setback of 3 feet (to
pavement) and 14.77 feet (to building); a building height of 21
feet; and 8 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community
Development Code Sections 2-704.C. and 2-1004.13. as well as a
reductions from the required perimeter landscape buffers from 10
feet to 9 feet (east), and from 5 feet to 3 feet (west); a reduction
from the foundation landscape area from 5 feet to 4 feet; and a
reduction of the required perimeter buffer trees from 12 to 8 as a
Comprehensive Landscape Program pursuant to,, Community
Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
CURRENT ZONING: Commercial (C) District and Office (O) District
CURRENT LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial General (CG) and Residential/Office General (R/OG)
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Office
Proposed Use: Office
EXISTING North: Office (O) District
SURROUNDING Office
ZONING AND USES: South: Commercial (C) District
Vacant Veterinary Office
East: Office (O) and Commercial (C) Districts
Vacant Property and Vacant Veterinary Office
West: Institutional (I) District
Place of Worship
Community Development Board - August 17, 2010
FLD2010-06005 - Page 1 of 9
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.28-acre subject property, which is located on the west side of the cul-de-sac for Jordan
Hills Court, has two zoning districts and two land use plan categories. The north half of the
property is zoned Office (O) District with an underlying land use plan category of
Residential/Office General (R/OG), while the south half of the property is zoned Commercial (C)
District with an underlying land use plan category of Commercial General (CG). It is also noted
that the majority of the eastern third of the property is an ingress/egress easement that contains
the paved street Jordan Hills Court.
The property is bordered on its north side by an office; on the west by a place of worship; and on
the south and east by a vacant veterinary office and vacant property (east only).
The property, which presently consists of a 1,841 square foot office building as well as an
accessory eight space off-street parking area, was developed in 1994 with a variance (VAR #94-
29) reducing the setback to ten feet from the street right-of-way (or in this instance the
ingress/egress easement for Jordan Hills Court). The existing building is effectively set back ten
feet and 14.77 feet from the south and west property lines, respectively. The off-street parking
area is set back approximately four feet, four feet and three feet from the north, east and west
property lines respectively.
Development Proposal:
On June 1, 2010, a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application was submitted to
renovate and expand the existing office building as follows:
¦ Construct a 390 square foot addition at the rear of the existing building; effectively filling-in
the opening of the "U"-shaped building while maintaining the existing side (west) setback of
14.77 feet;
¦ Construct°a new paver brick walkway connecting the parking area to the entry;
¦ Reconfigure the existing off-street parking area for eight (seven standard, one handicap
accessible) code compliant parking spaces; and
¦ Make minor modification to the existing architectural elevations including the addition of
columns to the existing covered entry, a new asphalt shingle roof, a decorative stone base
along the north and east elevations, and new building colors.
It is noted that when the existing building was approved in 1994, the required setbacks were not
as they are today. With the Code changes in 1999, the building was rendered non-conforming
with regard to these setbacks (specifically the front and rear). As a result, the development
proposal is being reviewed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project.
The development proposal's compliance with the various development standards of the
Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules for the Commercial General
(CG) land use category and CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable FAR is 0.55. The
Community Development Board -August 17, 2010
FLD2010-06005 - Page 2 of 9
existing development along with the proposed addition will result in an FAR of 0.36 on that
portion of the property within the CG category.
Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules for the Residential/Office General (R/OG) land use
category and CDC Section 2-1001.1, the maximum allowable FAR is 0.50. The existing
development along with the proposed addition with result in an FAR of 0.15 on that portion of
the property within the R/OG category.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Sections 2-701.1 and 2-1001.1, the maximum
allowable ISR within the CG and R/OG land use plan categories is 0.90 and 0.75, respectively.
The proposed ISR's are 0.42 and 0.74, which are both less then what may be permitted based
upon the above Code provisions.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Tables 2-704 and 2-1004, there is no minimum
required lot area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a
point of comparison, the minimum lot area requirement for an office in both the Commercial (C)
and Office (O) Districts is 10,000 square feet. The existing lot area for the subject property is
12,228 square feet (0.28 acres). For comparative purposes, the minimum lot width requirement
for an office in both the C and O Districts is 100 feet. The lot width along Jordan Hills Court is
105.86 feet. The development proposal either meets or exceeds these comparative Code
provisions for an office.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Tables 2-704 and 2-1004, there are no minimum setback
requirements for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of
comparison, the minimum setback requirements for an office in the C and O Districts are as
follows:
The building presently exists
with a front setback of
approximately 11.5 feet,
side (north and south) setbacks of 50 feet and 10 feet, respectively, and a rear setback of 14.77
feet. Excluding the front setback, all of these setbacks will be maintained with this proposal and,
as mentioned previously, the 390 square foot addition will be constructed within the "U"-shaped
opening of the building. With regard to the front setback, this application proposes to reduce the
setback further to a distance of 10.41 feet to the face of new decorative columns. These columns
are being provided, and the reduced setback supported, in order to facilitate compliance with the
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria set forth in CDC Sections 2-704.C and 2-
10043.
With regard to that portion of the existing roof overhang located within the C District, CDC
Section 3-908.A.1 permits building projections such as roof overhangs to encroach 10 feet into
any required setback and over street rights-of-way provided such projection be no closer than
five feet from the curbline or shoulder of the roadway. The overhang is only six feet in length
and is five feet from the existing valley curb of Jordan Hills Court.
Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback
C 7District
ict
15 -
15 -
25 feet
35 feet 0 -
10 10 feet
- 20 feet 10 -
10 - 20 feet
20 feet
Community Development Board -August 17, 2010
FLD2010-06005 - Page 3 of 9
With regard to that portion of the existing roof overhang located within the O District, CDC
Section 3-908.A.2 permits building projections such as roof overhangs to encroach 40 percent of
the setback or 10 feet, whichever is less. In this instance 10 feet is the lesser of the two potential
allowances, and the overhang is only six feet in length; thus compliance with this provision is
still achieved.
While the existing front setback as measured to pavement is at zero feet, the amount of area that
will be at this setback is being increased with this proposal. However, this increased area will
result in a substantially improved appearance for the front of the property as rather than having a
small concrete sidewalk as presently exists, the property will have a wide paver brick walkway
with better connectivity to the off-street parking area.
