The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2006-05032 LL 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 #: RECEIVED BY (staff initials): DATE RECEIVED: NOTE: 115 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS) FLEXIBLE DEVELOP ME•NT 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: MAILING ADDRESS: fc1t,___r?-JL__...__.__!__,,_L}LA/Lr/!_:..--L--t?----.---?------------------_- PHONE NUMBER: _ L CELL NUMBER: Lc.1....._.._7._.......??....-....{/I3...... _._...... _...... .... ... ............... `u...-.....4...Ce.l...-....Zt_.Z_Zr..._......_...... ...._.__...._.._.._........__._.... 7J-?-?Cel- Zl?.? PROPERTY OWNER(S): -?- List ALL owners on the deed \ AGENT NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: C3 O"( ....... ..?...... PHONE NUMBER: FAX NUMBER: CELL NUMBER: E-MAIL ADDRESS: 1h - I, F'\ -•1/,n- B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) j PROJECT NAME: `J' r11 ` PROJECT VALUATION: ... ................. -- -- _........ ......... STREET ADDRESS {?Z/ ...... J ._L4 ,_......_.C o._ ... _..._ .._ _.` PARCEL NUMBER(S): ZL_.__.... _.__/-._S __... Z......_._.._......-.'J9._5--- ......3...u._.....__.._.?._,_?yL ........ _._ .._ ............ PARCEL SIZE acres: PARCEL SIZE (square '' n. ?.. Z.. .r?Z :.......' ..... .. ... ....f..._.._'...._-... a?4 .r ti?J.._._ r LEGALDESCRIPTION: js I / i _e........_ f -_?__ LEGAL PROPOSED USE(S): ___._.._..._._.....__._._.._.......-----_.._.....-.-.---_....__.._.__.....--- - ___.____...___.._. _.._ --._ _...--__-..._..___..... _._ .__.. _ ____.` .... _ - . - _. __...._`__- _.__ -..._I .................. __..__..__._..._.---.._.-- ORIGiIL RECEIVED DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: _.._._.........-----__ Specifically identify the request ..C....._..__.............__......._:_._..._...._......- --.. ,. f ? `c=3? _. _.'.. _.. ! 3 . . ....._._. .. (include number of units or square footage of non-residential use and all .. - .. ... ............... .......... ........ requested code deviations: e.g. PLANNING DEPARTMENT _....... _. _ ............... ......................_......_...... reduction in required norther cf ........ _..... ......... ........ ..._.. _......_......... ... ....__ CITY OF CLEARWATER parking spaces, specific use, etc.) ?V QN 0 CCOw` Vv X:\Clw Applications\2006 Applications\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2006.01Aoc Page 1 of 8 lip" ::- ._ .., ...`rte . _ .. _ _- .. ... DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNI" DEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTIFIED) SITE PLAN? YES _ NO Z (if yes, attach a copy of the applicable documents) C. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP: (Code Section 4-202.A.5) ZSUBMIT A COPY OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY, DEED TO THE PROPERTY?OR SIGN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING OWNERSHIP (see page 7) D. WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 3-913.A) ? 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. 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. __.__c --- ... - _ -- _ - --- --- --- ----- ------------------------- 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. .. ................... d. 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. RECEIVE[} r! -CI_J-2.2Q6 X:\Clw Applicationsl2006 Applications\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2006.01.doc Page 2 of 8 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 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. _.. _._,r-?.....___._._.._..._....._.._.......... ........ .... ........ .____.__........ ._...._..-...._..._.._..._.._._.... .... _._..._...... 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 dernonstrate 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 wvith 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 7 Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development. provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances betty/ buildings. ORIGINAL ----- -------- --- ........... ...._._...... _.....-_-.._._..-- X:\Clw Applications\2006 Appiications\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2006.01.doc PLANNING DEPARTMENT Page 3 of 8 CITY OF CLEARWATER E. STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual and 4-202.A.21) A STORMWATER NARRATIVE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH ALL APPLICATIONS. All applications that involve addition or modification of impervious surface, including buildings, must include a stormwater plan that demonstrates compliance with the City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual. A reduction in impervious surface area does not qualify as an exemption to this requirement. 0 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; O All adjacent streets and municipal storm systems; Proposed stormwater detentionfretention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; 0 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 Q 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 shail 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 202.A) SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (including legal description of property) - One original and 14 copies; sd 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; Q-----TREE INVENTORY; prepared by a "certified arborist", of all trees 8" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and condition of such trees; F4--'LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPE?TY; 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 traff;c 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; )4 PRELIMINARY PLAT, as required (Note: Building pert-nits will not be issued until evidence of recording a final plat is provided); COPY OF RECORDED PLAT, as applicable; RECEIVED X:\Clw Applic2tions\2006 Applications\Compre[ ensive InFil Project (FLD) 2006.01.doc Page 4 of 8 OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A) w' SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36"): i/ Index sheet referencing individual sheets included in package; North arrow; Engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet), and date prepared; II dimensions; ootprint and size of all EXISTING buildings and structures; ootprint and size of all PROPOSED buildings and structures; II required setbacks; If 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; Number of EXISTING dwelling units; Number of PROPOSED dwelling units; Gross floor area devoted to each use; ..- ._- Parking spaces: total number, ;.,resented in t4 abular form with the number of required spaces; .. -........ ............ ........ ..... .._..._. _..... ..... ........_.... ............. __........ . ....... ........ ..... 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; Buildino and structure heights; - ------ ....._.._...... ..... ...... .-_._.......... Impermeable surface ratio (I.S.R.); and Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses. .- _._..._ _................. ...__....._...____..._. .... ..... .......... .................... RED UCED COLOR SITE PLAN to scale (8'/ X 11); ?r ;.,Ci FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the following additional information on site plan: J JN One-foot contours or spot elevations on site; Offsite elevations if required to evaluate the proposed stormwater management for the parcel; ORIGINAL RECEIVED All open space areas; Location of all earth or water retaining walls and earth beans; OCT 12 ???6 _......... _ Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned); Streets and drives (dimensioned); PLANNING DEPARTMENT Building and structural setbacks (dimensioned); CITY OF CLEARWATER Structural overhangs; X:\Clw Applications\2006 Applications',Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2006.01.doc Page 5 of 8 ?e rr__„xwuce Spf .. H. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-1102.A) LANDSCAPE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36"): f All existing and proposed structures; Names of abutting streets; Drainage and retention areas including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations; I 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 dri0lines (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. P-' REDUCED COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8',4 X 11); Std 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% X 11. J. SIGNAGE: (Division 10. SIGiNS I Section 3-1806)vt {Jc+ ,>! ??J >? J? -' ? 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) 1? Comprehensive Sign Program application, as applicable (separate application and fee required). ORIGINAL ? Reduced signage proposal (8 11z X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application. RECEIVED OCT 1 ?nn? PLANNING DEPARTMENT X:\Clw App!icat ons\2006 Applicaticns\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2006.01.doc CITY OF CLEARWATER Page 6 of 8 s{. -- - -7- K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4-202.A.13 and 4-801.C) Q nclude 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- D 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. AIL CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AND NONE HAS SEEN 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. Neater 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. 0 Acknowledgement of fire flow calculations/water study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): Fire Flow CalculationOAlater Study is included. Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is not required. CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY AND NOME HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUSTO??INAL RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. OM'INA If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Fire Prevention Department at (727) 562-4334. OCT 12 2@ N1. SIGNATURE: I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledO and authorize City representatives to visit and photogra0h the property described in this application. re`of property owner or representative CITY OF STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS o n to and subscribed before me this Q) day of A.D. 20 to me and!or by who is personally known has produced _ identification. r ---- ---- ? _.._ otary public, My commission expires:/6 14, (?qyr?UV I _ l DOREEN A, 1,141! .? ? }yr o ivir wrvuviwo..v T .... -nr4t?? EXPIRES: October t4. 2006 X:\Clw Applications\2006 Applications\Comprehen.sive Infill Project (FLD) 2006.01. c1_wAS-NOTTARYRY FL Notary Service Faeonding,inc. Page 7 of 8 -mccg N_ AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT: 1. Provide names of all property owners on deed - PRINT full names: 2. T ht (I m/we are) the o?w,ner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property (address or general location): L'/- -? O???? "c- UDC l<? /C.."C?GD ?C? C.?? ?? ?j ?j?(i? G- G est for a. (describe request) 3. That this property con itutes the property for :Z7 17 4. That the undersigned (has/haye) and es/do) as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; 5. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; 6. That site visits to the property e . ecessary by City representatives in order to process this application and the owner authorizes City representatives to visit and oto - raph the property described in this application; 7. That (l/we), t and rity, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct, Property Owner eD sr1 Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner STATE: OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Ci Before me the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned y the laws of the State of Florida, on this day of personally appeared i who having been first duly sworn Deposes Id says that he/she sully understands the contents of ','-.e affidavit that `--,'She signed. 0`.uuu 3 ii-=S4o>'en/ r" c - .1cdo of tom„ ? y ?,: I S0 2, 7 Notary Public Signature I,n ? C?WSIC n # DD 238732 Notary Seal/Stamp; My Commission Expires: ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1?0 OF CLEARWATER S:\Planning DepartmerMpplication Forms\development revievJ2006 Forms\Comprehensive Infiii Project (FLD?06.01.doc Page 8 of 8 ,AFP113AyIT Tt AUTF (Names of all property 2. That (I a", rare) the on deed a pima5e PRINT Roll names ) and record iftte t,c:tdWk:i) of the fpii Pio4ty (ar:drass br cggao I iccallorvy 3. That this property constitutes the property for+khjech a request for a: (d !be request) 4, 5. Thrtt this affidavit has been exex-.itei to Ir4me the City of Clearwater, Fbdda 9o corstdar and act on the rabcwe dascrtbsct p-Marty: 5. That slee vlslts to Ura property are necowary by City repraserltzW" in order to preeacs this appllcaarm LIM the owner attdvdzefi City repmerda:ffves to visit and photograph ttm pmp erty descafb&d In thAs aenlIcsO ', 7. That (Vma), the urrdersigngd autfrorjty, hereby wdlfy that ttte Prope r+jr O wnerr 5 9##Cre me the ur.defsigned, an rafi csr dirty cerlrn?sslonad by the laws of the ratstrt et`%tid< on this Clay of (?t?. , Z ?(.? pt san0tiy ap red c~ !-? t"?10 •'-) C- who Dying been first duty s 4om Le rrsa anCi sa?m !Cat tense fully undemiands the rorrtarst8 of the sfv t that-tr Sher s;gnsd- A SUE HANSEN NIARC1 Notary 1"llc. State of Texas My Commission Expires UB• 13.210.1 s F?c C;cvnrrtl6si0sr ?., - I Cv Notary Public "•Fia:,nin? Ddp?rtrnsnlNlrJplrca+•'on Fc,-r»s188vs!)p»leRt rr?vrgsviflarbla :?evelGpmBnt Cc?.preh.?nsia@ irlirlf BopgGei?on ?:'OB.dx Pnga 7 ()f 7 - +=lexible DgvcEopmert.Comprehensivs Inflit Application 200? City a cleerwtsr ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 98 (htsiihale) agent(s) to enem to any peHit ans cr other doc:umenft roces M to affeaY mxh pe etk)n; t>ropeirty,tawner - 9 1* LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION This letter will serve as authorization for Housh Ghovaee (agent Name) with Norihside Engineering Services, Inc, to act as an agent for (Property Owner's Name) And to execute any and all documents related to securing permits and approvals for the construction on the property generally located at 921 Lakeview Road, Clearwater, FL (Property Location) RINEUA&Ge -v. State of FLORIDA. gnaturebf-PI'roperty Owner Address of Property Owner City/State/Zip C de Haf L(L-1?,Y ---? Print Name of Property Owner Aeoo?-";T- Title 12 `7 ZI ?-e f 2 f 2 z-- Telephone Number State a The foregoing instrument was acknowledge before me this day County of , 20Q , by Ay UZ??toC- as "4jj who is personally known to me or who has produced in as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. Notary Public (Signature) ----Zopmission #J? S?4?p 2 (Name of Notary Typed, Printed or Stamped) OV i 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER U POWER OFk KNOW ALL, My.HN BY THESE PRESE.NnI , >srtitir-;rtignecM, does bltrcb ?????? aM trarrldit'? at ?,& fwl' for tree and ill my , dace, and suc ad: I, 0 attorney-In. i ?? grar't, bargain, sell, ennvry, mor4a$e, pledge or enmmNr 11'& fbi.lo-wing described Entesr Leo l)aDwr iption of Property Pavel Tdentiflrliazt NutYlber?.I rte ?l kino Known ms: And l do horeby gi.vc and graunt to my acid rft+torm.y full power oad authority to do stied perform al I wd evtry acct and thing whatsoever nee". arsry to 'be dam in the pm mice w ftly to All intents amt purpr}ses as I might ar could do ifpv"ally presam, mth till power of suboitutior and mTkvatdom hereby.radfying and 6onftmirng all thnt my said elttf mey may do pur muml to this powet. 1N WI INErSS WNFR,_EOlF, l have hea?--itnto sa my hmnd and sW this -J-SA?a-day of Signed, settled atWd dali,vercad?in the er+ae of: Witness , (?4 o-?ar? _ .. S We Of comty ORIGINAL RECEIVED AN11A V. TRY Notary Public, State of Texas pires i My Commission2E0x08 + January 20, no fluregoing imllmssment w hemby ftc nowkdged before sru tktie 5? S a40 OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARINATER 2"8 090a..£y6 I'll --L.E:4 olevoAq 941w-r j ajQ^ojun, {-ldLet-al 900 S1 AQW FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Comprehensive Infll Redevelopment Project The Boiling Pot 921 Lakeview Rd. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The proposed redevelopment is to convert a two-story masonry structure consisting of four apartments and accessory storage into a restaurant. The existing structure will not be demolished and re-built; modifications are being made to the building for a conversion and to bring the buildings original 1920's heritage. The existing structure does not meet the current code setbacks. The redevelopment proposal is the beneficial re-use of a historic 1920's beverage distribution center as a Cajun theme restaurant. Recent use of the property has been attached dwellings with a variety of non-code compliant additions to the main structure. Allowing a viable business to occupy the space will enable the restoration of the core structure and increase the likelihood of preservation. The original site development and building location do not meet current code requirements, necessitating the need for consideration of the following... A reduction is being requested for the following: Front (Lakeview) 25' to 19.3' to existing building 25' to 14' to sidewalk 25' to 4' to pavement Front (Dempsey) 25' to 30' to existing building 25 to 0' to dumpster enclosure 25' to 1' to pavement Side (east) 10' to 3' to existing bldg. Side (west) 10' to 5' to pavement Height: 25' to 29.5' to existing midpoint of pitched roof ORIGINAL Parking: 43 spaces to 16 spaces RECEIVED Lot width: 100' to 89.77' (along Dempsey) OCT 12 2006 Allow 4 parking spaces in sight visibility triangles Allow for direct access off Lakeview Road PLANNING DEPARTMENT Comprehensive Landscape Program CITY OF CLEARWATER Reduction to a 15' buffer along Lakeview to 5' Reduction to interior parking lot landscaping from 10% to 5.5% 0 • WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (Section 3-913) 1. The development proposal eliminates non-code compliant additions that in recent years masked the original core structure without enlargement or addition makes use of the existing structure which was built in the 1920's.; therefore the existing two-story masonry building will remain in scale, bulk, coverage and density with the adjacent properties. Through this proposed conversion the architectural style and historical character of the building will be maintained. The majority of the reductions requested are associated with the existing building setbacks and the existing lot size therefore the site will remain in harmony with the adjacent sites. Although a less intense use would reduce the parking demand, the required spaces proposed for this site would not be reduced due to the square footage of the building and the setbacks will still be relevant. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and building or significantly impair the value. The non-conforming recent use of the site with substandard apartments will be eliminated and re-establishment of that undesirable situation made less likely by establishing an economically viable use for the property. The operation hours of the proposed use will be 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. while the businesses to the east and west operate from 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Being the proposed development is a restaurant in a commercial zoning district as well as the adjacent lots, if the abutting lots decided to redevelop; the uses would have to conform to the same zoning district. While enhancing the current dilapidated site, values tend to increase. 3. There will be no adverse affects to the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. The owner-operated site will be well lit and its continued maintenance in good order is ensured by his self interest to present an attractive street appearance. Parking areas will be similarly improved and all drainage contained on site as required by code. 4. The applicant is proposing an on-site parking area for 16 cars with area for on- site maneuvering of vehicles. This will eliminate backing out movements into the right-of-way. Clearly defined access driveways will minimize vehicle conflict points. Sole access will be from Lakeview. Although the restaurant will have seating for 60, the trip generation calculated daily will be minimum. The developer continues to seek joint access parking with adjacent uses. The developer is currently negotiating with The Candy Factory regarding shared parking. As well as negotiating with the Candy Factory, which is .2 miles for the proposed development, there is also a medical center under construction within the same distance which cross-parking may be negotiated. There are also on-street spaces available within 700' of the property. No access will be permitted off Dempsey Street. Signs will be posted. As far as delivery trucks, this will take place in the mornings when the restaurant is ORIGINAL RECEIVED O1,T 12 2006 2 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • closed for business. Since we have decided to remove the concrete along Dempsey, they will have to deliver the goods off Lakeview at the only ingress/egress available. The owner has stated and has provided a letter stating that there will be no on- street parking in the rights-of-ways. He will make a conscious effort to deter his customer's from doing so as far as having his host/hostess asking his patrons if they are parked on-street to please move their vehicles. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character as the area is primarily comprised of various smaller commercial operations similar to the neighborhood restaurant being proposed. The proposed use is an allowable use within the Commercial Zoning District and through design and operation any ill effects on the surrounding properties will be mitigated. Like many other commercially zoned corridors, the commercially designated sites are bordered by residential neighborhoods, uses such as this proposed neighborhood restaurant is intended to provide service to the surrounding residential areas and the surrounding residential areas support the local business. People and businesses have co-existed for years, whether it be old mixed with new, new mixed with new or old mixed with old. Preserving a building which was built in the 1920's is a good gesture on the part of the owner. With old buildings, come old troubles. That has not played a role in this owner's endeavor to still want to save a little piece of history in a small area of Clearwater. Also, in the City of Clearwater's Comp. Plan, it states that Clearwater will continue to protect Historical properties. The immediate vicinity surrounding the proposed development does not have any consistent "community character". The area is completely mixed-use. You have office, manufacturing, retail, auto body, medical, residential and a cemetery. The only recognizable community character in this area would be the era the structures were building. In keeping this 1920's building, it retains its character within the area. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects on adjacent properties by utilizing the existing charming old Florida style building without expansion and providing additional upgrades to the site such as new landscaping, a paved parking lot, responsible site drainage and other site improvements not currently provided. Additional mitigation is offered by providing a smaller neighborhood restaurant with all operations completely contained within the building; the new dumpster will be screened and enclosed. The proposed hours of operation are intended to serve the dinner crowd with late afternoon openings and closings at 10:00 p.m. The proposed restaurant use will provide the site with a permissible use in lieu of the non- conforming use previously established on site. ORIGINAL, RECEIVED 0.T 12 2[06 PLAN04G DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER r 0 WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (Section 2-704C) 1. As this development proposal contemplates revitalization and utilization of the existing 1920's structure the proposed redevelopment is impractical without deviations. The established setbacks for the structure and the established site area is less than the current code requires, however, to make practical use of the existing building, retaining the historic value, setbacks and reductions are required. The existing building and site restrains would make most revitalization projects for this site impractical without receiving deviations. The ' building as it sits today does not meet current setback requirements. Although a less intense use on site may reduce parking, there is no use due to the square footage of the building that would require less parking spaces that are currently proposed on site. 2. This redevelopment proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive plan and through the innovative proposal to utilize the historical building the developers will be provided with an opportunity to enhance the value of their property. Further, the redevelopment and associated improvements will have a positive influence on the values of the surrounding properties. The area is beginning to see some redevelopment with the newly approved medical office located just northwest of the site, this revitalization plan will continue to breathe new life into this area and provide the surrounding area with local goods and services as desired by code. The area as a whole has such a variety of uses. The residential neighbors have been looking at this building for 80 years and that is not changing. A parking lot will be erected in an area where a grass field was, but every effort has been made to buffer the view from neighbors. No matter what use this site would come to the development board, the majority of the setbacks would still be necessary. Most uses would require 16 or more parking spaces and the same retention based on the square footage of the building. 3. The proposed redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. The current uses to the west and east consist of a social security office and an automotive part refurbishment business. Although setback reductions are being requested, the reductions primarily speak to the existing building conditions; this development proposal does not contemplate additions or enlargement of the existing structure. The existing building has been on the site for over 80 years and will remain. The proposed site improvements, such as new landscaping, responsible site drainage, the development of appropriate parking surfaces, and the restoration of a charming historical building together with providing a desired service to the local neighborhood will translate into a solid improvement for the surrounding properties. ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2@06 PLANNINI.- DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Many redevelopment projects request setbacks to their sites. The most common are side setbacks. A 5' reduction is common and still provided ample amount of space for landscaping. Unfortunately, since the existing building is to remain, the east setback is at 3'. The front setbacks, which there are two has made it challenging to place parking the site without asking for reductions. We felt with some site constraints, a valiant effort has been made. 4. Adjoining parcels will not suffer due to the redevelopment parcel as mitigation is providing by offering a smaller neighborhood restaurant with all operations completely contained within the building, a new dumpster which will be screened and enclosed, new professionally design landscape not currently found on site. The proposed hours of operation are intended to serve the dinner crowd with late afternoon openings and closings at 10:00 p.m. The proposed restaurant use will provide the site with a permissible, use in lieu of the non-conforming use previously established on site. This neighborhood restaurant will be a catalyst of revitalization for the area; the redeveloped site will entice other necessary and desired establishments that provide good and services to the local neighborhood. The current parcels to the south are residential. Out of 88' of frontage on the proposed property, only 25' will be screened by landscaping. A large concrete pad is being removed and 29 Yew Podocarpus trees and 2 Ligustrum Trees are proposed for plantings as a buffer. 5. The proposed use is permitted by the underlying future land use category and compatible with adjacent land uses. The proposed restaurant use is a permissible use within the Commercial General Land Use category. Additionally, the proposed restaurant use will provide a few new employment opportunities. The proposed use would be an economic contribution (though small, but every little bit helps) to the City's economic base and diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs. With a new restaurant comes new jobs; cooks, wait staff, etc. Being a historic property and the City states in its comp plan that it strives to preserve historical properties, this would be a contribution to the City as there are fewer historical buildings still standing in Clearwater with all the major redevelopment taking place. The development proposed accommodates the redevelopment of an existing economic contributor. Historical sites should be preserved. The 1920's building remains with a use change only. 6. Listed below are the justifications in regards to flexibility of the proposedORIGINAL redevelopment. RECEIVED CI'T 12 2[06 PLANNIAIG DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • 0 a. The proposed redevelopment being a permitted use within the Commercial Zoning district will not impede normal and orderly development on surrounding properties. Surrounding properties are also of a commercial use within the Commercial Zoning district. Currently, Martin Luther King Boulevard is being reviewed to be rezoned to a commercial zoning district in order to entice redevelopment is this area. The surrounding parcels are all commercial except for the residential to the south. During operation hours of this restaurant, the majority of the businesses in the area will be closed within 1 hour of the restaurant opening. No impact will be placed on these uses. The residential community to the south consists of approximately 5 homes, 3 directly behind the restaurant. The two parcels to the west and east of the proposed parcel are an office building which has direct access on Dempsey and an automotive restoration company which is an intense use for the area, as they are a body shop working 9-5 and are a noise maker. Our site will not have any access on Dempsey reducing traffic and will not have any noise impact. b. Applicable design guidelines are not provided for this area. C. The design and scale of the proposed development supports the established character of the area as the proposal makes use of the existing 1920's building. The proposal also provides further investment in the area to encourage future improvements and investment. Although the proposed neighborhood restaurant is considered more intensive use than the existing attached dwellings, unlike the existing attached dwellings the proposed use a permissible within Commercial Zoning District. And although this use is considered intense, it is no more intense than the automotive restoration business to the east which also has residential to its south. Additionally, the building is commercial as are the surrounding parcels. The original building will not change from its original footprint which has been on the site since the 1920's. Additional pavement will be added for parking as well as additional landscaping and property drainage which this site did not previously have. d. Listed below are visual design elements: ? The horizontal plane 'will change with a pitched roof with decorative contours to the east and west side of the pitched roof. ? Architectural details have been used on the north elevation. ? The building will be of a tropical Mediterranean color scheme with stucco walls. ? Distinctive fenestration patterns will be on the north elevation. ORIGINAL RECEIVED OI CT 12 2@06 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER i • ? The actual building is setback off Lakeview approximately 18' and off Dempsey approximately 30'. The building was building in the 1920's and is getting a new facelift. ? The building will have distinctive roof forms. The center of the roof will be pitched and the east and west sides are very different for lack of a better word. Maybe the word is the use of cornices? ? The building will be stucco (original). The colors will be of a tropical feel. The building will remain as it was in the 1920's with change in color only. e. The proposed development has been designed to work around an existing historical building and provides many upgrades to the site. Although the buffers are less than the code requires, all areas not needed for parking and circulation have been fully landscaped and will provided a much needed visual upgrade to the site. The area along Dempsey will receive additional landscaping where concrete currently exists to improve the view from the residential area to the south. Nothing can be done to the buffer along the west side of the property as the existing building will remain. The 5' reduction to the west is a request which is asked for by many developers in the area and provides adequate room to plant trees and shrubs for screening. Although there is a reduction to the south setback, it is for pavement, not building and only 25' will not have landscaping. Through three different designs we have been able to increase the north setback to its fullest. ORIGINAL RECEIVED. 0(.T 12 2[06 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 7 41 0 ciearwater 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 - Plans and application are required to be collated, stapled and folded into sets CASE NUMBER: RECEIVED BY (Staff Initials): DATE RECEIVED: 4V lob / o * NOTE: A TOTAL OF 15 SETS OF THIS APPLICATION AND ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A COMPLETE LEVEL ONE OR LEVEL TWO APPLICATION. COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM (Revised 03/29/2006) PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT- APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) APPLICANT NAME: Dorothy B. LeBlanc MAILING ADDRESS: 1418 Dexter Drive., Clearwater, FL 33786 PHONE NUMBER: 727-461-2122 CELL NUMBER: 727-461-2122 361-729-4143 PROPERTY OWNER(S): Dorothy B. LeBlanc / Lots 13-16 List ALL owners on the deed Sexton Enterprise, Inc. / Lot 17 AGENT NAME: Northside Engineering Services, Inc. / Housh Ghovaee, CEO MAILING ADDRESS: 601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755 PHONE NUMBER: 727443-2869 FAX NUMBER: 727-446-8036 CELL NUMBER: 727-709-0943 E-MAIL ADDRESS: Doreen@northsldeenglneering.Com 1. ARCHITECTURAL THEME: a. The landscaping in a Comprehensive Landscape Program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for the development. REQUEST: Reduction to the front buffer from 15' to 5' along Lakeview; reduction to the front landscape buffer along Dempsey from 15' to 1' in some areas; reduction to the interior parking lot landscaping from 10% to 5.5%; foundation reduction from 5' to 0. The developer has decided to design the landscaping around the Mediterranean theme of the building. An extensive number of trees have been added to the site. Much of the existing asphalt is being removed to accommodate additional landscaping to the site as well as historical era planters running.along the existing concrete walk in the front of the building. All possible open areas have been landscaped to their fullest. An increase to the front buffer Has added an additional 170 +/- of landscaping. OR b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive LandsIQam shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under MfCelandscape standards. N/A ONT 12 2n06 Y.12006 AutoCAD Projects10634 - (The Boiling Pof)1Comp. landscape 9.5.06.doc Page 1 of 2 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 2. LIGHTING: Any lighting proposed as a part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program is automatically controlled so that the lighting is tumed off when the business is closed. All lighting for the site will be low lights and not spread onto adjacent parcels. Lights will operate From dusk to closing. 3. COMMUNITY CHARACTER: The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. The current landscaping on the parcel & surrounding parcels consist of unkempt, dead grass, and overgrown trees. Over 8 species of plants and over 330 plantings will enhance not only the site, but the surrounding neighborhood. Every effort has been made to accommodate plantings in areas where minimum landscaping occurs in others. The landscape designer has also designed the site for draught tolerant materials. 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. New sod would benefit the value of surrounding properties. The area is very old in nature & surrounded by commercial & residential. The proposed landscaping will be keeping with the Florida style with draught and salt tolerant plants. This will help in the maintenance of plants for longer life and greater growth potential. 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. N/A THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 3, DIVISION 12 MAY BE WAIVED OR MODIFIED AS A PART OF A LEVEL ONE OR LEVEL TWO APPLICATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IF THE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL INCLUDES A COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM, WHICH SATISFIES THE ABOVE CRITERIA. THE USE OF LANDSCAPE PLANS, SECTIONS / ELEVATIONS, RENDERINGS AND PERSPECTIVES MAY BE NECESSARY TO SUPPLEMENT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WORKSHEET. SIGNATURE: I, the u rsigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this a cation are true and accurate to the best of my know) a and authorize City representatives to visit and phot aph the property described in this application. of property owner or representative TATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINEI,LAS S o to and subscribed before me this r day of A.D. 20 to me and/or by who is personalty known has produced as identification. My commission expires: )a-14.0Q ORIGINAL a1,,*r'U, DOREEN A. WILLIAMS RECEIVED6 MY COMMISSION #E DD 155802 O'QOF reP EXPIRES: October 14, 2008 O CT 12 2006 1.8M21-NOTARY FL Notary Service 8 Bonding, inc. Y.•12006 AutoCAD Projects10634 - (The Boiling Pot)1Comp. landscape 9.5.06.doc pPANeN?It? DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLF.ARWATER PARKING DEMAND STUDY 921 Lakeview Rd Clearwater, FL FLD2005-05032 The Boiling Pot Restaurant is an existing building built in the 1920's and consists of 2,890 square feet. Of this square footage, 1915 s.£ is for the 1" floor; 957 square feet for the service area and 958 s.f. for kitchen & toilets. The second floor which will contain an office consists of 975 s.£ The office will be for the owner's use only, no employees will be allowed to enter into this space. The owner is also proposing to add walls to reduce the size of the accessible space. The required parking for the site based on the current City of Clearwater Codes and Regulations for restaurants is 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. This is a total of 43 parking spaces. There are quite a few ways to evaluate the parking requirements for this site based on the square footage. 1. The serving area consisting of 957 square feet. 957/1,000x15 = 14 spaces When taking into consideration the restaurant will contain 15 tables, most visitors will be a couple traveling in one car or a family of 4 traveling in one car. This is more a family style restaurant where patrons come in, eat and go. No lingering due to no music, video games for the kids, etc. The staff is minimum for this size restaurant. The maximum help will be. three - four staff members, this includes the Owner as a host. Staff will be carpooling as a request of the owner to reduce their need for spaces. 2. The second floor of the restaurant is 975 square feet. The owner of the business will have the only access to this space. It will be under lock and key. He will use this office to do receivables, payables and payroll. There will be no storage use for this area and of the 975 square feet, the owner will maybe us 50 square feet for a desk and a filing cabinet. This should be considered an accessory use and no additional parking required for this space. Although there is access from the exterior, the door will remain locked at all times, with the owner possessing the only key. The owner is making every effort to reduce the usable space in this area by closing off some walls. While having to complete this report, some research has been done in regards to kin ratios on other restaurants within the City of Clearwater. 8MGIIAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATEP • Parking Demand Study Page Two • O'Keefe's 4756 square feet requires 71 parking spaces. This restaurant is a stand alone restaurant on a corner lot. The restaurant has a total of 53 parking spaces; still not meeting the required spaces. There is no on-street parking for the shortage of spaces on this site. Since the City of Clearwater does not have many neighborhood restaurants, it is difficult to do a comparison. Many of the restaurants are within the downtown area. Due to this fact, we did a comparison of this same restaurant in two different locations within Texas. The Boiling Pot Restaurant located at 201 S. Fulton Beach Road, Rockport, Texas is in a mixed residential and commercial area. The total square footage of the restaurant is 1,785 square feet, has a seating capacity of 96 and has a part-time staff of 18 employees four to five days per week. The parking count for this restaurant is 35 spaces. Many of the patrons poled at this location came anywhere from 2-6 people per car load. The Boiling Pot Restaurant located at 700 E. 6th Street, Austin, Texas is situated in the downtown commercial district surround by condominiums. The total square footage for this restaurant is 2,600, with a seating capacity of 96 and 13 employees. There is no on- site parking for this site. In conclusion, many of the local restaurants in the area do not meet the required parking for their sites. With all the restaurants within the City of Clearwater, many of the downtown businesses are only served by business workers during the day for lunch so they travel by foot. The customer's that drive usually have 2 people or more in the car with them. The owner is currently in negotiations with the Candy Factory which is located .2 miles from the site. Upon a site visit to this site several times, they have a parking capacity of 18 with only 7 cars parked in spaces. This is a manufacturing plant to in-take ingredients and ship out product. There is also on-street parking available within 700' of the proposed re-development. The owner has consider offering shuttle service to and from parking spaces which are not on-site. I know of one restaurant in the area that over exceeds its parking ten fold; Island Way Grill. They do not, nor will they ever have enough parking and they had to comply with the new code. Restaurants make it work. There will be no on-street parking as not only has the owner stated, but also put in writing. We feel that given the circumstances with the existing structure and making the most out of the site that 16 spaces will be adequate for this type of restaurant and its location. ORIGINAL RECEIVED 0CT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER September 5, 2006 City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Fl 33756 RE: 921 Lakeview Road The Boiling Pot To whom it may concern: I, Mark LeBlanc, developer for the Boiling Pot Restaurant located at 921 Lakeview Road will not park v ' es-alpng t right-of-way of Lakeview Road or Dempsey Street. SfATH OF Ft. 1 1 COUNTY I he f®eegain ®s went ?s ack a vvl7 led o r eC? . 