Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
FLD2006-04024
Clearwater Planning Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Telephone: 727-562-4567 Fax: 727-562-4865 ? SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION ? SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION -Plans and application are required to be collated, stapled, and folded into sets ? SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE $ CASE #: ? Dl? l - D Dv? 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 04/28/2006) PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT- A. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) APPLICANT NAME: Ve v-vL Lo Ue&.-l_ MAILING ADDRESS: I- L--- L),t,+ IF PHONE NUMBER: 727 4426 1 17 Z FAX NUMBER: PROPERTY OWNER(S): LAA LOL(Cvt List ALL owners on the deed AGENT NAME: -3av 1 YS n ' MAILING ADDRESS: 4t7U QL OG?LcL1VrS'1 S?- sa PHONE NUMBER: -7v,3 !2-q5 7100 FAX NUMBER: 77-7 CELL NUMBER: _7,7 q S O L411,2- E-MAIL ADDRESS: yy v? B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) PROJECT NAME: 1PROJECT VALUATION: STREET ADDRESS 1 t5 32 , 15 3f e?vu d (S Z?I -5 ?t IG1.JG?vLC? PARCEL NUMBER(S): 23/z't 11517 qz-S 1 /00 2 O $p e) I Z_0 c? 6 0010 PARCEL SIZE (acres): I ?C( pu?Y>??j PARCEL SIZE (square feet): LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PROPOSED USE(S): :IdI DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: 5u A4uc kP-6 . 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.) ?1. X • dtcA-r-p%M . ca $ Z17 31.10000- PLANNING DEPARTMENT C:\DOCUME-1\KATRIN-1.BRE\LOCALS-1\Temp\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2006.01.doc Page 1 of 8 00 0* DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (T DR), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNI- 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) ? SUBMIT A COPY OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY, DEED TO THE PROPERTY OR SIGN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING OWNERSHIP (see page 7) D. WRITTEWSUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 3-913.A) ? Provide complete responses to the six (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA -Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail: 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. _jubJ ej rD"T%e 1 IS OvL Tile & d4 cl? 0 GO?L w i?6 d ? _ I . ir<r1r c a ib . r ??-?- u?d Se rVe Ll? V S }r,1p vi,,W1 +L,e. re?r:deK-t?c?l 1-v I ?5 -Int7e5k-cl+? - ?ni5,r'+1?- I.? ?S d?j?aK.;,n. 5tz? .un? tncar(?eru}e5 de??lS ? Stc??k c(v?,.? ?-i ITy b?t1c. - 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. all a?dlc??v?-?-pe?rcel!?Xle deyel???ecd Aida Ute t'4e ?}5 ? r,?c•'S ae?er?orc.-1?,rtc?. -tTAC-,ra,roAv54.1 w;11 eK1U'.Vt (e j1&C c.npearowLct aKd cuceSS -lc, -0,t v; c; vt:} s , CkAd s_ l p o r o V 66ty-t - c&yt& Ic?.i,?dscc• e roc ?. v 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. ? e a wit) C ?vere,l ?Cec - Cc}Lt or !,c eoV 'H' r- Vtewir+?orlrtbo?, «?t?y1 v?o? ?S?t?c, iC1C?t'? S i }f- [?YJ xOvi d C5 c? l t?" t??r i t.?'Y uU Ver.-,,v 6 ???.c7YJ(-?T.LOK. Ct ?if-? dYtYeS GIYsO.- ?G?[??U?? VC?!ti[.1? Lar'GU?G(e'?1S?? 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. (?e V ro f ote- aK e-W k--% e-v^A LAO t? 61VX-k Cks-Ce` t, ; or 4L4 e- 64e u]IO W i vll ? r rL r?_T - for btSet C; ?r?oVA.- ro?nrt lG? Cavi't %Ic.iti-l ,r?veWCL CA. A ul A4C x ' 1 ItrtCl f-'? 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. L ?SItVR t7 i1?t?t'_veCIP_d kC' -k•?t t?t?2xb "? dOWYt - trD?? Jae 5}-e J c?(1 4%e- b,,; t A %!srA Ao %,,> vL t"? - c ? .a•klr. -k??t e . ?5 c l? t.,r r-. 6. T . The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of.operation impacts, on adjacent properties. 1--? JProJPr55e SI(AV11T?CtE?yt? IwtidScsc?x_ d?}.?ub o +F'e. 61 e?5wel( u Cl- cue wr C:%V'e-1,CS %CD VL- a J dt ? ' 1 ; vt . Al- cs• d,.yr ,t- v?e,a? a,?b 6 „I„?tts arc 5k;?lded us?t.d -kLi,? ?Y, r t5 locate cL-1r1? ?Vrklle-} Vr0r'-1_ rC,S iAr-VLAr%CAA 01,Po55',b1e .lkt o ,ces w;11 o,fe rcAAC Aur;lne. ORIGINAL RECEIVED C:\DOCUME-1\KATRIN-1.BRE\LOCALS-1\Temp\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2006.01.doc Page 2 of 8 AUG 11 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER N WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria) ? Provide complete responses to the eight (8) COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CRITERIA - Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail: 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district cl gGG?V) t 1.?G elviC? 'lG &c yek %Qv&4e ,tA o ?-' *4i-, !ac.A.Y-cek,w i }zj c,-+4-,t 41v-P- VJ V i C4 t'w i tc? I?U? InG Gtt"°j ??C( ?0?. CCe S IS +I.iG (yviti?l Y °LLtCKS??P-- rlcc? + -Il??rr?vc?l.? ,-1-? no5? ???t° develot? eti-? o? 41/ic- t> 4-e e4,yL& ;-?5 coy-uklywt . 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. `:' vrro only ? rbpr, t- e5 a.t-p- deve 1 o ffmA , av \ +1A s de, ko ve v4e M7 cutne5 no Gtclve%,6e %Ae-l, 5 or iymyeae.S cu-ty tv-}? ,Aeve kopw,evL-}- 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. Sec AV e-c lie & 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ? Changes in horizontal building planes; ? Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; ? Variety in materials, colors and textures; ? Distinctive fenestration patterns; ? Building stepbacks; and ? Distinctive roofs forms. development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. e. The proposed ORIGI RECEIVE C:\DOCUME-1\KATRIN-1.BRE\LOCALS-1\Temp\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2006.01.doc Page 3 of 8 t!1rj 11 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • E. ST?RMWATER PLAN -SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual and 4-202.A.21) ? A STORMWATER NARRATIVE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH ALL APPLICATIONS. All applications that involve addition or modification of impervious surface, including buildings, must include a stormwater plan that demonstrates compliance with the City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual. A reduction in Impervious -surface area does not qualify as an exemption to this requirement. ? If a plan is not required, the narrative shall provide an explanation as to why the site is exempt. ? At a minimum, the STORMWATER PLAN shall include the following; ? Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines; ? Proposed grading including finished floor elevations of all structures; ? All adjacent streets and municipal storm systems; ? Proposed stormwater detention/retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; ? A narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including all calculations and data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City manual. ? Proposed stormwater detention/retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; ? Signature and seal of Florida Registered Professional Engineer on all plans and calculations. ? COPY OF PERMIT INQUIRY LETTER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER -MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT SUBMITTAL (SWFWMD approval is required prior to issuance of City Building Permit), if applicable ? ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF STORMWATER PLAN REQUIREMENTS (Applicant must initial one of the following): at stormwater plan as noted above is included ormwater plan is.not required and explanation narrative is attached. At a"minimum, a grading plan and finished floor elevations shall be provided. CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A STORMWATER PLAN AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562-4750. F. SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 4-202.A) ? SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (including legal description of property) - One original and 14 copies; ? TREE SURVEY (including existing trees on site and within 25'-Of the adjacent site, by species, size (DBH 4" or greater), and location, including drip lines and indicating trees to be removed) - please design around the existing trees; ? TREE INVENTORY; prepared by a "certified arborist", of all trees 8" 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). Prior to the submittal of this application, the methodology of such study shall be approved by the Community Development Coordinator and shall be in accordance with accepted traffic engineering principles. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved; ? GRADING PLAN, as applicable: ? PRELIMINARY PLAT, as required (Note: ? COPY OF RECORDED PLAT, as applicable; RECEIVED U0 11 2006 Building permits will not be issued until evidence of recording a final plat is provided); PLANNING DEPARTMENT C:\DOCUME-1\KATRIN-1.BRE\LOCALS-1\Temp\Comprehensive infll Project (FLD) 2006.01.doo ITY OF CLEARWATER Page 4 of 8 N G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A) SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36"): Index sheet referencing individual sheets included in package; North arrow; Engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet), and date prepared; All dimensions; Footprint and size of all EXISTING buildings and structures; Footprint and size of all PROPOSED buildings and structures; All required setbacks; All existing and proposed points of access; _ All required sight triangles; Identification of environmentally unique areas, such as watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, and specimen trees, including description and location of understory, ground cover vegetation and wildlife habitats, etc; Location of all public and private easements; Location of all street rights-of-way within and adjacent to the site; Location of existing public and private utilities, including fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes and lift stations, gas and water lines; _ All parking spaces, driveways, loading areas and vehicular use areas; _ Depiction by shading or crosshatching of all required parking lot interior landscaped areas; Location of all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment and all required screening {per Section 3-201(D)(i) and Index #701}; Location of all landscape material; Location of all onsite and offsite storm-water management facilities; Location of all outdoor lighting fixtures; and Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks. SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in written/tabular form: EXISTING REQUIRED PROPOSED Land area in square feet and acres; 7 $' { $ 7 1 • cf acrr? Number of EXISTING dwelling units; 0 _ Number of PROPOSED dwelling units; Gross floor area devoted to each use; I to{ f?l o 'Ce Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular form with the _ number of required spaces; 5f? 5y Total paved area, including all paved parking spaces & driveways, expressed in square feet & percentage of the paved vehicular area; Official records book and page numbers of all existing utility _ easement; Building and structure heights; Impermeable surface ratio (I.S.R.); and Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses. REDUCED COLOR SITE PLAN to scale (8'/z X 11); ?y ?l•s?? ??, c 1 d O 3so 9 -'l gY 1 vnoo-p ISfZ -(oaf . 107o ?f ZZ .5 ?a FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the following additional information on site plan: _ One-foot contours or spot elevations on site; Offsite elevations if required to evaluate the proposed stormwater management for the parcel; All open space areas; Location of all earth or water retaining walls and earth berms; Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned); Streets and drives (dimensioned); Building and structural setbacks (dimensioned); Structural overhangs; ORIGINAL RECEIVED 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMEI CITY OF CLEARWATEF C:\DOCUME-1\KATRIN-1.BRE\LOCALS-1\Temp\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2006.01.doc Page 5 of 8 40 H. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-1102.A) ? LANDSCAPE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24"x 36"): All existing and proposed structures; _ Names of abutting streets; _ Drainage and retention areas including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations; Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscape buffers; _ Sight visibility triangles; _ Delineation and dimensions of all parking areas including landscaping islands and curbing; Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and locations, including driplines (as indicated on required _ tree survey); Location, size, and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant _ schedule; Plant schedule with a key (symbol or label) indicating the size, description, specifications, quantities, and spacing requirements of all _ existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names; Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants including instructions, soil mixes, backfilling, mulching and protective measures; Interior landscaping areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressing in both square feet and percentage covered; Conditions of a previous development approval (e.g. conditions imposed by the Community Development Board); Irrigation notes. ? REDUCED COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8'%X 11); ? COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, as applicable. Landscape associated with the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall exceed minimum Code requirements to offset the areas where minimum Code will not be met. 1. BUILDING ELEVATION PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A.23) ? BUILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS - with the following information; All sides of all buildings; _ Dimensioned; Colors (provide one full sized set of colored elevations); Materials; _ Sight visibility triangles; ? REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATIONS - same as above to scale on 8'/2 X 11. J. SIGNAGE: (Division 19. SIGNS / Section 3-1806) ? All EXISTING freestanding and attached signs; Provide photographs and dimensions (area, height, etc.), indicate whether they will be removed or to remain. ? All PROPOSED freestanding and attached signs; Provide details including location, size, height, colors, materials and RIGINAL freestanding signs shall include the street address (numerals) RECEIVED ? Comprehensive Sign Program application, as applicable (separate application and fee required). ? Reduced signage proposal (8 %X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application. 4! IG 1 1 2006 CITY OF CLEARWATER C:\DOCUME-1\KATRIN-1.BRE\LOCALS--1\Temp\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2006.01.doc Page 6 of 8 40 i K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4.202.A.13 and 4.801.C) ? Include if required by the Traffic Operations Manager or his/her designee or if the proposed development: • Will degrade the acceptable level of service for any roadway as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. • Will generate 100 or more new vehicle directional trips per hour and/or 1000 or more new vehicle trips per day. • Will affect a nearby. roadway segment and/or intersection with five (5) reportable accidents within the prior twelve (12) month period or that is on the City's annual list of most hazardous intersections, Trip generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip General Manual. The Traffic Impact Study must be prepared in accordance with a "Scoping Meeting" held with the Traffic Operations Manager and the Planning Department's Development Review Manager or their designee (727-562-4750) Refer to Section 4-801 C of the Community Development Code for exceptions to this requirement. O Acknowledgement of traffic impact study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): Traffic Impact Study is included. The study must include a summar dway legs and each turning movement at all y table of pre- and post-development levels of service for all _ intersections identified in the Scoping Meeting. 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. O Acknowledgement of fire flow calculations/water study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is included. 're Flow Calculations/Water Study is not required. CAUTIO - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Fire Prevention Department at (727) 562-4334. M. SIGNATURE: I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize City representatives to visit and photograph the property described ipthis application. i nature of property wn r or epresentative ORIGINAL RECEIVED AUG 11 2006 STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Sw m to and subscribed before me this day of A.D. 20 & to me and/or by ' who is personally known has produced f as identification. N t public, My commission expires: PLANNING DEPARTMENT P ? 7org CITY OF CLEARWATER AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT: (Names of all property owners on deed - please PRINT full names) ?. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property (address or general location): IGS2 At,1o IK2A /, t1,, . A n 2. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a: (describe request) n _ 3. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint: V ?y ?v 6 ?? 12S PSI A as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; 4. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; 5. That 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; 6. That (1/we), the undersigned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true Owner Property Owner Property Owner rroperty Owner COUNTY OF PINELLAS STATE OF FLORIDA, JP0-,-,L.ndeays re,m undersigned an officer duly commissioned y the laws of the State of Floo this Personally appeared r day of th a he fully understands the contents of the affidavit tha a he signed. who having beyn first duly sworn My Commission Expires: Public S:IPlanning DepartmentOpplication Forms Idsve/opment reviewlilexible development comprehensive in/ill redevelopment application 2005.doc ORIGINAL RECEIVED t IQ ? ,Uu 112006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Page•8of $- Flexible Development Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Application 2005- City of Clearwater r M YERS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE, AIA, P.A. AA-0003461 ................................................................................................ 9170 Oakhurst Rd., Suite 3B Seminole, Florida 33776 August 8, 2006 Flexible Development Application, Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Addition to documentation • ORIGINAL RECEIVED AJG 11 2006 RE: Vern Loken, Highland Station 1532, 1536 and 1524 S Highland Avenue From page 1 of 8 of the application: Description of Request- PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Reduction of the North (side) setback from 20'-0" to 12'-5" for building and 7'-2" for pavement. Reduction of the South (side) setback from 20'-0" to 0'-9" for fire turn-around and 6'-0" to dumpster enclosure, building does not encroach. Reduction of the West (rear) setback from 20'-0" to 12'-0" for building and 13'-3" for pavement. Reduction of the East (front) setback from 25'-0" to 12'-7" for pavement, building does not encroach. Reduction of interior landscaping for 12% to 10.67%. No reduction of the North (side) landscape perimeter of 12'-0". Reduction of the South (side) landscape perimeter from 5'-0" to 0'-9" for fire turn-around, this encroachment only occurs for 25'-0" of the 297.4' of property on this side. No reduction of the West (rear) landscape perimeter of 12'-0". Reduction of the East (front) landscape perimeter from 15'-0" to 12-7" for pavement, this encroachment occurs for approximately 153' of the 375' of property line, due to the step in properties. Phone: 121-595-1100 Fax: 121-595-1158 E-mail: myersarch@ix.netcom.com M M YERS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE, AIA, P.A. AA-0003461 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9170 Oakhurst Rd., Suite 3B Seminole, Florida 33776 July 25, 2006 RE: FLD2006-04024 1532 S Highland Ave Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD): i The following are revised comments for the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria: 1. The development is otherwise impractical without deviations. While another design could have been located on the site that did not compromise setbacks, it would have had to been two stories, with distant parking, which we felt would be inappropriate to the surrounding community. We incorporated as much parking close to the building as possible, for ease of use of the occupants, in most cases using only a single loaded roadway. The building is designed for fit well on the site, stepping down as the site slopes and mimicking the overall "L" shape of the site. Having only one story, it will blend well with the surrounding one story buildings and help ease the transition between commercial and residential. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer detriment. The project develops an underutilized parcel and provides for the maintenance of the site, improving the view, and possible the property values. Owners on the reentrant corner of the site are aware of the potential development and we intend to provide a letter of support from them. We mediated any potential visual detriments to the dwellings to the west with the installation of a 6' solid PVC fence, along with the landscape buffering. 5. The use shall be otherwise permitted, compatible with adjacent properties, and not alter the use characteristics of the neighborhood. The proposed use is for an office space and is permitted on the site, the previous use was for a Landscaping business that had fallen into disrepair, and the reuse and revitalization of the space will be a welcome addition to the community. An office building will work well with the neighboring Doctor's office and Commercial mall, and serve as a transition between it and the residential area -behind it. ORIGINAL RECEIVED AUG 11 2006 Page 1 of 2 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER M • 6. Flexibility in requirements are justified based on demonstrated compliance with the following objectives. Setbacks, buffers, and interior landscaping cannot be met in order to make the parking as accessible as possible, and the building fit the site and its context as best as possible. We also feel that the Fire Department turn-around requirement has mad out interior landscaping and vehicular use areas disproportionate to what they otherwise would have been without that requirement. Flexibility in regard to these concerns is justified based on the design quality and landscaping. The development will not impede other surrounding developments, should the existing businesses and home choose to develop further. It also has a pleasing design intending to fit the site as well as possible, mimicking its shape and stepping down along with its slope. Its scale and intensity are transitional between the neighboring massive strip-mall, the surrounding offices, and the neighboring residences. The building itself incorporates step-backs along its fagade and roof lines to add interest and bring down its scale. Columns and a continuous covered walkway, along with a variety of muted colors and textures enhance the look of the building. Generous windows and Boston hip roofs add interest and distinction. Landscape buffers, while not strictly to code, are further enhanced with extra shrub rows, very little sod, and fences to help separate differing uses. ORIGINAL RECEIVED AUG 11 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Phone: '12-1-595-7100 Fax: '12-7-595-1158 E-mail: myer9arch@ix.netr_om-oom1ff Page 2 of 2 N ° Clearwater u 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 including 1) collated, 2) stapled and 3) folded sets of site plans ? SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE $ CASE #: DATE RECEIVED: RECEIVED BY (staff initials): ATLAS PAGE #: ZONING DISTRICT: LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: SURROUNDING USES OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES: NORTH: SOUTH: WEST: EAST: * NOTE: 15 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS) FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Residential Infill Project (Revised 02/24/2006) PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT- A. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) APPLICANT NAME: ` ?/er.-, Lo ?K MAILING ADDRESS: 2 5 ec tp ? dt L?-t L%K i -? H 0 -2? g e-)k.i r FL s3-76Z, PHONE NUMBER: -72-7 143 1 1 7 2 FAX NUMBER: PROPERTY OWNER(S): L AA Lc <,--L t ?c ?10ck1?L Q 1 Yl3 `a"? (Must include ALL owners as listed on the deed - provide original signature(s) on page 6) AGENT NAME: ?J ?V INS 4 e <6 f? L 1_ MAILING ADDRESS: Ko ?'C PHONE NUMBER: -7Z-1 515 •710 0 7-7 Si S 7138 FAX NUMBER: 7 CELL NUMBER: 7Z7 `t3O q I62- . 1 E-MAIL ADDRESS: YvlW pyS0.r0'L? ?X•KC ?wv1?t •cyt^?+ B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) STREET ADDRESS of subject site: 1 5-zq 4,oxticwv,.cA- Ave- 1.3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 5GG ??Vlee-? A- (if not listed here, please note the location of this document in the submittal) PARCEL NUMBER: 23 2-9/1S 179 7-5 007-1012-0 PARCEL SIZE: 10?,'-Y 23 G"-Lre.S (acres, square feet) PROPOSED USE(S), SIZE(S), AND VALUE OF PROJECT: 40rtirV :yta 0 ( a-4A - GevL ? ????e b V?1 d K? (number of dwelling units, hotel rooms or square footage of nonresidential use) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST(S): - tee. Attach sheets and be specific when identifying the request (include all requested code deviations; e.g. reduction in required number of parking spaces, spec% aos ) RECEIVED !G 1! 0 Page 1 of 7 - Flexible Development Application Residential Infill 2006 - City of Clearwater 6 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER f 3 N N DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTIFIED) SITE PLAN? YES _ NO 7 (if yes, attach a copy of the applicable documents) C. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP: (Code Section 4-202.A.5) ? SUBMIT A COPY OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY, DEED TO THE PROPERTY OR SIGN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING OWNERSHIP (see page 7) D. ? 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. A 4r'a"V- 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. -5ep ^ , , %-,tc d 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. r /'C'M-cnL LIP. a 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. SQL ORIGINAL RECEIVED AUG 11 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Page 2 of 7 - Flexible Development Application Residential Infill 2006 - City of Clearwater w N ? 1. Provide complete responses to the seven (7) RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT CRITERIA - Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail: The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the intensity and development standards. `, \ be-r- A 4C"4 -?Le-8 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. (Include the existing value of the site and the proposed value of the site with the improvements.) wee, /? ?#c?.c?ee? 3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater. dCC Akkc t-v%P-6 4. The uses or mix of use within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. 5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. j- ee },?ac ltie.6 6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function that enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. 7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. ORIGINAL RECEIVED t!!a 11 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Page 3 of 7 - Flexible Development Application Residential Infill 2006 - City of Clearwater so E. STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Manual and 4-202.A.21) A STORMWATER NARRATIVE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH ALL APPLICATIONS. All applications that invol addition or modification of impervious surface, including buildings, must include a stormwater plan that demonstrates compliance with t City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual. A reduction in impervious surface area does not qualify as an exemption this requirement. If a plan is not required, the narrative shall provide an explanation as to why the site is exempt. ? At a minimum, the STORMWATER PLAN shall include the following: Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines; Proposed grading including finished floor elevations of all structures; All adjacent streets and municipal storm systems; Proposed stormwater detention/retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; A narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including all calculations and data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City manual. Signature and seal of Florida Registered Professional Engineer on all plans and calculations. ? COPY OF PERMIT INQUIRY LETTER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT SUBMITTAL (SWFWMD approval is required prior to issuance of City Building Permit), if applicable ? Acknowledgement of stormwater plan requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): Stormwater plan as noted above is included Stormwater plan is not required and explanation narrative is attached. At a minimum, a grading plan and finished floor elevations shall provide . CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A STORMWATER PLAN AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562.4750. F. SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 4-202.A) ? SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (including legal description of property) - One original and 14 copies; ? 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; ? LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY; ? PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (ie. Reduce number of spaces). Prior to the submittal of this application, the methodology of such study shall be approved by the Community Development Coordinator and shall be in accordance with accepted traffic engineering principles. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved; ? GRADING PLAN, as applicable; ? PRELIMINARY PLAT, as required (Note: Building permits will not be issued until evidence of recording a final plat is provided); ? COPY OF RECORDED PLAT, as applicable; G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A) ? SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36"): _ All dimensions; _ North arrow; Engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet), and date prepared; Location map; Index sheet referencing individual sheets included in package; Footprint and size of all EXISTING buildings and structures; Footprint and size of all PROPOSED buildings and structures; All required setbacks; All existing and proposed points of access; All required sight triangles; Identification of environmentally unique areas, such as watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, and specimen trees, including description and location of understory, ground cover vegetation and wildlife habitats, etc; Location of all public and private easements; Location of all street rights-of-way within and adjacent to the site; ORIGINAL RECEIVED AUG 11 2005 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Page 4 of 7 - Flexible Development Application Residential Infill 2006 - City of Clearwater so N Location of existing public and private utilities, including fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes and lift stations, gas and water lines; _ All parking spaces, driveways, loading areas and vehicular use areas; Depiction by shading or crosshatching of all required parking lot interior landscaped areas; _ Location of all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment and all required screening {per Section 3-201(D)(i) and Index #701); Location of all landscape material; _ Location of all onsite and offsite storm-water management facilities; _ Location of all outdoor lighting fixtures; and Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks. ? SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in written/tabular form: _ Land area in square feet and acres; _ Number of EXISTING dwelling units; Number of PROPOSED dwelling units; _ Gross floor area devoted to each use; Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular form with the number of required spaces; Total paved area, including all paved parking spaces and driveways, expressed in square feet and percentage of the paved vehicular area; Size and species of all landscape material; Official records book and page numbers of all existing utility easement; Building and structure heights; Impermeable surface ratio (I.S.R.); and Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses. ? REDUCED SITE PLAN to scale (8'%X 11) and color rendering if possible; ? FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the following additional information on site plan: _ One-foot contours or spot elevations on site; _ Offsite elevations if required to evaluate the proposed stormwater management for the parcel; All open space areas; _ Location of all earth or water retaining walls and earth berms; Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned); Streets and drives (dimensioned); Building and structural setbacks (dimensioned); Structural overhangs; Tree Inventory; prepared by a "certified arborist", of all trees 8" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and condition of such trees. H. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-1102.A) ? LANDSCAPE PLAN: All existing and proposed structures; Names of abutting streets; Drainage and retention areas including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations; _ Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscape buffers; Sight visibility triangles; _ Delineation and dimensions of all parking areas including landscaping islands and curbing; _ Proposed and required parking spaces; - Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and locations, including driplines (as indicated on required tree survey); - Plant schedule with a key (symbol or label) indicating the size, description, specifications and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names; _ Location, size, and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant schedule; Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants including instructions, soil mixes, backfilling, mulching and protective measures; Interior landscaping areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressing in both square feet and percentage covered; Conditions of a previous development approval (e.g. conditions imposed by the Community Development Board); Irrigation notes. ? REDUCED LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8'/: X 11) (color rendering if possible); ? IRRIGATION PLAN (required for level two and three approval); ? 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. ORIGINAL RECEIVED Page 5 of 7 - Flexible Development Application Residential Infill 2006 - City of Clearwater 11 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER so M 1. BUILDING ELEVATION PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A.23) Required in the event the application includes a development where design standards are in issue (e.g. Tourist and Downtown Districts) or as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project or a Residential Infill Project. ? BUILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS -all sides of all buildings including height dimensions, colors and materials; ? REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATIONS - four sides of building with colors and materials to scale (8'/z X 11) (black and white and color rendering, if possible) as required. J. SIGNAGE: (Division 19. SIGNS / Section 3-1806) ? All EXISTING freestanding and attached signs; Provide photographs and dimensions (area, height, etc.), indicate whether they will be removed or to remain. ? All PROPOSED freestanding and attached signs; Provide details including location, size, height, colors, materials and drawing; freestanding signs shall include the street address (numerals) ? Comprehensive Sign Program application, as applicable (separate application and fee required). ? Reduced signage proposal (8'/Z X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application. K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4-202.A.13 and 4-801.C) ? Include if required by the Traffic Operations Manager or his/her designee or if the proposed development: • Will degrade the acceptable level of service for any roadway as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. • Will generate 100 or more new vehicle directional trips per hour and/or 1000 or more new vehicle trips per day. • Will affect a nearby roadway segment and/or intersection with five (5) reportable accidents within the prior twelve (12) month period or that is on the City's annual list of most hazardous intersections. Trip generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip General Manual. The Traffic Impact Study must be prepared in accordance with a "Scoping Meeting" held with the Traffic Operations Manager and the Planning Department's Development Review Manager or their designee (727-562-4750) Refer to Section 4-801 C of the Community Development Code for exceptions to this requirement. ? Acknowledgement of traffic impact study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): Traffic Impact Study is included. The study must include a summary table of pre- and post-development levels of service for all roadway legs and each turning movement at all intersections identified in the Scoping Meeting. Traffic Impact Study is not required. CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562-4750. L. 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. STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of A.D. 20 to me and/or by who is personally known has produced as identification. Signature of property owner or representative Notary public, My commission expires: RECEIVED Page 6 of 7 - Flexible Development Application Residential Infill 2006 - City of Clearwater A,UG 112 0 0 6 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER so N MYERS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE, AIA, P.A. AA-0003461 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9170 Oakhurst Rd., Suite 3B Seminole, Florida 33776 July 25, 2006 RE: FLD2006-04024 1532 S Highland Ave Residential Infill Project (FLD): Request: Reduction of the North (side) setback from 10'-0" to 7'-2" for pavement. Reduction of the South (side) setback from 10'-0" to 0' for parking, allowed due to adjacent property for the parking to serve. No reduction of the West (rear) setback. Reduction of the East (front) setback from 25'-0" to 20'-1/2" for parking. No reductions in perimeter landscape buffers. No reduction in Interior landscaping. (1245.5 sq.ft. of 6270 sq.ft. of vehicular use, 19.9%) The following are revised comments for the Residential Infill Application: General Applicability 1. The proposed development will be in harmony with the bulk, scale, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties. The non-residential parking is in harmony with the non-residential use to the North and residences to the West in its improved landscaping and use of a 6' solid fence in order to buffer between the lots. We have used multiple rows of hedges, rather than just one, and have incorporated many existing trees into the design, and removed failing or dangerous trees in order to encourage the remaining ones. Parking across Highland is 4 per 1,000 for commercial, and we want to provide adequate access for the buildings occupants. 2. The proposed will not hinder the use or value of adjacent land. In light of the reduced setbacks, we increased the amount of landscaping on the North side of the property, and incorporated a 6' solid PVC fence. These added features will ensure that surrounding lots can develop as they please, and this development will not deter the va ERE eof. Page 1 of 3 t.:i l 11 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER C7 M 3. The development will not deter health or safety op people residing or working nearby. The lot was designed with safety in mind, providing access ramps and 6" curbs to protect both people and vehicles. The 6' solid PVC fence will protect the closest lots for any visual detriment, and from the occupants of the building entering private property. 4. The development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The parking lot is designed for easy access to the site and clarifies entrance to the site. It also supplements the parking capacity of the adjacent site to ensure there will be no cars waiting for a place on Highland or within the development. 5. The development is consistent with community character. While the parking for the proposed lot is on a LMDR lot, its use for parking is appropriate considering the nearness of other commercial developments across Highland and both North and South of the site. 6. The design minimized adverse affects on adjacent properties. The project develops an underutilized parcel and provides for the maintenance of the site, improving the view, and possible the property values. Owners on the West of the site are aware of the potential development and we intend to provide a letter of support from them. We mediated any potential visual detriments to the dwellings to the West and commercial property to the North with the installation of a 6' solid PVC fence, along with increased landscaping. Project Criteria 1. The development of the parcel is impractical without deviations in setbacks. A double loaded parking drive and lot will not fit on the width of this site without deviations in setbacks. Parking is the best use for this site, as it seems to be surrounded on the North, South, and East by commercial or Office uses and not really appropriate for Residential uses. 2. Development will not reduce the market value of neighboring properties. The landscaping on this site will be superior to anything around it, and well maintained, possibly enhancing the surrounding property values. 3. The use is otherwise permitted in Clearwater. The parking is allowed in this use, with constraints, and elsewhere in the City. 4. The uses or mix of uses is compatible with surrounding uses. ORIGINAL RECEIVED ?,!!r 11 2006 Page 2 of 3 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER N M Parking is the best use for this site, as it seems to be surrounded on the North, South, and East by commercial or Office uses and not really appropriate for Residential uses. The detached dwellings to the West are the logical edge to the Residential area. 5. The development will upgrade the immediate vicinity. The proposed use is for parking for the adjacent proposed office space and is permitted on the site, the previous use was for a Landscaping business that had fallen into disrepair, and the reuse and revitalization of the space will be a welcome addition to the community. An office building will work well with the neighboring Doctor's office and Commercial mall, and serve as a transition between it and the residential area behind it. The development also provides for the continued maintenance of the site to keep it looking nice. 6. The design creates a form and function that enhances community character. The previous use was for a Landscaping business that had fallen into disrepair, and the reuse and revitalization of the space will be a welcome addition to the community. The development also provides for the continued maintenance of the site to keep it looking nice. The additional parking for the office complex will keep traffic congestion down around the entrance to the site and within the parking lot itself. 7. Flexibility in setbacks are justified by the benefits to the community character and Clearwater. Flexibility in regards to the setbacks is justified by the increased use of the site, and the subsequent maintenance that the development will offer the currently under-maintained site. Its attractive landscaping, as well as the preserved trees will add to the beauty of the area, and the City as a whole. ORIGINAL RECEIVED .AJUG 11 2006 PLANNING DEPARTME14T CITY OF CLEARWATER Phone: '12-7-5q5-'1100 Fax: 72-7-595-1138 E-mail: myergarchaix.netcom.cornIff Page 5 of 5 U. 'C Planning and Development Services leamater Clearwater, Florida 33756 El SUBMIT 1 COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION including folded site plan M CASE #: DATE RECEIVED: RECEIVED BY (staff initials):. ATLAS PAGE #: ZONING DISTRICT: LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: ZONING & LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES: NORTH: / SOUTH: I WEST: / EAST: / COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS (Revised 9/19/2001) D. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-1001) APPLICANT NAME: Vern L-014P MAILING ADDRESS: Z e?U?P L,ti ( ??+ I1P ?•• t FL 3 375(Q PHONE NUMBER: 7Z-7 - 44 $ 117 Z. FAX NUMBER: PROPERTY OWNER(S): LM Lo "- ?4occ?k TruS' (Must include ALL owners) AGENT NAME: (Contact Person) ?u? A%A MAILING ADDRESS: 1170 0AVLIVr? )Q 4jic- ? ? t/1.??vIDIE ?- ?7L? PHONE NUMBER: 7Z7 51%5 7100 FAX NUMBER: 7Z7 5917 71 `56 The landscaping requirements of Article 3 Division 12 may be waived or modified as a part of a Level One or Level Two Approval, as the case may be, if the application for development approval includes a Comprehensive Landscape Program, which satisfies the following criteria. The use of landscape plans; sections/elevations, renderings and perspectives may be necessary as supplementary information in addition to the information provided on this worksheet: 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. G r A41 rejL-, vLSL ? 6 e? c A+c - L Lem '?VLe c ?=. ORIGINAL RECEIVED .± 3 11 2006 121 ANNINIG DEPARTMENT Page 1 of 3 CITY OF CLEARWATER Telephone: 727-562-4567 Fax: 727-562-4576. t~' (} L3 SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED 100 South APPLICATION Myrtle Avenue w OR M 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. 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. 5cc A4c"Iete d- 3. Community Character. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. Sec A k-kt e-%--e d. ORIGINAL RECEIVED t! 1r) 11 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CL EARWATER Page 2 of 3 so 4. 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. ,!5« "I 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. jec Akt e. I-,z & Please return checklist for review and verification. Date: (Signature of applicant) ORIGINAL RECEIVED AUG 112000 S: application forms/development review/comprehensive landscape program application.doc PLANNING DEPARTMENT Page 3 of 3 CITY OF CLEARWATER M MYERS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE, AIA, P.A. AA-0003461 9170 Oakhurst Rd., Suite 3B Seminole, Florida 33776 July 25, 2006 RE: FLD2006-04024 1532 S Highland Ave Comprehensive Landscape Application: 1. Architectural theme. w a. The landscaping in a CLP shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the buildings proposed. The landscaping designed for this project is intended to maximize the buffering between this development and other properties, and set off the building's design. We incorporated multiple rows of shrubs along the edges of the property, instead of the one required by code, and added more plants than necessary in most areas. A 6' solid PVC fence is also utilized on the North and North-West property lines to buffer further from the residential area. Trees in attractive plant boxes comprise the foundation buffer, situated to highlight the step-backs in the building's fagade. b. The landscaping proposed shall be more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted under the minimum standards. Multiple lines of shrubs are provided, rather than just one, as well as a very conscious attempt to use existing trees, even moving some to elsewhere on the site. Use of a 6' solid PVC fence, and minimal use of sod in order to conserve water also go beyond the minimum requirements. We even plan on installing some plantings in the right of way to complete the design and compliment the existing trees. 2. Lighting. All exterior lighting will be located on the building itself, and set on a timer to turn off at 9pm. 3. Community Character. The proposed landscaping is designed to enhance a currently untended site and provide for maintenance that will keep the site looking beautiful for years to come. The active operation of the office building will ensure that the landscaping is maintained and enhance the view on what is slated to become a secondary scenic corridor for the City of Clearwater. ORIGINAL. RECEIVED Page 1 of 2 o is 11 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER C: 4. Property Values. N The landscaping is of a very good quality and design, exceeding minimum requirements in number of shrubs and incorporated fences. In developing the parcel, neighboring properties should receive appreciation in their values from the improved exposure and appearance. 5. Special Area or Scenic Corridor Plan. The City is considering designating Highland Avenue as a Secondary corridor. With three rows of shrubs and multiple large existing trees and many accent trees along the front lot line, we feel the project will meet the requirements of the plan, when adopted. ORIGINAL RECEIVED p,IJG 112000 PLANNING DEPARTIviEN' CITY OF CLEARWATER Phone: '72'1-5q5-"1100 Fax: "121-595-'7138 E-mail: myeraarchc ix.netcom.com Page 2 of 2 09 • f- w LU 1-- ? h< -' N a Q O[Y LLI Z® SCHEDULEOf DikA^IINOS ARCHITECTURAL PARCEL IDS: 5OUTHERN PARGEL 1532 5 HIGHLAND 23 /.29 15 / '79254 / 00: / 0080 23 / 29 / 15 / '79254 / 002 / 0010 NORTHERN PARCEL: 1524 5 HIGHLAND 23 / 29 / 15 /719254 / 002 / 0120 LEV,aa. aesca?naN: SEOTL. 33. Tp'NSNIP 29 SOVTH, P,ANGE :5 EPST, LOt5 1 THRgX H I i, ? SJ TI4Q16M SB ALL M &L`(K 5•, ALSp T ONE +?LF OF VAOPTED SGOTt STREET ANDVPCJ.TEp ERAfND SKEET AOC-PA. HE'GHTS A5 RECORDED N PLAT BOOK 10 PI!>E 6 THE R'ELIL : £LORDS GF PNELLAS OQ;NT`: FLO?I?A LE55 N+D EYl.EP. T£ EAST T.00 FET POR LOAD H15HTVP--? r CN LOTS B TNR0.GH II ONLY. g PRCf??TY APPFJRS t0 __ N FLPOJ ZR1E X. AND SECTION ]3, TO%a.SNIP ]9 SOJTH, RINGE .S FAST, LOfS 13. 19, M'O THE 50:TH XI.00 FT 6 LOT 14 9LIX'.K b", SGOI!A HEIGHT5 h5 RE .ORD'FD N PLAT BGOK 10, PPGE 10, CP THE PVgLIO RE0GRJ5 GR PMLLLA5 COUNTY, FLOttIDA. No;E DATA FGA -I SITE e!5 WAS T.- FROM S lt- DATED 03/04/05 AND 0:/]4/08 -W OIT SY_ ALL!ED ?1RVEVNG 5 NORTH HIGHL4ID nvL'-NUE GL=IRWATEP.. FL 33T55 LEGEND Ro, RED .P ?.o .?N PP- x ?o ??? SN,D xT NAIL , rn PLAT Nusu.nsN. _ ?m.+Y Pae oR FecoRO wr..w.ICR le To e RRKS4roN ?N-re . or ceaNUNS He rae ca,orzaeR .. voNr oc car•++errew.?. P Paerz w TxRrNA.ic? ?2 zvm vnm em.Pnm* I. tXt9T nO0.+4.rvArOU -?. '>t[+vL?+,wi n5M?0L+ -T ov . 00.00 sPOr FyFVATbN HG .T PMe tnex f9rrz b NOiTD! i`I; *n2e Ncrec vAU+ :et2 t?13 re rn.m, 0-7/05/06 M q wv a E Q U E Q O y C W x ? a s Uz ? W F d ET x m U M o0 M.. r Q r p U cG r ? a w ? o oQ r (7'''41 a r <-r r J y LL 3 O z J 0. ? v U W j L Q iL- LL Di `n L Q 3 z v x L ry m z = Ifl r (V I Q G 0 HIGHLAND AVENUE 0 9 I p p MULCH 3' FROM STEMS 3' MLLGH LAYER PREPARED PLAVTN6 50L EXBTNb UNDSTURBED SOIL 3 TO 5 T1HE5 WD1VJ OF Rp01BALL SPREAD SHRUB 4 OROUNDCOVER PLANTING DETAIL N.T.S. O d 2 YORS ? LAPED o TRI.NK F TAKES 30 PPART T X z X 5TPKE5 MULCH 3' FRGM TRUKK PG bPLV E FUILH 3 DEPiH TvFD pD LOOSFIff.D R E 6N' B NOTE: SET ROOT - - 6RPDE TO 4' PROVE FL ANLL I.5_T_ KEY a'Cl? B. ICALNAM COMMON-NAME 51ZE CON. AIN SPACING. R MARK5 66 199 GALPHEMU 6RAUL5 THRYNLB IB' TO 3 ' HIGH D 6AL. NO MORE THAN Yb" OL. G K 1 3"19 ILEX GJ951NE .AMRERVS L0IJFERTA DAHOON HOLLY SHORE 1JNP[R D' "a H16H %N6LE 5TEM 1Z" TO ID' BIB OR LONTNNER 6ROPN 1 bPL. P5 SFIGiYJ NOM TNAN Zb' O.L. U 14 LAGERSTOMIA NDIGA GRAPE MYRT B TO 10 HIGH 4NG % BIB OR LCNTAMER 6RCMN MORE THAN 2'b• OG. L5 PA 16 b LIL4I0AMA4 STYR/OIFLUA PRUNUS NMUSTHOIJA 5PEE f bUM IGIC/AN'1 PLUMB %' GALPER IY HIGH B' TO td ..H %IN6LE 5TEM 010 CR GCNTNNER bRLVN BIB OR LONTNNtII 6RLlYJ N 9NG^N A9 9NOPN PM 49 PLVMBAGO ALRKULATA ALGA PLUMBA60 ID' TO 24" HIGH 3 6K NO MORE THMI Y-b' o ,c. PM RI 46 106 PODOGMRIS MAROPNYLW9 RPPHGLEPB INDK.A YEW PMe NDINJ HAWTHORN V MNIMUM H16H ID" TO 34' HIbH T GAL. 3 GAL. !10 MORP THMI Yb' O.G. NO MORE THMI Zb' O.G. RS 5P 53 16 RNODBJDWIM SM511 SABLE PALMETTO FOfOH05A ALV£h GARBAGE PALM 2i' H16H MNIMUM Id TO 14' NIbN 3 bAL. SOLD EARTH BALL NO MORE THMI Zb• O.G. A5 SH0.'N NO NOt FRE SGMRED V5 434 VIBIRNUM 55PEN5UM SMIDMIKWA NBJRNIM 24MNTUM M' 1 O .G. NO MORE THMI 7"Q GN ZF 6 LLIERCUS VRGMIA ZN11A RIRNRAGEA LNE OAK LAROBOARD PALH ER IY HIGH 16• O a BIB OR GONTNNER 6RGY^N 9 GAL. A9 SNOPN NO MORE THAN Yb' O.L. ZP T4 ZNAIA RIMIER TM2YNIB 10' 34' H16H 1 go- . ii 9 GAL NO MORE 1NAN Yb' O.G. TREE PLANTING DETAIL p NO_IFS: N.T5. tB'< 1. N1 PYJOD SHALL Be 9PRUCC OR PNe FRE^JOA2E RtEATED. 2. REMOVE ALL 9TRN6 VOR Y+RE PO2IJ°PED ARORm TRLNK 1 5. REMOVE ALL DTRKS. ROPES. WRE, VGR STRN69 USED TO LIFT THE RLOTBALL p RP10VE ALL BLFtLM UGR WIRE FROM THE TOP OF TiE ROOT BPLL I 5. TQ OP R00TBPL. TO BE SET2' TO 4' MOVE °.AIRRCOnmIIVG FNISH 6RAOE. REGLEGOWGFOSPATHATNEIt 1G D -1 CgTF TO O l5pNBPW V - E E l 00 I, BASE Of iURR???SFULL HEAD 0 BASe Oi TOO IG£ RB0.w TID 5HPNLN1 IE f3ETPREURNPK ENSDHAIGLUL LM BE 0 1 STRN6HT PND PiLHOIT GIRVES. yFyS NO SCARRED LR BLKKBJED TRUNKS. 19y MNM 5 LAYER5 T TREE O 3 NCNSLP METPL LOLW25 (6) 3 X 4 WOODBJ STRIPS OVER &1RLM ¢' 6.5aL SNr,ER ro HOLD wrree w u S PLPNT PNN O•TOY /HOVE bRPDE P 3W 5' M1lLH. REFER T05PELIFlLATIGIS Ipp (3)3X4 HWLF5 NALm TO3 X4 WOODEIJ STRP?i 3' X 4• %9' STAKE FNBH bRA /?B?El21R?ED BY SOIL M ENDED 50L 1 RCOf BALL D LOMPPOTm 50L TO PRPVENT SeTTLNG p, • I iP?rnaXMAi eXI%rNG ?B6RAOe NO2 STPKM6 16UTN6 REO1R® FGR PALMS, IF NELE55ARY. LR A5 DRELTED BY THE LNJDSLME DE516NER. PALM TREE PLANTING AND 5TAKING DETAIL SOD N.T.S. PROVDE TREES, SHRLHS MID PLANTS THAT COMPLY PITH STINDMtDf OF FLLRIDA GRADE ?I GR BETfQt IS 6NEIJ N GRADES AND STAND/RDS FOR NIR Y PLNJi%, STATE OF FILRID/? DEI°N2TMENT OF IGRIOILTIRE MID GGNSLMLR SERVICES. ALL PLANTING ARPA9 MID OfNER M2F1 A5 NDIGATFD SHN.L REGErvE A MNNUM OF 3' OF PNE %TRNN MULCH. 50D TO BE DOT GRADE PENSAGOLA BMIIA 6RA9A PROVDE IUTQHATIG RRGAIICN SYSTEM TO PRO FULL GOVIItNG CF PLMRNb MID 50D AREA9 MID BIRRGVNDN6 All NEW PLANTN6 AREAS. 9Y51EM To TO NAVE RAM 5BJ5L%t PBTII NfTOMATG SMIT OFF. ® GARDBO/RD PALO ? GRAPE MYRTLP Q CABBAGE PALM O FLRM09A ALMA /// ® LNE OAK SHORE ,UNIPER \? NBN 6' SOLID PVG ? %PaFET GUM • NDIAN HA WlNORN v? DMIOGI HOLLY J V@IIRWM 41%PENSUM ? YBN PO! O LOQITE r '. R1 /?.O TM¢YN.LIS • PWHBKaO ® d( GHIGK/E1lJ"1 RUMB r? EJ[ISTN6 TREE ?#E L-3 NJD L-4 PQt DESLRPLIDN5 ?? QIEBJ PNM ? E>oDTNb TREE i0 Bt REMOV£C, 5ff L-3 AND L+1 FG DESGRIPIGNS L 1T NTB9IGR LNJDSGAPNG: 9.299.5% 90.FT. OF 30,DT263 90FT. VEHICUIIR U5E. 10.69 % r - 'HATCH LENOIES NTERIOR LMIDSGAPN6 L?.J 6I NOTE: ALL LMID3LAPN6 P(i11[191GHT VFBILRY TRW 16Lp TO BE MMITIWED AT NEW 6 50UD PVG BelpY 30 N NEI6Hi. FENCE GH PROPERTY LNE RELOUTEDPQEEN V.V gOD EX pTNb OUEtN 60' l . 45'. KM TO BE 90D 4T-M- RELLtiATEV r0 NW - COfeNER OF 5RE - . HIGHLAND AVENUE LANDSCAPING PLAN 0"1/25/06 • 0 - ? ?7 ..- ^ - - ?r ...?fo( 1 1 1! 1 1 1 r 7im RN w a ffl? MTR I r-_ -tea - ff?s AM III x - e _EE PANT COLORS: BA6E COLOR - POP-TER PAFNT56152-2 PALE MAR6UERRE TRIM. GOLLMN5. DETMLe,. AND FA5GAV5pFFlT5 - PORTER PAN75 6187-1 VERMOUTH WH:TE 7?1. OD N N Pa,1 r-,A96,-uGK6 o? I o lZ-ll V 612Mo uT4 LZ 41 TE ??.. .. :.ter _ _ - .'? i..lain ? •"???