With regard to the off-street parking area, the side (north) setback will be increased from
approximately five feet to 6.41 feet. The rear (west) setback will be reduced from approximately
six feet to three feet; however this reduction is to accommodate the expansion of the landscape
area along Jordan Hills Court which will provide a more meaningful buffer to the area, and to
accommodate the provision of a Code compliant handicap accessible parking space. Given the
above, Staff has no objections to the reduced setbacks.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Tables 2-704 and 2-1004, there is no maximum
allowable height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of
comparison, the allowable building height for offices is 25 feet in the C District and 30 feet in
the O District. The proposed architectural elevation changes will result in a building height of
20.749 feet, which is below what otherwise may be permitted based upon the above Code
provisions.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Tables 2-704 and 2-1004, the minimum required
parking for a Comprehensive M11 Redevelopment Project is determined by the Community
Development Coordinator based on the specifi_c,use. ?Vnd/jr JF Manual standards. The off-street
parking requirement for an office in the C and O Districts is 4 and 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet
of gross floor area, respectively. Based upon the above, that portion of the building within the C
District requires 4.98 parking spaces while that portion in the O District requires 2.95 parking
spaces; thus a total requirement of 7.93 parking spaces. The proposal includes an 8-space off-
street parking lot at the north side of the property.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the existing
driveways, 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 3-1202.13, there is a five-foot wide perimeter buffer
required along the west property line. Presently, the subject property meets this requirement;
however by enlarging the landscape island adjacent to Jordan Hills Court and by restriping the
off-street parking area to accommodate a Code compliant handicap parking space, a 24-foot
Community Development Board - August 17, 2010
FLD2010-06005 - Page 4 of 9
portion of this buffer will be reduced to three feet. This will not, however, have a detrimental
effect upon the landscape plan as the required hedge material and trees will still be provided.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, the perimeter landscape buffers for the entire property are
required to consist of 12 shade trees (one tree every 35 feet). Only six shade trees currently exist
on the property and one additional shade tree (live oak) and two accent trees (crape myrtle) are
proposed to be planted. With these additional trees the total on site will be brought up to eight
shade trees, which is still short of the requirement; however based upon the shape of the subject
property and the size of the existing trees there is no possible located where additional tree could
be planted along the perimeter. As such, Staff supports the request to reduce the number of
perimeter trees from 12 to 8.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.2, foundation plantings shall be provided for 100 percent of a
building fagade with frontage along a street right-of-way, excluding space necessary for building
ingress/egress, within a minimum five-foot wide landscaped area composed of at least two
accent trees (or palm equivalents) for every 40 linear feet of building fagade and one shrub for
every 20square feet of required landscape area. The proposal includes a request to reduce the
foundation landscape area from 5 feet to 4 feet and despite the reduction in width the proposal
will still accommodate all plantings that could otherwise be expected to be installed.
Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.G, the landscaping
requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a
Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with those criteria:
Consistent I Inconsistent
1. Architectural theme:
a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a N/A N/A
part of the architectural theme of the principle buildings proposed or developed on
the parcel proposed for development; or "
I I
b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment X
proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more
attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for
development under the minimum landscape standards.
2. Lighting: Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is X
automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed.
3. Community character: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X
landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater.
4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X
program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
5. Special area or scenic corridor plan: The landscape treatment proposed in the X
comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic
corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in
which the parcel proposed for development is located.
Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject
property.
Community Development Board - Aag st !'/, 2010
FLD2010-06005 - Page 5 of 9
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards of
the CG and R/OG land use categories and the C and O Districts as per CDC Sections 2-701.1, 2-
1001.1, Table 2-704 and Table 2-1004:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
FAR CG 0.55 0.36 X
R/OG 0.50 0.15
ISR CG 0.90 0.42 X
R/OG 0.75 0.74
Minimum Lot Area N/A 10,000 sq. ft. (0.229 acres) X'
Minimum Lot Width N/A 105.86 feet X)
Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A East: Zero feet (to pavement) X'
10.41 feet (to building)
Side: N/A North: 6.41 feet (to pavement) X'
50 feet (to building)
South: 15 feet (to pavement) X'
10 feet (to building)
Rear: N/A West: 3 feet (to pavement) X1
14.77 feet (to building)
Maximum Height N/A 20.749 feet X'
Minimum C District 4 spaces / 1,000 SF GFA 8 parking spaces X
Off-Street Parking O District 3 spaces / 1,000 SF GFA (3.58 spaces / 1,000 SF GFA)
I See analysis in Staff Report
Community Development Board -August 17, 2010
FLD2010-06005 - Page 6 of 9
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility
criteria as per CDC Sections 2-703.C and 2-10043 (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment
Project):
Consistent Inconsistent
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X
the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district.
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X
the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic
planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning
district.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X
development and improvement of surrounding properties.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X
development
5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X
category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the
essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance
with one or more of the following objectives:
a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard,
flexible standard or flexible development use;
b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's
economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs;
c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an
existing economic contributor;
d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing;
e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is
characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan
amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation;
or
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 derrionsirated 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.
Conumnity Development Board -- August 17, 2010
FLD2010-06005 - Page 7 of 9
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, 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.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of July 1, 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 0.28 acre property is located on the west side of the cul-de-sac for Jordan Hills Court;
2. The north half of the property is zoned Office (O) District with an underlying land use plan
category of Residential/Office General (R/OG);
3. The south half of the property is zoned Commercial (C) District with an underlying land use
plan category of Commercial General (CG);
4. The majority of the eastern third of the property is an ingress/egress easement that contains
the paved street Jordan Hills Court;
5. The subject property is currently developed with a 1,841 square foot office, associated off-
street parking and a retention area;
6. The purpose of this application is to construct a 390 square foot addition at the rear of the
existing building that effectively fills-in the opening of the "U"-shaped building while
maintaining the existing side (west) setback of 14.77 feet; and
7. 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 applicable Standards and Criteria as per
Community Development Code Sections 2-701.1, 2-704, 2-1001.1 and 2-1004;
Lomrrtani'cy L,cveiopmet.,. Be a -:Augest I i, 2Gi0
FLD2010-06005 - Page 8 of 9
2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Community
Development Code Sections 2-704.C and 2-1004.B;
3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Community Development Code Section 3-914.A; and
4. That the development proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Landscape Program
criteria as per Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of
the Flexible Development request for a 392 square foot addition to an existing office in the
Commercial (C) and Office (O) Districts with a lot area of 10,000 square feet; a lot width of
105.86 feet; a front (east) setback of zero feet (to pavement) and 10.41 feet (to building); a side
(north) setback of 6.41 feet (to pavement) and 50 feet (to building); a side (south) setback of 15
feet (to pavement) and 10 feet (to building); a rear (west) setback of 3 feet (to pavement) and
14.77 feet (to building); a building height of 21 feet; and 8 off-street parking spaces as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development
Code Sections 2-704.C. and 2-1004.B. as well as a reductions from the required perimeter
landscape buffers from 10 feet to 9 feet (east), and from 5 feet to 3 feet (west); a reduction from
the foundation landscape area from 5 feet to 4 feet; and a reduction of the required perimeter
buffer trees from 12 to 8 as a Comprehensive Landscape Program pursuant to Community
Development Code Section 3-1202.G, with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
17 That any electric and communication panels, boxes, and meters located on the exterior of the
buildings be painted the same color as the building; and
2. That the final design and color of the building shall be consistent with the elevations
approved by the CDB. ?--?
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
Robert G. Te ft,
Development Review Manager
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs
S: (Planning DepartmentlCD BIFLEX (FLD) (Pending casesl Up for the next CDBUordan Hills 1472 (C& O) 2010.08 - RMtaff Report.docx
Community Development Boa m - t-agast ii,- 2C ?v ?r r
FLD2010-06005 - Page 9 of 9
Robert G. Tefft
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
(727) 562-4539
robert.tefft( )myclearwater.com
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
¦ Development Review Manager
City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida August 2008 to Present
Direct Development Review activities for the City. Supervise professional planners, land resource
specialists and administrative staff. Conduct performance reviews. Serve as staff to the Community
Development Board.