1 -49& He/she is personally known to Inc or as pIrxlucccU a dri'Ve s license as identification and &d Iiot WKe an Oath- llf p'emnally known to me, .0'r L) produced j&nfificafion: AoTARY PU1.SEAL of Flogida at Laige lugs c_oamrali ion XPia'es: DOREEN A, WILLIAMS MY COMMISSION # DD 155802 oI V EXPIRES: October 14, 2006 r -4 ,_& &NOTARY FL Notary Sernoe 8 Bonding, Inc. ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCOT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER September 5, 2006 City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Fl 33756 RE: 921 Lakeview Road The Boiling Pot To whom it may concern: I, Mark LeBlanc, developer for the Boiling Pot Restaurant located at 921 Lakeview Road will not operate the restaurant if the lease is ever terminated with Sexton Enterprises, Inc., (Lot 17) w used for parking. The restaurant will remain closed until the 10 slates occu_? this le sed site is obtained. STATE OF Fl. DA COUNTY ON 1FA?-- me ti??s n .s5_day ?i?f? m?o?` i ac( He/she is Personally known to me or has produmd a drivel's license as idetrtification and did tact take an oath. Personally known to me, or U Pt*duoed identification: Type of [.D: NOTARY PU LI SEAL to of Florida at" Large ?yl l?l m( uP ORIGINAL RECEIVED DOREEN A. W? IL?LI S y , ar MY COMMISSION # DO 155802 EXPIRES; October 14, 2006 1-8ot13NOTARY FL Notary Service & Bonding, Inc. OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER PARKING DEMAND STUDY 921 Lakeview Rd Clearwater, FL FLD2005-05032 ORIGINAL RECEIVED SEP 0 5 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER The Boiling Pot Restaurant is an existing building built in the 1920's and consists of 2,971 square feet. Of this square footage, 1915 s.f. is for the ls` floor; 957 square feet for the service area and 958 s.f. for kitchen & toilets. The second floor which will contain an office consists of 975 s.f. The office will be for the owner's use only, no employees will be allowed to enter into this space. The owner is also proposing to add walls to reduce the size of the accessible space. The required parking for the site based on the current City of Clearwater Codes and Regulations for restaurants is 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. This is a total of 45 parking spaces. There are quite a few ways to evaluate the parking requirements for this site based on the square footage. The serving area consisting of 957 square feet. 957/1,000x15 = 14 spaces When taking into consideration the restaurant will contain 15 tables, most visitors will be a couple traveling in one car or a family of 4 traveling in one car. The staff is minimum for this size restaurant. The maximum help will be three - four staff members, this includes the Owner as a host. 2. The second floor of the restaurant is 975 square feet. The owner of the business will have the only access to this space. It will be under lock and key. He will use this office to do receivables, payables and payroll. There will be no storage use for this area and of the 975 square feet, the owner will maybe us 50 square feet for a desk and a filing cabinet. This should be considered an accessory use and no additional parking required for this space. While having to complete this report, some research has been done in regards to parking ratios on other restaurants within the City of Clearwater. Parking Demand Study Page Two O'Keefe's 4756 square feet requires 71 parking spaces. This restaurant is a stand alone restaurant on a corner lot. The restaurant has a total of 53 parking spaces; still not meeting the required spaces. There is no on-street parking for the shortage of spaces on this site. Tin Can Alley 1083 square feet requires 16 parking spaces. Being on Myrtle, there is no on- street parking in this area. The restaurant only provides 10 spaces and 4 of them are for the apartments in the rear, leaving the restaurant with 6 spaces. Ten shy of what is required. In conclusion, many of the local restaurants in the area do not meet the required parking for their sites. With all the restaurants within the City of Clearwater, many of the downtown businesses are only served by business workers during the day for lunch so they travel by foot. The customer's that do drive usually have 2 people in the car with them or more. The owner is currently in negotiations with the Candy Factory. Cars will be valet parked on the site for additional parking. There is also on-street parking available within 700' of the proposed re-development. I know of one restaurant in the area that over exceeds its parking ten fold; Island Way Grill. They do not, nor will they ever have enough parking and they had to comply with the new code. Restaurants make it work. There will no on-street parking and no exit ways blocked when trying to accommodate parking. We feel that given the circumstances with the existing structure and making the most out of the site that 17 spaces will be adequate for this type of restaurant and its location. Also enclosed is an ITE Trip Generator report. LAKE VIEW ROAD(F) y N HIGHWAY(P) Re COUN -'`? Ea --'` ? r uc ?sr REWOW -_.-- NEW FLG RAW FODT MDIX J04 cx L`GNG N.8836'16`W. 86.29'(M) r' 3' +? - NEW RETENTIONPOND # NEW H. C. RAAM F +?• ? ? Mwow FDOT /NDFX J04 _.= TSB lar Ai OQ \ EX Cava -'---- bro RE7 N, ? WAG zo rso SKxlr 2 \ \ ac SICK O \ K ? ?d ? \ 26- LA. 4• 6 \ ?CONC PAD. U? ? ?a ? 0 t? D7EE^S ItJ V DU SIGHT llrm77Nr 12 10 ."p ? O \ \ 25 ` 7REFt ro F11AA?? REyoiWD 05: z 0 C:) 00 Z ~ ?^ m? > H-+ o o o Aa M Z Fm-p N-0 4 c:WAC f mP?immsMCI 0 ar to I? 1o z Ei T3010 STORY" CBS BOLDING #921 (L#F=10. i) AC ON ROOF oY SZJDING DOOR PAD I • ..EX I i .... anAir I I I i NEW RETENTION POND #2 rox?o 1 i lies" I t? I, 1 \ ` ?F 12° t }? t 13 '? i ? yt ? f r END OF ; fDUMPSTER \ OADWAY S. 9158 20 40?(M) 'j1 11 M? {It 1 } '6Z '31+? + i N S i 7?° DEMPSEY STREET(F) r 60,Rw rte, ., Ar ?J E5 ,.• •'• / / yM>? HADT YAnA DW(l AND RaCATgI rglp [oatwnol O _ .••''••••/?/ a W? ?®? Y'i•'?tir.u°'1w'?ir i°iaZ'Zi ?sw? ? Z iiC ..•. / / aWrt W.Y. ?S4xS"47S?S??.. i w?w?? ?s+w• '? ? :? •wlET VPo 01,0 CD--_ _ . a^ ??..w?•a _r ex. STORY a Idr?l? O CBS BUILDING NG L x°°"'""110 ? ? 1921 ?77?.LSar?4'RSS?.?v. mab, POND #2?? iM NES Comm.: UMMAr''7i` M77777771 e ?"' 0 ?._•.w ..,vaxwna onAas Issue late: .rn!. ,,???? ??•,r Hn• Revisions: a - 4)..._ a; •.!3°....>\....._...._ 1 reaeanoa ¦ert3 ft?q sr mw_ i X10' • 139 31Y1• s 1 1 . . '??.. 018' i ? `.= - w ? ? ?-' ?J ? • ?r ?? 1 ?.15'QLi'T?SS:i?fa."7{'R1S177C ? - SNRUB PLANTING DETAIL --' v Y, ars. OP;' ?v?? / AL"`rw"e- iSi'H.Ri O OfVTI''.SE) T :ffP1 =r y ___ F-40. MW T'd?LiP.?C7A3i 1 1 13.0 i as s.r Aus j/ . = ti I q?, i W Q --•) A ?w . w oa N y?+ 1r. = a BMW s- Q momeoft owa To mbwle AIR.* TD &M~ rs T l I TM 1 liil&b7tl,? I: - #i if a orr .+wm 7-QOb jr C 1?,. NORTH a a flL SCALE: 1* co rsw. rr rtr = _ r?r.ry 4 cm h" Weebwe *we w* ww m o e 10 20 of xi g ,. ?r e... wr...r. eaee- BUTLER DESIGN GROUP, INC 4= YIN NI[ L B Ftw P. n"4 rta.N.r er.v? TREE STAKING k PLANTING DETAIL PALM STAKING & PLANTING DETAIL wjr r w. L 1.1 wva ut asraC'10 11'Cs - W- o.r?Naw arwai?,re. awnwa?¦. a, N A Hr a•Ol jr N /a•N arsar .r a r 1C a w N IX OAa•ualrw YaM MM• i-W N' 1 LT 11sa /M a s arr A"04. r ? • aver IN M taRM•• IYr. OM MMr iOr 9a' .a' OC I/fndJSS 9?rW' a'•NY JtY OC m s0o Avem, ?rlr rtes _j mmweeee 114? ?U-? A rw rS ?37? T f ?l ; i ? If ??? '??v? ,I ?? s??_ r 7 _ l? - ? •?? aY. 11.E-I 51,??0'J`1 Q _ .+-? ? ' 1 3 i....'' 1 j'•_,j, ice..: f ? .??'?' ?7-?}.a ,d '! •s _J 7 ! .+?.-?......,..:..:,,..,:.,:,;.;,.vim.... w -- yy ...:..,,?..•.?,`c - , ,...,.,.?,?.n -?.nk, ,ai .,R.n,? -. •' c)?`'.1 f '_ Y 1 ? .'? , ';( i +'? ? ? ' .I j?` ` ?? ._; ? i.?j ? ?i9! #?? ?? ?? ? jS?.1t.R.u?;..) G?tl.. Iq?n,S Sv?(.e',14 17 i) _? i,'f /;,' f ti.,.^t,iL•-_ .?,.??.e.-.._,..•.,_....,?...,_?u...._?.L 1--? ?? '1 - ? „- - ,.,... ..,....,.? ..,. ? J ? .,,,, , s..d..,?••?fe.?..?.A?..?r? Wl?'-?f?7M.eS ?f 4 ?'-1 J i?r •_ -.r i-V 4Y G ?. .. ? ? J A S F 1'.?• i .? . 2 A'',1 i t `,vl 4?ry/!?fie` I:t',r?.u,ti-,?'i`'':,•r ` ?'??Y i';1 (nL tl ? - ? -v K ?? , ? ? ;xyvwwaoweyA?? • :i V • i`,rice' .; -,-'zti:F!f Si • 0 0 t /mom A ,) ? t1C s6? 63-7 5 ?? gas J &&,4L is oZ M O C1 -a C" m m m m 7 i 700 m ORIGINAL RECFIVED J'U L 1.1 2006 CITY OF CLEARWATER ?iL<rr?-? L -0 &3 L S ?t _y %•. • • 47 SW 6322 ,ntimate White SW 6323 Romance SW 6324 Mellow Coral SW 6325 Constant Coral SW 6326 Henna Shade E Building Existing Stucco to remain SW6325 _ Constant Coral SIN 6327 Bold Brick • 54 SW 637i Vanillin SW 637? inviting ivory SW 6373 Harvester All building trim SW6374 - Torchlight SW 6374 orchlight SW 6375 doneycomb • SW 6376 Gold Coast • r a3lVnn N310 iu "--- 1N3WIaVd34 9NINW r 9002 z T y ,) (13/13038 IVNl91a0 1'7 11 1t ON ti ? in M ?? 1t 11 on ON It If Mm ti No is , wwv? 1 11! ! 1 111 ! ,? t iaa ORIGINAL RECEIVED JUL 11 2006 PLANNING CITY ol j1 c/ 4 f y? 4 f: ?l N W z Y? TSG. F^L A J96q`{ i^'k r F a A, "AN Ni6 1Ptt L?, as 4r Asa Samoag ?, f 7y' 'A ; a 6°? a sy ,y?st e"? of °a Y 5 a ??s e'?>raA?'^T r.. ? i?.p' t? ?+ s saa? n I r 3 ORIGINAL FCEWD 2006 UL ._ J CITY OF Cl V4'ATER 4 ?' Fti ?'IA,2 ? r ,. yr 6A, dE"S ? ? ? P N' ,? ,'rya ?? > ?f t ?'?a."?iwr'" n ?^d?A" yyyyee +,r IW "ei?' i?'ra°• i ?'/? ?at.? i,'??Fr',Na' .?i ` y `',? r>+? ?? A4 m`? AA A {1'?? . a.'Jf?? flAff"1y#?,., ? W.°?YJj+"'?'?KjY.fiL 2j !, Me 4artr??N?r°'tXa?? ,? ay.°fY .pM 7 4V d"' i"; aip$S ?€NN?M ? .? b Y 4'fr n i? j1'??+t r R" .nm f .s f o a i ^g, . Aw ? vl x4, F of f':'" fro ?' •d• ?'?. - °.. ? ?4<..?La?T?,?i w `.'r'tl'?bs?, < . t r "qk ` t 4 `$ a, dik ,x "i.,? , A-lu ?i? Q,,D F,-,4, z :-9?L .bt 44%x' c ?k #- y A AG+OAI[ .? '?'C?'I'°n .+?? n w.° ?h' C'Yr T ie y S `^'p>;S Y4•. +r:?$.ik'."•.????,?+.s'a'rLy??? ??n??..73+???t?rt?t? I?t?l,?,n"?>,.. ' ?. ?"- .. ??my.+>?-?? t, E Y ADDRESS: BOUNDARY SCE 4& LAKEVIEW ROAD V CLEA RWATER, FLORIDA. ****NOTE**** SURVEY DRAWN BY OCCUPATION SCALE.' 1 20' LAKEWEW ROAD(P) DEMPSEY STREET(F) i 60'RW OAK TREE FCM 4x4 5 31 ® t46 W/ N&D $ q ACM 3x3 Z $) S. 89 58'20 E. 39.401(M) gel -1, g 1,) xl 1? x% Z) o 96 FCM 3x3 1p p) " 1 ? x 25 6 (x Cx x 9 ? 3 61 :, o l* v v 9 5 CONCRETE " 0 0 s Cx? 3 3 2g• 6 . ? x/ 1 ? ? (x 0 9. 49.9' ?x u? 66 4 1 Z) g•A? 1 TWO STORY Cx? 26" hl Cx' a CBS BUILDING b ?. Q ? ° #921 ' l `?l ) 511 (LLF.=10.0 1?k50o`P? ? 1?g• ?9• 0 4 I `ti, Q 3Op?A2 Zo 1 5 ' x 1 C, 6? \ F 8 49.9 q O lx FCM&0 89 ad v 1 , x C FCM 41f,?k N.881,36 16"W 86.29'(M) F 5?8 3550 h0, / W/ N&D .?p1• O WB 5'CSW tc 562 5 ORIGINAL RECEIVED g66? LAKEVIEWIRHWAY?P) _ MAY 2 5 2006 COUNTY 'PARTIAL RW PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER (ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN IN PARENTHESIS AND ARE ASSUMED.) lV O TE: This survey was conducted without the benefit of an abstract of title, therefore there may be other easements, right-of-way, setback lines, agreements, reservations, restrictions, or other similar matters of public record, not depicted on this survey. A AR BM = B CH MARK FlP FOUND IRON PIPE M ? MEASUREMENT PP - POWER POLE CH =CHORD EDP =EDGE Ar PAVEMENT MH MANHOLE R RADIUS CLF CHAIN LINK FENCE EOW EDGE OF WATER FIR - FOUND IRON ROD OHP . OVERHEAD POWER UNE SIP a SET IRON PIPE Z BRG - BEARING CONC - CONCRETE FCC - FOUND CROSS CUT FN - FOUND NAIL P : PLAT SIR : SET JM ROD N7H CAP / $947 W CBS= CONCRETE BLOCK/STUCCOCSW, a CONCRETE SIDEWALK FCM - FOUND NCRETE FPP : FOUND PINCH PIPE PC - POINT OF CURVATURE UE - U77UTY EASEMENT c5 CALC CALCULATED D a DEED MONUMCOENT LLF LOWEST LIVING FLOOR pCp > PERMANENT CONTROL POINT WB a WATER BOX VS a CO ?RED?CON ETE D£ - DRAINAGE EASEMENT FH - FlRE HTDRANT 1/t INGRESS/EGRESS PI - POINT OF INTERSECTION WF - WOOD FENCE IC hn/ OD INFORMATION: FL O LEGAL: SECTION: TOWNSHIP.- S RANGE. E CERTIFIED TO DOROTHY LEBLANC' ZONE.- LOT 13, 14, 15 AND 16, BLOCK 1, LAKE BELLEWEW ADDITION, LESS ROAD-RIGHT-OF-WAY, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 9, x ? . J NUMBER: ' PAGE 141, ACCORDING TO THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS X X ` DATE. COUNTY, FLORIDA. CER'?1?? A;TIO?N: a FLORIDA BENCHMARK INC. ERj/FYi 7}I?1 T THIS SURVEY WAS MADE UNDER I HEREB?YC T " MY RESi?OIVSIBLE CHARCE ANDAWEETS 7741=:MINIMUM 1 D ROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR D P L ST DARDS AS SETr7H HY47HE BOARD OF TECHNIC pROFESONALLAND SURVEYORS IN CHAP -TER 61G17-6 OF SNT TO 5EGA0 PU INISTRATIVE COVE PH. (727) 298-0286 1298 LAKEV/EW ROAD . , THE FLORIDA ADM 472.027 'OF n4 FLORIDA;,STAT(SES. 2. `VALID WTHOUT SEAL VEI U CLEARWATER, FL. 33756 FAX,# (727) 461-0696 . V? . SIGNATURE AND &60qAD 117H S , I AUTHORIZATION NO. LS 6947 ' 06 6 - REVISION DATE ) ?? r r?' Vr'?'" ? U r +? FIELD WORK BY, RF - 4-2 DATE 1: PAGE # ; l^ J V (? 1 2. I c 1 ??[ 1{n DRAWN BY.• CH DATE- 5-08-06 3. JOB# 06-0953 M. G. MAYER PLS 4495 DATE BOUNDARY SUFWEY 77--- SCALE.- 1 " = 30' ADDRESS: 90KEVIEW DRIVE CLEAR W ,FLORIDA. RECEIVED JUN 0 7 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CItY OF CL.EARWATER DEMPSEY STREET(F) LAKEVIEW DRIVE(P) 60'RW 145. DO'(L) S.89 24'46"W. 145.47(M) 2'CVG FCM 04 .4') a 9.5 ) FIR 5/8" I LOT 16 LOT 17 LOT 18 LOT 19 LOT 20 LOT 21 LOT 22 BLOCK 1 I I I I BLOCK 14 108.8rill 32{0' ° I I 9.71) CONCRE I o o^ e o w ( toe) (x- t0•t? I ONE TORY w ° I I I PARKING I COMM RCIAL $ ?Z? 2 r g.g9) # ?01 Z s ?' c°o o ( ¢Q (6 10.6') (x, ?o.?) I I (LLF= 10.12) W a ' AD J-10 it 71 .1 I I I I • J ?O F/P3/4" o I ( 2 FCM 04 25.00' (P) 5'CSW 5'CSW 2'CVC LAKENEW ROAD(F) 145.00'(L) EAST 145.22'(M COUNTY HIGHWAY(P) ASSUMED BASIS OF BEARINGS 30'PAR77AL RW ELifyATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN PARENTHESIS AND ASSUMED. N O TE • This survey was conducted without the benefit of on abstract of title, therefore there may be other easements, right-of-way, r similar motters of public record, not depicted on this survey. th i e ons or o setback lines, agreements reservations restrict M MEASUREMENT PP POKER POLE RP =FOUND IRON PIPE A = ARCC CH = CHORD EDP - EDGE OF PAVEMENT RR = FOUND IRON ROD 8M =BENCH MARK CLF = CHAIN LINK FENCE EOW EDGE OF WATER ND CROSS CUT FN ° FOUND NAIL RING MH =MANHOLE R - RADIUS OHP = OVERHEAD POKER LINE SIP - SET IRON PIPE P = PLAT SW - SET LRAM ROD WIH CAP / 6947 BRG = BEA CONC =CONCRETE FCC =FOU W CBS= CONCRETE BLOCK/STUCCOCSW = CONCRETE SIDEWALK FCM s FOUND CONCRETE FPP = FOUND PINCH PIPE LLF = LOK£ST LIVING FLOOR PC - POINT OF CURVATURE UE = U71UTY EASEMENT PCP = PERMANENT CONTROL POINT Kg WATER BOX C7 CALC = CALCULATED D = DEED MONUMENT Lu C/C = = CHORD COVERED BEARING CONCRETE DE = DRAINAGE EASEMENT FH =FIRE HYDRANT I/E- INGRESS/EGRESS ? B PI = POINT OF WTERSEC77ON 1W = WOOD FENCE FLOOD INFORMATION: LEGAL: SECRON: 21 TOWNSHIP: S29 RANGE: 15E CERTIFIED TD: EBS ' X LOTS 17-22, BLOCK 1, LAKE BELLEVIEW ADDITION, AS ZONE X . NUMBER: 12103CO108H RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE 141, ACCORDING TO X THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. X DATE.- 05-17-05 ,ON: CER TI F-?K TI ' INC. FLORIDA BENCHMARK 4 THIS SURVE) AS MADE UNDER I HEREBY CERTIFY-THAT N£E75 MINIMUM , PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR MY RESPONSIBLE CHARGE ANq TECHNICAL STANDARDS,44S SE71FORTH BY, THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL LANqq??SURVEYORS It? AP7ER 61G17-6 OF l 7 PH (727) 298_ 0286 1298 LAKEVIEW ROAD P% gJUA T TO SEG7791 THE FLORIDA )ADMIN KI?A TI VE GODS, u 472.017 OfKTMf£ FLORIDA STATUTES. NOT VALID WITHOUT CLEARWATER, FL. 33756 FAX# (727) 461-0696 EM400SEW W1T,V•,?URVEYOR 5 ALL.. SIGNATUREdNb 44 AUTHORIZATION NO. LB 6947 ??b ? , ' FWORK BY. SS DATE. 05-19-06 REVISION DATE: PAGE # t „? ?'' - 4 5 2: ? DRAWN BY.. CH DATE: 05-20-06 J. JOB, 06-1132 M. G. MAYER PLS 4495 DATE Butler Design Group, Inc Charles R. Butler 4203 46 h Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33714 Pb (727) 521-1684 Fax (727) 527-7422 E-mail: bdgl a)tampabav.rr.com Tree Inventory 921 Lakeview As required by the City of Clearwater, I have completed an assessment of all trees (7" dbh or greater) on the subject site and within 25' beyond the property lines. My opinion is set forth below as to the viability (rating of 1-5) and any potential hazards of these trees. QTY/ TREE DBH & SPECIES / RATING AND COMMENTS 1 18" Live Oak 3, Co-dominate, Poor structure 2 7" Laurel Oak 2, Top cut off, Poor Structure 3 25" Laurel Oak 3, Poor structure, Decay 4 43" Laurel Oak 3, Co-dominate, Decay 5 26" Laurel Oak 2, Wind-damage, Poor pruning/structure, Decay, Potential hazard 6 9" Cherry Laurel 2, Base of tree girdled 75%, Decay 7 10" Laurel Oak 3, Poor structure, Crowded 8 12" Sabal Palm 3 9 13" Laurel Oak 3, Co-dominate, Poor branching, Poor pruning I affirm that my opinions have been made in good faith, with no coercion from others. I further affirm that I have no interest with the parties or people involved with neither this issue nor any interest with regard to the outcome. Sincerely, Chuck Butler, Certified Arborist, Certificate #FL-1235A Butler Design Group/ Golden Rain Nursery, Inc. FLOW TEST CITY OF CLEARWATER WATER DEPARTMENT ILOCATION , DATE OF TEST 2 STATIC: PSI ( l / ` RESIDUAL PSI C/ IPITOT PSI cl (4 p FLOW GPM 0 IHYDRANT# ° IG-RID#- 300A.- MISC-. AW?hsl,Ae f'1 CUSTOMER REQUESTING TEST ZB 3E)Vd S3111-iIin SI-12nd ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2@06 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER T96bZ99LZL Z9?ZZ 90aZ/L8/L8 Calculations Using the Most Used Trip Generation Rates from the 7th Edition ITE Trip Generation Report Description/ITE Code Units Expected Units Expected Daily Trips PM Peak Trips-Total PM In PM Out Truck Terminal 030 Acres General Light Industrial 110 TSF Gross Mini Warehouse 151 TSF Gross Single Family Homes 210 DU Apartments 220 DU Mobile Home Park 240 DU Assisted Living 254 DU All Suites Hotel 311 Rooms Motel 320 Rooms Marina 420 Berths lealth/Fitness Club 493 TSF Gross .wrch 560 TSF Gross Daycare Center 565 TSF Gross General Office 710 (Equation) TSF Gross General Office 710 (Rate) TSF Gross Medical Dental Office 720 TSF Gross Building Materials/Lumber 812 TSF Gross Hardware/Paint Store 816 TSF Gross Nursery (Garden Center) 817 TSF Gross Not Available Not Available Shopping Center 820 (Equation) TSF Gross Lunch Hour Traffic Shopping Center 820 (Rate) TSF Gross Quality Restaurant 931 TSF Gross 2.0 180 15 10 5 Total In Out High Turnover/Sit Down Rest. 932 Fast Food w/o Drive Thru 933 Fast Food with Drive Thru 934 TSF Gross TSF Gross TSF Gross 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drive Thru Only 935 Service Station 944 TSF Gross Fuel Position Not Available »»»> No calculations but studies she Serv.Station w/ Conven.Mkt 945 Fuel Position Tire Store 848 Service Bas Not Available Supermarket 850 TSF Gross Convenien. Mkt O en 24 hrs 851 TSF Gross Convenien. Mkt (Open 16 Hrs 852 TSF Gross Not Available )nvenien. Mkt w/ Gas Pumps 853 TSF Gross Jiscount Club 861 TSF Gross Pharmacy/Drugstore w/ Drive-thru 881 TSF Gross Furniture Store 890 TSF Gross Walk-In Bank 911 TSF Gross Drive-In Bank 912 Drive-In Lanes ZAAgency Apps\FDOT\(tripcalc_16.xls]Calculations 17-Aug-06 Iuu 15 10 ORIGINAL RECEIVED 12 2006 PANNING DEPARTMENT >"I*. 01: CLEARWATER w'Lunch Peak 146-364 two way trips • ?ll M p E I R o* 5"&" SMAeM 1968 • CIVIL C LAND PLANNING C ENVIRONMENTAL G TRANSPORTATION G STORMWATER REPORT FOR: THE BOILING POT 601 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 930 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755 NESADMIN@MINDSPRIN6.COM N ESTECHQMI N DSPRI N6.COM 727 • 443 • 2869 FAX 727 • 446 • 8036 1,11{IIFIl61t?.. v ? O r ry!. Ram A. Goel, Ph.]?-.,- k.g. #4761 JhF . II{1e9?a e9gi. y,.' iE . October 11 2006'* = Project No. 0634 ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 13 2006 pLANNING OF CLLEARWA ERA • • DRAINAGE NARRATIVE The project is located in section 21, township 29 and range 15 in the City of Clearwater. The contiguous owned property is 11,018 sf and consists of the construction of a restaurant and associated utilities, parking and road infrastructure, storm management system and utilities and results in the following: • REMOVAL of 446 S.F. existing impervious vehicular use area and 3,213 S.F. of existing building and sidewalk area. • Construction of 5,522 S.F. of open impervious vehicular use area and 2,709 S.F. of new building, sidewalk and pool area. This will yield a 5,076 S.F. INCREASE of impervious vehicular use area subject to stormwater runoff, but overall there will be an 4,572 S.F. INCREASE in total impervious area. Geotechnical information for the site indicates that the seasonal highwater elevation will be at 7.1. Y2" water quality is provided over the entire 11,018 sf yielding a total required treatment volume of 459 cf. This volume is provided in two dry detention ponds. The ponds provide 470 cf of treatment volume between the bottom of pond elevation of 7.7 and the design highwater elevation of 8.95. Recovery of the treatment volume is provided through natural ground percolation within 24 hours. See attached Modret analysis and double ring infiltrometer test results. Volume over the treatment volume discharges across the 2' slot of the control weir at elevation 8.95 and into a 6" swale that discharges onto Dempsey Street. The required attenuation volume for the 25 year storm at a time of concentration of 60 minutes equal to 1436 cf will be paid in lieu. ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 13 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWP'TER • • PROJECT NAME: BOILING POT RESTAURANT PROJECT NO.: 0634 PRECONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= 11,018 SF = 0.25 ACRES IMP. AREA= 3,659 SF = 0.08 ACRES POND AREA= 0 SF = 0.00 ACRES PERV. AREA= 7,359 SF = 0.17 ACRES C CALCULATIONS TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= 11,018 SF IMP. AREA= 3,659 SF OF IMP. AREA @ C = POND AREA= 0 SF OF POND AREA @ C = PERV. AREA= 7,359 SF OF PERV. AREA @ C = C = 0.29 T.O.C. = 15 MINUTES POST CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= 11,018 SF = 0.25 ACRES IMP. AREA= 8,231 SF = 0.19 ACRES POND AREA= 862 SF = 0.02 ACRES PERV. AREA= 1,925 SF = 0.04 ACRES C CALCULATIONS TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= 11,018 SF IMP. AREA= 8,231 SF OF IMP. AREA @ C = POND AREA= 862 SF OF POND AREA @ C = PERV. AREA= 1,925 SF OF PERV. AREA @ C = C = 0.79 T.O.C. = 10 MINUTES 0.475 1 0.2 0.9 1 0.2 ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 13 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER s • PROJECT NAME : BOILING POT RESTAURANT PROJECT NO.: 0634 WEST POND STORAGE DATA T.O.B. EL.= W.Q. EL.= BOTTOM EL.= .EAST POND STORAGE DATA T.O.B. EL.= W.Q. EL.= BOTTOM EL.= TOTAL WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS: DRAINAGE AREA = REQUIRED WATER QUALITY DEPTH = REQUIRED WATER QUALITY VOLUME _ PROPOSED OUTFALL ELEVATION = AVAILABLE WATER QUALITY = STAGE ft-NGVD AREA SF AREA AC STORAGE CF 9.20 434 0.010 438 8.90 377 0.009 316 8.95 387 0.009 335 8.40 283 0.006 151 8.30 264 0.006 124 8.10 226 0.005 75 7.90 188 0.004 34 7.80 169 0.004 16 7.70 150 0.003 0 STAGE ft-NGVD AREA SF AREA AC STORAGE CF 9.20 255 0.006 194 8.90 205 0.005 125 8.95 213 0.005 135 8.40 121 0.003 43 8.30 104 0.002 32 8.10 70 0.002 15 7.90 37 0.001 4 7.80 20 0.000 1 7.70 3 0.000 0 11,018 SF 0.50 IN ORIGINAL 459 CF RECEIVED C?T 13 2006 8.95 FT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 470 CF CITY OF CLEARWATER • NORTHSIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES 25 YEAR STORM EVENT PROJECT: BOILING POT RESTAURANT PROJECT NO. 0634 0 RUN-OFF COEFFICIENTS PRECONSTRUCTION TOTAL (OFFSITE & ONSITE) DRAINAGE ARE/ 11,018 SF 0.25 AC IMP. AREA= 3,659 SF OF IMP. AREA @ C = 0.475 POND AREA='.' 0 SF OF POND AREA @ C = 1 PERV. AREA= 7,359 SF OF PERV. AREA @ C = 0.2 C= 0.29 POST-CONSTRUCTION TOTAL (OFFSITE & ONSITE) DRAINAGE ARE/ 11,018 SF 0.25 AC IMP. AREA= 8,231 SF OF IMP. AREA @ C = 0.9 POND AREA= 862 SF OF POND AREA @ C = 1 PERV. AREA= 1,925 SF OF PERV. AREA @ C = 0.2 C= 0.79 STORAGE CALCULATION PRE-DEVELOPMENT (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TOTAL SITE AREA) DRAINAGE AREA 0725 AC TIME OF CONC. Tc = 60 MIN I @ Tc =60 (25 YEAR EVENT)= 3.60 IN/HR Q(out) = C X I X A= 0.27 CFS POST-CONSTRUCTION 25yr INFLOW OUTFLOW (CF) (CF) 25yr/24hr 25yr/24 TIME I - 25yr Q(in) post pre STORAGE (MIN.) I IN/HR CFS development development, CF 60.00 4.00 0.79 2,861 955 1,906 MAX. STORAGE = 1,906 REQUIRED WATER QUALITY = PROVIDED WATER QUALITY VOLUME _ REQUIRED WATER QUANTITY VOLUME _ PROVIDED WATER QUANTITY THROUGH PAYMENT IN LIEU = 459 CF 470 CF 1,906 CF 1,436 CF ORIGINAL RECEIVED C2.T 13 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • 0 MODRET SUMMARY OF UNSATURATED & SATURATED INPUT PARAMETERS PR03ECT NAME : 0634 -The Boiling Pot POLLUTION VOLUME RUNOFF DATA USED UNSATURATED ANALYSIS EXCLUDED Pond Bottom Area Pond Volume between Bottom & DHWL Pond Length to Width Ratio (L/W) Elevation of Effective Aquifer Base Elevation of Seasonal High Groundwater Table Elevation of Starting Water Level Elevation of Pond Bottom Design High Water Level Elevation Avg. Effective Storage Coefficient of Soil for Unsaturated Analysis Unsaturated Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Factor of Safety Saturated Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity Avg. Effective Storage Coefficient of Soil for Saturated Analysis Avg. Effective Storage Coefficient of Pond/Exfi Itration Trench Hydraulic Control Features: Groundwater Control Features - Y/N Distance to Edge of Pond Elevation of Water Level Impervious Barrier - Y/N Elevation of Barrier Bottom 150.00 ftz 466.00 ft3 3.80 4.60 ft 7.10 ft 7.70 ft 7.70 ft 8.95 ft 0.03 29.60 ft/d 2.00 59.20 ft/d 0.06 1.00 Top Bottom Left Right N N N N 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N N N N 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ORIGINAL RECEIVED Oi,T 13 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • MODRET TIME - RUNOFF INPUT DATA PROJECT NAME: 0634 - THE BOILING POT STRESS PERIOD NUMBER INCREMENT OF TIME (hrs) VOLUME OF RUNOFF (ft3) Unsat 0.00 0.00 1 1.00 470.00 2 2.88 0.00 3 2.88 0.00 4 2.88 0.00 5 2.88 0.00 6 2.88 0.00 7 2.88 0.00 8 2.88 0.00 9 2.88 0.00 ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 13 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • MODRET SUMMARY OF RESULTS PROJECT NAME : 0634 -The Boiling Pot CUMULATIVE TIME (hrs) WATER ELEVATION (feet) INSTANTANEOUS INFILTRATION RATE (ds) AVERAGE INFILTRATION RATE (ds) CUMULATIVE OVERFLOW (ft3) 00.00 - 0.00 7.100 0.000 0.00000 0.00 7.100 0.03594 0.03096 1.00 8.662 0.02599 0.00 0.01168 3.88 8.338 0.00943 0.00 0.00719 6.75 8.138 0.00615 0.00 0.00511 9.63 7.996 0.00450 0.00 0.00389 12.50 7.888 0.00349 0.00 0.00309 15.38 7.802 0.00281 0.00 0.00253 18.25 7.732 0.00232 0.00 0.00211 19.81 7.700 0.00195 0.00 0.00179 24.00 7.623 0.00 Maximum Water Elevation: 8.662 feet @ 1.00 hours ORIGINAL Recovery @ 19.813 hours * Time increment when there is no runoff RECEIVED Maximum Infiltration Rate: 7.176 ft/day OCT 13 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMEN I CITY OF CLEARWATFR INFILTRATION : 0634 -THE BOILING POT a? L E I \Q O ZZ O 00 M 11 M m m Z C) m 0 m G7 Ga ? Z NJ 4 ? 0 07 Total Volume Infiltrated = 470 ft3 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Time (hrs) INFILTRATION : 0634 - THE BOILING POT 8.? 11 -o n z f-? Oz E--' mO m 47 0 0 m CI M > r-j rn D Ar ?Z c 0 c4 a? w a? ca .l 2 4 6 8 10 12 Time (hrs) Max Water Elevation = 8.66 ft 14 16 18 0 ti p634 -1NE GULF COAST, TESTING LABORATORY INPTU*1z 620, PARK BOULEVARD Z(?, ?,?s"ELLAS PARK, FL 33781 CONS QJC dN MATERIALS ENGINEERING COUNCIL CERTIFIED for 2005 CE,?TIFIACTE ofAUTHORIZATION # 00002370 PHONE: (7? "44-4080 FAX.- (727) 544-7/532 I_?'I t - TRATIO RgTE OF S IZ,S I; FIELD -.. 'f L :SI \'G DOI,,BLL RIl'\_G I NFIL TRO,IIE7 ER CLIENT: Sexton Enterprises, Inc. LAB NO: 12093 PROJECT: The Boiling Pot, 921 Lakeview Road, Clearwater, FL DATE REPORTED: 9/15%06 DATE TESTED: 9/14/06 LOCATION OF TEST: 13' N x 8' W of NW Corner of Existing Building DEPTH TO EXISTING WATER TABLE: 4' 7" Below the Existing Ground Surface ESTIMATED SEASONAL HIGH WATER LEVEL: 2'6" Below the Existing Ground Surface REMARKS: WATER TEMP: WATER pH: •= INNER RING READINGS SOIL PROFILE 16.00 15.50 15.00 14.50 14.00 13.50 13.00 12.50 12.00 11.50 : ' N ;. F l ! - ---' - -- ---- -- - - - -- -- - -- -4 i A : i i I i ':' [ i• i ! ? i T i i t i N i ii • i ? ! : i i T i : i INCH .5 1 2 3 4 5 6 PER Elapsed Time (Hours) HOUR INFILTRATION RATE = 14.80 INCHES/ HR. Depth CLASSIFICATION --in feet. (EXISTING SURFACE APPROX. ELEV.) Dark Gray Fine SAND w/ Rock & Few Roots Gray Fine SAND w/ Few Roots & , I 1 "_ Few Silt Nodules 1 1 Light Gray Fine SAND Brown Fine SAND w/ Few 1 ' 6'' Silt Nodules Light Pale Brown Fine SAND w/ 2' 10" Few Silt Nodules Light Pale Brown/White SAND w/ Slight Trace Silt Very Light Pale Brown SAND w/ Slight Trace Silts Hole I ermmated at 81" Respectfully Submitted, Ground level _- r 12 ner oft l/ r7 '7 9 TEST Depth below Existma < rad ' 11 fi ? . Gun ekaran --c. , . Fla. Reg. No. 20402 - g -- --'-= --- -?-Test Elevation ----- _ - c: Sexton Enterprises, Inc. _ 2 xri: ? _ .. Northside Engineering 1 24" outer ring O IGINAL File 1 RECEIVED C 'T 13 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 0 9 pmrmw by. POWER OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL W N 3Y THESE PRESEN' ,, t *t I, un&miffned, does hereby, oowktft and ata mi,nr. tresidi€ g at Lq?:t, V my`b?ta aa` awfu] attorney-tn fact, for me and in my n6m, place-, aaul shad. To graiict, basgaht, sell, ranvey, Moctijage, pledge or encuwnbar the f hawing des=ibe d Mperty, Enter Logo Dowription of Property ???«rw?+??.r?v?www?e+wv*wwwww4v?wrwws?fwwwr?q?a?s parcel Identiticetiork Malabar. 4 7 A Also KrlnwwtR as ..?.?: /.dd_ . And 1 do hereby give and great to my said att y full power w id. authority to do Md perfonn al I anti every act and thing wbiatsoevm necessary to be done in the promise as fbily to all Intents sad purposes as I might or could do ifperwmaiilly pmt, %ith full power of subtAitutior and revmdom hereby radfying aatci oon&rraing all that my said am mey may do purlnwt to this power, IN WI:'NESS W14F EOF•, t have hemtnto set my hand aaad sW this h_day Of 2006. C6 Signed, sealed vd delivered in the gerwx cif- ?__ Wi m YVitue? •- N, p'?0.r? -- State of cmvlity z ^'s = s ANIYA V. 1RYON Notary Public, State of Texas My Commission Expires January 20, 2008 The fmgoiag butt went ? hereby eclanowlerdgeid befhro nW dzis `° UUEiE# £3sa`4~1 1 cinciao 93lewa %aanojung Wdi :aI scot 91 Avw 06I02/?005 12:1a 7177911130 r • •:??: ii1Yt ., ?7-fl 1. aJfJR 222F" w_. HAMMOND LAW FIRM • It • tir • r'Ak.ih. as No. 699 P. 3/S Inv' Er. D AA it'9 ? WASAVdaAn ? JUN 0'7 2006 o ip"r 004A N PI Atd( O&ARIAM Poky Ma CRY OF CLEARMM CHICAGO TITLE INSURA14'Cl COMPANY $MTA M EXCUXIONS l"dWM COVARA „nM BXCV OM YRDM COVV"05 CWrA M IN .. dri 11 9 AXD THIS CM=M& AM STjMf.a"fj*C% 08C1A00 MU INKMASM OOXVAW, a Mir ?? uveda?r, k,tm* aaW im CwWaty, A"vA a ofDm afV*Xcyv &h*m In &*4& k a Wa W *n"M Dot OWMA A ?a Ae mt ot? ed et is S?s.dutr +Ro aatbaas t $?NasYd by mom of$ D . II& to d1t 4094 cr=MM edl in OdW&k A bftg VNW4 WW SWO ; " . 2. AAA 60*U 43 Of UM OF V=WJX== arc dW W 3. vmAwkw"ft of 6A bt* 4. fmk 9f e tilt of wow to and fto dY W& . ` rds (aQ& Wy WO OW Ply *A CW^ OKOMYV' fW egad resat WVx&vd iS dkd" of ft *k. m kwAft4 bat aWy ira da ftmt paced Ut Me COOMMU and OdpAW40W Ca Nbmw W CMCA00 `1"I7U 0MURAN 3 (%I&VM'Y mass o his pdW to ba dOW WW 60" as of of policy &Own in Sobadulc A. do I Qy to b*GMM V04 wbaa W 1? VAbOANd d9lOWY• nAm Aipwimm N*U" Ti.64,l~lrC 14 a, rL 33771 00'%77 . 34. Apw ?r ALTA tpl W Std* (10.1741) WO Plc" W6460490 gar / a1/1006 12:13 7277911130 HAMMOND LAW FIRM PAGE 04 v TUN. 1-aam ?«EZFH 0694 • NO1699 P.ei5 . f Ana arivo Na ei 1'!W, .? Fflt 0, 06 ll ?N??oRS?rr AUNOW i to OW fbtM ft a pW of Awlaln i ? M. 72106014101W f Chkage T W* bawawana Company ALT'A Owners f olwy is amau d as follows: 1 9ebatdul?t 19i - 6pr?at. $aweptt? f (7) Taxes and assmswlna for the year 3806 and AU FUb"q%j4W years. ALL OTRU rrgm B,ZMAIN IN K LL FOUR AND I CY'. RECEIVED AI N 0 7 zoos PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER + j 'phis =da w4 is weds a put of ft policy or awn t a ud is =bjea to AU the a =4 p,*VWW# tbM*f ad of aay prior eodo»+?teats thweto. Rxcvt to the eatw 4upress2y stat4 h acithar mifies any of the Umms od pmvioiowl of the policy or oomilmom ad prior aodori , if my, Aar chef it soused ** ouhift dote of the ,policy or cow ad paiar E andora?aeats at WMsec the We t tMmf. June t, 3W Cl lnp litk ma t cu*I riy Hy: John >lai4 Paesideat 9: lUtlliles I. Adorns, Saorotary I ndonsuent NOTZt Tbb tandorsedwU SWO not be vaW or bladW& =0 eonbn3Pod by an audr atad d,PWry. ?n? e? r'trrt?b 12: 1.? 727732.1130 HAMMOND LAW FIRM PAGE 06 v ` NO. 699 P.4/5 c-W6 2: UM ?V W. M94 -`" RECEIVED ???? PLANNING DEPARTMENT CilyOFCLFARWATER o!l+:riE P 11511 14 po-mv wimm OAIM a? br04 ,. o C?'D?"T?lofi is-Ti 607642 7, 31006 ® 1:10 psm : 26ii?, ?o ??.._.a.. ..?.?. --- T J, Saat1 n Onterpris", Inc, a Florids corpantloo X. •Tiw mum or (nmlrmt in m W4 dwxt*d WOO and nA im Is Gejmd by bit Paley im _ Fat simple ?,? T?ka tt7a outs* or ramo`t r A to hwsin h V&SW in *4 V*w*d, The wind hw%in c at" is wwumb" tv tt» toaov*q ob %oo at dust load and aaoWm": mortpg, hmm Sexton gntwWlses, Inc., a Ftdrki corporation to LESS Alto Wootria, Inc.. daibed ft b?ttabry Wh, 11t04. and reamed an Much 7, IM 0 VII Oft. Am CWW41 f scar l l 4 ?t?aao p`.. "^'.• amp" ON* w4'? 1032. of ft PMY.!/ ?Y.tlO ? NNRA.iP., y1 ?' .+p i 1: 1 ' • : w4 Sire mw or wo owift. if mW siha in Bibb • hw**. 9. Trw two %W W to in this podgy w doe~ U tntla+? % WU 17, 10, 10, 20, 01, and 22, Wei* 1, i.AK9 99=VILLAY ADDITION, noewding to tine map at ptat VW*W so fowfh d In 1?wlolt Nook 9, a 141, of the "016 Rwwrdo of Platolks Ckw ty, Fiofids, toes and W t tit! road fight-of-wity. - rot* ?P4810,y v0110A aniv It satvadtuttel ® to sttoched a 06/02/ 2PI06 12:13 7277912130 .Sind. 1.3m e: 23p" A7 0694 HAMMOND LAW FIRM PAGE 07 NO. 6" P. 5/5 I ac"GO ULd: a 0 . RECEIVED 6 Naiftw. 7210OWTIGM82 its li~ W61177 JUN 0 7 2006 PARTMENT DE P Gen" .inep"Mm LEARWATER CITY OF C (1) At" or Clskw of owtoo in posaaaw" nos stsowaat by a* pwft tasafwft {sy Ilnorosa:"Wv', ovwedps, bfWAW aw dWAN. of othw MM W% airbHUh WOW be dist louW by alt ocowala aw 4v or inspajctioru of 1M pt+ansbsac, (a) Fasafflarsto, at otsitro of wtrrw ft, root shown by to pain ntaords. (e) Any kA, ce Aght to a Ron. for sorv*a, %bt+r. or m U tatt atsrstofors or hwoaa'oar *A'"bhad. aroapw*d by Siv and 'lot shown by Ow aublo s lo". (3) Tors or spe IM ruse"Mmis whimh a* not .horns w W" V W* by #A Oeaft taCeRl6da.. Spochd kUb epeatw: (d) My obitn Ow my polo" of said bsr?tW tram t+ovarstpty bn4s of tM Mata W ftrfd4, bu:Wa ajbaw t" a" or Lvak* "poood rinds @Ad lmdo "M m to atuta taxis. (7) Tam and bstllstu 40U br tiw per =4 &" &II WMIqMM ps SM (6) RM&Wt1ims, ntser a, aowwants, appasaJBt oak and wwsntonta<, it sir. Os shown W plat "root rrooardeat in pht Book 9, POP 141, of tbtlt PWUD PMWW of 6'kWa Garw»t , FWMI& Bb*nw Numbered 1, d OW 6 abOVba We hereby dele"d. } Ca?ittP?t°!)?t9ti? r •red ?6 nR NOW at lids Scheaaaaar is amtwoa to s W M polay. ya nbc 4.0 aulbormame aassttaes, f qny, wo not rt+WUld tsW*h. fdoft-. Thb paEoy o6qasas of iaWt Sao %Wlad 8b "%$ A lAd a. Thin po16ay b at no broa WW wtlaet WAM both pars are it oWMd a" -ith mask a04W WWI" iataorpanftd 6Y ratAxonas Sc"ull 0 4v 05/24/2006 12:22 ? x3294 TITLE CLEARING HOLE PAGE 02/06 Yrenared by: Title Ciearinghouse 423 Mandalay Avenue CLERK OF CST N BURKE Clearwater Beach, Florida 33767 , KE pwU AS C8UW- PLOM"A INSTV 2005246184 p6/23f2p66 at 66:46 PM Fill Nlttnber: OS-1123-03 OFF REC o 14403 R2602-2602 4 b e p OOC STAMP: S1676m General Warranty Deed Made this May 31, 2005 A.D. By Sadion Properties, Inc., a Florida corporation. whose address is: 411 Cleveland Street #l 10, Clearwater, FL 33755, hereinafter called the prartor, to Dorothy B, LeBlanc a married woman, whose post office address is: 201 S. Fulton F}each Rd., Fulton, TX ^8358, hereinafter called the grantee: (Whenever used herein the term %rantor" and "gtantre" inelude ill thr putties to Asia inttrumcnl and the hair, lops mpmaenirtivca and assign of individuals. mnd the suocow4ft anA owiga: of"ptrre6ors) Witnesseth, that the grantor, for and in consideration of fne sum of Tan Dollars, ($10,x 0) and other valuable corsiderations, receipt whcreof ii hereby acknowledged. hereby grants. bargains, sells, aliens, remises, releases, conveys and utnfirms unto the grant.es, all that certain land situate in Pinellas County, Florida, viz; Lot 13,14, 15 AND 16 BLOCK 1, LAKE BF.LLE'r'TEW ADDITION, LESS THAT PART CONVEYED TO PINEL•LAS COUNTY FOR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY IN OR BOOK 1367. PAGE 279, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PTNELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT TFf.FREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT HOOK 9, PAGE 141 OF THE PLBLIC RECORDS OF PTNBLLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA Parcel ID Number: 211291151474661001/0130 't'ogether with all the tcnoments, horeditametru and apparteuances thereto'.elonging or in anywise appertaining. To Have and to Hold, the same in fee simple forever And the gatritor hereby covcrta1115 with said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seized of said lard in fee simple; that the grwitor has good right and lawful autborib to sell and. convey said land: that the grantor hereby fully warrants the tittc to said land and will derend the same against the lawful claims of all p rsoms whomsoever; and that said ,and is free of all encumbrances except taxes au'ruinS subsequent to December 31, 2004. In Witness Whereof, the said grantor has signed and sealed these presents the day and year first above wfit'tcn. Signed, sealed and delivered in ourpresence: Sadlo ro 't" ,fne. B, . Ju y ei and as P for Mark Nichols Witness Printed Name•_'11YJ!?... It : V cc Pre adept Al 4 recs. 411 Cleveland 5treei• t1'i 10, Cica lAvte?r, FL 3375 Witnoss Fhintad State of Flori.ia County of Pinellas The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 31 th day of May. 2005, by Sadlon Properties, inc., a Florida corporation, whe islarc personally known to me or who has produced drivers license as identlilcation. `tatnry Pub a Frlnr Nmme:__ -""- .,r., 04n8 Boivin hty Cnetmisstan Explre+:?,_. ? --- 4?Y Y*.?;?• y. ('hmtnistionitD0217338 :•:'?u:•E Expires: May 24.2007 -*ig? 6oudedThm "'nine Atlantic eortding Co., lna. DEED tndi:idrla! i'ar anry Dead . teal on Face Clo,r.4' choice ORIGINAL, RECEIVED MAY 2 5 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 05/24/2006 12:22 72741 1 TITLE CLEAR :I.4G - PAGE 04/06 First .A, rican Title Insurance. C an?? ALFA OWNER'S POLICY Agent's File Number: 05-1123-03 Owner's Policy Number.: FA-35-1271566 Schedule A, Continuation Lot 13,14, 15 AND 16 BLOCK 1, LAKE BE LLMEW ADDITION, LESS THAT FART CONTv YEID TO PINELLAS COUNTY FOR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY IN OR BOOK 1367. PAGE 279, PUBLIC PECORJ)S OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED EX PLAT BOOK 9. PAGE 141 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLA.S COLNNTY, FLORIDA ORIGINAL RECEIVED MAY 2 5 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 05/24,12005 12:22 727439 TITLE: CLEARING ,E PAGE: 03/06 First A rican Title Insurance Co any u ALTA OWNER'S POLICY Agent's File Number: 05-1123.03 Owner's Fal.icy'Nurnber: FA-35-1271566 Schedule A Date of Policy: June 23, 2005 at 06:46 FM[ Amount of Insurance: $225,000.00 1. Namc of Insured: Dorothy B. LeBlanc a married woman 2. The estate or interest in the land wbicb. is encumbered by the insured is: Fee Simple 3. Title to the estate or interest in the land is vested in the insured by: Dorothy B. LeBlanc a married woman 4. The land referred to in this policy is situated in the State of Florida, County of Pinellas and is described as follows: See Schedule A Continuation, for Legal Description Title Clearinghouse By: Aut oriz Agmf' GO -W. Alderman 11 05','2 ,' 2dnb 12: 2.2 7'''7499,1 -11TLE (.:LE ;R1N6 HOUSE PAGE 022 L16 1>renared 1W . Tile Clearinghouse 4 3'N1andalay Avonuc KEN pllriKE, CLERK OF COURT C;Icarviater 1dcaFh, } Inritia 337d7 LLAS rOIWTY PLOrdi6A PINrr ' . M I 4 6 194 002 11043 IN6T# 2Un5245 t File Number: 05-1 123-03 4 12 - jj403 pa: 4 OFF REo LU<: WEo RLCOR(?ttlG: 4110.08 ' noe7ype: I) 1700 STAMP: W75-too General VVarranly peed tvlade this May 31, 2005 A.D. By sadion Properties, Inc„ a Ftorida corporation, whose address is: 411 Cleveland Street TO 10, Clearwater, Ff.. 33755, hereinafter celled tht (;raptor, to Dorothy B. LeBlanc a inar•ried woman, whose post office addrass is: 20) S. Fulton Beach Rd., Fulton, TX ^8358. hereinafter called the grantee: (Wh.... ar usui harem Iha tens "Vitntor" m'd 'palMe" inc!nde Alt the parties to niia inttrumant and the hoir, lop.al n:prcadBla l?G, and assign.., of individuals. and Lhe erloccau,riarda5sianAnfcorporstions) '(Xritnesseth, that the grantor, for and in consideration of ftie sum of Tan Dollars; ($10.00) and other valuable considerations. receipt whereof is herdry acknowledged, hereby grants, bargains, sell:, aliens, remises, releases, cn;nveys and confirms unto the grantc:; pill that etatain land situate in Piuallat. Ccurin', Florida, viz: Lot 13,14, 15 AND 16 BLOCK 1, LAKE BELLEVIEW ADDITION, LESS THAT PART CONVEYED TO PINELLAS COL?v'TX FOR ROP.D RIGHT OF WAY TN OR BOOK 1357. PAGE 279: PUBLIC RECORDS 01' PTNELLA.S COUNT`(, FLORIDA, ACCORDING 'rO 1'14E PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE 141 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PTNFLLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA ParcelfD Nutrber:2tr?9115/49466l001.10130 Together with all the tenctttentS, horeditarn-t-. and appartevencea thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. To )< ave and to Holdr the same in feib simple forever And the grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grantor is latwfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the gratttor has good Hght and lawful. autltorit, to soli and convey said land: that the grantor hereby fully warrants the titic 10 said land and will derend the same agaimt the lawful claims of rll parsons whomsoever, and that said land is free of all encumbrances e%cent taxes iaeoVn5 subsequent to December 31, 2004. In M itvteas Whereof, the said grawor has signed and sealed these presents the day and year first shove tt7ittcn. Signed, se«led and delivered in our presence: 7adlo' 'ro rh i Inc. ??7 Y T3? Ju y t1 t ti ad asp i ror It[arlt lVieltcls tViro acS Yrin*ad Name AN .,E GYI?I> ------ Iit ?r ce Pre dent Av lees: 411 Cleveland Street #110, Clca-Mater , F1.33755 Witness Printod i`iarnc_???