FLD2010-07002; 2135 COACHMAN RD NE; CLINICAL RESEARCH OF WEST FLORIDAFLD2010-07002
213 5 NE COACHMAN RD
Date Received: 7/2/2010 3:45:00 PM
Clinical Research of West Florida
ZONING DISTRICT:
LAND USE:
ATLAS PAGE: 280B
PLANNER OF RECORD: WW
PLANNER: Wayne Wells, Planner III
CDB Meeting Date: September 21, 2010
Case Number: FLD2010-07002
Agenda Item: D.2.
Owner/ Applicant: Patrick J. Fl ny?n
Representative: Braulio Gra?jales, High Point Engineering
Address: 2135 NE Coachman Road
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit office and medical
clinic uses in a building totaling 4,060 square-feet of floor area in
the Office (O) District with a lot area of 17,500 square feet (0.402
acre), a lot width of 100 feet, a front (north) setback of 15 feet (to
pavement), a side (east) setback of eight feet (to building), six feet
(to door landing) and five feet (to pavement), a side (west) setback
of eight feet (to building), six feet (to door landing) and five feet
(to pavement and dumpster enclosure), a rear (south) setback of
five feet (to building), a building height of 15 feet (to midpoint of
pitched roof) and 17.67 feet (to top of parapet) and 19 parking
spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the
provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-1004.B;
and to allow interior landscape islands of less than 150 square feet
and less than eight feet in width from back of curb to back of curb, as
a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
CURRENT ZONING: Office (O) District
CURRENT FUTURE
LAND USE CATEGORY: Residential/Office General (R/OG)
PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Office (no tenant)
Proposed Use: Office and Medical Clinic uses
EXISTING North: Low Medium Density Detached dwellings
SURROUNDING Residential (LMDR)
ZONING AND USES: District
South: Commercial (C) District Self Storage
East: Office (O) District Offices
West: Commercial (C) District Vacant
Community Development Board - September 21, 2010
FLD2010-07002 - Page 1 of 12
ANAT.VCiC-
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 0.402 acre site is located on the south side of NE Coachman Road, approximately 1,400 feet
west of N. Belcher Road and 600 feet east of Graham Drive. The subject property is currently
developed with an office building (no current tenant) located approximately in the center of the
site and with six angled parking spaces that require motorists to back into the right-of-way (one
parking space is physically located within the NE Coachman Road right-of-way). The site has
100 feet of frontage along NE Coachman Road.
Properties adjacent to the north across NE Coachman Road are zoned Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District and are developed with detached dwellings. The property to the
south is zoned Commercial (C) District and is developed as a self storage facility. The property
to the east is zoned Office (O) District and is developed with office uses. The property to the
west is zoned Commercial (C) District and is presently vacant.
Development Proposal:
Nonresidential properties along the south side of NE Coachman Road between Drew Street and
Belcher Road can be characterized as having a mix of building and parking lot locations on the
individual properties. Some properties have been designed with the building placed forward on
the property with parking to one side and the rear of the building, while others have the parking
area in front of the building. The proposal is to completely redevelop this site by demolishing the
existing building and parking, generally located in the center and north side of the site, and
construct a new one-story, 4,060 square-foot building at the rear of the site for office and medical
clinic uses. Parking will be located to the front of this new building. This site layout satisfies the
majority of Community Development Code (CDC), Building Code and Fire Code requirements,
albeit with necessary setback reductions.
The proposal includes a front (north) setback of 15 feet (to pavement), a side (east) setback of
eight feet (to building), six feet (to door landing) and five feet (to pavement), a side (west)
setback of eight feet (to building), six feet (to door landing) and five feet (to pavement and
dumpster enclosure) and a rear (south) setback of five feet (to building). Building and parking lot
locations on the properties between Drew Street and Belcher Road do not meet current required
front, side or rear setback requirements. While the proposed setbacks do not meet minimum
setback requirements, the site design with its proposed setbacks can be viewed as an emerging
trend for this area, as the proposed setbacks are consistent with the developed character of the
surrounding nonresidential properties. Required buffer widths, the foundation landscape width
and the square footage amount of interior landscaping included with this proposal meets Code
requirements.
Staff concerns with regard to the parking being proposed forward of the building and any
potential negative impacts this may have upon the residential properties across NE Coachman
Road have been mitigated through the site design to include a four-foot high buffer wall along
the front of the property with enhanced landscaping. This proposed redevelopment of this site
will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties,
Community Development Board - September 21, 2010
FLD2010-07002 - Page 2 of 12
and it is compatible with both the residential properties across NE Coachman Road and the
nonresidential properties to the east and west of this site.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-1001.1, the
maximum FAR for properties with a designation of Residential/Office General (R/OG) is 0.50.
The proposal is to construct a total floor area of 4,060 square feet (offices of 2,030 square feet
and medical clinic of 2,030 square feet) for a FAR of 0.232, which is consistent with the above
Code provisions.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-
1001.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.75. The proposed ISR is 0.668, which is consistent
with the above Code provisions.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1004, there is no minimum required lot
area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of
comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-1004, the minimum lot area for office uses can range
between 3,500 - 10,000 square feet. The same table requires a minimum lot area for medical
clinics of 20,000 square feet. The site is 17,500 square feet of lot area, which exceeds the lot area
for offices, but is slightly less than that required for medical clinics. Pursuant to this same Table,
the minimum lot width for office uses can range between 50 - 100 feet, while medical clinics
require a minimum of 100 feet of lot width. The site has 100 feet of frontage, which is consistent
with these Code provisions. Adjacent properties to the east and west have the same.lot, area and
lot width.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1004, there are no minimum required setbacks for
a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to
CDC Table 2-1004, the minimum front setback for office and medical clinic uses can range
between 15 - 35 feet. The same table provides that the minimum side and rear setbacks for office
and medical clinic uses can range between 10 - 20 feet. The proposal includes a front (north)
setback of 15 feet (to pavement), a side (east) setback of eight feet (to building), six feet (to door
landing) and five feet (to pavement), a side (west) setback of eight feet (to building), six feet (to
door landing) and five feet (to pavement and dumpster enclosure) and a rear (south) setback of
five feet (to building).
Nonresidential properties along the south side of NE Coachman Road between Drew Street and
Belcher Road can be characterized as having a mix of building and parking lot locations on the
individual properties. Some properties have been designed with the building placed forward on
the property with parking to one side and the rear of the building, while others have the parking
area in front of the building. A major Staff concern with this proposal has been real or perceived
impacts on the detached dwellings across NE Coachman Road. Building and parking area
location designs were discussed with the applicant's design professionals to minimize negative
impacts on these detached dwellings (to avoid future requests to change the land use and zoning
to a nonresidential land use and zoning district). Potential site designs with the building located
at the front setback line produced a thin building with minimal parking to the side of the building
and a majority of the parking to the rear of the building. These designs produced unacceptable
Community Development Board - September 21, 2010
FLD2010-07002 - Page 3 of 12
distances for fire and trash trucks entering the site and required truck turnarounds, which were
unable to be provided without reducing required parking. Building and parking lot locations on
the properties between Drew Street and Belcher Road do not meet current required front, side or
rear setback requirements. Some parking areas are located within the right-of-way of NE
Coachman Road.
The proposal includes locating the building at the rear of the property, with parking located
between the building and the front property line. The parking lot is proposed at a front setback of
15 feet, compliant with the provisions under Level One, Flexible Standard Development. A wall
is proposed for the purpose of screening the parking area from the detached dwellings across NE
Coachman Road and to mitigate potential negative impacts (see additional discussion under
Landscaping). The proposal includes locating the parking lot at a five-foot setback from the east
and west property lines, which is consistent with parking lot locations on the nonresidential
properties on this side of NE Coachman Road. A backup flair adjacent to the east property line is
excessively deep and can be reduced by five feet to produce a 10-foot setback, allowing for
additional landscape area. The building is proposed at an eight-foot side and five-foot rear
setback, which is also consistent with surrounding properties. Door landings/stoops on the east
and west sides of the building are designed extending to approximately two feet from the side
property lines. These landings are excessively wide and can be reduced in width to the minimum
required by the Building Code (approximately 3-4 feet in width) which would provide a larger
planting area for perimeter hedging. This should be a condition upon any approval of this request
by the CDB.
Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1004, there is no maximum height, for is
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison the
maximum height for office uses can range from 30 - 80 feet, while medical clinic uses can range
from 30 - 50 feet. The proposal includes a building height of 15 feet (to midpoint of a pitched
roof) and 17.67 feet (to top of the parapet), well below the allowed building height.