¦ Planner III
City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida June 2005 to August 2008
Duties include performing the technical review and preparation of staff reports for various land
development applications, the organization of data and its display in order to track information and
provide status reports, and making presentations to various City Boards and Committees.
¦ Planner II
City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida May 2005 to June 2005
Duties include performing the technical review and preparation of staff reports for various land
development applications, the organization of data and its display in order to track information and
provide status reports.
¦ Senior Planner
City of Delray Beach, Delray Beach, Florida October 2003 to May 2005
Performed technical review of and prepared staff reports for land development applications such as,
,+ 11 n +L m;+ e d d to' Sae Pnl.n.+nc-, onnditinnal iiSec reznninac land use amendments3 and text
VUL 111111 L ) [?")
amendments. Organized data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports.
Make presentations to various City Boards.
Planner
City of Delray Beach, Delray Beach, Florida March 2001 to October 2003
Performed technical review of and prepared staff reports for land development applications such as,
but not limited to: site plans, conditional use and text amendments. Organization of data and its
display in order to track information and provide status reports. Provided in-depth training to the
Assistant Planner position with respect to essential job functions and continuous guidance.
Assistant Planner
City of Delray Beach, Delray Beach, Florida October 1999 to March 2001
Performed technical review of and prepared staff reports for site plan development applications.
Performed reviews of building permit applications. Provided information on land use applications,
ordinances, land development regulations, codes, and related planning programs/services to other
professionals and the public.
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Arts, Geography (Urban Studies), University of South Florida, 1999
ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP
u Ame i,?u: Nonring Association
01
'
, sT PALAPJJO?D
. o 0
•
a ? .:uM?-
:si•• z
.
° m i : E' t4T • Ana iI?ELvoop?3,'
BLVD /
.1;. ' i? ... ...p .
... :
.
?
Z
_n t1i
l
$
:
y??
1 1' '
j,. N},j
:?
t
E? • =474'•
•'.-.:•..' :
?
• °
•?
? ?p1 i5? .: ,F?Q$E. ,•8T' ;z
SC \? IQ _
?/_.. f.-_ ? - - :
?'?'I •'Y' ?' ?.•? _ '?.q.••,• •'y°;x. ••
r EDEN CT
L HiRC I :. ZRM ., . j N
HOWARD
ST
t
-
:
o m W f ,':•:'' '
: •bVSLQWG)
FZD
•
.
I
??? ????: '? ?: ••
- ' ?: ? . ?t??: ?: -: PRO E T
J C
1
SITE
sou
THRID
GE
DR ':.; .
.............. .
.,. ...... .... ..... .
?5F'.?•";'.?y',°?. ?:yam}:;.r:::?'j•:•
. •
-
ON.
514
U {?.-y
V
Location
Owner: Malke, Teresa L THE Empire Management Case: FLD2010-06005
Trust
Site: 1472 Jordan Hills Court Property Size: 0.28 acres
PIN: 23-29-15-44433-000-0040 Atlas Page: 315A
•
•
:: ' :
329 • 1524
4M
•
'
o'
t`
'O
•
• .
moo'
•
2
?° i
.
.
+
, a
i
•
• • ,?
• tr
'?,
1529 1527
1529
RE 1532 1531
'•• ''•
• 1533
1535
rn
•
??•',
'
x.
.?i W
1537
•
Dj". 1533
LM 1541
• 1543
1536 1545
1547
O 1549
1555
1550
I ?
1474 ? v
1472 1557
1471 1559
1561
I
1563
63
1560 1565
, a, 1567
01 1569
C 1571
1573
1575
1577
1579
° v O
inoNiarn rn
BELLEA/R RD
77
. rir.. .
,e.
W
:•t
-'.'•18
.1:
:.
1618
We. - - ... ---- - ?'t62? .. ?-- ..=rein ?"?':'•: ?-....:ixon}: '? . ... ........._. -- - ?. .::?'.-?1.f4i{{:... ::?6`/.?,;'.
Zoning
Owner: Malke, Teresa L THE Empire Management Case: FLD2010-06005
Trust
Site: • 1472 Jordan Hills Court Property Size: 0.28 acres
x
PIN: 23-29-15-44433-000-0040 Atlas Page: 315A
r l
•
•
Y
. 32'
2? $ 1 42, s -
3? . , 30 29 2$ ' : 27
26 ,
5 6 •' '? ,?'. .'. •,' ?•• I'.':; 1525 _a4T 13 _ 1524 o a 1
1-:T 8• 9,'' 91• 12. :asp z
•
' z 3
838 0 ri .. ?
11
• ? 5
- -
_ - -
-
GW .. .
.
T, r- . ... I ... s9' _1529 a?
0
• 1527
1529
_
_ _
M - - ae - - 9 -1-
1?EGA W 2
: 1531
1533
49 a
1 - -
r e i „„ • v ?*'
B ms(s)
80(s)
Rataol 1535
1537
1539
_ _ _
551
•- . ??. ' a • .i°--: ;? I-1
2 g
•16, 15 ,Y4••
13•
?
- - -
1& V
Sales &
1541
1543
,
.
, _ _
.
20 19 .
- - a - 153 1545
2
I- - ^ - L ?
- - ?+
ervices
S
1547
-
- +
i - j 1549
-
-
_
0 1555
O
44435
I
1550
X
8.46 A
C (C)
,
J
4 Ac 5.6 Ac I
00 W
? a
L 1557
1471 1559
1556 1561
Place of 1560 Retail
15
1 6
N
t
N
5
°0
&
Sale 1571
1
Worship ???
5 & 1se
ces (
)
90 1575
rv Servic S 1577 n
1579 n
?? 33ro? 3aioa
a ' a R°d'Oet
' a h
' 90
.?.. M.A!r17M/liilt?M+a;rtaR BELLEAIR RD 1'.
,....,.......,,...?...:?.,;..?.:;.;,,??•.•.
-" :••:?......... :.. 1;:•::_: •::-."?:? •'?;?•.:•. :
'.:..':.. -`?. 100 - •::';:;:•'.:.;,?: ?...._:b7:.:'•:
,
'<`''4"-'•;:1>?:{';.!..';•..1::::::-.19'.: zE(•.26:}:ii;. :. .. - - /
43
..,y?::::.
44
'
,•
:::
+
,.
.. /
. asap •- ...
45
'
'
`
" '
Y
6
9 ::
:
:•r..:
1E13.
i•:'-?:::'? `.tifi1.?`::::.;:
: :: :'::::.: :•:..:.:•:'-:':•21:::.':'
.`.:f .r';,:"; ...... ;: 00 .
,
?`:::i:' i;:'•;
:.;':
::.::::y :;:i_
'::::
i
46 1
Existing Surrounding Uses
Owner: Malke, Teresa L THE Empire Management Case: FLD2010-06005
Trust
Site: 147-2 J?adan Hills Court _ Property Size: 0.28 acres _
PIN: 23-29-15-44433-000-0040 Atlas Page: 315A
Looking west from Jordan Hills Court toward
existing building.
Looking south from Jordan Hills Court toward
property to the south. -
,,,,??55 aw r,
Looking east from the parking area of the subject
property.
Looking west from Jordan Hills Court toward
existing parking area.
Looking south along the rear of the existing building.
m.,
Looking southeast from the parking area of the
subject property.