- ?? IY I ?a 2ac>F • At-2 NEW PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING FOR HIGHLAND OFFICE COMPLEX MYF.RS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITF.CTURF AIA PA 9170 OAKHURST ROAD SUITE; 38 SF.MINOI,.F., FLORIDA ]AY F'. MYERS 4959 1532 5 HIGHLAND AVE, CLEARWATER, FL 727 - 595 - 7100 FAX 727 - 595 - 7138 myersarch@ix.netconl.coro 1) AA 4X))3461 p N rO GHLAND OFFICE COMPI STO WATER MANAGEMENT FA?LITIES Drainage Analysis Job Number: 1268-05 04/26/06 Drainage Area = 72,136.89 S.F. (1.6560 Acres) TOTAL LAND AREA: = 72,136.89 S.F. (1.6560 Acres) Existing Conditions Vacant = Former Nursery Weighted "C" (Pre-Construction) C = 0.20 Time of Concentration (Historic) Slope Elevation = 58.7 - 54.1 x 100 = 1.10% Grade Velocity = 49 FPM 420 T.O.C. = 420 = 8.57 minutes (use 10 minutes) 49 (25-Year Storm Event) I = 8.5 inches/hour Zone VI Historic Discharge (Pre-Development) Q = 0.20 x 8.5 x 1.6560 Acres = 2.82 C.F.S. Post Developed Discharge Building = 17,457.95 S.F. (0.4008 Acre) 24.20% Paving & Sidewalks = 35,774.27 S.F. (0.8213 Acre) 49.59% Detention Pond = 5,160.00 S.F. (0.1185 Acre) 7.15% Pervious (Green) = 13,744.67 S.F. (0.3155 Acre) 19.06% TOTAL AREA: = 72,136.89 S.F. (1.6560 Acres) 100.00'% 7.15% of 1.00 (Pond & Ditch) 73.79% of 0.90 (Impervious) 19.06% of 0.20 (Pervious) 0.0715 0.6641 = 0.0381 0.7737; se . DER Requirement 1.6560 Acres or 72,136.89 S.F./24 = 3,005.70 C.F. Detention Pond Data Bottom of Pond Elevation = 50.50 Feet, NGVD Top of Bank Elevation = 55.00 Feet; NGVD Seasonal High Water Elevation = 50.40 Feet, NGVD Slot Elevation (Water Quality) = 51.71 Feet; NGVD Slot Width = 0.25 Feet; 1.5 J. jA `? ` .. ?% • .yam fi HIGHLAND OFFICE COMP Drainage Analysis • Page 2 of 2 April 26, 2006 Job Number. 1268-05 City of Clearwater Volume Requirement Delta "C" x 3.6 inches/hour x 1.6560 acres x 3,600 seconds or (0.57) x (3.6 inches/hour) x (1.6560 acres) x (3,600 seconds) = 12,233.20 C.F. Required Pond volume at Design Highwater Elevation of 54.92 Feet is 15,558.75 Cubic Feet. NOTE: 12,233.20 C.F. Is at elevation 54.23 feet. Freeboard of 0.77 feet Is provided from elevation 55.00 to 54.23 feeL A\GENERAL NOTES DISK\04-26-06 Drainage Analysis -1268-05 r,• . ?/ J, wJ? a t +' • vA • ? f `wi (J too* ?,ta« 1268-05.BRN rt Covering C:\\HSSWPACK\\HSSWWORK\\LOKEN.wss\\1268-05.BRN Created.: Fri Apr 14 19:42:07 2006 Revised.: Fri Apr 14 19:42:07 2006 Executed: wed Apr 26 09:08:12 2006 Project Run converged. Prepared By Alex J. Panik, P.E. 2413 Hawk Avenue Palm Harbor, Florida Project Contains 3 Paths. Project Contains 4 Nodes. Project contains 0 Sgnls. +----+---------------------+---------------------+---------+ IPathl up stream Node Name (Down Stream Node NamelPath Typel +----+---------------------+----=----------------+---------+ 01SITE (POND IDIRECT 11POND ICONTROL STRUCTURE IRECT WEIR 21CONTROL STRUCTURE (DITCH BOTTOM INLET (PIPE +----+---------------------+---------------------+---------+ +----+---------------------+---------+ INodel Name INode Typel +----+---------------------+---------+ I 01SITE IRAT SITE I I 11POND IPOND I I 21CONTROL STRUCTURE IJUNCTION I I 31DITCH BOTTOM INLET ISTAGING I +----+---------------------+---------+ +----+---------------------+---------+--------------+----------------+ INodel Name . INode TypelMin E1. at Hr.IMax E1. at Hr. I +----+---------------------+---------+--------------+----------------+ I OISITE IRAT SITE 1 55.0 0.001 55.0 0.00 1 I 11POND IPOND 1 51.7 0.001 54.9 12.60 1 1 21CONTROL STRUCTURE (JUNCTION 1 51.7 0.201 54.4 12.60 1 1 31DITCH BOTTOM INLET ISTAGING 1 51.7 0.001 51.7 0.00 1 +----+---------------------+---------+--------------+----------------+ Elevations in Feet, Nodes marked with an '*' have Flooded. +----+---------------------+----------------------+----------------------+ INodel Name I Maximum CFS Inflow I Maximum CFS Outflow I +----+--------------------- +----------------------+--------- -------------+ 01SITE 1 7.36 @ 12.10 Hoursl 7.36 @ 12.10 Hoursl I 11POND 1 7.36 @ 12.10 Hoursl 2.67 @ 12.60 Hoursl I 21CONTROL STRUCTURE 1 2.67 @ 12.60 Hoursl 2.66 @ 12.60 Hoursl I 31DITCH BOTTOM INLET 1 2.66 @ 12.60 Hoursl 0.00 @ 0.00 Hoursl +----+---------------------+----------------------+----------------------+ Network Summary (US Std) , Page 1 ? ?? ?y; ? ? . t? • r • . • _ J ?: . . , Piz Q 1268-O5.BRN Report Covering C:\HSSWPACK\HSSWWORK\LOKEN.WBS\1268-05.BRN Created.: Fri Apr 14 19:42:07 2006 Revised.: Fri Apr 14 19:42:07 2006 Executed: Wed Apr 26 09:08:12 2006 Project Run Converged. Prepared By Alex J. Panik, P.E. 2413 Hawk Avenue Palm Harbor, Florida ^PITCH 6.00 ACCUMULATED MASS BALANCE ERROR.......... -0.0032 Acre Feet ERROR AS A PERCENT OF OUTFLOW........... -0.3104 Percent ^PITCH 9.00 Pat Path 000 ID Type 49903992 00 DIRECT..---------- O1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 HW PE/KE NO 16 TW PE/KE YES 17 Max HW.. 55.000 Ft 18 Max TW.. Path 000 Output Data 55.000 Ft 00 Input ID 44403492 01 Flow TO. 0.000 CFS 02 Vol TO.. 0 CF 03 Max In.. 7.357 CFS 04 Min In.. 0.000 CFS 05 Max Out. 7.357 CFS 06 Min Out. 0.000 CFS 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 Fwd K... 0.000 16 Rev K... 0.000 17 Fwd X... 0.000 18 Rev X... 0.000 ^PITCH 9.00 Path 001 from Node 001 (POND) to Node 002 (CONTROL STRUCTURE) ^PITCH 6.00 Pa th 001 ID 444F704B Pa th 001 Output Data Ty pe RECT WEIR US Std (Ty pe RECT WEIR US Std 00 Crest E1 51.710 Ft 00 Input ID 444F704B 01 Width... 0.250 Ft 01 Flow TO. 0.000 CFS 02 Weir C.. 3.200 02 Vol TO.. 0 CF 03 Num Ends 0 03 Max In.. 2.665 CFS 04 04 000 CFS Min In 0 .. . 05 Breadth. Ft 05 Max Out. 2.665 CFS 06 06 000 CFS Mi t 0 O n u . . 07 07 08 08 09 09 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 HW PE/KE YES 15 Fwd K... 0.000 16 TW PE/KE NO 16 Rev K... 0.000 17 Max HW.. 55.000 Ft 17 Fwd X... 0.000 18 Max TW.. 55.000 Ft 18 Rev X... 0.000 ^PITCH 9.00 Path Report (US Std) Project Contains 3 Paths. Path 000 from Node 000 (SITE) to Node 001 (POND) ^PITCH 6.00 -- - ------- - DIRECT US Std Type DIRECT US Stdi - - - - l t 0 s ej l+ 1268-05.BRN Path 002 from Node 002 (CONTROL STRUCTURE) to Node 003 (DITCH BOTTOM INLET) ^PITCH 6.00 Path 002 ID 44416E68 Type PIPE US Stdl 00 Length.. 791.0 Ft 01 Mann N.. 0.012 02 Rise.... 1.000 Ft 03 Span.... 1.000 Ft 04 Inlet -- 05 Invert.. 48.300 Ft 06 Ent Ke.. 0.200 07 outlet 08 Invert.. 43.770 Ft 09 Ent Ke.. 0.200 10 11 BW Steps 0 12 13 14 15 HW PE/KE NO 16 TW PE/KE NO 17 Max HW.. 55.000 Ft 18 Max TW.. 55.000 Ft Pa Typ th 002 Output e PIPE Data - US Std 00 Input ID 44416E68 I e) 01 Flow TO. 0.000 CFS l G (/ 02 Vol TO.. 0 CF 03 Max In.. 2.658 CFS 04 Min In.. 0.000 CFS OS Max Out. 2.658 CFS yv 06 07 Min Out. 0.000 CFS 6 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 Fwd K... 0.000 16 Rev K... 0.000 17 Fwd X... 0.000 18 Rev X... 0.000 ^PITCH 9.00 Path Report (US Std) 1268-05.BRN • • G Report covering C:\HSSWPACK\HSSWWORK\LOKEN.WBS\1268-OS.BRN Created.: Fri Apr 14 19:42:07 2006 Revised.: Fri Apr 14 19:42:07 2006 Executed: wed Apr 26 09:08:12 2006 Project Run converged. Prepared By Alex J. Panik, P.E. 2413 Hawk Avenue Palm Harbor, Florida +---------------------------------------------------------------+ JACCUMULATED MASS BALANCE ERROR.......... -0.0032 Acre Feet) JERROR AS A PERCENT OF OUTFLOW........... -0.3104 Percent +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Project Contains 4 Nodes. +----------------------------------------------------+ +----------------------------------------------------+ INOde 000 Name SITE Input# 444F7078I (Node 000 Name SITE Output Data I (Type RAT SITE u5 Std (Type RAT SITE US 5tdl +--+------------------------+------------------------+ +--+-------------------------------------------------+ 001Flood E1. 55.000 Feetl I 00 Input ID ...................... 444F7078 I 01+------------------------+------------------------+ 01 Flood Elevation Reached....... NO I 02Istorm.... SCS-IIM (Freeze... NO 02 Initial Stage Elevation....... 55.000 Feet 03 RainFall.9_000 In Freeze... NO------------ 03 Initial storage ............... 0 CF 04+-------------- --------+------------ 04 Maximum Stage Reached......... 55.000 Feet OSIArea..... 1.656 AC 05 Minimum stage Reached......... 55.000 Feet I 06 Runoff C. 0.770 06 Maximum Gross Storage......... 0 CF 071Tc....... 0167 Hrs 07 Maximum Detention Storage..... 0 CF 08-------------------- ----- O8 Final Stage Elevation......... 55.000 Feet 091 09 Time of Maximum Stage......... 0.000 Hours I 101 10 Time of Minimum Stage......... 0.000 Hours I 11 I 12 12 I 113 I ?13 Peak Nodal Intake ............. 7.357 CIS I 14 14 Time of Peak Intake........... 12.100 Hours I 1511 15 Peak Nodal Output ............. 7.357 CIS I I16+------------------------+------------------------+ 16 Time of Peak output........... 12.100 Hours I 171ease F1OW 0.00 CIS (Stage TO. It 1 ?17 Points Out of Tolerance....... 0 I 18 x Coord.. 0.00 It Y Coord.. 0.00 It 18 Maximum Stage Error........... 0.000 Feet I +--+------------------------+------------------------+ +--+-------------------------------------------------+ +----------------------------------------------------+ ----------------------------------------------------- Node 001 Name POND Input# 444F7088 Node 001 Name POND Output Data I (Type POND Us Std1 (Type POND u5 Stdl +--+------------------------+------------------------+ +--+------------------------------------------------+ OOITOp El... 55.000 It ITOp Area. 0.118 AC 00 Input iD ...................... 444F7088 011Ei....... It (Area..... AC 1 I01I Flood Elevation Reached....... NO l 02 El....... 54.100 It (Area..... 0.108 AC 1 I0211nitial Stage Elevation....... 51.710 Feet l 03 E1....... It Area..... AC I 0311nitial storage. .............. 3064 CF I 04?E1....... 53.200 It (Area..... 0.087 AC I 04 Maximum Stage Reached......... 54.924 Feet I 05 E1....... It Area..... Ac 1 OSminimum Stage Reached......... 51.710 Feet I 06 E1....... 52.300 It Area..... 0.073 Ac 106 Maximum Gross storage......... 15815 CF 1 071E1:::: ... It Area..... AC 07 MaxlmUm Detention Storage..... 12751 CF I 08 E1... 51.400 It [Area..... 0.061 AC 08 Final Stage Elevation......... 52.013 Feet I 09 El....... It (Area..... Ac 109 Time of Maximum Stage......... 12.600 Hours I 10 Sot E1...50_500 It Bot Area. 0.049 Ac 10 Time of Minimum stage......... 0.000 Hours I 11+------------- -----+------------------------+ 11 I 12ITOp Perim It Iside %Per Pct I 12 13 mid Perim It If Base %Per Pct ill 13 Peak Nodal Intake ............. 7.357 CIS I 114 Sot Perim It 14 Time of Peak intake........... 12.100 Hours I 1151 15 Peak Nodal output ............. 2.665 CIS I 1 16+------------------------+------------------------+ 16 Time of Peak output........... 12.600 Hours I 17I8a5e FLOW 0.00 CIS Istage TO. 51.710 It I 17 Points out of Tolerance....... 0 I 18 x Coord.. 0.00 It Y coord.. 0.00 It 1181maximum Stage Error........... 0.007 Feet I +--+------------------------+------------------------+ +--+-------------------------------------------------+ +----------------------------------------------------+ +----------------------------------------------------+ Node 002 Name CONTROL STRUCTURE Input# 444036F61 Node 002 Name CONTROL STRUCTURE Output Data I (Type ]UNCTION us Std] (Type ]UNCTION US Stdl +--+------------------------+------------------------+ +--+-------------------------------------------------+ OOIFlood El. 55.000 It 1 I 00 Input ID ...................... 444036F6 I 01+------------------------+ 01 Flood Elevation Reached....... NO I 02 02 Initial stage Elevation....... 51.711 Feet I 03 03 Initial Storage ............... 0 CF 04 04 Maximum Stage Reached......... 54.391 Feet 05 05 Minimum stage Reached......... 51.709 Feet 06 06 Maximum Gross Storage......... 0 CF I 07 I 07 Maximum Detention storage..... 0 CF I 081 08 Final Stage Elevation......... 51.716 Feet I 091 1 109 Time of maximum Stage......... 12.600 Hours I,.?'' ' 101 1 110 Time of Minimum Stage......... 0.200 Hours '0'1* .•1 1111 I I ill + 12 I 1112 ,, I •,••• •• r 13 1113IPeak Nodal Intake ............. 2.665 Crs 114 1114 Time of Peak intake........... 12.600H8ur? ]15 1 1151Peak Nodal output ............. 2.658 JFS? •'I i 116+--------------- +------------------------+ 16ITime of Peak output........... 12.600_MOQ;s ,' L 3 --------- 17 Base Flow 0.00 CIS Stage TO. It 1117 Points Out of Tolerance....... 0 y ` r 1 1181x Coord.. 0.00 It 1Y Coord.. 0.00 It 11181maximum Stage Error........... 0.00851 °t +--+------------------------+------------------------+ +--+--------------------------------------- ;*,---• •-' •? Node Report (US Std) e 'f 2 1268-05.BRN • • +----------------------------------------------------+ [Node 003 Name DITCH BOTTOM INLET Input# 444F70981 hype STAGING us Stdl +--+------------------------+------------------------+ IOOIFlood E1. 55.000 Ft IPE to KE. NO I 01+------------------------+------------------------+ 02 Time..... Hrs Stage E1. Ft I 1 03 rime..... Hrs Stage E1. Ft 04 Time..... Hrs Stage E1. Ft OSI Time..... Hrs stage E1. Ft 061 rime..... Hrs stage E1. Ft O7 Time..... Hrs Stage E1. Ft ? OS Time..... Hrs stage E1. Ft 09 Time..... Hrs Stage El. Ft 30 Time..... Hrs Stage E1. Ft I 11 Time..... Hrs Stage E1. Ft 12 Time ..... Hrs Stage El. Ft 13- -------------------------------------------------- 14 151 16+ 1 ------------------------+------------------------+ 17IBase Flow CFS Stage I TO. 51.710 Ft I 181xCoord.. 0.00 Ft Y Coord.. 0.00 Ft +--+----------- -------------+------------------------+ +----------------------------------------------------+ (Node 003 Name DITCH BOTTOM INLET Output Data I IType STAGING u5 std] +--+---------------------------------------- ---------+ IOO IInput ID ...................... 444F7098 I 01 1Flood Elevation Reached....... NO I I 02 1initial stage Elevation....... 51.710 Feet I 03 Initial Storage. .............. 0 CF 1 04 Maximum stage Reached......... 51.710 Feet I 05 Minimum Stage Reached......... 51.710 Feet I 06 I Maximum Gross Storage......... 0 CF I 07 Maximum Detention Storage..... 0 CF I 08 Final Stage Elevation......... 51.710 Feet I 09 Time of Maximum Stage......... 0.000 Hours I 10 Time of Minimum Stage......... 0.000 Hours I 11 12 I 13 Peak Nodal Intake ............. 2.658 CFS I 14 Time of Peak Intake........... 12.600 Hours I 15 Peak Nodal output ............. 0.000 CFS I 16 Time of Peak Output........... 0.000 Hours I 17 Points out of Tolerance. ...... 0 I 18 Maximum Stage Error . .......... 0.000 Feet i +--+-------------------------------------------------+ F -? • ?4- ' P e 2- f ag o Node Report (US Std) 1268POND.XYP • • +-------------+---------+---------+---------+ IPt#I Class I x coord I Y coord I slope I +---+---------+---------+- --------+-- -------+ OIDATA 1 0.0001 0.0001 4.00001 1 IJDATA 1 0.0001 120.0001 4.00001 1 21DATA I 52.0001 120.0001 0.00001 I 31DATA 1 52.0001 54.0001 0.00001 1 41DATA 1 33.0001 54.0001 0.00001 I 51DATA 1 31.0001 0.0001 4.00001 1 61SYSTEM 1 0.0001 0.0001 I +---+---------+---------+- --------+-- -------+ (Coordinates are in Feet , Slope is H:V I +------------------------- ----------- -------+ XY Coordinate Pond 1268POND Y Feet 123 I I I i i j I i I ? i i i i --- -3 -36 - --- -- 88 X Feet ---- x .s _• Pond Data (US Std) ge 1 of 2 4-1 1268POND.XYP Stage Feet 55.0 54.S 54.0 53.5 53.0 52.5 52.0 51.5 51.0 50.5 0.00 • o XY Pond 1268POND Stage/Storage I i 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.40 Storage in Acre Feet +----++-----------------++-----------------++-----------------+ 1 11 E1 55.000 Ft 11 E1 52.750 Ft 11 E1 50.500 Ft 1 +----++--------+--------++--------+--------++--------+--------+ IPt #11 Top X I Top Y 11 Mid X I Mid Y 11 Bot X 1 BOt Y I +----++--------+--------++--------+--------++--------+--------+ I 011 0.001 0.0011 9.001 9.0011 18.001 18.001 1 111 0.001 120.0011 9.001 111.0011 18.001 102.001 1 211 52.001 120.0011 52.001 111.0011 52.001 102.001 1 311 52.001 54.0011 52.001 54.0011 52.001 54.001 1 411 33.001 54.0011 33.001 54.0011 33.001 54.001 1 511 31.001 0.0011 31.331 9.0011 31.671 18.001 1 611 0.001 0.0011 9.001 9.0011 18.001 18.001 +----++--------+--------++--------+--------++--------+--------+ I Elevations and coordinates are in Feet 1 +-------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------+---------- IStage E1.1 Depth +---------+---------• 1 55.0001 4.500 1 54.7001 4.200 1 54.4001 3.900 1 54.1001 3.600 1 53.8001 3.300 1 53.5001 3.000 1 53.2001 2.700 1 52.9001 2.400 1 52.6001 2.100 1 52.3001 1.800 1 52.0001 1.500 1 51.7001 1.200 1 51.4001 0.900 1 51.1001 0.600 1 50.8001 0.300 1 50.5001 0.000 F----------+----------+---------+---------+ 1 Area, SF I Area, AC I Vol, CF Vol, ACFt1 F----------+----------+---------+---------+ 1 5160.0 1 0.1185 1 15962 1 0.3661 1 4919.3 1 0.1129 1 14450 1 0.3321 1 4684.2 1 0.1075 1 13009 1 0.2991 1 4454.9 1 0.1023 1 11639 1 0.2671 4231.3 1 0.0971 1 10336 1 0.2371 4013.3 1 0.09211 9099 1 0.2091 3801.11 0.08731 79271 0.1821 3594.61 0.08251 68181 0.1571 3393.81 0.07791 57701 0.1321 3198.71 0.07341 47811 0.1101 3009.31 0.06911 38501 0.0881 2825.71 0.06491 29751 0.0681 2647.71 0.06081 21541 0.0491 2475.41 0.05681 13861 0.0321 2308.81 0.05301 6681 0.0151 2148.01 0.04931 01 0.0001 +---------+---------+----------+----------+---------+---------+' (Elevations and Depths are in FeetI +----------------------------------------------------------y a . ra Pond Data (US Std) •. I? • V ?•. ' r' N S O 1 ti 4 1 ( - J J Y S-j J /A . 12?? .? G S ` DRAWDOWN WORKSHEET FOR TYPE V (a) UNDERDRAIN o (Using Darcy's Law for Flow-Through Porous Material) C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 m I max I min I avg Maximum Minimum Avg. Area Avg. D Flow Flow Flow of Flow ' O h Ah V AV Length Length Length Hydraulic Filter Darcy Q + Q AT ! T 0 E Total Incr. Total Incr. Through Through Through Gradient Flow 1 2 Incr. Total o Elevation Head Head Volume Volume Filter Filter Filter A = Lxh Q = KiA 2 Time Time e (NGVD) (ft) (ft) (ft3) (ft3) (ft) (ft) (ft) i = h/la (ft2) (ft3/hr) (tt3/hr) (hr) (hr) 7D ?7 ? 3 0Z :F j`' p.?rY::a;?::" O +;:i^'?T#:'<:..;E is ?•o 3 2 ac -5 2 L ?D ¢? 3 - '..•,'Cr'.'•'` .;?{i: {< .?.. .-o . . • c, - O • - ?. ;F:z; ...........: .:......... ?T:v n .. .... a.. , j : , O ? ,- .. ., ...:..: ....... . ,... . rrn. .. 1. n.. . < ? Y,. .v:;\iC .v v .:: .. ,. ...r.A... ;, r , >.. .,. v .Yi . vb.v: , K : hW F ............ ... .. r...v::::.v... w::- ...................... ?Y`4'`SSjjjj:':>.:?: }f;::; vv..•- n: ......::: i:aY:;' ::: :.::+n<r:?{x ' 9 ...:....... .. . .. ............. .-....... .. nY..... h.4. ... .... ...... .. .. . ....... .. .:r.. .. -. .r. . .. ....T? .r r .,................ .........,k . ....:............ [f/ , . r r.......... .<..r.... .......h..aas,. :. . . .. ... .. r . r .:?1?.a..............-..r ... . . .... .. .J .... ..a. ....... ...,... r.. ............. ........r.......:.:... .......................... ...:^C.:}:vY:;.:.:v>i}YY:? .......t.,. :- ?? a: ::?' ..,r..,.. c.o•r. S /• GYiG SS ?? 3e-7o a>: • , s ' .. ........,,. : S . . ,.i .. } . ...... .. .... , . w.......<. r. .. n.v. ? • ....:.:::::::.......... 1f, 0.}.. ..:. : ..:...........: {...}}.:: }}: r .Y: n'. .?,..v.i... , k ? .1:{{.::::.}}:.}li}..}.::::::: ...... r ??..:.v. ? ..v.. i::::::::-:}Y}: -::: i}'?. % n ,;.j}Y:-YO a . ........a::. ,.: -::Y .:.::..... }..,,..: J :?. ........... nnf .. . r, .> .................::n ....................:,w. . .. :::!r,r. ..,,. ..,. ., .,.; . .:... f. , . .,.., r..%................... V .to;!.... ... .a . f S+ .. :.,...,... .. r.:. . .? ....Fi. .4.....<.. •.n, . ..,%,:... . ..r.. r. i.r....... . .......,.:::. ,.: ......::::::.....nH: .. YY ...3:............ .. r... . . ::`.}:?h:??Y:.}Y}:-}}:<':.:;f" :?\c:?.;:4:o-::?;.}Y}^: 51-6; 1 ...... .. . •4 5 3 } : 3 : rk.:. . krn:. ...:...r.. .. ,........v..,. j....... .. .............. nr ..r ... ........:...:. ........ ................... :.a.r.., ..:.......:.:...:.... / .- f ..,.,...: ....-x ?:,. .. a .. .:... ....:.:,.t .... ...v..b.. ,:. -w,{..... 2:r.:.::;:.: ....,... .. w...... .... ,rYCa. {:%.it:::j:<i:::i>i:-i 7 w ..................... .. ..... .v .. ......h .... ............. ...... .. ......... n................. ... .+,.b. :::::::-:::::::::::: n.. .... n:vw::::::..... n.: .............. ?vM::4%f}}:?-}}%a:JjiYY>: ..................... Z p ? 2 Yf! 7 d 3 O 2 U Z. 6 ? ? 93 G -t . i . 'afi.. MEN - Z : ..::..:. d v - • U O 7 Em W O 0 . a _ a? _.... :................:. _ ..........:....... ....................... .....,... . .. ...: .. :.. :::.:::% .:.::::... .......................... ..:.......:..:::::: Y.::::: ' .:.v a. . 1.:..5.;5:: ............... .....:.:.:-:•:,;.•,:•+:,:. :.yn..x.:.::aY:::;Y.,.:::..,. :{:.::,,.}}o-1::-.%aY}}}:C:. :. ::i ;:: Y,.F..?:.,•::::::?. t/• ;'.: :... :: ....., ...,........ :.. .. .::-:a: ''... v::.v::.4n. ........::.::..:.?.: d. ,. ..:. .....: .v :,a:::: •:...... .... i... ;.., .......:. n,: nvq ....>::.::.::.v:nn.; .-, r.... . ...:::.v2::.,............. ..... .....: .::: ...r..:n:n:n? ..::::-v :: ........ .... .. .'>l::.j: '.i:.}'.}: }:1'.>:{ :n.v .:::.>}'j::.: a'•}'::J'•i: ... n.....: ... .a..n .. .::::.:: ;.:..vnn.::f.. yy.. ?:;}fi::+;:jj:?}:;:`i><.?:'.:':4 ::}.<.> ..:... .......... ... ..,..:: :,.,.,.f..::: n,-: ::: :.:'.:::::..... .::.::::: n..... .r Y: r:-::::,:: ?::>....... ... ..... ..,. .. : • :,- n: ........ ........ ..:: :v::N:nj ?n' .,#:.:nY :::}}}: ..:n.::?::: ..-aw. >rt4:•?%•:j::>::::: ?;:j'?::: :: \•.:::.....:. ?'`K?, :C ,.,..... nY Assumed Length-L-=------?• y U i•/ ? i i TABLE' 13- Drawq*p WOr BOO. hi, .,, fj, v Hydraulic Conductivity K = ??Z ft/hr See Figure 13-4 for Typical Section Details V (a) Underdrain -v W N fG O N Aw \ 1: ?-, • Tree Inventory Highland Station Clearwater, Florida April 29, 2006 Prepared by: Alan Mayberry, Consulting Arborist For: Loken and Son Builders, Inc. ORIGW RECEIVED MAY 012006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER The following report is submitted by Alan Mayberry, Consulting Arborist, and includes fmdings that I believe are accurate based on my education, experience and knowledge in the field of Arboriculture. I have no interest personally or financially in this property and my report is factual and unbiased. This report is the property of Loken and Son Builders, Inc., and will not be given to other entities unless so directed. Tree Canopy Analysis and Preservation Strategies The majority of this site is a former nursery and as such does not have many large trees present as the nursery stock required sunlight for growth. In addition, essentially all previous understory vegetation was removed to provide space for the nursery stock. The remainder of the site was a former single family home located at the north end of the site. The potential for tree preservation at this site is minimal as there are very few trees worthy of preservation. The best opportunity for preservation is at the north end of the property where several sand live oak (Quercus geminata) trees are growing. The sand live oak tree is a long-lived rugged tree species that will generally survive moderate construction impacts and adapts to the post development conditions if proper tree preservation measures are in place and adhered to during the construction process. However, these trees generally had poor structure and most will require maintenance in the form of cabling and bracing procedures to make them safe. It was difficult to accurately assess the live crown ratio of the oak tree canopies and hence the overall condition of the oak trees as the current drought situation has delayed leaf bud break. On April 30, the date of the last inspection, most of the oak trees were still partially in flower and had not flushed out. The canopies were a mixture of catkins (flowers), leaf buds, juvenile leaves and some maturing leaves. The following tree inventory will identify the best trees for preservation and make specific comments for maintenance measures that will enhance structure, tree survival and future health. Tree Inventory Data A tree inventory is a written record of a tree's condition at the time of inspection. It is a valuable tool to prioritize tree maintenance and remove trees with problems that could lead to failure and cause personal injury or property damage. The tree inventory lists four codes and also has a comment section. The following is an explanation of the data used in the inventory: • Tree# - location - Each tree is assigned a number for reference in the inventory that corresponds with a number on the site plan that identifies the location of the tree in the field. Size - Tree size is a measure of the tree's trunk diameter measured at 4.5' above grade. If there is a fork in the trunk at that point the diameter is measured at the narrowest area below the fork. Palm species are measured in feet of clear trunk (C.T.). Species - Each tree is listed by its common and botanical name the first time it is listed in the inventory. For simplicity the tree is listed by its common name thereafter. Condition Rating - The condition rating is an assessment of the tree's overall structural strength and systemic health. Elements of structure include: 1) the presence of cavities, decayed wood, split, cracked, rubbing branches etc., 2) branch arrangements and attachments, i.e., well spaced vs. several branches emanating from the same area on the trunk, codominant stems vs. single leader trunk, presence of branch collars vs. included bark. Elements of systemic health relate to the. tree's overall energy system measured by net photosynthesis (food made) vs. respiration (food used). A tree with good systemic health will have a vascular system that moves water, nutrients and photosynthate around the tree as needed. Indicators of a healthy systemic system used in the overall condition rating include: 1) live crown ratio (the amount of live crown a tree has relative to its mass), 2) crown density (density of the foliage), 3) tip growth (shoot elongation is a sign that the tree is making and storing energy. The overall condition rating also takes into consideration the species, appearance and any unique features. The rating scale is 0-6 with 0 being a dead tree and 6 a specimen. Increments of 0.5 are used to increase accuracy. Examples of the tree rating system are as follows: 0- A dead tree 1- A tree that is dying, severely declining, hazardous, harboring a communicable disease or a tree designated by the State of Florida's Exotic Pest Plant Council as a category #1 ecological pest i.e., Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius). A tree with a rating of 1 should be removed as it is beyond treatment and is a threat to cause personal injury or property damage. 2 - A tree exhibiting serious structural defects such as codominant stems with included bark at or near the base, large cavities, large areas of decayed wood, crown dieback, cracked/split scaffold branches etc. In addition, a tree with health issues such as low energy, low live crown ratio, serious disease or insect problems, nutritional deficiencies or soil pH problems. A tree with a rating of #2 should be removed unless the problem(s) can be treated. A tree with a #2 condition rating will typically require a considerable amount of maintenance to qualify for an upgrade of the condition rating. 0 0 3- A tree with average structure and systemic health and with problems that can be corrected with moderate maintenance. A tree with a codominant stem not in the basal area that will be subordinated or cabled and braced or a codominant stem that will soon have included bark can be included as a #3. A tree with a rating of #3 has average appearance, crown density and live crown ratio and should be preserved if possible. 4- A tree with a rating of 4 has good structure and systemic health with minor problems that can be easily corrected with minor maintenance. The tree should have an attractive appearance and be essentially free of any debilitating disease or insect problem. The tree should also have above average crown density and live crown ratio. Mature trees exhibiting scars, old wounds, small cavities or other problems that are not debilitating can be included in this group particularly if they possess unique form or other aesthetic amenities relating to their age. A tree with a rating of 4, is valuable to the property and should be preserved. 5 - A tree with very high live crown ratio and exceptional structure and systemic health and virtually free of insect or disease problems or nutritional deficiencies. A tree in this category should have a balanced crown with exceptional aesthetic amenities. A tree in this category should be of a species that possesses characteristics inherent to longevity and withstanding construction impacts. A tree with a #5 rating lends considerable value to the site and should be incorporated into the site design. A tree with a #5 rating is worthy of significant site plan modification to ensure its preservation. 6 - A specimen tree. A specimen tree is a tree that possesses a combination of superior qualities in regards to systemic health, structural strength, crown density, live crown ratio, form (balanced crown), overall aesthetic appeal, size, species, age and uniqueness. A great effort should be made to preserve a specimen tree including shifting structures that would adversely impact the tree. In addition, a specimen tree should have an undisturbed area equal to its dripline (equal to the branch spread) to grow in. Only an experienced and competent International Society of Arboriculture (I.S.A.) Certified Arborist should be allowed work on a specimen tree. Comments: The comment section serves to note observations relative to the tree but not covered in the inventory data or expands on information in the inventory data. It may include maintenance recommendations to improve the tree's overall condition rating. It may also have recommendations on whether to remove or preserve a tree. NOTE: A tree inventory is typically valid for 3-5 years. However, events such as drought, lightning, mechanical root damage, freeze, improper maintenance and severe storms can downgrade the rating value of a tree. Conversely, remedial maintenance can upgrade the value. If you suspect that a tree has been adversely affected, have the tree inspected by a qualified International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist. Note: Whenever possible it is advised to adhere to inventory recommendations when selecting trees to be preserved. For example, trees rated 4.0 and higher should be preserved if at all possible, while trees rated 2.0 and lower should be removed unless otherwise noted in the inventory. Trees rated 2.5 are generally recommended for removal unless remedial work is performed to upgrade them. Trees rated 3.0 and 3.5 are average trees that have good potential and warrant serious consideration for preservation but not to the extent that site plan modifications are necessary. When work of an arboricultural nature is recommended in the inventory it should be performed directly or under the supervision of a competent International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist. This tree inventory was conducted on April 28 & 29, 2006. The weather was clear with good visibility. Per City of Clearwater requirements the tree inventory will provide specific information in the comments section as justification for each tree with an overall condition rating of 2.5 or below. This site has 5 trees and 2 palms rated 3.0 or greater. The total diameter of the 5 trees was 64". Tree mitigation should be insignificant on this site and should easily be accomplished through the required landscaping. Tree Inventory Tree # Size Species Rating 20" live oak (Quercus virginiana) 0.0 Comments: This tree is dead and is a site hazard. Recommend removal. 2. 25" camphor tree (Cinnamomum camphora) 0.5 Comments: This tree is 60% dead and is a site hazard. In addition, it is recognized as a category one exotic invasive pest on the State of Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council's list. Recommend removal. NOTE: Several trees in the inventory including trees #3 & #4 are actually located on abutting property. They are recognized in the tree inventory as City of Clearwater code requires that their root systems be protected during the construction process. In addition, any pruning performed on the trees must conform to City code. They will not be graded. in the inventory as they will not factor into the mitigation process. They will however, be located on the site plan by a number and shown in the inventory by size and species. 3. 24" live oak • • Comments: The canopy and critical root zone extend onto this site and should be protected per City of Clearwater code throughout construction. 4. 22" live oak Comments: The canopy and critical root zone extend onto this site and this tree should be protected per City of Clearwater code throughout construction. 5. <10' C.T. (clear trunk) queen palm (Syagrus romanzofana) n/a Comments: This tree is shown on the site plan as a protected tree but has less than 10' of clear trunk and is therefore not protected by City of Clearwater code. 6. 14' C.T. queen palm 4.5 Comments: This is a healthy palm that could be preserved in place or transplanted on site. 7. <10' C.T. queen palm n/a Comments: This tree is shown on the site plan as a protected tree but has less than 10' of clear trunk and is therefore not protected by City of Clearwater code. 8. 7" laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) Comments: The canopy and critical root zone extend onto this site and should be protected per City of Clearwater code throughout construction. 9. 22" laurel oak Comments: The canopy and critical root zone extend onto this site and should be protected per City of Clearwater code throughout construction. NOTE: This report has numerous references to codominant stems with included bark. This defect occurs frequently in urban trees when one or more of the trunks or main branches emanate from the same point and the bark becomes pinched (included) in the crotch of the attachment. This situation has a significant potential for future failure and is a downgrading factor of a tree's overall condition rating. This situation can be mitigated through structural pruning and cabling and bracing procedures. 10. 12" laurel oak 2.5 Comments: This trunk of this tree divides into two a severely included scaffold branches 10' above grade. The structure is very poor and can only be improved by subordinating the smaller of the codominant branches. The live crown ratio is very good and the form average. This tree is growing 2' away from tree #11 and will eventually fuse at the root collar causing a hazardous basal codominant. This tree should be removed in order to preserve tree #11, which is a better tree. 11. 15" laurel oak 2.5 Comments: The trunk of this tree divides into two codominant scaffold branches 6' above grade. The live crown ratio is very good and the form is average but will improve if tree #10 is removed. This tree is located in a green area where it could be preserved. If preserved the smaller codominant branch should be subordinated until such time that good structure is achieved. Recommend preservation if structural pruning is performed. NOTE: Trees # 12, # 13, # 14 & # 15 are not shown on the site plan but appear to be on the property line of this property. Once the property lines are clearly staked ownership will be determined. They will be included in the tree inventory as they appear to be on this property. 12. 9" laurel oak 3.5 Comments: This tree has good structure and live crown ratio and average form. This tree is a better overall tree than tree # 13; which is growing 2" from its base. If they are left as is they will soon form a hazardous basal codominant. Recommend preserving this tree and removing tree #13. 13. 7" laurel oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has poor structure and is recommended for removal in order to preserve tree # 12. The tree should be removed carefully by cutting the trunk as flush as possible with the grade. The trunk should not be ground as this procedure will injure tree #12. 14. 9" laurel oak 3.0 Comments: This tree needs pruning to improve its structure but will evolve into a good tree if it is maintained properly. Recommend preservation. 15. 16" laurel oak 2.0 Comments: This tree appears to be two trees that have fused together. The tree has a severe codominant trunk 6' above grade. The structure is very poor. This tree is located where it could be preserved and it has a spacious rooting area to the west. The tree will improve if structural pruning is performed over a period of time. Recommend preservation only if pruning will be performed otherwise recommend removal. 16. 4" . laurel oak 2.0 0 0 Comments: This tree grew among a stand a punk trees that have been recently removed. Consequently it has a very spindly crown with poor form that is one-sided to the east. However, it is systemically healthy and will improve if maintained properly. If it falls into a green area it could be preserved. 17. 19" East Palatka holly (Ilex x attenuata `East Palatka') 0.5 Comments: This tree is 40% dead due to an infection of the fungus disease Sphaeropsis gall. This disease is terminal and will kill the tree within two years. The tree appears to be on the property line and if so removal is recommended. 18. 8" citrus (Citrus spp.) 1.5 Comments: This tree has a systemic fungus disease that is terminal. Recommend removal. 19. 7", 9" `East Palatka' holly 0.0 Comments: This tree is dead and needs to be removed. 20. 9", 10" `East Palatka' holly 0.0 Comments: This tree is dead and needs to be removed. 21. 40" laurel oak Comments: The canopy and critical root zone extend onto this site and should be protected per City of Clearwater code throughout construction. 22. 12" avocado (Persea Americana) 0.5 Comments: This tree has very low live crown ratio. It has a very large basal cavity where a codominant trunk has been removed. Recommend removal. 23. 12", 13", 13", 15" jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia) 1.0 Comments: This tree has a four basal codominant attachment that downgrades its structure. In addition, the tree has serious dieback in the crown, very low live crown ratio and decay from previous topping. Recommend removal. 24. 20' C.T. queen palm 2.0 Comments: This palm has a healthy crown but has a large cavity in the basal area that downgrades its overall condition. However, it could be preserved in place oT transplanted on site if aesthetics are not an issue. 25. 32" , laurel oak Comments: The canopy and critical root zone of this tree extend onto this site and should be protected per City of Clearwater code throughout construction. 26. 4" cherry laurel (Prunus caroliniana) 2.0 Comments: This tree is a one-sided tree with poor form due to its location beneath the canopy of tree #25. However, as it is growing along the west property line in a proposed landscape buffer it could be preserved and will improve with pruning. NOTE: Tree #27 is the first of several sand live oak trees to be assessed. Due to current drought conditions the oaks have not fully leafed out. The canopy of the trees was a mixture of catkins (flowers), buds, juvenile leaves and maturing leaves. Consequently it was difficult to determine the live crown ratio, crown density and amount of dieback in the crowns, factors which are important in assessing the overall condition. As several of these trees were ranked borderline for preservation it may be necessary to take a second look before deciding on preservation or removal. It should be noted that some of the trees may be downgraded due to poor structure which is not a result of the foliage. 27. 23" sand live oak (Quercus geminata) 2.5 Comments: This tree is downgraded due to poor structure in the form of a codominant trunk with severely included bark forming 2' above grade. The larger codominant trunk splits again 3' above grade forming a second codominant trunk with included bark. The crown appears to have below average live crown ratio. If this tree is preserved it should be cabled and braced (an arboricultural technique of placing steel hardware in trees with poor structure to add extra support) and reassessed after it has completely leafed out. NOTE: Trees 428 - #32 are a row of cherry laurel trees growing along the rear property line. They are downgraded due to poor form and structure but as they are located in a rear landscape buffer they could be preserved (with the exception of 428) to provide an evergreen screen. The other option is to remove them in favor of a more formal landscape. 28. 7" cherry laurel 0.0 Comments: This tree is a 5' stump and should be removed. 29. 2", 3" cherry laurel 1.0 Comments: Basal codominant attachment, recommend removal. 30. 4", 5" cherry laurel 1.0 • • Comments: This tree has very poor structure in the form of a severely included basal codominant attachment. Recommend removal. 31. 3", 4" cherry laurel 2.0 Comment: This tree has very poor structure in the form of a basal codominant with included bark. Recommend removal. 32. 6", 7" cherry laurel 2.0 Comment: This tree has very poor structure in the form of a basal codominant with included bark 6" above grade. Recommend removal. 33. 21" sand live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree had a codominant trunk that has been removed 4' above grade. Someone has tried to place tar over the open cut to seal the wound but it is decaying into the remaining trunk and may ultimately compromise the structural integrity of the tree. The live crown ratio is low as dieback is visible. The form is below average as the tree is mostly one-sided. Recommend removal. 34. 17" sand live oak 2.5 Comments: The condition of this tree is downgraded for structural reasons as the tree forms three codominant scaffold branches 8' above grade that are slightly included. The codominant branches are not an immediate concern but the condition will worsen and they will have to be cabled and braced in the future. The form is vase like and average in appearance. The live crown ratio appears to be slightly below average but could improve when it is completely leafed out. The proposed plan shows this tree along with tree 435 to be saved within a 9' wide parking lot landscape island. If the grade is cut to accommodate the construction of the sub-base the resulting root loss will cause the decline of these trees. If these trees are to be preserved the root systems must be left intact as they cannot tolerate root loss in their current condition. 35. 13" sand live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree is downgraded due to the presence of a trunk cavity that affects the tree's overall structural integrity. The cavity is located on the southeast side of the trunk and is 2' high and 4" wide. If this tree is preserved the cavity should be monitored annually to determine if the decay is progressive or if the tree has successfully compartmentalized the wound. A resist-o-graph (a machine that measures decay and determines if it exceeds the threshold for stability) may have to be used to make the determination. The live crown ratio appears to be below average and the form is average. If preserved, this tree may improve with proper maintenance but it should be inspected annually for structural stability. In addition, it cannot tolerate additional root loss as noted above for tree #34. 36. 5" cherry laurel 3.0 Comments: This small cherry laurel tree has good structure and form and will evolve into a good tree if maintained properly. It is located in a proposed landscape buffer along the north property line. 37. 4" cherry laurel 2.5 Comments: This tree is growing into a chain link fence and will soon be embedded by the fence. The form and structure are average. Recommend removal. 38. 19" sand live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree has good structure and average form and live crown ratio. It is growing next to tree #39 which is just off the property line 3' to the north. Together they form an attractive canopy. This tree is located in the north landscape buffer and would benefit from additional greenspace in the form of a landscape island in front of the trunk. This tree would warrant shifting the island in front of trees #34 & 35 if they are not preserved. Recommend preservation. 39. 20" sand live oak Comments: The canopy and critical root zone of this tree extend onto this site and should be protected per City of Clearwater code throughout construction. NOTE: The site plan only picked up one tree in the location where trees #40, 41, 42 & 43 are located. The actual location of these trees should be established as soon as possible to determine the potential for preservation. 40. 13" sand live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree is growing 3" away from the base of tree #41 and will soon develop a basal codominant attachment. The live crown ratio is below average as is the form as the tree is one-sided to the northwest. The site plan.only picked up one tree at this location so it is difficult to assess preservation potential. However, if trees #40 & 41 fall into the proposed island and are preserved they will have to be monitored for stability due to the basal attachments that will form. In addition, they will not tolerate significant root loss or canopy loss if needed to accommodate construction of parking lot and adjacent building. The preservation potential for these trees should be reassessed after the exact location is field verified. Removal is recommended unless the owner wants to commit to securing these trees with extensive cabling and bracing in the future. 41. 16" sand live oak 2.5 0 0 Comments: This tree has below average structure as it forms codominant scaffold branches with included bark 6' above grade. The live crown ratio and form are average. If this tree is preserved it should be cabled and braced. In addition, as noted above this tree will form a basal codominant with tree #40. Preservation potential should be reassessed when the exact field location is determined. Removal is recommended unless the owner wants to commit to securing these trees with extensive cabling and bracing in the future. 42. 15" sand live oak 2.5 Comments: This tree is growing 1' from tree# 43. The canopy grows to the south and the overall form is average. A 5" diameter branch has sheared from this tree 15' above grade and will result in a cavity in the trunk. The live crown ratio appears average. This tree could be preserved if it falls into a green area but will need to be monitored to determine if the tree can successfully compartmentalize the wound. In addition, it will ultimately form a basal codominant. Recommend removal unless the owner wants to commit to securing these trees with extensive cabling and bracing in the future. 43. 10" sand live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has low live crown ratio as it has deadwood and dieback in the crown. The form is below average. In addition, it will fuse at the base with tree #42. Recommend removal. Recommend removal unless the owner wants to commit to securing these trees with extensive cabling and bracing in the future. . NOTE: Tress #44 - 49 are growing beneath a rack of utility wires and have been pruned in the past to accommodate the wires. In addition, they will be pruned in the future as they interfere with the wires. 44. 13" sand live oak 2.5 Comments: The canopy of this tree has been restricted as it is growing beneath the wires and beneath the canopy of tree #45. The structure is good and the live crown ratio average. It is systemically healthy and could be preserved as it is growing in a green area. Recommend preservation. 45. 22" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree has a.good trunk but forms codpminant scaffold branches that are slightly included 8' above grade. The form is average and the upper crown structure is good. This tree should be preserved but it will need cabling and bracing in the future. 46. 16" live oak 2.5 0 0 Comments: This tree has a tight restricted crown that grows to the southwest. It grows beneath the canopies of trees #45 & 47. The live crown ratio is average. This tree could be preserved as it is located in a green space area and will improve if maintained properly. NOTE: Trees #47 - 49 are growing off the property in the right of way of Highland Avenue. In addition, they may be adversely impacted by the construction of the entrance drive and could also cause a sight restriction. The plan does not show the full construction of the driveway and preservation potential should be reassessed when the. extent of impact is determined. 47. 16" sand live oak 2.5 Comments: This tree is growing against the trunk of tree 448 and forms a potentially hazardous basal codominant; consequently it is downgraded due to weak structure. The wires are directly above the trunk of this tree and the crown is one-sided to the east. Recommend removal unless the tree is secured in the interest of public safety with cabling and bracing. 48. 15" sand live oak 2.5 Comments: This tree forms a potentially hazardous basal codominant with tree #47. The tree is systemically healthy and could be preserved as it is growing in a green space area; however, it should be secured with cabling and bracing in the interest of public safety if preserved. 49. 13" sand live oak 2.5 Comments: The crown of this tree grows to the west and the live crown ratio is average. The tree produces a codominant stem 5' above grade that will become included and will ultimately need to be secured with cabling and bracing. The tree is located in a greenspace and with trees #47 & 48 they form a good cluster as the canopies fit together like a puzzle. However, preservation potential should be assessed after the construction impacts are determined. 50. 13' C.T. queen palm 1.5 Comments: This palm is downgraded due to the presence of a large cavity on the lower south side of the trunk. 51. 12' C.T. queen palm 3.0 Comments: This tree has pits along the trunk but is healthy and could be preserved or transplanted on site. CEIi l l! II_U 10. 1T13i?N LOKEN w.a. 9777 P'9 to SEC. 23 ' Twp, 29 S, RNG. 15 E I STY FRAME ' i4, g1 ?• F.E. 58 S•1 O 98 '°¦ q 0" 7 ' " . 4 -1 8 „ ?' 1.,14 //? ?•- f f •,`?` 423-. AKS AK?L?S 00 :1 LB 6423 i 4050' L ,? CII I 20.0 8 49 0 1 3 69' M SCllt /2 - - 46 48"OA - 6:• .. 2s J' C'l.,F ' 58 ' i I ;, ,,, ETq? 47 a v 1 4t C, INV- Is 57.3 P? ? U 9 6.i h r`? 6O - - IN 5? 5 ?5 9^y r' 1 49 roZ..3 w AUS.PINE 3f I tt W 3 8.E 50 51.6 / ?(Q 1 ?iCJ?E ? U._..__ INV. -.. _ - N ; 56.64 L 1 30"OAK 7 h vim` h U S 1 •• !L _ 49.4' ?,, A+? 6 .. ?!) ?!I 5 9 '4os 157 00 . 7 sr •- `i9.3' a L? S 88 49 00" E ' 160.71' Nl' a 5 y^ y 11.0 ye•? 20.0, X055. w _ - - - 5 - 53. l • h?iMl .. I f ! Y 54 3 a V . A 15 V. 44 , --...... _.. f M? ,05 55 2 r? , w ? 56 INv, I , i 1 ?z 55.70 4 h V 4? -gh z Op,*l ACATED -SCOTT STXEL? r'PGE ?4 1^ , . . ?A$EA? Nf > > 10.0 10.0' { RCn'1 , ti3 297.40' M 29 .0 rIT 1 y?6? h 12" OAK o \: \ \ \ UU - 4!'x P9 yq• hp. TOP 55.88 , 1 STY CBS ' hA 4' ? o F.E. 55.91 6 INV. 53.68 NOTE : IMPROVEMENTS NOT SHOWN. NOTE : BASIS OF BEARINGS TIEING THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HIGHLAND AVENUI. , DUE NORTH (ASSUMED) A SURVEY OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 11 , LOTS 53 THROUGH 56, ORIGINAL RECEIVED ALL IN BLOCK "B", ALSO ONE-HALF OF VACATED SC OTT 11 2006 STREET AND VACATED BRAUND STREET, SCOTIA HEIGHTS, PLANNING DEPARTMEW . AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 10, OF THE PUBLIC CRY OF CLEARWAIER RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT TIME EAST 7.00 FT. OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 7, BLOCK "B", FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. F,I,II,-YO11Nn IiInN RQgI r,c,l;n.* FDUNn G rng 111m Root 1'rw1I6 IF-Tr API?n IOON haul 5,P;. F-MIND Ino?I,PIPL1 LEGEND; P,C,:I,P,wFDIINn cAPrro OuxJ PIPr, R.N.n.-FDUNO NAIL & nIYI(,'? ' AIL' w ?T5K; r.C.M.- room) CMI&Ev;' NONUI/RNT; P.A.M,,- PEIIUANLNT IIEf ElIENCE MONUMENT; P.C.P.-PEIIMANENT"COIVr 1411121)oNT; Pd.- POINT OF INTERSECTION; P,'?: a NIGHT OI' •WAY; FU V.,- I.LEVATIOIJ; CONCRCIE IILOCK STAl1C1U1IF; car4c,,.-IC.•F?CaIFrF'4j AWI 1.- AfiPI,IALI: PAV .- PAVEN[NI-• ,• COV.-- (. '1111U; I)- UFO; !;EC.- SECTION; T1N1'..-70VAJSHIP• f;. 1!;1;4-PLAT; 1.1 ,-, if:?SUIiLU ?' 'OV[iflL"O MEA C;;NT CAakME?I T • ; ; .T N.-- nu]uls?n.- "IC; r.._-CIIOUJA C.O.- 000110 OEARING• 5rY. .SlalY• CAX.- CIIAIN LINK FCNU: W.F.- WOOD n7NCL- L WWM7 C. MAIM. 111E YM ICY014 MI IICtiPLymur CI1AIlGE, "1111FY MAT 1111 STIR Y IIC.PRMtJICD IICRCON, AS NCE11111 111C MINLUW TEOINICAL STA1111MINS SFI irNtIN Tiff 11.OWA UOM) V LAND aMVf)VM I LIWAIAN1 lU SCC11014 471017 OF 111E f1.O11101, UAILIVI AS PRI;SG0I1f:A W 411M"IER GIU17-R DEPT. Of 1`110f£SSIgNAL (N1lATIIIN. +?. HOT:VAIIU LIFIL[9S StAL1:0 1A711 AN F11IIl1ti9LO ST/NNCYOII'9 SEAL) A ?/ Il y n e ELEVATION STATEMENT; 11115 IS TO CERIIFY TIiAT WE HAVE ODTMNEO EI f:.VaT1ON?; ;Sai(1'dM NFREON• OF 111E. AI)OVE DESCRIBED LAND. TIIE I LEVA?I(41J SHUAN HEREON 'ME [USED ON THE Nblt'i'I1'AMr:1:ICAN VERTICAL DATllvl, 1988, LIL'NCI-,MARK SUPPLIED DY R IC [WINEIIIINd DEPT P 1,11"UM CO ' ' ., IN11 , 11.011IDA. 11.0110 LONE 01SIINCIIONS ARE IIA50J UPON .:ITIC. FI:']SM„L' -1117T DD- JCY MANAUMENT ACRJCY•S' qPS t55UEDy19 US, v.: w OIIE TO INCO)L'iL';IE11CIl:S FOUND IN TIIES- MAPS, llil, ZONES AnC AN APf'iIOMMAIE ESTIMATION In niC BEST of. Dull AOILIIY r•, ' / ? .fit v J . W . COWHIJ14ITY No, 125096 PAIM. rill, 0.109 G LIAP DATE: APPEARS TO HE ?l „> n;A51`yli,d"o0 u:rvn4?ON 9-03-03 ' IN FLOOD ZONE fl . ; l'PABN , n ? 111 DRAW BY: K.W. ------ OAII:: LZ 3-04-05 O X04. 0:5 8-oB.Or• : A).LI1!U SyJTZVE111`dC APPRDVFO 1275 NO HIGHLAND AVENUE CliFTI(E'n fly: W IC ? . CLI?ARWATIsIt, CI?ORIUA :1;3755 - ...?.+rar.?.o....a.,.....v ..., 727-:146-1261 RAY 727.461-4(,22 ---- - -? -- - .LIALf [:. In?A•r1vr. n , ,,. ., .. ?„ .,. „ ., ,..,. / WIT i y5 91 Zl. g0 ?y CERTIFIED TQ; VERNE LOKEN •0 w.o. SEC., Z? TWP. z7 S. RNG. /.S r r . rol [ 114 d ??N -e 1 Al,( ? ? IZ d 11• ? ..? " Iv L /rL '?? 10 ? `I\ Q y?? •1 N $? N 49/ J • ? ;? I t y,? 3d' ? -QQ-' A ? ?iSz y z ? LJJ /S? o PY L.! N U ?J 0 ix o M FieRrs'/c?' ? ? Q ,ccoc2 cz.,_ Y.gs p oA><. M ilk _;SIC ZI. P?+ r D vAID Q J0f? i ' rhETR? (`Std I OAS' v ?. n1 M di /SiDky ca N N F .??ti9 ir Z t703 _ 7,j- s; v ., t 5 fg4yt-3 ?. I " z yc?F '7 !J? UD ?.?! I QOUNDARY SURVEY rd n -rwo IIIDN imni r, lmv rauNn r, Prta waN Want. tl11ri11111p'; I?AP!'MI II(ON Itoni rdiP1~ flatlNo IRaN,Ptrlrt LEGEND:p 81P .fnuNO Own Intw PIPE: rail -rwo NAIL' At wlu S ?f??? ?w ?IAIC su I i E 1 ' , , . l. ,lJ;O, ; , ; I .c.u.- FQL MQNt CNT; * N0 dq?Kj)E* P .ir .R,U.- PMMANENT REfElIENC.E MONUMENT; P.C.P.-PERMANENT I•c'&;tIhX.PDtNI; P.L• 1'0II4T Of INTMISF,CIIQN: P ,/(j -1 RIGHT OF WAY; ELM- ELEVAIION; CONCfiEIE ?l C)CH S1T1UC11JgE CQNC - _ : ,- ICrF(p1E1F.JjASPIi,- ASPHALT; PAW.- PAVEMENT; L'OVr f.DVLHEII; U- DEED; 9ED,- SGCTIUN; 'W'-- TUNNS1iIP{ NUE-? • 1' Rawl i l »P.LI:'T; M..-• MCASUREO; ESMT.- EAMMENP,, COVI:REQ AREA ' RADWti AI{C R C ; A.- .- ; (:.-L HDI1111 .Q.- C.tIQIIQ 0EARINGL -.SMnY- QL_F•? CHAIN 'LINK FIENU: W,F.- WOOD FENCIC A SURVEY OF LOTS 12 , 13 AND THE SOUTH 20.00 FT. OF LOT 14, BLOCK "B"- SCOTIA :HEIGHTS, AS-RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 10 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. L Ml11A11 K"1114(A 111C 11MiM:YWI IN Ill':.1101J911LC 011.I1CC, Cl'1111(Y 1hlAT 111E UIIVLI llf: Y:IC 71:111171 IILI(E[YJ, AN MLI:Ilrr1T 111E MINW04 11,131 pCAL STANOAHIIS 5CT Fdllll IIY TI1C ILUMA IMAM M U,{IU UIIM id{7 f'I ia'ANT 11, SEC101 177.U2? IV; 111E I'L(M(IRA NTAlU101 AS MENI:IUMI) W GIIAPICfi 6l(117^A PEP f al.A)I(IN. l1f f7:f1Ff uONAL li f , . . .. NPT:VAUP LWIS SCAM) M111 AN LLWIS9LU SUNVOT)ICS SEAL)) + . ? , ELEVATION' STATEUENT; 1)IIS IS TD UNITY 1HAT WE HAVE OIITAINfl) 01-VAMONS'511OWN FIEDIiOf1,:'Or 1)IE'AnOVE I)bfRIRf.O LAND. Tl'IESE ELCVAWIF7S' ,? Ill r SIiOW IIEuu -AliE IIASI:O ON )HE ORT I .M H AMCIZIC.AN VFRTICA1, DATM 1. 1969, BENCHMARK _ SLIPPL)EL` OY 111E ENCINEIl11NC Jr ` DEPT.. I'IT:I M411Y, ITOHIDA. 11-000 ZONE 06MIC11ONS ARE'T)P.SiO Uf'f>iJ.'11 1; }ECii"RAC FI??nCZI(CY MANAGEMENT AGl'3JCYS MnP5 ISS?IEOt 4J T i , . f ,? our TU INIaiII!II:TEIJCIC.'i ffluilD IN T ua MAV S, 1111i ZONES AM MI API'f10h1VX'IE CSTIMATION TQ THE I11F.ST OF DIM AII)MY, V CWHUNITY Nu. ?2 _ _ PANEL NO. lIAP P _fi7_. ? APPEARS TO Dr, I1ASL•fLU 9 TiD _____ OJDf?C?I pj D??, IN r.>ovu rr,N: x?i`0.(F .? Y ?? DRAWN IM / ? ---- AI'1'IIOVI'D O nATr: ? ?^ V AL1,11D tiI11rVr,YI1VE: C , `,., iD? 127] i:'Q. lif '-ILAND A.VLNUI1 11WCKED RY: r;r_ALf: 7- L,i =D? /ZI:Y [ C.1,1 1R11'.i'1'l ft , FL.OWIM 13755 '?A ND 9 727-4•I6-12n3 17aY727..,1h1-4 22 11AI.(`r' in?A'riNC?