Nonresidential buildings within this area are one or two stories in height. With the building's
location at the rear of the property, this proposed height is compatible with the one-story
detached dwellings across NE Coachman Road, as well as with the adjacent nonresidential
buildings to the east, west and south of the subject property.
Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1004, there is no minimum off-street
parking requirement for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of
comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-1004, the minimum required parking for office uses can
range between 2 - 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet, while parking for medical clinic uses requires
five spaces per 1,000 square feet. Based on the high range for office uses and the requirement for
medical clinics, the required parking totals 16 parking spaces. The proposal includes 19 parking
spaces, which exceeds the minimum requirements. A sidewalk is proposed along the site
frontage of NE Coachman Road where none exists today.
Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment
must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. Based on
the plans submitted, mechanical equipment will be placed on the building roof. The location and
Community Development Board - September 21, 2010
FLD2010-07002 - Page 4 of 12
screening of such mechanical equipment by the building parapets will be reviewed at time of
building permit submission.
Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
driveway on NE Coachman Road, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will
obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-
foot sight visibility triangles. In order to provide enhanced screening of the parking lot the
applicant is proposing a four-foot high wall across the front of the property. Within the sight
visibility triangle, this wall will need to be reduced in height to comply with these requirements
for motorist/pedestrian visibility. Approval of this application will need to be conditioned on the
proposed wall meeting this requirement. The proposal has been reviewed by the City's Traffic
Engineering Department and been found to be acceptable. Shrubbery planted within the sight
visibility triangles will need to be maintained to meet the Code requirements.
Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, for development that does not involve a subdivision,
all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such
undergrounding is not practicable. There exist overhead utility lines along the site frontage of
this property within the NE Coachman Road right-of-way. On-site, utilities will be placed
underground.
Landscaping: The site is presently heavily treed. Due to overhead utilities within the NE
Coachman Road right-of-way, trees along the front of the property have been hatracked. Other
trees are not healthy, while other trees are located such that they restrict the location of proposed
improvements. As such, the proposal includes the removal of a number of existing trees from the
site.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.13, a 15-foot perimeter buffer is required along NE Coachman
Road and a five-foot perimeter buffer is required along the east, west and south sides of the
property. While the proposal requests reductions to the minimum setbacks along all sides of the
property (see discussion under Minimum Setbacks above), the proposal provides the required
perimeter buffers. CDC Section 3-1202.E.2 requires foundation landscaping along the front of
the building facing the street. This proposal exceeds the minimum requirements by providing a
six-foot wide foundation planting area (minimum five-foot wide area). CDC Section 3-1202.E.1
requires interior landscaping in the amount of 12% of the vehicular use area due to the provided
parking being 110% of the required parking (otherwise only 10% interior landscaping is
required). This site is providing 12.8% of the vehicular use area in interior landscaping. Interior
landscape islands are required to be eight feet in width inside curbing and to be 150 square feet in
area. This proposal includes, as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program, a request to allow
interior landscape islands of less than 150 square feet and less than eight feet in width from back of
curb to back of curb. There is only one interior landscape island that is less than the required
width, proposed at seven feet in width inside curbing. The provision of additional interior
landscaping in other areas of the site, as well as the reduction to the backup flair (see discussion
under Minimum Setbacks above), compensates for this slight reduction at this location of the
site.
Community Development Board - September 21, 2010
FLD2010-07002 - Page 5 of 12
The site is proposed to be planted with a variety of landscape material. Trees include shade trees
(live oak, magnolia and winged elm), accent trees (crape myrtle and weeping yaupon holly) and
palms (royal, queen, Mexican fan and cabbage). Shrubs include sandanqua viburnum, yellow
anise, firebush, Indian hawthome, dwarf walter's viburnum and bird of paradise. Groundcovers
include variegated flax lily, sand cord grass and swamp lily. Proposed landscaping materials and
the location of plant materials are demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise
permitted under the minimum landscape standards of the Code.
The proposal includes planting magnolia trees along the front of the property; however, due to
the existence of overhead utilities adjacent to the front property line, planting magnolia trees is
not advised, as limbs would need to be trimmed back similar to the existing trees along the site
frontage (creating new hatracked trees). Shade trees should not be planted within 20 feet of
overhead utilities due to this conflict. The proposal also includes shade trees (live oak, magnolia
and winged elm) at the northwest and northeast corners of the proposed building spaced
approximately 20 feet apart, rather than the 35-foot spacing provided by Code. This proposed
spacing is too close for shade trees, which would result in comingled branches, dead wood and
the trees unable to grow to their natural form. Since this proposal is a complete redevelopment of
the site, proposed site elevations of the parking areas adjacent to the east and west property lines
place the pavement approximately 18-inches above the site elevation of the perimeter buffer.
Retaining walls are proposed along these property lines. This elevation of the parking lot to this
degree renders the proposed shrubbery within the perimeter buffers unable to provide any
meaningful screening of the vehicles within the parking lot, defeating the, purpose of the
buffering. Potentially raising the site elevation of the buffers and/or planting shrubs taller than
18-inches at time of planting would alleviate this concern. Finally, them are some inaccurate
plant counts in the planting material table and use of the same plant symbol for more than one
plant material on Sheet L-1. Light pole locations and height of light poles should. be coordinated
with the existing and proposed trees to avoid shielding of the lights by the (future) tree canopy.
All of these landscaping concerns should be remedied on revised plans prior to the issuance of
any permits.
Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the Community
Development Code, 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:
Community Development Board - September 21, 2010
FLD2010-07002 - Page 6 of 12
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
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 N/A N/A
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 N/A N/A
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.
I See Analysis for discussion of consistency/inconsistency.
Solid Waste: The existing building is served by black barrels for solid waste collection. The
proposal includes a dumpster enclosure on the west side of the parcel that will contain a
maximum four-yard rolling dumpster for the tenants of this building. The exterior of the trash
enclosure (material and color) will need to be consistent with the proposed building. The
proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste Department.
Signage: There exists a freestanding sign in front of the existing building that will be removed
under this proposal. The proposal includes a new freestanding, monument-style sign in front of
the proposed four-foot high screening wall. Should the CDB approve this request, the
freestanding sign is recommended to be monument-style with a maximum height of six feet and
be designed consistent with the exterior building material and color.
Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject
property.
Community Development Board - September 21, 2010
FLD2010-07002 - Page 7 of 12
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the standards as per CDC Section 2-1001.1 and
Table 2-1004:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
FAR 0.50 0.232 X
ISR 0.75 0.668 X
Minimum Lot Area N/A 17,500 sq. ft. X
Minimum Lot Width N/A 100 feet X
Maximum Height N/A 15 feet (midpoint of roof) X
17.67 feet (to top of parapet)
Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A North: 15 feet (to pavement) X'
Side: N/A East: 8 feet (to building) X'
2 feet (to door landing)
5 feet (to pavement)
West: 8 feet (to building) X'
2 feet (to door landing)
5 feet (to pavement and
dumpster enclosure)
Rear: N/A South: 5 feet (to building) X'
Minimum Office: 3 per 1,000 SF 19 parking spaces X
Off-Street Parking Medical Clinic: 5 per 1,000 SF
16 required spaces)
I See analysis in Staff Report
Community Development Board - September 21, 2010
FLD2010-07002 - Page 8 of 12
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-
1004.B (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 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 X1
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.
Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X1
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.
I See analysis in Staff Report.
Community Development Board - September 21, 2010
FLD2010-07002 - Page 9 of 12
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:
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.