1472 Jordan Hills Court
FLD2010-06005
Clearwater
Planning Department
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 33756
Telephone: 727-562-4567
Fax: 727-562-4865
? SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION
? SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION - Plans and
application are required to be collated, stapled, and folded into sets
? SUBMIT FIRE PRELIMARY SITE PLAN: $200.00
? SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE $ 1,21-00
Dr. Stephen Kobernick, D.D.S., PA
* 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:
MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE NUMBER:
CELL NUMBER
PROPERTY OWNER(S)
List ALL owners on the deed
AGENT NAME:
MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE NUMBER:
CELL NUMBER:
Please use agent
agent FAX NUMBER:
EMAIL: agent
MALKE, TERESA L TREEMPIRE MANGEMENT TRUST
Todd Pressman
x 6015, Palm r, n a 34684
727-804-1760 FAX NUMBER: 1-888-977-1179
same EMAIL: Pressinc@aol.c
B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A)
PROJECT NAME:
STREET ADDRESS
PARCEL NUMBER(S):
PARCEL SIZE (acres):
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PROPOSED USE(S):
Kobernick Dentist Office
1472 Jordon Hills Ct.
CASE #:
RECEIVED BY (staff initials):
DATE RECEIVED:
PROJECT VALUATION: $ 350,000
PARCEL SIZE (square feet):
please see survev (JORDAN HILLS LOT 4)
Dentist office
Flexible Development request for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project to permit a 392 SF addition to existing
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: office use in the Commercial (C) and Office (O) districts with a lot area of 10,000 SF, a lot width of 143.46', 8 proposed
paddng spaces and a pLQposed building height of 20'9" and a front (east) setback of 0' ao pavement) and a front (east)
Specifically identify the request setback of 8' (to building) a side (north) setback of 4' (to pavement) and a rear (west) setback of 14.77' (to building) as a
(include number of units or square Comp. -
footage of non-residential use and all reduction to the required front (east) landscape buffer from 10' to 1.5', the side (north) landscape buffer from 5' to 4', the rear
requested code deviations; e.g. (west) landscape buffer from 5' to 3', the front (east) required foundation landscaping from 5' to 2', a reduction of the
reduction in required number of ° as a Comp.
parking spaces, specific use, etc.) Landscape Program as per CDC Section 3-1202.G. Some dimensions may change with future revisions or parking area.
C:\Documents and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 1 of 8
DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TRR), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNI
DEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTIFIED) SITE PLAN? YES _ NO _ (if yes, attach a copy of the applicable documents)
C. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP: (Code Section 4-202.A.5)
IX SUBMIT A COPY OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY, DEED TO THE PROPERTY OR SIGN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING OVIMERSHIP (see
page 7)
D.
?
1. WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 3-913.A)
Provide complete responses to the six (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA- Explain ow each criteria is achieved, in detail:
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.
The area is tightly developed along a cul-de-sac roadway that causes unique circumstances in regard to placement and appears
i exi
meets the scale, bulk, coverage and density and character of the immediate area's bldgs.. Critically. no further imposition will be
with this proposal, the request for setbacks meets exactly what is existing at the building now.
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.
What is proposed is already existing and the small rear area to be filled in will be meeting the same existing setback as currently
The proposal here will not change the basic office use which is office in the vicinity. This proposal will be an improvement to
immediate area. This will be an encouragement for more appropriate development.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use.
The use is homogenous and the same as what is occurring in the immediate area and will reside in a building of similar
stature astyle an size,
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion.
The office use is a use that is prescribed and has been active in this little development since the immediate area was developed
i
i
The use as proposed is what wasdesigned to be
n this area and the toafficgeneiated w
ll be simila, and acceptable fbi pa ng
and for the number of trips to be generated.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
What is proposed is a small filling in of the existing office building and will be in conformance with the size, style and
i
i
i
l
i
cha.acte. of the area. With a s
gn
ficant improvement of the buildiFrJ and landscaping, th
s building shou
d be a fine add
! n
and improvement of the area.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on
adjacent properties.
All activities are office related - as is the immediate area. All activity will occur to the interior.
ice of
ting and
K=n ing
KIStS.
he
C:0ocuments and Settings%derek.fergusonY)esktoplplanning dept forms 07081Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 2 of 8
WRITyLN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria)
ta' /Provide complete responses to the sic (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.
The existing building, as it is existing, does not meet setback criteria. This is mostly due to the development being a tight site a
existence of the cul-de-sac right in front of this building, in which warps how the setbacks affect the site.
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
The use is permissible by lode and the site is surrounded by similar offices uses. The use int hsi location mets the Comp. Plan
and the planning directives.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties.
Since the surrounding area is already developed - and there have been no issues - the orderly development has occurred and
surrounding bw sumeMl and 011 allow any improvernefit MW 15 WshM by site problem,
rather it will be an asset
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development.
Again, the site is homogenous with all the surrounding uses, it is what was planned for the area and will stay in conformance
surrounding uses and the planned direction of the vicinity.
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.
a. yes. b. yes, this is a very busy dental practice with many employees. c. This is an expansion of a dean and higher tech opera
d. not applicable. e. This is exactly correct for this application. f. not applicable.
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:
DX Changes in horizontal building planes;
?X Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.;
?X Variety in materials, colors and textures;
?X Distinctive fenestration patterns;
OX Building stepbaccs; and
? Distinctive roofs forms.
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate butters, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings.
a. there cannot be any impedement by the nature of what is requested. b. This is correct and there will be substantial improvemen
to the architecture and landscaping. c. The building matches these components of the area.
i the
h the
on.
s made
C:\Documents and Settingslderek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 3 of 8
E. STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria
Manual and 4-202.A.21)
A STORMWATER NARRATIVE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH ALL APPLICATIONS. All applications that involve addition
or modification of impervious surface, including buildings, must include a storm ter plan that demonstrates compliance with the City of
CI rwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual. A reduction in impervious surface are not qualify as an exemption to this requirement.
If a plan is not required, the narrative shall provide an explanation as to why the site is exempt. l 0U (A,
At a minimum, the STORMWATER PLAN shall include the following; 1 a??a ?G ' ` re?e?
Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines;
Proposed grading including finished floor elevations of all structures;
Zf1 All adjacent streets and municipal stonn 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 Ghed- At a minimum, a grading plan and finished floor
471 / 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) 5624750.
F. S PPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 4-202.A)
}SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (including legal description of property) - One original and 14 copies;
SURVEY (including existing trees on site and within 25' of the adjacent site, by species, size (DBH 4" or greater), and location,
rig 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;
MAP OF THE PROPERTY;
PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards lie. 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 engineers pn iples. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not
de iations to the parking standards are approved; ` vc f"e _D ?Wfl?e O ?-
G DING PLAN, as applicable; K j (• G? ;;P LIMINARY PLAT, as required (Note: Building permits will not be issued until evidence of recording a final plat is provided);
COPY OF RECORDED PLAT, as applicable;
C:\Documents and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 4 of 8
G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A)
? SITE LAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36"):
sheet referencing individual sheets included in package;
row;
ar
r9fth
bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet), and date prepared;
and size of all EXISTING buildings and structures;
and size of all PROPOSED buildings and structures;
mired setbacks;
existing and proposed points of access;
squired sight triangles;
Iantification 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;
cation of all street rights-of-way within and adjacent to the site;
j-eda'ion of existing public and private utilities, including fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes and lift stations, gas
and water lines;
spaces, driveways, loading areas and vehicular use areas;
piction by shading or crosshatching of all required parking lot interior landscaped areas;
Lo n 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);
tion of all landscape material;
lion of all onsite and offsite storm-water management facilities;
n of all outdoor lighting fixtures;
ovation of all existing and proposed sidewalks; and
FI an typicals of buildings for all Level Two approvals. A floor plan of each floor is required for any parking garage requiring a
evel Two approval.
rEEXISTING UIRED 'Jll t PROPOSED
Land rea in square feet and acres; ,?? t( t
umber of EXISTING dwelling units; ?- ?-
? SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in written/tabular form:
--?-Alumber of PROPOSED dwelling units;
f -'expressed in square feet & percentage of the paved vehicular area; ?-- ?