_?•?r.3?."`z'?-=<??"-? State of Florida County of Pinellas The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3 I th day of Niay, 2005, by Sadlon Properttos, Inc., a Florida corpcretior„ %"o is/arc personally known to me or who has produced drivers license as identification. YrinrName: l; ???/ ?//?? Atr Cnmmissron GzpSres:,_,•__._.v LL Gjna 13okirl r?r ('nmin,seioii110217133 i•: ?,, Expires: may 29, 2001 0.dedThnl Atlantic Binding Co., Inc. C1EF..0 11Ai•rO-114'arranV Dead • 1.241611 face CJcacn' ell, its ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2@06 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • RECEIVED JUN 0 6 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMEM CITY OF CLEARWATER COMMERCIAL LEASE etv/,5 ¢jas9 64ts7D"o' rx- This lease rT be?tw;en /,o G, herein called dt?a ASS A ' .rVWr.G W10 Lessor, and $p???,s P herein called Lessee. Lessee hereby offers to lease from Lessor the premises situated in the City of County of n??j,LAS State of mQ.CD,A described as °?oi I,A?c?.vc>ew 9-D, CWWA- m VA-APT , upon the following TERMS and CONDITIONS: 1. Term and Rent. Lessor demises the above premises for a term of f ?t jt,04V years, commencing J-"r 1%4 ,Z O 06 and 2. Use. Lessee shall use and occupy the premises for RA ICKI 0 CI The premises shall be used for no other purpose. Lessor represents that the premises may lawfully be used for such purpose. terminating on or sooner as provided herein at the annual rental of ($04.000 payable in equal installments in advance on the first day of each month for that month's rental, during the term of this lease. All rental payments shall be made to Lessor, at the address specified above. 3. Care and Maintenance of Premises. Lessee acknowledges that the premises are in good order and repair, unless otherwise indicated herein. Lessee shall, at his own expense and at all times, maintain the premises in good and safe condition, including plate glass, electrical wiring, plumbing and ati - 1 - _ 0 • installations and any other system or equipment upon the premises, and shall surrender the same at termination hereof, in as good condition as received, normal wear and tear excepted. Lessee shall be responsible for all repairs required, e*eept±Trg 0990, 7*t54? 4. Alterations. Lessee shall not, without first obtaining the written consent of Lessor, make any alterations, additions, or improvements, in, to or about the premises. 5. Ordinances and Statutes. Lessee shall comply with all statutes, ordinances and requirements of all municipal, state and federal authorities now in force, or which may hereafter be in force, pertaining to the premises, occasioned by or affecting the use thereof by Lessee. 6. Assignment and Subletting. Lessee shall not assign this lease or sublet any portion of the premises without prior written consent of the Lessor, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any such assignment or subletting without consent shall be void and, at the option of the Lessor, may terminate this lease. 7. Utilities. All applications and connections for necessary utility services on the demised premises shall be made in the name of Lessee only, and Lessee shall be solely liable for utility charges as they become due, including those for sewer, water, gas, electricity, and telephone services. 8. Entry and Inspection. Lessee shall permit Le:;able or Lessor's s to enter upon the premises at r times and upon reasonable for the pur of inspecting the same, and will permit Lessor a time within sixty (60) days prior to the expirat' this lease, to e upon the premises any usual et" or "For Lease" signs, and perms sons de ng to lease the same to inspect the premises therea 9. Possession. If Lessor is unable to deliver possession of the premises at the commencement hereof, Lessor shall not be liable for any damage caused thereby, nor shall this lease be void or voidable, but Lessee shall not be liable for an rent until possession is delivered. Lessee may terminate t is lease if possession is not delivered within ys the commencement of the term hereof. RECEIVED 2 - 4 JUN o 6 2006 y 1. -?( PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWAYM • 0 RECEIVED JUN 0 6 2006 10. Indemnification of Lessor. Lessor shall not be liable P NINGDEPARTMEM ?Tf OF CLEARWATER any damage or injury to Lessee, or any other person, or to any property, occurring on the demised premises or any part thereof, and Lessee agrees to hold Lessor harmless from any claim for damages, no matter how caused. 11. Insurance. Lessee, at his expense, shall maintain plate glass and public liability insurance including bodily injury and property damage insuring Lessee and Lessor with minimum coverage as follows: Lessee shall provide Lessor with a Certificate of Insurance showing Lessor as additional insured. The Certificate shall provide for a ten-day written notice to Lessor in the event of cancellation or material change of coverage. To the maximum extent permitted by insurance policies which may be owned by Lessor or Lessee, Lessee and Lessor, for the benefit of each other, waive any and all rights of subrogation which might otherwise exist. 12. Eminent Domain. If the premises or any part thereof or any estate therein, or any other part of the building materially affecting Lessee's use of the premise, shall be taken by eminent domain, this lease shall terminate on the date when title vests pursuant to such taking. The rent, and any additional rent, shall be apportioned as of the termination date, and any rent paid for any period beyond that date shall be repaid to Lessee. Lessee shall not be entitled to any part of the award for such taking or any payment in lieu thereof, but Lessee may file a claim for any taking of fixtures and improvements owned by Lessee, and for moving expenses. 13. Destruction of Premises. In the event of a partial destruction of the premises during the term hereof, from any cause, Lessor shall forthwith repair the same, provided that such repairs can be made within sixty (60) days under existing governmental laws and regulations, but such partial destruction shall not terminate this lease, except that Lessee shall be entitled to a proportionate reduction of rent while such repairs are being made, based upon the extent to which the making of such repairs shall interfere with the business of Lessee on the premises. If such repairs cannot be made within said sixty (60) days, Lessor, at his option, may make the same withi a reasonable time, this lease continuing in effect wit th rent proportionately abated as aforesaid, and in the ev t tha Lessor shall not elect to make such repairs which cannot b e ithin - 3 Ain tai RECEIVED JUN () 6 ?nnfi PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER sixty (60) days, this lease may be terminated at the option of either party. In the event that the building in which the demised premises may be situated is destroyed to an extent of not less than one-third of the replacement costs thereof, Lessor may elect to terminate this lease whether the demised premises be injured or not. A total destruction of the building in which the premises may be situated shall terminate this lease. 14. Lessor's Remedies on Default. If Lessee defaults in the payment of rent, or any additional rent, or defaults in the performance of any of the other covenants or conditions hereof, Lessor may give Lessee notice of such default and if Lessee does not cure any such default within c3o days, after the giving of such notice (or if such other default is of such nature that it cannot be completely cured within such period, if Lessee does not commence such curing within such '30 days and thereafter proceed with reasonable diligence and in good faith to cure such default), then Lessor may terminate this lease on not less than q0 days' notice to Lessee. On the date specified in such notice the term of this lease shall terminate, and Lessee shall then quit and surrender the premises to Lessor, but Lessee shall remain liable as hereinafter provided. If this lease shall have been so terminated by Lessor, Lessor may at any time thereafter resume possession of the premises by any lawful means and remove Lessee or other occupants and their effects. No failure to enforce any term shall be deemed a waiver. Security Deposit. Lessee shall deposit with Lessor on t signin this lease the sum of Dolla ($ as security deposit for t ormance of Lessee's obligations u this leas . cluding without limitation, the surrender of ion of the premises to Lessor as herein provided. essor applies an rt of the deposit to cure any defa of Lessee, Lessee shall on dem deposit with Lessor amount so applied so that Lessor shall have full del!5-osit on hand at all times during the term of this lease. 1 Tax Increase. In the event there is any increase during any year of the this lease in the City, County or State r-eaJ- estate taxes over and abo amount of such tax sessed for the tax year during which the term ase commences, whether because of incre or valuate ess e shall pay to Lesser u sentation of paid tax bills an amo n I ual to of the increase in taxes upon the a an 4 \ f ^ E C.m S`2610? RECEIVED JUN 0 6 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER b ?Jngin hich the leased premises are situated. In ent thare assessed for a tax yea i.ng beyond the term of the lease, the o essee shall be proportionate to the on of the lease e d in such year 1 Common Area Expenses. In the event the demised pre e situate i T ? hop ing center or in a uilding in which there are Comm , ees to pay his pro-rata sha n enance, -axes, and insurance for the co rea. 18. Attorney's Fees. In case suit should be brought for recovery of the premises, or for any sum due hereunder, or because of any act which may arise out of the possession of the premises, by either party, the prevailing party shall be entitled to all costs incurred in connection with such action, including a reasonable attorney's fee. 19. Notices. Any notice which either party may, or is required to give, shall be given by mailing the same, postage prepaid, to Lessee at the premises, or Lessor at the address first written, or at such other places as may be designated by the parties from time to time. 20. Heirs, Assigns, Successors. This lease is binding upon and inures to the benefit of the heirs, assigns and successors in interest to the parties. rrLoIu ) 4aw #^ o jar a t t4owS vs lfires or?tx? ?YPtNSt 21. Option to I-e evv. Provided that Lessee is not in default in T. the performance of this lease, Lessee shall have the option to? renew the lease for an additional term of 40 months commencing at the expiration of the initial lease term. All of G the terms and conditions of the lease shall apply during the ,renewal term except that the monthly rent shall be the sum of notice given to Lessor not less than ?O days prior )to the expiration of the initial lease term. If notice is not given in the manner provided herein within the time specified, this option shall expire. P-9{?If-w -77M4 OVA g!? S41" ?? bO?o.???a' ?9?b o2S?^ The option shall be exercised by written 22. Subordination. This lease is and shall be subordinated to all existing and future liens and encumbrances aga property. 23. Entire Agreement. The foregoing constitutes - 5 - • • agreement between the parties and may be modified only by a writing signed by both parties. The following Exhibits, if any, have been made a part of this lease before the parties' execution hereof: 49Vt6s,.T 2wan+/ Gs7MY La ,;b r of e44--)) c m QE's Radon Gas Disclosure. As T--3q-.,fired by law, Landl:;c?urrinag the o ing disclosure: "Radon Gas" is a naturall radioactive g t when it has accumulat n a building in sufficient quantities, ma ent h risks to persons who are exposed to it over time vel don that exceed federal and state guideline verve been found in buil 1 in . Additional information regarding ra o nd radon t may be obtained from your county public health unit. Signed thi th day of)q*7 17006. By B Lessee P'FCENED 1 i i N 1) A 7006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER - 6 - li - -F - ,A'bDtiej>u.-c s MOD tvv 4& 4c `? q n A is?i c. /n4ti? v'og, ic4e % SA/mil ?,ta `s s oI.?Q . E y'Y ? ?4n? t t t ?t A (? n. ?'1?7i?.¢?vG? p ? c t t 1 f?..?y4?.r? l2? s o,?-S )DIG ZXn 44 44 .0 vl2e 4, f-. ?9x Att Atc url??r,?s Dort?t ? Vr? 7b Bf /f,4 /b ANA /N Rr??gf.?9?, Sy 7;Yf- G?-rta11.B-+? RECEND .11 IN o 6 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER -)I/* 14,ol&oe6 w ac c,ucL tat ?R7ZCdr 11 1? 5/25/2006 Receipt #: 1200600000000005443 4:42:41PM Date: 05/25/2006 r Line Items: Case No Tran Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid FLD2006-05032 04 Payments: Flexible Commercial 010-341262 1,205.00 Line Item Total: $1,205.00 Method Payer Initials Check No Confirm No How Received Amount Check MARK S LEBLAC n? z OZ n ? O M m m 0 m Z D g? N o vr- D m rn M Z R_D 1026 In Person 1,205. Payment Total: $1,205.00 THIS IS NOT A PERMIT. This is a receipt for an application for a permit. This application will be reviewed and you will be notified as to the outcome of the application. i Page 1 of 1 0 cReceipt.rpt • f 43) (C 113 FLD2006-05032 921 LAKEVIEW RD Date Received: 05/25/2006 THE BOILING POT ZONING DISTRICT: C LAND USE: CG ATLAS PAGE : 306A PLANNER OF RECORD: WW ORIGINAL RECEIVED JUL 112006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER CLWCoverSheet o? 40 w FLD2006-05032 921 LAKEVIEW RD THE BOILING POT PLANNER OF RECORD: WW ATLAS # 306A ZONING: C LAND USE: CG RECEIVED: 05/25/2006 INCOMPLETE: COMPLETE: MAPS: PHOTOS: STAFF REPORT: DRC : CDB: ORIGINAL RECENED OCT 12 2m PIp,NNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER CLWCoverSheet 0 Wells, Wayne 4 Page 1 of 1 From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:12 PM To: 'Doreen Williams' Subject: RE: Boiling Pot Engineering - Start with Steve Doherty. -----Original Message----- From: Doreen Williams [mailto:doreen@northsideengineering.com] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:10 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Boiling Pot Who do I need to check with in regards to being able to landscape along Dempsey outside our property line? Sincerely, Doreen A. Williams Doreen A. Williams Project Director Nonbside Engineering Services, Inc, 601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930 Clearwater, FL 33755 Phone: 727-443-2869 Fax: 727-446-8036 Cell: 727-235-8474 3/30/2007 0 • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:06 PM To: 'doreen@northsideengineering.com' Subject: RE: Boiling pot Doreen - The revised application may propose that change. As we have discussed, it is a double- edged sword design, as the more landscaping you provide (desirable), the less on-site parking is provided (not as desirable). It is a yin/yang, point/counterpoint, etc. situation. My preference is the provision of Code required parking on-site, as well as required buffers, foundation landscaping and interior landscaping. You have to find that balance between meeting Code requirements and acceptable variances necessary to meet site constraints. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: doreen@northsideengineering.com [mailto:doreen@northsideengineering.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:10 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Boiling pot I know you are tired of hearing from me about this project, but I am dieing here. Just a thought, if I get rid of the 2 parking spaces closest to Dempse, I could eliminate the rear pond and add a lot more landacaping. What do you think? Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device Page 1 of 1 0 44 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:39 AM To: 'Doreen Williams' Subject: RE: Boiling Pot Doreen - I can't really tell you what you need to do to have the Planning Department recommend approval. I think you need to address the concerns raised in the prior staff report and meet Code requirements. Any application desired to be submitted for a restaurant on this property needs to be first determined there has been a substantial change from that denied by the CDB (Section 4-202.G). Wayne -----Original Message----- From: Doreen Williams [mailto:doreen@northsideengineering.com] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 1:49 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Boiling Pot I hope you had a nice long weekend. Housh wants to know what we need to do to gain staff support on this project. Sincerely, Doreen A. Williams Doreen A. Williams Project Director Northside Engineering Services, Inc, 601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930 Clearwater, FL 33755 Phone: 727-443-2869 Fax: 727-446-8036 Cell: 727-235-8474 3/27/2007 C I'TY OF C LEARWAT E R PLANNING DEPARTMENT Posy OFPU:r Box 4748, CLRARWATEY, FI.oRIOA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOIffH MYR-i-u: AVI?NUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 " iua PrloNt: (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4865 LONG RAaGr PIA\NING DEVFLOPMENT RE:v1eW February 21, 2007 Ms. Doreen Williams Northside Engineering Services, Inc. 601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930 Clearwater, FL 33755 RE: Development Order - Case FLD2006-05032 921 Lakeview Road Dear Ms. Williams: This letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to Section 4-206.D.6 of the Community Development Code. On February 20, 2007, the Community Development Board reviewed your request for Flexible Development approval to permit a restaurant in the Commercial District with a reduction to the lot width from 100 feet to 89.77 feet (south along Dempsey Street), reductions to the front (north along Lakeview Road) setback from 25 feet to 18.1 feet (to existing building), from 25 feet to 14 feet (to sidewalk) and from 25 feet to four feet (to pavement), reductions to the front (south along Dempsey Street) from 25 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), an increase to building height from 25 feet to 29.5 feet (to existing midpoint of the pitched roof), a reduction to the required parking from 43 spaces to 16 spaces and a deviation to allow direct access to Lakeview Road, as a Comprehensive InEll Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, with reductions to the perimeter landscape buffers along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to four feet (to pavement), along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure) and along the east from five feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to 5.5 percent and a reduction to the foundation landscape area from five feet wide to zero feet wide, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3- 1202.G. The Community Development Board (CDB) DENIED the application with the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: Findings of Fact: 1. That the 0.253 acres is located on the south side of Lakeview Road, approximately 600 feet east of South Myrtle Avenue and 50 feet west of Prospect Avenue; 2. That the property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category; 3. That the existing building on the property has some historic value, as it was previously used by Coca Cola as a distribution facility, but is not listed on the Florida or National Register of Historic Places; I r,: nI I I11R:Vfl), Nbml JIIII;? Dolor, C'o1 xn1.N1[:\MFk I!MT l iAMILMN. CcII c I,.ar: nsitR BILLJuN.',clx, O ;MALNIFNIBE:R CAN'1A:NA. PPIf.RSGN, CUf?:CI1..