Consistent I Inconsistent
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of I X1
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons I 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 X1
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
See analysis in Staff Report
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of August 5, 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 0.402 acre site is located on the south side of NE Coachman Road, approximately 1,400
feet west of N. Belcher Road and 600 feet east of Graham Drive;
2. The subject property is currently developed with an office building (no current tenant) located
approximately in the center of the site and with six angled parking spaces located to the north
of the building;
3. The proposal is to completely redevelop this site by demolishing the existing building and
parking and construct a new one-story, 4,060 square-foot building at the rear of the site for
office and medical clinic uses, with required parking located to the front of this new building;
4. The proposal includes reductions to the front (north) setback for pavement, side (east and
west) setbacks for the building, door landing/stoop and pavement and rear (south) setback for
the building;
5. Comparatively, building and parking lot locations on the properties between Drew Street and
Belcher Road do not meet current required front, side or rear setback requirements;
6. The site design with its proposed setbacks can be viewed as an emerging trend for this area,
as the proposed setbacks are consistent with this developed character of the surrounding
nonresidential properties;
7. Required buffer widths, the foundation landscape width and the square footage amount of
interior landscaping included with this proposal meets Code requirements;
Community Development Board - September 21, 2010
FLD2010-07002 -Page 10 of 12
8. Negative impacts of the site design, with its parking forward of the building, upon the
residential properties across NE Coachman Road have been mitigated through the inclusion
of a four-foot high buffer wall along the front of the property with enhanced landscaping;
9. The proposal includes 19 parking spaces, which exceeds the minimum requirements; and
10. There are no active Code Compliance 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 Section 2-1001.1 and
Table 2-1004 of the Community Development Code;
2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
1004.B of the Community Development Code; and
3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of
the Flexible Development application to permit office and medical clinic uses in a building
totaling 4,060 square-feet of floor area in the Office (O) District with a lot area of 17,500 square
feet (0.402 acre), a lot width of 100 feet, a front (north) setback of 15 feet (to pavement), a side
(east) setback of eight feet (to building), six feet (to door landing) and five feet (to pavement), a
side (west) setback of eight feet (to building), six feet (to door landing) and five feet (to
pavement and dumpster enclosure), a rear (south) setback of five feet (to building), a building
height of 15 feet (to midpoint of pitched roof) and 17.67 feet (to top of parapet) and 19 parking
spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community
Development Code Section 2-1004.B; and to allow interior landscape islands of less than. 150
square feet and less than eight feet in width from back of curb to back of curb, as a Comprehensive
Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G,
with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
1. That a four-foot high wall, consistent with the exterior material and color of the building, be
constructed along the frontage of the property. Prior to the issuance of any building permits,
the site plan must be revised to indicate the wall extending to the east and west property lines
and complying with the sight visibility triangle requirements;
2. That, prior to the issuance of any building permits, the backup flair adjacent to the east
property line be reduced to three feet in depth to provide a 10-foot side setback to pavement;
3. That the dumpster enclosure be consistent with the exterior material and color of the
building;
4. That, prior to the issuance of any building permits, the landing/stoop on the east and west
sides of the building be reduced in width to the minimum required by the Building Code to
increase the setback/perimeter buffer width at these locations;
5. That, prior to the issuance of any building permits, rooftop mechanical equipment be
screened from view by adequately sized parapets or other screening measures;
6. That, prior to the issuance of any building permits, plans be revised to remedy the following
concerns:
Community Development Board - September 21, 2010
FLD2010-07002 - Page 11 of 12
a. Planting of shade trees within 20 feet of the front property line where there exist
overhead utility lines;
b. Adequate spacing of shade trees;
c. Providing adequate buffering plant materials and sizes along the east and west
property lines in relation to proposed site elevations;
d. Ensuring plant symbols and plant counts are accurately depicted on Sheet L-1; and
e. Coordinating light pole height and locations with the existing and proposed trees
to avoid shielding of the lights by the (future) tree canopy.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff.
k)O-.,
Wayne M. ells, AICP, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS:
? Location Map
? Aerial Map
? Zoning Map
? Existing Surrounding Uses Map
? Photographs of Site and Vicinity
S: (Planning DepartmentICD BIFLEX (FLD)IPending cases)Up for the next CDBWE Coachman 2135 Clinical Research (O) 2010.Ox - 9.21.10
CDB - WINE Coachman 2135 Staff Report.doc
Community Development Board - September 21, 2010
FLD2010-07002 - Page 12 of 12
Wayne M. Wells, AICP
100 South Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756
Phone: 727-562-4504 Email: wayne.welis(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
,... w_? C. ' 0 St-_-_,. sso r?AL -: 3
'' "•
arriage AIjLINGTON !mom .:
Lantern Wa
y
PROJECT
a
U SITE
•.
Z ?;.`
j
MARILYN ST MARILYN ST SHARKEY OQ
as r Y ""
SS Z Q o Of
MCKINLEY ¢p +, ??...?EE DR'. 1V' 0,
-
$T HARDIN3 ` .;? yN" "•,:.p•`y??
.. ,'a p 'p
a y? . £. +..? i'•' ANLtL?[,' .?11P' ,a'.
-4 PLAZA. a LL
ST c HARDING
•
Y
• •
•
D DREV.' ??Ci «,
•
" ••?,
•
'
w•I t, ?'€JenVw+N • ` '-opt.
PLAZA El B
DREW ST
CR-528
?
Q
W
> us w w ?u o
a a a a a a ? },•
ST ? h" y
.
. ?VJ
L
O
(/!
m Z co 7"
•? w.
o Q W ? Z W O
Z
= v Er
a _Z
?gI
g U)
WHITMAN
Z
DR z
CHAUCER
E-1 El F-1
Location Map
Owner: Patrick Flynn Case: FLD2010-07002
Site: 2135 NE Coachman Road Property Size: 0.401 acre
PIN: 12-29-15-59184-000-0032 Atlas Page: 2806
9
z ti
GRAHAM DR
CD 2071 ,v ?, wo !; 2101
2100
°
2073 ,
o $
2075
2106
2077
N 0 2079
N -
W Q 2081 ?? ?ti
6 1
N 2083 q0
.p 2085 2105
2087 bti 2108
m T 2089 6p
n 2091
`o O ?L SLLZ
Q 2095
2097
5?
O2
O
Q A
qS?2
2 S
:3 2105 ?S
6 Y
2?? £?1
1
O 70 p
tib
?
N O 62?
Q ?7
NO
0'1
6
A
6A
2111
1
O ?E? 2 pq0
2
2 2
C
??1
9E?
r
?
?
?q?2
?
0
?
q2
o
CO)
q?z
-i
2
926
~O
1
011
D n qq?
' 6
Z
Q O ?
6q
CD 2129
2131 ?1 6??2
q?1'
2133 q
L
oq62
O
(Q N 2135
(? N• 2137 yV? . 25
(D 2139
• 2141 .. .• 6?2
?2
N O r 5
0 pe
a
z5 0
O N MAIN A VE ?
0
0
CD
p 2165
° •
.
°
A`
.
2167A 2180''
.
6. °
°'
-Not to Scale-
• ?T
.. s? oi' .. . ,
2167B& sarvey-
.?}69,
C a1 B a
a '
a a
,7
?
2
409 3 E
Det d15
405
4 F a G???V D fling `? sZ
00
a? 13
G
5 D elfin S a'aa a? F 12 `?
o ??P
Place of ,
??
o N a w
P
GO .`°??;.°• ; Worship
°
De
ta aN' .- 0 des' ::
_
I
.
35
Q-
C
4
8
311 4 " ' 36 aU, ff?)eS s
a? : ,q
n
6 ^
307 7 5 a? 0 cee n. ,
Diet ed ?,, O \ J
3q? D elli s %
j
? 3 N
` ?
.
2 d9 /\l acant 5918
a? ,? ? ?
Self
ces
l 1
6° / j'`'am \ \Storage
1 ? ;9• '38
es a%s, z
L5818
Comm ciAQJses 0 :o:pY.
o mer+ a uses
o
O
0
, To• . .
a r
ate'°o
e
DREW ST
DREW ST
!`MNt?01?M Nwhro oo Of nof '00,10- ortm? F"
?.i.nnt.aow m
00000000000 0o N 80 so
o '
N N N N N N N t
N N N N N N
n
O
oN O N N ?
11/08 Of . M h 1? Of r N
N MMM MM __
r
N NNNNN N 3
Existing Surrounding Uses Map
Owner: Patrick Flynn Case: FLD2010-07002
Site: 2135 NE Coachman Road Property Size: 0.401 acre
PIN: 12-29-15-59184-000-0032 Atlas Page: 280B
View looking SE at 2139 NE Coachman Rd (property to the
east of subject property)
View looking SE at east side of subject property
View looking south at west side of 2139 NE Coachman Rd
(adjacent to subject property)
2135 NE Coachman Road
FLD2010-07002
Page 1 of 2
View looking SW at west side of subject property
View looking west at rear portion of subject property
Detached dwelling across NE Coachman Rd from subject
property
2135 NE Coachman Road
FLD2010-07002
Page 2 of 2
View looking SW at 2123 NE Coachman Rd
View looking south at 2127 NE Coachman Rd
View to south of 2139 NE Coachman Rd at adjacent self
storage facility (similar view from subject property)
Detached dwelling across NE Coachman Rd from subject
property
Clearwater
Planning Department
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 33756
Telephone: 727-562-4567
Fax: 727-562-4865
lX SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION
JN SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION - Plans and
application are required to be collated, stapled, and folded into sets
14 SUBMIT FIRE PRELIMARY SITE PLAN: $200.00
N SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE $ 1, 4 0 5.0 0
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: PATRICK J. FLYNN
MAILING ADDRESS: 1334 FALLSMEAD COURT, OLDSMAR, FLORIDA 34677
PHONE NUMBER: (727) 789-5840 FAX NUMBER:
CELL NUMBER EMAIL:
PROPERTY OWNER(S): PATRICK J. FLYNN
List ALL owners on the deed
AGENT NAME: BRAULIO GRAJALES / HIGH POINT ENGINEERING
MAILING ADDRESS: 630 CHESTNUT STREET, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756
PHONE NUMBER: (727) 723-3771 FAX NUMBER: (727) 723-7150
CELL NUMBER: EMAIL: BGRAJALES@HPE-.