Gross floor area devoted to each use;
Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular form with the -?i
_,_-number of required spaces; ? .-
?al paved area, including all paved parking spaces 8 driveways,
Official records book and page numbers of all existing utility
ea ent;
ui ng and structure heights; ,r---
Impermeable surface ratio (I.S.R.); and
oor 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; {?C
Offsite elevations if required to evaluate the proposed stormwater management for the parcel;
All open space areas;
Location of all earth or water retaining walls and earth berms;
Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned);
Streets and drives (dimensioned);
Building and structural setbacks (dimensioned);
Structural overhangs;
C:1Documents and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 5 of 8
H. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-1102.A)
? LANDSCAPE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36"):
existing and proposed structures;
es of abutting streets;
;??.r
inage and retention areas including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations;
a
Deineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscape buffers;
Sight visibility triangles;
Delineation and dimensions of all parking areas including landscaping islands and curbing;
fisting trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and locations, including driplines (as indicated on required
tree survey);
cation, size, and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant
schedule;
nt 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;
pical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants including instructions, soil mixes, backfilling, mulching and
_ protective measures;
error landscaping areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressing in both square feet and
_ ntage covered;
itions of a previous development approval (e.g. conditions imposed by the Community Development Board);
Irrigation notes.
COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8'/z 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:
sides o II buildings
imensioned
rs (provide one full sized set of colored elevations)
rials
REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATIONS -same as above to scale on 8'/2 X 11
r
J. SIGNAGE: (Division 19. SIGNS /Section 3-1806) ? ?? O•?
All EXISTING freestanding and attached signs; Provide photographs and dimensions (area, height, etc.), indicate whether they wil be
removed or to remain. ?vy
??ROPOSED freestanding and attached signs; Provide details including location, size, height, colors, materials and ;r ip 1
freestanding signs shall include the street address (numerals)
? Comprehensive Sign Program application, as applicable (separate application and fee required). 0 /
Reduced signage proposal (8 % X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application.
C:\Documents and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 6 of 8
K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4-202.A.13 and 4-801.C)
Includl4rred 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)
R r to Section 4-801 C of the Community Development Code for exceptions to this requirement.
1]' 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
STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED,
SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR.
IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A TRAFFIC IMPACT
APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND
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 2004-15Iarga- Fire Prevention Code to include NFPA 13, MFPA 14, NFPA 20, NFPA 291, and MFPA 1142 (Annex H) is required.
Acknowledgement of fire flow calculations/water study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following)
Fire Flow 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 undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made
in this application are true and accurate to the best of my
knowledge auth Z4 City representatives to visit and
phot h the pp Oepcxibed in,this application.
of property
STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINE LAS
Swggyyn? to and subscribed before me this day of
I L I t A.D-M E to me and/or by
is personally known has
prod 1.
as identification.
Notary pu 1"" °y?k JARED R. M
My commission expires: , A ? . MY COMMISSION k
Bonded Thru Notary Public
)687319
2011
and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 7 of 8
esa 4UN No RAMCO FORM is
?Retaa le: (en*se so-s weliow :guyed elntew")
JOHN MORGAN BRUNSON. ESQ.
•1474 Jordan Hills Court INST N 95-090401
Clearwater, FL 34616 APR 18, 1995 5:12PM
Tw Mlbelnettt Rpwed by: JOHN MORGAN BRUNSI
1474 Jordan Hills Court
Clearwater, FL 34616
Parcel I.D. 023/29/15/44433/000/0040
Grantees S.S. -
tRr-co; )t'<J
(F.C -
I
1'lT --
m ..
41, .
4G
ter
ir11'AI ?,•_
PINELLAS COUNTY FLA.
OFF.REC.SK 8967 PG 1717
t-? VW AIM TO LN Pon FIIOCUM "111 9MIC AIM AI TM (We Poe 9=0111ele DATA
Rk Quft-calm Dint, 14mulod Ibis /gx,ty of April , A. D. l9 95 , by
TERESA L. MALKE, as Trustee, with full power and authority to assign, hypothecate,--
elease. satisfy or foreclose, and TERESA L. MALKE, individually,
-
I PaHy,Io TERESA OtALKE, as Trustee of the Empire Manaqement Trust under trust, ;
agreement dated Nov. 1, 1986, with full power and authority to protect, conserveif ant;
to sell, 10 ax leas F,, or otherwise manage and dispose of the real property dgcM 4d
w we poatofFln er rnra is 1472 Jordan Hills Court, Clearwater. FL 34616 - -herein. `
second Party:
(Wierewer awed herd- tAr anN '•Ihn ry•• aaJ •'.rra,p pan{• wrap lerludr .MtroMr a,ti olwd, Rein, IrW ' ` r t
npn.r!t?huhtior, y,d .uia., .t I,dlvwwY, tart dr wcnww. aad ewers .1 nrperatwa, r?irewr t4 caetnt ' , ,
w adtalN M tageuew) ,
MUSSA, Thal Ibis said first party, for and fit consideration of this sum of S 10.00--------
in hand paid by the saki second party, the receipt whereof Is hereby acknowlet?gedt does hereby nmles, re-
lease and quit-claim unto the said second party forester, all the right, title, Inf.rar chtim and d"nd which
the said first party has in and to the followlitg described hat, piece or parcel of land.'a(fisale, ly(ri((and being
In the County of Pinellas state of Florida,'--_
, lo:u,lio',
Lot 4 of JORDAN HILLS SUBDIVISION accordi`h to?tKe'map or plat thereof
as recorded in Plat Book 82 at Page,31 0 ?t q Popl,ic Records of Pinellas
County, Florida.
t
This property is not first party's h9nlpstrat(.
THIS IS A CORRECTIVE DEEDGIVEN TO ORReO AM'AN'0D6fTY IN TITLE.
'T0 Not ad to V010 t
t this soma fallallsnr urllh all and singular the appurtenances Ihttnunlo
holanaina M In mskulf,e apporialorift, and all the esiale. ritihl, title, Inloresf, lion, equity and claim what.
sooner of Ihn sa?cl flrsl parly?eilljth fn Into or oquoy, to Ihn only proper cost, henaftl and behoof of the said
socancl?parly Jorsbta> ` ? ' - -
?d• HptSf _ fltl'COf, The sold first party furs slfilled will settled these presents the day and year
f iral abOihe uhrltton. _
Signett Ytealta! and dolwerad in presonce at;
d? ?d
. .... an
?, e
. ...........