_L i. I^SO!r1. '?h11» ^'?? C ? -I r III • FLD2006-04024 1532 S HIGHLAND AVE Date Received: 04/27/2006 LOKEN OFFICE COMPLEX ZONING DISTRICT: LMDR LAND USE: RL ATLAS PAGE : 315A PLANNER OF RECORD: WW ORIGINAL RECEIVED I Ir 11 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER CLW CoverSheet CITY OF C LEARWATE R >ya- ?J POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, ZOO SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 '?gTER,TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4865 o1110000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Mr. Jay Myers 9179 Oakhurst Road, Suite 3B Seminole, FL 33776 RE: FLD2006-04024 - 1524, 1532 and 1536 South Highland Avenue Time Extension Development Order Dear Mr. Myers: September 17, 2007 On September 19, 2006, the Community Development Board (CDB) approved the above application for Flexible Development approval (1) to permit a 16,548 square-foot office building in the Office (O) District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 12.92 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (north) setback from 20 feet to 12.42 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to 11.5 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (south) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and from 20 feet to six feet (to dumpster enclosure) and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to 12 feet (to building), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Program under the provisions of Section 2-1004.B; (2) to permit nonresidential off-street parking in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to 7.17 feet (to pavement) and deviations to allow the structures (pavement) within the front and side setbacks and to place landscaping on the inside of the buffer fence along the north and west sides of the property, as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-204.E; and (3) to permit reductions to the landscape buffer requirements along South. Highland Avenue (east) from 15 feet to 12.92 feet (to pavement), along the north side from 12 feet to 11.5 feet (to pavement) and along the south side from five feet to zero feet (to pavement) and to permit a reduction to required interior landscaping from 12 percent to 10.69 percent, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Section 4-407 of the Community Development Code requires the application for a building permit within one year of the date the CDB approved the request (September 19, 2007). This same Section allows an extension of time to initiate a building permit, provided good cause is shown and documented in writing within the original period of validity. The Planning Director may also consider whether significant progress on the project is being made and whether or not there are pending or approved Code amendments that would significantly affect the project. On September 17, 2007, you submitted a request for a one-year time extension to apply for a building permit to construct the improvements on this parcel. Your letter cited the problem of market changes, which has an impact on the development of additional office space, and the property owner's health issues. FRANK HIBBARD, MAYOR JOHN DORAN, COUNCILMEMBER J.B. JOHNSON, COUNCILMEMBER BILL JONSON, COUNCILMEMBER ® CARLEN A. PETERSEN, COUNCILMEMBER "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATNE ACTION EMPLOYER" September 17, 2007 Myers - Page Two In accordance with the provisions of Section 4-407 of the Community Development Code, I APPROVE a one-year time extension to September 19, 2008, to submit an application for a building permit to construct the site improvements on your parcel at 1524, 1532 and 1536 South Highland Avenue. In the event you are unable to proceed with the project by submitting for the building permit, the CDB may approve one additional extension of time to initiate a building permit application. Such extension shall not exceed one year, shall be for the project originally approved (or as approved through the Minor Revision process) and shall be for good cause shown and documented in writing. The CDB must receive the request for this extension within the time frame granted by the Planning Director (period of validity after the original extension approved by the Planning Director, which means that any time extension request must be submitted with sufficient lead time to be placed on the CDB agenda that precedes the above expiration date). Good causes may include, but are not limited to, an unexpected national crisis (acts of war, significant downturn in the national economy, etc.), excessive weather-related delays, and the like. The CDB may also consider these same Code amendments enumerated above, whether significant progress on the project is being made and whether or not there are additional pending or approved Code amendments that would further significantly affect the project. Please be aware that the issuance of this Development Order does not relieve you of the necessity to obtain any building permits or pay any impact fees that may be required. In order to facilitate the issuance of any permit or license affected by this approval, please bring a copy of this letter with you when applying for any permits or licenses that require this prior development approval. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III, at 727-5624504. Sincereell /- Mic ael Del , AICP Planning Director S: (Planning DepartmentlC D BIFLEX (FLD) Unactive or Finished ApplicationslHighland Ave S 1524, 1532 & 1536 Highland Office Complex (O) - ApprovedlHighland S 1524, 1532 & 1536 Time Ext. Dev. Order 9.17.07.doc ORIGMAt. RECEIVED SEP 19 2007 M YERS & ASSOCIATES PLANNING DEPARTMEW ARCHITECTURE, AIA, P.A. My OFCMQWATER AA-0003461 .................................................................................................... 9170 Oakhurst Rd., Suite 313 Seminole, Florida 33776 September 17, 2007 Wayne M. Wells, AICP Planner III City of Clearwater Planning Department PO Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33758 Re: Development Order - Case FLD2006-04024 1524, 1532 and 1536 South Highland Avenue Dear Mr. Wells, My client Mr. Vern Loken is the owner of the subject property. He is requesting a one-year extension to the time to initiate a building permit for this project, as it was originally approved. There has been a decrease in requirements for office space recently and Mr. Loken has had serious health issues, which is not allowing him to proceed with development at this time. Before his unfortunate health problems, Mr. Loken was moving ahead with the work getting several quotes for site work and construction on the project. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (727) 595-7100. Si cerely, Jay F. M ers, AIA Phone: 727-595-7100 Fax: 727-59?-7138 1= mail: myersarch@ix.netcom.com 0 . • MYERS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE, AIA, P.A. AA-0003467 .................................................................................................... September 17, 2007 Wayne M. Wells, AICP Planner 111 City of Clearwater Planning Department PO Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33758 Re: Development Order - Case FLD2006-04024 1524, 1532 and 1536 South Highland Avenue Dear Mr. Wells, My client Mr. Vern Loken is the owner of the subject property. He is requesting a one-year extension to the time to initiate a building permit for this project, as it was originally approved. There has been a decrease in requirements for office space recently and Mr. Loken has had serious health issues, which is not allowing him to proceed with development at this time. Before his unfortunate health problems, Mr. Loken was moving ahead with the work getting several quotes for site work and construction on the project. If you have any ques6ns, I can be reached at (727) 595-7100. Si cerely, Jay F. M ers, AIA II? Z-d 8OLL-969-LZL AUUBd dL-V:60 L0 LI, deS FAX TRANSMITTAL (727) 595-7138 TO: Wayne Wells COMPANY: Planning Dept. of Clearwater FAX NUMBER: 727-562-4865 RE: Vern Laken Development Order DATE: 9/17/07 HARD COPY TO FOLLOW?: YES x NO NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED INCLUDING THIS SHEET: 2 COMMENTS: Case FLD2006-04024 Completed one, hard copy to follow. FROM. MYERS & ASSOCIATES ARCH ITECTURE AIA, P.A. 9170 OAKHURST RD. SUITE 3B SEMINOLE, FL. 33776 PHONE (727) 595-7100 AA-0003461 IF THIS TRANSMISSION IS NOT LEGIBLE, PLEASE CONTACT US. 6'd 8E ?L-96?-LZL Auued clbt o LO Z I, deS C I T Y OF C L E A R W A T E R =-PLANNING DEPARTMENT G`?f1 POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLEARWA'rER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL. SFRVICI:S BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVFNUI; CIYARWATER FLORIDA 33756 TIiLEPF1ONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4865 LONG RANGE PLANNING DFVELOPMENT RFVIF,W September 20, 2006 Mr. Jay Myers 9179 Oakhurst Road, Suite 3B Seminole, FL 33776 RE: Development Order - Case FLD2006-04024 1524, 1532 and 1536 South Highland Avenue Dear Mr. Myers: This letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to Section 4-206.D.6 of the Community Development Code. On September 19, 2006, the Community Development Board reviewed your request for Flexible Development approval (1) to permit a 16,548 square-foot office building in the Office (O) District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 12.92 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (north) setback from 20 feet to 12.42 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to 11.5 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (south) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and from 20 feet to six feet (to dumpster enclosure) and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to 12 feet (to building), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Program under the provisions of Section 2-1004.B; (2) to permit nonresidential off-street parking in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to 7.17 feet (to pavement) and deviations to allow the structures (pavement) within the front and side setbacks and to place landscaping on the inside of the buffer fence along the north and west sides of the property, as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 204.E; and (3) to permit reductions to the landscape buffer requirements along South Highland Avenue (east) from 15 feet to 12.92 feet (to pavement), along the north side from 12 feet to 11.5 feet (to pavement) and along the south side from five feet to zero feet (to pavement) and to permit a reduction to required interior landscaping from 12 percent to 10.69 percent, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. The Community Development Board (CDB) APPROVED the application with the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Conditions of Approval: Findings of Fact: 1. That the 1.687-acre subject property is located on the west side of South Highland Avenue, approximately 400 feet south of Nursery Road; 2. That the 1.456-acre southern portion of the overall property is located within the Office (O) District and the Residential/Office General (R/OG) Future Land Use Plan category; 3. That the 0.231-acre northern portion of the overall property (northern 70 feet) is currently located within unincorporated Pinellas County, is being annexed into the City of Clearwater and is being assigned the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District and the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan category (see ANX2006-05016, item 171 on this September 19, 2006, CDB agenda); PRANK 1111 MARU, MAYOR JOttN DOIC;\N, Cot Nc]LJ1F:NMH1< liOrr I I:U111.1 ON, C,0[ NC1L\iF.NIHr.R N1.1. mSON, (lot L; trausr:R CAw.rN A. PrrttRst:N, COI:NCILJI!-.mmCH "FQIJAI, I NIPLOYMENT AND ArriRMATivit Ac i*m I;:UPLM FR" • • September 20, 2006 Myers - Page Two 4. That the overall property is an "L" shape with the southern leg extending away from South Highland Avenue and the design of the building and parking areas generally mirror this land configuration; 5. That the front property line along South Highland Avenue jogs or deviates seven feet east to west approximately midpoint; 6. That the proposal includes the construction of a 16,548 square-foot, one-story office building within the Office (O) District, with an associated nonresidential parking lot on the north side within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District; 7. That reductions to setbacks and perimeter buffers to pavement and building are proposed as part of the office development; 8. That the proposed installation of a six-foot high solid fence adjacent to existing detached dwellings will provide increased screening and buffering to the detached dwellings; 9. That the proposed office development will transition land use intensity from the more intense commercial uses across South Highland Avenue to the detached dwellings to the west; 10. That the development proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 11. That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Conclusions of Law: 1. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-1001.1 and 2-1004 for the Office District and Tables 2-201.1 and 2-204 for the LMDR District of the Community Development Code; 2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Sections 2-10043 and 2-204.E of the Community Development Code; 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code; and 4. That the development proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria as per Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code. Conditions of Approval: 1. That approval of this application be subject to the annexation of the northern portion of the site under Case No. ANX2006-05016; 2. That a Unity of Title be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permits; 3. That the final design and color of the building must be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the CDB, and be approved by Staff, 4. That any future freestanding sign be a monument-style sign a maximum six feet in height, unless part of a Comprehensive Sign Program, designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building; 5. That a six-foot high solid fence be installed along the west and north property lines adjacent to detached dwellings and along the north property line adjacent to the property at 1520 South Highland Avenue; 6. That the maximum height of the fence with the 25-foot front setback area adjacent to South Highland Avenue be three feet in height; 7. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the site and landscape plans be amended to indicate the installation of a six-foot high solid fence along the west property line adjacent to 1451 Regal Road and additional trees, in a location and number acceptable to the Planning Department, within the retention pond area to aid in screening the west side of the office building; and 8. That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits. September 20, 2006 Myers - Page Three C Pursuant to Section 4407, an application for a building permit shall be made within one year of Flexible Development approval (September 19, 2007). All required certificates of occupancy shall be obtained within two years of the date of issuance of the building permit. Time frames do not change with successive owners. The Community Development Coordinator may grant an extension of time for a period not to exceed one year and only within the original period of validity. The Community Development Board may approve one additional extension of time after the community development coordinator's extension to initiate a building permit application. The issuance of this Development Order does not relieve you of the necessity to obtain any building permits or pay any impact fees that may be required. In order to facilitate the issuance of any permit or license affected by this approval, please bring a copy of this letter with you when applying for any permits or licenses that require this prior development approval. Additionally, an appeal of a Level Two approval (Flexible Development) may be initiated pursuant to Section 4-502.B by the applicant or by any person granted party status within 14 days of the date of the CDB meeting. The filing of an application/notice of appeal shall stay the effect of the decision pending the final determination of the case. The appeal period for your case expires on October 3, 2006 (14 days from the date of the CDB meeting). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Wayne M. Wells, Planner III, at 727-562-4504. You can access zoning information for parcels within the City through our website: www.Lnyclearwater.com/gov/depts/planning. Sincerely, ?Michae elk P Planning Director S: (Planning DepartmentlC D BIFLEX (FLD)IInactive or Finished Applicationsi ighland S 1524, 1532 & 1536 Highland Office Complex (0) - ApprovedlHighland S 1524, 1532 & 1536 Development Order. doc 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:11 PM To: Jay Myers (E-mail) Subject: Staff Report for FLD2006-04024 Jay - Attached is the Staff Report for FLD2006-04024, Loken Office Complex, at 1524, 1532 and 1536 South Highland Avenue for the September 19, 2006, CDB meeting, which starts at 1:00 pm. Wayne Highland S 1524, 1532 & 1536 5... 0 0 LoNC RnNGI: PLANNING Df:VELOPMENT Rl:vtt:W CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT Pos'r Orri(:r. Box 4748, G .:ARNvAu:ia , Fi.oRIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 Souni MYR11.I: Avt:XUe, CLEARWATER, Pt miDA 33756 I'tiLl'.PI IoNt: (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4865 August 18, 2006 Mr. Jay Myers 9179 Oakhurst Road, Suite 3B Seminole, FL 33776 Re: Community Development Board Meeting (Case No. FLD2006-04024) Dear Mr. Myers: Case No. FLD2006-04024 for Flexible Development approval (1) to permit a 16,548 square-foot office building in the Office (O) District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 12.92 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (north) setback from 20 feet to 12.42 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to 11.5 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (south) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and from 20 feet to six feet (to dumpster enclosure) and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to 12 feet (to building), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Program under the provisions of Section 2-1004.13; (2) to permit nonresidential off-street parking in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to 7.17 feet (to pavement) and deviations to allow the structures (pavement) within the front and side setbacks and to place landscaping on the inside of the buffer fence along the north and west sides of the property, as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-204.E; and (3) to permit reductions to the landscape buffer requirements along South Highland Avenue (east) from 15 feet to 12.92 feet (to pavement), along the north side from 12 feet to 11.5 feet (to pavement) and along the south side from five feet to zero feet (to pavement) and to permit a reduction to required interior landscaping from 12 percent to 10.69 percent, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G, for property located at 1524, 1532 and 1536 South Highland Avenue, has been scheduled to be reviewed by the Community Development Board on September 19, 2006. The meeting will take place at 1:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 3rd floor of City Hall at 112 S. Osceola Avenue, Clearwater. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 727-562-4504. Sincerely, [-?44 Wayn . Wells, AICP Planner III S:l Planning DeparbnentlCD BIFLEX (FLD)I Pernrling casesl Up for the next CDBIHighland S 1524, 1532 & 1536 Highland Office Complex (O) - 9.19.06 CDB - WWIHighland S 1524, 1532 & 1536 CDB Letter.doc PrAxn I liicMIM, NIAMR n Ihu:v , Crn mloll>ntra 13n.i..lc : x .v, (:ui N(MAIFNIHra; Plo. rx, Gu xi:n_ ie>nieR „Ir rni.I?,MIT NIFNI AND Ar•r•n;>I:crn,i:Acru N FMPiMI:R„ Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 2:22 PM To: Jay Myers (E-mail) Subject: FLD2006-04024, Loken Office Complex Jay - Thank you for submitting the civil plans, but they are not correct. There are other comments that still have not been addressed. I am attaching these comments that need to be addressed quickly, by noon on Wednesday, August 23, 2006. Wayne dre action agenda for resubmit... 1:15 Pm Case Number: FLD2006-0404 -- 1532 S HIGHLAND AVE Owner(s): L M Revoca Loken Trust C/O Loken, Luvern M Tre Clearwater, Fl 33756 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Representative: Jay Myers 9170 Oakhurst Road Seminole, Fl 33776 TELEPHONE: 727-595-7100, FAX: 727-595-7138, E-MAIL: myersarch@ix.netcom.com Location: 1.66 acres located on the west side of South Highland Avenue approximately 400 feet south of Nursery Road Atlas Page: 315A Zoning District: LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential Request: Flexible Development approval (1) to permit a 16,548 square-foot office building in the Office (O) District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 12.92 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (north) setback from 20 feet to 12.42 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to 11.5 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (south) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and from 20 feet to six feet (to dumpster enclosure) and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to 12 feet (to building), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Program under the provisions of Section 2-1004.13; (2) to permit nonresidential off-street parking in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to 7.17 feet (to pavement) and deviations to allow the structures (pavement) within the front and side setbacks and to place landscaping on the inside of the buffer fence along the north and west sides of the property, as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-204.E; and (3) to permit reductions to the landscape buffer requirements along South Highland Avenue (east) from 15 feet to 12.92 feet (to pavement), along the north side from 12 feet to 11.5 feet (to pavement) and along the south side from five feet to zero feet (to pavement) and to permit a reduction to required interior landscaping from 12 percent to 10.69 percent, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Offices Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Association(s): Clearwater, Fl 33758 P O Box 8204 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Presenter: Wayne Wells, Planner III Attendees Included: City: Wayne Wells, Neil Thompson, Scott Rice, Jim Keller, Rick Albee, Sherry Watkins, Steven Brown Applicant: Jay Myers, Carey Matteoli, Vern Loken The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: No Comments Environmental: No Comments Fire: No Comments Harbor Master: No Comments Legal: No Connnents Land Resources: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 13 8/18/06-R_A The inventory Rating sheet is still incomplete. Some *tree ratings do not appear and/or have a N/A in the rating column. Verify with your arborist to see if these trees were rated. Provide prior to building permit. 7/18/06- R -A The Inventory Rating sheet is still incomplete. Some tree ratings do not appear. Provide prior to CDB. 7/13/06 - WW In conjunction with Scott Sullivan, the tree survey and inventory is complete. 5/12/06 - R_A The Inventory Rating sheet is incomplete. Some tree ratings do not appear. Also, all the trees adjacent to the proposed utilities on Highland Ave. must be inventoried. Provide prior to CDB. 8/18/06- R_A The top of bank was modified on the Landscape Plan only, all other plans have not been modified. Revise prior to building permit. 7/18/06- R_A The top of bank was modified on the Landscape Plan only, all other plans have not been modified. 7/13/06 - WW In conjunction with Scott Sullivan, the top of bank looks like it is closer to the property line and trees than before. Revise to connnent below. 5/12/06 - R_A Revise the top of bank at trees #12 and 14 to be at least half of the trees dripline away. Provide prior to CDB. 3 . 8/18/06- I still have some concern with the grades on the south property line, even though concrete replaced the asphalt, root pruning is indicated within the root plate. I will reassess the grades more thoroughly at building permit 7/13/06 - WW In conjunction with Scott Sullivan, the only parking lot grades that were changed was adjacent to the dumpster in the southeast corner. All others are the same. 5/12/06 - R_A Revise the parking lot grades at all the trees to be preserved on the south property line prior to CDB. 4. The architectural and civil plans do not coincide. The civil plans call for directional boring at . tree #53 but the Tree Preservation plan calls for root pruning. Insure that all plans coincide prior to building permit. Landscaping: 1 . 8/17/06, 7/13/06 & 5/26/06 - WW Sheet 3/6 - Based on the indentations on the building facade that are planted with trees (see Sheet L-1), is there a particular reason the 2" water line to the building has been located right where one of these indentations occur? Can the water line be modified in its location to not conflict with the proposed trees? 2 . Coordinate Sheet 3/5, Sheet A-1 and L-1 for the areas depicted for interior landscape area that is diagonally striped. Parks and Recreation: I . Open space impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permit or final plat (if applicable), whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Art Kader at 727-562-4824 to calculate the assessment. Stormwater: No Coniments Solid Waste: 1 , 7/13/06 - WW Per Don Melone, exterior of dumpster enclosure must be finished and painted the same as the building. Include this language to this detail on Sheet 4/6/ (see Sheet 3 of 3 of the City detail for language). 5/17/06 - TJG That dumpster enclousure(s) needs to be constructed to City specifications. City detail specifications need to be shown on detail sheet 4 (The one shown is unacceptable) Traffic Engineering: No Comments Planning: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 14 8/17/06 - WW 0 0 Lot area is now 73486.7 sf (1.687 acres). Revise 3/5 (all proposed site data). 7/11/06 - WW Lot area (72,281 sf vs 72,136.89 sf) and acreage are still inconsistent (1.66 acres vs 1.656 acres) on the application, Sheet 3/5 & A-1. Determine which are the correct numbers and correct all places these numbers are listed. 5/2/06 - WW Application states parcel size is 72,281 square feet. Sheet 3/6 of the civil plans state the same square footage for the existing area, but states 72,136.89 square feet for the proposed parcel size. Which is correct? Shouldn't the existing and proposed parcel size be the same? Revise. Additionally, revise the General Note #7 and the "Site Data" at the middle top on Sheet 3/6 if the correct square footage of the parcel is 72,281 (1.659 acres). Revise this sheet and the first page of the application. Revise Sheet A-1 as necessary. 2. 8/17/06, 7/11/06 & 5/23/06 - WW Potential condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report: That a Unity of Title be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permits; 3 . 8/17/06, 7/11/06 & 5/23/06 - WW Potential condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report: That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the CDB; 4. 8/17/06, 7/11/06 & 5/23/06 - WW Potential condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report: That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; 5 . 8/17/06, 7/11/06 & 5/23/06 - WW Flexible Development criteria for "offices" states: No sign of any kind is designed or located so that any portion of the sign is more than six feet above the finished grade of the front lot line of the parcel proposed for development unless such signage is a part of an approved comprehensive sign program. Therefore, potential condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report: That any future freestanding sign be a monument-style sign a maximum six feet in height, unless part of a Comprehensive Sign Program, designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building; 6. 8/17/06 & 5/23/06 - WW Flexible Development criteria for "offices" requires "the reduction in front setback result in an improved site plan or improved design and appearance" and "the reduction in side and/or rear setback result in an improved site plan, more efficient parking or improved design and appearance and landscaping in excess of the minimum required." Reductions to the front, side and rear setbacks are being requested, with a companion request to reduce the required perimeter buffers. Additionally, while unclear at this point, it appears that reductions to the foundation landscaping and interior landscaping are also being requested. In conjunction with compatibility with adjoining detached dwellings, the site design is too intense for this property, appears to be overbuilding the site and, therefore, Staff cannot support the proposal and the reductions being requested. 8/17/06, 7/11/06 & 5/24/06 - WW The retention pond has a vertical gravity wall adjacent to the parking/loading areas. Show any required safety railings/guardrails (possibly in Section A-A) on Sheet 3/6. 8/17/06 - WW A note has been shown on the site plan, but it is unclear where the three-foot high fence ends. Revise/clarify. 7/11/06 & 5/26/06 - WW Sheet A-1 - Proposed six-foot fence along the north property line must be reduced to a maximum of three feet in height within the 25-foot front setback area. 8/17/06, 7/11/06 & 5/28/06 - WW Provide color samples/chips of the proposed exterior colors of the building. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 15 10. 8/17/06,7/11/06& /28/06- WW Sheet A-2 - Provide the colors of the exterior facade on this sheet in written form (walls, colunuzs, facia, gable ends, window and door frames, etc.). That indicated on the 8.5"x11" reduced elevations does not provide sufficient clarity. 11 . 8/17/06 & 7/11/06 - WW General Applicability criteria #2 for offices on Comp Infill application - Response states "The proposal will enhance the appearance and access to the vicinity, and support development and landscaping." Unclear HOW this proposed office development will enhance "access to the vicinity". Unclear of the meaning of "and support development and landscaping." Provide information as to HOW this proposal will or won't affect the value of the detached dwellings to the west. Provide a more detailed and appropriate response. 12 . 8/17/06 & 7/11/06 - WW General Applicability criteria #1 for offices on Comp Infill application - Provide details as to HOW this proposal is in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage and character of ALL adjacent properties, including the nonresidential properties north (of the parking lot in the LMDR District) and south and the detached dwellings to the west (not only the shopping center across Highland Avenue). Unclear as to the statement "incorporates details to scale down its bulk." Revise response. 13 . 8/17/06 & 7/11/06 - WW General Applicability criteria #6 for offices on Comp Infill application - Provide greater information as to HOW the reduced setbacks and buffers minimizes the visual impacts of this development on the adjacent detached dwellings and generally to the adjacent uses to the south of this property and along Highland Avenue. 14. 8/17/06 & 7/13/06 - WW Revise the legal description on Sheet 1/6. It contains too much land (only Lots 56 through 53 in the rear). Ensure that the legal description matches the surveys, as revised (not all lots along S. Highland are less seven feet for road ROW). 15 . Revise Sheet 3/5 to move the proposed sign back to meet the required five-foot front setback. 16. Provide one set of civil plans that are signed and sealed. 17 . Sheet 3/5 - There are two dimensions on the north side that appear to depict the distance from the north property line to pavement, one that says five feet and the other that says seven feet. Which is correct?? The dimensions also need to be coordinated with the dimensions on Sheet A-1. Revise. 18 . Sheet 3/5 - Based on Sheet A-1 and L-1, the backup flair has been deleted. Revise and show dimension of 11'-6.5" at the northwest cosier of the pavement to the north property line. Other: No Comments Notes: To be placed on the 7/18/06 CDB agenda, submit 15 collated copies of the revised plans & application material addressing all above departments' comments by noon, 6/8/06. Packets shall be collated, folded and stapled as appropriate. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 16 ? t ft MYERS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE, AIA, P.A. AA-0003461 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9170 Oakhurst Rd., Suite 36 Seminole, Florida 33776 July 14, 2006 City of Clearwater Design Review Committee RE: FLD2006-04024 Office building for Vern Loken 1532 S Highland Ave To whom it may concern, Statement of design- ORIGINAL RECEIVED t?yG 11 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER This project has been designed to be compatible with the size, shape, and topography of the existing site. It is compatible with existing commercial projects that are located on Highland Avenue, and helps to transition between the more commercially dense strip mall across from the site, and the residential behind it. The layout of the building is in a general "L" shape to follow the shape of the site, and the parking arrangement is generous and located in such a way as to be accessible to any business that may be located within the building. A continuous covered sidewalk protects the public entrances and shades the fagade, adding interest and scale to the structure. We have designed a low lying, single story structure that conforms to the gradual slope of the property. The roof line is broken up with steps and Boston Hip features to add interest to the building and has a hip configuration which has a better chance of surviving high wind events. This project, if designed to fit within the given setbacks, would have had to been a two-story structure, which would not be compatible with the surrounding buildings and uses, and increase the distance from parking to individual units. This project will be an asset to the surrounding neighborhood and Clearwater, it fits neatly on its site and has a good scale and landscaping material. Responses to Comments: General Engineering: 1.-11. Engineering comments are acknowledged and will be addressed prior to building permit. Environmental: 1. The 2 vertical sides of the retention pond are needed due to the hardship of having seasonal high water which is fairly close to the surface at approximately 3.5' Page 1 of 4 2. Soil boring will be completed and provided. Land Resources: 1. Top of bank revised, see A-1, L-1. 2. Civil will be revised. C: 3. We reviewed and used the arborists' findings to revise the Landscaping and parking layouts. 4. Tree preservation plan provided, see L-2, L-3. Landscaping: 1. Perimeter landscaping delineated. 2. Chicasaw Plumb and Dahoon Holly are both listed as recommended trees under Accent Trees for the City of Clearwater. Chicasaw Plumb as a low water usage, and the Dahoon Holly as high water usage. 3. Added trees to foundation landscaping, see L-1. 4. Proposed water line can and will be relocated so as not to interfere with the trees. 5. Trees added to interior landscaping, see L-1. 6. ROW use permit will be acquired. 7. Request revised. 8. CLP to be revised. 9. Interior landscape amounts revised, see L-1. 10. Plant counts revised, see L-1. Parks and Recreation: 1. Impact fees will be paid prior to building permit. Solid Waste: ORIGINAL RECEIVED ?,UG 11 2006 PLANNING DEPARIMI-""I CITY OF CLEARWATII 'Z 1. Dumpster enclosure will be finished and painted the same as the building. Language for such to be added to Civil sheet 4/6. Planning: Page 2 of 4 1. Lot areas are made consistent to 1.66 acres. 2. Unity of title to be recorded prior to permits. 3. Final design and color will be coonsistant with conceptual elevations. 4. Parks and Rec. fees to be paid prior to permit. 5. Any future sign to be monumental and less that 6' in height, designed to match the building. 6. While asking for reductions in setbacks, perimeter buffers, and interior landscaping we feel that the design and the parking were designed for the site, and its surrounding community. 7. Safety rails are shown, see A-1 and L-1. 8. Fence along North property line has been changed to 3' within 25 of front property line. See A-1 and L-1. 9. Interior landscaping areas were recalculated and marked. 10. Proposed sign has been moved, see A-1, L-1. 11. Color chips supplied with original colored elevations. 12. Sheet A-2, Colors referred to in written form on A-2. 13. Shadows removed, see A-2. 14. Both midpoints provided, see A-1 and A-2. 15. - 32. See revised responces to Criteria. 33. Residential Infill Project FLD application resubmitted. 34. See revised responces to Criteria. 35. Handicapped spaces reduced to 3, see A-1. ORIGINAL RECEIVED NIJG 11 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 36. Relocated island and made the loading area larger, for easier access by trucks. Additional comments from Rick Albee: 1. The inventory rating sheet is not incomplete, see L-3 NOTE: "Several trees in the inventory including #3 and #4 are actually located on abutting property. They are recognized in the tree inventory as City of Clearwater code Page 3 of 4 requires that thier root systems be protected during the construction process. In addition, any pruning performed on the trees must conform to city code. They will not be graded in the tree inventory as they will not factor into the mitigation process. They will however, be located on the site plan by a number and shown on the inventory by size and species" 2. All plans have been updated to reflect the new top of bank. 3. Parking lot grades will be adjusted. 4. 1 intend to contact the Sanitation department and ensure that they can accomodate the tree height clearance at the dumpster. 5. Many changes have been made to the plans to preserve or remove suggested trees according to Mr. Mayberry's suggestions. Parking spaces were moved or removed to add space for root zones, and concrete utilized instead of asphalt to help as well. 6. Root pruning locations have been revised, see L-2. Sincerely, Jay Myers, AIA Myers and Associates Architecture ORIGINAL RECEIVED I?G 11 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Phone: "121-5q5-1100 Fax: "721-595-7158 E-mail: ix.netcom.comlff Page 4 of 4 ti M YERS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE, AIA, P.A. AA-0003461 ................................................................................................ 9170 Oakhurst Rd., Suite 3B Seminole, Florida 33776 July 14, 2006 City of Clearwater Design, Review Committee RE: FLD2006-04024 Office building for Vern Loken 1532 S Highland Ave Statement of Hardship for retaining walls in retention pond: ORIGINAL RECEIVED t,in 11 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Due to the depth of the site and the subsequent requirement for a Fire turn-around, in order to prvide for the accessability and the safety of the buildings occupants, we had to utilize a great deal of space for vehicular use. This space would otherwise been used for more green space and a much larger retention area, most likely not requiring a retaining wall. However, with the needed protection of the turn around, we require retaining walls in the smaller pond to accomodate the needed volume of retainage. See below for a possible option without the turn-around. SGIR t/2" - --- - - - - LD6423 NORTH 130.00' 8642-3 86423 f' 1_56 1/2 NORTH 130.00 LB6423 'I, I v, - i - - I2' LAND°GAPE BUFFER ? O I I fil 20' SETBAGY. RETENTION in O - - -- -- - ; Ln I ? ? ( t1J • o I tiI o -INTERIO ' ?. I, LAN hf"ItR!^"^ I I I IS) 2O'-0^ Bill f:•:•: 'i I J FE L ? ?; ' ?•??•?•'?' ?IIC7ERI0 1?` 1 F.ANDSGAFIN - 1 .n i t 4JI, FLOOR ELEV. 5'1.0' _ FO GRC $f N (3 1 of N K O 11 I v' II Phone: 72"1-5q5-1100 Fax: '12-7-5q5-7138 E-mail: myer5arch@ix.netcom.com N r Ip I? u? LU 0 0 I? NI Ff LI' V 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 11:50 AM To: Jay Myers (E-mail) Subject: FLD2006-04024, 1524, 1532 and 1536 S. Highland Avenue Jay - Rick Albee is back from vacation and has reviewed the revised plans you resubmitted last Friday. Following are his comments still needing to be resolved ASAP: 1. 7/18/06- R-A The Inventory Rating sheet is still incomplete. Some tree ratings do not appear. Provide prior to CDB. 7/13/06 - WW In conjunction with Scott Sullivan, the tree survey and inventory is complete. 5/12/06 - R_A The Inventory Rating sheet is incomplete. Some tree ratings do not appear. Also, all the trees adjacent to the proposed utilities on Highland Ave. must be inventoried. Provide prior to CDB. 2. 7/18/06- R_A The top of bank was modified on the Landscape Plan only, all other plans have not been modified. 7/13/06 - WW In conjunction with Scott Sullivan, the top of bank looks like it is closer to the property line and trees than before. Revise to comment below. 5/12/06 - R_A Revise the top of bank at trees #12 and 14 to be at least half of the trees dripline away. Provide prior to CDB. 3. 7/13/06 - WW In conjunction with Scott Sullivan, the only parking lot grades that were changed was adjacent to the dumpster in the southeast corner. All others are the same. 5/12/06 - R_A Revise the parking lot grades at all the trees to be preserved on the south property line prior to CDB. 4. 7/18/06- R_A Insure that the Sanitation Department will accommodate the tree canopies while dumping the container. 7/13/06 - WW Reviewed with Scott Sullivan. 5/12/06 - R_A Relocate the dumpster from under the canopies of trees #3 and 4 prior to CDB. 5. 7/18/06- R_A It still appears that some of the arborist recommendations on saving and removing particular trees were not adhered to. 7/13/06 - WW; 5/12/06 - R_A Recommend that the design team review the arborist report to address any concerns he may have and incorporate any suggestions for site design prior to CDB. 6. 7/18/06 - R_A It appears that the Preservation Plan was not developed by a certified arborist as proposed root pruning locations are too close to the base of some of the trees. Please provide the name of the plan designer as I would like to discuss their reasoning. 7/13/06 - WW To be included as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 5/12/06 - R_A Provide a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by a certified arborist, consulting arborist, landscape architect or other specialist in the field of arboriculture. This plan must show how the proposed building, parking, stormwater and utilities impact the critical root zones (drip lines) of trees to be preserved and how you propose to address these impacts i.e.; crown elevating, root pruning and/or root aeration systems. Other data required on this plan must show the trees canopy line, actual tree barricade limits (2/3 of the drip line and/or in the root prune lines if required), and the tree barricade detail. And any other pertinent information relating to tree preservation. Provide prior to building permit. Wayne w • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 3:18 PM To: Jay Myers (E-mail) Subject: FLD2006-04024, 1524, 1532 and 1536 S. Highland Avenue Jay - In addition to the comments I fax and emailed to you earlier, please add the following comment: Revise the legal description on Sheet 1/6. It contains too much land (only Lots 56 through 53 in the rear). Wayne U FAX COVER MEMO CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVE. CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 TO: FAX: l S 5 J - 7 0 8 Phone: S' S `" 0 O FROM: Phone:_7Vo Z- S K DATE:_ 7 RE: !- " 0 Z9- I T I L 1?5?1 d d d . MESSAGE: IZ-,:l fwd C wtocl ? NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) ?_ • Jul. 13 2006 12:10PM YOUR LOGO YOUR FAX NO. 7275624865 NO. OTHER FACSIMILE START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT 01 95957138 Jul.13 12:07PM 03'38 SND 09 OK TO TURN OFF REPORT, PRESS 'MENU' #04. THEN SELECT OFF BY USING '+' OR '-'. FOR FAX ADVANTAGE ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CALL 1-800-HELP-FAX (435-7329). 1.15 pm Case Number: FLD2006-0402-4 -- 1532 S HIGHLAND AVE Owner(s): L M Revoca Loken Trust C/O Loken, Luvern M Tre Clearwater, F133756 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Representative: Jay Myers 9170 Oakhurst Road Seminole, F133776 TELEPHONE: 727-595-7100, FAX: 727-595-7138, E-MAIL: myersarch@ix.netcom.com Location: xx acres located on the west side of South Highland Avenue approximately 400 feet south of Nursery Road Atlas Page: 315A Zoning District: LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential Request: Flexible Development approval (1) to permit 16,548 square feet of offices in the Office (O) District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 12.17 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (north) setback from 20 feet to 12.42 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to eight feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (south) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and from 20 feet to six feet (to dumpster enclosure) and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to 12 feet (to building), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Program under the provisions of Section 2-1004.13; (2) to permit nonresidential off-street parking in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 13 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement) and deviations to allow the structures (pavement) within the front, side and rear setbacks .and to place landscaping on the inside of the buffer fence along the north and west sides of the property, as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-204.E; and (3) to permit reductions to the landscape buffer requirements along east side along South Highland Avenue from 15 feet to 12.17 feet (to pavement), along the north side from 12 feet to eight feet (to pavement) and along the south side from five feet to zero feet (to pavement) and to permit a reduction to required interior landscaping from 12 percent to xx percent, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Offices Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Association(s): Clearwater, F133758 P O Box 8204 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Presenter: Wayne Wells, Planner III Attendees Included: City: Wayne Wells, Neil Thompson, Scott Rice, Jim Keller, Rick Albee, Sherry Watkins, Steven Brown Applicant: Jay Myers, Carey Matteoli, Vern Loken The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 18 The following to be addressed prior to building permit: 7/7/06 - NOPOF THESE WERE ACKNOWLEDGED 1. All unused drive aprons and/or parking surfaces are to be removed in its entirety (including the removal of culverts), by the contractor, at the applicant's expense. Where culverts are removed, a swale shall be established to maintain flow. The right(s)-of-way are to be restored with new sidewalk and sod as required. 2. Sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project shall be designed and constructed consistent with City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Index #109, including the A.D.A. (Truncated domes per D.O.T. Index #304.) 3. Applicant shall meet minimum horizontal and vertical separation requirements for storm, potable water and sanitary sewer mains specified in Chapter 62 of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). 4. The City of Clearwater will provide water tap, (Clearwater Code of Ordinances Section 32.095), set the water meter (Clearwater Code of Ordinances Section 32.096) and set the B.F.P.D. (back flow preventor device). The applicant is responsible for the water main extension from the tap to the device. Applicant is also responsible for all associated fees and all other installation fees. 5. Need a copy of an approved health permit for the installation of the domestic water main prior to issuance of a building permit. The health permit application form(s) can be found at: www.dep.state.fl.us/water/drinkingwater/fonns.htm 6. Need a copy of an approved D.E.P. permit for the installation of the sanitary sewer extension prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. All fire hydrant assemblies installed greater than 10 ft. from a water main shall be constructed with ductile iron pipe and shall have a gate valve at the tee on the branch line, and at the fire hydrant assembly (F.H.A.). 8. A permanent blow-off assembly shall be installed at the north end of the proposed water main extension. 9. New dumpster enclosures: Maximum 6-0" high and constructed of concrete block. Materials used should be consistent with those used in the construction of and architectural style of the principal building, see City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards, Part "C", Construction Standards, Index #701. 10. Delete dumpster enclosure from detail sheet and replace with City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards, Part "C", Construction Standards, Index #701. 11. Need a copy of an approved right-of-way permit from Pinellas County prior to issuance of a building permit. General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense (City Ordinance 7573-06). If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Environmental: 1 . 1. Prior to CDB: Vertical walls in retention pond are not permitted unless approved due to a reason of undue hardship per City Engineer. Submit justification of hardship. 7/7/06 - NO RESPONSE 2. Prior to Building permit: Provide soil boring data. Both conditions per City of Clearwater Stormwater Design Criteria Manual page 7. Fire: No Comments Harbor Master: No Comments Legal: No Comments Land Resources: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 19 1 . 7/13/06 - WW • • In conjunction with Scott Sullivan, the top of bank looks like it is closer to the property line and trees than before. Revise to comment below. 5/12/06 - R_A Revise the top of bank at trees #12 and 14 to be at least half of the trees dripline away. Provide prior to CDB. 2. 7/13/06 - WW In conjunction with Scott Sullivan, the only parking lot grades that were changed was adjacent to the dumpster in the southeast comer. All others are the same. 5/12/06 - R_A Revise the parking lot grades at all the trees to be preserved on the south property line prior to CDB. 3. 7/13/06 - WW; 5/12/06 - R_A Recommend that the design team review the arborist report to address any concerns he may have and incoporate any suggestions for site design prior to CDB. 4. 7/13/06 - WW To be included as a condition of approval in the Staff Report. 5/12/06 - R_A Provide a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by a certified arborist, consulting arborist, landscape architect or other specialist in the field of arboriculture. This plan must show how the proposed building, parking, stormwater and utilities impact the critical root zones (drip lines) of trees to be preserved and how you propose to address these impacts i.e.; crown elevating, root pruning and/or root aeration systems. Other data required on this plan must show the trees canopy line, actual tree barricade limits (2/3 of the drip line and/or in the root prune lines if required), and the tree barricade detail. And any other pertinent information relating to tree preservation. Provide prior to building permit. Landscaping: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 20 1 . 7/11/06 & 5/24/0 - WW • On the Landscape Plan Sheet L-1, delineate and dimension all required perimeter landscape buffers. 2. 7/13/06 - WW Chickasaw plum and dahoon holly (shade trees) are spec'ed along the front. Revise to accent trees (two accent trees equal one shade tree). 5/25/06 - WW Overhead utility lines exist along the front of the property. Only accent trees can be planted within 20 feet of these lines. Revise. 3 . 7/13/06 & 5/26/06 - WW Sheet L-1 - Foundation landscape area must be planted in compliance with Code requirements of Section 3-1202.E.2. 4. 7/13/06 & 5/26/06 - WW Sheet 3/6 - Based on the indentations on the building facade that are planted with trees (see Sheet L-1), is there a particular reason the 2" water line to the building has been located right where one of these indentations occur? Can the water line be modified in its location to not conflict with the proposed trees? 5 . 7/13/06 & 5/28/06 - WW Sheet L-1 - In some interior landscape areas and foundation planting areas there is an insufficient number of trees to meet Code requirements. Two accent trees = one shade tree; three palms (grouped together) = one shade tree. Revise to meet Code. 6. 7/13/06 & 5/28/06 - WW Will need a Right-of-way Use Permit to plant landscaping (shrubs) into the right-of-way. Will be a condition of approval. 7. Revise the request for Landscape reductions to that indicated in the request above. Reductions to perimeter buffers and interior landscaping requirements are wrong. 8. Revise the Comprehensive Landscape Program (CLP) application to detail the reductions to the perimeter landscape and interior landscape requirements and provide the justifications for such reductions. You have filled out as part of the CLP #la, whereas #lb should also be filled out. Additionally, you should discuss the provision of the six-foot high solid fence for buffering purposes, which is not a requirement of the Code. 9. Interior landscape required (12% of vehicular use area [VUA]) = 3740.69 square feet. Revise the square footage of the interior landscape area provided and the percentage of the VUA on Sheets A-1 and L-1. 10. Sheet L-1 - The following plant/tree counts indicated in the plant list table at the top of the sheet do not match that indicated on the drawing: LI - 6 indicated in the table; 5 indicated on the plan; SP - 13 indicated in the table; 16 indicated on the plan; and QV - 8 indicated in the table; 6 indicated on the plan. Revise. Parks and Recreation: 1 . Open space impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permit or final plat (if applicable), whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Art Kader at 727-562-4824 to calculate the assessment. Stormwater: No Comments Solid Waste: 1 . 7/13/06 - WW Per Don Melone, exterior of dumpster enclosure must be finished and painted the same as the building. Include this language to this detail on Sheet 4/6/ (see Sheet 3 of 3 of the City detail for language). 5/17/06 - TJG That dumpster enclousure(s) needs to be constructed to City specifications. City detail specifications need to be shown on detail sheet 4 (The one shown is unacceptable) Traffic Engineering: No Comments Planning: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 21 1 . 7/11/06 - WW . • Lot area (72,281 sf vs 72,136.89 so and acreage are still inconsistent (1.66 acres vs 1.656 acres) on the application, Sheet 3/5 & A-1. Determine which are the correct numbers and correct all places these numbers are listed. 5/2/06 - WW Application states parcel size is 72,281 square feet. Sheet 3/6 of the civil plans state the same square footage for the existing area, but states 72,136.89 square feet for the proposed parcel size. Which is correct? Shouldn't the existing and proposed parcel size be the same? Revise. Additionally, revise the General Note #7 and the "Site Data" at the middle top on Sheet 3/6 if the correct square footage of the parcel is 72,281 (1.659 acres). Revise this sheet and the first page of the application. Revise Sheet A-1 as necessary. 2. 7/11/06 & 5/23/06 - WW Potential condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report: That a Unity of Title be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permits; 3 . 7/11/06 & 5/23/06 - WW Potential condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report: That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the CDB; 4. 7/11/06 & 5/23/06 - WW Potential condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report: That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; 5 . 