\1E\M1:R "I?c (W, }liMPLOY,ME -l"I A?:) AI PIR\IA'I IVI? Ac i im Ii.mrri,owi " • February 21, 2007 Williams - Page Two rI 4. That the last legal use of the property was for four attached dwellings (two on the second floor and two on the south side of the building) with accessory storage on the ground floor; 5. That the two dwelling units on the south side of the building have been removed/demolished; 6. That the proposal is to re-use the site and building for a restaurant in the total 2,890 square-foot building; 7. That the applicant proposes to utilize the 1,915 square-foot downstairs as the restaurant, however, an accessory office for the restaurant is proposed in the 975 square-foot upstairs area; 8. That there is no direct connection between the first and second floors, since this "accessory" space has no interior access, raising a question of appropriateness; 9. That the proposal includes the eastern 25-foot wide lot (Lot 17) owned by Sexton Enterprises, Inc. on the west side of the subject site and the applicant has entered into a Commercial Lease for this 25- foot wide lot for a time period of 15 years with the ability for an additional five years; 10. That the site is a double fronted lot, with frontage along both Lakeview Road on the north and Dempsey Street on the south; 11. That detached dwellings exist to the south across Dempsey Street zoned MDR District; 12. That, in order to provide for a restaurant use on this property, reductions to lot width along Dempsey Street, setbacks, required parking, landscape buffers, interior landscape area and foundation landscape area have been requested; 13. That the curvature of the adjacent roadways and the property, as well as the location of this existing building, present design constraints on the provision of required parking, landscaping and drainage improvements; 14. That inadequate area exists to provide the required off-street parking for the proposed restaurant and the submitted Parking Demand Study does not justify the requested reduction to parking, which represents the provision of only 37.2 percent of the required parking; 15. That the proposed development of this property with a restaurant has not been designed to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding neighborhood; 16. That the proposed reductions to required setbacks provide little area for any meaningful landscaping to mitigate views of the parking lot and for site beautification; 17. That the landscape material proposed is minimal or nonexistent to mitigate adverse effects of the use on the surrounding area, especially on the detached dwellings to the south; 18. That the proposed development does not provide for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings, as the flexibility criteria requires; 19. That, when the reductions to required setbacks are viewed in light of the reductions to required parking and landscape areas, the use is incompatible with the surrounding area and the design and intensity of the proposal does not support the established character of an area and will not enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 20. That there are outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated. with the subject property. Conclusions of Law: 1. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Standards as per Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code; 2. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-704.C of the Community Development Code; 3. That the development proposal is inconsistent 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 inconsistent with the Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria as per Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code. 0 0 February 21, 2007 Williams - Page Three 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 March 7, 2007 (14 days from the date of the CDB meeting). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Wayne M. Wells, Planner Ell, at 727-562-4504. You can access zoning information for parcels within the City through our website: www.myclearwater.com/ og v/depts/planning. Sincerely, Mich , AI P Planning Director S: (Planning Department I C D BIFLEX (FLD)Ilnactive or Finished Applications lLakeview 921 The Boiling Pot (C) -Den iedILakeview 921 Development Order 2.21.07 doc 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:20 AM To: Doreen Williams (E-mail) Subject: FLD2006-05032, 921 Lakeview Road Doreen - Attached is the Staff Report for the above referenced case (same as in December, except one sentence added to "Update"). This case will be heard by the CDB on February 20, 2007, at 1:00 pm at City Hall. Wayne Lakeview 921 Staff Report for ... -r s?; ralf:ll' LONG RANGE PIANNING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Ms. Doreen Williams Northside Engineering Services, Inc. 601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930 Clearwater, FL 33755 December 20, 2006 Re: Community Development Board Meeting (Case No. FLD2006-05032 - 921 Lakeview Road) Dear Ms. Williams: The Community Development Board (CDB) at their meeting on December 19, 2006, continued the above referenced request to their February 20, 2007, meeting. The request is for Flexible Development approval to permit a restaurant in the Commercial District with a reduction to the lot width from 100 feet to 89.77 feet (south along Dempsey Street), reductions to the front (north along Lakeview Road) setback from 25 feet to 18.1 feet (to existing building), from 25 feet to 14 feet (to sidewalk) and from 25 feet to four feet (to pavement), reductions to the front (south along Dempsey Street) from 25 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), an increase to building height from 25 feet to 29.5 feet (to, existing midpoint of the pitched roof), a reduction to the required parking from 43 spaces to 16 spaces and a deviation to allow direct access to Lakeview Road, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, with reductions to the perimeter landscape buffers along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to four feet (to pavement), along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure) and along the east from five feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to 5.5 percent and a reduction to the foundation landscape area from five feet wide to zero feet wide, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G, for property located at 921 Lakeview Road. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III, at 727-562- 4504. Sincere, Michael e k, AICP Planning Director S: (Planning DepartmentlCD BIFLEX (FLD)IPending casesl Up for the next CDBILakeview 921 ne Boiling Pot (C) - 2.20.07 CDB - WWILakeview 921 CDB Continuance Letter 12.20.06.doc FRANK I I!RRAr!), NIAYOR 0 0 C IT'Y CAE C LEARWAT'E R PLANNING DEPARTMENT Posr OrIICr Box 4748, CLFARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL. SERVICBs BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYR1•I.E AvHNUE, CI.EARWKITR, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4865 IJn!iv DcluAr: Ccx ,?c:u.,?ut.?usra; I Im-r I lA?n!:rc?x, Ccx*NC11.m1:Nm1;i" 1311.1JONSON, Ccx;nc:11A11:.\1H1'.R CA1:1.1:T A. PIrfP.!tSi::'?. Cott u_ rn.>nc!tr. "EQUAL I',MP!.( M1::NT AMU APPIRMATIVI;. Ac'I'ION I'.AII'LOYI?:R?? LIINIICUFRI?WT December 18, 2006 CIVIL G LAND PLANNING G ENVIRONMENTAL C TRANSPORTATION C ORIGINAL RECEIVED Mr. Wayne Wells Planner III City of Clearwater 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 RE: FLD2006-05032 The Boiling Pot Dear Mr. Wells: DEC 19 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CRY OF CLEARWATER The above mentioned case is to be heard at the December 19, 2006 CDB meeting. On behalf of the owner, we would like to request a two month continuance. This would take us to the February 20, 2007 meeting. At the present time, the owner is negotiating a cross-parking agreement and we feel that with the holiday season, the terms and conditions will not be completed prior to the January, 2007 meeting. If additional information is necessary, please contact our office. Sincerely, Doreen A. WVil a ns Project Director 601 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 930 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755 NESADMIN@MINDSPRIN6.COM NESTECH@MINDSPRIN6.COM 727 • 443 • 2869 FAX 727 • 446 • 8036 12/19/2006 08:38 7274 4i be Northslo, ?? ?vxuicea ??c. December 18, 2006 Mr. Wayne Wells Planner IU City of Clearwater 100 S_ Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 RE: FLD2006-05032 The Boiling Pot Dear Mr. Wells:. NORTHSIDE ENG PAGE 02/02 CIVIL 6 LAND PLANNING • ENVI RONPALN 1'AL • TRAMPORTATION • ORIGINAL RECEIVED DEC 19 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER The above mentioned case is to be heard at the December 19, 2006 CDB meeting. On behalf of the owner, we would like to request a two month continuance. This would take us to the February 20, 2007 meeting. At the present time, the owner is negotiating a crowparking agreement and we feel that with the holiday season, the teztns and conditions will not be completed prior to the January, 2007 meeting. If additional infoimation is necessary, please contact our office, Sincerely, 'Doreen A. w,lliarns Project Director 601 CLEVELAND STR(r1',,'1UITC ?3n C.IJARWATER, FLORIDA 33755 NE5ADMIN1'1)MIND5PR1N6.C0M NE5TECH0!)MI ND5Pft1NG.CC)M 717 • 443 • 7869 FAX 727 • 446 • 8036 12/19/2006 68:38 7274468 NORTHSIDE ENG S PAGE 61/02 Northside <m= 4p LAND4S'CAI'E . 'eirufte?, 7iu. EAWIROM MENTAL TRANSPOR M..77ON FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 19, 2006 TIME: 8:50 am PAGE 1. OF 2 TO: Mr. Wayne Wells FAN NO. 562-4865 OF: Clearwater Planning FROM: Angel H• Cris , Executive Ad.n inistrative Assistant PROJECT NAME: The Boiling Pot - FLD2006-05032 / NES 634 COMMENTS : Request for continuance. PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT OUR OFFICE SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS REGARDING THIS PROJECT. 601 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 93() CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755 T (727) 443-28691F (727) 446-8036 E--.MAIL; AD.Jl4IN@NORTHSIDEENGjNEERfl1G, CpAf • Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Doreen Williams [Doreen@northsideengineering.com] Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 1:39 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Thompson, Neil; Housh Ghovaee; boilingpot@verizon.net Subject: The Boiling Pot/ FLD2006-05032 Wayne, we would like to ask for a 2 month continuance at CDB. The owner is in negotiation with a cross-parking agreement and we feel with the holidays, it will not be finalized for the January, 2007 CDB meeting. I will send you a formal letter. If I need to do anything else, please let me know. Doreen A. Williams Project Director Northside Engineering Services, Inc. 601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930 Clearwater, FL 33755 Phone: 727-443-2869 / Fax: 446-8036 / Cell: 235-8474 Email: doreen@northsideengineering.com No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.23/591 - Release Date: 12/17/2006 12/18/2006 • • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:25 AM To: Doreen Williams (E-mail) Subject: FLD2006-05032, 921 Lakeview Road Doreen - Attached is the Staff Report for the above referenced case. I will bring an autographed version over to you later this morning, as well as letters in opposition that were dropped off this morning. Wayne 0 0 Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:07 PM To: 'Doreen Williams' Subject: RE: Boiling Pot Staff Reports would be available no later than December 14, 2006. -----Original Message----- From: Doreen Williams [mailto:Doreen@northsideengineering.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:04 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Boiling Pot Hello, Hope you had a Happy Thanksgiving and didn't eat TOO much!!!!! Can you give me a rough idea when the staff report will be available for the Boiling Pot? Thanks, Doreen A. Williams Project Director Northside Engineering Services, Inc. 601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930 Clearwater, FL 33755 Phone: 727-443-2869 / Fax: 446-8036 / Cell: 235-8474 Email: doreen .northsideengineering.com Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.3/446 - Release Date: 9/12/2006 11/28/2006 a+,=rJ+v??? I I ? I ?? 1 r?I . I ry? ?+ ,kta f N u art/? LONG RANGE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Ms. Doreen Williams Northside Engineering Services, Inc. 601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930 Clearwater, FL 33755 November 21, 2006 Re: Community Development Board Meeting (Case No. FLD2006-05032 - 921 Lakeview Road) Dear Ms. Williams: The Community Development Board (CDB) at their meeting on November 21, 2006, continued the above referenced request to their December 19, 2006, meeting. The request is for Flexible Development approval to permit a restaurant in the Commercial District with a reduction to the lot width from 100 feet to 89.77 feet (south along Dempsey Street), reductions to the front (north along Lakeview Road) setback from 25 feet to 18.1 feet (to existing building), from 25 feet to 14 feet (to sidewalk) and from 25 feet to four feet (to pavement), reductions to the front (south along Dempsey Street) from 25 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), an increase to building height from 25 feet to 29.5 feet (to existing midpoint of the pitched roof), a reduction to the required parking from 43 spaces to 16 spaces and a deviation to allow direct access to Lakeview Road, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, with reductions to the perimeter landscape buffers along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to four feet (to pavement), along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure) and along the east from five feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to 5.5 percent and a reduction to the foundation landscape area from five feet wide to zero feet wide, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G, for property located at 921 Lakeview Road. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III, at 727-562- 4504. Sincerely, , ..c elk CP Planning Director S: (Planning Department) C D BIFLEX (FLD)IPending casesl Up for the next CDBILakeview 921 The Boiling Pot (C) -12.19.06 CDB - WWILakeview 921 CDB Continuance Letter 11.21.06doc FRANK 1111MARD, MAYOR C ITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT Pos-r OFFIcr•. Box 4748, CLIARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL. SERVlcI?s BUILDING, ZOO SOUTH MYR•TI.F AVFNUI., CLFARWATFR, FLORIDA 33756 TFLFPHONF(727) 562-4567 FAx(727) 562-4865 (cni:ix DomAN, Cot Nc:n.,?rn.?usr.R I icn'r I IAWIXON, Cot NCn.\lF.%Ml R 13n.L JONSON, C0HN( AU1b:\IBhR CARI.EN A. Prreaslr:'• C:or?c:n.>nt>nsrR „I;ouAL EMPLOYMENT AND ArriRnlATIvi, Acru>N 1",MPLO1 F:R„ 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 10:52 AM To: Doreen Williams (E-mail) Subject: FLD2006-05032, 921 Lakeview Road Doreen - Attached is the memorandum being sent to the Community Development Board for their meeting on November 21, 2006. Wayne EZ?n Lakeview 921 emorandum re Req. tty?r.a+. r?(_?ttwt k N LONG RSNGF PLANNING DFVI?LOPMENT RI,-.VIEW Ms. Doreen Williams Northside Engineering Services, Inc. 601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930 Clearwater, FL 33755 Re: Community Development Board Meeting (Case No. FLD2006-05032) Dear Ms. Williams: October 20, 2006 Case No. FLD2006-05032 for Flexible Development approval to permit a restaurant in the Commercial District with a reduction to the lot width from 100 feet to 89.77 feet (south along Dempsey Street), reductions to the front (north along Lakeview Road) setback from 25 feet to 18.1 feet (to existing building), from 25 feet to 14 feet (to sidewalk) and from 25 feet to four feet (to pavement), reductions to the front (south along Dempsey Street) from 25 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), an increase to building height from 25 feet to 29.5 feet (to existing midpoint of the pitched roof), a reduction to the required parking from 43 spaces to 16 spaces and a deviation to allow direct access to Lakeview Road, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, with reductions to the perimeter landscape buffers along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to four feet (to pavement), along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure) and along the east from five feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to 5.5 percent and a reduction to the foundation landscape area from five feet wide to zero feet wide, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G, for property located at 921 Lakeview Road, has been scheduled to be reviewed by the Community Development Board on November 21, 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, r"1.1?1aP1? Wa Ztlls, AICP Planner III S: IPlanning DepartmentlC D BIFLEX (FLD)IPending casesl Up for the next CDBILakeview 921 The Boiling Pot (C) - 11.21.06 CDB - WWILakeview 921 CDB Letter.doc PRANK I I11MARI), (MAYO; CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT POST OFI7CI? Box 4748, CHARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SFRVICI?S BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYR"II.F AVFNUI, CLFARWATFR, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4865 JOnN Dm\N, COrmm.m j..',i r:R I IO)T I IANIIIAON, COINCII MEMBER BILI.JONSON, 0WNCIIAWWWR A. PP'I'IiltSl?N, C(WNCH MEMBER "EOUAL Enlhl.o?"Yn:N"r nNn APPIRiVA"I"Ivi, ACTION Ii,UPLOYHR° NorthsAde 50#40" Seu*"' 170W. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date: October 16, 2006 To: Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner III Planning Department City of Clearwater 100 S. Myrtle Ave #210 Clearwater, FL 33755 Reference: FLD2006-05032 - 921 Lakeview Rd - The Boiling Pot NES Proj# 634 4 CIVIL LAND PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL We Transmit: Originals Enclosed Under Separate Cover X Prints Mail UPS Overnight Addendum Pick-Up X Hand Delivered Shop drawings Specifications Applications Per Your Request For Your Review & Comment Floppy Disk For Your Use X For Your Approval For Your Files For Your Information Copies Description 15 Floor Plan Please contact us at (727) 443-2869 should you have any questions or comments. I By: Ar& e nes Ma 1 Admi . Assistant Copies To: File, N. Pelzer, D. Williams ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 16 2006 601 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 930 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CLEARW ATER, FLORIDA 33755 CITY OF CLEARWATER TECH(aNORTHSIDEENGINEERING.CObk 727.443.2869 FAX 727.446.8036 • 9 0 Wells, Wayne From: Doreen Williams [Doreen@northsideengineering.com] Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 8:41 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Angel Haines Subject: RE: FLD2006-05032, 921 Lakeview Road We must have sent in the wrong floor plan. We will resubmit it today ----Original Message----- From: Wayne.Wells@myClearwater.com [mailto:Wayne.Wells@myClearwater.com] Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2006 6:51 PM To: Doreen Williams Cc: Angel Haines Subject: FLD2006-05032, 921 Lakeview Road Doreen - The resubmitted drawings are inconsistent with each other. The architect's floor plan apparently is the old floor plan, not the most recent submitted plan where the cooler and ice machines are inside the building and there is only a small slab outside the rolling door. Could you check and see if the wrong plan was submitted and, if so, replace with the up-to-date plan? If it is the right plan, then the civil plans are incorrect. Which is the correct set of plans?? Wayne Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.3/446 - Release Date: 9/12/2006 Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database:, 268.12.3/446 - Release Date: 9/12/2006 Northside V&e0 r'Nf smo*w' 90W. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date: October 13, 2006 To: Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner III Planning Department City of Clearwater 100 S. Myrtle Ave #210 Clearwater, FL 33755 Reference: FLD2006-05032 - 921 Lakeview Rd - The Boiling Pot NES Proj# 634 Enclosed Mail Pick-Up Per Your Request X For Your Use For Your Files Under Separate Cover UPS Overnight X Hand Delivered For Your Review & Comment X For Your Approval For Your Information • CIVIL LAND PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL We Transmit: X Originals X_ Prints Addendum Shop drawings Specifications Applications Floppy Disk Copies Description 15 Revised Stormwater Report, 1 Signed and Sealed Please contact us at (727) 443-2869 should you have any questions or comments. By. Angel Hain KExecutiih Admin. Assistant Copies To: File, N. Pelzer, D. Williams ORIGINAL RECEIVED 0C"f 1 t 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 601 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 930 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755 TECH )NORTHSIDEEN41NEERING.COM 727.443.2869 FAX 727.446.8036 1:3* October 5, 2006 Mr. Wayne Wells Planner III City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 RE: FLD2006-05032 - 921 Lakeview Rd - The Boiling Pot DRC Response Dear Mr. Wells: CIVIL C LAND PLANNING C ENVIRONMENTAL C TRANSPORTATION G Listed below are our responses to the Development Review meeting held on October 5, 2006. General Engineering Prior to Building Permit: 1. All new concrete aprons constructed within the right-of-way shall be a minimum 6" thick fibrous concrete, minimum 3000 psi. 2. Dumpster detail #701 will be shown on detail sheet on permitting sets. Prior to CO: 3. All substandard sidewalks & sidewalk ramps will be brought to code. Environmental: 1. In order to address comments from zoning regarding minimum setback requirements due to landscaping, the pond along Lakeview Road decreased in size. The loss in treatment volume was accounted for in a second pond which resulted in the elimination of the bubbler box. In lieu, an overflow weir has been provided. See control structure details on Sheet C3.1 and cross-sections B-B & C-C. Fire: 1. All items noted and will be addressed during permitting. Land Resource 1. Bubbler box has been replaced with a secondary pond, weir & swale. Landscaping 1. Sheet C1.1 site table has been revised to show correct VUA. 2. Pond has been revised to show a 5' setback along Lakeview for perimeter buffer. 3. See revised comprehensive landscape program stating reductions required. 4. Sheet LL I has been revised stating material used between pond's vertical wall & sidewalk adjacent to building. 