B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A)
PROJECT NAME: CLINICAL RESEARCH OF WEST FLORIDA PROJECT VALUATION: $ 125, 000
STREET ADDRESS 2135 NE COACHMAN ROAD, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 6 5
PARCEL NUMBER(S): 12/29/15/59184./000/0032
PARCEL SIZE (acres): 0 . 4 0 2 PARCEL SIZE (square feet): 17 , 5 0 0
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: QP"P ammnru1r)
PROPOSED USE(S):
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: SEE ATTACHED
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.)
C:\Documents and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 1 of 8
DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNl
DEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTIFIED) SITE PLAN? YES _ NO X (if yes, attach a copy of the applicable documents)
C. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP: (Code Section 4-202.A.5)
M SUBMIT A COPY OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY, DEED TO THE PROPERTY OR SIGN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING OWNERSHIP (see
page 7)
D.
N
1. WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 3-913.A)
Provide complete responses to the six (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA - Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail:
The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it
is located.
SEE ATTACHED
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly
impair the value thereof.
SEE ATTACHED
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use.
SEE ATTACHED
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion.
SEE ATTACHED
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
SEE ATTACHED
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on
adjacent properties.
SEE ATTACHED
C:iDocuments and Settingslderek.ferguson\Desktoplplanning dept forms 07081Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 2 of 8
WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria)
12 Provide complete responses to the six (6) COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CRITERIA - Explain how each criteria is
achieved, in detail:
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this
zoning district.
SEE ATTACHED
2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general
purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district
SEE ATTACHED
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties.
SEE ATTACHED
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development.
SEE ATTACHED
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.
SEE ATTACHED
6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of
the following design objectives:
a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses
permitted in this zoning district;
b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City;
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area;
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of
the following design elements:
? Changes in horizontal building planes;
? Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings
awnings
etc.;
,
,
? Variety in materials, colors and textures;
? Distinctive fenestration patterns;
? Building stepbacks; and
? Distinctive roofs forms.
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings.
SEE ATTACHED
C:lDocuments and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 3 of 8
E. STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL
Manual and 4-202.A.21)
: (City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria
? 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.
N If a plan is not required, the narrative shall provide an explanation as to why the site is exempt.
JN At a minimum, the STORMWATER PLAN shall include the following;
0 Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines;
$I Proposed grading including finished floor elevations of all structures;
)ffi All adjacent streets and municipal storm systems;
M Proposed stormwater detention/retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure;
D3 A narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including all calculations and data necessary to demonstrate compliance with
the City manual.
ffi Proposed stormwater detention/retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure;
N Signature and seal of Florida Registered Professional Engineer on all plans and calculations.
? COPY OF PERMIT INQUIRY LETTER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT
SUBMITTAL (SWFWMD approval is required prior to issuance of City Building Permit), if applicable
? ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF STORMWATER PLAN REQUIREMENTS (Applicant must initial one of the following):
13 Co • X Stormwater plan as noted above is included
Stormwater plan is not required and explanation narrative is attached. At a minimum, a grading plan and finished floor
elevations shall be provided.
CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A STORMWATER PLAN
AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY
MAY OCCUR.
If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562-4750.
F. SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 4-202.A)
11 SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (including legal description of property) - One original and 14 copies;
M TREE SURVEY (including existing trees on site and within 25' of the adjacent site, by species, size (DBH 4° or greater), and location,
including drip lines and indicating trees to be removed) - please design around the existing trees;
1$ TREE INVENTORY; prepared by a "certified arborisf, of all trees 4° DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and condition of
such trees;
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).
N/A Prior to the submittal of this application, the methodology of such study shalt 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;
DI GRADING PLAN, as applicable;
?
3 PRELIMINARY PLAT, as required (Note: Building permits will not be issued until evidence of recording a final plat is provided);
N/A
NSA COPY OF RECORDED PLAT, as applicable;
C:1Documents and Settings\derek.fergusonTesktoplplanning dept forms 07081Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 4 of 8
G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A)
DI SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24"x 36°):
X Index sheet referencing individual sheets included in package;
X North arrow;
X Engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet), and date prepared;
X All dimensions;
X Footprint and size of all EXISTING buildings and structures;
X Footprint and size of all PROPOSED buildings and structures;
X All required setbacks;
X All existing and proposed points of access;
X All required sight triangles;
Identification of environmentally unique areas, such as watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, and specimen trees, including
X description and location of understory, ground cover vegetation and wildlife habitats, etc; Location of all public and private easements;
X Location of all street rights-of-way within and adjacent to the site;
Location of existing public and private utilities, including fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes and lift stations, gas
X and water lines;
X All parking spaces, driveways, loading areas and vehicular use areas;
X Depiction by shading or crosshatching of all required parking lot interior landscaped areas;
Location of all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment and all required screening
X {per Section 3-201(D)(i) and Index #7011;
X Location of all landscape material;
X Location of all onsite and offsite storm-water management facilities;
X Location of all outdoor lighting fixtures;
X Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks; and
Floor plan typicals of buildings for all Level Two approvals. A floor plan of each floor is required for any parking garage requiring a
X Level Two approval.
.W SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in written/tabular form:
X Land area in square feet and acres;
N/A Number of EXISTING dwelling units;
n/A Number of PROPOSED dwelling units;
X Gross floor area devoted to each use;
Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular form with the
X number of required spaces;
Total paved area, including all paved parking spaces & driveways,
X expressed in square feet & percentage of the paved vehicular area;
Official records book and page numbers of all existing utility
NLA easement;
X Building and structure heights;
X Impermeable surface ratio (I.S.R.); and
X Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses.
N REDUCED COLOR SITE PLAN to scale (8'/ X 11);
EXISTING REQUIRED PROPOSED
17,500]0.402 17,50010.402
2,132 4,000
5 16 17
2,747 8,180
15.00 20.00
0.313 0.75 0.805
0.122 0.50 0.229
14 FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the following additional information on site plan:
X One-foot contours or spot elevations on site;
X Offsite elevations if required to evaluate the proposed stormwater management for the parcel;
X All open space areas;
X Location of all earth or water retaining walls and earth berms;
X Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned);
X Streets and drives (dimensioned);
X Building and structural setbacks (dimensioned);
X Structural overhangs;
C:\Documents and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 5 of 8
H. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-1102.A)
Id LANDSCAPE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24° x 36°):
X All existing and proposed structures;
X Names of abutting streets;
X Drainage and retention areas including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations;
X Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscape buffers;
X Sight visibility triangles;
X Delineation and dimensions of all parking areas including landscaping islands and curbing;
Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and locations, including driplines (as indicated on required
X tree survey);
Location, size, and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant
X schedule;
Plant schedule with a key (symbol or label) indicating the size, description, specifications, quantities, and spacing requirements of all
X existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names;
Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants including instructions, soil mixes, backfilling, mulching and
X protective measures;
Interior landscaping areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressing in both square feet and
X percentage covered;
NLA Conditions of a previous development approval (e.g. conditions imposed by the Community Development Board);
X Irrigation notes.
Z REDUCED COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8 %2X 11);
14 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)
0 BUILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS-with the following information:
X All sides of all buildings
X Dimensioned
X Colors (provide one full sized set of colored elevations)
X Materials
DI REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATIONS -same as above to scale on 8 %X 11
J. SIGNAGE: (Division 19. SIGNS / Section 3-1806)
0 All EXISTING freestanding and attached signs; Provide photographs and dimensions (area, height, etc.), indicate whether they will be
removed or to remain.
M All PROPOSED freestanding and attached signs; Provide details including location, size, height, colors, materials and drawing;
freestanding signs shall include the street address (numerals)
E/A Comprehensive Sign Program application, as applicable (separate application and fee required).
? Reduced signage proposal (8 %X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application.
N/A
C:\Documents and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 6 of 8
K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4-202.A.13 and 4-801.C)
? Include if required by the Traffic Operations Manager or his/her designee or if the proposed development:
N/A
¦ 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 (727-56214750)
Refer to Section 4-801 C of the Community Development Code for exceptions to this requirement.
N 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.
x Traffic Impact Study is not required.
CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A TRAFFIC IMPACT
STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND
SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR.
If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562-
4750.
L. FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY:
Provide Fire Flow Calculations. Water Study by a FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER to assure an adequate water supply is available and to determine if
any upgrades are required by the developer due to the impact of this project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire
sprinkler, standpipe and/or fire pump. If a fire pump is required the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity. Compliance with
the 2004 Florida Fire Prevention Code to include NFPA 13, MFPA 14, NFPA 20, NFPA 291, and MFPA 1142 (Annex H) is required.
X Acknowledgement of fire flow calculations/water study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following):
Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is included.
6 x 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 accur to to the best of my
knowledge and authorize City repr entatives to visit and
photggra"e property describe n this application.
STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLA
Sworn to and subscribed before me this .1"1 day of
-,?TCA I A.D. 20 t (.) to me and/or by
y'ec Lr: BIZ „ ?. who is personally known has
produced
:as intification.
of properfy a neVgt representative
Notary public,
My commission exp es:
C:lDocuments and Settingslderek.ferguson\Desktopiplanning dept forms 07081Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 7 of 8
NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF FLORIDA
Sandra J. Pierpont
Commission #DD699426
;???.•° Expires: SEP.18, 2011
BONDED THRU ATLANTIC BONDING CO., INC.
N. AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT:
1. Provide names of all property owners on deed - PRINT full names:
PATRICK J. FLYNN
2. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property (address or general location):
2135 NE COACHMAN ROAD, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33765
3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a: (describe request)
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL CONSIST OF 4,000 SF OFFICE BUILDING, 17 PARKING
SPACES, STORMWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM, POTABLE WATER LINES, SANITARY SEWER
AND DROUGHT TOLERANT LANDSCAPE.
4. That the undersigned (hasthave) appointed and (does/do) appoint:
BRAULIO GRAJALES / HIGH POINT ENGINEERING
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 e VtInd i t hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct.
Neerty/
04ner 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 day of
4 t a o I p personally appeared 1J I +--,'c4C J , F I -J hn who having been first duly sworn
3`
Deposes and says that he/she fully understands the contents of the affidavit that he/she signed.
NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF FLORIDA
Sandra J. Pierpont
- Commission #DD699426
?
J
(?? -
Expires; SEP.18, 2011 _
BONDED THRU ATLANTIC BONDING CO., INC. Utary Public Signature
Notary Seal/Stamp My Commission Expires: I? f ?`? I ?
C:\Documents and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc
Page 8 of 8
;aet
Addendum No. 1 to the Contract dated April 23, 2010 between
Patrick J Flynn (Seller)
and Clinical Research of West Florida Inc. (Buyer)
concerning the property described as:
2135 NE Coachman Rd., Clearwater, FL 33765
(the "Contract"). Buyer and Seller make the fallowing terms and conditions part of the Contract:
1. Buyer will make $5,000 of the current deposit nonrefundable, but applicable to the sale price.
2. The Buyer's due diligence period will be extended from July 22, 2010 to September 22, 2010.
3. The closing date will be extended to October 20, 2010.
Date
Buyer:
Date: Buyer:
Date
Date
Seller:
Seller:
This form is avaiabie for use by the Wire real estate industry and is not intended to identify the user as a REwm. RmToR is a rem cdiective awnbership
mark that may be used ortly by real estate licensees who are members of the National Association of REAu7oRs and who subsatie to Its Code of Ethics.
The copyright laws of the United States (17 U.S. Code) forbid the unauthorized reproduction of blank forms by any means including fac9mile or computeized forms.
ACSP-2a Rev. 6/94 n1994 Florida Association of REALTORS@ All Rights Reserved Q
FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
CLINICAL RESEARCH OF WEST FLORIDA
2135 NE COACHMAN ROAD, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33765
HPE PROJECT: 10-010-CRW
DATE: AUGUST 13, 2010
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
Flexible development approval for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project for
office / medical clinic use as per the standards contained within Section 2-1004 of the
City of Clearwater Community Development Code with the following reductions:
• The front setback to pavement along the northwest property boundary (NE
Coachman Road) from 35 feet to 15.0 feet.
• The side setback to pavement along the northeast property boundary from 20
feet to 5.0 feet.
• The side setback to pavement along the southwest property boundary from 20
feet to 5.0 feet.
• The rear setback to pavement along the southeast property boundary from 20
feet to 5.0 feet.
INTRODUCTION:
The property is located in Section 12, Township 29 South, Range 15 East within the
incorporated area of the City of Clearwater. The project site is part of Mosell Acres
Subdivision and is comprised of a single parcel identified by Pinellas County Property
Appraiser with number: 12/29/15/59184/000/0032. The total area of the parcel is
approximately 0.402 acres (17,500 sf) and is bounded by NE Coachman Road to the
Northwest. The site address is 2135 NE Coachman Road, Clearwater, Florida 33765.
The proposed development will include one 1-story office/medical clinic building with a
total gross floor area of 4,060 sf, a total of 19 on-site surface parking spaces, a
stormwater collection system and attractive drought tolerant landscape. The setbacks,
parking, drainage, utilities and landscaping are designed to support the proposed
development.
t? Y1
?N
ARCHITECTURE I INTERIORS PLANNING
Re: FLD2010-07002, 2135 NE Coachman Road
Written Submittal Requirements:
13 August 2010
D. WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS - GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA
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.
The structures along this section of NE Coachman Road are, at best, a varied amalgam one and two story structures. They are
typically single family structures converted to commercial uses or newer commercial buildings in a wide cacophony of styles;
from 70's style single pitched roof buildings, to gambrel roofed churches, to non-descript shoebox shaped gas stations. The
building locations on the site also vary; some are pulled close to the road and face Coachman Road while others are turned
perpendicular to the road. Parking along this stretch also tends to be haphazard; some with cars parking perpendicularly on
Coachman Road, several with entire paved front yards, and others with the entire side yard devoted to parking.
Along this section of NE Coachman Road the properties along the southern side of the street are zoned commercial and office
while the properties to the north are zoned low to medium residential. Also directly behind, adjacent the applicant property is a
commercial storage facility.
The above three mentioned site plan schemes were developed prior to the inception of many of the current fire and
stormwater regulations.
The proposed development takes one of the adjacent planning schemes, with the building located in the rear of the property
with parking placed toward the front. The proposed building is a 4,000 sf, one story simple structure of similar scale, height and
bulk to the neighboring commercial properties on the street. Additionally this planning scheme allows us to conform to current
fire safety codes and provides an opportunity to create a landscape screen for the residential properties across the street.
This scheme was chosen to address fire safety regulations, specifically the maximum 150 ft pull in distance without an onsite fire
truck turn around, to preserve the desirable and healthy mature landscaping on the site. Also that provides for the, currently,
required storm water treatment and retention, and that allows for a financially feasible and usable building to carry this area
into the next decade of responsible business development.
Page 1 1 of 12
Behar + Peteranecz: Inc. AA26001704
{Tampa) 103 Rogers Street. Clearwater, Florida, 33756 1 {Tel) 727.488.9490 {Fax) 727.446.3194 jordan@architecturebp.com
(Pensacola) 113 W. Strong Street Pensacola. Florida 32501 1 {Tel} 850.377.1870 {Fax) 850.439.0235 istvan@architecturebp.com
bpi
ARCHITECTURE ( INTERIORS ( PLANNING
Re: FLD2010-07002, 2135 NE Coachman Road
Written Submittal Requirements:
13 August 2010
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.
The following components will ensure that the proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate
development of adjacent land and buildings by:
1. being consistent with existing development patterns of the commercial development.
2. siting the building and parking layout to conform with current fire codes
3. by visually buffering the residential component to the north on order to maintain and preserve it's residential
character.
4. Through the use of heavy landscaping, hardscaping, parking screening and architecture to create an attractive
streetscape, building facade and overall development that will set a high standard of quality.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of the proposed use.
This proposed development is designed with safety and ease of use for the occupants and clients as the predominant guiding
points. The parking is pulled off Coachman Road so that motorists will no longer need to back out into the right of way, and the
proposed 90 degree onsite parking improves the usability and safety of the guests and employees of the proposed development
as well as improving the safety of the motorists along Coachman Road. Additionally a sidewalk within the ROW will improve
pedestrian safety. By placing the buildings in the rear and conforming to the maximum pull in distance for a fire truck we are
bringing the property to current fire safety code, by maintain
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion.
By their nature offices and medical clinics are moderate volume uses. To minimize traffic congestion this development limits
the ingress and egress to one driveway; versus the current angled parking directly off the right-of way. This scheme allows for
efficient and controlled stacking of vehicles entering and exiting the site.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development.
We are maintaining the consistency with the community character by redeveloping the proposed project on an existing
individual lot. Additionally, as previously stated, we are utilizing similar building and parking layouts to properties in the
immediate vicinity.