7/11/06 & 5/23/06 - WW Flexible Development criteria for "offices" states: No sign of any kind is designed or located so that any portion of the sign is more than six feet above the finished grade of the front lot line of the parcel proposed for development unless such signage is a part of an approved comprehensive sign program. Therefore, potential condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report: That any future freestanding sign be a monument-style sign a maximum six feet in height, unless part of a Comprehensive Sign Program, designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building; 6. Flexible Development criteria for "offices" requires "the reduction in front setback result in an improved site plan or improved design and appearance" and "the reduction in side and/or rear setback result in an improved site plan, more efficient parking or improved design and appearance and landscaping in excess of the minimum required." Reductions to the front, side and rear setbacks are being requested, with a companion request to reduce the required perimeter buffers. Additionally, while unclear at this point, it appears that reductions to the foundation landscaping and interior landscaping are also being requested. In conjunction with compatibility with adjoining detached dwellings, the site design is too intense for this property, appears to be overbuilding the site and, therefore, Staff cannot support the proposal and the reductions being requested. 7/11/06 & 5/24/06 - WW The retention pond has a vertical gravity wall adjacent to the parking/loading areas. Show any required safety railings/guardrails (possibly in Section A-A) on Sheet 3/6. 7/11/06 & 5/26/06 - WW Sheet A-1 - Proposed six-foot fence along the north property line must be reduced to a maximum of three feet in height within the 25-foot front setback area. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 22 9. 7/11/06 - WW • 0 Sheet 3/5 (or really 3/6) and Sheet A-1 indicate a portion of that area parallel with South Highland Avenue to be counted as interior landscaping, as evidenced by cross-hatching. Double counting of areas that are perimeter buffers as interior landscape areas is not permitted. Required perimeter buffers are 15 feet along South Highland Avenue, five feet along the south, five feet along the north (that portion adjacent to South Highland Avenue, since this is developed with a nonresidential use) and 12 feet along the north and west adjacent to single family dwellings. The interior landscape area cannot count any of these perimeter buffers, or any of the foundation planting area. The interior landscape areas must also meet the required plantings of the Code. Revise cross-hatching, the square footage amount of interior landscape area provided and the designed percentage of the vehicular use area. Additionally, when parking is 110% or greater than the required parking, 12% of the vehicular use area must be placed in "interior landscaping." Since it appears that the provided interior landscape area will not meet the required amount, need to include as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program request. 5/28/06 - WW Sheet A-I - Interior landscape area crosshatched on this sheet is not consistent with that indicated on Sheet 3/6. Make both consistent or only show on one sheet. 10. 7/11/06 - WW Comment below is still applicable (see also Sheet 3/5). Staff will not support any reduction to the required setback of five feet. 5/28/06 - WW Sheets A-1 & L-1 - A proposed sign is indicated near the front property line. It is noted that the minimum setback to property lines for signage is five feet. 11 . 7/11/06 & 5/28/06 - WW Provide color samples/chips of the proposed exterior colors of the building. 12. 7/11/06 & 5/28/06 - WW Sheet A-2 - Provide the colors of the exterior facade on this sheet in written form (walls, columns, facia, gable ends, window and door frames, etc.). That indicated on the 8.5"x11" reduced elevations does not provide sufficient clarity. 13 . 7/11/06 & 5/28/06 - WW Sheet A-2 - Black & white and colored plan - Remove the shadows from the plan, as it is not consistent across all elevations, does not reflect all shadows and covers details/colors of the elevations. 14. 7/11/06 & 5/28/06 - WW Sheet A-2 - The main pitched roof that runs along the majority of the north/south portion of the building appears to be 18'-9" to the midpoint of that roof. This is the building height that will be used for height purposes. Show this height on the plans. However, still continue to also provide the midpoint of the highest pitched roof on the south end of the building. 15. 7/11/06 & 5/28/06 - WW Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 - A proposed design has been submitted for this property. Why this design? Why couldn't a different design not require the reductions and deviations requested under this proposal. Provide greater detaill as to HOW deviations to setbacks and buffers are necessary in the development of this property. 16. 7/11/06 - WW Comment below is still valid. Additionally, there should be a discussion regarding any visual detriments of reduced setbacks and buffers. Discussion should include the proposed solid fence. 5/28/06 - WW Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #4 - Ensure the response includes a detailed discussion relating to the detached dwellings to the west. 17. 7/11/06 & 5/28/06 - WW Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #5 - Provide a DETAILED response as to HOW this proposal is compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood and demostrates compliance with "a" and "b." 18. 7/11/06 & 5/28/06 - WW Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6 - Provide a DETAILED response as to HOW flexibility to required setbacks, buffers, interior landscaping and foundation landscaping (?) meets all of the design objectives of this criteria. Why can't required setbacks, buffers, interior landscaping and foundation landscaping (?) be met, or why MUST it be as proposed? Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 23 19. 7/11/06 - WW • • Need to resubmit the application. Ensure the comments below are addressed. 5/28/06 - WW General Applicability criteria #1 for nonresidential parking on Residential Infill application - HOW is the proposed parking lot in harmony with the adjacent nonresidential use to the north and the detached dwellings to the west, in light of the reductions to setbacks and buffers requested. 20. 7/11/06 - WW Need to resubmit the application. Ensure the comments below are addressed. 5/28/06 - WW General Applicability criteria #2 for nonresidential parking on Residential Infill application - Provide details as to HOW the proposed parking will not impair the value of the adjacent detached dwellings, in light of the reduced setbacks and buffers requested. 21 . 7/11/06 - WW Need to resubmit the application. Ensure the comments below are addressed. 5/28/06 - WW General Applicability criteria #3 for nonresidential parking on Residential Infill application - Provide a detailed response as to HOW the proposed parking lot was "designed with health and safety in mind" and HOW the reduced setbacks and buffers will not adversely affect the detached dwellings to the west. 22 . 7/11/06 - WW Need to resubmit the application. Ensure the comments below are addressed. 5/28/06 - WW General Applicability criteria #5 for nonresidential parking on Residential Infill application - Provide a detailed response as to HOW the parking lot is "consistent with the character of other parking lots in the immediate vicinity," especially since this parking lot is on residentially zoned property. 23 . 7/11/06 - WW Need to resubmit the application. Ensure the comments below are addressed. 5/28/06 - WW General Applicability criteria #6 for nonresidential parking on Residential Infill application - Provide a detailed response as to HOW this parking lot will not have an adverse visual effect, especially in light of the requested reductions to the setbacks and buffers of this proposal. 24. 7/11/06 - WW Need to resubmit the application. Ensure the comments below are addressed. 5/28/06 - WW Residential Infill Project criteria #1 - Provide a detailed response as to HOW the development of a parking lot to serve the proposed offices would be impracticable without the deviations to the setbacks and buffers requested. Why can't setbacks and buffers be met? Is the proposed development overbuilding the site? 25 . 7/11/06 - WW Need to resubmit the application. Ensure the comments below are addressed. 5/28/06 - WW Residential Infill Project criteria #4 - Provide a detailed response as to HOW this proposed parking lot is compatible with the existing nonresidential use to the north and the detached dwellings to the west. 26. 7/11/06 - WW Need to resubmit the application. Ensure the comments below are addressed. 5/28/06 - WW Residential Infill Project criteria #5 - Provide greater detail as to HOW the proposed "landscaping quality is very high" and will upgrade the surrounding area. 27. 7/11/06 - WW Need to resubmit the application. Ensure the comments below are addressed. 5/28/06 - WW Residential Infill Project criteria #6 - Provide a detailed response as to HOW this proposed parking lot, in light of the requested reductions to setbacks and buffers, enhances the community character. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 24 28. 7/11/06 - WW 0 • Need to resubmit the application. Ensure the comments below are addressed. 5/28/06 - WW Residential Infill Project criteria #7 - Provide a detailed response as to HOW (justify) the requested flexibility to setbacks and buffers for this parking lot benefit the character of the surrounding area. The setback and buffer reductions are severe. 29. 7/11/06 - WW Need to resubmit the application. Ensure the comments below are addressed. 5/28/06 - WW Provide in all appropriate responses to criteria (General Applicability and Residential Infill) for the proposed parking lot within the LMDR District as to HOW the proposal meets the following criteria for "nonresidential off-street parking": "No off-street parking spaces are located in the required front setback for detached dwellings in the LMDR District or within ten feet, whichever is greater, or within ten feet of a side or rear lot line, except along the common boundary of the parcel proposed for development and the parcel on which the non-residential use which will be served by the off-street parking spaces." 30. General Applicability criteria #2 for offices on Comp Infill application - Response states "The proposal will enhance the appearance and access to the vicinity, and support development and landscaping." Unclear HOW this proposed office development will enhance "access to the vicinity". Unclear of the meaning of "and support development and landscaping." Provide information as to HOW this proposal will or won't affect the value of the detached dwellings to the west. Provide a more detailed and appropriate response. 31 . General Applicability criteria #1 for offices on Comp Infill application - Provide details as to HOW this proposal is in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage and character of ALL adjacent properties, including the nonresidential properties north (of the parking lot in the LMDR District) and south and the detached dwellings to the west (not only the shopping center across Highland Avenue). Unclear as to the statement "incorporates details to scale down its bulk." Revise response. 32. General Applicability criteria #6 for offices on Comp Infill application - Provide greater information as to HOW the reduced setbacks and buffers minimizes the visual impacts of this development on the adjacent detached dwellings and generally to the adjacent uses to the south of this property and along Highland Avenue. 33 . Resubmit the completed Residential Infill Project FLD application for the nonresidential parking in the LMDR District (parking on the north side). You forgot to resubmit it. 34. Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #3 - It is unclear how this proposed development, with the reductions to setbacks and buffers requested, will "encourage others to meet the standards more consistent with the land development code." Explain. 35 . Based on the number of parking spaces required/provided, Code only requires three handicap parking spaces. Four handicap spaces have been provided. Recommend only providing the minimum number, unless a need exists, by eliminating the handicap space on the north side. Convert to regular parking (potentially two regular spaces, by taking away one-foot from adjacent lanscape island). 36. While the loading space meets the Code size requirements and is centrally located for delivery truck use, it will not function properly because a truck cannot easily get into it. Recommend relocating the proposed interior landscape island, currently shown west of this loading space and separated by three parking spaces, and eliminating at least one parking space (possibly two), to create a wedge shaped landscape island with the southern edge of the landscape island at the southwestern point of the loading space and 12 parking spaces west of the interior landscape island. This would allow the delivery trucks greater turning movement for functionality. Other: No Comments Notes: To be placed on the 7/18/06 CDB agenda, submit 15 collated copies of the revised plans & application material addressing all above departments' comments by noon, 6/8/06. Packets shall be collated, folded and stapled as appropriate. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 25 • U Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:01 PM To: Jay Myers (E-mail) Subject: FLD2006-04024, 1532 S. Highland Avenue Jay - Attached are the outstanding review comments for this case. In order to be placed on the next CDB agenda for August 15, 2006, 1 need revised application packages (one original and 14 copies) back in by no later than 10:00 am tomorrow. Include a response letter to the comments when resubmitting. Call me if you have questions. Thanks. Wayne L?g dre action agenda for resubmit... • • LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL FROM: M YERS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE, AIA, P.A. AA-0003461 9170 Oakhurst Rd., Suite 36 Seminole, Florida 33776 TO: W?yNe- w e_A dL? > COMPANY: Orry '0-r C LZW2 w a2---- DATE:-71 ?/b? RE: f? (DTFIc CN-4pmr' (u?1'.-,81? WE TRANSMIT: /\ Herewith () Under separate cover FOR YOUR: (, Approval (j Distribution to parties {) Information {) Review and comment () Record XUse THE FOLLOWING: l Prints () Shop drawing prints/reproductions () Specifications () Samples () Change Order () Product literature Submittals () Other COPIES:: DATE: DESCRIPTION: 1?? '7/5)1t(::? V R) m cz`rbL_1 GIr-) ? I sly Carp pga's 1vf CAytd se_-.oP4;-, REMARKS: BY Phone: 727-595-7100 Fax: 727-595-7138 E-mail: myersarch@ix.netcom.com N I } E? ®m ® ® RETENTION I * c I HATCH DENOTE5 INTERIOR LANDSCAPING - -0„ 46'-0" BUILDING DATA R o Q ALL CONSTRU,'.TICN YELL COMPLY Y%TH THE OJRR=NTLY AL n ORIGINAL F VAD ------ RECEIVED 2004 FLORIDA IRE PRE TION GODS INCLUDING NFPA-iCl 2003 EDIT ON. NPPA-1 2003 EDI-ION \ NFPA-?O 2002 EDITION, NFPA -72 2002 EDITON '-6" ?', ? I JUN a'7 2006 N=PA-13 2002 ADDITION. NPPA-10 2002 JITICN p ??•_O" 1 20'-0 • Y7•• BUIL:)NG 15 AN N 05ED 5TRU-1 URE ` DE5I6NED ° ICND S-EEDS 123 MPH IN 3 SECOND GUST' p I 1 -0 1/ , PLANNING DEPARTMENT OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICA IO' O=-1CE ADDITION 15 E TYP!: III B CCN5TRUCTION ? p mo CITY OF CLEARWATER uN=RO =_cTED U1,15P b.. i p I ?° p10 p V O ' a? I p a o° p p - p o' p p p '112.•'.'.'.'.`.'.`•` . ?t.'`•':':•`':SSE?':i'??i?'?'??E?iii?;ii?;;E;; . a. 5 p 0 I I I p v p I p 6 0 D I 8 p I 1 p p 10 b. 6, 13 p I '? 6p I 4 ' ! p ry p (V I f 4 I ry ? 24'-0, Q ? c v o 77- ? . w ul :f Clearwater U Fax Cover Sheet City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S. Myrtle Ave., 2nd Floor Clearwater, FL 33756 Telephone: (727) 562-4567 Fax: (727) 562-4865 To: Jay Myers Fax: 727-595-7138 Case FLD2006-04024 -1532 S Highland Avenue From: Sherry Watkins, Planning Department Date: May 30, 2006 Subject: DRC Meeting Thursday, June 1-2006 Message: YOUR DRC -DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING IS AT 1:15 PM @ 100 S MYRTLE AVE ROOM 216. PLEASE CONTRACT ME SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS @ 727-562-4582. THANK YOU Number of pages including cover sheet • May. 30 2006 11:45AM YOUR LOGO YOUR FAX NO. 7275624865 NO. OTHER FACSIMILE START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT 01 95957138 May.30 11:44AM 00145 SND 01 OK TO TURN OFF REPORT, PRESS 'MENU' #04. THEN SELECT OFF BY USING '+' OR FOR FAX ADVANTAGE ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CALL 1-800-HELP-FAX (435-7329). 0 9 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:24 PM To: Jay Myers (E-mail) Subject: FLD2006-04024, 1524, 1532 & 1536 S. Highland Avenue Jay - Attached is the Draft June 1, 2006, DRC comments for the above referenced case. This case will be heard at 1:15 pm. Wayne x.v draft 6.1.06 dre action agenda... ° CITY OF CLEORWATER 0 ClearWater PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W WW.MYCLEARWATER. COM May 08, 2006 Jay Myers 9170 Oakhurst Road Suite 3b Seminole, F133776 RE: FLD2006-04024 -- 1532 S HIGHLAND AVE -- Letter of Completeness Dear Jay Myers : The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number: FLD2006-04024. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is complete. The Development Review Committee (DRC) will review the application for sufficiency on June 01, 2006, in the Planning Department conference room - Room 216 - on the second floor of the Municipal Services Building. The building is located at 100 South Myrtle Avenue in downtown Clearwater. You will be contacted by the Planning Department's Administrative Analyst within one week prior to the meeting date for the approximate time that your case will be reviewed. You or your representative (as applicable) must be present to answer any questions that the DRC may have regarding your application. Additional comments may be generated by the DRC at the time of the meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 727-562-4504 or Wayne. Wells@myclearwater.com. Sincerely yours, Wa. Wells, AICP Planner III Letter of Completeness - FLD2006-04024 -1532 S HIGHLAND AVE 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 9:43 AM To: Jay Myers (E-mail) Subject: FLD2006-04024, 1524-1536 South Highland Avenue Jay - Attached is a Letter of Completeness for the above project. I will mail the original letter. Wayne letter of repleteness 5.8.06., LL CITY OF CLE RWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT ° flearwater* MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W W W.MYCLEARWATER. COM May 02, 2006 Jay Myers 9170 Oakhurst Road Suite 3b Seminole, Fl 33776 RE: FLD2006-04024 -- 1532 S HIGHLAND AVE -- Letter of Incompleteness Dear Jay Myers : The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number: FLD2006-04024. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is Incomplete with the following comments. Application states parcel size is 72,281 square feet. Sheet 3/6 of the civil plans state the same square footage for the existing area, but states 72,136.89 square feet for the proposed parcel size. Which is correct? Shouldn't the existing and proposed parcel size be the same? Revise. Additionally, revise the General Note #7 and the "Site Data" at the middle top on Sheet 3/6 if the correct square footage of the parcel is 72,281 (1.659 acres). Revise this sheet and the first page of the application. Revise Sheet A-1 as necessary. j 2. There are actually three parcel numbers for the subject property, the two you list on the first page of the application and 23-29-15-79254-002-0010. Add this parcel number onto the application and to Sheet A-1. J3. Application states the building square footage proposed is 17,462, but Sheet 3/6 says 17,457.95 square feet in General Note #12 and in the "Site Data" in the middle top. Which is correct? Revise. Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-04024 - 1532 S HIGHLAND AVE LL CITY OF CLE RWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 0 Clearwatere MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W WW.MYCLEARWATER.COM May 02, 2006 14. The Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria has been amended in the Code. Provide responses to the following new criteria: 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district; 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district; 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties; 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development; 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: ' a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new, and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-04024 - 1532 S HIGHLAND AVE ° 0 CITY OF CLL*RWAT.ER Clearwater PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W W W. MYCLEARWATER. COM May 02, 2006 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. SQ Provide a narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including all calculations and data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City manual. 6. On Page 4 of the application, since this development of the property requires a stormwater plan, the wrong box has been initialed. Revise and initial in the correct line for the following: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF STORMWATER PLAN REQUIREMENTS (Applicant must initial one of the following): _ Stormwater plan as noted above is included. Stormwater plan is not required and explanation narrative is attached. At a minimum, a 1grading plan and finished floor elevations shall be provided. 7. The northern 2+ lots are not yet within the corporate limits of the City of Clearwater. An annexation request has been submitted. However, there has been no application filed to change the land use designation and the zoning for these northern lots (which would also need to be a complete application). For this case to go forward, this FLD application must track with the annexation and land use/rezoning cases (be on the same agendas - DRC and CDB). Need to submit a complete application for a land use change and rezoning for the northern 2+ lots (see Mike Reynolds in Long Range Planning). Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-04024 -1532 S HIGHLAND AVE 0 CITY OF CLLARWATER ClearWater PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 0 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W WW.MYCLEARWATER.COM May 02, 2006 The site plan Sheet 3/6 needs to be fully dimensioned with the proposed setbacks to the closest points of all pavement and building to the property lines (suggest both ends of the parking surface and building in each direction), the width of parking spaces and handicap spaces, driveway widths, the width of landscape islands (terminal or interior), the building dimensions, sidewalks, foundation landscape areas, etc. J9. Revise the north arrow to true north on Sheets 3/6, 5/6 & 6/6 (north is pointing west). 10. Provide on Sheet 3/6 the required setbacks. 11. Show on Sheet 3/6 the location of all existing driveways and notations regarding their removal if not being re-used (dashed in existing driveways if different location than the proposed driveways). 12. Show on Sheet 3/6 and L-1 all existing public and private easements. J 13. Show on Sheets 3/6, 5/6, 6/6, L-1 & A-1 required loading space(s). 1?4 Sheets 3/6 and L-1 have areas crosshatched to potentially mean that these areas are being considered as "interior landscaping," however, there is no legend indicating this may be so. If these areas are being considered as "interior landscaping," provide a note in the legend for such. Note: Some areas of the crosshatched areas (if being considered "interior landscaping") will not qualify as they are part of the foundation landscaping or required perimeter buffers (cannot double count), or are at the bottom of the retention pond. Additionally, when parking is 110% or greater than the required parking, 12% of the vehicular use area must be placed in "interior landscaping." J 15. Show the location of all outside mechanical equipment and required screening. J 16. Show the location or indicate locations of outdoor lighting. 470 The Vehicular Area listed in the "Site Data" on Sheet 3/6 is not the same as indicated on Sheet L-1. Which is correct? Revise appropriately. J18. Dimension on the site and/or building elevations the width of the overhang/eave. X119. On the Landscape Plan Sheet L-1, show the drainage and retention areas including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations. 20. On the Landscape Plan Sheet L-1, delineate and dimension all required perimeter landscape buffers. 21 Based on the site design with the dimensions provided at this point, the plans do not meet the required perimeter buffer requirements, the foundation landscape requirement and the interior landscape requirement. Unless revised to meet these requirements, a Comprehensive Landscape Program (CLP) application must be submitted requesting the reductions to these requirements and the justifications for such reductions. Note: The landscaping would need to exceed the minimum requirements when requesting reductions under the CLP. Section 4-202 of the Community Development Code states that if an application is deemed incomplete, the deficiencies of the application shall be specified by Staff. No further development review action shall be taken until the deficiencies are corrected and the application is deemed complete. Please resubmit by noon on Friday, May 5, 2006. Letter oflncompleteness - FLD2006-04024 - 1532 S HIGHLAND AVE LL CITY OF CL RWATER ClearWate* r PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 0 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W W W.MYCLEARWATER. COM May 02, 2006 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 727-562-4504 or Wayne.Wells@myclearwater.com. Sincerely yours, 1Va" m. klg? Wa Wells Planner III Letter oflncompleteness - FLD2006-04024 - 1532 SHIGHLAND AVE 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 3:22 PM To: Jay Myers (E-mail) Subject: FLD2006-04024, 1524-1536 South Highland Avenue Jay - Attached is a Letter of Incompleteness for the above project. I will also fax this letter. The original letter will be mailed. Wayne t7 letter of completeness 5.2.0, FAX COVER MEMO CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVE. CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 TO: FAX: -J c1S' 711S Phone: S 5 S- 7) D 0 FROM: h!L W Phone: S (v 2- ? S + DATE:_ 5 21 v to RE: -Loa to - 0 +0-- I SZ-'? ' I to S. 15?1w.a ?. MESSAGE: C NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) May. 02 2006 02:30PM YOUR LOGO YOUR FAX NO. 7275624865 NO. OTHER FACSIMILE START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT 01 95957138 May.02 02:28PM 02'17 SND 06 OK TO TURN OFF REPORT, PRESS 'MENU' #04. THEM SELECT OFF BY USING '+' OR '-'. FOR FAX ADVANTAGE ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CALL 1-800-HELP-FAX C435-7329). E LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL FROM: MYERS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE, AIA, P.A. AA-0003461 ............................................................................................... 9170 Oakhurst Rd., Suite 3B Seminole, Florida 33776 TO: City of Clearwater • DATE: 04/27/06 RE: Loken Office Complex WE TRANSMIT: (x) Herewith FOR YOUR: (x) Approval () Information () Record THE FOLLOWING: ( x ) Prints () Specifications () Change Order (x) Submittals ( ) Under seperate cover ( ) Distribution to parties () Review and comment () Use () Shop drawing prints/ reproductions () Samples () Product literature () Other COPIES: DATE: DESCRIPTION: 14 copies and 1 original of the following: Flexible Development Application 3 Site Surveys Site plan Elevations Landscape Small site plan Small elevation Small landscape Civil d wing 4 Copies of dr inage cal ulation 1 24x36 color vatioK- BY: ORIGINAL RECEIVED APK 2 7 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Iff Phone: 121-595-7100 Fax: '121-595-7135 E-mail: myemarchoix.netcom.com CDB Meeting Date: September 19, 2006 ORIGINAL Case Number: FLD2006-04024 Agenda Item: El Owner: LM Loken Revocable Trust Applicant: Vern Loken Representative: Jay Myers Address: 1524, 1532 and 1536 South Highland Avenue CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval (1) to permit a 16,548 square-foot office building in the Office (O) District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 12.92 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (north) setback from 20 feet to 12.42 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to 11.5 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (south) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and from 20 feet to six feet (to dumpster enclosure) and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to 12 feet (to building), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Program under the provisions of Section 2-1004.13; (2) to permit nonresidential off-street parking in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to 7.17 feet (to pavement) and deviations to allow the structures (pavement) within the front and side setbacks and to place landscaping on the inside of the buffer fence along the north and west sides of the property, as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-204.E; and (3) to permit reductions to the landscape buffer requirements along South Highland Avenue (east) from 15 feet to 12.92 feet (to pavement), along the north side from 12 feet to 11.5 feet (to pavement) and along the south side from five feet to zero feet (to pavement) and to permit a reduction to required interior landscaping from 12 percent to 10.69 percent, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. CURRENT ZONING: Office (O) and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) (being annexed) Districts CURRENT FUTURE LAND Residential/Office General (R/OG) and Residential Low (RL) (being USE CATEGORY: annexed) PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Vacant Proposed Use: Offices Community Development Board - September 19, 2006 FLD2006-04024 - Page 1 of 13 0 0 EXISTING North: County Office SURROUNDING ZONING South: Office (O) District Offices AND USES: East: Office (O) and Commercial (C) Districts Vacant and Shopping center West: Institutional (1), Low Medium Density Church and detached Residential (LMDR) Districts and dwellings County ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 1.687-acre site is located on the west side of South Highland Avenue, approximately 400 feet south of Nursery Road. The majority of the property is zoned Office (O) District, where the land use category was amended from Residential Low (RL) to Residential/Office General (R/OG) and the zoning was changed from Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) to Office (O) District under Case Number LUZ2005-05009, approved by the Countywide Planning Authority on January 10, 2006. However, the northern 70-foot portion of the property is currently being annexed (ANX2006-05016, item F1 on this September 19, 2006, CDB agenda) and will be assigned the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District. The entire property is currently vacant (formerly a plant nursery). The property across South Highland Avenue is zoned Commercial (C) District, developed with a shopping center, and Office (O) District, currently vacant). Property to the south is zoned and developed for offices. A church is located to the west of the southern "L" portion of the site. Detached dwellings are otherwise located to the west of the property. Property directly to the north along the west side of South Highland Avenue is located within unincorporated Pinellas County, with Residential Urban land use but developed with an air conditioning contractor's office. Development Proposal: The development proposal is twofold. The first part involves the majority of the property located within the Office (O) District, being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, and consists of the following improvements: ? Construction of a 16,548 square-foot office building; ? Construction of a majority of the parking lot, the loading space, the southern driveway, the dumpster enclosure and the drainage facility; ? Construction of a six-foot high solid fence adjacent to detached dwellings to the west and north of the project; and ? Installation of associated landscaping. Offices are a permitted use within the Office District. Development of this property with offices would contribute to the economic vitality of the area, turning an underutilized parcel into a compatible use along this portion of South Highland Avenue. The proposed office development furthers, and does not impede, the orderly growth of transitional uses and established character along the west side of South Highland Avenue. The second part involves the northern 70-foot portion of the property, which is also being annexed (see ANX2006-05016, item F1 on this September 19, 2006, CDB agenda) and will be assigned the zoning of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District, is to permit nonresidential off-street parking in the LMDR for the office building, being processed as a Residential Infill Project, consisting of the following improvements: Community Development Board - September 19, 2006 FLD2006-04024 - Page 2 of 13 • C, ? Construction of the non-residential off-street parking lot of 17 parking spaces; ? Construction of a six-foot high solid fence adjacent to detached dwellings to the west and along the north side of the project; and ? Installation of associated landscaping. Nonresidential off-street parking is a Level 2 application requiring Community Development Board (CDB) approval. The proposal is being processed as a Residential Infill Project due to the requested setback reductions and the deviations from the flexibility criteria for this use disallowing the parking spaces within the front setback area and to allow landscaping on the inside of the buffer fence instead of the outside (as required). It is noted that an alternative to the second part of this request to permit nonresidential off-street parking within the proposed LMDR District is to change the land use category to Residential/Office General (R/OG) classification and to change the zoning to Office District. This alternative may still be possible in the future with future annexations to the north of this property along the west side of South Highland Avenue where office development is desired, where the northern 70 feet of this property could be included in such future request. Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R..1 Pursuant to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, the maximum allowable F.A.R. for properties with a designation of Residential/Office General is 0.5. As such, the maximum development potential of the 1.456-acre southern portion of the overall parcel is 31,713.85 square feet. The proposed building will be 16,548 square feet in size, which results in an F.A.R. of 0.26. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use Plan with regard to the maximum allowable F.A.R. Impervious Surface Ratio (I.S.R.): Pursuant to Sections 2-1001.1 and 2-201.1 of the Community Development Code, the maximum allowable I.S.R. is 0.75 and 0.65 respectively. The overall proposed I.S.R. is 0.70, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Minimum Setbacks: The property is zoned primarily Office (O) District, but the northern 70 feet of the subject property is being annexed and assigned the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District. Pursuant to Table 2-1004 (Office District) of the Community Development Code, the minimum front setback is 25 feet and the minimum side and rear setback is 20 feet. The proposal in the Office District, being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, includes a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 12.92 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (north) setback from 20 feet to 12.42 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to 11.5 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (south) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and from 20 feet to six feet (to dumpster enclosure) and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to 12 feet (to building). Pursuant to Table 2-204 (LMDR District) of the Community Development Code, for a nonresidential off-street parking lot the minimum front setback is 25 feet, the minimum side setback is 10 feet and the minimum rear setback is 10 feet. The proposal for the nonresidential off-street parking lot in the LMDR District includes a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet (to pavement) and a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to 7.17 feet (to pavement), which requires this application to be processed as a Residential Infill Project. The property is "L" shaped and the design of the building and parking areas generally mirror this land configuration. The front property line along South Highland Avenue jogs or deviates seven feet east to west approximately midpoint. This produces a greater proposed front setback to the parking lot on the northern half of the property (minimum of 19 feet) than the southern half of the property (minimum of 12.92 feet). The Code permits as a Level 1 Flexible Standard Development (FLS) request in the Office Community Development Board - September 19, 2006 FLD2006-04024 - Page 3 of 13 0 0 District the reduction to the front setback from 25 feet to 15 feet for parking lots. Comparatively, if viewed from an average standpoint, the minimum front setback to pavement has been achieved. The reduction to setback on the north side to 11.5 feet is behind the building adjacent to the detached dwelling and is only for a 42-foot parking lot pavement area. The applicant requests a reduction to the side and rear setback to allow the building to be within 12.42 and 12 feet of the property line respectively. The proposed building is one story is height, which is the same as the adjacent detached dwellings. The reduction to setbacks adjacent to these existing detached dwellings is mitigated by the height of the building and the installation of a six-foot high solid fence for enhanced buffering and screening purposes. Landscaping is proposed on the inside of the solid fencing to assist with noise mitigation and for visual enhancement for visitors and employees of the office building. The reduction to setback along the south side of the property is to pavement and the dumpster enclosure only. Parking along this area will face the side (or rear) of the adjacent office building. The parking lot is proposed at a setback of 5.5 feet. The only location the parking lot is closer (as advertised) is the backup flair for the Fire Department turnaround, which is a 24-foot length). The minimum landscape buffer of five feet width is being provided along this property line, except this 24-foot area for the turnaround (representing eight percent of the total property length). The reduction to setback along the north property line adjacent to the existing air conditioning contractor's office is to 7.17 feet (to pavement). The minimum landscape buffer of five feet width is being provided. A portion of the pavement closest to South Highland Avenue is meeting the required setback (11.67 feet). The proposal attempts to work with the "L" shaped property configuration and the seven-foot front property line jog/deviation. Most of the parking areas are single loaded (parking on only one side of a drive aisle) and parking is distributed around the site in order to have parking as close to building units as possible. The applicant has designed the building to be one-story in height to be compatible with the adjacent single-story detached dwellings, to act as a transition between the commercial development across South Highland Avenue and the detached dwellings. The proposed site and building design attempt to not improve the site with a two-story building that would reduce the privacy factor with the adjacent detached dwellings, with parking that would be more remote from the building. The reductions to required setbacks can be viewed as necessary to provide a relevant site and building design, given the context of the site and contiguous uses. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to Table 2-1004 of the Community Development Code, the maximum allowable height can range between 30 - 80 feet. The proposed building has a pitched roof of two different heights, with the main or major portion of the building at a height of 18.5 feet and the minor or rear portion of the building at a height of 23.25 feet. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the Code with regard to the maximum allowable height. The proposed building has an appealing design, with the main pitched roof facing South Highland Avenue broken up with intervening gable roofs. That portion of the building extending back into the bottom potion of the "L" shape of the property is designed to deal with a change in site elevation and with a change in roof structure and orientation. Gable ends will be painted wood slats. Access to the units will be by a covered, columned walkway. The building footprint also provides for deviations along the front elevation providing a fagade that is not horizontal or straight. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to Table 2-1004 of the Community Development Code, the minimum required parking could range between two - three spaces per 1,000 square feet GFA. Based on Community Development Board - September 19, 2006 FLD2006-04024 - Page 4 of 13 • • the proposed 16,548 square feet of proposed building, a minimum of between 33 and 50 parking spaces are required for this office building. The applicant proposes 61 parking spaces, which includes three handicap spaces, at a parking ratio of 3.68 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. The applicant, in proposing more parking than the minimum required, points out that offices located across South Highland Avenue in the Commercial District requires a minimum of four parking spaces per 1,000 square feet GFA. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the Code with regard to the minimum required number of parking spaces. Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to Section 3-201.D.1 of the Community Development Code, all outside mechanical equipment shall be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. The applicant proposes air conditioning units on the ground at the rear of the building. While not required by Code, the applicant is proposing a six-foot high solid fence along property lines abutting existing detached dwellings the west and north and along residential land use to the north (adjacent to the existing air conditioning contractor's office located on South Highland Avenue). This proposed solid fence will provide visual and noise buffering to the abutting existing detached dwellings. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the Code with regard to screening of outdoor mechanical equipment. Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to Section 3-904.A of the Community Development Code, to minimize hazards at street or driveway intersections, 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. There are two driveways proposed for this property, one on the north side traversing the zoning line between the Office and Low Medium Density Residential Districts and one on the south side of the property. The north/south drive aisle adjacent to South Highland Avenue between the two driveways will encroach upon the required sight visibility triangles at the northern driveway by two feet (on its south side only) and at the southern driveway by approximately seven feet (on its north side). Additionally, the first parking space on the south side of the site will encroach into the required sight visibility triangle by five feet. The intent of the sight visibility triangles is to enable those vehicles and/or pedestrians traversing a right- of-way and those vehicles stopped at a stop bar while leaving a site to have a clear and unobstructed view of one another. The proposed encroachment of the drive aisle upon the sight visibility triangles will not result in a conflict with this intent as the vehicles within the encroaching drive aisle will be the very thing those vehicles and/or pedestrians traversing the right-of-way are attempting to see. Further, those vehicles stopped at the stop bar while leaving the site will not have their clear and unobstructed view of vehicles and/or pedestrians traversing the right-of-way impacted by any vehicle within the drive aisle as such vehicle would be located to the rear of the vehicle leaving the site. These encroachments upon the sight visibility triangles will not result in the grant of a special privilege as similar reductions have been approved elsewhere under similar circumstances. It is noted that the City's Engineering Department has indicated support for this request. The applicant has also noted that landscaping proposed within the visibility triangles will be maintained below 30-inches to avoid sight visibility issues. Based upon the above, positive findings can be made with respect to allowing encroachments of pavement within the sight visibility triangles as set forth in Section 3-904.A of the Community Development Code. Utilities: Pursuant to Section 3-911 of the Community Development Code, for development that does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. The civil site plan for this proposal ,indicates that all on- site electric and communication lines will be placed underground in conformance with this Code Community Development Board - September 19, 2006 FLD2006-04024 - Page 5 of 13 requirement. There exist overhead power and communication lines along the front of the property within the South Highland Avenue right-of-way. Due to limited frontage of this site in relation to the length these overhead lines are located, it is impracticable to require the undergrounding of these existing overhead lines within the right-of-way. Landscaping: Pursuant to Section 3-1202.D.1 of the Community Development Code, this site is required a 15-foot wide landscape buffer along South Highland Avenue, a 12-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the detached dwellings to the rear of the property and a five-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to other nonresidential development (offices to the south, the church to the west and the air conditioning contractor's office to the north). Buffers are to be planted with one (1) tree every 35' and 100% shrub coverage is required. The proposal includes reductions to the landscape buffer requirements along South Highland Avenue (east) from 15 feet to 12.92 feet (to pavement), along the north side from 12 feet to 11.5 feet (to pavement) and along the south side from five feet to zero feet (to pavement). The property is "L" shaped and the design of the building and parking areas generally mirror this land configuration. The front property line along South Highland Avenue jogs or deviates seven feet east to west approximately midpoint. Much like the front setback to pavement reduction request, this produces a greater proposed perimeter buffer along South Highland Avenue on the northern half of the property (minimum of 19 feet) than the southern half of the property (minimum of 12.92 feet). Comparatively, if viewed from an average standpoint, the minimum perimeter buffer has been achieved. The reduction to the perimeter buffer along the north side occurs in the rear portion of the site behind the building where the parking lot, for a 42-foot long area, encroaches into the buffer by 0.5-foot. While not required by Code, the applicant is proposing as part of this buffer a six-foot high solid fence to screen views of the proposed building and parking area from the adjacent detached dwelling. The reduction to the perimeter buffer along the south side to zero feet occurs for only a 24-foot area in the rear portion of the site to provide a required turn-around area for a fire truck. Without the turn-around area for a fire truck, the buffer area could be provided. The distance this buffer is eliminated amounts to eight percent of the southern property line length. This turn-around area for a fire truck occurs between trees that are on the office property to the south. The front perimeter buffer along South Highland Avenue will be planted with a viburnum hedge, as well as yew pine and thryallis shrubs, and dahoon holly and Chickasaw plum trees. The other buffers will be planted with a viburnum hedge, augmented on the north and south sides of the parking lots with thryallis shrubs, and live oak, sweet gum and crape myrtle trees. The proposal includes a reduction to required interior landscaping from 12 percent to 10.69 percent. Normal Code requirements for interior landscape area are 10 percent of the vehicular use area (VUA; total paved area of the property). When provided parking is 110 percent or more of the required parking, the interior landscape area requirement is increased to 12 percent of the VUA. Due to the site's location across South Highland Avenue from a shopping center within the Commercial District, the applicant has designed the site with greater parking to meet a higher perceived need, which then increases the requirement for interior landscape area. The applicant has provided a greater amount of interior landscape area (10.69 percent of the VUA) than normally required (at 10 percent of the VUA). Areas adjacent to perimeter buffers along South Highland Avenue and the north side have also been counted and planted toward the provided interior landscape area. Interior landscape areas are proposed as interior islands breaking up the parking rows and terminal islands consisting of Indian hawthorn shrubs, Formosa azalea shrubs, thryallis shrubs, cabbage palms, sweet gum and live oak trees. The applicant is providing the required foundation landscaping facing South Highland Avenue, located in raised planters. The foundation landscaping consists of shore juniper, enhanced with Indian hawthorn shrubs, and crape myrtle trees. While not required, the applicant is also providing foundation Community Development Board - September 19, 2006 FLD2006-04024 - Page 6 of 13 0 0 landscaping along the south side of the building, also planted with shore juniper and Indian hawthorn, as well as cabbage palms and Chickasaw plum trees (white flowering). 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: Consistent I Inconsistent 1. Architectural theme: a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a X 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 X automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. 3. Community character: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. 4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 5. Special area or scenic corridor plan: The landscape treatment proposed in the 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. As expressed above, the proposed Comprehensive Landscape Program has been found to be consistent with all applicable criteria. Specifically, the proposed landscaping along the perimeters of the proposed non-residential off-street parking lot retains numerous existing mature trees on-site or directly off-site and proposes to plant trees to meet the minimum requirements in locations where the existing tree canopy permits. The proposal includes perimeter hedging and additional shrubs and groundcovers in a tiered fashion to visually enhance views of the site both by the traveling public and visitors and employees of the site. As noted previously, a six-foot high solid fence is proposed adjacent to the existing detached dwellings and along the north property line where there is residential land use category (although developed with an air conditioning contractor's office). This fence is not a Code requirement but significantly improves the buffer to screen views and noise to the adjacent dwellings. The plan does not show the installation of a six-foot high solid fence adjacent to the detached dwelling at the rear of the property, west of the retention pond (1451 Regal Road). For consistency of buffering, the fence should also be installed at this location. Additionally, water tolerant trees to aid in screening the rear of the building above the solid fence from this detached dwelling should also be installed in the retention pond area. This additional buffering of fencing and trees for this detached dwelling should be a condition of approval. Based upon the above and subject to the attached condition being addressed, positive findings can be made with regard to the proposed Comprehensive Landscape Program. The proposal includes a deviation from the flexibility criteria for "nonresidential off-street parking" within the proposed LNMR District requiring landscape buffering on the outside of a minimum three- foot high fence or wall along the north and west property lines. The deviation is necessary to provide necessary maintenance to the required landscaping by the office property owner and allows adjacent property owners to join their fences to this fence to provide a continuous privacy fence. Placement of the Community Development Board - September 19, 2006 FLD2006-04024 - Page 7 of 13 • • landscaping on the outside of the fence essentially transfers maintenance responsibilities to the adjacent property owner, which is not the Code intention, but is the reality of the situation. As designed, the landscaping of the site is demonstrably more attractive than the minimum landscape standards. The applicant has indicated that site lighting will be building mounted and will be set on a timer to turn off at 9:00 pm. While South Highland Avenue is listed as a secondary scenic corridor, no specific corridor plans have been adopted yet requiring any specific landscape treatment. Staff believes that the proposed landscape treatment of the site will enhance the character of this portion of South Highland Avenue and will have a beneficial impact on surrounding property values. Solid Waste: The development proposal includes the construction of a 10.67-foot by 14.67-foot dumpster enclosure on the south side of the property approximately 25 feet from the front (east) property line. While not the most visually unobtrusive location, functionally the proposed location is adjacent to office uses, does not require the trash collection truck to enter the rear of the site closer to adjacent detached dwellings and works well with the proposed traffic patterns of the site. Section 3-201.D.1 requires the enclosure to be of materials and colors consistent with those used with the proposed building. Si rgnage: The applicant has shown the location of a proposed freestanding sign oriented to South Highland Avenue but is not proposing any signage design concurrent with this development proposal. The Flexibility criteria for offices in Section 2-1004.17.2 requires freestanding signage to be no greater than six feet in height unless part of a Comprehensive Sign Program. Any future signage must be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards and criteria as per Tables 2-1001.1 and 2-1004 for the Office District and Tables 2-201.1 and 2-204 for the LNIDR District of the Community Development Code: Community Development Board - September 19, 2006 ;FLD2006-04024 -Page 8 of 13 0 0 Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent F.A.R. Office: 0.5 0.26 X LMDR: N/A N/A I.S.R. Office: 0.75 0.70 X LMDR: 0.65 Lot Area Office: 10,000 square feet 63,427.7 square feet X LMDR: N/A 10,059 square feet X Lot Width Office: 100 feet 305 feet X LMDR: N/A 70 feet X Height Office: 30 feet 18.5 feet (midpoint of X main itched roof) Setbacks Front: 25 feet East 12.92 feet (to X1 (Office) pavement) Side: 20 feet North 12.42 feet (to X1 building); 11.5 feet (to pavement) South zero feet (to X' pavement); six feet (to dumpster enclosure) Rear: 20 feet West 12 feet (to X' building) Setbacks Front: 25 feet East 20 feet (to X' (LMDR) pavement) Side: 10 feet North 7.17 feet (to X' pavement) Rear: 10 feet West 13 feet (to X' pavement) Parking Spaces Offices - 3.0 spaces per 1,000 SF GFA 61 parking spaces X 50 spaces) 1 - See the analysis above for discussion regarding setback reductions for further information. COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-1004.13 of the Community Development Code (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Community Development Board - September 19, 2006 FLD2006-04024 - Page 9 of 13 0 0 Consistent Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X development 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X parking are justified based on 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 annronriate distances between buildings. The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-204.E of the Community Development Code (Residential Infill Project): Community Development Board - September 19, 2006 FLD2006-04024 -Page 10 of 13 • • Consistent Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is X otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following: intensity or other development standards. 