5. See revised comprehensive landscape program stating reduction to landscape buffer along Lakeview Road. 6. Sketch of "historical period planters" has been included in re-submittal package. ORIGINAL RECEIVED 601 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 930 OCT 12 2006 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755 NESADMIN@MINDSPRING.COM Page I of2 N E S T E C H @M I N DS P R I N G.COM PLANNING DEPARTMENT 727 - 443 • 2869 FAX 727 • 446 • 8036 CITY OF CLEARWATER 7. Sheet L1.1 has been revised to show correct number of trees along Dempsey 8. Sheet L1.1 has been revised to be coordinated. 9. Sheet L1.1 has been revised to assure no trees are being planted under existing tree canopies. 10. Live Oak has been replaced with another type of tree. See Sheet L1.1 11. Sheet L1.1 has been revised to relocate trees from under existing tree canopies. Solid Waste 1. Per DRC meeting and conversation with Tom Glenn, dumpster has been re-situated on site for better access. Grades have been revised. Traffic Engineering 1. Parking space has been removed from sight visibility triangle. 2. No compact spaces have been provided. 3. Letter is attached herewith stating owner will not park cars in the right-of-ways. 4. End-of-roadway markers have been revised. ' Prior to building permit: 1. Truncated domes where ADA ramps exist, ie., sidewalks will be installed. 2. Right-of-way permit along County roadway will be obtained. Planning 1. Dumpster has been angled for easier pick-up. 2. Perimeter buffers have been deleted from interior landscape area. 3. All electrical overhead wires will be placed underground. This to be a condition of approval. 4. It is acknowledged that restaurant will be closed upon lose of lease for Lot 17 and to be a condition of approval. 5. It is acknowledged that a sidewalk cafe is prohibited and will be a condition of approval. 6. All signage to be under separate permit and meet code requirements. 7. See revised parking demand study and back-up material. 8. See revised comprehensive landscape program narrative. 9. See revised narrative. 10. See revised narrative 11. See revised narrative. 12. See revised narrative. 13. See revised narrative. Last sentence has been removed. 14. See revised narrative. 15. See revised narrative. 16. Sheet C2.1 has been revised to show all dimensions. 17. The existing sliding door which is to remain will be stripped down to its natural wood finish to keep the historical appearance of the original building. 18. Compact parking space has been removed. If there are any additional comments or concerns, please contact our office. Sincerely, oreen A. Williams Project Director Page 2 of 2 ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING CITY OF CLLEARV!AER • Northside 5"&W" smia", 491x. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date: October 11, 2006 To: Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner III Planning Department City of Clearwater 100 S. Myrtle Ave #210 Clearwater, FL 33755 Reference: Boiling Pot NES Proj# 634 Enclosed Mail Pick-Up Per Your Request X For Your Use For Your Files Under Separate Cover UPS Overnight X Hand Delivered For Your Review & Comment For Your Approval For Your Information Q CIVIL LAND PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL We Transmit: X Originals X_ Prints Addendum Shop drawings Specifications Applications Floppy Disk Copies Description 1 Response to Comments Letter 15 Application with Revised Narrative 15 Letter of Authorization 15 Deed, Power of Attorney, Parking & Pease Letters 15 Surveys 8.5 x 14 (2 15 Stormwater Report 15 Parking Stud 15 ITE Generator 15 Comp Landscape Program Application 15 Tree Inventory & Surveys 15 Flow Calculations 15 Sets 3 Sheets of Civil Plans, 1 Signed and Sealed L-15 Architectural Plans (2 Sheets) Please contact us at (727) 443-2869 should you have any questions or comments. By: P'A? Angel Haines, Executive Admin. Assistant Copies To: File, N. Pelzer, D. Williams ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 601 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 930 CLEARW ATER, FLORIDA 33755 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TECH@NORTHSIDEENGINEERING.COM CITY OF CLEARWATER 727.443.2869 FAX 727.446.8036 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 11:27 AM To: Doreen Williams (E-mail) Subject: FLD2006-05032, 921 Lakeview Road Doreen - Attached are the Draft DRC comments for the above case, to be heard by the DRC on October 5, 2006, at 2:30 pm. Wayne CEiih6 'A draft 10.5.06 dre action agend... 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 5:31 PM To: Doreen Williams (E-mail) Cc: Albee, Rick; Bertels, Paul; Buszewski, Justyna; Buysse, Beverly A.; Buzzell, William; Clayton, Gina; Doherty, Steve; Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Elbo, Bennett; Everitt, Steven; Faessler, Heather; Glenn, Tom; Gluski, Roberta; Kader, Art; Keller, James; Kurleman, Scott; Maran, Robert (Bob); Moms, William D.; Reid, Debbie; Rice, Scott; Rickard, Leonard; Schodtler, John; Shoberg, Elliot E.; Tefft, Robert; Thompson, Neil; Vo, Phuong; Watkins, Sherry Subject: FLD2006-05032, 921 Lakeview Road Doreen - Today I received a resubmittal of the above referenced application, responding to the August 3, 2006, DRC comments. I have scheduled the review of this resubmittal package for the October 5, 2006, DRC meeting. Wayne MLIUMFRI?Twm September 4, 2006 Mr. Wayne Wells Planner III City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 RE: FLD2006-05032 - 921 Lakeview Rd DRC Response Dear Mr. Wells: • CIVIL G LAND PLANNING G ENVIRONMENTAL C TRANSPORTATION C Listed below are our responses to the Development Review meeting held on August 3, 2006. General Engineering 1. Grease trap is shown on plans Prior to CO: 1. Acknowledged - bring all substandard sidewalks up to code. Prior to Building Permit: 1. Acknowledged - new drive apron shall be min. 6" fibrus, etc. Environmental 1. Due to parking space requirements utilizing the lot area, no additional space is available to allow for pond meeting volume requirements that will meet all side slopes of 4:1. See pond cross- section A-A. 2. See above. Land Resource 1. All trees and canopies are shown within 25' of property line. (C2.1) Landscaping 1. Curbing has been added around landscaped areas. 2. Existing walk on the north side of the building 3. See cross-section of pond 4. See revised sheet L1.1 5. See revised Sheet L1.1 6. See revised Sheet L 1.1 7. Site data table has been revised See Sheet C 1.1 8. See revised Comp Landscape narrative 9. See revised plan 10. See revised Sheet L1.1. 601 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755 N ESADMI N@MI N DS PRI NG.CON NESTECH@MINDSPRING.COM 727 • 445 • 2869 FAX 727 • 446 930 Pagel of 3 8036 0 0 11. See revised Sheet L1.1 Stormwater 1. The plans have been revised to bubble outflow from the pond onto Dempsey Street. The storm water report and calculations have been revised to the 50 year design storm. 2. Elevation has been revised. See Sheet C3.1. Solid Waste 1. Dumpster enclosure to meet City of Clearwater specifications. 2. Dumpster has been relocated for easy pick-up. Traffic Engineering 1. Sight visibility triangles are shown on. 2. Three parking spaces behind building are designated employee only. 3. See attached letter regarding right-of-way parking. 4. Three end-of-roadway signs are noted on plans. To be addressed prior to building permit: 1. Acknowledged - truncated domes where ADA ramps existing ie., sidewalks 2. Acknowledged - right-of-way permit to be obtained to work along County road. Planning 1. Parking lot interior landscape areas are shaded. 2. A/C unit has been relocated to top of roof. 3. Sheet C 1.1 site data table has been revised. 4. Sheet C 1.1. site data table has been revised. 5. Sheet C 1.1. site data table has been revised. 6. Sheet C2.1 shows building dimensions 7. Sheet C2.1 has revised dumpster size and location. 8. Sheets C2.1, C3.1 & L1.1 have been revised in regards to concrete. 9. Sheet C2.1, C3.1 & L1.1 have been revised to show Dempsey Rd. not Lakeview to south 10. Sheet C2.1, C3.1 & L1.1 have been revised. There is no longer a concrete pad for a/c. A/C has been relocated to the roof. 11. No provisions are being made for outdoor smoking. People can stand out front and smoke. 12. No longer a delivery area. All equipment has been relocated inside. Deliveries will be made from entering/existing off the Lakeview and will take place during non-business hours. 13. See revised south building elevation. 14. See revised building elevations. 15. See revised building elevations. 16. See revised building elevations 17. Building elevations show proposed height to mid-point of roof. 18. Description of request has been revised. 19. General Applicability criteria 91 has been revised 20. General Applicability criteria #4 has been revised 21. General Applicability criteria #5 has been revised 22. General Applicability criteria #6 has been revised 23. Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 has been revised 24. Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #2 has been revised Page 2 of 3 0 0 25. Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #3 has been revised 26. Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #4 has been revised 27. Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #5 has been revised 28. Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6 has been revised 29. Parking Demand Study has been revised. 30. See attached letter from Owner 31. Dumpster has been relocated and wires are high enough for dumpster to clear. 32. See note stating all overhead electric will be placed underground. 33. See revised elevations 34. Acknowledged. If there are any additional comments or concerns, please contact our office. Sincerely, oreen A. Williams Project Director Boiling Pot #634 921 Lakeview Rd Page 3 of 3 0 0 Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 4:51 PM To: 'Doreen Williams' Subject: RE: Boiling Pot That is fine. -----Original Message----- From: Doreen Williams [mailto:Doreen@northsideengineering.com] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 1:32 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Boiling Pot It says this is due Monday, September 4th. That is a holiday. How about the 5th by 12:00? Doreen A. Williams Project Director Northside Engineering Services, Inc. 601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930 Clearwater, FL 33755 Phone: 727-443-2869 / Fax: 446-8036 / Cell: 235-8474 Email: doreen(Dnorth sideengineering.com Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.4/401 - Release Date: 7/26/2006 8/31/2006 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 1:54 PM To: Doreen Williams (E-mail) Cc: Angel Haines (E-mail) Subject: FLD2006-05032, 921 Lakeview Road Doreen - The above referenced case is scheduled to be reviewed by the DRC at 11:05 am on Thursday, August 3, 2006. Attached are the Draft DRC comments (Note: Rick Albee just returned from vacation. There are no Land Resource comments listed; however, Rick Albee stated he would discuss any of his concerns at DRC). Wayne T_,' draft dre action agenda 8.1.06... 'Clearwater July 12, 2006 LE CITY OF CLERRWATER 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 Northside Engineering Services Inc. 601 Cleveland Street Suite 930 Clearwater, F133755 RE: FLD2006-05032 -- 921 LAKEVIEW RD -- Letter of Completeness Dear Northside Engineering Services Inc. : The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number: FLD2006-05032. 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 August 03, 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, /Val 0.?? /Al. Jj? Wayne Wells, AICP Planner III Letter of Completeness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 2:45 PM To: Doreen Williams (E-mail) Subject: FLD2006-05032, 921 Lakeview Rd Doreen - Attached is the Letter of Completeness for the above referenced project. The original letter is being mailed. Wayne letter of mpleteness 7.12.06 -KMFRI?T2V M() 5"a" SmAka INC. July 10, 2006 Mr. Wayne Wells Planner III City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 RE: FLD2006-05032 921 Lakeview Road Dear Mr. Wells: CIVILo LAND PLANNING O ENVIRONMENTAL 0 TRANSPORTATION C Upon receipt of your June 7, 2006 incomplete letter, we have revised drawings and have included all the required paperwork associated with the above project. Listed below are our responses to your comments. 1. City and State were added to application. 2. Complete address has been added to application for agent. 3. All properties have been added to application. 4. Description of Request has been completed on application. 5. Project valuation has been added to the application. 6. The Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Application has been completed per the new application. 7. See attached draining, grading and drainage sheets for stormwater retention. Also stormwater calculations and narrative has been provided. 8. Tree survey is included. 9. Tree inventory is included. 10. A reduction to the minimum lot width has been requested. 11. Parking demand study is attached. 12. Landscape plan is attached and to scale. 13. All setbacks have been noted on plans and on site data table. 14. Sight visibility triangles have been placed on site and landscaping plan. 15. All utilities have been located on plans. 16. Interior landscaping has been cross-hatched on plans. 17. Screening at mechanical equipment has been shown on plans. 18. All landscape materials has been shown on plans. 19. All existing/proposed sidewalks, right-of-ways have been located on plans. 20. Site data sheet has been included in plans. 21. Landscape plan has all required data listed. 22. Reduced landscape plan is included. ORIGINAL 23. Comprehensive Landscape Program is attached. RECEIVED 601 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 930 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755 NESADMIN@MINDSPRIN6.COM NESTECH@MINDSPRIN6.COM 727 • 443 • 2869 FAX 727 • 446 • 8036 JUL 112006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Mr. Wayne Wells July 10, 2006 Page Two 24. Elevation drawings are attached showing dimensions, colors and materials. 25. Fire flow calculations are attached. Per Fire Department a completed Fire Flow Calculation report is not necessary. We hope that the attached documents will make this project complete in order to move forward to DRC. Sincerely, Doreen A. Williams Project Director Enc. ORIGINAL RECEIVED JUL 112006 PLANNING DEPARriVii.N? CITY OF CLEARWATE:?.' LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date: July 11, 2006 To: Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner III Planning Department City of Clearwater 100 S. Myrtle Ave #210 Clearwater, FL 33755 Reference: FLD200&05032 - 921 Lakeview Rd - Boiling Pot Restaurant NES Proj# 634 Enclosed Mail Pick-Up Per Your Request X For Your Use For Your Files Under Separate Cover UPS Overnight X Hand Delivered For Your Review & Comment X For Your Approval For Your Information CIVIC, • LAND PLANNIN& • ENVIRONMENTAL • We Transmit: X Originals X_ Prints Addendum Shop drawings Specifications Applications Floppy Disk Copies Description 1 Response Letter 1 Flow Test Results 15 Comp Infill Application 15 Letter of Authorization 15 Deed 15 Survey 15 Stormwater Report 15 Sets (4 Sheets) of Civil and Landscape Plans 15 Reduced Civil and Landscape Plans 15 Tree Inventory and Survey 15 Comp Landscape Application 15 Reduced Architectural Drawings L_15 Architectural Drawings (1 Sheet) Please contact us at (727) 443-2869 should you have any questions or comments. Doreen A. Williams, Project Director 601 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 930 CLEARW ATER, FLORIDA 33755 TECH(?NC)RTHSIDEENGINEERIN4.COM 727.443.2869 FAX 727.446.8036 File ORIGINX Pelzer Copies To: RECEIVED JUL 112006 PLANNING DEPARTK4 ENT CITY OF CLEARWATER - CITY OF CLEW RWATER Y Clearwater PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING u 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W W W.MYCLEARWATER. COM June 07, 2006 Mark Le Blanc 1418 Dexter Drive RE: FLD2006-05032 -- 921 LAKEVIEW RD -- Letter of Incompleteness Dear Mark Le Blanc : The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number: FLD2006-05032. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is Incomplete with the following comments. 6/7/06 - WW Need to include the City and State as part of the address. 5/31/06 - WW Complete Page 1 of the application by providing the complete address for the applicant and agent (only the street address provided; no city or zip code). J 2. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Complete Page 1 of the application by providing that portion of the property owned by Sexton Enterprises Inc. to the west in the legal description. 3. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Complete Page 1 of the application by providing the parcel number for the property to the west owned by Sexton Enterprises Inc. 4. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Complete Page 1 of the application by providing the "Description of Request". 5. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Provide the project valuation. Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD 4 CITY OF CLL.RWATER 0 } Clearwater PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 WWW.MYCLEARWATER.COM June 07, 2006 6. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW The Code has been amended for the criteria for Comprehensive Infill Redeveopment Projects. It is recommended that you pick up (or I will fax and email it to you) the newest application form with these new criteria included. Provide responses to the following 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: 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.; Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD I 0 n1.....,__..?...? CITY OF CL RWATER UU41 wattl PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING u 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W WW.MYCLEARWATER. COM June 07, 2006 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. 7. 6/7/06 - WW An "aerial photography with contours" sheet from SWFWMD has been submitted, which is insufficient for existing topography. Stormwater plan must include the following: -Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines; -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; 5/31/06 - WW A stormwater plan IS required, which at a minimum must include: -Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines; -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. 8. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Provide a 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; 9. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Provide a TREE INVENTORY; prepared by a "certified arborist", of all trees 8" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and condition of such trees; 10. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW It is unclear of the lot width of the property to be developed (not provided). For restaurants in the Commercial District, a minimum of 100 feet is required. This will not be met along Dempsey Street, therefore the request will need to include a reduction to this lot width requirement. Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD A o n1......?_??...? CITY OF CL ARWATER >- 1 AU-41 VVA.Irl 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 June 07, 2006 11. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Based on the building being a total of 2,890 square feet and required parking at 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet, a total of 43 parking spaces is required. There are only 17 spaces proposed on-site. Therefore, the request must include a parking reduction from 43 to 17 spaces. As such, a PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (ie. Reduce number of spaces) must be submitted. 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; 12. 6/7/06 - WW Landscape plan must also have the engineering bar scale. 5/31/06 - WW All plans must have an engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet); 13. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Site plan must indicate all required setbacks (either graphic or in written form). 14. 6/7/06 - WW Sight visibility triangles (20'x20') must be shown on both sides of each driveway. 5/31/06 - WW Site and landscape plan must show all required sight triangles. 15. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Site plan must show the location of existing public and private utilities, including fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes and lift stations, gas and water lines. 16. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Site plan must depict by shading or crosshatching all required parking lot interior landscaped areas. 17. 6/7/06 - WW Need to show required screening. 5/31/06 - WW Site plan must show or indicate the location of outside mechanical equipment and all required screening. 18. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Site/landscape plan must show the location of all landscape material. 19. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Site plan must show the location of existing or proposed sidewalks within the rights-of-way. Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD Clearwater June 07, 2006 20. 6/7/06 - WW CITY OF CLARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 WWW.MYCLEARWATER.COM Provide all of the below in a table with existing, proposed and required columns. 