Page 12 of 12
Behar + Peteranecz: Inc. AA26001704
{Tampa} 103 Rogers Street. Clearwater, Florida, 33756 1 {Tel} 727.488.9490 {Fax} 727.446.3194 jordan@architecturebp.com
{Pensacola} 113 W. Strong Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 1 {Tel} 850.377.1870 {Fax} 850.439.0235 istvan@architecturebp.com
API
ARCHITECTURE I INTERIORS ( PLANNING
Re: FLD2010-07002, 2135 NE Coachman Road
Written Submittal Requirements:
13 August 2010
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of
operation impacts, on adjacent properties.
The proposed development will have normal business hours of operation and will not adversely affect the other commercial
projects in the area. Fortunately, medical clinic/office uses are complimentary to residential since they are occupied at different
times of the day. During normal business hours when the office/clinic is open the residences will be vacant and on weekends
and in the evenings when the residents are at home the office/clinic will be closed.
The proposed landscaping and hardscaping will provide visual and acoustic screening to the residents across the street and the
side yard landscaping buffers will provide acoustic and visual screening to the adjacent properties.
The smallest required dumpster is proposed and will be screened in accordance with current design guidelines to reduce the
visual effects. Also, the buildings and dumpster will be used as normal office and medical clinics and will not generate adverse
olfactory effects
WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS - COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CRITERIA.
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development
standards set forth in this zoning district.
This proposal seeks to reduce the required building setbacks to allow for the development of a project that is of adequate size
and usable area to accommodate the applicant's business needs, is economically feasible, and will offset the projects
redevelopment costs; specifically, the building construction costs, and its requisite parking, sidewalks, stormwater, and
landscaping requirements.
In order to preserve healthy mature landscape, conform to current codes and regulations, and create an economically feasible
project we are requesting reductions to the front, side, and rear building setbacks. To compensate for the reduced setbacks we
are proposing enhanced landscaping and a parking screening wall.
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.
This proposal seeks to meet the intent purposes of CDC 1-103 and CDC 2-1001. The basic thrust of the CDC 1-103 is to promote
orderly redevelopment, enhance and protect the values of this property and neighboring properties, and to strengthen the
City's tax and employment base. CDC 2-1001 calls for the provision of convenient access to professional services and high
quality jobs while maintaining the integrity of residential neighborhoods, the scenic quality, and maintaining the safe and
efficient movement of people throughout Clearwater.
This development and its sister project, 2147, by being developed together and by their designs will set an example for feasible
and economically viable redevelopment in this district. By redevelopment of this site, and 2147, a current quality Clearwater
Page 13 of 12
Behar + Peteranecz; Inc. AA26001704
{Tampa} 103 Rogers Street. Clearwater, Florida, 33756 1 {Tel} 727.488.9490 {Fax} 727.446.3194 jordan@architecturebp.com
{Pensacola} 113 W. Strong Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 1 {Tel} 850.377.1870 {Fax} 850.439.0235 istvan@architecturebp.com
bpJ
ARCHITECTURE I INTERIORS ( PLANNING
Re: FLD2010-07002, 2135 NE Coachman Road
Written Submittal Requirements:
13 August 2010
employer will be able to continue to grow their business in the same location and continue to add to Clearwater's economic and
employment base.
The successful development of this project demonstrates the feasibility and practicality of maintaining and growing a business
at this location. With the quality and the high level of services provided by the project's owner other business will be drawn to
this area, and through their continued success, will be encouraged to invest in this area.
Because of the quality of this project the general aesthetics of the streetscape will be enhanced and set a standard for future
development, as well as providing an attractive foreground to the residences on the residentially zoned side of the road.
3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding
properties.
The project seeks to set a positive example for redevelopment of this area through it's sensitivity to the adjacent commercial
and residential properties. Despite the fact that the lots in this area are small and difficult to develop the strategic use of
screening walls, enhanced landscape, attractive architecture, safe traffic flow, safe parking, accessible design and stormwater
management will allow this area to develop in a positive direction and provide a project that is consistent with existing patterns
of the neighborhood.
4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development.
The design of the proposed development maintains necessary Building Code requirements for setbacks and height thereby
avoiding detrimental impact on planning and construction on adjacent lots. The uses proposed in this development are
consistent with the Comp Plan and this district and will be in keeping with those uses permitted on adjacent properties.
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.
The proposed uses of office and medical clinic are permitted under the future land use category. The proposed uses are the
same as the current uses in the adjacent buildings. Through redevelopment this project will maintain the professional business
character of the commercial zoning district. The proposed professional office use is considered a suitable use adjacent to
residential areas because of their complementary hours of operation and traffic cycles.
The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible
development use.
The proposed office and medical clinic uses are permitted as a minimum standard in the current "0" office zoning as
well as the future "R/OG" zoning category.
Page 14 of 12
Behar + Peteranecz: Inc. AA26001704
{Tampa} 103 Rogers Street. Clearwater, Florida, 33756 1 {Tel} 727.488.9490 {Fax} 727.446.3194 jordan@architecturebp.com
{Pensacola} 113 W. Strong Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 1 {Tel} 850.377.1870 {Fax} 850,439.0235 istvan@architecturebp.com
bpi
ARCHITECTURE I INTERIORS I PLANNING
Re: FLD2010-07002, 2135 NE Coachman Road
Written Submittal Requirements:
13 August 2010
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.
The applicant is a current employer and will add jobs through the growth and expansion of their business.
c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor.
This development project, and its sister project, are necessary for the continued success of the applicant's business. The
approval of this development proposal will permit the applicant to carry on with their business growth plans and the sustained
success of this company will preserve existing, high quality jobs and bring additional high quality professional jobs to Clearwater.
As stated in CDC Section 1- 103: a development should ... enhance and protect the values of this property and neighboring
properties, and to strengthen the City's tax and employment base.
d. N/A
e. N/A
f. N/A
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 objectives.
a. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of
surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district.
We believe this development will set design and planning standards for redevelopment within this neighborhood and
will spur other redevelopment in this area. The design of this development demonstrates good planning principles and
can serve as a guide for meeting current Code requirements while preserving resources and allowing for economically
viable redevelopment. The design for this development, by example, will demonstrate that new office and clinic
development are achievable in this neighborhood even with all the site constraints. Those future applicants can
develop a business in this redevelopment area and do not have to go elsewhere to grow or start their businesses.
b. The proposed development complies with the design guidelines adopted by the City.
While there are no design guidelines for this area, as mentioned previously, this development complies with many
nationwide planning and building design and zoning requirements. To meet the required health and safety access
requirements, off-street parking requirements, and green preservation principles of the City, given the small sizes of
the properties in this area, we are requesting reductions to the minimum standard setbacks.
Page 15 of 12
Behar + Peteranecz: Inc. AA26001704
{Tampa} 103 Rogers Street. Clearwater, Florida, 33756 ( {Tel} 727.488.9490 {Fax} 727.446.3194 jordan@architecturebp.com
{Pensacola} 113 W. Strong Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 1 (Tel) 850.377.1870 {Fax} 850.439.0235 istvan@architecturebp.com
bpJ
ARCHITECTURE I INTERIORS I PLANNING
Re: FLD2010-07002, 2135 NE Coachman Road
Written Submittal Requirements:
13 August 2010
c. The design, scale, and intensity of the proposed development support the established or emerging character of an
area.
This is a redevelopment area with a "cacophony" of building types, styles, parking layouts, and setbacks. We
believe that our proposal will support and create a positive emerging character for the area.
• Good buffering from the road and the residential across Coachman Road,
• Preservation of mature trees,
• Reduce the visual clutter of the street,
• Create safer parking and egress and ingress,
• Show that it is possible to develop and build an up-to-date business on the properties in this neighborhood.
d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development
incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements:
• Changes in horizontal building planes:
The proposed building designs propose a varied building mass, both horizontally and vertically.
• Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings,
awnings„ etc,;
BPA: Within the more modern design proposed this design incorporates distinctive material changes, cantilevered
awnings and entry covers, and stucco colors.
• Variety in materials, colors, and textures;
This design proposes two stucco colors and glass curtain wall facades.
Please see attached Color Exhibit. The two primary stucco colors are White and Soft Gray.
• Distinctive fenestration patterns:
The fenestration includes curtain wall facades, tall doors and window elements, and simple punched windows.
• Building setbacks:
The design of this building incorporates distinctive building step backs and vertical building offsets. These setbacks
also animate the structures fagade, adding visual interest to the project.
• Distinctive roof forms:
While the building's primary roof is pitched, for drainage efficiency, the predominant impression is that of a
stepped, horizontally and vertically articulated flat topped building.