2. The development of the parcel. proposed for development as a residential infill X project will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. 3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. X 4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. X 5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill X project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function X which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. 7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking, access X or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. 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 Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code: Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of June 1, 2006, and deemed the development proposal to be sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findinjzs of Fact: 1. That the 1.687-acre subject property is located on the west side of South Highland Avenue, approximately 400 feet south of Nursery Road; 2. That the 1.456-acre southern portion of the overall property is located within the Office (O) District and the Residential/Office General (R/OG) Future Land Use Plan category; 3. That the 0.231-acre northern portion of the overall property (northern 70 feet) is currently located within unincorporated Pinellas County, is being annexed into the City of Clearwater and is being assigned the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District and the Residential Low (RL) Community Development Board - September 19, 2006 FLD2006-04024 -Page 11 of 13 0 0 Future Land Use Plan category (see ANX2006-05016, item F1 on this September 19, 2006, CDB agenda); 4. That the overall property is an "L" shape with the southern leg extending away from South Highland Avenue and the design of the building and parking areas generally mirror this land configuration; 5. That the front property line along South Highland Avenue jogs or deviates seven feet east to west approximately midpoint; 6. That the proposal includes the construction of a 16,548 square-foot, one-story office building within the Office (O) District, with an associated nonresidential parking lot on the north side within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District; 7. That reductions to setbacks and perimeter buffers to pavement and building are proposed as part of the office development; 8. That the proposed installation of a six-foot high solid fence adjacent to existing detached dwellings will provide increased screening and buffering to the detached dwellings; 9. That the proposed office development will transition land use intensity from the more intense commercial uses across South Highland Avenue to the detached dwellings to the west; 10. That the development proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 11. That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Conclusions of Law: 1. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-1001.1 and 2-1004 for the Office District and Tables 2-201.1 and 2-204 for the LMDR District of the Community Development Code; 2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Sections 2-1004.B and 2-204.E of the Community Development Code; 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code; and 4. That the development proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria as per Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code. Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development application (1) to permit a 16,548 square-foot office building in the Office (O) District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 12.92 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (north) setback from 20 feet to 12.42 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to 11.5 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (south) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and from 20 feet to six feet (to dumpster enclosure) and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to 12 feet (to building), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Program under the provisions of Section 2-1004.B; (2) to permit nonresidential off-street parking in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to 7.17 feet (to pavement) and deviations to allow the structures (pavement) within the front and side setbacks and to place landscaping on the inside of the buffer fence along the north and west sides of the property, as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-204.E; and (3) to permit reductions to the landscape buffer requirements along South Highland Avenue (east) from 15 feet to 12.92 feet (to pavement), along the north side from 12 feet to 11.5 feet (to pavement) and along the south side from five feet to zero feet (to pavement) and to permit a reduction to required interior landscaping from 12 percent to 10.69 percent, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G, for the property located at 1524, 1532 and 1536 South Highland Avenue, with the following conditions: Community Development Board - September 19, 2006 FLD2006-04024 - Page 12 of 13 0 0 Conditions of Approval: 1. That approval of this application be subject to the annexation of the northern portion of the site under Case No. ANX2006-05016; 2. That a Unity of Title be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permits; 3. That the final design and color of the building must be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the CDB, and be approved by Staff, 4. That any future freestanding sign be a monument-style sign a maximum six feet in height, unless part of a Comprehensive Sign Program, designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building; 5. That a six-foot high solid fence be installed along the west and north property lines adjacent to detached dwellings and along the north property line adjacent to the property at 1520 South Highland Avenue; 6. That the maximum height of the fence with the 25-foot front setback area adjacent to South Highland Avenue be three feet in height; 7. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the site and landscape plans be amended to indicate the installation of a six-foot high solid fence along the west property line adjacent to 1451 Regal Road and additional trees, in a location and number acceptable to the Planning Department, within the retention pond area to aid in screening the west side of the office building; and 8. That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits. Prepared by Planning Department Staff: " ("'t M . lj? Wayne M. Pells, AICP, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: ? Location Map ? Aerial Map ? Zoning Map ? Existing Surrounding Uses Map ? Photographs of Site and Vicinity S:IPlanning DepartmentlC D BIFGEX (FLD)IPending cased Up for the next CDBIHighland S 1524, 1532 &. 1536 Highland Or/ ice Complex (O) - 9.19.06 CDB - WWIHighland S 1524, 1532 & 1536 Staff Report.doc Community Development Board - September 1.9, 2006 FLD2006-04024 - Page 13 of 13 • Resume Wayne M. Wells, AICP 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 727-562-4504 wayne.wells(a?myclearwater.com PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE • • Planner III Planning 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 Department of Planning and Development June 1984 to March 1989 Bradenton, FL 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). • 0 • Planner I Alachua County Department of Planning and Development June 1980 to June 1984 Gainesville, FL 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 Department of Urban and Regional Planning 1979 to 1981 Gainesville, FL 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 Prepared primarily 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 yg} 1 BARRY ST BARRY ST BARRY RD ?'::, g TUSCOLA IF I I I? TUSCOLA Rp ` 33 BROWNING ;077AW1 •.;.,', .', C.R.488 LAKEVIEW RD 9K NORMAflDY PARK OR ..: ":.; .'. .:•:., ':• : '.. ST t? S 2 w+. ..+.wr .:taHGfAI £•. ?.; sT.:...... 0 1 79)A1A; ::: ::•: '.:'...'.:: :•: •?...?.'.'YINEXYppb', EASY 5T :.:'.:'.::'' •?"'?;,,,r:_ F F ?" QRAry ate::. ..'. ••. :'.'.'...•'..••.••.':'•_•••,'::..;: :.. ST Li a .?.E f ?''lJpEE : '?T., :..::..' ::. .. .... ..... ..•. :PALIdY4000: ] QUEEN ST Y :':'.::'.:'. ?•: •. ?:.'. ?::.:':'.: ;.. .:. .. :'. .:. .. .. .:: .'..' .?+.`.. ".' ALR1Ay'. ... ?.:'.:.:::'.': :.'::. O1TPL1 ?:'. .:.,.?..?...'9Y^,.:'• FbFHPNOGD: ] E ° •: BLVD ?1 . (I'•i•"'hT[ ?.. •.: •' .. .,,....•..'. - L.:• •'p •.LA _ •ro o ? V PROJECT F?Q SITE IS ST ESTELLE I N d Location Map Owner: LM Loken Revocable Trust Case: FLD2006-04024 Site: 1524, 1532 and 1536 S. Highland Ave. i Property 1.66 acres Size(Acres): PIN Atlas Page: 23/29/15/79254/002/0010 23/29/15/79254/002/0080 23/29/15/79254/002/0120 315A i , 11 ,` . } 7e * j lvLISL- ST RE - S 4' 1 10 Awn" 14 10 HILLS CT ? ' Aerial Map Owner: LM Loken Revocable Trust Case: FLD2006-04024 Site: 1524, 1532 and 1536 S. Highland Ave. Property Size(Acres): 1.66 acres 23/29/15/79254/002/0010 PIN: 23/29/15/79254/002/0080 23/29/15/79254/002/0120 Atlas Page: 0 0 315A Zoning Map Owner. I LM Loken Revocable Trust I Case: I FLD2006-04024 I Site: I 1524, 1532 and 1536 S. Highland Ave. Property I 1.66 acres I Size(Acres): 23/29/15/79254/002/0010 PIN: 23/29/15/79254/002/0080 23/29/15/79254/002/0120 Atlas Page: I 315A 0 0 : * :::::: • :.. '::: .' ::• '• :: •: . • . t : d '. : • . :: : . ..:. .: . : ......• • ..:.zs.:":: ::.e7p.?:?:• ?.-:z14?:.. $ •::...:.::. ,?o?-:::' :•';:3j:??:; ????3a:?:.•: :•aa?•:"; P .••?a:.:. i .. ;:`:.I::::•;:;): :23::; 1':236 ...:.:.:•? .:: 33'' ('?:???` ?:;:?s?; 66 ' : : :N • ? ??• ' • ..: : ::': ::tom.:. :::::: M:? ::::n •: ?:: : 'M.. :. •::':r ...•^:t.. :::. :. ?:'. ..... !y :: ':::.T}':.' .. .. ;; :,1500; ::::,:' :: ::'14? % '•:':: .....:: :: ... .. :'' 83 tali , ?: r:'.?3&?:i?i? ':?:?::;:'.G:;; :,.. ? ...????. '.:?•'':,:.•''•' '.;':'..:.'-.•. _'..a i•i?' .. ..;: i :2n `•'i:i?i?:-`1-. :. . ''?.??•''%.' ':' ?".'. :'?:• '.'::.%:??'?: ":•''.'?:: .:%?:'.."h?'. ':?:.;1508 s ::?.? •"''?.:. :.;::,.35.'.'?:;:? .,•: . "y+'::, ::.:::::':. 34/03 . . ::: .:m:: '' ' :'::•:.37:;..'.:: .: .R ..:.:•.....::: Q Y 4.77 1S 3 c Vacant ' ' 1521 :'7; '?te.•:::. :'..:'8::>; . ra.... f .:? .. :g::: ': ::°":;?o:::'F:;:ii:-'i `:'•1z.;;:e_ :. .? .... v.::.•+b::: •? •• oo.? :•.:.,• .....:•:.;; •:::.':. `::.,;.;_,;.;•...,;. c•: ya:i •:•::r:`. 1523 :a:::: •' :.(M.?'...; •'. :::.: •.r,; . •:::'.; . t? .. ; :. :":: • ::::' as 1525 : ' ' 10 1 29 .::'::: ::: •.: :%::::' ' •::::: s 1531 :_'? ' •;:! '::: ?::::'::::: ::': ':. ° ::::::-:•:' :::. :::.. 4 6 e3 1533 1535 ;: :: !. :.;:::.:' :': • : 7 1537 ch 4 ' ' B 6 90 153 9 .:.?..:..;:. .- :: ........... :` ••?" ? .'• ':?:.e-. ling ' ?? . / 1543 .. 15- 15x5 1547 Shopping 1549 Center Place of (D 1555 'rship 4sp ffices 33roz 1550 8.31 A c (c) 3 5.6 Ac ? 147 00 1474 1472 a ^ 7 m cgs 1557 q 1471 1556 11559 561 66 a 1560 1563 1995 ?p 5 DSO 33N6 1571 6 1573 1575 Existing Surrounding Uses Map Owner: LM Loken Revocable Trust Case: FLD2006-04024 Site: 1524, 1532 and 1536 S. Highland Ave, Property 1.66 acres Size(Acres): 23/29/15/79254/002/0010 PIN: 23/29/15/79254/002/0080 23/29/15/79254/002/0120 Atlas Page: 315A View looking southwest at subject property at north side of property ': ... ` -; t i if 17 View looking north along rear of property (detached dwellings to the west of subject property on left) View looking south along S. Highland Avenue from north side of property (subject property on right) jo, View looking northwest at adjacent detached dwelling in the corner of the "L" of subject property 1524, 1532 & 1536 South Highland Avenue Page 1 of 2 FLD2006-04024 0 View looking west at office to north of subject property -r• , View looking south at shopping center across S. Highland Avenue , Iail View looking west at vacant rear area of adjacent place of worship to west of subject property View looking northeast at vacant property across S. Highland Ave northeast of subject property View looking southwest at offices to the south of subject property 1524, 1532 & 1536 South Highland Avenue Page 2 of 2 FLD2006-04024 Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Poletz.Terri [Terri.Poletz@SunTrust.com] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 4:28 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Re:FLD 2006-04024 Hi Wayne, I'm writing to you in an attempt to obtain information regarding the upcoming hearing of case FLD2006-04024. LM Loken Revocable Trust c/o Luvern Loken, TRE, who is requesting Flexible Development approval from the board on Sept 19. 1 am the abutting neighbor, and have very grave concerns over the increase of these site plans. Can you please assist me by sending any and all info you have on this development? A copy of reports, what is proposed, site plans etc??? I appreciate your helpful assistance, Best Regards, Terri Poletz LEGAL DISCLAIMER The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Seeing Beyond Money is a service mark of SunTrust Banks, Inc. [ST:XCL] 9/20/2006 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 4:18 PM To: Garriott, Kevin Cc: Wagner, James; Thompson, Neil Subject: Permits for 1532 S. Highland Avenue Kevin - Permits #BCP2006-03259 and BCP2006-03261 are both in "REC" status for the above address for the demolition of a SFR and for cut and cap respectively. Rick Albee noted under BCP2006-03259 that the work has already been done and the permit has not been issued, where a 3X fee should be assessed. I have added a similar note to BCP2006-03261. I am dealing with a Flexible Development (FLD) case for this property, going to the CDB on September 19, 2006. Is there something you can do to get the contractor to "pull" these permits, pay the necessary 3X fees and have him call for inspections to get these permits completed? Wayne • • Wells, Wayne From: Albee, Rick Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:45 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: 1532 S Highland Updated and added conditions and all were requested at building permit. • • Wells, Wayne From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: In FLD Map request form.doc Kambourolias, Sam Friday, July 21, 2006 2:31 PM Wells, Wayne Watkins, Sherry UPDATE RE: FLD2006-04024 WWI location.doc zone.doc aerial.doc -----Original Message----- From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:30 PM To: Kambourolias, Sam Subject: RE:FLD2006-04024 EMFN? WL9 existing.doc Sam - There are three parcel numbers under this application. There are two surveys. The maps you have prepared do not include Lots 12, 13 and the south 20 feet of 14. If you do not have this survey for this northern parcel (1524 S. Highland Ave), I can bring you a copy (I thought I gave it to you with the Map Request). Could you please change the maps to include this northern parcel. This may explain the acreage difference. Thanks. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: Kambourolias, Sam Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 1:56 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Watkins, Sherry Subject:FLD2006-04024 Wayne i change the property size from 1.66 acres to 1.49 acres << File: aerial.doc >> << File: existing.doc >> << File: FLD Map request form.doc >> << File: location.doc >> << File: zone.doc >> Sam Kambourolias GIS Tech. (727) 562-4769 www.myclearwater.com 0 Ll Wells, Wayne From: Rice, Scott Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 12:36 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FLD2006-04024 - 1532 S Highland Wayne, Approval conditions for the subject application: Prior to building permit, the applicant shall provide a copy of an approved SWFWMD permit. Prior to building permit, the applicant shall provide soil boring data for the proposed pond. Prior to building permit, the applicant shall provide a copy of an approved right-of-way permit from Pinellas County. Prior to CO, the applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule. D. Scott Rice Land Devel. Engr. Manager 727-562-4781 scott.rice@MyClearwater..com 9 0 Wells, Wayne From: Elliott, Gayle Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 4:34 PM To: DRC Members Subject: Resubmittal for 9-19-06 Importance: High DRC Members, Plans for the following cases have been resubmitted for the 9-19-2006 meeting: FLD2006-02011 - 146 Brightwater Drive: FLD2006-06034 - 622 Lembo Cir: FLD2006-04024 - 1532 S Highland FLD2006-02009 - 490 Mandalay Ave FLD2006-05029 - 100 Park Place Blvd S ANX2006-07025 - 1415 Regal Rd ANX2006-06020 - 1960•E Skyline Dr ANX2006-06022 - 3060 Allen Ave ANX2006-06023 - 2727 Daniel St ANX2006-06024 - 2295 McMullen Booth ANX2006-05018 - 109 McMullen Booth ANX2006-06021 1606 Scott Street ANX2006-05015 1321 Woodbine Street Planner: Wayne Wells Planner: Scott Kurleman Planner: Wayne Wells Planner: Wayne Wells Planner: Wayne Wells Planner: Cky Ready Planner: Cky Ready Planner: Cky Ready Planner: Cky Ready Planner: Cky Ready Planner: Mike Reynolds Planner: Mike Reynolds Planner: Mike Reynolds I have placed one copy of the case resubmittal package on the cabinets outside of Room 216 in our office for your review (Please do not take it or any of the other copies as they are needed for the CDB members) Please review your comments/conditions for this cases in Permit Plan and determine if they are met. Whether the conditions are "met" or still "not met," please affirm to me via email. Please have these cases reviewed, if possible by 12:00 pm on Tuesday, August 15, 2006. Gayle Elliott 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 9:55 AM To: Jay Myers (E-mail) Subject: FW: Resubmittal of FLD2006-04024, 1532 S. Highland Avenue Jay - Please respond. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: Rice, Scott Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 10:22 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Faessler, Heather Subject: RE: Resubmittal of FLD2006-04024, 1532 S. Highland Avenue Wayne, The following Environmental comments has not been adequately addressed: 1. Prior to CDB: Vertical walls in retention pond are not permitted unless approved due to a reason of undue hardship per City Engineer. Submit justification of hardship. 7/7/06 - NO RESPONSE 7/17/06 - THE ELEVATION OF THE SEASONAL HIGH WATER LEVEL IS A SITE CONSTRAINT AND NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR A HARDSHIP. PER NOTES ON CIVIL SHEET 3 OF 5, 50 PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED AND 62 ARE PROVIDED. IF SOME OF THE PARKING THAT EXCEEDS CODE REQUIREMENTS IS ELIMINATED, SUFFICIENT SPACE MAY BE AVAILABLE FOR A RETENTION POND WITHOUT VERTICAL WALLS. -----Original Message----- From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 4:04 PM To: Rice, Scott; Albee, Rick Cc: Watkins, Sherry Subject: Resubmittal of FLD2006-04024, 1532 S. Highland Avenue Scott/Rick - Jay Myers late Friday resubmitted information regarding the above case. I have placed a copy of the resubmittal package on the top of the cabinets outside of Rm. 216 in our office for your review (please do not take any copies with you, as they are for the CDB). Could you take a look at it Monday (morning preferable) and let me know via email if your comments have been "met". Thanks. Wayne Wells, Wayne From: Rice, Scott Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 10:22 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Faessler, Heather Subject: RE: Resubmittal of FLD2006-04024, 1532 S. Highland Avenue Wayne, The following Environmental comments has not been adequately addressed: 1. Prior to CDB: Vertical walls in retention pond are not permitted unless approved due to a reason of undue hardship per City Engineer. Submit justification of hardship. 7/7/06 - NO RESPONSE 7/17/06 - THE ELEVATION OF THE SEASONAL HIGH WATER LEVEL IS A SITE CONSTRAINT AND NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR A HARDSHIP. PER NOTES ON CIVIL SHEET 3 OF 5, 50 PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED AND 62 ARE PROVIDED. IF SOME OF THE PARKING THAT EXCEEDS CODE REQUIREMENTS IS ELIMINATED, SUFFICIENT SPACE MAY BE AVAILABLE FOR A RETENTION POND WITHOUT VERTICAL WALLS. -----Original Message----- From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 4:04 PM To: Rice, Scott; Albee, Rick Cc: Watkins, Sherry Subject: Resubmittal of FLD2006-04024, 1532 S. Highland Avenue Scott/Rick - Jay Myers late Friday resubmitted information regarding the above case. I have placed a copy of the resubmittal package on the top of the cabinets outside of Rm. 216 in our office for your review (please do not take any copies with you, as they are for the CDB). Could you take a look at it Monday (morning preferable) and let me know via email if your comments have been "met". Thanks. Wayne 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 4:41 PM To: Kambourolias, Sam Cc: Herman, Jason Subject: Map Request for 1524, 1532 and 1536 S. Highland Avenue Sam - Attached is a map request for Case FLD2006-04024 for the property at 1524, 1532 and 1536 S. Highland Avenue. I will bring over the paperwork. The survey that I will bring over you may keep. Thanks- Wayne I: FLD Map request form.doc 0 0 Flexible Development Application - Map Request Planner Name: Wayne Wells Case Number: FLD2006-04024 Date Requested: July 16, 2006 Date Requested for (date): July 31, 2006 Maps Requested X? Location Map X? Aerial Map X? Zoning Map X? Existing Surrounding Uses Map Required Documents to be submitted to Engineering X? Legal Description X? Survey X? Map with Proposed Site Highlighted Map Name Owner: LM Loken Revocable Trust Case: FLD2006-04024 Site: 1524, 1532 and 1536 S. Highland Ave. Property Size(Acres): 1.66 acres 23/29/15/79254/002/0010 PIN: 23/29/15/79254/002/0080 23/29/15/79254/002/0120 Atlas Page: 315A ?zoo !?• 040Lf- 3L IS3Z?-1? . J? 3 3068 307A • 3078 _ ? ^ruHBF 9T. 13 3. a = x Clearwater .. nn a v n ttp M .Y n, n, vi ' ^, ,n Vr nr .,, ,n , 777 x 4 SF '! ' -- - -' -- - -- -y-' _.- -' --- -- '- -._ _.- - PREPARED BY ,y. SF. b » ? b ? '"3 ? PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION ENGINEERING I GIS ,i ^"? 100 S. Myrtle Ave., Clearwater, FL 33756 Ph.: )727)6624760, Fox: (727)6264766 ?' . I£' ^ - irf yt ^" ^ $ .3 ^ ^a a 3 - - - T a www.MyClearwater.com Sr lEUplE - "* , , 1•} „b OfFtlsM.r r ? ,.,? .2 ... 21 gut ,n3 ' 4 '^? i w RNb ftlk.AdN°i;,V CfyaCJrw .re r,.nemlaMae.i.epMaa rN aer m.r.a¢rmMne,m d N a B e N ' a p1AU a W r .n ny N r a. pwp4» o dF onPai,.VapAk pt'' i? ,. n n t • n • ^ " « » n „ n a ET. ' ? ' ' , blaaauaNnpnOVY. AJ ft Ciy ardr. alCiranMn PIYAc maMaanv vYinC?F. agn»atl winpOtl, rara?inMy Na i - Y ?i t ? i A ? ? y t ,i _ Y 5 P * $I azx cwrpMhmw,rarLLdy',arahBfro awr do Birny oear , aMr Wa F e a C , L_JS1iB ! . ; o ' ?? J p . w mmPP, Y r aFCMr,ran PVY/ e arR3pJJmIfJBay BAMJmvp uJBWhdMMMa um anLuw i$ Ap v • ' NURBERY /? B R^aF z 1 » . P i Y ` L?µ 3 • AEG.4L ?. ai I --I ITT ? ap BEILFAIR ? ? r L6p ?. f"T GITRV6 i « , , ? ? 4 MNtli ar.. N ? 2 Y i ; c{ 3 3 i s£ i 6 ?' «' s x ?6 ~P • m m8 "O ..a Li F D 200 4D0 tauox ?i. is w?e nq Jp n bi. F j n- 1 O ML l n SUB NUMBER)'. Row b PIED ' /\ m h NUMBER e tD BUD PARCEL NUMBER F Y Y O PARCEL NUMBER(MAB) --- t O LAND HOOK (COMMON 01AWERS4 C „» o Att O PUTTED SUBDNL4KM BOUNDARY JJ, s. --? eE Q t COUNTY NIDMNAV is r vc, O O I i 8 B „ po STATE HIOFAMAY A,n n U.B. HIDNWAY a, 3 n gg;t s S a wlu Outside City of Clearwater O O O F- T7 7tn a J ` Zoning Atlas RD , . -_.._..._.._..._.._..- F ... _..------- - 0. b ------- c.K+w ------ j - .... Mey 02, 2006 i € AD . sw 114 of 23-29-15 u ,?, ? II tp= a a a : F 315A I 'q 2 ?eeoFNrln6mTarn I + MLR -tan priaU ReW,nM m ! HJA W011 -tan Wal,mtlrifti RJbnll,l 'O. z , 10R •t{ymR.?y avvuata Ytpll :Wwo-v ?"vtra.WnM ?' '? ? - «'? »&_ ,z ,? a JIM ' i a i § s tA?n ,ttJiarrrl sEABREFZE - eaooo •?x,eNnn RXprlirprEp,aee v`ar,»mmn bi. o+"W Ntht B r , 0 = 0 a a a - r'k ' ? ? ? ? tw,uo -10w,`1°rwc+rr'o celu.wea ? - 3 i , ? ? `JJF s cwtffRtaB?omex-n aFaNlutt onmton r - ^ M. R,•FWdAL R.a,v.nanOTVdaaAy, c.cmnoRr tmR-aem ex«w,w.mlr » . ? o-rJ»Iw r. Ml,vpnPlpn AVa 4 City Owned Property Agreement to Annex o ' _ ? r ' 2 a _ W O UJ _ 7 » F ? nt Legend 6T. _ Orr 4v 1~ s tY? C ? $ - 1 2 R 7 l p' ?n _ _ '? v= vF »y aK . a; nZ = „? »A na Sn £ ? - 3 R 3 3 " 'J , 1 v ? ? ? Imo ,? e 2 • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 4:04 PM To: Rice, Scott; Albee, Rick Cc: Watkins, Sherry Subject: Resubmittal of FLD2006-04024, 1532 S. Highland Avenue Scott/Rick - Jay Myers late Friday resubmitted information regarding the above case. I have placed a copy of the resubmittal package on the top of the cabinets outside of Rm. 216 in our office for your review (please do not take any copies with you, as they are for the CDB). Could you take a look at it Monday (morning preferable) and let me know via email if your comments have been "met". Thanks. Wayne • LI Wells, Wayne From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 3:15 PM To: Planning Subject: FW: DRC resubmital Sherry L Watkins Planning Department Administrative Analyst (727) 562-4582 sherry.watkins @m yclearzvater.corn -----Original Message----- From: Rickard, Leonard Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 11:09 AM To: Elliott, Gayle Cc: Watkins, Sherry Subject: DRC resubmital Gayle, Please add me to your DRC notification list. The following is a list of the resubmital approvals: FLD2006-04024 Met FLD2006-04022 Met FLD2006-04029 Met FLD2006-04026 Met FLD2006-05031 Met Lenny Rickard Fire Bureau Chief /Assistant Fire Marshal 610 Franklin St. Clearwater, FL 33756 Telephone: 727-562-4327 ext. 3078 Fax: 727-562-4461 s. • Wells, Wayne From: Rice, Scott Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 3:19 PM To: Wells, Wayne; Elliott, Gayle Subject: FLD2006-04024 - 1532 S Highland Ave Wayne, See outstanding comment below. The Environmental comment is the one that is of most concern, but none of the Engineering building permit comments were acknowledged. ENVIRONMENTAL 1.Prior to D.O.: Vertical walls in retention pond are not permitted unless approved due to a reason of undue hardship per City Engineer. Submit justification of hardship. 7/7/06 - NO RESPONSE ENGINEERING The following to be addressed prior to building permit: 7/7/06 - NONE OF THESE WERE ACKNOWLEDGED 1. All unused drive aprons and/or parking surfaces are to be removed in its entirety (including the removal of culverts), by the contractor, at the applicant's expense. Where culverts are removed, a swale shall be established to maintain flow. The right(s)-of-way are to be restored with new sidewalk and sod as required. 2. Sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project shall be designed and constructed consistent with City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Index #109, including the A.D.A. (Truncated domes per D.O.T. Index #304.) 3. Applicant shall meet minimum horizontal and vertical separation requirements for storm, potable water and sanitary sewer mains specified in Chapter 62 of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). 4. The City of Clearwater will provide water tap, (Clearwater Code of Ordinances Section 32.095), set the water meter (Clearwater Code of Ordinances Section 32.096) and set the B.F.P.D. (back flow preventor device). The applicant is responsible for the water main extension from the tap to the device. Applicant is also responsible for all associated fees and all other installation fees. 5. Need a copy of an approved health permit for the installation of the domestic water main prior to issuance of a building permit. The health permit application form(s) can be found at: www.dep.state.fl.us/water/drinkingwater/forms.htm 6. Need a copy of an approved D.E.P. permit for the installation of the sanitary sewer extension prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. All fire hydrant assemblies installed greater than 10 ft. from a water main shall be constructed with ductile iron pipe and shall have a gate valve at the tee on the branch line, and at the fire hydrant assembly (F.H.A.). 8. A permanent blow-off assembly shall be installed at the north end of the proposed water main extension. 9. New dumpster enclosures: Maximum 6'-0" high and constructed of concrete block. Materials used should be consistent with those used in the construction of and architectural style of the principal building, see City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards, Part "C", Construction Standards, Index #701. 10. Delete dumpster enclosure from detail sheet and replace with City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards, Part "C", Construction Standards, Index #701. 11. Need a copy of an approved right-of-way permit from Pinellas County prior to issuance of a building permit. D. Scott Rice Land DeveL Engr. Manager 727-562-4781 • scott.rice@MyClearwater..com • • Wells, Wayne From: Elliott, Gayle Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 11:38 AM To: DRC Members Subject: resubmitted for the August 15, 2006 CDB meeting: DRC Members Plans for the following cases have been resubmitted for the August 15, 2006 CDB meeting: FLD2006-04024 -1532 S Highland - Planner - Wayne Wells FLD2006-04022 - 2430 Gulf to Bay Blvd - Planner - John Schodtler FLD2006-94929 -165 Fernwood Ave - Planner - Scott Kurleman FLD2006-04026 - 2166 Palmetto St - Planner - John Schodler FLD2006-05031 - 1301 Amble Ln - Planner - Scott Kurleman I have placed one copy of the case resubmittal package on the cabinets outside of Room 216 in our office for your review (Please do not take it or any of the other copies as they are needed for the CDB members) Please review your comments/conditions for this cases in Permit Plan and determine if they are met. Whether the conditions are "met" or still "not met," please affirm to me via email. Please have these cases reviewed, if possible by 12:00 pm on Tuesday, July 11,2006. Gayle Elliott 1:15 pm yCase Number: FLD2006-04024 -- 1532 S HIGHLAND AVE Owner(s): L M Revoca Loken Trust C/O Loken, Luvern M Tre Clearwater, F133756 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Gv? wt,*+1 Representative: Jay Myers 9170 Oakhurst Road Seminole, F133776 TELEPHONE: 727-595-7100, FAX: 727-595-7138, E-MAIL: myersarch@ix.netcom.com Location: xx acres located on the west side of South Highland Avenue approximately 400 feet south of Nursery Road Atlas Page: 315A Zoning District: LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential Request: Flexible Development approval (1) to permit 17,462 square feet of offices in the Office (O) District with reductions to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to xx feet (to pavement) and from 25 feet to 15 feet (to dumpster enclosure), reductions to the side (north) setback from 20 feet to 10 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to five feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (south) setback from 20 feet to 4.5 feet (to pavement) and from 20 feet to five feet (to dumpster enclosure) and reductions to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to eight feet (to building) and from 20 feet to five feet (to pavement), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Program under the provisions of Section 2-1004.13; (2) to permit nonresidential off-street parking in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to five feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement) and deviations to allow the structures (pavement) within the front, side and rear setbacks and to place landscaping on the inside of the buffer fence along the north and west sides of the property, as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-204.E; and (3) to permit reductions to the landscape buffer requirements along east side along South Highland Avenue from 15 feet to five feet (to pavement), along the north side from 12 feet to 10 feet (to building) and from 12 feet to five feet (to pavement), along the south side from five feet to 4.5 feet (to pavement) and along the west side from 12 feet to eight feet (to building) and from 12 feet to five feet (to pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Offices Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Association(s): Clearwater, F133758 P O Box 8204 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Presenter: Wayne Wells, Planner III Attendees Included: City: Wayne Wells, Neil Thompson, Scott Rice, Jim Keller, Rick Albee, Sherry Watkins, Steven Brown Applicant: Jay Myers, Carey Matteoli, Vern Loken The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 26 The following to be addressed prior to building permit: 1. All unused drive aprons and/or parking surfaces are to be removed in its entirety (including the removal of culverts), by the contractor, at the applicant's expense. Where culverts are removed, a Swale shall be established to maintain flow. The right(s)-of-way are to be restored with new sidewalk and sod as required. 2. Sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or apart of the project shall be designed and constructed consistent with City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Index #109, including the A.D.A. (Truncated domes per D.O.T. Index #304.) 3. Applicant shall meet minimum horizontal and vertical separation requirements for storm, potable water and sanitary sewer mains specified in Chapter 62 of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). 4. The City of Clearwater will provide water tap, (Clearwater Code of Ordinances Section 32.095), set the water meter (Clearwater Code of Ordinances Section 32.096) and set the B.F.P.D. (back flow preventor device). The applicant is responsible for the water main extension from the tap to the device. Applicant is also responsible for all associated fees and all other installation fees. 5. Need a copy of an approved health permit for the installation of the domestic water main prior to issuance of a building permit. The health permit application form(s) can be found at: www.dep.state.fl.us/water/drinkingwater/forms.htm 6. Need a copy of an approved D.E.P. permit for the installation of the sanitary sewer extension prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. All fire hydrant assemblies installed greater than 10 ft. from a water main shall be constructed with ductile iron pipe and shall have a gate valve at the tee on the branch line, and at the fire hydrant assembly (F.H.A.). 8. A permanent blow-off assembly shall be installed at the north end of the proposed water main extension. 9. New dumpster enclosures: Maximum 6-0" high and constructed of concrete block. Materials used should be consistent with those used in the construction of and architectural style of the principal building, see City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards, Part "C", Construction Standards, Index #701. 10. Delete dumpster enclosure from detail sheet and replace with City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards, Part "C", Construction Standards, Index #701. 11. Need a copy of an approved right-of-way permit from Pinellas County prior to issuance of a building permit. General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense (City Ordinance 7573-06). If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Environmental: 1 , 1. Prior to D.O.: Vertical walls in retention pond are not permitted unless approved due to a reason of undue hardship per City Engineer. Submit justification of hardship. 2. Prior to Building permit: Provide soil boring data. Both conditions per City of Clearwater Stormwater Design Criteria Manual page 7. Fire: 1 . Provide and Show Firefighter access to the rear of the building. PRIOR TO CDB Harbor Master: 1 . No issues. Legal: 1 . No issues. Land Resources: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 27 1 , The tree survey i*omplete. All trees, with canopies, 4"DBH anddqater on and within 25' of the property and all trees adjacent to the proposed utilities on Highland Ave. must be shown on all plan sheets prior to CDB. 2. The Inventory Rating sheet is incomplete. Some tree ratings do not appear. Also, all the trees adjacent to the proposed utilities on Highland Ave. must be inventoried. Provide prior to CDB. 3 . Revise the top of bank at trees # 12 and 14 to be at least half of the trees dripline away. Provide prior to CDB. 4. Relocate the storm outfall pipe to be outside the canopy lines of all the trees to be preserved on the south property line prior to CDB. 5 . Revise the parking lot grades at all the trees to be preserved on the south property line prior to CDB. 6. Relocate the dumpster from under the canopies of trees #3 and 4 prior to CDB. 7. Relocate the landscape island at trees #34 and 35 to tree # 38 prior to CDB. 8 . Recommend that the desing team reveiw the arborist report to address any concerns he may have and incoporate any suggestions for site design prior to CDB. 9. Provide a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by a certified arborist, consulting arborist, landscape architect or other specialist in the field of arboriculture. This plan must show how the proposed building, parking, stormwater and utilities impact the critical root zones (drip lines) of trees to be preserved and how you propose to address these impacts i.e.; crown elevating, root pruning and/or root aeration systems. Other data required on this plan must show the trees canopy line, actual tree barricade limits (2/3 of the drip line and/or in the root prune lines if required), and the tree barricade detail. And any other pertinent information relating to tree preservation. Provide prior to building permit. Landscaping: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 28 n Sheet L-1, delineate and dimension all requi• perimeter landscape a 1 . On the Landscapf buffers. 2. Based on the site design with the dimensions provided at this point, the plans do not meet the required perimeter buffer requirements, the foundation landscape requirement and the interior landscape requirement. Unless revised to meet these requirements, the Comprehensive Landscape Program (CLP) application submitted must detail as part of request the reductions to these requirements and the justifications for such reductions. Note: The landscaping would need to exceed the minimum requirements when requesting reductions under the CLP. 3 . Sheets 3/6 & L-1 - Some areas of the crosshatched areas (if being considered "interior landscaping") will not qualify as they are part of the foundation landscaping or required perimeter buffers (cannot double count), or are at the bottom of the retention pond. Additionally, when parking is 110% or greater than the required parking, 12% of the vehicular use area must be placed in "interior landscaping." 4. Overhead utility lines exist along the front of the property. Only accent trees can be planted within 20 feet of these lines. Revise. 5 . No trees may be planted within the sight visibility triangles. Shrubs and ground cover are required within the sight visibility triangles, but they need to be maintained so as to not exceed 30-inches in height. 6. Sheet 3/6 - Dimension the width of the foundation landscape area. 7. Sheet L-1 - Foundation landscape area must be planted in compliance with Code requirements of Section 3-1202.E.2. 8 . Sheet L-1 - Perimeter buffers provided along the north, west and south do not contain the required number of trees. Revise. 9. Sheet 3/6 - Based on the indentations on the building facade that are planted with trees (see Sheet L-1), is there a particular reason the 2" water line to the building has been located right where one of these indentations occur? Can the water line be modified in its location to not conflict with the proposed trees? 10. Square footage of interior landscaping indicated on Sheet A-1 is inconsistent with that indicated on Sheet L-1. Revise. 11 . Sheet L-1 - The following plant/tree counts indicated in the table at the top of the sheet do not match that indicated on the drawing: LS - 2 indicated in the table; 3 indicated on the plan; RI - 101 indicated in the table; 112 indicated on the plan. Revise counts. 12. Sheet L-1 - In some interior landscape areas and foundation planting areas there is an insufficient number of trees to meet Code requirements. Two accent trees = one shade tree; three palms (grouped together) = one shade tree. Revise to meet Code. 13 . Will need a Right-of-way Use Permit to plant landscaping (shrubs) into the right-of-way. Will be a condition of approval. Parks and Recreation: 1 . Open space impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permit or final plat (if applicable), whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Art Kader at 727-562-4824 to calculate the assessment. Stormwater: I , Prior to CDB, the plan is to be modified to show gutters, inlets and roof drains on the west side of the building tieing into a pipe system that drains into the retention pond. The pipe is to be designed for a 10 year storm. This is to ensure that all increased runoff from the roof system does not drain onto private property. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant is to provide a copy of the approved SWFWMD permit. Solid Waste: 1 , That dumpster enclousure(s) needs to be constructed to City specifications. City detail specifications need to be shown on detail sheet 4 (The one shown is unacceptable) Traffic Engineering: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 29 The handicap Parking space and aisle in the north parking area app• to be seperated from the sidewalk by curbing. Is there a grade change here that would hinder accessibility? If so, a ramp shall be provided that meets accessibility requirements. The above shall be addressed prior to CDB. General Note(s): 1) Comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule. 2) DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Planning: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 30 0 0 Application states parcel size is 72,281 square feet. Sheet 3/6 of the civil plans state the same square footage for the existing area, but states 72,136.89 square feet for the proposed parcel size. Which is correct? Shouldn't the existing and proposed parcel size be the same? Revise. Additionally, revise the General Note #7 and the "Site Data" at the middle top on Sheet 3/6 if the correct square footage of the parcel is 72,281 (1.659 acres). Revise this sheet and the first page of the application. Revise Sheet A-1 as necessary. 2. The site plan Sheet 3/6 needs to be fully dimensioned with the proposed setbacks to the closest points of all pavement and building to the property lines (suggest both ends of the parking surface and building in each direction), the width of parking spaces and handicap spaces, driveway widths, the width of landscape islands (terminal or interior), the building dimensions, sidewalks, foundation landscape areas, etc. 3 . The Vehicular Area listed in the "Site Data" on Sheet 3/6 is not the same as indicated on Sheet L-1. Which is correct? Revise appropriately. 4. Revise Sheets 5/6 and 6/6 to consistently show the loading space(s), as shown on Sheets 3/6, A-1 and L-1. 5 . Potential condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report: That a Unity of Title be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permits; 6. Potential condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report: That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the CDB; 7. Potential condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report: That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; 8 . All proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed building) must be placed underground. 9. Flexible Development criteria for "offices" states: No sign of any kind is designed or located so that any portion of the sign is more than six feet above the finished grade of the front lot line of the parcel proposed for development unless such signage is a part of an approved comprehensive sign program. Therefore, potential condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report: That any future freestanding sign be a monument-style sign a maximum six feet in height, unless part of a Comprehensive Sign Program, designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building; 10. Flexible Development criteria for "offices" requires "the reduction in front setback result in an improved site plan or improved design and appearance" and "the reduction in side and/or rear setback result in an improved site plan, more efficient parking or improved design and appearance and landscaping in excess of the minimum required." Reductions to the front, side and rear setbacks are being requested, with a companion request to reduce the required perimeter buffers. Additionally, while unclear at this point, it appears that reductions to the foundation landscaping and interior landscaping are also being requested. In conjunction with compatibility with adjoining detached dwellings, the site design is too intense for this property, appears to be overbuilding the site and, therefore, Staff cannot support the proposal and the reductions being requested. 11 . While not a requirement of the Code, but from an aesthetic aspect, having the dumpster enclosure in the front setback is not desirable or supportable. Relocate. 12 . Two loading spaces have been provided. Check with Traffic Engineering to determine the number of loading spaces required. Potentially having one "centrally" located space would be sufficient (potentially coordinated with the dumpster enclosure). 13 . City Code has been amended for the required length of parking spaces. The minimum length is now 18 feet. This revised length may help in increasing landscaped areas. 14. Based on Building or Fire Codes, will there be any required egress doors on the rear of the building? If so, need to show on Building Elevations and on civil plans with all required sidewalks or stoops. 15 . The retention pond has a vertical gravity wall adjacent to the parking/loading areas. Show any required safety railings/guardrails (possibly in Section A-A) on Sheet 3/6. 16. Sheet 3/6 - Provide the basis for the required parking (3 spaces/1,000 square feet GFA). Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 31 17. Sheet 3/6 - Provid width of the north/south drive aisle on the dir north side of the northern driveway. 18. Sheet 3/6 - Many dimensions to property lines are indicated as +/-. It is the minus that concerns me, since we advertise a proposed setback and the Code does not allow the reduction of setbacks without going back to the CDB. 19. Sheet A-1 - Proposed six-foot fence along the north property line must be reduced to a maximum of three feet in height within the 25-foot front setback area. 20. Sheet A-1 - Unclear as to what is meant under Site Data of : one proposed unit (?). 21 . Sheet A-1 - Interior landscape area crosshatched on this sheet is not consistent with that indicated on Sheet 3/6. Make both consistent or only show on one sheet. 22. Sheets A-1 & L-1 - A proposed sign is indicated near the front property line. It is noted that the minimum setback to property lines for signage is five feet. 23 . Provide color samples/chips of the proposed exterior colors of the building. 24. Sheet A-1 - Provide the colors of the exterior facade on this sheet in written form (walls, columns, facia, gable ends, window and door frames, etc.). That indicated on the 8.5"x11 reduced elevations does not provide sufficient clarity. 25 . Sheet A-2 - Black & white and colored plan - Remove the shadows from the plan, as it is not consistent across all elevations, does not reflect all shadows and covers details/colors of the elevations. 26. Sheet A-2 - The main pitched roof that runs along the majority of the north/south portion of the building appears to be 18'-9" to the midpoint of that roof. This is the building height that will be used. Clarify height on the plans. However, still continue to provide the midpoint of the highest pitched roof on the south end of the building. 27. General Applicability criteria #2 for offices on Comp Infill application - 1. Provide the proposed value of this project; 2. Provide information as to HOW this proposal will or won't affect the value of the detached dwellings to the west. 28. General Applicability criteria #1 for offices on Comp Infill application - Provide details as to HOW this proposal is in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage and character of ALL adjacent properties, including the nonresidential properties north (of the parking lot in the LMDR District) and south and the detached dwellings to the west (not only the shopping center across Highland Avenue). 29. General Applicability criteria #3 for offices on Comp Infill application - Provide greater information as to HOW the "building and fence will protect the neighborhood and community." Protect from what? 30. General Applicability criteria #5 for offices on Comp Infill application - Provide greater information as to HOW the proposal "concurs with the residential, offices and retail themes surrounding it" as relating to consistency with the surrounding character. 31 . General Applicability criteria #6 for offices on Comp Infi11 application - Provide greater information as to HOW the reduced setbacks and buffers minimizes the visual impacts of this development on the adjacent detached dwellings and generally to the adjacent uses to the south of this property and along Highland Avenue. 32. Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 - A proposed design has been submitted for this property. Why this design? Why couldn't a different design not require the reductions and deviations requested under this proposal. Provide greater detaill as to HOW deviations to setbacks and buffers are necessary in the development of this property. 33 . Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #2 - Provide a response that does not repeat the criteria as the response. Explain HOW the criteria is achieved, in detail. 34 . Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #3 - Unclear if the response is only addressing potential nonresidential development along Highland Avenue, or if it is also addressing the residential development to the west, especially in light of the deviations requested to setbacks and buffers. Revise. 35 . Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #4 - Ensure the response includes a detailed discussion relating to the detached dwellings to the west. 36. Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #5 - Provide a DETAILED response as to HOW this proposal is compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood and demostrates compliance with "a" and "b." 37 . Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6 - Provide a DETAILED response as to HOW flexibility to required setbacks, buffers, interior landscaping and foundation landscaping (?) meets all of the design objectives of this criteria. Why can't required setbacks, buffers, interior landscaping and foundation landscaping (?) be met, or why MUST it be as proposed? Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 32 38 . General APPlicabil criteria #1 for nonresidential parking on Residential Infill application - HOW is the proposed parking lot in harmony with the adjacent nonresidential use to the north and the detached dwellings to the west, in light of the reductions to setbacks and buffers requested. 39. General Applicability criteria #2 for nonresidential parking on Residential Infill application - Provide details as to HOW the proposed parking will not impair the value of the adjacent detached dwellings, in light of the reduced setbacks and buffers requested. 40. General Applicability criteria #3 for nonresidential parking on Residential Infill application - Provide a detailed response as to HOW the proposed parking lot was "designed with health and safety in mind" and HOW the reduced setbacks and buffers will not adversely affect the detached dwellings to the west. 41 . General Applicability criteria #5 for nonresidential parking on Residential Infill application - Provide a detailed response as to HOW the parking lot is "consistent with the character of other parking lots in the immediate vicinity," especially since this parking lot is on residentially zoned property. 42. General Applicability criteria #6 for nonresidential parking on Residential Infill application - Provide a detailed response as to HOW this parking lot will not have an adverse visual effect, especially in light of the requested reductions to the setbacks and buffers of this proposal. 43 . Residential Infill Project criteria #1 - Provide a detailed response as to HOW the development of a parking lot to serve the proposed offices would be impracticable without the deviations to the setbacks and buffers requested. Why can't setbacks and buffers be met? Is the proposed development overbuilding the site? 44. Residential Infill Project criteria #4 - Provide a detailed response as to HOW this proposed parking lot is compatible with the existing nonresidential use to the north and the detached dwellings to the west. 45 . Residential Infill Project criteria #5 - Provide greater detail as to HOW the proposed "landscaping quality is very high" and will upgrade the surrounding area. 46. Residential Infill Project criteria #6 - Provide a detailed response as to HOW this proposed parking lot, in light of the requested reductions to setbacks and buffers, enhances the community character. 47. Residential Infill Project criteria #7 - Provide a detailed response as to HOW (justify) the requested flexibility to setbacks and buffers for this parking lot benefit the character of the surrounding area. The setback and buffer reductions are severe. 48. Provide in all appropriate responses to criteria (General Applicability and Residential Infill) for the proposed parking lot within the LMDR District as to HOW the proposal meets the following criteria for "nonresidential off-street parking": "No off-street parking spaces are located in the required front setback for detached dwellings in the LMDR District or within ten feet, whichever is greater, or within ten feet of a side or rear lot line, except along the common boundary of the parcel proposed for development and the parcel on which the non-residential use which will be served by the off-street parking spaces." Other: No Comments Notes: To be placed on the 7/18/06 CDB agenda, submit 15 collated copies of the revised plans & application material addressing all above departments' comments by noon, 6/8/06. Packets shall be collated, folded and stapled as appropriate. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 33 1.15 pm Case Number: FLD2006-04024 -- 1532 S HIGHLAND AVE . Owner(s): L M Revoca Loken Trust `?' • O C Loken, Luven M Tre Clearwater, F1337756 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Representative: Jay Myers 9170 Oakhurst Road Seminole, F133776 TELEPHONE: 727-595-7100, FAX: 727-595-7138, E-MAIL: myersarch@ix.netcom.com Location: xx acres located on the west side of South Highland Avenue approximately 400 feet south of Nursery Road Atlas Page: 315A Zoning District: LMDR, Low Medium Density Residential Request: Flexible Development approval (1) to permit 17,462 square feet of offices in the Office (O) District with reductions to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to xx feet (to pavement) and from 25 feet to 15 feet (to dumpster enclosure), reductions to the side (north) setback from 20 feet to 10 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to five feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (south) setback from 20 feet to 4.5 feet (to pavement) and from 20 feet to five feet (to dumpster enclosure) and reductions to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to eight feet (to building) and from 20 feet to five feet (to pavement), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Program under the provisions of Section 2-1004.13; (2) to permit nonresidential off-street parking in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to five feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement) and deviations to allow the structures (pavement) within the front, side and rear setbacks and to place landscaping on the inside of the buffer fence along the north and west sides of the property, as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2-204.E; and (3) to permit reductions to the landscape buffer requirements along east side along South Highland Avenue from 15 feet to five feet (to pavement), along the north side from 12 feet to 10 feet (to building) and from 12 feet to five feet (to pavement), along the south side from five feet to 4.5 feet (to pavement) and along the west side from 12 feet to eight feet (to building) and from 12 feet to five feet (to pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Offices Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Association(s): Clearwater, F133758 P O Box 8204 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Presenter: Wayne Wells, Planner III Attendees Included: City: Wayne Wells, Neil Thompson, Scott Rice, Lenny Rickard Applicant: Jay Myers, Alex Panik The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 26 The following to be addressed prior to building permit: • 1. All unused drive aprons and/or parking surfaces are to be removed in its entirety (including the removal of culverts), by the contractor, at the applicant's expense. Where culverts are removed, a swale shall be established to maintain flow. The right(s)-of-way are to be restored with new sidewalk and sod as required. 2. Sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project shall be designed and constructed consistent with City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Index #109, including the A.D.A. (Truncated domes per D.O.T. Index #304.) " 3. Applicant shall meet minimum horizontal and vertical separation requirements for storm, potable water and sanitary sewer mains specified in Chapter 62 of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). 4. The City of Clearwater will provide water tap, (Clearwater Code of Ordinances Section 32.095), set the water meter (Clearwater Code of Ordinances Section 32.096) and set the B.F.P.D. (back flow preventor device). The applicant is responsible for the water main extension from the tap to the device. Applicant is also responsible for all associated fees and all other installation fees. 5. Need a copy of an approved health permit for the installation of the domestic water main prior to issuance of a building permit. The health permit application form(s) can be found at: www.dep.state.fl.us/water/drinkingwater/forms.htm 6. Need a copy of an approved D.E.P. permit for the installation of the sanitary sewer extension prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. All fire hydrant assemblies installed greater than 10 ft. from a water main shall be constructed with ductile iron pipe and shall have a gate valve at the tee on the branch line, and at the fire hydrant assembly (F.H.A.). 8. A permanent blow-off assembly shall be installed at the north end of the proposed water main extension. 9. New dumpster enclosures: Maximum 6-0" high and constructed of concrete block. Materials used should be consistent with those used in the construction of and architectural style of the principal building, see City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards, Part "C", Construction Standards, Index #701. 10. Delete dumpster enclosure from detail sheet and replace with City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards, Part "C", Construction Standards, Index #701. 11. Need a copy of an approved right-of-way permit from Pinellas County prior to issuance of a building permit. General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense (City Ordinance 7573-06). If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Environmental: 1 , 1. Prior to D.O.: Vertical walls in retention pond are not permitted unless approved due to a reason of undue hardship per City Engineer. Submit justification of hardship. 2. Prior to Building permit: Provide soil boring data. Both conditions per City of Clearwater Stormwater Design Criteria Manual page 7. Fire: I . Provide and show Firefighter access to the rear of the building. 2. Provide and Show Firefighter access to the rear of the building. PRIOR TO CDB Harbor Master: 1 . No issues. Legal: I . No issues. Land Resources: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 27 0 0' I , The tree survey is incomplete. All trees, with canopies, 4"DBH and greater on and within 25' of the property and all trees adjacent to the proposed utilities on Highland Ave. must be shown on all plan sheets prior to CDB. 2. The Inventory Rating sheet is incomplete. Some tree ratings do not appear. Also, all the trees adjacent to the proposed utilities on Highland Ave. must be inventoried. Provide prior to CDB. 3 , Revise the top of bank at trees # 12 and 14 to be at least half of the trees dripline away. Provide prior to CDB. 4. Relocate the storm outfall pipe to be outside the canopy lines of all the trees to be preserved on the south property line prior to CDB. 5 . Revise the parking lot grades at all the trees to be preserved on the south property line prior to CDB. 6. Relocate the dumpster from under the canopies of trees #3 and 4 prior to CDB. 7. Relocate the landscape island at trees #34 and 35 to tree # 38 prior to CDB. 8 . Recommend that the desing team reveiw the arborist report to address any concerns he may have and incoporate any suggestions for site design prior to CDB. 9. Provide a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by a certified arborist, consulting arborist, landscape architect or other specialist in the field of arboriculture. This plan must show how the proposed building, parking, stormwater and utilities impact the critical root zones (drip lines) of trees to be preserved and how you propose to address these impacts i.e.; crown elevating, root pruning and/or root aeration systems. Other data required on this plan must show the trees canopy line, actual tree barricade limits (2/3 of the drip line and/or in the root prune lines if required), and the tree barricade detail. And any other pertinent information relating to tree preservation. Provide prior to building permit. Landscaping: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 28 e Plan Sheet L-1, delineate and dimension all require perimeter landscape 1 . On the Landscap• buffers. 2. Based on the site design with the dimensions provided at this point, the plans do not meet the required perimeter buffer requirements, the foundation landscape requirement and the interior landscape requirement. Unless revised to meet these requirements, the Comprehensive Landscape Program (CLP) application submitted must detail as part of request the reductions to these requirements and the justifications for such reductions. Note: The landscaping would need to exceed the minimum requirements when requesting reductions under the CLP. 3 . Sheets 3/6 & L-1 - Some areas of the crosshatched areas (if being considered "interior landscaping") will not qualify as they are part of the foundation landscaping or required perimeter buffers (cannot double count), or are at the bottom of the retention pond. Additionally, when parking is 110% or greater than the required parking, 12% of the vehicular use area must be placed in "interior landscaping." 4. Overhead utility lines exist along the front of the property. Only accent trees can be planted within 20 feet of these lines. Revise. 5 No trees may be planted within the sight visibility triangles. Shrubs and ground cover are required within the sight visibility triangles, but they need to be maintained so as to not exceed 30-inches in height. 6. Sheet 3/6 - Dimension the width of the foundation landscape area. 7. Sheet L-1 - Foundation landscape area must be planted in compliance with Code requirements of Section 3-1202.E.2. 8 . Sheet L-1 - Perimeter buffers provided along the north, west and south do not contain the required number of trees. Revise. 9. Sheet 3/6 - Based on the indentations on the building facade that are planted with trees (see Sheet L-1), is there a particular reason the 2" water line to the building has been located right where one of these indentations occur? Can the water line be modified in its location to not conflict with the proposed trees? 10. Square footage of interior landscaping indicated on Sheet A-1 is inconsistent with that indicated on Sheet L-1. Revise. 11 . Sheet L-1 - The following plant/tree counts indicated in the table at the top of the sheet do not match that indicated on the drawing: LS - 2 indicated in the table; 3 indicated on the plan; RI - 101 indicated in the table; 112 indicated on the plan. Revise counts. 12 . Sheet L-1 - In some interior landscape areas and foundation planting areas there is an insufficient number of trees to meet Code requirements. Two accent trees = one shade tree; three palms (grouped together) = one shade tree. Revise to meet Code. 13 . Will need a Right-of-way Use Permit to plant landscaping (shrubs) into the right-of-way. Will be a condition of approval. Parks and Recreation: 1 . Open space impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permit or final plat (if applicable), whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Art Kader at 727-562-4824 to calculate the assessment. Stormwater: 1 . Prior to CDB, the plan is to be modified to show gutters, inlets and roof drains on the west side of the building tieing into a pipe system that drains into the retention pond. The pipe is to be designed for a 10 year storm. This is to ensure that all increased runoff from the roof system does not drain onto private property. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant is to provide a copy of the approved SWFWMD permit. Solid Waste: 1 , That dumpster enclousure(s) needs to be constructed to City specifications. City detail specifications need to be shown on detail sheet 4 (The one shown is unacceptable) Traffic Engineering: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 29 • • The handicap parking space and aisle in the north parking area appears to be seperated from the sidewalk by curbing. Is there a grade change here that would hinder accessibility? If so, a ramp shall be provided that meets accessibility requirements. The above shall be addressed prior to CDB. General Note(s): 1) Comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule. 2) DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Planning: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 30 Application states parcel size is 72,281 square feet. Sheet 3/6 of the civil plans state the same square footage for the existing area, but states 72,136.89 square feet for the proposed parcel size. Which is correct? Shouldn't the existing and proposed parcel size be the same? Revise. Additionally, revise the General Note #7 and the "Site Data" at the middle top on Sheet 3/6 if the correct square footage of the parcel is 72,281 (1.659 acres). Revise this sheet and the first page of the application. Revise Sheet A-1 as necessary. 2. The site plan Sheet 3/6 needs to be fully dimensioned with the proposed setbacks to the closest points of all pavement and building to the property lines (suggest both ends of the parking surface and building in each direction), the width of parking spaces and handicap spaces, driveway widths, the width of landscape islands (terminal or interior), the building dimensions, sidewalks, foundation landscape areas, etc. 3 . The Vehicular Area listed in the "Site Data" on Sheet 3/6 is not the same as indicated on Sheet L-1. Which is correct? Revise appropriately. 4. Revise Sheets 5/6 and 6/6 to consistently show the loading space(s), as shown on Sheets 3/6, A-1 and L-1. 5 . Potential condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report: That a Unity of Title be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permits; 6. Potential condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report: That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the CDB; 7. Potential condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report: That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits; 8 . All proposed utilities (from the right-of-way to the proposed building) must be placed underground. 9. Flexible Development criteria for "offices" states: No sign of any kind is designed or located so that any portion of the sign is more than six feet above the finished grade of the front lot line of the parcel proposed for development unless such signage is a part of an approved comprehensive sign program. Therefore, potential condition of approval to be included in the Staff Report: That any future freestanding sign be a monument-style sign a maximum six feet in height, unless part of a Comprehensive Sign Program, designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building; 10. Flexible Development criteria for "offices" requires "the reduction in front setback result in an improved site plan or improved design and appearance" and "the reduction in side and/or rear setback result in an improved site plan, more efficient parking or improved design and appearance and landscaping in excess of the minimum required." Reductions to the front, side and rear setbacks are being requested, with a companion request to reduce the required perimeter buffers. Additionally, while unclear at this point, it appears that reductions to the foundation landscaping and interior landscaping are also being requested. In conjunction with compatibility with adjoining detached dwellings, the site design is too intense for this property, appears to be overbuilding the site and, therefore, Staff cannot support the proposal and the reductions being requested. 11 . While not a requirement of the Code, but from an aesthetic aspect, having the dumpster enclosure in the front setback is not desirable or supportable. Relocate. 12 . Two loading spaces have been provided. Check with Traffic Engineering to determine the number of loading spaces required. Potentially having one "centrally" located space would be sufficient (potentially coordinated with the dumpster enclosure). 13 . City Code has been amended for the required length of parking spaces. The minimum length is now 18 feet. This revised length may help in increasing landscaped areas. 14. Based on Building or Fire Codes, will there be any required egress doors on the rear of the building? If so, need to show on Building Elevations and on civil plans with all required sidewalks or stoops. 15 . The retention pond has a vertical gravity wall adjacent to the parking/loading areas. Show any required safety railings/guardrails (possibly in Section A-A) on Sheet 3/6. 16. Sheet 3/6 - Provide the basis for the required parking (3 spaces/1,000 square feet GFA). Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 31 17. Sheet 3/6 - Provide• width of the north/south drive aisle on the direct north side of the northern driveway. 18. Sheet 3/6 - Many dimensions to property lines are indicated as +/-. It is the minus that concerns me, since we advertise a proposed setback and the Code does not allow the reduction of setbacks without going back to the CDB. 19 . Sheet A-1 - Proposed six-foot fence along the north property line must be reduced to a maximum of three feet in height within the 25-foot front setback area. 20. Sheet A-1 - Unclear as to what is meant under Site Data of : one proposed unit (?). 21 . Sheet A-1 - Interior landscape area crosshatched on this sheet is not consistent with that indicated on Sheet 3/6. Make both consistent or only show on one sheet. 22 . Sheets A-1 & L-1 - A proposed sign is indicated near the front property line. It is noted that the minimum setback to property lines for signage is five feet. 23 . Provide color samples/chips of the proposed exterior colors of the building. 24. Sheet A-1 - Provide the colors of the exterior facade on this sheet in written form (walls, columns, facia, gable ends, window and door frames, etc.). That indicated on the 8.5"x11" reduced elevations does not provide sufficient clarity. 25 . Sheet A-2 - Black & white and colored plan - Remove the shadows from the plan, as it is not consistent across all elevations, does not reflect all shadows and covers details/colors of the elevations. 26. Sheet A-2 - The main pitched roof that runs along the majority of the north/south portion of the building appears to be 18'-9" to the midpoint of that roof. This is the building height that will be used. Clarify height on the plans. However, still continue to provide the midpoint of the highest pitched roof on the south end of the building. 27. General Applicability criteria #2 for offices on Comp Infill application - 1. Provide the proposed value of this project; 2. Provide information as to HOW this proposal will or won't affect the value of the detached dwellings to the west. 28 . General Applicability criteria #1 for offices on Comp Infi11 application - Provide details as to HOW this proposal is in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage and character of ALL adjacent properties, including the nonresidential properties north (of the parking lot in the LMDR District) and south and the detached dwellings to the west (not only the shopping center across Highland ' Avenue). 29. General Applicability criteria #3 for offices on Comp Infill application - Provide greater information as to HOW the "building and fence will protect the neighborhood and community." Protect from what? 30. General Applicability criteria #5 for offices on Comp Infill application - Provide greater information as to HOW the proposal "concurs with the residential, offices and retail themes surrounding it" as relating to consistency with the surrounding character. 31 . General Applicability criteria #6 for offices on Comp Infill application - Provide greater information as to HOW the reduced setbacks and buffers minimizes the visual impacts of this development on the adjacent detached dwellings and generally to the adjacent uses to the south of this property and along Highland Avenue. 32. Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 - A proposed design has been submitted for this property. Why this design? Why couldn't a different design not require the reductions and deviations requested under this proposal. Provide greater detaill as to HOW deviations to setbacks and buffers are necessary in the development of this property. 33 . Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #2 - Provide a response that does not repeat the criteria as the response. Explain HOW the criteria is achieved, in detail. 34. Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #3 - Unclear if the response is only addressing potential nonresidential development along Highland Avenue, or if it is also addressing the residential development to the west, especially in light of the deviations requested to setbacks and buffers. Revise. 35 . Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #4 - Ensure the response includes a detailed discussion relating to the detached dwellings to the west. 36 . Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #5 - Provide a DETAILED response as to HOW this proposal is compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood and demostrates compliance with "a" and "b." 37 . Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6 - Provide a DETAILED response as to HOW flexibility to required setbacks, buffers, interior landscaping and foundation landscaping (?) meets all of the design objectives of this criteria. Why can't required setbacks, buffers, interior landscaping and foundation landscaping (?) be met, or why MUST it be as proposed? Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 32 38 . General Applicability criteria #1 for nonresidential parking on Resi*l Infill application - HOW is the proposed parking lot in harmony with the adjacent nonresidential use to the north and the detached dwellings to the west, in light of the reductions to setbacks and buffers requested. 39 . General Applicability criteria #2 for nonresidential parking on Residential Infill application - Provide details as to HOW the proposed parking will not impair the value of the adjacent detached dwellings, in light of the reduced setbacks and buffers requested. 40. General Applicability criteria #3 for nonresidential parking on Residential Infill application - Provide a detailed response as to HOW the proposed parking lot was "designed with health and safety in mind" and HOW the reduced setbacks and buffers will not adversely affect the detached dwellings to the west. 41 . General Applicability criteria #5 for nonresidential parking on Residential Infill application - Provide a detailed response as to HOW the parking lot is "consistent with the character of other parking lots in the immediate vicinity," especially since this parking lot is on residentially zoned property. 42. General Applicability criteria #6 for nonresidential parking on Residential Infill application - Provide a detailed response as to HOW this parking lot will not have an adverse visual effect, especially in light of the requested reductions to the setbacks and buffers of this proposal. 43 . Residential Infill Project criteria #1 - Provide a detailed response as to HOW the development of a parking lot to serve the proposed offices would be impracticable without the deviations to the setbacks and buffers requested. Why can't setbacks and buffers be met? Is the proposed development overbuilding the site? 44. Residential Infill Project criteria #4 - Provide a detailed response as to HOW this proposed parking lot is compatible with the existing nonresidential use to the north and the detached dwellings to the west. 45 . Residential Ill Project criteria #5 - Provide greater detail as to HOW the proposed "landscaping quality is very high" and will upgrade the surrounding area. 46. Residential Infill Project criteria #6 - Provide a detailed response as to HOW this proposed parking lot, in light of the requested reductions to setbacks and buffers, enhances the community character. 47. Residential Infill Project criteria #7 - Provide a detailed response as to HOW (justify) the requested flexibility to setbacks and buffers for this parking lot benefit the character of the surrounding area. The setback and buffer reductions are severe. 48 . Provide in all appropriate responses to criteria (General Applicability and Residential Infill) for the proposed parking lot within the LMDR District as to HOW the proposal meets the following criteria for "nonresidential off-street parking": "No off-street parking spaces are located in the required front setback for detached dwellings in the LMDR District or within ten feet, whichever is greater, or within ten feet of a side or rear lot line, except along the common boundary of the parcel proposed for development and the parcel on which the non-residential use which will be served by the off-street parking spaces." Other: No Comments Notes: To be placed on the 7/18/06 CDB agenda, submit 15 collated copies of the revised plans & application material addressing all above departments' comments by noon, 6/8/06. Packets shall be collated, folded and stapled as appropriate. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 1, 2006 - Page 33 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 7:05 PM To: Brown, Steven Cc: Delk, Michael; Clayton, Gina Subject: Permit Plan and Long Range Steven - I have been assigned a Flexible Development case that involves 1532 S. Highland Avenue (FLD2006-04024). This same property went through a land use change and rezoning (Case LUZ2005-05009). In checking Permit Plan for this LUZ case, I find many of the Activities not completed (such as when it went to the City Council, PPC and CPA) and there is a condition still "not met". This makes research very difficult and does nothing to help me with a history of this property when doing a Staff Report. Is there any way you can get Permit Plan updated, not only for this case but all cases in the recent past and into the future, because it doesn't help anyone present or future to only do a half job? As the saying goes, garbage in, garbage out. Additionally, do you know how long it takes Engineering to update the Zoning Maps with these approved cases? The Sheet 315A has not yet been updated. Wayne Pr ellas County Property Appror Information: 23 29 15 79254 002 0016 Page 2 of 5 23 / 29 / 15 / 79254E / 002 / 0010 Oi-May-2006 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 17:54:41 Ownership Information Uacant Property Use and Sales LOKEN, L M REVOCABLE TRUST OBK: 14845 OPG: 1364 C/O LOKEN, LUUERH H THE 1536 S HIGHLAND AUE CLEARWATER FL 33756 EVAC: Non-EUAC Comparable sales value as Prop Addr: 0 of Jan 1, 2005, based on Census Tract: 255.01 sales from 2003 - 2004: 0 Sale Date OR Book/Pa ge Price (Qual/UnQ) Vac/Imp Plat Information 12/2,005 14,845/1,3 64 350,000 (H) I 1925: Book 010 Pgs 010- 0 /0 0/ 0 0 ( } 0000: Book Pgs - 0 /0 0/ 0 0 ( ) 0000: Book Pgs - 0 /0 0/ 0 0 { } 2005 Value EXEMPTIONS Just/Market: 236,300 Homestead: HO Ownership % .000 Govt Exem: HO Use %: .000 Assessed/Cap: 236,300 Institutional Exem: NO Tax Exempt .000 Historic Exem: 0 Taxable: 236,300 Agricultural: 0 2005 Tax Information District: CW Seawall: Frontage: Clearwater View: 05 Millage: 23.2372 Land Size Unit Land Land Land Front x Depth Price Units Meth 05 Taxes: 5,490.95 1) 205 x 140 5. 25 28,700. 00 S Special Tax .00 2) 130 x 167 4.00 21,710.00 S 3) 0 x 0 .00 .00 Without the Save-Our-Homes 4) 0 x 0 .00 .00 cap, 2005 taxes will be : 5) 0 x 0 .00 .00 5,490.95 6) 0 x 0 .00 .00 Without any exemptions, 2005 taxes will be 51490.95 Short Legal SCOTIA HEIGHTS BLK B. LOTS 1 THRU 7 LESS Description E 7FT PER OR 33081489 & LOTS 53 THRU 56 & N 30FT Building Information http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=l &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p... 5/1/2006 Pinellas County Property App6r Information: 23 29 15 79254 002 0016 23 / 29 / 15 / 79254 / 002 / 0010 Page 3 of 5 Oi-May-2006 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas COunty Property Appraiser 17:54:41 Vacant Parcel Property Use; 000 Land Use; i0 Vac ant Extra F e at ur c s Description Dimensions Price Units Value RCD Year 1) GREENHOUSE 3567SF 25.00 3,567 89,180 35,670 Ili 2) GREENHOUSE 1i88SF 10.00 1,188 11,880 4,750 Ili 3) .00 0 0 0 0 4) .00 0 0 0 0 5) .00 0 0 0 0 6) .00 0 0 0 0 TOTAL RECORD VALUE; 40,420 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) F*_1 14] 5t] 41 R1 http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.uslhtbinlcgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p... 5/1/2006 Pinellas County Property App*r Information: 23 29 15 79254 002 006 ,EET r, 0 Page 4 of 5 4077 / fn EET 235 34 i 03 ?i Is Ac IR CHURCH ? x} IRIST j0PnAN 1/8 Mile Aerial Photograph (2002) http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.uslhtbinlcgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p... 5/1/2006 Pinellas County Property App"er Information: 23 29 15 79254 002 0 Page 5 of 5 Pinellas County Property Appraiser Parcel Information http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbiri/cgi-click?o=l &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p... 5/1/2006 .... Pinellas County Property App6r Information: 23 29 15 79254 002 0# Page 2 of 5 23 / 29 / 15 / 79254 / 002 / 0480 01-May-2006 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 17:54:17 Ownership Information Residential Property Address, Use, and Sales LOKEN, L M REVOCABLE TRUST OBK: 14845 OPG: 1129 C/O LOKEN, LUUERN M THE 1532 S HIGHLAND AUE CLEARWATER FL 33756 EVAC: Hon-EUAC Comparable sales value as Prop Addr: 1532 S HIGHLAND AUE of Jan 1, 2005, based on Census Tract: 255.01 sales from 2003 - 2004: 94,600 Sale Date OR Book/Page Price (Qual/UnQ) Vac/Imp Plat Information 12/2,005 14,84511,1 29 100,000 (Q) I 1925: Book 010 Pgs 010- 0000: Book Pgs - 0 /1,978 4,65411,5 0 /0 01 00 18,500 (Q) I 0 0 { ) 0000: Book Pgs - 0 /0 01 0 0 { ) 2005 Value EXEMPTIONS Just/Market: 78,500 Homestead: NO Ownership % .000 Govt Exem: NO Use %: .000 Assessed/Cap: 78,500 Institutional Exem: NO Tax Exempt %: .000 Historic Exem: 0 Taxable: 78,500 Agricultural: 0 2005 Tax Information District: Cu Seawall: Frontage: Clearwater view: 05 Millage: 23.2372 Land Size Unit Land Land Land Front x Depth Price Units Meth 05 Taxes: 1,824.12 1) 100 x 140 800.00 100.00 F Special Tax .00 2) 0 x 0 .00 .00 3) 0 x 0 .00 .00 Without the Save-Our-Homes 4) 0 x 0 .00 .00 cap, 2005 taxes will be : 5) 0 x 0 .00 .00 1,824.12 6) 0 x 0 . 00 . 00 Without any exemptions, 2005 taxes will be to 824.i2 Short Legal SCOTIA HEIGHTS BLK B, LOTS 8,9,10 AND it Description Building Information http://pao.co.pinellas. fl.uslhtbinlcgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p... 5/1/2006 , w Pipellas County Property App4r Information: 23 29 15 79254 002 06 Page 3 of 5 23 / 20 / 15 / 70254 / 002 / 0080 :01 01-May-2006 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 17:54:17 Residential Card 0i of i Prop Use: 210 Land Use: 01 Living Units: i Imp Type: Single Family Prop Address: 1532 S HIGHLAND AUE Stru?c-tural E1sm,ents Foundation Continuous Wall Floor System Slab on Grade Exterior Wall Frame/Siding Roof Frame Gable-Hip Roof Cover Composite Shingle # Stories 1.0 Floor Finish Crpt/Unyl/SftWd/Terr Interior Finish Drywall/Plaster Quality Fair Year Built 1,949 Effective Age 35 Heating Unit/Spc/W11Fl Furn Cooling None Fixtures 3 Other Depreciation 0 Functional Depreciation 0 Econonomic Depreciation 0 Sub ArE3as Description Factor Area Description Factor Area 1) Base Area 1.00 400 7) .00 0 2) Base Semi Finished .80 372 8) .00 0 3) .00 0 9) .00 0 4) 00 0 10) .00 0 5) .00 0 11) .00 0 6) .00 0 12) .00 0 Re:sidqBnTza1 Extra Features Description Dimensions Price Units Value RCD Year 1) PATIO/DECK 5.00 126 630 250 1,959 2) .00 0 0 0 0 3) .00 0 0 0 0 4) .00 0 0 0 0 5) .00 0 0 0 0 6) .00 0 0 0 0 TOTAL RECORD VALUE: 250 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) F*1 [41, Fil I Pq http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=l &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &i=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p... 5/1/2006 o. Pigellas County Property Apprib r Information: 23 29 15 79254 002 010 - - s T r" W + Uj 8 o' 1 s BRAUN EET Page 4of5 34/03 4..-' ? A 00 cu EET 235 c Sri fr) 20(S .34/031 C6 15 ?' 1/8 Mile Aerial Photograph (2002) http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=l &c=l &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p... 5/1/2006 Pinellas County Property App??r Information: 23 29 15 79254 002 Ol Page 5 of 5 Pinellas County Property Appraiser Parcel Information http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.uslhtbinlcgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p... 5/1/2006 Pinellas County Property App r Information: 23 29 15 79254 002 0 Page 2 of 5 23 / 29 / 15 / 79254 / 002 / 0120 01-May-2006 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 17:53:28 Ownership Information Residential Property Address, Use, and Sales LOKEN, LUUERNE H REU TRUST OBK: 14962 OPG: 1795 C/O LOKEN, LUUERNE H THE 2 SEASIDE LN # 403 BELLEAIR FL 33756 EVAC: Non-EUAC Comparable sales value as Prop Addr: 1524 S HIGHLAND AUE of Jan 1, 2005, based on Census Tract: 255.01 sales from 2003 - 2004: 125,900 Sale Date OR Book/Pa ge Price (Qual/UnQ) Vac/Imp Plat Information 3 /2,006 14,962/1,7 95 185,000 (Q) I 1925: Book 010 Pgs 010- 0 /1,979 4,961/1,8 31 34,000 (0) I 0000: Book Pgs - 0 /0 01 0 0 { } 0000: Book Pgs - 0 /0 0/ 0 0 { } 2005 Value EXEMPTIONS Just/Market: 105,500 Homestead: NO Ownership % .000 Govt Exem: NO Use %: .000 Assessed/Cap: 105,500 Institutional Exem: NO Tax Exempt %: .000 Historic Exem: 0 Taxable: 105,500 Agricultural: 0 2005 Tax Information District: CTF Seawall: Frontage: Clearwater Fire View: 05 Millage: 22.7812 Land Size Unit Land Land Land Front x Depth Price Units Meth 05 Taxes: 2,403.42 1) 70 x 140 800.00 70.00 F Special Tax .00 2) 0 x 0 .00 .00 3) 0 x 0 .00 .00 Without the Save-Our-Homes 4) 0 x 0 .00 .00 cap, 2005 taxes will be : 5) 0 x 0 .00 .00 2,403.42 6) 0 x 0 .00 .00 Without any exemptions, 2005 taxes will be 2,403.42 Short Legal SCOTIA HEIGHTS BLK B, LOTS 12,13 & S 20 Description FT OF LOT 14 Building Information http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.uslhtbinlcgi-scr3?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p... 5/1/2006 PiAellas County Property App OFr Information: 23 29 15 79254 002 0* Page 3 of 5 Property and Land Use Code descriptions / 23 / 29 / 15 / 79294 l 002 0120 :01 01-May-2006 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 17:53:28 Residential Card 01 of i Prop Use: 210 Land Use: 01 Living Units: 1 Imp Type: Single Family Prop Address: 1524 S HIGHLAND AUE S?ru?turai E1?ments Foundation Continuous Wall Floor System Slab on Grade Exterior Wall ConcBk Stucco/Reclad Roof Frame Gable-Hip Roof Cover Composite Shingle # Stories 1.0 Floor Finish Crpt/HdTI/HdMar/Prgt Interior Finish Drywall/Plaster Quality Year Built Effective Heating Cooling Fixtures Other Depr Functional Econonomic Average 1,956 Age 20 Central Duct Cooling (Central) 3 5ciation 0 Depreciation 0 Depreciation 0 Sub Areas Description Factor Area Description Factor Area 1) Base Area 1.00 840 7) .00 0 2) Base Semi Finished .80 200 8) .00 0 3) Screen Porch .25 100 9) .00 0 4) Open Porch .20 32 10) .00 0 5) Detached Utility .40 560 11) .00 0 6) .00 0 12) .00 0 F?a urss Rssidsn-ti2a1 ExTrzi Description Dimensions Price Units Value RCD Year 1) .00 0 0 0 0 2) .00 0 0 0 0 3) .00 0 0 0 0 4) .00 0 0 0 0 5) .00 0 0 0 0 6) .00 0 0 0 0 TOTAL RECORD VALUE: 0 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) F+1 141 T 41 R R http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.uslhtbinlcgi-scr3?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p... 5/1/2006 PiAiellas County Property App6r Information: 23 29 15 79254 002 06 Page 4 of 5 0 1449 'NLJ RS EET EET 1500 BRAUN Uj ?U?yy I S08 li BRAUN ST 1/8 Mile Aerial Photograph (2002) http://pao.co.pinellas..fl.uslhtbinlcgi-scr3?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p... 5/1/2006 Pinellas CoLIIItV Property Appal- Information: 23 29 15 79254 002 0 Pare 5 of 5 ff T ,x1 Pinellas County Property Appraiser Parcel Information Back to_Search Page An_explanati_on_of this screen http://pao.co.pinellas.fl,us/htbin/cgi-scr37o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p... 5/1/2006 _- - "i 0 0 CITY OF CLEARWATER NOTICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD PUBLIC HEARINGS The Community Development Board of the City of Clearwater, Florida, will hold public hearings on Tuesday, September 19, 2006, beginning at 1:00 PM, in the City Council Chambers, in City Hall, 3rd floor, 112 South Osceola Ave, Clearwater, Florida, to consider the following requests: NOTE: All persons wishing to address an item need to be present at the BEGINNING of the meeting. Those cases that are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. will be placed on a consent agenda and approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting. 1. Marv G Realty, Inc (Nick Gionis) are requesting Flexible Development approval to permit 12 attached dwellings in the Tourist District with reductions to the front (north along Baymont St.) setback from 15 ft to zero ft (to plaza, fountain and trash staging area), reductions to the front (east along Mandalay Ave.) setback from 15 ft to zero ft (to plaza, fountain, pergolas and raised platform) and an increase to the building ht from 35 ft to 82.5 ft (to midpoint of pitched roof), under the provisions of Sec. 2-803.8. : [Proposed Use: Attached dwellings 12 condom iniums].490 Mandalay Ave. Clearwater Beach Park Lots 57 - 63 and part of lot 64. Assigned Planner: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III FLD2006-02009 2. LM Loken Revocable Trust c/o Luvern Loken, Tre (Vern Loken) are requesting Flexible Development approval (1) to permit a 16,548 square-ft office building in the Office (O) District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 ft to 12.92 ft (to pavement), reductions to the side (north) setback from 20 ft to 12.42 ft (to building) and from 20 ft to 11.5 ft (to pavement), reductions to the side (south) setback from 20 ft to zero ft (to pavement) and from 20 ft to 6 ft (to dumpster enclosure) and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 ft to 12 ft (to building), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Program under the provisions of Sec 2-1004.6; (2) to permit nonresidential off-street parking in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 ft to 20 ft (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 ft to 7.17 ft (to pavement) and deviations to allow the structures (pavement) within the front and side setbacks and to place landscaping on the inside of the buffer fence along the north and west sides of the property, as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Sec. 2-204.E; and (3) to permit reductions to the landscape buffer requirements along S. Highland Ave. (east) from 15 ft to 12.92 ft (to pavement), along the north side from 12 ft to 11.5 ft (to pavement) and along the south side from 5 ft to zero ft (to pavement) and to permit a reduction to required interior landscaping from 12 percent to 10.69 percent, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Sec. 3-1202.G. (Proposed Use: A 16,548 square-ft office building.) at 1524, 1532 and 1536 S. Highland Ave., Scotia Heights Blk B Lots 1 - 6 and part of lot 7, lots 8-13 and part of lot 14, lots 53-56. Assigned Planner: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. FLD2006-04024 3. Paradise Cove Clearwater, Inc (Danny Patel, Issam Yared, Richard J Scinta, Jr., Linda M. Fletcher, Michael & Gia Lozicki, Robert E. Smyth, Suzanne M. Givens, John W, Withers) are requesting Flexible Development approval to permit a 927 square-ft multi-use dock for nine slips in the Tourist District, under the provisions of Sec. 3-601. (Proposed Use: Multi-use dock of 9 slips for 9 attached dwellings) at 145 Brightwater Dr., Paradise Cove Lots 1-9. Assigned Planner: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. FLD2006-02011 Interested parties may appear and be heard at the hearing or file written notice of approval or objection with the Planning Director or City Clerk prior to the hearing. Any person who decides to appeal any decision made by the Board or Council, with respect to any matter considered at such hearings, will need to request a record of the proceedings and, for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based per Florida Statute 286.0105. Community Development Code Sec 4-206 states that party status shall be granted by the Board in quasi-judicial cases if the person requesting such status demonstrates that s/he is substantially affected. Party status entitles parties to personally testify, present evidence, argument and witnesses, cross-examine witnesses, appeal the decision and speak on reconsideration requests, and needs to be requested and obtained during the case discussion before the CDB. An oath will be administered swearing in all persons giving testimony in quasi-judicial public hearing cases. If you wish to speak at the meeting, please wait to be recognized, then state and spell your name and provide your address. Persons without party status speaking before the CDB shall be limited to three minutes unless an individual is representing a group in which case the Chairperson may authorize a reasonable amount of time up to 10 minutes. Five days prior to the meeting, staff reports and recommendations on the above requests will be available for review by interested parties between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., weekdays, at the City of Clearwater, Planning Department, 100 S. Myrtle Ave., Clearwater, FL 33756. Please contact the case presenter, at 562-4567 to discuss any questions or concerns about the project and/or to better understand the proposal and review the site plan. Michael Delk Cynthia E. Goudeau, MMC Planning Director City Clerk City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748, Clearwater, FL 33758-4748 NOTE: Applicant or representative must be present at the hearing. A COPY OF THIS AD IN LARGE PRINT IS AVAILABLE IN OFFICIAL RECORDS AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES. ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY REQUIRING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING SHOULD CALL (727) 562-4093 WITH THEIR REQUEST. To learn more about presenting to Clearwater boards and City Council, go to http://cearwater.granicus.comNiewPublisher.php?view id=11 and click on "Resident Engagement Video." You can also check the informational video out from any Clearwater public library. Ad: 09/07/06 I FT,D2006-04024. 62 1411,11 AMSOUTH BANK FLORIDA ASSAD, KAREN K OASTALOS, KIMBERLY A 3000 GALLERIA TOWER STE 1600 1433 REGAL RD ASTALOS, MICHAEL A BIRMINGHAM AL 35244 - 2372 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2320 1381 RADIO RRD LITTLE EGG HARBOR NJ 08087 - 1009 BARRETT, NADINE L BAUER, ROBERT O JR PA BAY AREA ENDODONTICS CRIDER, RONNIE G PA 1429 REGAL RD 1550 S HIGHLAND AVE # A CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2320 1550 S HIGHLAND AVE # C CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2353 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2353 BEJARANO, ALFONSO BUDROW, LUCILLE E CAPRIO, MARIA L BEJARANO, NUBIA J 1432 REGAL RD 1513 BRAUND ST 1442 ROSE ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2321 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2309 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2325 CASON, PAUL D CENTRAL CHURCH OF CHRIST OF CHRISTODOULOU, MARY CASON, KAREN L CL 7031 RAVENGLASS LN 1500 S HIGHLAND AVE 1454 BELLEAIR RD CHARLOTTE NC 28227 - 4345 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2337 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2357 Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition COMMUNITY REFORMED CHURCH CURRENT OWNER Sondra Kerr, President, OF C 1443 ROSE ST P.O. Box 8204, 1430 BELLEAIR RD CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2324 Clearwater, FL 33758). CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2357 CURRENT OWNER CURRENT OWNER GRIFFIN INTNTL INC 1449 ROSE ST 7205 64TH WAY 186 BAYSIDE DR CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2324 PINELLAS PARK FL 33781 - 4027 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2501 HALE, SCOTT K HARKINS, LAWRENCE W III JAMESON, BERNARD A 2259 GLENMOOR RD S 1520 HIGHLAND AVE S JAMESON, ELLEN L CLEARWATER FL 33764 - 4922 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2337 1441 REGAL RD CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2320 Jay Myers JOHNSON, ROBERT W THE JORDAN HILLS PROF CTR CONDO 9170 Oakhurst Road, Suite 3B, 1521 BRAUND ST AS Seminole, FL 33776 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2309 1550 S HIGHLAND AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2353 JUETT, GREGG T JUKOFF, KENNETH E LM LOKEN REVOCABLE TRUST JUETT, JUDITH A 1456 JORDAN HILLS CT C/O LUVERN M LOKEN, THE 1466 HILLCREST AVE S CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2368 1536 S HIGHLAND AVENUE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2268 CLEARWATER, FL 33756-2337 LOCKHEART, JEFFREY M MALKE, TERESA L THE MARCHUK, MAX PO BOX 246 EMPIRE MANGEMENT TRUST MARCHUK, DORIS E RIPPON WV 25441 - 0246 1472 JORDAN HILLS CT 1436 ROSE ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2368 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2325 0 0 MARIANI, TIMOTHY K THE MC CLELLAN, GENE A MC LEAN, GERALD 1550 S HIGHLAND AVE MC CLELLAN, MARY L MC LEAN, CAROLYN r LEARWATER FL 33756 - 2353 1432 DUNCAN AVE 1508 BRAUND ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2451 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2310 MEDEIROS, BERNADETTE MILLER, BRIAN M MONTLE, LINDA R 1509 BRAUND ST MILLER, MARJORIE ARNDT, HELMUT CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2309 1461 NURSERY RD 1440 REGAL RD CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2391 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2321 MOON, RALPH E MURAWSKI, AGNIESZKA MURPHY, S INTRP INC MOON, PEGGY MURAWSKI, LESZEK 1498 BELLEAIR RD 1437 ROSE ST 1437 REGAL RD CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2357 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2324 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2320 NAURET, GEORGE M THE NEAL, ROGER L OPPLIGER, SCOTT CANAVAN, THOMAS THE 1478 JORDAN HILLS CT 1505 BRAUND ST 1092 44TH AVE NE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2368 BELLEAIR FL 33756 - 2309 ST PETERSBURG FL 33703 - 5240 PAPWORTH, HUGH POLETZ, TERESA A R L M HEATLHCARE MARKETING & 1516 S HIGHLAND AVE 1451 REGAL RD C 1486 BELLEAIR CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2337 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2320 CLELEARWATER FL L 33756 - 2357 REISINGER, SANDRA D RUBAII, JAWDET I RYAN, GREGORY S 1433 ROSE ST RUBAII, CAROL A RYAN, CHRISTINE L CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2324 1404 ROSE ST 1429 ROSE ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2325 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2324 SAPP, LAURIE E SCHNEIDER, LEONARD SHEMAKA, RONALD S SAPP, KENNETH G SCHNEIDER, DARLENE 1500 BRAUND ST 1436 REGAL RD 1428 REGAL RD CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2310 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2321 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2321 STRAUB, PAUL J STRAUB, PAUL J VAN WINKLE, RITA H STRAUB, LORRAINE J STRAUB, LORRAINE J 1448 ROSE ST 2224 KENT DR 2224 KENT DR CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2325 LARGO FL 33774 - 1014 LARGO FL 33774 - 1014 WHITSON, EDMUND S JR WILKES, A FRANK WILKES, WILLIAM B 231 WINDWARD ISLAND WILKES, C NANETTE WILKES, ESTHER P CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2326 1529 BRAUND ST 1533 BRAUND ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2309 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2309 WILKES, WILLIAM B WILKINSON, GEORGE S WILKES, ESTHER P WILKINSON, JANINE E 1536 S HIGHLAND AVE 1506 S FREDRICA AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2337 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2219 ):LpzooD• 0 40 tt ISLE, IS7L+ISa? 3,}k?? f i Y 1 WWII . S Cm.. 1 ' tswN . 1 .t.eee . C FT m m .. 41 u, At r a tj- r uW ' ? Ii tl i< a ? , a Q Q G S wp w1 $ ? 8 8 i @ . . ' I ? ? r? m ma YI? L " Al ' ? .w# .n N i w. r araut In? ' i T cc. tT. ? ? ? Y ? Nw ', i ^ e Yr r r r w m ar '? wt a ' 1LMDN 3 p ry i . ? r1 A .r ? ? V t! O V O, V ?l , O? t 'l ? i. p , m .r roI u a .. a F-IFT .T. t C r1 6f I 4-,-. UE r PV NUxeEM p D. - { { } Q A F k 1 ' 1 t 3 ? ? i { a f W? 4N.aN !! L { t ,Y I I , l 4 11 . J I? $ "d a Ya ijr. . ara J? 6T.Y id) gpgE - " w r I ` I i Y i ?r ?- at ? \ ? Y 2 at ? oAL 9 = a ? Y ., . .II Y IM ? i5r ,p, " ? , wt 1 yy t ul Yx ,.t Y i Y I Err t? =T 'iwl , . u .. . 1 E Clearwater PREPARED BY PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION ENGINEERING I GIB 100 S. MyRN Ave, Clawwater, FL 33750 Pk: (727)5021750, In: (727)526-4755 www.WCI*arwatlr.com mrAnr. ReeaNemYml er.nn..nnreer u. r<nar+.N.Yx nae Be a.Ab MIa.M B aAw.na x amwe..mgra rrYrdar mntOMNlrI n. ml.lrreht uY n. ea. rwe.ew..'Y`wawa.PYw.aa.wA.+l.. FWA rN.r lrx..rY ?.w..n Ox?Y, ?i.a.?illgy RYAS .mrp, iswNMml.rrreab? a wt.e(p.rwr el. bYlr .11x.xitWx W.. Prlrxmv., D.Op erc+.rwxx RYAS xl?uYrr'rxra?V eaxo.rx uro W Ye Nn n. Yr x npur N D 200 eat t ReWIaIALatTIYCTI Y)a •Y4 dwl. RNYNY WDa •Iw,MNNTOrIM1 R,bwN IW •RM 4.Wy R,pMY Mpi •lan D?NR RN.1.11 1 111. •YrY Nm.M aRCOO'owl"'"Y°w owaal'w~olm..m ren.w.m. w:aa -0-D- WYlnrwu.wM on ks"La-ftTs Fn Lm Damm T: wT•IdwYY.Rm?ttnwYixn.y, wuRw c. c.Y1..Y or..Yr. tN.wla.wmm a •e?r°1 .• R,rrlaa N. 6 Coy Owned Properly cum Apreemenl la Annex ?? L d f i t `° O - O egen R. ` AOct " T _ E, 1 - m,LJ ° SUB NUMBER (•- R.W 1. Pha) w x m. & °f [ , 0 BLOCK NUMBER F? I " O SUB PARCEL NU ' , US ER Iq1 erti PARCEL NUMBER JM&S) O n _ , " LAND HOOK (COMMON OWNERSHIP) ;w O t>f N u `µ= O a t .. PLATTED SUBDNGIONBOUNDARY of I L a COUIRVIaG11WAY D a ID STATE HIGHW Y Q O w A ' ? I.n A.. i w I Y 11 U.B. HIGHWAY { 0 m 1 m S ?5d?i O 0 Y g, 1 wu Outside City of Clearwater 'a I Zoning Atlas a .. _.. _.. .. L L etW a .._.._. _.._.._.. _. ................ a 1 May 2, 2006 SW 71I of 23-19.15 w 3 323 ? 15A RECEIVED SEP 1 3 2006 PUNNING DEPARTMENT Cmr OF cLEMWAT R Wayne Wells city of Clearwater Planning Department RE- FLD2006-04024 Office building for Vern Loken 1 532 S Highland Ave e of the We are writing this letter in support of the above referenced residence project. We are aadversely, rWe w ill not proposed building project, and feel that it will not effect actually see much of the building as it will be screened from us by a fence and s that ? ieg. thThe e building, being only one story, is similar to the heights of other houses a store neighborhood. We feel that this building and its use will be an improvement for the site and an asset rather than a liability. Sincerely, Name` Signature: ?, 1 r P 41 ?o ?? k?.?v Address: Date: Wayne Wells City of Clearwater Planning Department FEE: FLD2006-04024 Office building for Vern Loken 1 532 6 Highland Ave RECEIVED SEP 13 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWAIM of the n a dare aware ?Ve are writing this letter in support of the above referenced project. We will not proposed building project, and feel that it will not effect our re de by a fence and dswill n , The actually see much of the building as it will be screened from houses a d stores that are in the building, being only one story, is sirniiar to the heights of other nei9hbarhood. We feel that this building and its use will be an improvement for the site and an asset rather than a liability. Sincerely, Name: ----- Signature: Address: Gate: //?D? o M LONG RANGE PLANNING DFVEI.OPMENT REVIEW C ITY OF C LEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT POST OFPIci, Box 4748, CI.FARWATFR, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL. SFRVICIiS BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTL.F AVFNUE, CI.EARWATF.R, FLORIDA 33756 TI:1.EPHONF (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4865 September 20, 2006 Mr. Jay Myers 9179 Oakhurst Road, Suite 3B Seminole, FL 33776 RE: Development Order - Case FLD2006-04024 1524, 1532 and 1536 South Highland Avenue Dear Mr. Myers: This letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to Section 4-206.D.6 of the Community Development Code. On September 19, 2006, the Community Development Board reviewed your request for Flexible Development approval (1) to permit a 16,548 square-foot office building in the Office (O) District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 12.92 feet.(to pavement), reductions to the side (north) setback from 20 feet to 12.42 feet (to building) and from 20 feet to 11.5 feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (south) setback from 20 feet to zero feet (to pavement) and from 20 feet to six feet (to dumpster enclosure) and a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 feet to 12 feet (to building), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Program under the provisions of Section 2-1004.13; (2) to permit nonresidential off-street parking in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District with a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 20 feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 feet to 7.17 feet (to pavement) and deviations to allow the structures (pavement) within the front and side setbacks and to place landscaping on the inside of the buffer fence along the north and west sides of the property, as a Residential Infill Project, under the provisions of Section 2- 204.E; and (3) to permit reductions to the landscape buffer requirements along South Highland Avenue (east) from 15 feet to 12.92 feet (to pavement), along the north side from 12 feet to 11.5 feet (to pavement) and along the south side from five feet to zero feet (to pavement) and to permit a reduction to required interior landscaping from 12 percent to 10.69 percent, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. The Community Development Board (CDB) APPROVED the application with the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Conditions of Approval: Findings of Fact: 1. That the 1.687-acre subject property is located on the west side of South Highland Avenue, approximately 400 feet south of Nursery Road; 2. That the 1.456-acre southern portion of the overall property is located within the Office (O) District and the Residential/Office General (R/OG) Future Land Use Plan category; 3. That the 0.231-acre northern portion of the overall property (northern 70 feet) is currently located within unincorporated Pinellas County, is being annexed into the City of Clearwater and is being assigned the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District and the Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Plan category (see ANX2006-05016, item F1 on this September 19, 2006, CDB agenda); PRANK I111MARU, MAYOR JOnN Dm;\N, Cot Nc:n. n:,?n1i:R I IOrr I I:? ni:rON, COC Nc:n.w:Nmn" 13n.1. )ONSO:.N, CO11NC:ii.nntantr:R CARI.F:N A. Prrr.RSeN, COITCII.\Ih:\11w1l 'T"Q( W. 1?MPLOYMENT AN) ArriRn1ATNP: Ac'r[ON I:MPLOVHR" September 20, 2006 Myers - Page Two 4. That the overall property is an "L" shape with the southern leg extending away from South Highland Avenue and the design of the building and parking areas generally mirror this land configuration; 5. That the front property line along South Highland Avenue jogs or deviates seven feet east to west approximately midpoint; 6. That the proposal includes the construction of a 16,548 square-foot, one-story office building within the Office (O) District, with an associated nonresidential parking lot on the north side within the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District; 7. That reductions to setbacks and perimeter buffers to pavement and building are proposed as part of the office development; 8. That the proposed installation of a six-foot high solid fence adjacent to existing detached dwellings will provide increased screening and buffering to the detached dwellings; 9. That the proposed office development will transition land use intensity from the more intense commercial uses across South Highland Avenue to the detached dwellings to the west; 10. That the development proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 11. That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Conclusions of Law: 1. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-1001.1 and 2-1004 for the Office District and Tables 2-201.1 and 2-204 for the LMDR District of the Community Development Code; 2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Sections 2-1004.B and 2-204.E of the Community Development Code; 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals ds per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code; and 4. That the development proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria as per Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code. Conditions of Approval: 1. That approval of this application be subject to the annexation of the northern portion of the site under Case No. ANX2006-05016; 2. That a Unity of Title be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permits; 3. That the final design and color of the building must be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the CDB, and be approved by Staff, 4. That any future freestanding sign be a monument-style sign a maximum six feet in height, unless part of a Comprehensive Sign Program, designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building; 5. That a six-foot high solid fence be installed along the west and north property lines adjacent to detached dwellings and along the north property line adjacent to the property at 1520 South Highland Avenue; 6. That the maximum height of the fence with the 25-foot front setback area adjacent to South Highland Avenue be three feet in height; 7. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the site and landscape plans be amended to indicate the installation of a six-foot high solid fence along the west property line adjacent to 1451 Regal Road and additional trees, in a location and number acceptable to the Planning Department, within the retention pond area to aid in screening the west side of the office building; and 8. That all Parks and Recreation fees be paid prior to the issuance of any permits. September 20, 2006 Myers - Page Three Pursuant to Section 4-407, an application for a building permit shall be made within one year of Flexible Development approval (September 19, 2007). All required certificates of occupancy shall be obtained within two years of the date of issuance of the building permit. Time frames do not change with successive owners. The Community Development Coordinator may grant an extension of time for a period not to exceed one year and only within the original period of validity. The Community Development Board may approve one additional extension of time after the community development coordinator's extension to initiate a building permit application. The issuance of this Development Order does not relieve you of the necessity to obtain any building permits or pay any impact fees that may be required. In order to facilitate the issuance of any permit or license affected by this approval, please bring a copy of this letter with you when applying for any permits or licenses that require this prior development approval. Additionally, an appeal of a Level Two approval (Flexible Development) may be initiated pursuant to Section 4-502.B by the applicant or by any person granted party status within 14 days of the date of the CDB meeting. The filing of an application/notice of appeal shall stay the effect of the decision pending the final determination of the case. The appeal period for your case expires on October 3, 2006 (14 days from the date of the CDB meeting). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Wayne M. Wells, Planner III, at 727-562-4504. You can access zoning information for parcels within the City through our website: www.mvclearwater.com/2ov/dei)ts/nlannin2. Sincerely, Michaeel P Planning Director S: (Planning DepartmentlCD BIFLEX (FLD)Ilnactive or Finished Applications lHighlandS 1524, 1532 & 1536 Highland Office Complex (O) - ApprovedlHighland S 1524, 1532 & 1536 Development Order.doc ~ ~°a~_ o~~a~ r~ ~ ~ ~ a i` j Y o. 7 N 27. o 9 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~a 3~ 0 , ' SECTIQN~23; TC)WN5HI1~29 SOU1'FI; RANGE 15 EAST; LOT51 THROUGH 11; COT5 63 THROUGH`59; ALCIN ` 'S 13~OGK "B°, AL3O ONE-HALF OF VACATED SCOTT STREET AND bACA7ED BRAUND STREET, ACOTIA OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS qF PINELLAS COUNTY, ~ > -t-,,-;,--r-. _ ~ HEIQHTS, AS RECORDED-1N PLAT BOl7K 10, PAGE 101 ~~E~E I~ QB ~ ®~T~E I+K'I ~ r-I-T-->r r ' Ik- ` F~LIRIDA, LESS AND EXCEPT THE EAST 7,00 r'EET FOR ROAD RI®HTyOF-WAY QN LOTS 8 THROUGH 11 ,I; ~ + ~ 1\l, X 6POVf "Slr il,. ' Y S ~ I -.K ' 51 5' S'I ~ LI. ~I _ T[ ~ `I il< AlA i ••I ~ I ~ ONLI', THIS PROPERTYAF'PEARSiOBEINFLOOD2gNE"X". ~x~~~ ~ ~ ~ p 'I_ ELAND 6Q f` = I anuAAL Y.. y. y_~. , o vAAN ~ - d ~""J eIA111I rAJU pr„ r~ ~ S'- uestLakrN'NAaliaO $ ~ ~ ` + ~ ~ ~ v > Plara - ~i i I a! = r AND ~ AJt ~ ~ ~ iV ® ~ ~ ~ G : ~ I[IICI e I o q 1;1• N ~ «II N('t y ~ PIFRf~ G' IPu I, r I I VI , . u - ~_t..-1,:, i< tr ~ $1 'f ~ I•_- I ,I _ h~au. - nl " 1'~ U ryl ~s r`r I x 1+. Y I' II_AAl_MUC_1H dl ~',.ii f' : I ! 111..ti'I' ' « a ~ r, _ u M = - ° RXAXKIIRI (t ) -I ! ~I • I - w • SECTIUN 23 TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH RANGE 15 EAST LOTS 1Z 13 AND THE SOUTH 2O.Q0 FT OF LOT 14 ' a ~ ~ ~ ~ t ` IA L.K"W ~ ` F - L,.. I' ' ° : i zl W ' P a I u. I ~ GUVIO < L. Dt L' S1 ~ rum ; `""'r of l[CN I 1..1hE. k~INBOW i_ - ~ °I_~ RA hbUM DA _Y 1, 1 I 1 1 I . ~ ' r ' ANNA°R Pao sINJUAh ar ~ ; I BLOCK B SCOTIA HEIDHTS AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1p PA 1 F TH PU LIC .11 II•H~I hONhlll ,I _ , , a~ ~ ; ,e I : ~ ~ I t 1 GE 4, 4 E B RECORDS OF ~ T - - - I5 coDRr : 651 d = sr ''sA - II' BLVD' ' PINEII'AS LxgUNTY, FLORIDA. z ROC R Si Clen OAks PoC[PS II S1 i0 _ _ ~ ~ F04FN4 \ MI IN: Iq: D 1\U ~ Ay( P~ ~9 ry T~'` ss. ` 19 A/ AAA888 biC LLd 8 V iy ~ ~ $ f~ 1UAHE --_..Sf w u 1DRNFX SI CoI[ CoUtse ~ 315 ~ ' ' tihli > z a ~ Si ~ . P~A~ ~ o ~ ' - ,1 ~-}-z - _-AUPN[P. SI yl ClrP...Ii RX[A~ BSI ¢IJ tUAntA~ 4) to - S PIiJEY ~i +~9 °J ~ I I .-t--_. _°ol 'i % - IN(:Slw 51 'm Y ~ I PIXf__ i-$I z ~ ~ M~ARI~OH ~ c i - ~ mt s+ \ ~ si u>`> i1Sr . ~ ^e~.Al ~ Y•r.: > ~ ' ~ 1ASMINI WAY' ~ I° z ^ IASMINC R'AY bmm~aSMlk( aAY o C DYDDX DR ~V~E ~~{q~ ~~Epq~ ~IE!p~~ 0 I W ~ IASNIN! W AIISIONI ~ ~ : ° N ~J LBaQ Yd~ Atv' S' ° t < W r ~ 11..<I'MACNDUA Da ~ c' Ct AI un sr s i- ; ~ , , . , . _ _ _ . , _ _ . 1`y ~ ~ 8 OJT AGhOJA OA ~ MAGNOLIA DA , t ~ I y ~J NMOOP[ [ . tA4~N I _ t~ h YJihOlll W, Q .Ihp$iCA! aAGNDIIA DA NI(XGlll O( b 101US i PAIH N W PAIH~ i~ ~ a 'pP• ~ N ~ lOFUS PAPN „JI? ~ ~ ~ ~ M16AOl¢ ~ ~ NA(NOIIA i , - W r - ° s ra~ :I ~ DUDIUGH SI IA(s oN[ _ ~ > ' al rrtfe` CA a nta5 aA ~ ' I +iJEFFGHDA Sl s PAIx¢y, Jf=KOAOS o~SI ~ OuIIA~( o cA ° ICIIpap$ - °°o I 11011 ~ r.. : ~ °a °o c °o° r " 4~r z .'SI- of I n 11F,QRD ih' ; #kfNDAlI ~ 00 0 ' ' C XFRAL SI z D I a,. ~I ~ AARYo AVE ~ .r BARAY - E~ 1-- „i: PCAfCCA_ Og a 1 ADDT~IAx o ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , 'f«Nn , I uscOtPm Sr N ~ i ; USCOIA JRD , Il'~' • ` r l o ; SANOA~ . OP r CS u Si aINEP IFS I u O ~I',1,Y1 (IIII US a r - - ° EUGLNA St' ' - ~ E4I I - frn.'nz A7ILTOM STS ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 II It I •PD• c;, I cuJ -l S(YCa DE _ t,`.t%v, LL.IF ~ Il a ° - r Q . I ...L (emu , ~ t 'I~ ~ ~ ° ~ \ muwA aD Y ' . aN[In Dap w .-ca '--'1=--- ;1... ~..J I.>~mao LAKEVIEW FA~n~z RD I x ~ r85 0~ - 48H - k K[vuiv' _ADJ m _ .4981-` _ ' m, ti~ ~ ~ _ 'JYAIFNCIA > Sl t ~ a { , «yr~4VdghlT ~ I~` ~ S > F NOX~M-a{AUY AXx DA ~ _u Q a L[MER~.,K Df. °I ° I 1 _ ~A ~a ~Petk , s INplth 11- LtAlhl : A;.ll'.u:Sl•t' f.J ~ o I C'~!FGhI ~~,vv sDD,X sl 1'; : ~ o ' _ , - W aiKlll NK ~ m~, : - \ OJl ~ g`x! kd P~AI~ / P~®P ~ lL]E ~~A~1~,fi~~ ~ ~ .'TIA'`Li i~,E:' ..ii;'~, I Q °(NISUNA, 51.:' SATSUMA c r• PIHCWDOI J DNi ~ ~ ~I al = ~'I \ \ Sf . rr'4^ C `il^~I IA(YI ° ~ ~ . - ~ n'I r o u1Flx1 cl s ~ s '-0IPLDMA o'. t' W ` b OP~NC! SI ''ANA$ID( .I:_DNI i °o ml I-..--- ~ ~ . Iii i 2~ ,i pl{Ah'G[ _?SI ~ ~ I c 3 u'll _ I i r'f r' I cjENV- IpMt1~ I4I 1~1/+Ae T1f~yVI P f ttLL~1. [ aE(Ya f 51 ~ LL ~ INPe[l - °I o 8Jl 8 `iN b6 11Gi. tl s °13 PAiMWOOD ~ _ PfAA6 c: _ I t=>-- IIHC 1 Un .Y,I P[NNY ?I{A SIAHCCI DF ~ , N Si_r^_+;UUI IA Si ufl. 1 vl :ti ,I-- = 11M_Pll ~ +rH111N000 Da'. ~ ~ ~ UGIE lA ` ~ I'~~ ~`xAYV t« ST 1. I ~ W CIIkUS SI Y - i I ° ~ AY '~VuT R 54... AINA ~ ~ ~LA1 iV !L Ko[loH Puk w - lPUIINDOD DR ¢ I NUAI lA i III . ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ pIR'IEN' a VU LEMON 51 ~ ----,-~--z! ° z~-- - ~ a ~AI~ ~ ~'A~~ ~lEI~YIE~ A~~. C) ~C nr,u+M~ o ix ~ - RRON'DOD z~ a R[UCOAI CA' - a' m 4' ~xOYUI' _ S(ABRCl1L Sl_= 61'_o L'{hf ~ p. FOA tIR r' ~ 4~I '''~~lurtl TT~ ~ ; 51 0 36 ~ ~ - - a ~I ~ ~V~ ~ , :l%NN ~ AvF ~ 'a0xs[iSY o An CAP ~ R ASERY ` C' _ ~I HD i ' tNNpn ~ aDSi sl . 4)4'' s ~ ;I.' - ' ~VA~IE~ ~Al ~ ~ lE~~~~~ ~ ®~V S'.j~ ~ ~ sr ~ ~...I 0` L` uo~Vi \ 1.~; _ w uxtl.~c~..~.,"Ihfi[i~°ycuf,tl.r ~ lh tiN OW 9L, NILAI •NE ~ 1 bt'H ? I~+titJ m~ 'I Ji ' CAAAVI WAD I l$e S r~,N ~i.T'L". ,iSl z- -'7T' - rl_e`rAle - l__.._.. HO xn ':.1 - ~ s.url~~' V ,,,f~ I° _ ni , ~I ~ , . nA I syiL~us~ro _ v rwtN , sl HGarrxc0 ~ i 1A 1.. ~ ~ ._l, °I ; > JI W z i I zi ..t '•1~, ~ r I i L~.. ~ . I.. L•.,, 5.. ~I ' - ,.`~E ~~yv~ _ - ' ~ f fiOWAip ~1 ~1 Yn en I II< - - V ILtl 1 M WIi INDCV kI. ^NPI - ' =I ~ gl ~ - : ~ ;i ~ BELLEAIA - AD IL. ;;I , . , _3'.' P / ~ ~~~t~~ ~ w .i tl -•h i1c `l :IIMMONS lIk". ~ JIB `I~:.. cAlAPeul>f? Ir-__ I • - - _ ! I-; 464 .J, ,.1~ - _ .I ~ ~ ~Y~ ..S I ~I::~°• W UPI M1II ~l , I SMIIH SY ~I-.~ ~ Fm SIiW~ yUt,,. it ~ a~~l.. ;Slt~~ux h tj '-..{M nfSt,~ eext loi 'I ~G ~ l -V r-' v ul' hth _A LA ~ uRN FFPK DP j ~a r NIiA Nr, ; 651 ~ I a > ~ IlvAetrcl:Q I' --`1 °1l l "'I: Y•lcJ., _ ~ I Pllh'1_y'Oi I, ~I(0' 1'D_ _ J IDANFIN[01, !'GiK PARK ~R~~~ I ~ i. r. ~~_i [1 •D,~Nt:, If f I ['S1XA1fOR ON UN I f..( 4 .I ~~._._..J.,.. -I ~~~IE~ ~~P~®~T~I~IE~V~~ ~ COQ c I ~ , 1 00.NOAll lA I .;j; 'I _epa N: ~I, ~I ,I'I~eIGRDYL ~h'.pR:.J.~ Jf....^t.!:!_:,~i' -1 I I. - ° _ <I-;~1 t 1 ~ P. , CxrN i S I, I,J ~ - i,_,pAM`UAl[ lA~°~ , . 1 ~ I w., :UN 1 VAF f 'III1.( ;.I I ~ `I S ~ p0 T l .All r'I :I• I I i ~ II I ~Iri' t` ~ .:1'i' I E ~ _ T A~ A. D d ~ o - ~ ORIGINAL O RECENED I AUG 23 2Q~~ ~IT~ PLAN ~PP~QV~Q CASE# zoos-n Z~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE s ,i ' CITY OF CLEARWATER p~C PATE (o CD9 DATE pZ i 1 SiGNATl1RE ~,/o~ DATE y'I?. N~ E zo b~ o• 20• I c~aP~lc scar r • 20 ~~a ~ MORTF9 _ _ ~'G 30.00' - - I a ~ x~ ~ _ . 9°~ , aP VACATED BRAUND STG2EE~ o / e i ~ 54 N 10~ ~ ~ I s"~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ PUNK TREES p rn I~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ I I I w ~ ~ ~ i h 0d 56 55 53 i 52 151 ( 50 I 49 I 48 I 47 ( 46 45 45 44 43 42 ~ i i i i i i ~~j I <00~ II b~~ I I ~I , N'ouY I I I I I I ~ I ~z~'~.b. / I O I I ~ r i ~ ~ ~ ~ , . ~ ~ i • Ss I ~ ~e'arnus ~ d h~' I r ~ ~ o ~ I ~ ~ ~b / I ~ ( I I58~. I I I R 112" ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 32~'~LO. SCI 2~ ° I X423 0 I ~ z~3~~L.. 245.E C.L. 7~4C1. 4~5 •"9~ 6~7'~ CROSS 175.0 y1•,Y~a'c.~. I GL,. C L. C.L. o fi I o \ ~ I ~ ~ I I I ~ ~ ^,s~HOLLY I I I I I I / o ~p~VI~ ,-yp g, HOLLY ,p p 0 I `7' I - ~ • ~IJ ~ ~'V I A'~ S 3 ~ ~AC~DA I ~ o L.~ 2® L..O~ 1 J 9' O o~+. ;i U I I I I I I e °C'L. I ~ I I I 0~ ~ I I I I I'`~ I {I~L.O. 17'~L.O. W I I 1 ~ 2 3 ~ 4 5 6 17 I 8 9 10 11 ~i 12 ~ 12 ~ I 1:3 ~4~~~L:. 16 , i i`~ i i i ~ i i t i i i i i i i i ~ ~o ~.a . ~'c, - i ~ , i i i b o ~ ~ I ~IG~LP p 3~~L0 ~ ~ 9 ~,~a ~ I{~~ e I d I o ~i~n L0 ol3"L!J I' ~ f~ G ~ d ~I ~ ° o~ 22~ L.O. I I" . ~•15~LOp ~a FCM FOUND CONC MONUMENT FIR FOUND IRON ODe, L ~ ° ~ ~ I ~.G J9 I r I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ i I~ I~ ` FIP FOUND IRON IPE Oars ~ I I a I I i I I I ~~G I ~ (trl~ FIELD MEASU MENT I (P) PLAT MEASU MENT . O I . 0 pv~ I ~ O.R. IOFFICU?L RE RD ~ I ~ I I I ~I I ~ I ~ c+ti R!W ARIGHT OF WA 8 Z ,~~.o. I I I X01 mot` off' ~ ~ i o~ i i i ~ i i i i i i t ! ~Q~ SPOT ELEVA 0 • ~ ~ ~ ORIGINAL RECENED oAKTREE (IZE AS NOTED ~ 305.00_ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ AUG 23 2006 iR 112° ® PINE TREE (IZE AS NOTED) 4x4" ~ ~'~00' ' ~ PALM TREE (SIZE AS NOTED) c~NpF ~°EPARTMENi ~ 2d~C.M.P. 2d' CMP - LE,c -C. I.,E. ~RWAiER o 15~~ L.O. - - - - IE.=x.70' I:E.= - _ 1-.E: 56.6A 57.3 ~ ~s' EXISTI pG~N~q Y / 56.44 EXISTING DRNEW l,Y .~XISTMG ~ ~e~, - e {60 .o. TREE (TYPE 8~ SIZE AS NOTED) ti 0 NE No. 727.9 PRd,1tCT Tffl,E 5-3 X06 ~~Cll`f ~0 3g~ HIG~~ A:ND ~FFI~~ ,~w~~e~p~ s%o ,~o~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - ~OMP~LEX g PREPA~d FOR F~~GF~LAND~~ A~V~NIl~ Mr.~ VERr~t ~ i,ONEN scALE ~ oRAwN av: ~r Na w ~1~O,SEAS10~6 LAA"~, No.403 ~ ° ~V 2 °j ° ~ ~LLEA'IF3, FL°: 337 - - ~ y .TEL:443'~ 1172 //~~~~++DA//TE~~ f/~~CC ,loe~jN'o~f ~ ~ . l IlY/4~l 1'1 ~5~1['ll~ls cu~rrc ~ W ~ C v IF 2 4~ DRAWNG: EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN BEG 9 ~ %kl ~ 4073 "GF SQL cs_ OF 2LU~2 /pF 1-A - TN'k? - 'aril?4}nl'$1~rg.?.e:?;y v, • ALEX J. PANIK ' APPROVA'L~ r XY Coordinate Pond 1268POND W Y Taot. i$i•530 , , , , . ,52' ~ 1 ~ti VERN LOKEN nAT E $ N h`~ h~ d• h ~ ~ ~ a N TNSTALL 20 LF, DF 6 UNDERDRATN , CLEANDUTS WITH CDNC, GQLLARS 1 E SCIR 1/2" ~ t SCIR 1/z f + h , ~ 00 LB6423 30~ ~ m. 1 ~ RTH Na _ h LB6423 m h ~ r zo• b• a• za• o. .120' ~ T,C).B. EL. = 5500 9 L.. ; ~ r~aPwc sca~E r - zo• T~IJ.B, EL. = 55.00 h RETENTION ' o i I ~ 7 L.o. 16 SIL" SCREEN PER. • PRGPGSED $ ~ r ~ - rr , c~ - j F, .Q.T. INDEX ND. 102 CGNTRGL STRUCTURE . $"~.o N PROPOSED GRAVITY WALL WITH; , GRATE EL. = 54,41 2x4 GDNC, PAD 50,50 ; STEEL GUARDRAIL 55,00 EROSION CDNTRUL~,. ~ I ~ . ,SITE DATA NO ENVIRONMENTALLY UNIQUE AREAS~* INV EL, = 48,30 2'x4' DNCrPAD • TNV. EL. = 50,5 T,W, EL, = 55,50 ° RDSIDN CONTROL ,I • T.W. EL. = 55,50 - ~ + ~ E•P, EL, = 55.37 _ ~ ~ T,W, 55,50 o v E.P. EL. 55,00 ~ h, O ~ ~ Land Area - 73a4QEo7S.F.1168Tacres 3 INV. EL. = 50,50 h Existing Unit to beRemoved - N/A Proposed Unit - One (1) LIMIT QF WQRK 7D o . h ~ ~ ~ ti I Gross Sgaaze Feet - 1648 S.F. BE 1 FENT FROM ®Ll . + T,w, .55,50 ~ • . Pro,~osed Parking - 61; spaces; including 3 handicapped In 6 t PRQP, LTNE ~ • Required PazkinE - Office Use - 50 Spaces (3/.1,000 S,F.) 48 0 ~ Non-Vehiculaz PavedArea - 19,624.80 S.F. (includes building) Vehiculaz Area - 31,172.40 S.F. r '55,16 l O _ 31' 55.64 0 . ~ h ~ / f o ~ T.C. EL, - 5686 • " Pervious Area - 22;68815 S.F: (includes pond) l ~ - E,P, EL. = 54.95 ~ fir,. / ` ~ ,.yam -6.330 Landscaying - See "L-1" PRaPGSED GRATE INLET (N N ~J ~ ~ -2U.0 -10:0 O.C 10.0 Y0.0 3C.0 10.0 .50.0 bO.D 10.0 6C.0 55.46 r cu f o.n ~o.o eo.a Easement - See "Plat Book 10; Page 10 of Plrceilas County" ' GRATE EL, = 54,92 - ~ ~ . ' Mean Roof Heieht - - 3° l INV, EL~ = 48,30 w 12' r I ~ Windows 95 Output forBRNisHere. I~ervious Surface Area - 70.30% Impervious . , Floor Area_Ratlo - Building is 22,94°~ of Site h 5~_6H 4 55,05 56.52 ( ~ o ( ~ h ,I~ ~ + i ~ . - ; f; ~~~TEEt. ' GUARD E~41 h' ~ i~p~\ i , 4 INSTALL Sl L.F. DF 12 PVC C-900 AT - _ h p ~ 0 h ~ ~ ° 52 ^ O~~ T.C. EL. - 55.61 • • `o ~ 11 - ~',s LLY /GRADE n d ~ p ; Sa p - ; E,P. EL. _ •55,12 ~ ' , ' 20 0 / T,C, EL, - 57,00 - E.P. EL. - 56.50 . W w to ~ . TOP OF BANK EL =56.00 TOP OF WALL 0.59 ~ ~ • EL,- 56.00 • aim°- 55 ' P 56 50 W v ' 1 .12 ~ • ~ CLEANDUT ~ _._.__.____.._-EX]'ST1NG~.__..~__......._._..,_. .,._ffi'Efi~f~t3 coivcRlrrE THIS AREA z ~ . ~ w . ~ _I~ • ; , v u'0~ ~ , v ,f ( TDP EL.= 57.00 g ~ ~ ~-GRADE.-~-=-:Y;_..... _._..M____,;.__ 55 h.E. - 54,00 T,C, EL, = 58,98 ~ -..._..._.._...._..._v._. ~ I i h • T,C~ L, 57,00 NEW 6 SaLID PVC ~ ~ ~ wAU. E,P, ~L, = 58,42 ~ , ` ~avl. ' S2 S ~ h ~ . ~ B,C, EL. = 56.50 • FENCE ~L[]NG LGT ~a~ h i 0-• e ~ 5 0 ,.-z, t 8,4 , ~ _.~o _ • ~ w ~ / a LINE ~ ' HGTIOM._EL= 5_Q:SD 51 ,~ti T,C, EL, = 58,00 51 r l- o .56 00 ` ' ~ Y h ?NEW 6 SELID PVC h ---~a._ E,P, EL, = 57,50 ~ . - ~ ~ ~ Q b WQDD FENCE TQ BE, l FENCE ALGNG LQT • Q • 56.84 U m LTNE q , , _ 48 2 w u Ts / STEM WALL 1 25" Lam..- ~ POND SECTION "A A" • ~ • v~ 57.40 / 57.6 ~ 57,60 SCIR~,112" , I ~ ' - CQNSRUCTICJN l ~ o LB64~3., T,C, EL, = 58,00 SCALE I-ICRZ . I„ = to ~ ( 55,42 J,. , , 57,20 ~o ( TD BE ' cu L.o. 4 RAIN • LINK FENCE _ _ w _ 17500 p _ N ~ RT H - - :E TE_ BE R__ EVED~~O „ E,P, EL, = 57,50 vERZ. I - 5 A. v, rl~~r~' ~l - 18 -0 24 0 ~ ' FLOD ELEV, 57 0 4„ 7„°~, ,.e5~~ B.o~ GENERAL NOTES 0 2 AC ;~'os: • CHERRY LAUREL I ~ LAUREL' HIGHLAND OFFICE COMPLEX • = 56 2 , A ` I h UNITS. ( avbraoo ~ ~ T.C. EL. .7 U ~ • • ~ ~ 73' - 9~ JOB NUMBER: 1268.05 ~ ' E.P, EL. - 56.22 Q h 55,91 h~. , ~ 58 W' TOP EL,= 57 00 _ APRIL 26, 2006 7~2. i LE• =~`•55~00 j, " 20 SETBACK - _ 1: ALL ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON THE NAVD 1988 DATUM.' CONTOUR INTERVAL: ONE FOOT (1'). o W ~ 7; 9 HOLLY - - . -~--s CLEANDU` CLEANQUT ~ - ~ 2, ~ALLDIMENSIONSAREAPPROXIMATE,SUBJECTTOFIELDSURVEYANDFINALCONSTRUCTION. ° p ~ INS TDP EL.= P RA ~F RD R CT DI TAP EL, 57,6. / , ~ I,E, _ X6,00 . ~ sc¢ I ~ 3, THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION SHALL LOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. T.C. EL. - 57,14 ~ 2 '1 0 o D POND " I .TER. T ( _ I W D G T,~ E,P. EL, = 56,64 ~ ~O:• °~,~r: • i~ h~ h~ ~ -a_., ~8` ~ 132 ~ M,., ~ - ap ~ \ ~ 4, ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE, TAKEN FROM COUNTY ATLAS SHEETS, "AS-BUILT' PLANS, AND FLQOR ELEV~ 58,3 ssio HOLLY ` ^,.t,.,o w W "•t~013 p 8`,10' Oqk ~ ~ • ~ .FIELD INFORMATION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO 56.02 .<d;~~: . , , ~ U ~ JACARANDA ~I- 4, Oa ~ CONSTRUCTION. FL~C1R ' LEV, 59,0 I l L ~ ..r,.x.., Z 'o. :,,.;t; , W . T.C. EL.' = 58, 7, • i _ `~3' 5. WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF CLEARWATER. ~ h { ° C T t- ~ E.P. EL, = 57,42 INSTALL 243 L.F. OF 18 R, .P. A ' z S ,L, = 57,42 A fi. BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY ALLIED SURVEYING: z ~ H r 0,25 /GRADE w ~ ; •A + 5725 ~ I 7. EXISTING SITE DATA: ^ • : ~ 58,92 ~ I • 12' Oak TOTAL OWNERSHIP:.6560 ACRES. r' ~ v ~ ~ c~,ct QS w 3 ¢ • + ~ ~ ' ~ D ~ , ~ ( , LA G H 59,00 T , H T .3 U ~ h , S h 0 5 5 1 , ,q s Q . . • • • ~ ,~'W ~ e ~ 8. WATER SYSTEM AND SEWER SYSTEM INSTALLATIONS SHALL• BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH. THE CITY OF CIEARWATER ~ ~ ~ , u SPECIFICATIONS. ` T,C~ EL. - 57.32 W ~ . • • p c ~p z I ' 5833 q: . E.P, EL. = 56,82 t_~ p CLEAN~DUT : ••p . . a ~ •.a , : W 9. ALL CONSTRUCTION TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITYOF CLEARWA7ER REGULATIONS. • 0~ o i • 10, CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE STRAW BALES OR SILTATIONS SCREENS DURING CONSTRUCTION TO CONTROL EROSION AND - - -PLA`~ltER PLANTER : ,s , I Dc ~ I ~ f - T,C, EL, = 58,06 SEDIMENTATION, . ~ .o.~ tea: a ' I ; ~ ~ E,P, EL, = 57,56 11, EXISTING SITE DATA: VACANT-FORMER NURSERY , 22' ~ A h~ / 2'-Q" ~ O 0 0 I ~ • ~ ~ N p ` ~ LLJ TOTAL AREA ..7.~~ T $.F..._..................100.00°Jo~ Q~ I ~ C, EL. _ 57,90 ~ N ti _ o .e~ ~ ~ ~r"'~~ E.P. EL. - 5740 03 ~ ~ ` ~ ~ O20° OAK 12. PROPOSED SITE DATA:. , ~n~ :D ~ ~ `Q0. DUMPSTER • , ' ° r.; ' -8 o PRGPQSED INLET BUILDING`. 16,548.OOS.F. (22s4°i°) ' 57,66 - ~ 1 aD~usT 2 ~ + ~ HIGH PRINT , TQP GF GRATE PAVING: 34,249.20S.F. (47.48%) f . 57,56. POND: 5,160:00 S.F. (7.15%) 57,32 Q~ EL,= 5700 PERVIOUS (Green): 17,529~S,F, (23~l0) ORIGINAL TNSTALL 34 L,F, DF 18 R.C.P. AT 57.40 2 h ~ • wnrtrR LINE : 58,92 ( , Z ~ I h To Avoi 58.68 ~ _ T 0,5 /GRADE GRADE d- TNV, EL, = 5450 .........................R~cI;IVED 0,25 % GRADE. h 57,42 p p o INSTALL 302 15 R~C~P, A TOTAL AREA: - - 73,486 7S.F. (100.OD%) _ - - I NEW SAN, MANHOLE ~~t PAIN _ - ..,b,° 0,94 % GRADE 42`~~ 2 _8 ~ 13. FAR =22,94S.F.; IsR=D.7D AUG 231006 MANHOLE C 4' DIAMETER > _ ` ~ ~ 2a P HIGH POINT d' • 1,40 / GR DE N RIM EL, = 57,20 '-o N DP~SED WATER LINE 58.68 25` SETBACK - .68 SIGH + . ~ PR , INV, EL. - 47 ~ IREj HYDRANT t 58.56 , 14. PARKING REQUIRED: b0 SPACES (office use). • . • . PLANNING pEpA~EM, ~ s ~ ~ - ~ CITY OF CL RIANG E r~• , , ' ~ h ~ I D,I, , NE o EW h h .'p ~ , ` 15. PARKING PROVIDED: 61• SPACES (including 3Handicapped). ~ ~WAiER I o T,C, EL, = 58,20 _ $6 .GRATE EL•= 5.5 LE.=53. - I • GRATE EL. = s5,9o h ~ ~ TDEWAL PROPOSED SIGN . , m 4' cu 1D~ o E,P, EL, = 5770 . ? 8, ALL UTILITY MATERIAC'AND WORKMANSHIP MUST COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF INV, EL. _ (W.) :4790 ~ \ " ~ 2 WATER In ~ , _ ! ' _ p S ,O M TER / ,F~P,D, - i - ~ i. WATER, WASTEWATER, AND RECLAIMED FACILITIES FOR.THE CITY OF CLEARWATER. • 53 90 5 . _ TNV, E p ,o ~r= o~. c _ . ~ L,-(N, s 30 ~ 9' OAK ~ 0 • ~~W ~ ~ OIICt ° Q~k _ 17. TRANSPORTATION.IMPACT EEE: ~ ~ • ~ • ,Y' , i~Ao',~ . . = S, 7,59 . • , ; ~ , ~ r~ INV, EL. C 5 P ; • Lr~AL.K . , : a . ' : • ' . ' " ' :'I~f~~ .5.•.~I a I • ~ TYPE~~p..INLET .NT V _ 18: NOTE TO CONTRACTOR: (Tree barricades & Erosion Control Measure) EX S G 14' x 3 (EQ. 18 - I,E•-57,3 ...a;• ~ PERM ` N . ~ , 2',12" ~ k ' _":G RATE,. EL ~ 57.9Q ANNENT 2' BLOW QFF EW , ' ~ ' a; ~ • . % o / LE.=56,44 _ - - - ~ - ~ I E 6,36 " A' , . ;p INV. EL:= 56, 36 REQUIRED TREE BARRICADES AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MUST REMAIN INTACT THROUGHOUT fPE' D.-INLET INSTALL-•5 ;F;'17F~6'`R.C.P; CONSTRUCTION. ENCROACHEMNT INTO OR FAILURE. TO MAINTAIN THESE BARRICADES WILL RESULT IN 8 SAN, - - - _ _ - _ _ _ - ~ 17 L.F OF ~ T'YPE' D.~INLET - - - LE.=56.64 IINS?A112 GRATE TNLET ALL UNUSED DRIVE APRONS AND GRATE':Fi=57. ' \ ~ RATE:Fia57~ , 0 • AT 0.40 % GRADE NFORCEMENTACTIONWHICH MAY INCLUDE CITATIONSAND/ORPERMIT REVOCATION. ~DPQSED G "RCP. AT 1.49°J~GRf D _ I.E. = 52,60 ~ D/OR 18 . , ~ ,~:e56.?_4... LE. - 52,50 EXISTING 25 RAD. ATE EL, = 57,00 STORM SEWER PIPES AN ~ + 0 ISTING` ~ h`~ E:b5ta,24--h~,..._, ~ 25' RAD,~~ ~ 35' RAD, 19, ON•SITE ELECTRIC AND COMMUNICATIONS LINES WILL BE UNDERGROUND. 57.48 ~ _ ti - ~ / 2 EX ~ CONC, TOP = - 55,88 ~ 56,48 INV° EL`, = 500 ,PARKING SURFACES ARE TD BE REMOVED ~ 1 q~`~ DRIVE h~` . h DRIVE INV, EL, - 3,6 h 5 RAD >kh IN ITS ENTIRETY ~ ~ p 20. WHERE UNDERGROUNDWATER MAINS AND HYDRANTS ARE REQUIRED, THEY SHALL BE INSTALLED, COMPLETED, AND IN ' • I PER. STANDARDS INDEX No. 109 ' SERVICE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AS PER NFPA 241. CLEARANCES OF 7'/z' IN FRONT OF AND TO THE SIDES OF THE , by 5 ~ STALL 56 L•F~ D 15" R,C,P~ . ~ , + EXISTING DRIVE IN ` h' - 2 A.D,A, (TRUNCATED DOMES PER, D.O.T, INDEX No, 304) FIRE HYDRANTWITHA4'CLEARANCE707HEREAROFTHEHYDRANTAREREQUIRED. ~ : ~ h • ~-I, AT 0;50 % GRADE 0ti ~ 2 ~ 21, A 24•FOOT ROADWAY SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF A HARD, ALL-WEATHERED SURFACE TO BE COMPLETED FOR FIRE'' APPARATUS ACCESS PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION. - . E No. 72). 58,36 PROJECT TITLE: REVISIONS: 8-15=06 AER. ARCH. ~~e~ON 934 S/ - T PER. STANDARDS IN EX No, 109 , NEW SAN. MANHOLE UNCATED DOMES PER. D.D.T. INDEX No; 304) h - ~~m ~fl~'['~/~[ 8`^?2-06 PER• CITY ' A.D.A. C TR MANHOLE (4 DIAMETER ) . T lA'1LHI~jJ n'•I"~V[ ' I ~ EL. = 56,60 ROADWAY CENTER LANE R M ~ ~ ~ 3 LANE N ~ y W~~ LEGE D TNV; EL. = So.74 ~ ONTINUOUS LEFT TURN PREPARED FOR; • a,~ SCALE DRAWN BY. SI~7 No, cr~ ~ x-'' , . 5T EXISTING GRADE GRADE INTERIOR • Mr, VERN LOKEN p ~ ~ TWO SEASIDE.LANE, No. 403 1 ° 2~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~LANDSCAPIfNG gELLEAIR: FLORIDA 33756 D ~ ~ • ~ , 57.56 PROPOSED GRADE D GRADE TEL: 443-1172 ~ DATE ~ a ^ DIRECTION OF FLUW N OF Fl.(AN j ryv-J s ~ 5t---- CONTOUR LINE RLINE v rss~.~ kED BY BEEN C. L. - CHERRY LAUREL WE KA AS .O.T. INDEX L.o.=LIVE OAK C~~W~~~~TRUCT(~I~A,t A(E DATER SILT S CREEN PER. F.D.O.T. INDEX . No. 102 t af"tl'd~i rL.~'~Y a TFI~ATEN No. ~o~a S~ TE ~ A o~y FLO' FILTER MATE RIAL SPECIFICATIONS OPERATION AND MAINTE A C N N E INSTRUCTIO S N . FILTER GR ~P ~P~ ADATION 3/4' y ' 3/4' ~ I. CUT GRASS WEEKLY AND REMOVE C I U.S, Si'ANDARD SIEVE SIZE tt FINER RY CtEIf~IT CHAMFER 8' ~ CH 8" tRCANTED 2O°TTOWARD FLOW } L PPING AND DEBRIS. AMFER 3/4' lOo ' OPTIONAL POST 318' 90 - 100 2. UNDERDRAIN TO BE FLUSHED WITH WATER ANNUALLY VIA THE CLEANOUT N~• 4 77 - es POSITIONS ~ 2O:x • No. f0 60 - 87 , No. 20 26 - 69 i I I 6' MAX. ~ r 3, fF WAT Nc. 46 9 - 43 f- ER REMAINS IN POND 36 HOURS AFTER A STORM EVENT. FLUSH X POST (OPTIONS : 2' x 4" OR ~ ~ Q 2 MIN. DIA. W06D: STEEL 1.33 LBS./ FT. MIN. } I FILTER FABRIC I IN UNDERDRAIN. SUBSEQUENT TO FLUSHING D No' 60 7 - 27 Q ' ~ AN WATER DOES NOT DRAWDOWN, . IOa s - 7 M ~ W M ~ - CaNFORMANCE WITH W X SEC, 985 F,D.O,T. SPEC. } UNDERTAKE REPAIRS AND REPLACE UNDERDRAIN AND L FI TER SAND, IF NOTE: THE D20 SIZE OF THIS FILTER IS APPRO f _ NECESSARY. AND THE VERTICAL PERMEABILITY RATEXMasELY 0.42 MM o ~ ' ~Q ~ ~ ~ FILTER FABRIC DAY {SEE GRADATION CHART 1. N4 LIMESTONEI3O0 FCET PER. in 3/2 R RUSHED w 3 2 z. VARIES o _ SHELL IN FILTER MEDIA. U.. 4. VISUALLY INSPECT COT 0 N R L STRUCTURE SUBSEQUENT TO A STORM EVENT. ~ a • ~ 4 2"C ~x 2 CI • J ro / 3~ j" M ~ a SILT FLOW r ~ o ~ z 'w r ~ w, y., . 12 _ ~a 5 0° a• =L Q N r ~ ' a. 3 w W XN ~ ~ , ~ Y,, 12 suRF W v Y Q ACE I LAYER OF ' ELEYATI4N SECTION_ I LAYER OF 55# ' 3-2n VARIES _ NOTE: SILT FENCE Ta BE PAID FOR UNDER THE CONTRACT UNIT PRICE FOR STAKED SILT FENCE I LF. } z SMOG ` TH RO ~ a 0 ow sMOOTH ROOFING TYPE lII SILT FENCE W I. ° o w Q . ~ a X ~ , SURFACE SECTION .a 2-LAy Ow ' 2 -LAYERS OF 55# SMOOTH ROOFING ,SILT FLOW ` ° ' , (MOP A o CO C ( MOP ALL CONTACT SURFACES 4F N RE BACK A CONCRETE AND ROOFING WITH CUT - BACK ASPHALT. STOP ROOFING _ . _ PAPER F PAPER 6' BELOW TOP 4F WALL.) ' F,D,O,T. INDEX No. 5 O KEY C 2 KEY DETAIL _(...TOP VIEW l ! ~ TYPE IQ SILT FENCE GRAVI GRAVITY WALL NOTES _ . _ . I. GRAVITY WALLS _ _ _ _ESTIM.ATED QUANTITfES FO ~ 9V~'~ FV NOTE: SPACING FOR TYPE III FENCE TO BE fN R WALL CONCRETE RETAIN TY WALLS CONSTRUTED AS EXTENSIONS OF REINFORCED ACCORDANCE WITH CHART I, SHEET I OF 3 I 3ETE RETAINING WALLS. EXCEPT WALLS OF PROPRIETARY TYPE IQ SILT FENCE AND DITCH INSTALLATIONS AT DRAINAGE DESIGNS. SHAL HEIGHT PER. LINEAR FOOT OF WALL L H NS, SHALL HAVE THE SAME FACE TEXTURE AND TYPE IIf SILT FENCE PROTECTION STRUCTURES SHEET 2 OF 3 (EXPOSED FACED) FINISH AS THE REI I CL S AS f CONCRETE (CY 1 STEEL { LB. 1 AS THE REINFORCED CONCRETE RETAINING WALL. AROUND DITCH BOTTOM INLETS. TOP OF I' 2. COST OF REINED ~ ` DO NOT DEPLOY IN A MANNER THAT SILT FENCE WELL ACT AS A DAM ACROSS PERMANENT FLOWING OF REINFORCING STEEL AND FACE TEXTURE AND WATERCOURSES. SILT FENCES ARE TO BE USED AT UPLAND LOCATIONS AND TURBIDITY 0.07 3 R BANK EL.= 55,00 2' 4.13 FINISH T4 BE (NCL TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT UNIT PRICE FOR usED AT PERMANENT BODIES OF WATER. O _ ET 4 CLASS I CONCR I ..,..3~ _ , .20 5 > I CONCRETE (RETAINING WALLS) CY. 4' I 4.32 fi 5' SILT FENCE APPLICATIONS ' 0.43 7 _ _ . _ j F.D.O.T. INDEX No. 142 I WATER 6UALITY S i i',. ~ EL.- 51.57 I 18 OR 1.5 , i • ' 4° TNICK BLANKET • of aocK BO EL,-:•50 0 ~ SEASONAL HIGH WATER • _ L„ .,...._~~40 9 . 14'-8" _ _ _ 11E BEAIA WITii I . - - - ` ~ 2-~5 REBAR . r _ ~ ' I CONTINUOUS I I ~ NOTE: 12~ FILT ~ N E R 'd r ` 8.5 ~ 30 Mll. 6" DIA. STEEL B.OLLAR05 I CLEARANCE MIN, SWING GATE ~ ~ EXTERIOR.C~f QINIPSTER • • I CONC. FlLLED (TIP) • I , ENCL06t,IRE MUST (rn'•) a t11 SAND LINER I ~ ~ tb I BE FlMSHED ANO • ~o--s' i ) ~ W~ I I PAINTED'THE SAME FTP I z $W I AS THE BUI'LOING s~ t-~5 AT 4' CENTER FTP - 25 I ~ I • I DROP PIN - 6 UNDERDRAIN ~ 12 ;l~ O INV. EL, = 48.30 Max I CLEARANCE MIN. I GR I e PARitIN3 ®Y pI~A@LED I i 3 ~ ~ ~ _ 00 • I ~14' i ~ 50 0, 8 0,7 PERMIT SCALE I"=1' O~.Y BLUE 4. I I I ~ I SWINC GATE 6" WHITE MIn. ( 3000•P,S.i. CONCRETE SLAB t8``TO TOP OF BA K B C d~ 3 gyy A KGROUND BORDER & j ( L' ---..I I 8"X 16" CONCRETE FOOTING -MONOLITHIC, MIN 6" . _ _ F.S. S{9.I4 SYMBOL L_._ W/ 2- ~5 REBAR (TYP.) THICKNESS, 6"X8"/ 10X10 0 W,W.F, . t DROP PIN HOLE ' A "PIPE SIZE f" SERIES 'C" (TAP,) ~c•I _ L PARKIAA G 11 RATE P LETTE S ARKING BY R 12" EL. - 54.41 WHITE DISAB 3._O - o DISABLED PUBUCFwENKS ADMINISTRATION BACKGROUND BLACK CINEERING P _ ERI I' 8' PERMIT BORDER & oRA~er LETTERS ~ a~c~er DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE a/o, 3/8" GALV. BOLT . ~ ONL ONLY „~,Na 30 GAUAGE ALUMINIUM W/ . o. 5 BARS - 12" O.C. +v o m NON -CORROSIVE FASTENERS - DE51G}1Ep BY G P,H; 1 DF' 3 ' ; ' , a WHITE ro : ~ o BACKGROUND ELEV, - 51.57 ; •:t:•~ :I 255 BLACK ~ ~ 255 FINE i°SSERIES "C" ~ ! 0 4'-fi" I/2" BORDER F S ..3 F.S. 3IS.I4 SERIES "C" 3/8' x 4" x 4" 6" "F" 6" & I LETTERS 1.5" 19' - O" PARKING 24' - 4" DRIVE ALUMINU iv ro MANGLES SPECIE (CATIONS . 3- 3" fi" 3" WHEEL STOP TYPE ASPHALTIC 3" "F" I' e f. STEEL .BASE SLAB - No. 4 AT 12" 4 C * - 0' 3" FTP - 55 CONC. WEARING SURFACE WALLS - No. 4 AT 12" O,C, (OR - W.W.F, FTP - 0 6" x 6" No. 10 W.W.F. ~ I/4" PER, L,F, I/4" PER. L.F. 0 2. 4000 P.S.I. CONCRETE . III=III°III=III=11f= " UNDERDRAIN - = _==III=III OUTFACE CONTROL STRUCTURE DIMENSIONS ALUM. SKIMMER No LIMEROCK, SOIL CEMENT OR CRUSHED _ _ CONCRETE .BASE COMPACTED SUB-BASE A B C D E F G / L.B.R. 40 I (8" R.C.P.. 6.11' 48,30 2.84 54.41 24' 24" oRVES TIALL TYPICAL PAVEMENT AND PARKING SECTI~ 0.25 51.57 3/4"R. 12" 12" ELEV. - 54.41 , 12" 12" a N v 3' - 0' ~ ~ N N WEARING SURFACE PAVING SCHEDULE 8' I' - 8" FINISHED ~ ' • ' • TYPE 4F STREET ' ASPHALT BASE SUg BASE THICKNESS / { L,B,R.) Ill ~ 1%'S R~'•i:'eirf•': 6 RAD, Rirj:°;r BASE THICKNESS THICKNESS ORIGI LIGHT TRAFFIC i-i/2' 6' FINIS 2 -0 x 2 0 6 g" HED GRADE MEDIUM TRAFFIC 9' / L•B.R. 4O D ~••.4 N 2' 2" STABILIZED Sl t' e GRATE EL. - "E" S ;i: II ~BILIZED SUBGRADE f-I/2' 6' 12' / L.B,R: 40 :;'t~. N - ~ _ t::{'. - - COLLECTOR COMMERCIAL INDUSTRAII 2' 8' 12' / L,B,R. 4o AUG 2 2006 - - = ARTERIAL 3' 10-I/2' 12' / L.B.R. 40 D ~ SLOT EL. o ~ PIA ARTMENT - G N ~ CITY OF CLEARWATER - - 51 A PIPE SIZE IS .57 ~ _ . ~ - - . ~ ~ 18" R.C.P. UTTER CURB DETAIL ' . _ PROJECT TITLE: Na• 7 REVISIONS: 8 ~ 22 -06 PER ,CITY ~~Q~ONE 2 gag S DROP AT 5 I. DRIVEWAYS - HI(~.AND OFFICE P~ ~ . 24' 24 CV1YQ"LC/1 4~ ''~:y ~ o r - g• " 15' 15" PREPARED FOR: ~ 6" UNDERD BOTTOM ELEV. - ' C ' G' UNDERDRAIN _ 3/4 R. RAIN 6" N , WEARING Mr. VERN LOKEN' scALE DRAWN BY: sl-~T No. Y" 48.30 INV, EL. - 48.34 _ w 3/4' R. - ~ ~ 3/4' R. SURFACE TWO SEASIDE LANE, No. 403 4 a0 ~ fr'''~•r - - BELLEA~, FLORfDA 33756 m ~ `F%..'• t~;. _ TEL. 443-q72 nnf~°~ ~'m°°~'~ . N Q- Q I C X11 A C T? I ~ e rl r u? - ~i~fJ~=~r,•'f "~,3'rn • iyh.. •i ~_.4!r oi ~rrrY, I'k SAS D T OUTFACE CONTROL STRUCTURE DETAIL -,-s~B:BA:sE:::::::: 3; SASE • • "°T TO SCALE STRAIGHT CURB DETAIL PITCH OUT C . NO V ~9:ESS k ~ALm RY ` 2 DRAWNR OUT CURB DETAIL NSSC. CONSTRUCTION DETAILS ~ LSD ~ , y .2pA 39 FLA. ~TdN N. OR' i SIR F LA E 1 11 t TFICAT J"' / o~} S I \ • - - 1.40 GRADE - HIGH POINT - v - - - ; , r 58.68 N ~ ~ ~s' • I\ 25 SETBACK 58,56 ,8 . I ~ E 1• INSTALL TYF£,D INLEP~ . ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ INSTALL TYF£ INLET PRO ( ~ h_ , ~ ~ 0~' ! ~ ~ ~ GRATE EL? 55.50 SIDEWAL ~ PUSED SIGN GRATE EL. = 57.90- ~ ~ h . INV.EL.= 56.24 Y; ~ I ~ INV. EL 53.00' 3~5,~0 ( 24 . - ' t ,I . ~~1 0~1` hNti { ~7"t2~ r • ,3 „ _ DRIVEW Y 10',12 2' a • arse ssa aer SE.~5G64 CL£ANOU ' OSED GRATE INLE ALL UNUSED DRIVE APRONS AND TA 7 F OF N5"t.C.P l ` 2 + , • CL£ANOUTS WITH CDNC, COLLARS INSTALL 20 LF. OF 6' UNDERDRAIN I 57 I TE EL. - 57.00• ~ HJS LL ZI L. ~ a , ~ b~ X48 , 56.48 IIVV, EL. = 5 00 / STORM SEWER PIPES AND/OR \ y o ~ ~ a g• b . ' i yg ~ h~ / ' ARKING SURFACES ARE TO BE REMOVED \ 1 AT 1.49 /o ~yGRADE / Z~EXISTDJG ` ~ g h 0, • ~ 5 RAD 1 aj 0, h0 • DRIVE ; g0• g t 6' ~ DV ITS ENTIItETY h , ~ O. ) • LB6423 2' SCIR 1/2' NORTH 130,0' _ _ E6423 Q~_ - - - _ _ ~y, . I Q TING DR;SVEi ~ .INSTALL 56 L.F. 0 15 R.C.P.: ~ . 1 ~ TA,B, EL. = 55,00 I ' ti' RT Q.50 % GR6 DE Dry' 1b . 2h ,y1 pg g2 ; p . 61 , . i 0• 0' 0• 0• d' I , T.D.B. E h 1 1 I 0• T.D.D. EL. = 55,00 i h' R.ETENTI~N STANDA S DJDEX NoNo; 1os hl PRGPDSED ]SED { sky 20' SETDACIt' I' L TRUNCfjRATED BONES PER. IIllt DJIIEX No, 304 > l GH LA N D ~ A VEN U E C. R . 37 5 ~ , 58.36 ~ ~ , ' CONTROL.STRUCTUR . _ _ _ _ _ ,r ! K . GRATE EL. = 54.41 ;DL STRUCTURE ( EL. = 54,41 ~ 2'x4' caNC, PAD o ' INV. EL. = 4830 ~ ~l N m .L, = 4830 55,00 EROSION CONTROL hk~• 50,50 ~ ' T.W. EL. _ INV, EL, = 50,50 2`x4' CONC. PAD 30' 20J 3p' T,W, EL, = 55.50 I , EROSION CONTROL t T,W, EL = 55,50 h t'. _ u E.P, EL, = 55,00 T,W,'55,50 I o E.P. EL. = 55;37 f,~";~~(~' j~ EXISTING ~...y,.,as.EXISTING m..,....~..,.m.=..w,~ a....,_w..,,.~..,.~..,.m_..,._.W.~ z N QRK TG u~ LIMIT D F W _ ' _ - n GRADE DRIVE ~ ?'b W ~ ' BE 1 FDQT FRQM ~QRK TG ga;~ I ~ O INV, E = 50,50 gh II~LI'•31~ . FRAM ~ ~ T,w, 5s,5o ~ I I YBtf.P•S , . PROP. LINE I- EXISTING • ' pRIVE. ~ N DRIVEWAY • I.iW . i 55,16 ~ p>- tt - ~.www EXISTING 24 R.C,P. 55.64 o m ~ ~ , ~y o ! a T,C, EL, = 56,86 , . - ~ s - - - ^ ! _ - 'GRATE EL, PRQPL7SED GRATE INLET ai ~ 55,46 _ a ! ~ E.P. EL, = 54,95 - - - - ~ ~ - r - - _.T,~. ~ INV. EL. . . t 'GRATE EL, = 54,92 INV. EL. _.48.30 l - • a ; z ~ i ~ . , , . _ ~p,~ 5'-6 ! ~ ~ 55,05 s ~o..: 56,52 56.36 ._...._A-____.~~.~..~..._~._-..~__, , y~ ~ , , ~ BLACK B _ 56;24: T.C. EI T,C, EL, = 55,61 ~ 30"0`~ ~~D• hb~' t~ r INSTALL 51 L,F, OF 12' PVC C-900 AT ' E.P, EI - - - - 0 V 11 % GRADE ' E,P, EL, = 55,12 20'-0' ! • s . 77,_5. ; T,C, EL, = 57,00 LLl w ' r;s „ I E,P. EL, = 56,50 56,50 ~ !z ~ 55,12 ,Q ~ . CLEANDUT ~ ~ ~ 1 TDP EL,= 57.00 U1 r, ' ~ ~ ' ~ I,E, = 5a,oo T,C, EL, _ 58.92 • cn Y . , , ~ T,C, EL. = 57,00 NEW 6 SGLID PVC ~ i!J ; ~ h ~ ~ i B,C, EL. = 56,50 ! 58,40 FENCE ALUNG Ll3T E,P. EL, = 58,42 F' 56,00 ~ x ! ~ LINE 1y I " , p ~ h NEW 6 SQLiD PVC ~~y T,C. ~y''., ~ a •t ~ ( !FENCE ALONG LUT • ~ E,P, U !z , ti 56.84 (4 6' Wl7QD FENCE TD BE REMOVED ' _ I, E.- az~ i ~ _ I!~ J ~ u ITS STEM WALL I NE SCIR 1/2' U - O ~ 55,42 CDNSRUCTIDN ! 57.40 57.60 LB64 3 t tt Q INSTALL 56 OF 15 R,C,P, INSTAL 50 L.F OF 19 ~ ! 18'-U 24 0' I FLDDR ELEV, 570' '-5 57_20 rpRTH 175,00 ! _ 4_ H,~IN LINK FENCE TO BE R OVED~!0~ Q „ ~1 - A.~ Cam.. . _ In (r1 ~ c S A 2 F - F~"~P A 4 % A ~;C:F? T,c, EL, _ ; AT 0.50 GRADE IN T LL 17 L.. 0 15 R.C.. T i , 9 Get OE _ E.P. EL, _ T,C, EL, = 56,72 ~ g~2 UNITS ~ UNITS ~ t E,P, EL, = 56,22 j !yb 55.91 X60 , w s ; : CLEANDUT 1 ! :f-+ 73r ' 9' TOP EL,= S7 00 I! I b w I,E,=55.OOfi --------r-~-- 20'SETBACK -0= 18 LL '_0, 5 ~ 0 6 00 0• 7+00 8, . Q~0 _ , ~ m. ¢ ! CLEANDUT - DIRECT .ROOF DRAINS TDP EL,= s7.6 T.C, EL. - . _ . . _ .P. EL. T,C, EL, = 5744 , ! 9 ! • s ~ I E.P. EL, = 56,64 ~ ~I -6o H t0~' FLOOR ELEV, 5$.3~ND GUTTER TQ~ PQND y,~i ! ~1,~, h~P I,E, = 56,00 h1~ e o • 56,02 w I ~@S (w ~j aJ, ~ • e;i0' oak ~ ~ I e~ ~ FLOOR ELEV, 59,0`. ~ Z f'~ a ~p ,r ~ • T,C, EL, = 58,97 1 7 • INSTALL 243 L.F, OF 18` R 13 L.F, DF 18` R,C,P. AT jt-. ' ~ :i. r~ w Z.. ' ~ 0.25 % GRADE DE ~w Y ~ ~ 10548 sq. .ft, w E,P, EL, = 67,42 57,25 N ~Q U • ~ , ~ 1550 SGUTH HIG D . ~ 58,33 ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~A , i7• 58,92 ~~UTH HIGHLAND I ~I- T.C, EL. Q J T,C, EL, = 57,32 ! W Q_ Q ybk h~6 S9A0 !3 hQy 0 h ~:r) 72' 10, 0' oak# 1~ J~ E,P. EL. E,P, EL, =5 .82 ( z 58,33 ~•.lc.,.:.r 1~ f..::•••s,. ~ s'.~ ¢ I ! { W " 3l?- :w ~ + ••:a3.y J:•,J.a,,:.~ ~.,.v. •}.»i4:. ai1~ !I- O H ' pIp i•t: r '=tip, ~•..Ca~?Q i' :ur :•f1.. •G •f a.. 'r,t.:' v ~ -,',A I INSTALL TYPE 'D' INLET #1560 SQUTH HIGHLAND z GRATE EL. = 50.20 h~ O 2 j " -PLANTER y...v; PLANTER ~ r y I Q INV, EL, = 46,69 ~ q T.C. EL, _ 57.90 .L, = 57,90 ! ~ !o ~ A i~ ~ 2'-0 12`-'0 ~I ! ~ - VACANT ~ E.P. EL•. - 57.40 D EL, = 57.40 DUMP TER ~ i° Q 00 ! ~ . II ~ Q EXISTING CARWASH vL II N£W STORM SEWER MANN W I " II INSTALL 150 L,F, OF 18° R.G,P; AT MANHOLE C 4' DIAMETER 57,40 , 57,66 dQ g~ H GH POINT 57.56 57.32 iTORM SEWER MANHOLE z I z y h 5e,92 oINSTALL ! 02 - 15 R.G,P, AT 0,50 % GRADE ILE (4' DIAMETER) t d• ~i . 57,42 58,68 " , II 3,34 % GRADE RIM £L. = 57,20 INV. EL, = 47,68 L. = 57,20 ~ _ _ " " _ _ _ :L, = 47,68 ! 1 1,40 % GRADE - HIGH POINT ~t 0,94 % GRADE ~ II , , d INSTALL 34 L~F OF 18' R..P. AT O~ ' 1', AT 1`\ 58,68 a 25` SETBACK • ' rg~ 1 II INSTALL TYPE D INLET ~ ~ 0.25 % GRADE W GRATE EL. = 55,20 z SIGHT ! . ! ' r 58 56 ~ • ; ~ h °i; ' E - 1 INSTALL TYf~ D INLEP~ ~ ` ° II z h ~ LL 105 L,F, QF 18' R,C.P, AT ~ w . GRATE E , - 55,90 z Q~ INV, EL, = 46,69 INSTA 4' x II yc3j „ h ~ w 0,25 GRADE t INV, fL. = C W.) 47.90 NCI z RIANGLE ^ ~ INSTALL TYPE D INLET PROPOSED SIGN GRATE EL. ~.57.~0 ~t , y ~ GRATE ELF X5.50 ? I ~ 0' . ; PE D INLE~T~ 17.90 ~ ~ ~ ~ INV, 53.0o S305r00' • . - " ' ; I . ~I Xa~ 6 " I[~ y . e ~iwa 9 INV. EL, - C N.) 53,90 00 poi n woa 26 ti x.~.~ 0 n r~0 ~0 ga• g~' NV, EL. = C S.) 59 6 wot 53,90 6p0 ~o~ FGM ~ s din ! , ! INV EL 56 24 ~ i ' 24 ~ RA ~ 6°'~ k 59 ~toa 4X4 'pa ~ II p If OAK o 041 0 ~t 0 g 06 II. OAK ~ n CH ,x wraa g2• vi7 CEL14R g`~ g i v.~ .t.ie ''IT~>.l 5` I ,.aJ ..r. ti'{rx ! ri<'r r'~ C b~ 1! • v W (I aG,k k00 A0 I I OA OAK- ~ o o• z y II g" PA(M 25 CEDAR r ~.-57";5' , ~ ,E 573 • r - W DRIVEW Y 10 ,12 2' ~ ti w II LE. - 5L10 1£. = 52.A8 ICE,=56,64 IE - 36 OPOSED GRA~E INLET ALL UNUSED D~RNE ARONS ANII ~ " ~ r S ~ II EXISTING PIPE AND STRUCTURE IE, = 52 EXISTING TO BE REMOVED EXISTING 12' x 18' C EGL 16') EXISTING 25' ~AD, 57,48 56,48 ~ INV EL = 5 00 0 / STORM SEWER PIPES ANII/OR \ y TSL49%17 GRADE R,GP ~EXISTING1 9~` ~~~2 INSTALL 70 L,F. QF i8 R,C,P. AT y a o gg TOP EL,= EXISTING HIT, RIM = 50,60 6 5°i 0.25 % GRADE g90 gal yk0 gy0 hg INV, £L. 5yy6 INV, EL-= 5368 6• 6h~ 69 5' RAD ~,yPARKING S~ ITS ENTIRETY BE REMOVED yg~ yOZDRIVE , g~• I he 11 DRIVE 0 y2 g2 g INSTALL 85 L,F. OF. II "9 g INSTALL 56 I„F, D 1B' R,C,P, o' ~PERt'STANDARDS INDEX No, 109 EXISTING DRNE ~ ~ r ~ A,D.A, (TRUNCATED DOMES PER. D . DV LL 85 L,F, L7F 18' R,C,P, AT ~ d ~ AT (15D % GRADE ~6 . 2h ny y2 0 61 II yyh EXISTING PIPE AND STRUCTURE g ~ Nn,O 9$ a 0.25 % GRADE 6.j0 REPLAC£ £XISTING INLET ~y g 0g TO HE REMOVED yg9 g21 gg9 - g - _ GRADE 6h 6~ ~ eb y~. ~ hQ• yg' y@, ~0• ~ - `:r ~ - _.t.. - . _ _-.-~;k- -~A ^ ; -7 WSTALtbgpL,EOFIS R,C~. II ~ a ~0 TOP EL.= 4418 g k9' g0 g - - - - --i---- -h'~..... - SIGNALIZED ab~2 II ab INV. EL, = 4i,6e aez _ _ _ - ---r= - - yh~ hOh APD~A, C TRUNCATED DOMES PER9D,OS: INDEX No. 304) HIGHLAND ~ AVEN U E ~ (C. R. 3 / 5 ) 56,36 A70.40 /o GRADE II ~ - - 3 LANES AVENUE C.R. 375 It. HIGHLAND • 3 LANE ROADWAY CENTER LANE. , INTERSECTTON INSTALL TYPE 'D' INLET , ~I INSTALL. TYPE 'D' INLET GRATE EL. = 54.50 • CONTINUOUS LEFT TURN ' - l . II GRATE EL; = 52,00 INV, EL. = 47.38 fI INV. EL, = 46.96 ' ~ mll oll - w J - - wil - - - - - - oIl • _ . . MII ~ , Z U! rwnw~e I II. - - . ~ ~ W PROJJECT TITLE: ~ ~ _ ~ ~ Q III yll COMPLEX ~ ~ ~ 31 A o ~ I ORIGINAL PREPARED FOR: X If . w Il ll * ~3zv II I II o } J II I, I( W II " ~ AUG 23 2006 ~t H W J JI.J h --I J '~'L 493@72 II . ~ ~ W W WIW ~I ? I j W PLANNING DEPARTMENT = I W . J 3 J ¢ > > > 3 Z ~ > I CRY OF CLEARWATER DRAWBJrx Z H ' W ~ ~o ' z H I:J H HH ~ ~ Fi 11dg7 ! 1/~~,IMYM ' A ~ OJ ~.M~.._..___..._..-..._ ~ AVER `Z+ ~ C] - ~ W~ri q I it d. STOP! S WN W F J I( J ~ II . ~ o W Z '-I W . }N Z H I ¢WW H JIW rr„ SCALE ~ DRAWN BY: SHEET No. H W ~ O ti ~ N R • v~ ANA ~Q? ~+l~7rZ-i ZI~.~' M II o I REMOVE xQ~ a ,x.~ r s 34 6 VE ~ W F- H I I ~ > s ° DATE JOB Nay ~"t' ~a, I ~ ° w ~ ~ I } n EXISTING 14' x 23' fNG 14' x 23' c EQ,18') z I INV, EL. ~.;'QD n?r E 6. I z n J a F-.N o I H J v } JI EXISTING GRADE , _ 7 ~ 5. _ stirs „ti,~ ~ W J{-~ II Jo d' r~i n. ¢ --l l`l ..J Hln J W W tl _ W rZ+~l7Z ¢WW 11 ~ - H F L~ I to > - - - '-"f- ZJ .J ~ I _ i z~~.~l ~Wlw TG BE REMOV D HUB H---, EXISTING 14' x 23' C EQ, 18') I HL7H H~~ - _ LE. = 5248 I xoz " EXISTING 14' x 23' C EQI 18') x J. •~t, ~ ~ ~ ::;:'U ~A ~ ` _ y, ^ ~ T&TCATE~t~~ RECz,Sl~l~4 7~~W, I w~-H ~ - - - - _ I,E, = 52.50 LE. = 52.60 I,E, = 52,60 I . N~TEr ~ . _ .E, = 51.10 • ~ -F ~ ~ f', REMOVE EXISTING ~p~1'~ ~~~,r,'~y?r8 ~ ~ J.. I ~ ~ ~ EXISTING 12' x 18' (EQ, 18' ) I I _ ~ I ~ STORM DRAINAGE, ~~Q ~,h~` ~ i r ~ r ~ I. I / / i qty _ ' ~ SIDEWALK AND 0 - q s ,,Y oT~ ` ' RESTORE DRIVEWAYS 8 ~15-06 PER. I.E. = 47,33 1.E. = 46.69 = 4,38 = = 47,59 - ~~9 U aRa~. i ~ { r ~ -22--06 PEA, CCI'( / , ~ i NSTALL 150 L.F. OF 18' R,C P, AT INSTALL 105 L OF 18" RCP AT I INSTALL 170 L,F, OF 18" R.C.P. AT INSTALL 85 L.F. 8 ALL 85 L.F. OF 18' R,C Pf INSTALL $6' OF 18" R.C.P. 3.34 % GRADE 0,25 % GRADE 0.25 % GRADE AT 0,25 AT 0,25 % GRADE AT 0;50 % GRADE .40 I 40 0 0 1-00 2-1-00 3-00. 4 7ro 0 S 0 0 6 00 Q s~1 I-A. T @0~ y`'~' h~.,' y~5 - ' SCIR 1/2' , SCIR i/2' h~ LB6423 . - NORTH 13Q.~ _ _ - 86423 e' _ ~ h T.D.B. . TA.B, EL. = 55,00 T.o.s. EL. = 5s,oo I ' y ~ ~ RETENTIQN ~ 1 ~ ' h~. 20' SETBACIt' 55,00 ~ ga° .50.50 ~ ( 1 ~ i ~ 30 10 ZO 30 T,W, EL, E.P. EL, T.W, EL. = 55.50 I I T.W. EL. = 55.50 r•~ ,n E.P, EL. = 55.37 E.P. EL. = 55,00 1 T:W. 55.50 ~ ~j ~ T.W. 55.50 I ( ~.I' • !!~V ~ W 4 ~-0. ~ 55.64 0 ~ 55,16 yh o ( o T.C, EL. = 56.86 0 - ~s~ - ( ` • E.P, EL. = 54.95 ai n 55.46 I ~ ' a huh 5'-6~ ~ 55.05 - ~I .w~~~o , ~ ( ,•56,52. BUCK B ~ ~v ~ I T,C, T.C. EL. = 55.61 h o 3Il.0 1 11` , E,P. E.P. EL. = 55.12 ! ~ 7a-ba' 13,_ T.C. EL. = 57.00 W ~ I ~ ~ E.P. EL. = 56.50 ~ IZ : 55.12 56.50 ( i ~ IlY ' ~ t i ~~`h`'' . ?.C. EI,, = 57.00 I ! NEW 6' SOLID PVC T.C, EL 58.92 y1n ~ o ~ IIH - ~ , ~ ~ gyp. : B,C. EL. = 56.50.• ! LINE E ALONG LDT E.P. EL. = 58,42 58.40 ~ Iz 'N 56.00. .h I Y ! I a h1~ lNEW 6' SOLID PVC yy° hQy T.C, , ~ IT I• ti , • ` ~ ~ ~ 56.84 ~ ~ ! I h@~6' WOOD FENCE TD BE REMOVED (FENC LINE~NG LDT E.P. = I .I 2 ~ UNITS STEM WALL 57,40 o j!~ ss,42 w I , CONSRUCTIaN ( 57.60 N 57,20 NORTH .175,00' ~__,_~,CHAIN LINK FENCE TD BE REMOVE 1~ g° T,C, EL, _ Q ! 18'-0 24 0' FI:OQR ELEV, 5710' 2 -5~ _ - ---2r -A~-'"-_' A~_ = - N ~ . ~ - T.C. EL. = 56.72 C) . I h~ UNITS I ~ ~ UNITS ~ ~ a ~ - E,P. EL, _ E,P. EL. = 56.22 j ~h6 55.91 y658, lJ ti b; I ~ ~ g'~' . ® y1• 1• 73 9 ~ w 20'SETBACK -0= 18'-0 . T,C, EI T.C. EL. = 57.14 ! 0 ~ h ~ i 1` ~ ,poi a , ~ si9 • E,P, E' E.P. EL. = 56,64 - , 0' b~. hq ! hq. h~. h s ` I o: FL017R ELEV, 58,33` i ~ ~ N w t- 156.02 I • 1: ® FLDQR ELEV, 59.0' ~ 3 ye' ~ T.C. EL. = 58.97 ; ~ 'f.> I ~ ~ UTH HI' !z M »S~ 16548 SC~1 }a E.P. EL. = 57.42 57.25 p I ; ¢ ~ ~ la 47• I 58.92 8~ # 1550 SD Z • Vii-- T,C, EL SQUTH HIGHLAND I ¢ . a g~' ye 59.00. h~ti ~ h : 1 72' 10' Y 1 T,C. EL. = 57.32 `lL~l z 58,33 :'...p:. ..r•:,~?C 1,.•.~~,.• ~ ~~,~+y~•~ ~ - E,P. EL Q H J~ E.P. EL. = 56.82 ~ • I~ , ~ ¢ f X O ~ w _ EXISTING 6 ~ INSTALL 1:55:} OF 6' PVC AN IF 6' PVC AND 57yy'OF H.D.P. ~ ' _ • • ;i. • cn PLANTER ~ I • e ' • PLANTER ;t ~ f SGUTH HIGHLAND WATER LINE Z WATER LINE IC-9001 #1560 -9001 (d ~2 ~ • ~1® , ~ ~ ® . Q A T,C,. EL, = 57.90- EXISTING SAN, SEWER ~ E.P, EL, = 57.40 EL. = 57.90- d' ! ~r 10 ~ , . ; , , ps ' _ MaNI~LE VACANT EL. = 57.40 DUMPSTER 00 !o ao ' i ^ t s ~ ~ RIM EL, = 51,05 ~ <C II a EXISTING CARWASH ~ INV, EL,( W,) = 46.35 ~ 57,40 2 57,66 hb0 CL AN UTg~ I,, 58.92 HIGH PRINT ( 57,56 57.32 Z ' ~ ti RIM EL. = 58.20 58,68 i II ~ 3 INV, EL.( N, > = 45,55 L 370 L,F, QF 8' D,LP~ SAN, SEWED AT - INSTAL W f " II a INV, EL.( S.) = 45,13 7 L . OF , 0,'I h~' 57.42 INV. EL. = 53.00 l a 1.40 GRADE 5 ,F N, J ~ II ~ CONNECT TO EXISTING ApPROX . , .F OF~~~N,O,P.E. I - - HIGH POINT ~ I 1' ~ J all ~ all a STUB c NQRTH END > DRIP LINE PIPE D1REC)'IO~VAL D1REC)'IO~VALr60RE ` - 1 - ~ 58.68 25' SETBACK ~ 58.56 Il >ff ~ EXISTING 6' ~ W Z o II z ~I I' ~ GATE VALVE w . ~ SIGHT ( y~, MS I \ NSTALL 105 L,F. OF 'PVC :AT ~ N W 1' h r; ~ 5 ~ h0• z RIANGLE I ~ I PROP F.H. , h ~ . --PRpPDSED SIGN I h~ m ~ EXISTING SAN. SEWER MANHOLE ,u~ y~;~ Il _ ~ •w ~I l~ ~ w ~ 32~~14K o H~ x RIM fL,- 46,40 tiz.>, Z IIH ~ n ti 9 ~wa j ~y,9 OAK ~ 60 ~ .w 32~~14K ~ I ~ 2' WATER ; SIDEWAL . f . II n xaK n 6 ~I 2~ aqF-'~ 11 0 b0 b• y y w• II (34V( EXISTING 8` V,CP SAN. bINE ~ w~a6 ~q ~ ma 2• q y FXttM yy25~ EDAR y y o° x ~ F:M ;so ! REDUCER METER / B,f,P.D. 305,00' ~ ~ ~ 24 0 ~ I ' 8 hb' was 4X4 "a .a ' ~ T , • y . v... II I l OAK b ti H y o 17 CEDAR n • z bb bga old be° II MI( og Q!U( b~' ~ o• x x ;a.. s • W ~ .S ~J .a ° ..b.~,as.. S•{~• 5.• I •+1• ° _ t W DRIVEW Y INSTALL 58' - 2' Pvc RMANN NT 2` BLOW DFF • - I . 4 II b b m....~ 'z y II vm mo ®a~ ioa ao s ®s - I.E, = 52.48 ~a t~ss~~a~aasia>a~>~spsaas;a a • ti ~ II ~ ~ IE, = 5110 . ~ ALL UNUSED DRIVE APRONS AND \ EXISTING PIPE AND STRUCTURE I,E~ = 52, TREE fXISTIN GATE VALVE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING 12' x 18' C EQ, 18' > II _ ~ b o0 6CRRICADEyyy TAP EL EXISTING 25SS~A 7.48 56.48 / STORM SEWER PIPES AND/OR \ 1ti ~ ~,oEXISTING`~ ~,ya h0~2 ~ _ QDEyyS TOP EL.= 55,88 by0 69e 5' RAD / ~ y"PARKlNG .SON ITS~ENTIRETY DE REMOVED h0" g0 DRIVE g ' '~o y ' INV. EL. = 53.68 ~ PER. STANDARDS INDEX No. 109 I EXISTING HIT, yb ~p$ yb~ yb~ gy y INV, EL II fl 11 DRIVf p y~2b y2, y £XISTiNG DRIVE ti ^b 2y 3,~. a y ~ ~ A.D.A. (TRUNCATED DOMES PER. D . IN h 2 b 1` b b9 ' h6h~ h~ko ti~ y~hb y,~0. g1' g$' h0. h~. y0. ~ \ ~ 9~ II y EXISTING PIPE AND STRUCTURE Z n6 uy $b II 4 REPLACE EXISTING INLET ytih y TO BE REMOVED y3 ~ 21y y~3 yb. fyh ~ ~ 1 II a b61 0 ~ TOP EL,= 44,18 y b91, ya0 +t •F ~ ~ 1y NEW SAN, b2 ll y bb$ INV, EL, = 41,68 h$'~ + yy MANHIILE 1y NEW SAN. MANHOLE PER. STANDARDS INDEX No. 109 6 H l GH LA N D AVENUE (C. R . 37 5) 58,36 yg, MANHOLE C 4' DIAMETER 7 A.D,A, C TRUNCATED DOMES PER, D.O.T. INDEX No. 304 SIGNALIZED b~• I~ _ - II 375 3 LANES RIM EL, - RIM EL. = 56.60 3 LANE ROADWAY CENTER LANE + V VENUE C.R. . HLAND A INV. EL. II HIG INTERSECTION I~ INV. EL. = 50.74 CONTINUOUS LEFT TURN it ~ !I. - - ^ II o. III z I d . W W- ~ ~ ei II ~ ~ _ - - - - .__l+L _ W APPROX. LOCATION DF 8' WATER LINE ~li ° w - W _w_ i; II W W ~ II xll - PROJECT TIT~LEA: ~VI 6L.1'11 ~L/ 1~I~ ! IVL.. I ~ it zII C0~'LEX ;II ' PREPARED FOR: ~1I ~'.~L t~ II li I~A 1I • I Fl.~ lI • II ~DRAWAP,l,Cx ~A N~m~ rLJ~dr ~ i~ w ~~n'"•z^ ~N~~ 3 v~ ~ t- a o~ . t ~ t~un~w ~ x ~ z to w$ A~l ICU D(1'Eill a i~ zv,a~ • ~ 3 h? 91 II ' ~J JJ.JJU" , INSTALL 21z` ~F 6•" PVC ~ J J W 6 O SCALE ~ WN eY: SFEET No. wwwww ~W ~a3~ 5 ~Z • • •Z~ WATER LINE ~XQH ZZZ Q~"' I wEIR~HMHUVJ w¢H~ ~ I I Z~~H 2" PERMANNENT DATE Jae~,+ {yrr~~ Y %a l o I I w ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ z w - --f-- - o z 0 _j L ~ ~ GPEIDt (1l~,P,19~ ~REQ SUE No;,`}073 , H z z ~ EXISTING GRADE - I FICAIE**ddFF A ,T7 No.~66' 1~ 6.. X 2„ INSTALL 58' ~F 2" PVC ~ O 7~f„'•' o~...~°''' wl~ ~ - I EXISTING 6" WATER LINE a LI E - - EXISTING 6 WATER N _ _ REDUC WATER LINE oR~INA< ~?a~L~~1i • I - INV. EL. = 50,74 RECENED ~wV~ . ~„f~'jaQ E VALVE I - EXISTING GAT , _ . AUG 231006 l , - ST NG GATE VALVE EX I PANNING DEP ~y - LL 370 .F. ~F 8" D,I,P~ SAN, SEWER AT - ICE, 45,55 INSTA 5 Clil'OF C '~m'?ENi, a • IEARWATER - r 1.40 % GRADE a ~ _ _ , i ~m~ - - - - _ _ •1 ~ 1 f ea.. G 8-22-06 PER, C(TY Q 140' - 0 4 81RECTi ONAL BORE WATERLINE U ty ' 0 0 2 0 0 - _ C 3--.00 4-00 0 11 5----00 0 00 gQ~. 04/24/06 4feH ~ ~ - ray r„„~ 1 ALL GONSTRUGTION WILL COMPLY WITH THE CURRENTLY ADOPTED ~ REY I.~ 200 FLORIfl~ BUILflING G017E ` ` ' ~ ~ ; ~ " ~ 07/05/06 << , 2004 FLORIa,4 FIRE PREVENTION GONE ~ ' ' " d ' ' ~ -1 51TE PLAN 0/15/06 i3 ` ~ ITION NFPA-1 2003 EDITION ' INCLUDING NFPA-101 2003 ED ~ , ~ ~Y I ~ ~ w ' ~ -2 ELEVATIONS 0'1/25/06 NFPA-~0 2002 EDITION, NFPA-72 2002 EDITION I ~F - ITION , NFPA-13 2002 ADDITION, NFPA 10 2002 ED , , , ~ ~ , . ~ ~~Q ; JAY F, MYERS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4959 5 OF UILDING 15 AN DESIGNED FOR WIND SPEED ; . 5 GOND GUST ~ ENCLOSED STRUCTURE 123 MPH (IN 3 E ) . ~ ~ 9. 9 ~ ` ~ ~ ~ L-1 LANDSCAPING PLAN # AA -000361 f _ , „ FFIGE ~ ; E OCCUPANCY GLA551FIGATION k` 3 ~ ~ ~ L-2 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN UILDING 15 TYPE TYPE III B CONSTRUCTION ~ ~ F r~~ ~ ° ' . ,1 L-3 TREE PRESERVATION NOTES U PROTECTED UNSPRINKLED N ~ ' ' SGIR 1/2 - - SGIR 1/2 ~ LB6423 • , ~ ; , ~ _ i ~ ~ ',w i t.Fx , 130.00 23 O1~TH LB64 ~ ~ ;,1 TREET ,FUND 5 i ~ e i, ng ~ ~ ~ ~ add, , P~ ~ r~ ; 51TE DATA: D BR GATE V~ r ' GAPE BUFFER - 12 LANDS 0 ~ , ~ ~ ~ NO ENVIRONMENTALLY UNIQUE AREAS. o 7 i ~ ~ I I ~ '~f ` ' I. ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~ LAND AREA: 73,486.7 5Q. FT. , 1.6q ACRES ~ ~ ~ ; ' ' ~ ` ~ ' ] ` I` ' 1 PROP05ED OFFICE UNIT ~ ~ ~ 20' SET$AGK ~ . ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ F ~ ~ ~ r' ~ 1 b,548 SQ.FT. GR055 OFFICE U5E ~ ! ' r' PROP05ED PARKING: 61 SPAGES, INCLUDING 3 H/G 0 I ,~N 51T P ` ' ' n' ~ REQUIRED PARKING: OFFICE U5E 50 SPAGES (3 PER 1,000) ~ N 42 TWO BRR RAILING I j- I , , , • , • , , , , • _ 'y~. a~ NON VEHICULAR PAVED AREA: 1q,8Q4.g5 SQ.FT. (INCLUDES BUILDING) MOUNTED ON RETAINING Ul Pi . 1.20 ~ I .:~i t • ~ ~ ~ ~ , : I YEHIGULAR AREA: 30,872.83 SQ.FT. (60.8% OF IMPERVIOUS) W I WALL I 0 1 5 10 20 r e 0 r ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : , ~ ~ ~ "w . PERVIOUS AREA: 22,~18.~2 SQ.FT. W a ~ . _ ~ . ~ . ~ FOR LANSGAPING, 5EE L-1 G~ 0 I o o i~ETE TI I °I r 5EE PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 10 OF PINELLAS COUNTY FOR EASEMENT ~ i I w ~ LOCATION MAP MEAN ROOF HEIGHT: 18'-6" MAIN ROOD MIDPOINT, 23'-3" HIGHEST MIDPOINT ~ ~ I ~ ~ NOT 5 INTERIOR LANDSCAPING HATCH DE E IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: 6q.1 % IMPERVIOUS ~ I I - I ~ 11'-6 1 /2" FLOOR AREA RATIO: BUILDING 15 22.5 % OF 51TE W ~ ~ RETAINING WALL N I ~ ~ INTERIOR LANDSCAPING: 32°1°{.33 5Q. FT, 10.6q % OF VEHICULAR U5E AREA ~ pa m L ,X I 48 -0 48 -0 w U.1 NOTE: ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTS TO BE ON TIMER TO TURN OFF AT q PM. I w = I I 0 ~ 4 I Q ~ 0 NOTE: ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING 15 TO BE LOCATED ON THE BUILDING. ~ ~ ~ o I ~ I ry I I Q N W _ ~ ~ ~ - , ~ - - ~ 55 6 0 INTERIOR P~i~GEL IDS: d~ Q ~ I . I LANDSCAPING 0 z 50UTH~i~1~ P~i~G~L: ' , ~ ~ ~ c0 5 ~ ~ - I 51 I 6 ~ ~ ~ I I 1532 5 HIGHLAND ~ N I ~ N 23 / 2~ / 15 / ~'g254 / 002 / 0080 ~ ~ I ~ :::I ~ 20 -0 a I ~ ~ 13 -3 23 / 2q / 15 / 7825$ / 002 / 0010 ~ w L o~ >:I ~ Iw ,p :;I / ~ 5® 0 0 I I 3 ::I I ~z o NEW 6 SOLID PVG NOi~TH~i~N PI~i~GEL: ~ NOTE; TH15 AREA TO ~ I ~ I I BE CONCRETE ~ •'~`~~~I I ~ I IIIII I FENCE ALONG LOT 0 ~ ~:~I ~ I I LINE I , 1524 5 HIGHLAND ~ RATHER THAN ~ I ASPHALT TO REDUCE ~ _ ::I I i ~ 23 / 2q / 15 / ~g254 / 002 / 0120 ~ I IMPACT ON TREES -CV `~I ,Ii4TERI0R p I I ;'I ~ •z G _ DSGAPIN q, ? 46 44 I~ ~ 4~ ~3 LEGAL DESGRIPTIDN: 4 I ~>I 1= w PVG ,p I , :,:J ~ NEW 6 SOLID SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 2q 50UTH, RANGE 15 EAST, LOTS 1 i- :;;I - FENCE ALONG LOT Q AG UNITS I I ( I I I~ I I LINE I I I I N SGIR 1/2 I I NEW 6' SOLID PVG THROUGH 11, LOTS 53 THROUGH 56, ALL IN BLOCK "B", ALSO I AG UNIT51 I I I LB6423 I I I I MOVED I I FENCE ALONG LOT ONE-HALF OF VACATED SCOTT STREET AND VACATED BRAUND ~ I I LINE STREET, AGOTIA HEIGHTS, A5 RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE Q ~ ' ' CHAIN INK F NGE TO BE R _ _ _ 0 I I 4 TH 15.00 - - - 'N 10, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. _ NO _ I ~ ~ I 12 5 0 ~ _ LE55 AND EXCEPT THE EAST 7.00 FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. 0 - I d z 1=LOOR ELEV.. 5~.0 - m "S I ~ I _ G UNITS 18 -0 - - ~ ~ .I I 0 FD GR055 "ry in 12 LAN SGAPE BUFFI GAPE BUFF R THIS PROPERTY APPEARS TO BE IN FLOOD ZONE "X". ~ d' I I - ~ ~ ~ - - ~ AND ~ Iw ~ ~ _ - - W ~ i w I I I ~ I 24 0- ~ W I~I Q ° ( I 20 SETBACK - - 4-0 I ~ SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 2q 50UTH, RANGE 15 EAST, ~ ~ ' ~ I I - - - - ml w I I I J_ - - --I- - -I- t- I - ~ w - - - - I I LOTS 12 13, AND THE SOUTH 20.00 FT OF LOT 14, BLOCK "B" Z jw Q I ~ I f(1 LE55 THE EAST 'i' FOR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY, SCOTIA HEIGHTS, A5 ~ ~a ~ 24-o w _ RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 10, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS ICI z o 8 ( ~ OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. J I ~ ~ FLOOR ELEV. 5a.0 ~I p ~ FLOOR ELEV. 58.33 _ I w I •zl ~ j I NOTE: ~I z w :::III I I I I I I- ~ I 0 I- ~ I ~ I ~ I - ~ '?nl - I i I I I I I I ~ DATA FOR TH15 51TE DRAWING WA5 TAKEN FROM SURVEYS DATED 03/04/05 AND 01/24/06 CARRIED OUT BY: . I 6548 5 . 1 lU w I 0 I za ~ I - - ALLIED SURVEYING ~ I w - I _ ~ o ~ 1275 NORTH HIGHLAND AVENUE ~ ~ a ~ I sa. ~ 1 2" ~ GLEARWATER, FL 33755 1 0 z I ~ I ~ ~ ~ I I I - 0 ~ I :;:;;;;:':;;IIIII::;I III I 13 0 0 - _ ::1:;:::;:::111''1' I~I~I'~~l':;~~II~''" ~''I;.~ v _ I - - I I Q l~ In ~I:_;i;;;1~ I ~ PLANTER 0 o ~ ~ 0 ~ lP z - - - - - - ::!i:::1: PLANTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 II o ~ o ~ ~ o a 'Y : o 0 I ~ FGM FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT FIR FOUND IRON ROD Q I ~i i a ~ 51R 5ET IRON ROD FIP FOUND IRON PIPE O SGIR 5ET GAPPED IRON ROD SN~D 5ET NAIL B DISK 1 1 18 0 I I ~I I ~ 11'-~8" I ~ (G) CALCULATED MEASUREMENT ~ ®RIGINAL ~ ~J I I 12 0 1 I I I I Q I ~ ~o TOWER BASE RECEIVED Z I ~ I I - I 10 q 11 1~ . ~ ~ 2 ~ (D) FURNISHED DEED MEASUREMENT Q _ 6 (M) FIELD MEASUREMENT ~ GROUND RING ~;~r 112006 ~ 25 SETBACK . 0 - - (P) PLAT MEASUREMENT ~ UTILITY POLE PLANNING [~EpA ~ ~ W I ' - - - I - - - - - - - ~ NEW 3' SOLID PVG Rr~~ENr w ~ CIN OI; CLEAR~N,~rER v u- z N - _ FENCE ALONG LOT O.R. OFFICIAL RECORD GUY ANCHOR I LINE TO END OF ® } f` 15'LAN SGAPEBUFF R__-- ~ ~ ° ~ _S'_----~- cv ~ I PARKING SPAGES PG. PAGE pd IRRIGATION VALVE O L + 0 05 D I I NEW SIDEWALK PR P E I I P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING a I SIGN I 24'-0" 0~ I I ~ 4 ~ , -p i I A/G AIR CONDITIONER ~ n SOUTH ~ i 305.0 . I w N ~ , ~ N P.O.G. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT W ~ z U/E DENOTES UTILITY EQUIPMENT tf1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° . ° ~N ° ~ .P.=` P.O.T. POINT O~ TERMINATION ~ ( ° ° ~ 4 •NEW 5'~51D~W>4LK,•° • o , • ~ e Q o Q • ° ° p ° FGM 20-0~~: • • 6• ° a a • 5GR 1/2 • ~ FIRE HYDRANT A55EMBLY ~ • . < a LFE LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION ~ ~ ~ 4X4 • • a ° •P LB6423 0• - 0 R/W RIGHT OF WAY 00.00 SPOT ELEVATION ~ ~ ~ SIGHT TRIANGLE SIGHT TRIANGLE 0 OHW OVERHEAD WIRE OAK TREE (51ZE A5 NOTED) ~ ~ m OHG OVERHEAD GUY WIRE z ~ Ul NGF NO CORNER FOUND/5ET ® PINE TREE (51ZE A5 NOTED) _ ~ WATER METER ~ PALM TREE (51ZE A5 NOTED) DENOTES BUILDING AREA TREE (TYPE ~ 51ZE A5 NOTED) 51T~ PLAN OF A-2 DIMEN510NAL FIBERGLA55 SHINGLES W/ 40 YEAR WARRANTY ON TWO LAYERS OF R5 OF 15# FELT INSTALLED WITH 6 NAILS PER SHINGLE 6 04/24/06 WOOD SLAT GABLE REV END - 07/05/06 12 5 = 07/25/06 12 5 ~ JAY F, MYERS 2 4959 2~~~~ Q # AA -0003461 0 2'-0l' z OPEN u~ m m N ~ 0 U PAIN STUGGO TED TO MEET ASTM Gg26 PAINTED STUGGO TO ~ ~ ~ MEET ASTM Gg26 ~~ST ~L~V,~TION ~ ~ ~lE ca e: _ - a ~ ~ 0 WOOD SLAT GABLE U ~ DIMEN510NAL FIBERGLA55 END W SHINGLES W/ 40 YEAR H ~ WARRANTY ON TWO LAYERS OF 15# FELT INSTALLED WITH b NAILS PER SHINGLE U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 12 ~ 12 5 ~ W ~ rn z 5 _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w 0 U ~ ~ ~ O 0 2'-0° 0 z ~ w ovER+~~N~a P. u~ ~ OPEN ~ Q 00 z ~ PEN m ~ O ~ N ~ ~ i c~ N PAINTED STUGGO TO PAINTED STUGGO TD MEET ASTM GQ2b MEET ASTM Gg2b 5G 50UTH ~L~V~TION ca e: _ - PINT GOLORS: Q DIMEN510NAL FIBERGLA55 IY SHINGLES W/ 40 YEAR ~ BASE GOLOR -PORTER P~INT56182-2 P,~LE MARGUERITE WARRANTY ON TWO LAYERS OF ~ T5-PO - TRIM COLUMNS DET,~ILS ,AND F,~SGI,~/50FF1 RTER P,~INTS 6187 1 VERMOUTH WHITE DIMEN510NAL FIBERGLA55 15# FELT INSTALLED WITH 6 NAILS PER SHINGLE IK SHINGLES W/ 40 YEAR WARRANTY ON TWO LAYERS OF 15# FELT INSTALLED WITH b NAILS PER SHINGLE QC W WOOD SLAT GABLE ~ 12 END 12 ~5 ~ ~ 5 2 2 U1 I lU 2 u_ 0 2'-O' Q 2'-0 -0 R' z z OPEN OPEN ~ m Q.. N p,/ PAINTED STUCCO TO MEET ASTM Gg26 '011 PAINTED STUGGO TO ~ V MEET ASTM Gg26 ? Q ~ _ IM 510 W ~ D EN NAL FIBERGLA55 WEST ~L~V~TION ~ w WOOD SLAT GABLE SHINGLES W/ 40 YEAR ca e: _ - ~ u- z END WARRANTY ON TWO LAYERS OF 15# FELT INSTALLED WITH 6 NAILS PER SHINGLE 0 Q Q Q 12 ®RIGINAL ~ J 0 ~ ~ F- = 5 12 RECEIVED O ~ ~ w 5 ~;~J~ 112006 ~ ~ ~ = PLANNING DEPARTMENT 0 ~ CITY OF CLEARWATER Z ~ ~ 0 W 2 z lL 2'-0" 0 OPEN m OVERHANG TYP. ~ z i m r N u~ PAINTED STUCCO TO MEET A5TM Gg26 J 11 ELEVATIONS PAINTED 5T000O TO N01 NORTH ELEVATION MEET A5TM G926 ca e ca e: _ - OF A-2 SPREAD 04/24/06 rev. as ~ ~ LE~C ~C BOT~NIG~L NAME GOMMON NAME ~ a GONTA~INER SP,~GIN~ ~EM~RKS 05/03/06 07/05/06 a GG 1q GALPHEMIA GRAGILIS THRYALLIS 18" TO 24" HIG- TO 24" HIGH 3 GAL, NO MORE THAN 2'-b" O.G. 0~/14/OC • ~ a IG ~ IL X GA551N AHOO O ' ~ E E D N H LLY 8 TO 10 HIGH f0 10' HIGH 51NGLE STEM BBB OR CONTAINER GROWN A5 SHOWN 07/25/06 Qa ~ JG 2~q JUNIPERUS GONFERTA SHORE JUNIPER 12" TO 18" 5PF TO 18" SPREAD 1 GAL. NO MORE THAN 2'-b" O.G. V- a LI 14 i LAGERSTOMIA INDIGA GRAPE MYRTLE S' TO 10' HIGH _ ~ a f0 10' HIGH 51NGLE STEM BBB OR CONTAINER GROWN NO MORE THAN 2'-b" O.G. JAY F, MYERS 0 as L5 16 ? LIQUIDAMAR STYRAGIFLUA SWEET GUM 3" GALIPER, 1~ CALIPER, 12' HIGH BBB OR CONTAINER GROWN A5 SHOWN 4959 w ~ as ~ PA 6 PRUNUS AUGUSTHOLIA GHIGKASAW PLUMB 8' TO 10' HIGH = as MULGH 3 FROM STEMS f0 10' HIGH 51NGLE STEM B&B OR CONTAINER GROWN A5 SHOWN #AA-0003461 ~ PAA 4Q PLUMBAGO AURKULATA ALBA PLUMBAGO 18" TO 24" HIG TO 24" HIGH 3 GAL. NO MORE THAN 2'-b" O.G. PM 4b PODOGARPUS MAROPHYLLUS YEW PINE 3' MINIMUM HIG- ~(INIMUM HIGH 7 GAL. NO MORE THAN 2'-b" O.G. 3" MULGH LAYER RI 106 RAPHIOLEPIS INDIGA INDIAN HAWTHORN 18" TO 24" HIG TO 24" HIGH 3 GAL. NO MORE THAN 2'-b" O,G, R5 ~ 53 RHODENDRUM 51M511 FORMOSA AZALEA 24" HIGH MINIh ' HIGH MINIMUM 3 GAL. NO MORE THAN 2'-b" O.G. 5P 16 SABLE PALMETTO GARBAGE PALM 10' TO 14' HIGF TO 14' HIGH 50LID EARTH BALL A5 SHOWN NO BOOTS, NOT FIRE SCARRED V5 424 VIBURNUM SUSPENSUM SANDANKWA VIBURNUM 24" HIGH MINih ' HIGH MINIMUM 3 GAL. NO MORE THAN 2'-b" O,G. QV 6 QUERGUS VIRGINIA LIVE OAK 3" GALIPER, 1~ CALIPER, 12' HIGH BBB OR CONTAINER GROWN A5 SHOWN ZF 2 I ZAMIA FURFURAGEA CARDBOARD PALM 18" TO 24" HIG TO 24" HIGH 3 GAL. NO MORE THAN 2'-b" O,G, ~ a PREPARED PLANTING 501E ZP 14 ZAMIA PUMILA THRYALLIS 18" TO 24" HIG TO 24" HIGH 3 GAL. NO MORE THAN 2'-b" O.G. ~ U ~ ~ o - ~ PRDV PRDYIDE TREES, SHRUBS AND PLANTS THAT COMPLY WITH STANDARDS OF FLORIDA GRADE #1 OR BETTER A5 GIVEN 4 ~ ~ ~ IN GR. EXISTING UNDISTURBED 501E / \ CONS IN GRADES AND STANDARDS FOR NURSERY PLANTS, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND ~ ~ CONSUMER SERVICES. ALL PLANTING AREAS AND OTHER AREAS A5 INDICATED SHALL RECEIVE A MINIMUM OF 3" OF / 3 PINE ~ 3 TO 5 TIMES WIDTH ~ _ ~ PINE STRAW MULCH. 