A L.'
... .. :.. Al ArY rill?vl&W y .................
STATE OF FLORIDA, 1
(a)ual•-Y OF PINELLAS t
1 IIF•REDY CEK9'IFY that on this day, IKMrr me, an
nffierr duty authodird in the Stair sfurrmid and in the County aforesaid to take arkrtawledamrncs, penhotally appeared
TERESA L. MALKE. as Trustee, and Individually. who is personally known to me,
tit one, known m Iw the prrwn drarahrd in and who exrcuted dm- lurequive instrument and she acknowirdtled
before me that she rsrruted the aanw, and she did not take an oath.
WITNESS my hand anti official seal in the County and State tau aforesaid this day of
April A 95. MWM MMEY
`'k rnco?rAr.Satuar> txiwur. !i?i.?.?.-.
!;Js:. r ?N.199t
. a't'' pwehatnal ttw laattGMMa.ss:
t?
t,
,
m
s
v
law&
Amb
M
PINELLAS COU"y FLA.
OFF.RZC.BK 8967 4G 1718
,
,
I-
9C178095 SJW M-18-1993 16:58:32
01 DED-W.LKE TR
RECORDING 1 $6.00
DOC SUMP - DRM 3 $.70
TOW 66.70
CHECK MT. TENDERED: $6.70
CFV`XGF-: 6.0D
,
CITY OF CLEARWATER
I- AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING. 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, god FLOOR
PHONE (727)-562-4567 FAX (727) 5624576
`Tk'C?sT
X leg?s,4 i-
(Name of all property owners)
1. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property:
1472 Jordan Hills Court
(Address or General Location)
2. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a:
Comprehensive Infill Application
(Nature of request)
3. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (doestdo) appoint Todd Pressman, Pres. Pressman
& Associates, Inc. as well as Joe Oliver! and Scott Hamilton of Oliveri Architects.
as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition;
4. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act
on the above described property;
5. That (I/we), the undersigned authority,
is true
STATE OF FLORIDA,
COUNTY OF PINELLAS
Before me the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned by the laws of the State of Florida, on this rQ7??day of
, x010 personally appeared e_ L , ?M n ( k- .p who having been first duly swom
depo nd says that he/she fully understands the contents of the affidavit that he/she signed.
?I'70w,
My Commission Expires: SUSAN L STIU.EY
MY COMMISSION # DO 940811
'•i i
+.. • ?'; EXPIRES: Mardi 24, 2011
BWdMThmNOWY Pubk wftw m
S: application forms/development review/
LL Planning Department
° 100 South Myrtle Avenue
irwater Clearwater, Florida 33756
Telephone: 727-562-4567
Fax: 727-5624865
MIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION
!3 SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE
ORIGINAL APPLICATION -Plans and
application are required to be collated, stapled and folded into sets
CASE NUMBER:
RECEIVED BY (Staff Initials):
DATE RECEIVED:
* NOTE: A TOTAL OF 15 SETS OF THIS APPLICATION AND ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED IN
CONJUNCTION WITH A COMPLETE LEVEL ONE OR LEVEL TWO APPLICATION.
COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM
(Revised 04/24/2007)
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT-
APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A)
APPLICANT NAME: Dr. Stephen kobernick, dds, a
MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE NUMBER: FAX NUMBER:
CELL NUMBER: EMAIL:
PROPERTY OWNER(S): Malke Teresa I tree empire management trust
List ALL owners on the deed
AGENT NAME: Todd pressman
MAILING ADDRESS: .o. box 6015
PHONE NUMBER: 727-804-1760 FAX NUMBER: 1-888-977-1179
CELL NUMBER: 727-804-1760 EMAIL: ressinc aol.com
1. ARCHITECTURAL THEME:
The landscaping in a Comprehensive Landscape Program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings
proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for the development.
The landscape is in concert with local development maximizing landscape treatment and
enhancing architectural themes. The landscape has been planned with regard to drainage
patterns, underground and overhead utilities, and to reduce pedestrian and vehicular
conflicts.
OR
b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall be
demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape
standards.
Page 1 of 2
2. COMMUNITY CHARACTER:
The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater.
The landscape was enhanced to meet requirements without the disruption of building function,
drainage and utilities. In addition, careful planning included enhancing the preservation efforts
to save as many existing trees and landscape on site as possible.
3. PROPERTY VALUES:
The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will have a beneficial impact on the value of the property in the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
The landscape treatment will provide beneficial impact and value by providing aesthetically
pleasing views while providing climate control for buildings and reducing the effects of heat
islands within parking areas. In addition, the preservation of existing tree canopy and landscape
as well as reducing sod areas will reduce unnecessary irrigation demand on limited water
resources.
4. SPECIAL AREA OR SCENIC CORRIDOR PLAN:
The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which
the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located.
THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 3, DIVISION 12 MAY BE WAIVED OR MODIFIED AS A PART OF A LEVEL ONE OR LEVEL
TWO APPLICATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IF THE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL INCLUDES A COMPREHENSIVE
LANDSCAPE PROGRAM, WHICH SATISFIES THE ABOVE CRITERIA. THE USE OF LANDSCAPE PLANS, SECTIONS I ELEVATIONS,
RENDERINGS AND PERSPECTIVES MAY BE NECESSARY TO SUPPLEMENT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WORKSHEET.
SIGNATURE:
I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in
this application are true and accurate to the best of my
knowledge a prize City representatives to visit and
phot" the 09 esSjibed in this application.
owner or
STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS
Swo to and subscribed before me this .30 day of
A.D. 20 to me and/or by
who is personally known has
produced
apai if cation.
jubli My comn expires : A,,5 21, Z o i(S
CHRISTOPHER CAD21,2010
Notary Public - State • _My Commission Expires ' Commission # DD Bonded By National NPage 2 of 2
AA - 0002921
Date: July 9, 2010
To: Development Review Committee
City of Clearwater
100 So. Myrtle Ave.
Clearwater, FL 33756
Re: Case Number: FLD2010-06005
1472 Jordan Hills Ct
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this letter in response to your Plan Review Comments for the above-referenced
project dated July 1, 2010.
Traffic Eng. Review
Comment #1: Provide dimensions for a typical parking stall, accessible parking stall and drive
aisle.
Response #1: See Revised Sheet AS1.
Comment #2: Provide current City of Clearwater's accessible parking stall and sign details use
index 118 and 119 see link provided.
(http://www myclearwater.com/aov/depts/pwa/engin/Production/stddel/index.asp
Response #2: See Revised Sheet AS1, Details A,B.
Comment #3: Pedestrian access from the parking lot to the building's accessible entrance shall
be compliant with Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction Chapter
11.
Response #3: See Revised Sheet AS1.
Comment #4: Depict on the plans 20' x20' sight triangles at each driveway per Community
Development Code Sec. 3-904A. There shall be no objects in the sight triangle
which do not meet the City's vertical height criteria between 30 inches and 8 feet
above grade.
Response #4: See Revised Sheet AS1.
General Notes:
General Note #1: Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance
and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.).