Page 16 of 12
Behar + Peteranecz: Inc. AA26001704
{Tampa} 103 Rogers Street. Clearwater, Florida. 33756 1 {Tel} 727.488.9490 {Fax} 727.446.3194 jordan@architecturebp.com
{Pensacola} 113 W. Strong Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 {Tel} 850.377.1870 {Fax} 850.439.0235 istvan@architecturebp.com
bpi
ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS I PLANNING
Re: FLD2010-07002, 2135 NE Coachman Road
Written Submittal Requirements:
13 August 2010
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate
distances between buildings.
As stated above, the buffers proposed are code compliant and where applicable have enhanced landscaping and all
building setbacks are within the Florida Building Code requirements.
Please see Civil landscape plans for enhanced landscaping.
Page 17 of 12
Behar + Peteranecz: Inc. AA26001704
{Tampa} 103 Rogers Street. Clearwater, Florida, 33756 1 {Tel} 727.488.9490 {Fax} 727,446,3194 jordan@architecturebp.com
{Pensacola} 113 W. Strong Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 1 {Tel} 850,377.1870 {Fax} 850.439.0235 istvan@architecturebp.com
bpi
ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS I PLANNING
Re: FLD2010-07002, 2135 NE Coachman Road
Written Submittal Requirements:
13 August 2010
BUILDING COLOR SELECTIONS:
Stucco 1
Medium
Gray
Stucco 2
White
Awnings
Page 18 of 12
Behar + Peteranecz: Inc. AA26001704
{Tampa} 103 Rogers Street. Clearwater, Florida, 33756 ( {Tel} 727,488,9490 {Fax} 727.446.3194 jordan@architecturebp.com
{Pensacola} 113 W. Strong Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 1 {Tel} 850,377,1870 {Fax} 850.439.0235 istvan@architecturebp.com
'Clearwater
Planning Department
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 33756
Telephone: 727-562-4567
Fax: 727-562-4865
SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION
SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION -Plans and
application are required to be collated, stapled and folded into sets
CASE NUMBER:
RECEIVED BY (Staff Initials):
DATE RECEIVED:
* NOTE: A TOTAL OF 15 SETS OF THIS APPLICATION AND ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED IN
CONJUNCTION WITH A COMPLETE LEVEL ONE OR LEVEL TWO APPLICATION.
COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM
(Revised 04/24/2007)
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT-
APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A)
APPLICANT NAME: PATRICK J. FLYNN
MAILING ADDRESS: 1334 FALLSMEAD COURT, OLDSMAR FLORIDA 34677
PHONE NUMBER: (727) 789-58408 FAX NUMBER:
CELL NUMBER: EMAIL:
PROPERTY OWNER(S):
List ALL owners on the deed
AGENT NAME:
MAILING ADDRESS
PHONE NUMBER:
CELL NUMBER:
HIGH POINT ENGINEERING
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756
FAXNUMBER: (727) 723-7150
EMAIL: BGRAJALES@HPE-FL. COM
1. ARCHITECTURAL THEME:
a. The landscaping in a Comprehensive Landscape Program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings
proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for the development.
OR
b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall be
demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape
standards.
SEE ATTACHED
PATRICK J. FLYNN
BRAULIO GRAJALES
630 CHESTNUT STR
(727)723-3771
C:IDocuments and Settingslderek.fergusonlDesktopWianningforms_07071Comprehensive Landscape Program 04-24-07.doc
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.
SEE ATTACHED
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.
SEE ATTACHED
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.
SEE ATTACHED
THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 3, DIVISION 12 MAY BE WAIVED OR MODIFIED AS A PART OF A LEVEL ONE OR LEVEL
TWO APPLICATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IF THE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL INCLUDES A COMPREHENSIVE
LANDSCAPE PROGRAM, WHICH SATISFIES THE ABOVE CRITERIA. THE USE OF LANDSCAPE PLANS, SECTIONS / ELEVATIONS,
RENDERINGS AND PERSPECTIVES MAY BE NECESSARY TO SUPPLEMENT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WORKSHEET.
SIGNATURE:
I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in
this application are true and accurate to the best of my
knowledge and authorize City representatives to visit and
photograph the property described in this application.
Signature of property owner or representative
STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS
Sworn and subscribed before me this _L3 day of
A.D. 20 ? 0, to me and/or by
a •? ?• eS who is personally known has
produced
as identification.
;otary public,
My commission expires:
NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF FLORIDA
Lynn A. Matthews
Commission # DD717600
Expires: OCT. 13, 2011
BONDED MRU ATLANTIC BONDING CO., INC.
C:IDocuments and Settingslderek.fergusonlDesktoplpianningfonns 07071Comprehensive Landscape Program 04-24-07.doc
Page 2 of 2
COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM
CLINICAL RESEARCH OF WEST FLORIDA
2135 NE COACHMAN ROAD, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33765
HIDE PROJECT: 10-010-CRW
DATE: AUGUST 13, 2010
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
To allow the following landscape reductions:
- The landscape buffer along the northeast property boundary from 5 feet to a
minimum of 2 feet within a distance of 6 feet to create room for the proposed 6' wide
side steps. The average landscape buffer is 6.0 feet.
- The landscape buffer along the southwest property boundary from 5 feet to a
minimum of 2 feet within a distance of 6 feet to create room for the proposed 6' wide
side steps. The average landscape buffer is 6.0 feet.
- The landscape buffer along the northwest property boundary from 15 feet to a
minimum of 5 feet within a distance of 20 feet to allow for additional stormwater
storage capacity in the proposed detention pond required to comply with the City of
Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria.
INTRODUCTION:
The property is located in Section 12, Township 29 South, Range 15 East within the
incorporated area of the City of Clearwater. The project site is part of Mosell Acres
Subdivision and is comprised of a single parcel identified by Pinellas County Property
Appraiser with number: 12/29/15/59184/000/0032. The total area of the parcel is
approximately 0.402 acres (17,500 sf) and is bounded by NE Coachman Road to the
Northwest. The site address is 2135 NE Coachman Road, Clearwater, Florida 33765.
The proposed development will include one 1-story office/medical clinic building with a
total gross floor area of 4,060 sf, a total of 19 on-site surface parking spaces, a
stormwater collection system and attractive drought tolerant landscape. The setbacks,
parking, drainage, utilities and landscaping are designed to support the proposed
development.
1. ARCHITECTURAL THEME
a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as
a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed
on the parcel proposed for development
N/A
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
• A balanced design for the landscape buffers that mixes shade trees, accent flowering
trees, palms, evergreen shrubs, and turf.
• A balanced design for the interior landscape islands that mixes shade trees, accent
flowering trees, palms, evergreen shrubs, and small plants / ground cover.
• A balanced design for the building foundation landscape that mixes accent flowering
trees, evergreen shrubs, and small plants / ground cover.
• The project will use Florida Grade #1 plant materials in the proposed landscape
treatment including (4) Live Oak, (5) Southern Magnolia, (3) Winged Elm, (6) Crape
Myrtle, (6) Yaupon Holly, (6) Royal Palm, (6) Queen Palm, (6) Washingtonian Palm, (6)
Cabbage Palm, (160) Sandanqua Viburnum, (27) Yellow Anise, (35) Firebush, (39)
Indian Hawthorne, (20) Walter's Viburnum, (15) Bird of Paradise, (20) Sand Cord Grass,
(19) Swamp Lilly, (482) Variegated Flax Lilly and Bahia sod.
• The project will implement a tree preservation plan that includes provisions to protect
four (4) mature oak trees (i.e. 15", 22", 24" and 26") adjacent to the project site impacted
by the proposed building and parking lot.
2. LIGHTING
Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is
automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is
closed
Outdoor lighting will meet the City of Clearwater Community Development Code.
3. COMMUNITY CHARACTER
The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape program will
enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater
The proposed planting materials described above and shown in the landscape plan will
enhance the look of the proposed building as well as the look of adjacent commercial
properties. Further, the proposed 48" fence wall in the front of the property will buffer the
parking lot so the future sight of the residences across NE Coachman Road will not be
negatively affected.
2
4. PROPERTY VALUES
The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape program will
have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity of the
parcel proposed for development
The number, size, quality of the proposed plant materials described above and the
balanced design shown in the proposed landscape plan will offer upgraded and positive
value to the immediate commercial properties.
5. SPECIAL AREA OR SCENIC CORRIDOR PLAN
The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape program is
consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of
Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed
for development is located
The proposed shade trees, accent trees and palms described above and shown in the
landscape plan will create a positive visual effect on pedestrians and vehicles driving on
NE Coachman Road.