50D TO BE DOT GRADE PENSAGOLA BAHIA GRA55 1 . ~ o~ - o OF ROOTBALL SPREAD 14 p p ~ 0 , , 0 , ~ o © PROV PROVIDE AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION 5Y5TEM TO PROVIDE FULL COVERING OF PLANTING AND 50D AREAS AND ~ ~ ~ ° ~ SURR~ 0 SURROUNDING ALL NEW PLANTING AREAS, 5Y5TEM TO HAVE RAIN 5EN50R WITH AUTOMATIC SHUT OFF. ~ \ 15 / V5 D` - ~ -----------------------------------Q~ ~ U ~ N.T.5. ~ CARDBOARD PALM GRAPE MYRTLE ~ ~ ~ it ~ p m PR D , 12 ~ . ~ u~ CABBAGE PALM p FORM05A AZALEA Q U \ RETENTION S~ 2 50D ~ ° ~i ' ~ / I I ~ w # t:C, o0 as © ~ ~ / LIVE OAK b SHORE JUNIPER ~ ~ ~ a ~ o o 0 o RETENTION a I - ~ ~ / o I 1 ® - BOTTOM ELEV. 50.50 ~ NEW b SOLID PVG yLID PVG SWEET GUM ® INDIAN HAWTHORN Z ~ ~ / ~ J ~ 0~ FENGE ON s ~ ~ 0 sP ~ zP © PROPERTY LINE ~ 110 ~ 3 Y LINE _ , ~ ~ ~ ~ F., N - ~a ~ a 6 tll ~ ~ ' ~ DAHOON HOLLY 0 VIBURNUM 5U5PEN5UM ~ VO ~ I a ~ R5 5P a \ ~ q 3 ZF ~ as V / ® 1 ~ ~ ~ 42" TWO BAR RAILING a ~ YEW PINE ~ GOONTIE Q ~ as 6° CURB MOUNTED ON RETAINING 6 GURB 11-6 2 5URV RYORS a WALL ~ RUBBER H05E vs TAPE I 0 o ~ THRYALLIS ~ PLUMBAGO ~ ~ . LAPED ~ TRUNK Ls p 4 5P o ~ 2 X 2 X S STAKES , ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ CHICKASAW PLUMB EXISTING TREE, 5EE L-3 AND L-4 FOR DESCRIPTIONS ~ ~ ~ ~ THREE TAKES ~ p ~ RI p ~ • AT 120 APART MULGH 3 FROM TRUNK © ~ 1 / / ~ ~ RI \ MULGH 3" DEPTH 15 ~ / 0 \ / RI• ~ ® I QIEJE~N P~ LM EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED, 5EE L-3 AND L-4 FOR DESCRIPTIONS Z ~ 1 o I 20 GAGE GALV TILLED AND LOOSENED / , , . . , , ~ ~ ® I :I ~Q ~ 1 (V o 0 1'7 GUY WIRE NATIVE 501E BAGKFILL I ~ ;~;'t; ~ 20 - ~ . I OQ 6 GU ® , NOTE: SET ROOT 0 :I . 13 -3 o : ~ :I o-t ~ Ian 1 11111 / BALL 2 TO 4 ABOVE ~ _ : o _ INTERIOR LANDSCAPING: 3,2QQ.33 SQ.FT. OF 30,872.83 SQ,FT. VEHICULAR USE. 10,6°i % Q G. ADE R ~ 1 'a \ i ''1 ~ Q ~ ~ ~ / 5P O ~ / ~ ;'1N~1 I 3 O, ~:3:• •.•r:::: D 15 :•:I :a . / 0 501 UN 15TURB L \ ~ ~ ~ HATCH DENOTES INTERIOR LANDSG~APING ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 D ED 00 ALL R TB ;~i L 0 i I 11 OS ~n ¢H a 1 ~:I ~ / ~ ~ 0 I 1 S l D .A..... h/~I / N 6 50 EW LII 0 :~fE~' :~I i ~EW 6' SOLID PVG \ \g TE: ALL LANDSCAPING WITHIN 51GHT ~ 51BILITY TRIANGLES TO BE 1~AINTAINED AT ~ ~ ~p FENGE ON ~~I NO .THIS AREA TO TE° . ~ENGE ON ELOW 30 IN HEIGHT. ~ \ ~ ~ PRO R PE TY 1 0 :~;~I 2 TIMES THE WIDTH B GONGR E ETE a 'ROPERTY LINE \1 / RELOCATED QUEEN I ~ PALMS 1 Q 0 ~~I RATHER THAN OF TH ROOTBALL 5PR AD E E AG UNITS ASPHALT TOR DUG ~:~1 E E I JG IMPACT ON E5 THE D 17 V Q I Y5 ® 23 1 ~ I G 0 21 b 21 2 / - I 81 2b ~ 28 2q 30 31 ~ ~ ~I R I 6 a V ~I - ° m 12 5 0 / ~tG UNITS / ~ ~ - U.., 6 .D e N.T.S. ©S~~ 18 -0 ~ ~s~s~~ ~ oc~ c~ ~ o ~©o Qoo°oo©© ©©a~o o ~ ,p©©~ op, '~o ~ pR I < L5 0 1 0 a° ~ ' /o' ~ ~ ~ ~ ° RE i 2 0 AG UNITS 1. ALL WOOD SHALL BE SPRUCE OR PINE PRESSURE TREATED. \ (V i' °i9• - UNITS 50D ~ ~ ~ p ~ n'Jy'e ~5 1 %2 11 UN . 2. MOV A L 5 ING ~/OR WI WRAPP AROUN TR K R E L TR R ED D E E ::~~;;,,11 © l ~~~~yy / Q ~;::X; 1 O ! ,~I;~;: O 5 O 5 W 5 NG5 U5 D T 1,11111:1.~~1:'~11111111€11111111::1:1111111111111111111111:111:111 O L. O LIFT TH RO TEAL 3 R M V ALL STRAP R P IR ~/OR TRI E E v E E E E JG , . 0 - GG 2 40 r I ~ 0 ~ I~f 42 s;~;:::::;~ R 4 R M A L B REAP ~ OR WIR FROM TH P F E '`1~~i~``1:`:1;1;1;1.:1;1;1.1;;11;1:1:1:111111111111111111111'1111> 17 . OV L U / TO O TH ROOT BALL E E E E 1q ;:1~; i M ':;':':';III;1''II``•';;~~~`'`';~~';I~'s~~•'' E N i 0 C'°~ , - . , ° a W E ;11111...:.11:I:sl:l:l:1:1.111:1:1.1:111111111111111111:11:111111:1;1;111. d D I - 24 0 G FIN SH GRA O OV SURROUNDIN I DE 5. TOP OF RO TBALL TO B 5 T 2 TO 4 AB E E E EXISTING QU EN . ~ 1 E :~~11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111~111~1~1.1~1~' R ,;I:•: i I~• 11':,:1. ° PALM TO B E ;i`~:, 1 ~1..~'. Imo;' ° ~ 1 I R LOGAT TO NW ED E Il~s: 11~1111~' . I 1.m11 ~~~~~~~~~:~:~:1111:11111111 ~I~::, , .I~. 'E•: •23 2 CORN R OF 51T E E 06 20 1: i1~1i ;,::;;:111:°~~11;;;::;::11j11 :::::::::::1;11;;1; 1111 0 I. D O . , 0 ~ . a 36 ~''•.I ~1`'I'I'1111i1~ii1j11165 8 5 4 ~ ,I, n . I . , .r'~,.,, Q n 0 ~o • 33 . =4 I~•`•.II V5 i~E 0 a m 0 I~.;.:.;::::.: 69 I~I ~•24 Iles: dd ~ ° ~ ::::::;:1:1:1.1:1.1111111111111~~~~~~~1111111111111111111 JG HURRIGAN GUT OR FULL H AD E E 0~ ~ ll~,.. 4 \ -I I~::,~ssss~s~s~~~~~s~l~;~ s ' ' : I ' I ' s O 0 i .i!s • BA5 OF L F BU EA D E L5 17 5 G G 5 5 P IFI ATION EE E °a RI 1i111 1 lL 0 V S m O : BU SHAL B P RP N IGULAR N D L E E E D TE BA5 O H RT/NUT OF PALM E F EA I . I ' 35 34 z v. e ..:D,.. G 5 B TO ROUND PLANE. TRUNK HALL E 0 R I I ° ;~;::::s:;;:;;;::'::::: L5 I ~ - / °a 6 e< a - 11`'JG ~?'•:11111111:11111111E1111i1111111111III111i1111111111111j1111111. .o STRAIGHT N W OU GURV 5. 0 . A D ITH T E 4 . 14 . i I .o 2 l - D Q ~3 ~ Ial ••L t 1 V 4 O SCAR G N TRUNKS. N R D OR BLA K D - E EE 0 z - IY 1n LI e ~ ~,D~ ~•LI•~ ® ~ ® / •n.. - R 2 D° w BURLAP TO PROTECT TREE . a d • MINIMU 5 5 1 ° ti ~ ° ~ M LAYER / _ m m ti ~°°°b ff ~ ° m ° . JG n n s o° u o o n° n o m° a° a o n p•b b b b 4 b b b 4 b•b• b b 4 4 b b ~b b b b b eb b •4 4 4 b G 3 \'l 3'i ° 4 b b b 6 4 b 4 b b b b b 4 b b b b b b 4 4 b b 4 b b b 4 4 b b~4 1~\1 4 0 9 b 4 b b b b b b 4 B b b N' 4 b 4 YO I \ \ V 44 8 4 4 4 4 9 6 9 b b b 9 q y 1 9 4 M° • 9 ° 4 8 0 6° 9 9 9 40 8 9 4 u 2 NON-SLIP METAL COLLARS / p ~ 12 4 a°°' ti z o o` o 0 0 0~ G7 C~ p a O O O O ~ ~ O 0 ~ Y (6) 2 X 4 WOODEN STRIPS OVER B REAP 0 u JG LI 0 z 04 0 0 5 2 84 JG a . j L5 ° (38 1 1 Q ~ 5 I ~ J ~ s 5a 2 I- 6 OIL SAUCER TO HOLD WATER RI• ~ s 0 1 RI \ ` ~ 3 4 2 I' a Q a 10 1 ~ bb , 5 ® ® 3q I I ~ ~ z ~ PLANT PALM 0 TO 2 ABOVE GRA1~E - ~ °D 0 ~ 3 MULGH, REFER TO SPEGIFIGATIONS ~ 0~ ~ 2 s _ \ 3 0 / ~ z R ° NEN16',~ OLID ~ m ~ \i i ~ ~ 3 ~ (3) 2 X 4 BRACES NAILED TO 2 X 4 ~ 0 / Q 8 P ~G FENCE ON 1 1 ~ ~ ° PROi~ERTY O ~ _ 0 - WOODEN STRIPS / ~ \ _ _ __III_ _ _ / 11111= = I -I1~=1111 _ - - ~ © { : 05 ~ - - , ~ Q -VIII-I~ - 11111=11111_ 2 X 4 X 3 STAKE ~ ~ . FINISH GRADE 11111= 1111=1111 - _ - / 0 i - , \ ~ ~LIAI~ TO WITHIN ~ ~ 51GHT TRIAN LE GG - ~ D 25 OF FRONT ~ N 11111= - IIIII_IIIII~IIII_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = 11111= ~ ~V IGHT TRIANGLE 6 GURB vs IIII-11111 = NATIVE 501E BAGKFILL OR AMENDED 501E ~ ~ 46 va 1 ° PROPERTY ~ =1 I~ 80 VIII- ` ~ _ _ A5 REQUIRED BY 501E ANALYSIS / 8o LINE, THEN 3' Z ~ Uml ROOT BALL = t =lull= I ~ I -11111 = ~0 14 / 0. © D © 0~' 0 ©p .0 11 12 ~ 0 TO THE END OF ' °0°©©• ' 0©Op ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I - ° p p ~ , p 0©' vas PARKING COMPACTED 501E TO PREVENT S~TTLING 03 ~ ~ ~ ~ p p00© Op p p4 p , 4 0 ~ C (IIII- II = _ _ - ~ o I 'R. , 11111= I I = - I I / o ~ ~ F~ RECEIVING HOLE SHALL BE _I 11_11111 III ;0 ; , f~} ~ , ~ ~ • ~ i APPROXIMATELY 2 LARGER THAN IIIII_IIIII IIII_ EXISTING SUBGRADE 1 02 ` \ ~ ~ ~ • • . ROOT BALL DIAMETER ~ a \ < / D p, . D . _ • .o o SOD/ _ ' ~ o~ o° o°© . . • S1 I IG I i ~ 50 ~ b! . a \ IG ~ • 01 A \ 3 GG NOTE. STAKING ~ GUYING REQUIRED FOR PALMS, IF NECESSARY, OR A5 DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPE DESIGNER. 12 5a 6 \ \ ~ X50 EXISTING QUEEN / \ ~ 34 I ~ I 50D ~ / PALM TO BE \ ' S0D ~ ~ 1 ® ® \ ~ 43 . P,~LM Tfi~EE i~L~NTIN~~ ~~n ~T~KINr~ n~-r~ll a~I n~..~rFn rn nlw 1 \ 4'1 4q , - - - - - - - - CORNER OE SITE N.T.5. LAND5GAPING PLAN \ ca e: 1" 20 ft = • of L-3 8' OG MAXIMUM 06/05/06 NUMBER GOMMON N,~ME ~ RATING REV a ~ 1X4 MINIMUM 0/05/06 z 1 LIVE OAK 1'8" 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - TREE B,~i~~IG~DE 07/25/06 - 2X2 ~ 2 CAMPHOR TREE 21 0.5 ~ ~ ~ 3 LIVE OAK 2 0 5 SOOT PRUNING JAY F. MYERS ~ ~ z 4 LIVE OAK 110 5 4959 ~ 5 QUEEN PALM <10 GLEAR TRUNK N/A # AA -0003461 6 QUEEN PALM 14' GLEAR TRUNK 4.5 0 I 7 QUEEN PALM <10 GLEAR TRUNK N/A 8 LAUREL OAK 7" N/A Q LAUREL OAK 1'10" N/A TREE B,~RRIG,~DE DET,~IL ~ 10 LAUREL OAK 10 2.5 N. T. 5. 11 LAUREL OAK 1'3" 2.5 12 LAUREL OAK q" 3.5 13 LAUREL OAK 7" 2 0 U OT : B BRIG AT GR T R THAN 2/3 OF DRIPLINE 14 LAUREL OAK q" 3 N E TREE A ADE EA E 0 OR ROOT PRUNING OF PROTECTED TREES. THEY SHALL REMAIN 15 LAUREL OAK 14 2 IN PLACE UNTIL ALL CONSTRUCTION 15 TERMINATED. PRIOR TO 16 LAUREL OAK 4" 2 QI ~ ~U, ERECTION, ALL FORIGN SURFACE MATERIAL, TRASH OR DEBRIS 17 EAST PALATKA HOLLY ~",9" 0.5 5HALL BE REMOVED FROM THE AREA TO BE ENGL05ED BY THE 18 CITRUS 8" 1.5 BARRIER. NO MATERIAL, LITTER, EQUIPMENT, CHEMICALS, 501E w DEP051T5 OR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS 5HALL BE PLACED 19 EAST PALATKA HOLLY 7 ,9 0 WITHIN THE PROTECTED AREA. 20 EAST PALATKA HOLLY q",10" 0 21 LAUREL OAK 3'4" N/A Q 22 AYAGADO 1'0" 0.5 23 JACARANDA 12",13",13",15" 1 24 QUEEN PALM 20" CLEAR TRUNK 2 U w 25 LAUREL OAK 2'8" N/A W ~ H ~ 26 GHERRY LAUREL ~ 4" 2 21 SAND LIVE OAK 1'11" 2.5 28 GHERRY LAUREL '1" 0 U 2q GHERRY LAUREL 2",3" 1 ~ ~o ~ ~ 30 GHERRY LAUREL 4",5" 1 31 GHERRY LAUREL 3",4" 2 ~ ~ 32 GHERRY LAUREL 6" 2 ~ _ ~ W 0 ~ / \ 33 SAND LIVE OAK 1 q 2.5 ~ ~4 i n / 14 l \ 34 SAND LIVE OAK 15 2.5 ~ a 1 ~ f 15 - - 35 SAND LIVE OAK 1'1" 2 15 a-_~- - - U ~ ~ 36 GHERRY LAUREL 5" ~ ~ 3 ~ 16 3'I GHERRY LAUREL 4" 2.5 19 ~ ~ \ ~ 16 / I 1 38 SAND LIVE OAK 17 3 12 ) ~ ~ 3q SAND LIVE OAK 1'8" N/A ~ 0 0 -.G 40 SAND LIV OAK 1' " / ~ E 1 2 ° 41 .SAND LIVE OAK 14 2.5 / ° ° ° ~oooo ~ ~ ~ o /I~, ~ 42 SAND LIVE OAK 13 2.5 r ; 43 SAND LIVE OAK 10 2 10 . ~ i ~ ~ o ~I I 44 SAND LIVE OAK 1'1" 2.5 ~ N 45 LIVE OAK 1'10" 3 ~ I t` 46 LIVE OAK 1'4" 2.5 4'i SAND LIVE OAK 1'4" NOTE: 2.5 TO BE NOTE: TH15 AREA 48 SAND LIVE OAK 1'3" 2.5 ~ RATHE TO ESE GONGRETE RATHER THAN 1 ~ / ~ ASPH~ 4Q SAND LIVE OAK 11 2.5 1 REDUc 50 QUEEN PALM 13 GLEAR TRUNK 1.5 j ON TR REDUGEIMPAGT I ~ \ Q ON TREES / 1 ~ ~ < 51 QUEEN PALM 12 GLEAR TRUNK 3 I ; ,I ~ I 52 LIVE DAK 20 3.5 I \ J ~ ~ 53 LAUREL OAK 2 8 1.5 - ~ ~ ~ f ~ B1.OGK B / 1 54 LAUREL OAK q" 2 . ~ .:;f;'~ / ~ J I ~ mil---~~ ~ / ~ ~ ).l.l 55 50UTHERN RED GEDAR 21 1 :I ::I ~ ~ \ ~ I- ~I ~ ~ \ / / \ I 56 PINDO PALM q GLEAR TRUNK 3.5 :::I \ 5'1 RED GEDAR 15 2 ~ 58 R D GEDAR 2'2" 0.5 E : I ,,,::I ~ ~ ~I I~ ~ I / I ~:I 5Q RED GEDAR 6 2.5 :~a o f ~ I I 1 60 LIVE OAK 11 3 ry ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ® 21 ~ ~ 29 31 2 , j 61 LIVE OAK q 3 4\GHAIN LINK FENGE TO 6E REMOVED 62 LIVE OAK 11" 3 63 LIVE OAK 10" 3 ~ 64 LIVE OAK 11" 3.5 _ ~ ~ \ ~ I _ \ / _ 20' SETBACK ~ . 1 II 1 ~ I TO BE RELOCATED. II ~ 5EE L-1 I ~ i II1\ Fg //~~1 ~ 33~ , z m ~ ~ ~I u~ II ~ I ~ / 1\ II ~m ~ I ~ s ~ d \ ~ II m~ a ~ ~ ~ / P ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ z ~ EXISTING GAR W,~SH ( ~ ~ / ,i ~ I 1560 50UTH HIGHLAND 1/A~G,~NT 1550 50UTH HIGHLAND Q ~ ~ I~ 000 e o ooo°oee°oo o t ~I \ ~ e e ~ 4, I / 1 I I~ ~I ® i ~z ~ ~ - ~ i~ ®®sa ~ 1 Q ~ Jl ~ EXISTING 15"~ GMP STORM ~ ' e i DRAIN ~ II ~ I k / a \ ~ ~ ~ 25' SETBACK _ ~ / / II ~ _ II I ~ _ ~ I ~ 5 ~I _ _ a ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ , ~n ~ _ _ \ . I ~ / z ~ z ~ ~ / 1r m TREE BAR ~ADE ~ i / ~ ~ a \ z ~ z, 2 . I ~ - ~ ` ~ . - ~ ~ q ~ TREE BARRICADE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I / ~ ~ O ? } EXISTING 6 WATER LINE xx 3 f mz m- ~ wQ 4 wt~ }~y~ ( 2 61 ~ I ~ 1 ) I 1 ~ ~1 4 ® ~ - ~ 5 I x- l~ \ ® ~ 51 ~ ~I aQa 3 ? x p ~ ~ ® ~ ~ 1 EXISTING SANITARY 5E ~ ® e / ~r ® u! 3 ® Ul Q 6 55 MANHOLE ~ ~ e e e ~ ® \ ~ - ~ EE BARRIGADE~ -1- - ~ SAfd ~ i .~.~~SAN ~.~5 .~~AN AN~~SAN AN AN~tiAN D's II ~SAN.~ ~SANr. - ANA .L.~SAN ~ P~~' AN AN~.~.~AN - - - \ D TO BE RELOGA ` ~ \ ` ~ I ~ ~ ° ° \ O 'Y, I ~ \ / ~ W W 5EE L-1 ~ ~ ~ 4~ ~ Q ~ ~ AN~.~SAN..-.~.-SAN D D - - - ~D = = 5D:.. ~D= - - ~D- - - IL - - 5D. _ _ ~D= - _ ~D= _ _ ~ _ -'S " - ~D ~ EXISTING 14"X23" STORM DRAIN r c - ~D- EXISTIN 12"X18 STOR DRAIN INLET LET ROOT PRUNI a ~ ~ ~ INLET INLET NEW 4' DIA ROOT PRUNE A5_ NEGE55,4RY TO- v m NEW 8" SANITARY SEWER LINE NEW 6" PVG WATER LINE SANITARY EXISTING PIPE d 5TRUGTURE ROOT PRUNING TO CONNECT TO EXISTING MAN HOLE ,~GGOMODRTE FOR ~ ~ I ROOT PRUNING TO BE REMOVED TO GONNEG TD EXISTING _ I EXIS ING 8" SANITARY SEWER _ NEW 51DEWA~LK ~I _ _ _ - - ®RIGINAL II ~ RECEIVED Q z 112006 I ~I . ~ i R PRO G 101 P PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER °a ~ m ca e: = N ~I W =WATER LINE GAAI - GAAIITADV GCIAICD DIDL' i, -wr-%l N - ?nl NI lnl~I ClLF%Ld-, FIFL- ~ SD = STORM DRAIN PIPE TREE PRE5ERVATION zQ ~d ~ ~ OP-3 „ _ _ _ _ 06/05/06 REV 0/05/06 Tree Inventory Note; Whenever possible it is advised to adhere to inventory recommendations when JAY F. MYERS Comments; This tree grew among a stand a punk bees that have been recently removed, annuall Ai bland Station selecting trees to be preserved For example, trees rated 4.0 and higher should be y for skrrctural stability, in addition, it cannot tc g Consequently it has a very spindly crown with poor form that isone-sided to the east. above far tree #34. Ia addition, it cannot tolerate additional root loss as noted 4959 Clearwater, Florida preserved if at all possible, while trees rated 2.0 and lower should be removed unless However, it is systemically healthy and will improve if maintained properly. If it falls otherwise noted in the inventory. Trees rated 2.5 are generally recommended for removal into a green area it could be preserved. 36, 5" Tree Inventory Addendum Comments: This tree is located 4,5' west of the right of way line and the canopy extends 10' to the north and 12' to the east. As noted above the canopy coalesces with the canopy # AA -0003461 April 29, 2006 unless remedial work is performed to upgrade them, Trees rated 3.0 and 3,5 are average cherry laurel erry laurel 3.0 OVERVIEW of tree # 62 to the south. This tree is healthy with average structure. The tree will experience minor root loss and will need to be root pruned and barricaded. trees that have good potential and warrant serious consideration for preservation but not 17. 19" East Palatka boll Ilex x attenuate 'East Palatka' 0,5 to the extent that site plan modifications are necessary. Y ( ) Comments: This small cherry laurel tree has goad shuc Prepared by: Alan Mayberry, Consulting Arborist a good tree if maintained properly. It is located in a pro urel tree has goad structu and form and will evolve into The following trees are an addendum to the Highland Station site and are located offsite 62, 1 l" live oak 3.0 For: Loken and Son Builders, Inc, Comments: This tree is 40% dead due to an infection of the fun disease S haero is ly. It is located in a proposed landscape buffer along the and in or adjacent to the right of way of the west side of Highland Avenue going south Wken work of an arboricultural nature is recommended in the inventory it should ~ P Ps north property fine. be performed directly or under the supervision of a competent International Society gall. This disease is terminal and will kill the tree within two years. The bee appears to be from the site to Belleau Road, The trees are included in this inventory because they are Comments; This tree is located 5.5' west of the right of way line and 13' to the east, Its of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arbadst, on the property line and if so removal is recommended. 37. 4" cherry laurel The following report is submitted by Alan Mayberry, Consulting Arborist, and includes erry laurel 2,5 growing close to where a new utility line will be constructed to serve this site, The trees canopy coalesces with trees #61 & 63 to the north and south, The tree is healthy with have been rated as to then overall condition and the actual driplines have been measured average structure. This tree will experience minor root loss and will need to be root findings that I believe are accurate based on my education, experience and knowledge in This tree inventory was conducted on April 28 & 29, 2006. The weather was clear 18, 8" cihus (Citrus spp,) 1.5 Comments: This tree is growing into a chain link fence the field of Arboriculture. I have ne interest personally or financially in this property and with good visibility, fence, The form and structure are average, Recommend into a chain link fence and will soon be embedded by the and plotted on the site plan, Each tree is assessed to determine if the critical root zone pruned and barricaded. my report is factual and unbiased, This report is the property of Loken and Son Builders, Comments: This tree has a systemic fungus disease that is terminal. Recommend average, Recommend removal. (rooting area within the dripline) will be impacted by the proposed construction of the utility line and recommendations are made to minimize damage to the tree's root system. 63. 10" live oak 3.0 Inc., and will not be given to other entities unless so directed, Per City of Clearwater requirements the tree inventory will provide specific removal 38, ] 9" sand live oak rd live oak 3.0 The trees were inspected on June 17, 2006. d Tree Cano Anal sis and Preservation Strafe 'es information in the comments section as justification for each tree with an overall 19, 7", 9" `East Palatka' hull 0.0 PY Y ~ condition rating of 2.5 or below. Y Comments: This bee has good structure and average fo, Comments: This tree is located 5.5' west of the right of way line and l l' to the east. Its p Several factors existing in the right of way are notable as they have affected both root and canopy coalesces with trees #62 & 64 to the north and south. The tree is healthy with ~ U !ruchue and average form and live crown mGo, It is crown development in the following trees and as such pertain to the impact that the trees average structure, This tree will experience minor root loss and will need to be root growing next to bee #39 which is just off the property 1 T'he ma orit of this site is a former nurse and as such does not have man ]ar a trees Comments: This tree is dead and needs to be removed. form an atractive cano This tree is located in the not J Y rY Y g This site has 5 trees and 2 palms rated 3.0 or greater, The total diameter of the 5 py s just off the property line 3' to the north. Together they will suffer from the construction of the atilt line. The ti ht of wa has a rack of ~ ~ present as the nursery stock required sunlight for growth. In addition, essentially all trees was 64",Tree mitigation should be insignificant on this site and should easily benefit from additional greenspace in the form of a Tani ree is located in the north landscape buffer and would ty 8 Y pruned and barricaded. ce in the form of a landscape island in front of the trunk. overhead utility lines extending north and south through the entire corridor. The utility p-I U previous understory vegetation was removed to provide space for the nursery stack, The be accomplished through the required landscaping, 20. 9", 10" `East Palatka' holly 0.0 This tree would warrant shifting the island in front of tr remainder of the site was a farmer single family home located at the north end of the site, preserved, Recommend preservation. the island in front of trees #34 & 35 if they are not lines sag as low as 20' above grade and have prevented several trees from developing 64. I I" live oak 3,5 O ~ tion then crowns as they have been pmned back from the wires. Consequently, the driplines ~ a L~ The potential for tree preservation at this site is minimal as there are very few pees Tree Inventory Comments: This tree is dead and needs to be removed, measurements aze somewhat skewed. In addition, the right of way has a deep Swale, Comments: This tree is located 6.0' west of the right of way line and its canopy extends ~ worthy of preservation. The best opportunity for preservation is at the north end of the 39. 20" sand live oak property where several sand live oak (Quercus geminate) trees are growing. The sand Tree # Size Species Refine 21. 40" laurel oak rd live oak sidewalks, driveway entryways, underground utilities and grate inlets which deter optimal 11' to the east and 12' to the south. This tree has above average health and structure. It ~ w use of the right of way green space as a rooting area. However, portions of the right of will experience minor root loss and will need to be root pruned and barricaded, live oak bee is a long-lived ragged tree species that will generally survive moderate Comments: The canopy and critical root zone of this tre .cal root zone of this tree extend onto this site and should waY will serve as root pathways and areas for the establishment of sinker roots and W U construction im acts and ado is to the ost develo moot conditions if ro er tree Comments: The canopy and critical root zone extend onto this site and should be P P P P P P 1. 20" live oak (Quercus virginiana) 0.0 be protected per City of Clearwater code throughout col preservation measures are in place and adhered to during the constmction process. protected per City of Clearwater code throughout constmction. ter code throughout construction. therefore will factor into preservation strategies. O However, these bees generally had poor structure and most will requre maintenance in Comments: This bee is dead and is a site hazard Recommend removah NOTE; The site plan only picked up one bee in the loc the form of cabling and bracing procedures to make them safe. It was difficult to 43 are located. The actual location of these trees should Due to the presence of the wires the canopies of individual trees will not have to be ,e.i ~ d up one hee in the location where trees #40, 41, 42 & elevated to accommodate the construction. However, some trees will need to be root ~ r accuratel assess the live crown ratio of the oak tree cano ies and hence the overall 22. 12" avocado (PerseaAmericana) 0.5 to detemrine the Y P 2. 25" camphor tree (Cinnamomum amphora) 0,5 potential for preservation. m of these trees should be established as soon as possible pruned and all trees chat will remain on site during the constmction should be barricaded C-' nervation. per City Code. Some trees have been recommended for removal in the interest of public U condition of the oak trees as the current drought situation has delayed leaf bud break. On April 30, the date of the last inspection, most of the oak bees were still partially in flower Comments: This tree is 60% dead and is a site hazard. In addition, it is recognized as a Comments: This tree has very low live crown ratio. It has a very large basal cavity where 40, 13" sand live oak safety as they are hazardous. The fallowing inventory rates each tree's overall condition W ~ and had not flushed out, The cano ies were a mixture of catkins flowers ,leaf buds, a codominant trunk has been removed. Recommend removal. P ( ) category one exotic invasive pest on the State of Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council's list. rd live oak 2.0 and contains a specific prognosis for each tree. juvenile leaves and some maturing leaves. The following bee inventory will identify the Recommend removal. Comments: This tree is growing 3" away from the base best trees for preservation and make specific comments for maintenance measures that 23. 12",13",13",15"jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia) I,0 a basal codominant attachment, The live crown ratio is I 3" away from the base of tree #41 and will soon develop fhe live crown ratio is below average as is the form as Tree Inventory Addendum 11--~~II will enhance structure, tree survival and future health. NOTE; Several bees in the inventory including bees #3 & #4 are actually located on the bee isone-sided to the northwest. The site plan only Nest. The site plan only picked up one tree at this w abutting property, They are recognized in the bee inventory as City of Clearwater wde Comments: This tree has a four basal codominant attachment that downgrades its location so it is difficult to assess preservation potential Tree Inventory Data requires that their root systems be protected during the constmction process. In addition, struchue. In addition, the tree has serious dieback in the crown, very low live crown ratio into the proposed island and are preserved they will hav s preservation potential. However, if trees #40 & 41 fall Tree # Size Species Ratine ~'J preserved they will have to be monitored for stability due ~ ~ ~ any pruning performed on the bees must conform to City code. They will not be graded and decay from previous topping, Recommend removal, to the basal attachments that will form, In addition, they .form, In addition, they will not tolerate significant root 52, 24" live oak (Qrrercus virginiana) 3,5 ~ th A bee inventory is a written record of a tree's condition at the time of inspection, It is a in the inventory as they will not factor into the mitigator process. They will however, be loss or canopy loss if needed to accommodate construct valuable tool to prioritize tree maintenance and remove trees with problems that could Located on the site plan by a number and shown in the inventory by size and species. 24. 20' C,T, queen palm 2.0 building. The preservation potential for these trees show rccommodate construction of parking lot and adjacent fiat for these trees should be reassessed after the exact ~ t` lead to failure and cause personal injury or property damage, The bee inventory lists four location is field verified, Removal is recommended unle codes and also has a comment section. The following is an explanation of the data used in 3. 24" live oak Comments; This palm has a healthy crown but has a large cavity in the basal area that securing these bees with extensive cabling and bracing al is recommended unless the owner wants to commit to Note: Tree #52 appears on the initial tree inventory as tree #3. [t is being inventoried ~ , the inventory; downgrades its overall condition. However, it could be preserved in place or transplanted ve cabling and bracing in the future. again as it may be impacted to the east by the construction of utility lines. W ~ O ~ Comments: The canopy and critical root zone extend onto this site and should be on site if aesthetics are not an issue. 41. 16" sand live oak Tree# -location -Each bee is assigned a number for reference in the inventory that protected per City of Clearnater code throughout conshuction. Comments The trunk of this tree is located S' from the south ro e lme of the a/ to rd live oak 2,5 Highland Station property and 11' west of the right of way line for Highland Avenue. ~ r corresponds with a number on the site plan that identifies the location of the tree in the 25, 32" laurel oak Comments: This bee has below average structure as it ft iverage structure as it forms codominant scaffold r , ~ ~ field. 4. 22" live oak branches with included bark 6' above grade. The live cn rove grade. The live crown ratio and form are average, O Comments: The canopy and crihcal root zone of this tree extend onto this site and should If this tree is preserved it should be cabled and braced I. Size -Tree size is a measure of the bee's trunk diameter measured at 4,S' above grade, If Comments: The canopy and critical root zone extend onto this site and this tree should be be protected per City of Clearwater code throughout construction. bee will form a basal codominant with tree #40. Preserv be cabled and braced In addition, as noted above this ~ J t with tree #40. Preservation potential should be ~ VQ~jI there is a fork in the trunk at that point the diameter is measured at the narrowest area protected per City of Clearwater code throughout construction, reassessed when the exact field location is determined. I below the fork, Palm species aze measured in feet of cleaz trunk (C,T,), the owner wants to commit to securing these trees with i :cation is determined. Removal is recommended unless ~ w 5, <10' C.T, (clear trunk) queen palm (Syagrus romanzo~ana) n/a 26, 4" cherry laurel (Prunes caroliniana) 2.0 the future, Turing these trees with extensive cabling and bracing in The canopy of the tree extends 15' to the south,l5' to the north and 15' to the east (4' into the right of way), This tree is very healthy with average stmcture, The mot system of Species -Each bee is listed by its common and botanical name the first time it is listed in the inventory. For simplicity the tree is listed by its common name thereafter, Comments: This tree is shown on the site plan as a protected tree but has less than 10' of Comments: This tree is aone-sided tree with poor form due to its location beneath the 42. 15" sand live oak this tree will experience minor impact from the construction of the utility line and root O n d live oak 2,5 pruning and barricading are recommended.. ~ a clear trunk and is therefore not protected by City of Clearwater code. canopy of tree #25, However, as it is growing along the west property line in a proposed - Condition Ratios -The condition rating is an assessment of the tree's overall shvctuml landscape buffer it could be preserved and will improve with pruning, Comments: This tree is growing 1' ftom hee# 43, The c strength and systemic health. Elements of structure include: l) the presence of cavities, 6, 14' C.T. queen palm 4.5 overall form is average. A 5"diameter branch has shear O t` 1' ftom tree# 43, The canopy grows to the south and the S3. 32" laurel oak (Quercus laarifolia) 1.5 ~ r meter branch has sheared from this tree 15' above grade ~ decayed wood, split, cracked, robbing branches etc„ 2) branch attangements and NOTE; Tree #27 is the fast of several sand live oak trees to be assessed, Due to current and will result in a cavity in the trunk. The live crown ra rank. The live crown ratio appears average. This tree Comments: The hunk of this tree is situated 2' west of the right of way line and the ~ G1 ~ attachments, i,e„well spaced vs, several branches emanating from the same area on the Comments: This is a healthy palm that could be preserved in place or transplanted on site. drought conditions the oaks have not fully leafed out, The canopy of the trees was a could be preserved if it falls into a green area but will ne trunk, codominant stems vs, single leader trunk, presence of branch collars vs. included mixture of catkins (flowers), buds, juvenile leaves and maturing leaves, Consequently it if the tree can successfully compartmentalizethe wound a green area but will need to be monitored to determine canopy extends 21' to the south, 22' to the north and 18' east from the right of way line, r"~ t/'1 rrtmentalize the wound. In addition, it will ultimately This tree is downgmded due to the presence of four scaffold trunks with severely r bark, Z <10' C,T, queen palm nla was difficult to determine the live crown ratio, crown density and amount of dieback in form a basal codominant. Recommend removal unless tl mend removal unless the owner wants to commit to included crotches at 2' above grade. The tree is displaying bulges in the trunk in the area the crowns, factors which are important in assessing the overall condition As several of securing these Kees with extensive cabling and bracing i Elements of systemic health relate to the tree's overall energy system measured by net Comments: This tree is shown on the site plan as a protected tree but has less than ] 0' of these trees were ranked borderline for preservation it may be necessary to take a second 'e cabling and bracing in the future. of the included bark indicating internal cracking, The root system has lifted the sidewalk. N This tree should be removed or braced with steel hardware. This tree will require root ~ photosynthesis (food made) vs, respiration (food used). A tree with good systemic health clear trunk and is therefore not protected by City of Clearwater code, look before deciding on preservation or removal. It should be noted that some of the trees will have a vascular system that moves water, nutrients and photosynthate around the kee may be downgraded due to poor shvcture which is not a result of the foliage. 43. 10" sand live oak pruning and barricading if it remains. d live oak 2,0 as needed. Indicators of a healthy systemic system used in the overall condition rating 8. 7" laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) 54. 9" laurel oak 2,5 include: I) live crown ratio (the amount of live crown a tree has relative to its mass), 2) 27. 23" sand live oak (Quercus geminate) 2,5 Comments: This bee has low live crown ratio as it has d crown density (density of the foliage), 3) tip growth (shoot elongation is a sign that the Comments: The canopy and critical root zone extend onto this site and should be crown, Tire farm is below average, In addition, it will fu :crown ratio as it has deadwood and dieback in the e, In addition, it will fuse at the base with tree #42, Comments; This trunk of this tree is located 3' west of the tight of way line and 3' from tree is making and storing energy. protected per City of Clearwater code throughout construction, Comments: This bee is downgraded due to poor structure in the form of a codominant Recommend removal. Recommend removal unless the e rd removal unless the owner wants to commit to the edge of a driveway to the south. The canopy extends B' to the south, ] 0' to the north. hunk with severely included bazk forming 2' above grade, The larger codominant trunk securing these bees with extensive cabling and bracing i The overall condition rating also takes into consideration the species, appearance and any 9, 22" laurel oak splits again 3' above grade forming a second codominant trunk with included bark, The e cabling and bracing in the future, and 6' east from the right of way line. This tree has been downgmded because two 4-1 surface roots have been damaged and aze decaying. The canopy is thinning and mildly n/ unique features, The rating scale is 0-6 with 0 being a dead tree and 6 a specimen crown appears to have below average live crown ratio. If this tree is preserved it should NOTE: Tress #44 - 49 are growing beneath a rack of ut Increments of 0.5 are used to increase accuracy, Examples of the bee rating system are as Comments: The canopy and critical root zone extend onto this site and should be be cabled and braced (an azboriculhual technique of placing steel hardware in trees with m the past to accommodate the wires. In addition, they v ng beneath a rack of utility wires and have been pruned chlorotic. This tree should not experience any significant impact due to the proposed tOL follows: rotected er Cit of Clearwater code throe out construction, the interfere with the it P P Y i;h poor shucture to add exha support) and reassessed after it has completely leafed out, Y w es. fires. In addition, they will be pruned in the future as constmction. 0- A dead bee NOTE; This report has numerous references to codominant stems with included bark, NOTE; Trees #28 - #32 are a row of cherry laurel trees growing along the rear property 44. 13" sand live oak 55. 25" Southern redcedaz(Juniperussilicicola) 0.5 dlive oak 2,5 This defect occurs frequently m urban trees when one or more of the hunks or main line, They are downgraded due to poor form and structure but as they are located in a rear Comments: This tree is actually located in the right of way and in the eastern side of the 1- A tree that is dying, severely declining, hazardous, harboring a communicable disease branches emanate from the same point and the bark becomes pinched (included) in the landscape buffer they could be preserved (with the exception of #28) to provide an Comments: The canopy of this tree has been restricted a or a bee designated by the State of Florida's Exotic Pest Plant Council as a category #1 crotch of the attachment. This situation has a significant potential for future failure and is evergreen screen, The other option is to remove them in favor of a more formal and beneath the canopy of tree #45. The stmcture is goo. :e has been restricted as it is growing beneath the wires sidewalk, The sidewalk has been cut out and curves around the tree to the west. The tree IW- S. The structure is good and the live crown ratio poses a serious pedestrian hazard and should be removed. In addition, the tree has a ecological pest i.e., Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terehinthifolius). Atree with a rating a downgrading factor of a bee's overall condition rating, This situation can be mitigated landscape, average, It is systemically healthy and could be preserve and could be preserved as it is growing in a green area. cavity on the northwest side that extends from the base up the trunk for 4' and is from of 1 should be removed as it is beyond treatment and is a threat to cause personal injury through structural pruning and cabling and bracing procedures, Recommend preservation, orpropertydamage. 28. 7" chenylaurel 0,0 12" -15"wide. There is a second cavity on the south side that extends from the root collar up the trunk 4' and is l4"wide, This cavity extends into the main crotch of the 10. 12" laurel oak 2.5 45, 22" live oak oak 3.0 tree, This tree is a hazard and should be removed. As it is in the right of way of Pinellas 2 - A tree exhibiting serious structural defects such as codominant stems with included Comments: This tree is a 5' stump and should be removed. bark at or near the base, large cavities, large areas of decayed wood, crown dieback, Comments: This trunk of this bee divides into two a severely included scaffold branches Comments This tree has a good trunk but forms codomi County, I recommend reporting this tree to the Pinellas County Highway Department ~ mnk but forms codominant scaffold branches that are (they have the responsibility for removing County trees) and request that it be removed. crackedlsplit scaffold branches etc, In addition, a bee with health issues such as law 10' above grade. The strucuue is very poor and can only be improved by subordinating 29, 2", 3" cherry laurel 1,0 slightly included 8' above grade. The form is average an energy, low live crown ratio, serious disease or insect problems, nutritional deficiencies the smaller of the codominant branches. The live crown raho is very good and the form good, This tree should be preserved but it will need cabli The form is avemge and the upper crown shucture is If it remains the proposed utility construction will impact this tree and only exacerbate or soil pH problems, A tree with a rating of #2 should be removed unless the problem(s) average, This bee is growing 2' away from tree #11 and will eventually fuse at the root Comments: Basal codominant attachment, recommend removah ed but it will need cabling and bracing in the future, the condition.7f it does remain it should be root pruned and barricaded. , can be treated. A tree with a #2 condition rating will typically require a considerable collar causing a hazardous basal codominant This bee should be removed in order to 46, 16" live oak amount of maintenance to qualify for an upgrade of the condition rahng, preserve tree #11, which is a better bee, 30, 4", 5" cherry laurel 1,0 oak 2,5 56. 9' Clear hunk Pindo palm (Brrtib capitata) 3.5 Comments, This tree has a tight restricted crown that gro stricted crown that grows to the southwest, It grows Comments: This palm is located in the right of way within a 1' cutout in the east side of 3- A tree with average structure and systemic health and with problems that can be I1, 15" laurel oak 2.5 Comments: This bee has ve oor stnrcture in the form of a severel included basal beneath the canopies of bees #45 & 47, The live crown n corrected with moderate maintenance, A bee with a codominant stem not in the basal ry P Y be preserved as it is located in a green space azea and wit & 47, The live crown ratio is average, This tree could sidewalk. The palm is surrounded by a group of Ilex Shilling. This palm also poses a reen space azea and will improve if maintained pedestrian hazard and although not as severe as tree #55, it should be brought to the area that will be subordinated or cabled and braced or a codominant stem that will soon Comments: The trunk of this tree divides into two codominant scaffold branches 6' above codominant attachment. Recommend removal, properly attention of the Pinellas County Highway Department for disposition. The palm is - have included bark can be included as a #3. A tree with a rating of #3 has average grade, The live crown ratio is very good and the form is average but will improve if tree 31, 3", 4" cheny laurel 2.0 appearance, crown density and live crown ratio and should be preserved if possible. #10 is removed. This tree is located in a green area where it could be preserved. If NOTE: Trees #47 - 49 are growing off the property in ti healthy and the crown grows radially from the trunk for 5' in all directions. If this palm ag off the property in the right of way of Highland remains it will probably be somewhat disfigured by pruning necessary to accommodate preserved the smaller codominant branch should be subordinated until such time that Avenue. In addition, they may be adversely wpacted by Comment; This bee has very poor stmcture in the form of a basal codominant with drive and could also cause a si ht restriction. The tan adversely wpacted by the construction of the entrance 4- A bee with a rating of 4 has good shuchue and systemic health with minor problems good sructure is achieved. Recommend preservation if shuctural pruning is performed, included bark, Recommend removal. g P de that can be easily corrected with minor maintenance, The tree should have an attractive conshuction of the driveway and preservation potential s; restriction. The plan does not show the full rreservation potential should be reassessed when the appearance and be essentially free of any debilitating disease or insect problem, The tree NOTE: Trees #12, #13, #14 & #15 are not shown on the site plan but appear to be on the 32, 6", 7" cherry laurel 2,0 extent of impact is determined, should also have above average crown density and live crown ratio, Mature trees property line of this property, Once the property lines are clearly staked ownership will exhibiting scars, old wounds, small cavities or other problems that are not debilitating can be determined. They will be included in the bee inventory as they appear to be on this Comment; This tree has very poor stmcture in the form of a basal codominant with 47. 16" sand live oak 1 live oak 2.5 be included in this group particularly if they possess unique farm or other aesthetic ProPertY~ included bark 6" above grade, Recommend removal. the palm's crown to the adjacent utility wires. It will not be receive significant impact by gainst the trunk of tree #46 and forms a potentially the utility construction. Removal is recommended in the intetest of public safety. amenities relating to their age. A tree with a rating of 4 is valuable to the property and Comments: This tree is growing against the hunk of bee hazardous basal codominant• cons uenil it is down ac should be preserved. 12, 9" laurel oak 3.5 33. 21" sand live oak 2.0 wires are directl above the trunk othis tree and the cror equently it is downgraded due to weak stmcture, The 57, l7" red cedar 2.0 Y S - A bee with very high live crown ratio and exceptional sructure and systemic health Comments: This tree has good shuchue and live crown ratio and average farm, This bee Comments: This tree had a codominant hunk that has been removed 4' above ode. Recommend removal unless the tree is secured in the rote of this tree and the crown is one-sided to the east. ee is secured in the interest of public safety with Comments; This tree is located 2 inches west of the sidewalk and the cano Q/ and virttrall free of insect or disease roblems or nuMtional deficiencies. A tree in this is a better overall tree than tree #13, which is rowin 2"from its base. If the are left as ~ cabling and bracing, Y P g g Y Someone has tried to place tar over the open cut to seal the wound but it is decaying into py grows 12' O 0 in all directions, The tree has a cavity extending from the base up 8' that is 14" in width category should have a balanced crown with exceptional aesthetic amenities. A tree in is they will soon form a hazardous basal codominant. Recommend preserving this kee the remaining trunk and may ultimately compromise the structural integrity of the tree, this category should be of a species that possesses characteristics inherent to longevity and removing kee #13. The live crown ratio is low as dieback is visible, The form is below average as the kee is 48. 15' sand live oak l live oak 2,5 at the widest point, The tree has same dieback and broken branches and the crown is ~ and withstanding constmction impacts, A kee with a #5 rating lends considerable value mostly one-sided, Recommend removal, spazse, The root system of this tree will receive a minor impact by the proposed to the site and should be incorporated into the site design. A kee with a #5 rating is 13, 7" laurel oak 2,0 Comments: This tree fomrs a potentially hazardous basal worthy of significant site plan modification to ensure its preservation 34. 17" sand live oak 2.5 tree is systemically healthy and could be preserved as it i ntially hazardous basal codominant with tree #47. The construction and will need to be root pruned and barricaded. This tree is on the decline uld be preserved as it is growing in a green space area; and should be considered for removal. Z Comments: Thrs bee has poor structure and is recommended for removal in order to however, it should be secured with cabling and bracing it ~ cabling and bracing in the interest of public safety if 58. 26" red cedaz 0.5 Q _ ` 6 - A specimen bee, A specimen kee is a kee that possesses a combination of superior preserve bee #12. The kee should be removed carefully by cutting the hunk as flush as preserved. Comments: The condition of this kee is downgraded for structural reasons as the kee qualities in regards to systemic health, structural strength, crown density, live crown possible with the grade. T'he trunk should not be ground as this procedure will injure bee forms three codominant scaffold branches 8' above grade that are shghtly included. The ratio, form (balanced crown), overall aesthetic appeal, size, species, age and uniqueness. #12, codominant branches are not an immediate concern but the condition will worsen and 49. 13" sand live oak A great effort should be made to preserve a specimen kee including shifting structures they will have to be cabled and braced in the future. The form is vase like and average in Comments: This trunk of this tree is located 3' west of the ri ht of wa hne and 2' north U l live oak 2,5 B Y of an entryway driveway, The canopy extends 15' to the south, l2' to the north and 20' to that would adversely impact the tree. In addition, a specimen tree should have an 14. 9" laurel oak 3.0 Comments: The crown of this kee grows to the west and appearance, The live crown ratio appears to be slightly below average but could improve The bee produces a codominant stem S' above ode that the east, This tree has a massive cavi on the west side that has a 2"diameter Brazilian grows to the west and the live crown ratio is average, ty w undisturbed area equal to its dripline (equal to the branch spread) to grow in. Only an when it is wmpletely leafed out. The proposed plan shows this bee along with bee #35, to ~ experienced and competent Intemational Society of Arboriculture (LS.A.) Certified Comments: This tree needs pruning to improve its structure but will evolve into a good be saved within a 9' wide azkin lot ]andsca a island. If the ode is cut to ultimately need to be secured with cabling and bracing. T em S' above grade that will become included and will pepper tree (Schinus terebirrthifolias) growing out of the cavity. The cavity begins 2' ~ ~ Z cabling and bracing. The tree is located in a above grade where it is 15"wide and at 5.5' above grade it is 30" wide. It is a deep cavity Arborist should be allowed work on a specimen kee, bee if it is maintained properly, Recommend preservahon, accommodate the constru clop of the sub-base the resultin roo loss will cause the greenspace and with bees #47 & 48 they fomr a good clu g like a puzzle. However, preservation potential should be ~ 8 they form a good cluster as the canopies fit together with soft decay present, There is also a basal wound on the east side, The crown of this t1, O - Comments: The comment section serves to note observations relative to the bee but not 15, 16" laurel oak 2,0 decline of these kees, If these kees are to be preserved the root systems must be left impacts are determined, on potential should be assessed after the construction tree has large stubs and broken branches, Some of the branches are lying an the utility ~ wires causing them to sag, This tree is a hazardous tree and should be removed. I O ~ intact as they cannot tolerate root loss in their current condition. covered in the inventory data or expands on information in the inventory data. It may 50, 13' C,T, ueen ahn recommend contacting the property owners and Pinellas County Cade Enforcement to include maintenance recommendations to improve the bee's overall condition rating. It Comments: This kee appears to be two bees that have fused together. The kee has a 9 P 35. 13" sand live oak 2,0 may also have recommendations onwhether toremove or preserve a kee, severe codominant trunk 6' above grade. The structure is very poor. This bee is located .n palm 1,5 seek removal of this tree. The root system of this tree will receive moderate root damage ~ 1-1 which will only compound the condition of this tree. if this tree remains it will have to be z where it could be preserved and it has a spacious rooting area to the west. The kee will Comments: This pahn is downgraded due to the presence Comments: This tree is downgraded due to the presence of a hunk cavity that affects the south side of the hunk. ied due to the presence of a large cavity on the lower root pruned and bamcaded. ~ NOTE: A tree inventory is typically valid for 3-5 years. However, events such as improve if stuctural pruning is performed over a period of time, Recommend bee's overall stuctural integrity. The cavity is located on the southeast side of the tnrnk drought, IighMing, mechanical root damage, freeze, improper maintenance and preservation only if pmning will be perfomred otherwise recommend removal. and is 2' high and 4"wide, If this tree is preserved the cavity should be monitored 59, 6" red cedaz 2,5 severe storms can downgrade the rating value of a tree. Conversely, remedial 51, 12' C.T, queen palm annually to determine if the decay is progressive or if the kee has successfully maintenance can upgrade the value, If you suspect that a tree has been adversely 16, 4" laurel oak 2,0 compartmentalized the wound, A resist•o-graph (a machine that measures decay and ar palm 3,0 ~ V Comments; The tmnk of this tree is located 3' west of the right of way line and the crown ORIGINAL Q = Comments: 7iris bee has pits along the trunk but is health affected, have the tree inspected by a qualified International Society of determines if it exceeds the threshold for stability) may have to be used to make the trans ]anted on site, ;the trunk but is healthy and could be preserved or extends 4' in all directions. The crown is suppressed by tree #SB and an adjacent camphor RECEIVED P Arboriculture (ISA) CerHHed Arborist, determination, The live crown ratio appears to be below average and the form is average, tree. This tree will not receive a significant impact from the construction, p I cc , n ~ If preserved, this bee may improve with proper maintenance but it should be inspected 60, tl" live oak 3,0 (-IIJG 1 ~ ~oou ~ v- m Comments; This tree is located 3.5' west of the right of way line and the canopy extends PLANNING DEPARTMENT z ~ ~ 15' south, l l' north and 13' to the east. This tree hen uncharacteristically large surface CITY OF CLEARWATER roots but has average health and structure. The hee will experience minor root loss and will need to be root pmned and barricaded. Nate: The canopies of trees #61, 62, 63 & 64 coalesce and are shown on the site plan as one large canopy. 61. 9" live oak 3.0 ~ ~ i TREE 5URVEY NOTE5 I L-3 i I \~qu{,a«+a'a V^^'~ee+ rt r ~;a~ tM rer a..Y rt..~ "rift~.rair"'~, ear+... N. f; .a.e»s,~,f.,,~ ~sxir".°,'gr.IX''`r .z~..x .N,. na,,:: i ~,~e, 04/24/06 - i- s' _'_~y ::~-.,.rte ,,~tra a „ N,. Wi".wC~ "~,1F~RL~~r. _ ) w.,. ...r.' ,.^A~3yi.<"t.nY^!!" ~ ~iY~'6T'*~"'"- i - ,.1 ~ 4 .,:T n. , ray ' ,e.,,,. .n . sNerW 'nwN.. 2~?°`^~ =9b 1: i v w. y ,Z B 5. r.v{ W7'1'_ 2AA*~ . s , .S , r. ~ r. }k. c, .1. t+ Nip Jw. d ,;r." 4 a .I. .S nX. ~^Nb`~-""., r.i:?.r.".c }.r..., .i t'.?+R~,',.~..:,. ...,r F+.,nV .:..~r:..r r~ ..i ~ .Y '~'~.,r ~i,~K. ..?1"r. ~ t ...::.f, -ur+' 5...,..~~.. L`~:i._n.. ,,~~,~r., .5+~ :..<a ........u~'a.lmn. - ,J`^ eT'., , K..... oA ~ n~ Ater.°~' ~ c' 4 x ~,.le n e ~i - 'r ~ itf^^m. ~ { y ~a" a^`r+' +1''Nn"a".~ Q F ~.,.m/~, Y-y ~ ~ ~cwa ~ ~ ,~s~, "a, ,`.,~.r~...... ~ c4#t~S"~~D~,,..r I ~7~~ .,r a..-,.~.... I a ~ a.. .n ~Y+ .4 :i?nMt°,"' " 1 ya' ~.^M'F~M` -h T' , wp.~Y1?.::.~. ,+I.._~,. t I w '!I.'ll. v . ..U - , c'T 1 iV'N ~r~ ' e ~"s, _'Ybi7a.+V,'1:;.Y. r. .z41. , ,-~.N r,::,..>_~-«,,.i w,,. ~.,.r d .,(Y Y - .lxr?TKaWaSY1rv A ~T, :fa - a., t . ~i a 8, ~x -.t x a xa~a^r,~, a«a~ ~ _..`'w ' i.~s'$ta+,~,r-i 0~/05/0~ x '^7 ...ar,y ~w rm ~'~.ryr a''~ is .-rr" , a , nA:,. 17` As-°' 'h'""^' ~ 1, 3n'b' °,.a r ",s'1frN rh 1 -.v.: , r c,f.,.k ; .r r..r;,,, . K ,~~~k°"y ~ .+~+~N w¢. ~<°^n; sn4a. .;akm+. -rC.r E'J~.."4, "'"~`1F,~~ ~W , a „ . , v -i_. • r a . - '~A'';4, ~J ' 1 ,_;,q 4''s'YstF' ,twn.,.w.. ~ 'K-. . ,.Fa. ~ ~ r ~.,,..a**cs~ .,o....,. , ~ir~ ,t. .'r~..y,,:. 5 «;4 . .r.+..:,.., , r<~~~ ~ as .,r ~,'~,~.r-,~ ~'{ia~~ r~ ,rn`yn ~ `+~t+ n~~~rK'y~--~u"~c~tY v. ~ 07/25/06 , ~ 4,. m°.. ,.r nr. ~a..6aWV; N ~ ..ch..nv, n'}"' W3fijp ,.i.... F+'+ fir. w ~ i... : 'a':. , 3.a~Ayt~,,,~ _.-..r•, r+.c - -.:,u.; An`~ M,..,'P1.y,.,. r.. . , apw' , r < 'G. x+-, 1 .rr;.. , °q4 t._- . ..w' M~'f::1 ~ . ' c.A:b~Ra", ':.,a - 1, r++r' ns.rn+. y.. a.::~ , w.ro„a. w r-roa~ .y` rta~;. ter, ,,,fir mss:-_ ...,r ,.,d.r,. ~.Y . , - ~ i'"" wan;. of 9 n. ..i^:. ..cr, ~rt, ~ f 4 ~ ~~r aww s:u• ~ . ~tu~,. a,~ nr., w~e,.r - .,w ~ ..-via ..q.~ x , "!a r 1 " ~ ~T N'~ - ".iMVp~w , ~ I;.. .,,..,r ..~,a,. n , ~ ,,,..mow, w.;. i.w<. M~ , , . , , ~ r .~H ``SS f.. ter., ...nu . ~ r .Nn.+..,.v... .~dr'r -.h - wi~+'.. 4 ilk A~~ ~ +ac'v~_... d'~' _ .Y... x~'. T ,,4.... y. .wi ...~..-..,..Jp t(.,'...-.. r; A u .~0.... .FSm ?x.FUN~ . e„ aq~{i -~wFd. 'R ,FMN .fs; a. W - ~~yr5v,Y, 7P1... ^n^~`. rtl .".li +a.-,`~i"~ RYA F ~~~r+.sa i. xr ~ ,.r'V ~M e ~ h.~. M. Md~1.:.~~ .<~.,c~;,. < < ~ w ,-;a i, d .'bra. .k. ~ WM;..~ •:wi an,aetxta4+.~ „w- ~ ~tW,, w.y 4 ~ ~ F JAY F. MYERS a s,~s~~ a . M ~ -w,;;e/ , ~K ~ 'FeP.Rar r 1 1 J~',F r ~ 'Mwv A r~~°`r 4 ~t~. J~ A + ..,:x~ ~ vr#'t, Inc T .~r tY ~„~w -„n µene, x 'i ~ ~ W~T8n.~e pair. , ,w, _ .-.n.;n, mr ~ Ex4 „a •w. ~ Yva.d ~ - * „ ~ fi~uH'pjy ~,.,C ~ >k a~~„y~ :~.,~.:~1~ ,.i+~:~"7` r •[a+Mn +su w+-.... `'~aos.~4 a ~ ~,r.~.« t~ ~s n •~„"Hnw it "w'"' ~^na~* ~ +N •rt'R7~ 'y~r" ~'~Paw.-X"". M^a ~ ~ ~ • ,tea ~~,.M:_wa.«.....- ~'u~~ .~+~`q~''~.+,-w-r~v,•-•< P x<,+.~v w~- ~-a "*"`tr'T"^ «~a~~"M'r n~mswr~ ti, "fir - : u w~,~;a.~xa.,,.~.~,~,~:N,„~,~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , , # AA -0003461 ._,sr~„ w,ry ~,.4,.,,a~ ~1~ i ~ ~ } i I 0 ~ o W U ' ~ O U ~ H ~ M ~ ~ W ~ ~ r 1_n V = H a ~ w 0 U ~ ~ 0 O O ~ w ~ ~ 0 °o z m ~ o ~ N ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ P,~INT GOLORS, Q _ B,~SE GOLOR PORTER P,~INT56182-2 P,~LE M~R~C~UERITE LL TRIM COLUMNS DET,~ILS ,AND F,~SGI~/SO - - FFITS PORTER PINTS 6187 1 VERMOUTH WHIT E W v I w W 0 0 0 tX z ~ ~ m Q.., m ~ ~ 0 Q Q ~ ~ u- z ~ O 0 Q Q Q ~ ~ ~ p ~ z p ~ ~ ~ z w w r " i 0 0 W ORIGINAL I z ~ RECEIVED 'I ~ ~ ~;~.I~ 112005 in z PLANNING [7EPART<VtEN't s m CITY 4F CLEAR~IATIP.. N ~9 i ~1 ELEVATION5 i OF A-2