Page 1 of 6
32707 US Hwy. 19 • Palm Harbor, FL 34684 0 Phone 727 • 781 • 7525 • Fax 727 - 781 • 6623 • E-mail design@oliveriarchitects.com
General Note #2: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments
may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application.
Fire Review
No Comments
Planning Review
Comment #1: As per page 5 of 8 Site on the Flexible Development, Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment, application site plan does not call out all requested setbacks.
Include the following dimensions on site plan:
Front (east) setback of 0 feet to pavement
Front (east) setback of 8 feet to building
Side (north) setback of 4 feet to pavement
Rear (west) setback of 3 feet to pavement
Rear (west) setback of 15 feet to building
Actual dimensions may be slightly different, these were gained through the site
plan and a scale. It is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the most accurate
representation of the setback reductions requested.
Response #1: See Revised Sheet AS1.
Comment #2: As per page 5 of 8 Site on the Flexible Development, Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment, application site plan does not include all sight visibility triangles.
Response #2: See Revised Sheet AS1.
Comment #3: As per page 5 of 8 Site on the Flexible Development, Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment, application site plan does not include all solid waste containers,
recycling or trash handling areas.
Response #3: See Revised Sheet AS1.
Comment #4: As per page 5 of 8 Site on the Flexible Development, Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment, application site plan does not include all outdoor lighting
fixtures. Also note that Section 3-1202.G.2. any lighting proposed as a part of a
comprehensive landscape program shall be automatically controlled so that the
lighting is turned off when the business is closed.
Response #4: See Revised Sheet AS1.
Comment #5: As per page 5 of 8 Site on the Flexible Development, Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment, application site plan does not floor plan. Provide floor plan.
Response #5: See Revised Sheet AS1.
Page 2 of 6
Comment #6: Site plans (8.5 x 11 version) show a discrepancy with the handicap parking.
Revise.
Response #6: See Revised Sheet AS1 and (8.5 x 11) Sheet AS2.
Comment #7: Site plan data table does not include a column calling out the existing area, the
proposed addition area, the proposed gross for the use in Office District and in
the Commercial District. Example:
Office District: XX existing, XX proposed addition, 991 sq. ft. gross proposed
Comm. District: XX existing, XX proposed addition, 1230 sq. ft. gross proposed
Response #7: See Table, Sheet AS1.
Comment #8: Discrepancy between survey and site plan regarding the 10 foot easement as
measured from the ingress/egress access. Site plan shows the 10 feet to be
further west than the survey. Revise.
Response #8: See Revised Sheet AS1.
Comment #9: Site plan data table lists one dwelling unit. The CDC defines a dwelling unit as a
building or portion of a building providing independent living facilities for one
family including provision for living, sleeping and complete kitchen facilities.
Clarify if there is indeed one dwelling unit on the property.
Response #9: See Table, Sheet AS1.
Comment #10: Site plan data table shows that the proposed impermeable Surface Ratio for
Office District as.78 where.75 is the maximum allowed. There is no flexibility for
ISR. Provide area calculations including the lot area in O District, the impervious
area in the O District, and the pervious area in the O District. The parking
dimensions on the site plan indicate that the parking spaces are 10' by 20' where
9'x 18' are required. Reducing the parking area to the minimum size required
may reduce the impervious area.
Response #10: See Table, Sheet AS 1.
Comment #11: Site plan indicates that the handicap parking space is 11' wide where 12' is
required. Revise parking.
Response #11: See Sheet AS1, Detail B
Comment #12: Landscape plans show a discrepancy with the handicap parking. Revise
Response #12: See revised Landscape drawing and response letter.
Page 3 of 6
Comment #13: Landscape plan shows a proposed Quercus Virginian (Live Oak) on the side
(north) buffer that is not 5 feet from impervious area. Propose two accent trees
or three palms in this location instead.
Response #13: See revised Landscape drawing and response letter.
Comment #14: Tree inventory suggests removing the Sabal palmetto on the west buffer.
Landscape plan indicates tree will remain. Remove palm.
Response #14: See revised Landscape drawing and response letter.
Comment #15: The landscape plan indicates two Christmas Palms with 8' of clear trunk. 10' of
clear trunk is the minimum required. Revise.
Response #15: See revised Landscape drawing and response letter.
Comment #16: Landscape plan indicates two Christmas Palms whereas three palms are
required to equal one shade tree. Add another Christmas Palm in the same
general area.
Response #16: See revised Landscape drawing and response letter.
Comment #17: Landscape plan indicates 3,339 sq ft of interior landscape area. Interior
landscape area does not include perimeter buffers and foundation landscaping.
There is roughly 184.5 sq ft of interior landscaping. Revise.
Response #17: See revised Landscape drawing and response letter.
Comment #18: Provide details (material, height) for the proposed fence.
Response #18: See Revised Sheet AS1. The proposed fence has been removed.
Comment #19: Indicate location of existing utilities on site. Section 3-912 indicates that all
utilities shall be placed underground.
Response #19: See Revised Sheet AS1.
Comment #20: The proposed columns and roof overhang encroach into the existing 10 utility
easement. Remove columns.
Response #20: Columns have been relocated out of easement. See Revised Sheets AS1
and Al. Also see Sheets (8.5 x 11) Ala - Al d.
Comment #21: Site plan data table indicates 8 parking spaces are required, revise table to show
required parking for existing square footage and required parking for proposed
square footage.
Page 4 of 6
Response #21: See Table, Sheet AS1.
Comment #22: On page 1 of 8 on the Flexible Development, Comprehensive Infill
Redevelopment, application change Description of Request to:
Flexible Development request for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project
to permit a 392 sq ft addition to an existing office use in the Commercial (C)
District and Office (O) District with a lot area of 10,000 sq ft, a lot width of 143.46
ft, 8 proposed parking spaces, and a proposed building height of 20'9" and a
front (east) setback of zero ft (to pavement) and a front (east) setback of 8 ft (to
building) a side (north) setback of 4 ft (to pavement) and rear (west) setback of 3
ft (to pavement) and a rear (west) of 14.77 ft (to building) as a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development
Code (CDC) sections 2-704.C. and 2-1004.6 as well as a reduction to the
required front (east) landscape buffer from 10 ft to 1.5 ft, the side (north)
landscape buffer from 5 ft to 4 ft, the rear (west) landscape buffer from 5 ft to 3 ft,
the front (east) required foundation landscaping from 5 ft to 2 ft, a reduction of
the required perimeter buffer trees from 12 to 7, and a reduction to the required
interior landscape from 10% to 4% as a Comprehensive Landscape Program as
per CDC Section 3-1202.G. Some dimensions may change with future revisions
or parking area.
Response #22: See application.
Land Resource Review
Comment #1: Place a note on plans to perform proper pruning cuts to ANSI 300 standards prior
to building permit.
Response #1: See revised Landscape drawing and response letter.
Comment #2: Place a note on the plans to hand clear existing vegetation to be removed under
the canopies of existing trees prior to building permit.
Response #2: See revised Landscape drawing and response letter.
Engineering Review
Prior to review by the Community Development Board:
Comment #1: If the value of construction exceeds 50% of the assessed value of the property as
determined by the Pinellas County Property Appraiser, sidewalk(s) shall be
installed within all right-of-way(s) adjacent to this site per City's Standards and
Specifications, and shall be installed prior to issuance of a C.O. per Community
Development Code Section 3-1701. Revise site plan accordingly.