3
butler
mew.,
F.,
11'e Xnu... it ha! Grr^ v
Land?,?apc Ik•tii?tttrr
May 15, 2010
'Vft
BUTLER
DES113N GROUP, INC.
i
DC1518n Group, Inc
Ron Belko
4203 46`h Avenue North
St. Petersburg, Florida 33714
Ph (727) 521-1684
Fax(727)527-7422
E-mail: bdg I AAampabay.rr.com
ronsplans,u?tampabaY.rr.com
FNG A
We Know R'har Grows
ttorliculture Pr4e sionot
Tree Inventory
2135 NE Coachman Road
Clearwater, Florida 33765
I have completed an assessment of all trees (4" dbh or greater) on the subject site and
within 25' of the property boundaries. My opinion is set forth below as to the viability
(rating of 1-5) and any potential hazards of these trees.
# ar .,i,. TREE DBH & SPECIES RATING COMMENTS
1 om5ile 21" Laurel Oak 2 Co-dominate, Inclusions, Dead wood, Epicormic
growth, Poor structure, Compacted soil,
Mechanical injury to roots, Decay, Die-back,
Declining,
In overhead wires=potential hazard
2 Softleaf Yucca Cluster 3
3 32" Water Oak 3 In Wires, Epicormic growth, Co-dominate,
Inclusions, Cross-branching, Mistletoe, Dead-wood,
Poor pruning, Decay, Dead-Limbs, Compacted soil
Page I of 3
4 Ligustrum Tree (Multi 4"Dbh 2 Over-mature, Declining, Anemic, Almost dead
Trunks)
5 Paurotis Cluster (Multi 10'+ct 3
trunks)
6 18" Camphor 2 Poor trunk flare, Possible girdling root, growing
against concrete pad, extremely poor pruning,
Crowded, Leaning over building, Dead-wood, Cross-
branching
7 orrs;te 8" Citrus species 2 In wires, anemic, Decay, declining, Poor pruning
8 10" Citrus species 2 Anemic, in wires, Decay, Declining, Bark splitting
9 uffs;,e 6" Citrus species 2 Almost dead
10 8"(Twin)Citrus species 2 Anemic, Cross-branching, Inclusions, Declining
11 (,,sit, 22" Live Oak 3 Co-dominate, Inclusions, Poor structure, Crowded
12 18" Slash Pine 3
13 6" Queen Palm 3 Crowded
14 orrs;,e 15"(Twin)Live Oak 3 Co-dominate, Inclusions
15 14" Maple 2 Dead-wood, Declining, Sapsucker
damage/Woodpecker damage, Co-dominate,
Inclusions, Epicormic growth, Mechanical injury to
roots, Compacted soil, Decay, Potentially
hazardous tree
16 8" Citrus species 2 Anemic, Poor pruning, Dead-wood, Declining
17 6" Queen Palm 3
18 12" Queen Palm 3 Vines
19 8" Queen Palm 3
20 4" Cherry Laurel 2 Growing in fence, Crowded, leaning, Potential
hazard
21 12"(Twin)China berry 1 Split, Dead-wood, Dead-wood/open decay to basal
flare, Hazardous tree
22 10"(Twin) Citrus species 2 Co-dominate, Cross-branching, Crowded, Decay,
Declining
23 6"(Twin)Podocarpus 3
24 12" Maple 2 Dead-wood, Crowded, Sapsucker/woodpecker
damage, Girdling root, Mechanical injury to roots,
Compacted soil, Declining
25 18" Slash Pine 3 Co-dominate, Vines, Dead-wood
26 ons;,e 5" Queen Palm 3 Crowded
27 oRS11e 24" Laurel Oak 3
28 16" Ear Tree(Multi-trunk) 1 Massive decay in trunk, Large amount of dead
wood, Hazardous tree
29 36" Laurel Oak 3 Co-dominate, Inclusions, Dead-wood, Compacted
soil, Extremely mature
30 7" Podocarpus 3 Crowded, One-sided,
31 34" Laurel Oak 3 Co-dominate, Inclusions, Poor pruning, Dead-wood,
Mistletoe, Very mature
Page 2 of 3
32 26" Laurel Oak 3 Crowded, Co-dominate, Inclusions, Dead-wood,
Extremely poor structure
33 14" Pindo Palm 3 Poor shape (Curved)
34 24" Laurel Oak 2 Vines, Compacted soil, Mechanical injury to roots,
Dead-wood, Poor pruning, Large limb growing
around power supply wires (TREE COULD BE
ENERGIZED) Immediate hazard, Corrective pruning
would raise tree to a (3) rating (ISA Certified Utility
Arborist should conduct pruning)
35 ,r 20" Laurel Oak 2 Tree has been topped due to overhead utility lines,
Co-dominate, Compacted soil, Extremely poor tree
I affirm that my opinions have been made in good faith, with no coercion from others. I
further affirm that I have no interest with the parties or people involved with neither this
issue nor any interest with regard to the outcome.
Sincerely,
Ron Belko
FNGLA Certified Landscape Designer: #D31-66
FNGLA Certified Horticulture Professional: #H31-6445
ISA Certified Arborist: #FL-5802A
ISA Certified Municipal Specialist: FL-5802M
Page 3 of 3
.,
Y "
1
g ?
D
2
C7 '^
( D vJ ® Z
o m
It
? m
^ ?Q Irm.[E1d6?NEMNfi r
SITE LAYOUT & PARKING PLAN maECrw. iomocmv
-ogre: Iwo
HPE om?lly
.
a„?ve,.?e?.,n »5 CLINICAL RESEARCH OF WEST FLORIDA m "By:
rei nza zz3an'
sso enesmm sues 2735 NE COACHMAN ROAD aec?oor w
, eo
cep nza rzs.ziw
LAND PLANNING-CIVIL ENGINEERING -GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33765
-.Y:w
gEV?siONS
t
Ono
?o
0
m
Ea PONRIEMINEERING
LANDSCAPE PLAN IBB?oA? 7ov,B
r
H PRGJECf. OESGXED BY: PB
c.n.r i
n^o.°,° n CLINICAL RESEARCH OF WEST FLORIDA ^^??
Te 927)72s3771
e3a cnes?
7-
713 2135 NE COACHMAN ROAD rxF"?
-
Cl.. , -d^ 33]56 F. (7x7)
LANDPLAN NING- C I VI L E NGI N EE RI NG- GEOTECHNI CAL ENGI NEERI NG CLEARWATER. FLORIDA 33765 ? 'm?? REV ISIONS
?R
ED
C
O E
D
L
U
L) i
w
0
m
LL d Z
m
/
U U _
N U
a?oo
o
A
g
A
?
KES01-10
PRELIMINARY
02 July 2010
1
1
A
.
_
I PRELIIINARYPLAN
-
\ 1
m I
I '
I
I
O({ices
\
o \
\
? \ I
\ I
\ I
'
\ I
\ I I
V
I
Medical
I ?
Clinic
I /
t\ /
° I\ I
_ I
N \ \
I \ I
\
) Groun Fl oorPlan
d
?
/ I 7
Silo 1/4°-i'-O^
I
o z R
FLOOR PLAN
I
L
Hyco 1 _.___
y rop o{pa,apes&
"F lov_roaf
g, £
g ? I
D,mmsions ue to awe?fvrtiondFUnd??q _
nm??s?o?s ??? m IaM? ?,nen d b??ld?rg
5 Right Elevation (NW)
Xale 116'.1 -C'
rop oV pqupef
ia.. goof
Dimms?ons are to lower portion of Fuildinq
f„
Al
wingum
o..sk Trrm ropdpa,?pets
i
D?m?m?o?, a.. ro Fynd w,t:o? d F,?ild?,g
Rear Elevation NE)
kale/6'=,' C"
. ?? e?s?o•s nee ? F,alx? x"-?o? N n.?.ld ??a
Left Elevafion (SE)
1i,rc,1'.. "aic niyne W .-,tali mg
Fronk Elevation (5W)
lie r5-ice
r' ifs z_
a
U 0
c
O ED
L .-
cu 0 LL
` U
p w
L ?
N U
KES01-70
PRELIMINARY
ELEVATIONS
02 July 2010
A.1_2
pp E?Ir.N?J (.p? PLhr?
»• t y _ ?^ -
L 1i I A;ZI-
jw ?C'
5treet Elevation looking 5E
1.1? v,a+,-r
.5?
rT
,r
v .t ?c
- ? •? ,? h rum T 6 hc6.x?? - ?
',c.l 'J rwMk i. . ? 1
I
Site 5edion looking NE
i
Q
c
O E e
L
LL 2 -m
co O
` U
U w 2
m
e- z
N U
KES01-10
PRELIMINARY
SITE SECTIONS
02 July 2010
-RE?"A", ILAI?a
A.1 3
0 O
U
°