Response #1: Applicant is opting to donate funds in lieu of constructing a sidewalk per
discussions with Steve Doherty in Engineering.
Page 5 of 6
Prior to the issuance of a C.O.:
Comment #1: Need to install Amalgam separator prior to C.O. (required for all dentist offices).
Response #1: See Revised Sheet Al. General Notes.
General Note #1: All resubmittals shall be accompanied with a response letter addressing how
each department condition as been met.
General Note #2: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-
specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity
requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at
their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed,
the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in
accordance with Fire Department requirements.
General Note #3: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building permit review: additional comments
may be forthcoming upon submittal of a building permit application.
Stormwater Review
The following shall be addressed prior to issuance of Building Permit:
Comment #1: Contractor shall clean the existing storm water management system and restore
it to a permitted condition as needed.
Response #1: See revised Sheet AS1.
General Notes
General Note #1: All resubmittals shall be accompanied with a response letter addressing how
each department condition as been met.
General Note #2: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments
may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely yours,
OLIVERI AR HITEGTSr f -M-, 9 . 201 0
nn_nnh?a?l f 11
Joseph L. liveri, AIA, NCARB?
A..... --
President
JLO/jc
Page 6 of 6
C-F)A COPLEY DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC.
1666 Laney Drive - Palm Harbor - Florida - 34683 - Phone 727 787-2840
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE - SITE PLANNING
PALM HARBOR, FLORIDA MOHRSVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA
License # LA-0001483 License # LA-001396-R
June 10, 2010
City of Clearwater
Planning and Development Department
P.O. Box 4748
Clearwater, FL 33758
RE: FLD2010-06005 -1472 Jordan Hills Court - Revisions Responses
Review Comments from Traffic Engineering Review
Response to item #4:
Sight triangles have been added to sheets L-1 and IR-1
Review Comments from Planning Review
Response to item #6:
Handicap parking overlay issued revised on sheet L-1 and IR-1.
Response to item #12:
Handicap parking overlay issued revised on sheet L-1 and IR-1.
Response to item # 13:
One proposed Oak tree removed and two Crape Myrtle trees added to sheet L-1.
Response to item #14:
Palm shown to be removed on sheet L-1.
Response to item #15:
Christmas palms revised - proposed to be 10' c.t.. on sheet L-1
Response to item #16:
One additional Christmas Palm proposed to bring count to a total of three on Sheet L-1.
Response to item #17:
Calculation revised on sheet L-1.
Review Comments from Land Resource Review
ReVonse to item # 1:
Pruning note was added to General Landscape Notes sheet D-1.
Response to item #2:
"Hand Clearing" note was added to General Landscape Notes sheet D-1.
Additional minor revisions were made to the plans to coordinate with Civil
Engineer's/Architect's base plan.
Sincerely'' -\
Drew`C-opley, MLA
Registered Landscape Architect
COPLEY DESIGN ASSOCIATES
?s
r
v
mmmr--
. ?
1
Pfallaeed Hew ® 2010 OLIVEM ARCHITECTS.
Denial Offloe For ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED
KOBERNICK IN THIS DRAWING IS THE AA 0002921
4 s PERIODONTICS SOLE PROPERTY OF M=bcrof tlrAmerim bwtMrte of Ards twW
D N 1472 Jordan HIM Ct OLIVERI ARCRITECTS. 92707 o3 Hwy. t9 • Fain Horbw. FL 91894
. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Peam 727.781.7525 • Fax 727.781. ipn fthvwiwch# damn
c Florida
Clearwater,
Oda 07. 12 W
W # : WA Proposed New Dental Office for ® 2010 0 ARCHITECTS.
0i?"^TM BfJi HE
KOBERNICK PERIODONTICS IN "L`' THIS I"F°R" DRA1fING I3 no Is no
wn oaoae2i
1478 Jordan Hills Cf. o?R1 ARC W'" US? 1 "'?
6hmt Clearwater, Florida AU RIGHTS RESBRM. Phom 727.781.7= • Fax 727.781.6628 • Bmr" &etp fo°"er?h"avcom
Al (3 . -.ouverurdiltwu corn .
EXTERIOR MATERIALS:
? EAST -TEXTURED STUCCO WALLS
O 1 11 11 -STONE BASE
SGALE= N.t.B. -ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING
-PAINTED WOOD FASCIA
Oahu 07. 12 10
W : K,A Proposed New Dental Office for @ 2010 °LIVERI ARCHITECTS.
ALL IN? 7HI3 R>DRA111WIRANG CONTAINED IS THE S THE
DIM SEN KOBERNICK PERIODONTICS
AA 0002821
John 10-ne SOLE PROPERTY OF Manlier of the Anarim humo of nnchftcu
1478 Jordan Hills Ct. °LIVERI ARCMMCTS. $2707 US Hwy. 1a Peim Harbor, FL 9468
?Alb ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Phcm 727.781.7525 • Fax 777.781.6629 • Bernal dmgn 0ohvvivchnecw mn
.
Clearwater, Florida .,..r,,4hve1achlt«xu=
Dubc 07. 12. 10
„f,, ; N/A Proposed New Dental Office for ® 2010 OLIVERI ARCHITECTS.
`1t i CONTAINED
Q'O"'^t 8EN N TTHIS ATHIS DRAWIPING I3 THE AA OW2921
K O B E R N I C K PERIODONTICS I
SOLE PROPERTY OF Manlier of the Anima ImMuts of Aedtthcls
?°` 'o-? 1478 Jordan Hills Ct. OLIVERI ARCHITECTS. 32707 Us Hwy. 19 • PWm Hmbor. FL 3168
91twt I AIL RIGHTS RESERVED. Phou 727.781.7525 • Fu 727. 781. 6623 • E nmil deem 0ouvema cdnectscm
1 Clearwater, Florida ouvertarcilltect3'Cam.
DAM 07. 12 10
MTf : wA Proposed New Dental Office for ® 2010 OLIVSRI ARCHITECTS.
ALL
IN THIS AT I DRAWING CONTAINED IS S TH
?""w Sll TH
f{i8 E
KOBERNICK PERIODONTICS
SOLE PROPERTY OF Member of the A wri= Imrnute of Architects
?°` ' °??° 1478 Jordan Hills Ct. oI.IVERI ARCHITECTS. =07 U.S H". 18 • Palm F vtm, M 3468
1*"Al ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Phcae 771.781.7528 • Fax 727.781.5623 • Email &vVn fbltvv1smhttecW=n
Clearwater, Florida •w nllverlarchltectscnm
4119 $gas I.... 1.._.i?
liin $Ise% at*-
ilr I IMP1111 for
2 (fit [fill [it
Q a _ roo
'l }}}} }}}}} tFii €?
Fn ? iFFF iiFii RF?t
KKK4 ttKKK ?} •? ??
lilt tittl 4R ?f ??
RR
titt ttitl iiii f I i?
COPLEY DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. Landscape Development Plan -
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE- SITE PLANNING KOBERNICK DENTAL OFFICE
n»uw
"'??wM?M ?"?"'??» 1742 JORDAN HILLS COURT, QfNWA7H7, FLORDA