5/31/06 - WW Provide a SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in written/tabular form, including the following: -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 & 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.); Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses. 21. 6/7/06 - WW 22 Landscape plan must include all of the below items. 5/31/06 - WW Provide a landscape plan, including the following: -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; 6/7/06 - WW Once a landscape plan meeting Code requirements is prepared, then make a reduced copy. 5/31/06 - WW Provide a REDUCED COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8 '/2 X 11); Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD e CITY OF CLAARWATER clearWate 0 r PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 WWW.MYCLEARWATER.COM June 07, 2006 23. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Must submit a COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, due to the reductions to buffers and interior landscape area. Landscape associated with the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall exceed minimum Code requirements to offset the areas where minimum Code will not be met. 24. 6/7/06 - WW Elevation drawings have been submitted, but does not have all of the required information below. 5/31/06 - WW Photographs of the existing building have been submitted. It is unknown what building improvements are required/proposed. Must submit BUILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS - with the following information, for all proposed improvements (there are at least improvements proposed on the south side of the building): All sides of all buildings; -Dimensioned; -Colors (provide one full sized set of colored elevations); (Provide color samples/chips of proposed colors of the exterior of the building) -Materials; 25. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW 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. Acknowledgement of fire flow calculations/water study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): -Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is included. Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is not required. 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 9:00 am on Tuesday, July 11, 2006. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 727-562-4504 or Wayne.Wells@myclearwater.com. Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD LL CITY OF CL RWATER ° Clearwater PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 0 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 WWW.MYCLEARWATER. COM June 07, 2006 Sincerely yours, W M- WLJ2?4? Wa Wells Planner III Letter oflncompleteness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD F,? 0 9 Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 10:33 AM To: 'Doreen Williams' Subject: The Boiling Pot No, you not need to hire someone to do such study; however, any study submitted will need to justify the parking reduction from what is required (based on gross floor area) to what is proposed based on documentation regarding the proposed use and its characteristics and operations in order to preclude off-site parking, especially in unapproved locations (including customers and employees). Since this is a proposed new establishment, justification may need to include any evidence based on similar establishments. -----Original Message----- From: Doreen Williams [mailto:Doreen@northsideengineering.com] Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 9:48 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: The Boiling Pot Wayne, do I have to actually hire someone to do a Parking Demand Study for the site or can I just use all my own justifications on how this may work? Doreen A. Williams Project Director Northside Engineering Services, Inc. 601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930 Clearwater, FL 33755 Phone: 727-443-2869 / Fax: 446-8036 / Cell: 235-8474 Email: doreen north sideengineering.com Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 0.0.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.5/377 - Release Date: 6/27/2006 7/7/2006 r I\ 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 3:30 PM To: Doreen Williams (E-mail) Subject: 921 Lakeview Rd letter of completeness #2 6. 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 12:04 PM To: 'boilingpot@verizon.net' Subject: FLD2006-05032, 921 Lakeview Road Mark - Attached is the Letter of Incompleteness for the above referenced project. I have also faxed the letter to you. Wayne Gdt? L?j letter of completeness #2 6. U FAX COVER MEMO CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVE. CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 TO: Mar K Le- J f ct vt FAX: 4- u i - 2122 Phone: FROM: Phone: ...SID Z_- +3-10 + DATE:_ RE: r"?-O Zv o (a ' 0 'Q 3 Z ?f Lt Loy (c.¢ v, "Ai AA . MESSAGE: NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) ¦en? Jun. 07 2006 11:22AM YOUR LOGO YOUR FAX NO. 7275624865 NO. OTHER FACSIMILE START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT 01 94612122 Jun.07 11:17AM 04'50 SND 08 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). Clearwater June 07, 2006 Mark Le Blanc 1418 Dexter Drive ? CITY OF CLEA*RWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W W W .MYCLEARW ATER. COM RE: FLD2006-05032 -- 921 LAKEVIEW RD -- Letter of Incompleteness Dear Mark Le Blanc : The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number: FLD2006-05032. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is Incomplete with the following comments. 1. 6/7/06 - WW Need to include the City and State as part of the address. 5/31/06 - WW Complete Page 1 of the application by providing the complete address for the applicant and agent (only the street address provided; no city or zip code). 2. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Complete Page 1 of the application by providing that portion of the property owned by Sexton Enterprises Inc. to the west in the legal description. 3. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Complete Page 1 of the application by providing the parcel number for the property to the west owned by Sexton Enterprises Inc. 4. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Complete Page 1 of the application by providing the "Description of Request". 5. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Provide the project valuation. Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD LL o CITY OF CLEA*RWATER } 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 June 07, 2006 6. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW The Code has been amended for the criteria for Comprehensive Infill Redeveopment Projects. It is recommended that you pick up (or I will fax and email it to you) the newest application form with these new criteria included. Provide responses to the following 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: 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.; Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD i LL CITY OF CLE RWATER ° Clearwater PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 0 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W W W. MY CLEAR W ATER. C OM June 07, 2006 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. 7. 6/7/06 - WW An "aerial photography with contours" sheet from SWFWMD has been submitted, which is insufficient for existing topography. Stormwater plan must include the following: -Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines; -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; 5/31/06 - WW A stormwater plan IS required, which at a minimum must include: -Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines; -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. 8. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Provide a 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; 9. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Provide a TREE INVENTORY; prepared by a "certified arborist", of all trees 8" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and condition of such trees; 10. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW It is unclear of the lot width of the property to be developed (not provided). For restaurants in the Commercial District, a minimum of 100 feet is required. This will not be met along Dempsey Street, therefore the request will need to include a reduction to this lot width requirement. Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD 0 0 CITY OF CLE *RWATER Clearwater PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING u 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W W W.MYCLEARWATER. COM June 07, 2006 11. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Based on the building being a total of 2,890 square feet and required parking at 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet, a total of 43 parking spaces is required. There are only 17 spaces proposed on-site. Therefore, the request must include a parking reduction from 43 to 17 spaces. As such, a PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (ie. Reduce number of spaces) must be submitted. 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; 12. 6/7/06 - WW Landscape plan must also have the engineering bar scale. 5/31/06 - WW All plans must have an engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet); 13. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Site plan must indicate all required setbacks (either graphic or in written form). 14. 6/7/06 - WW Sight visibility triangles (20'x20') must be shown on both sides of each driveway. 5/31/06 - WW Site and landscape plan must show all required sight triangles. 15. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Site plan must show the location of existing public and private utilities, including fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes and lift stations, gas and water lines. 16. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Site plan must depict by shading or crosshatching all required parking lot interior landscaped areas. 17. 6/7/06 - WW Need to show required screening. 5/31/06 - WW Site plan must show or indicate the location of outside mechanical equipment and all required screening. 18. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Site/landscape plan must show the location of all landscape material. 19. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Site plan must show the location of existing or proposed sidewalks within the rights-of-way. Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD 0 CITY OF CLE *RAWATER Clearwater PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W W W . MY CLEARW ATER. C OM June 07, 2006 20. 6/7/06 - WW Provide all of the below in a table with existing, proposed and required columns. 5/31/06 - WW Provide a SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in written/tabular form, including the following: -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 & 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.); -Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses. 21. 6/7/06 - WW Landscape plan must include all of the below items. 5/31/06 - WW Provide a landscape plan, including the following: -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; 22. 6/7/06 - WW Once a landscape plan meeting Code requirements is prepared, then make a reduced copy. 5/31/06 - WW Provide a REDUCED COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8 % X 11); Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD CITY OF CLE RWATER ° Clearwater PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 0 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W W W . MYC LEARW ATER. C OM June 07, 2006 23. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Must submit a COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, due to the reductions to buffers and interior landscape area. Landscape associated with the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall exceed minimum Code requirements to offset the areas where minimum Code will not be met. 24. 6/7/06 - WW Elevation drawings have been submitted, but does not have all of the required information below. 5/31/06 - WW Photographs of the existing building have been submitted. It is unknown what building improvements are required/proposed. Must submit BUILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS - with the following information, for all proposed improvements (there are at least improvements proposed on the south side of the building): -All sides of all buildings; -Dimensioned; -Colors (provide one full sized set of colored elevations); (Provide color samples/chips of proposed colors of the exterior of the building) -Materials; 25. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW 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. Acknowledgement of fire flow calculations/water study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): -Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is included. Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is not required. 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 9:00 am on Tuesday, July 11, 2006. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 727-562-4504 or Wayne. Wells@myclearwater.com. Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD ° 0 CITY OF CLE RWATER Clearwater PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W W W . MYC LEARW ATER. C OM June 07, 2006 Sincerely yours, W M. wtz? Wa Wells Planner III Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 10:56 AM To: 'boilingpot@verizon.net' Subject: FLD2006-05032, 921 Lakeview Road Your request is as follows: Flexible Development approval to permit a restaurant in the Commercial District with a reduction to the lot area from 10,000 square feet to xx square feet, a reduction to the lot width from 100 feet to xx feet (south along Dempsey Street), reductions to the front (north along Lakeview Road) setback from 25 feet to 18 feet (to existing building), from 25 feet to xx feet (to sidewalk) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to pavement), reductions to the front (south along Dempsey Street) from 25 feet to xx feet (to building), from 25 feet to xx feet (to dumpster enclosure) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to pavement), reductions to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to existing and proposed building) and from 10 feet to one foot (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to pavement) and a reduction to the required parking from 43 spaces to 17 spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, with reductions to the landscape buffers along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to zero feet (to pavement), along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to zero feet (to pavement and dumpster enclosure), along the east from five feet to one foot (existing and proposed building and dumpster enclosure) and along the west from five feet to three feet (to pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. r 40 CITY OF CLE4.kRWATER ' Clearwater PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING U 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W W W. MY C LE AR W ATER. C OM May 31, 2006 Mark Le Blanc 1418 Dexter Drive RE: FLD2006-05032 -- 921 LAKEVIEW RD -- Letter of Incompleteness Dear Mark Le Blanc : The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number: FLD2006-05032: After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is Incomplete with the following comments. O Complete Page 1 of the application by providing the complete address for the applicant and agent (only the street address provided; no ci or zip code). 12.. Complete Page 1 of the application by providing the parcel size (square feet and acreage). This must include that portion of the property owned by Sexton Enterprises Inc. to the west included in the request. Complete Page 1 of the application by providing that portion of the property owned by Sexton Enterprises Inc. to the west in the legal description. Complete Page 1 of the application by providing the parcel number for the property to the west owned by Sexton Enterprises Inc. 5. Complete Page 1 of the application by providing the "Description of Request". 6.. Provide the project valuation. Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-05031- 921 LAKEVIEW RD U- 0 CITY OF CLLkRWATER Clearwater PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 WWW.MYCLEARWATER. COM May 31, 2006 Q The Code has been amended for the criteria for Comprehensive Infill Redeveopment Projects. It is recommended that you pick up (or I will fax and email it to you) the newest application form with these new criteria included. Provide responses to the following 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: 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; Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD LL CITY OF CLLKRWATER o 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 31, 2006 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. 8. A stormwater plan IS required, which at a minimum must include: 0_ Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines; Q -All adjacent streets and municipal storm systems; (? -Proposed stormwater detention/retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure;. Q _A narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including all calculations and data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City manual; J -Signature and seal of Florida Registered Professional Engineer on all plans and calculations. 9. Since a stormwater plan IS required, the applicant must initial the appropriate box for the following: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF STORMWATER PLAN REQUIREMENTS _Stormwater plan as noted above is included. _Stormwater plan is not required and explanation narrative is attached. At a minimum, a f grading plan and finished floor elevations shall be provided. J Since this proposal includes the east 25 feet of the adjacent property to the west owned by Sexton Enterprises Inc, provide a signed and sealed survey for the adjacent property (one original and 14 copies). 11 Provide a 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; 12. Provide a TREE INVENTORY; prepared by a "certified arborist", of all trees 8" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and condition of such trees; J 13. It is unclear of the square footage of the lot area (not provided). For restaurants in the Commercial District, a minimum of 10,000 square feet is required. If the parcel proposed for development is less than 10,000 square feet, need to include in the request a reduction to this lot area requirement. l 4 It is unclear of the lot width of the property to be developed (not provided). For restaurants in the Commercial District, a minimum of 100 feet is required. This will not be met along Dempsey Street, therefore the request will need to include a reduction to this lot width requirement. Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD 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 W W.MYCLEARWATER. COM May 31, 2006 15. Based on the building being a total of 2,890 square feet and required parking at 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet, a total of 43 parking spaces is required. There are only 17 spaces proposed on-site. Therefore, the request must include a parking reduction from 43 to 17 spaces. As such, a PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (ie. Reduce number of spaces) must be submitted. 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; ?16. It is noted that the Code has been amended whereby parking space length is now 18 feet (19 feet shown). 17 All plans must have an engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet); 18. Index sheet referencing individual sheets included in package must be included on the front sheet of the site plan package. < Site plan must indicate all required setbacks (either graphic or in written form). 0 Site and landscape plan must show all required sight triangles. 21. Site plan must show the location of existing public and private utilities, including fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes and lift stations, gas and water lines. 22. Site plan must depict by shading or crosshatching all required parking lot interior landscaped areas. 23. Site plan must show or indicate the location of outside mechanical equipment and all required screening. Site/lan?rscape plan must show the location of all landscape material. 25. Site plan must show or indicate the location of all outdoor lighting fixtures. Site plan must show the location of existing or proposed sidewalks within the rights-of-way. 27. Provide a SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in written/tabular form, including the following: -Land area in square feet and acres; • Number of EXISTING dwelling units; Number of PROPOSED dwelling units; Q -Gross floor area devoted to each use; Q -Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular form with the number of required spaces; Q -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; Q -Building and structure heights; f -Impermeable surface ratio (I.S.R.); Q -Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses. Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD 0 n1......?_..?...? CITY OFCLLARWATER l ,Irt1l Wl1lr1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 0 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 WWW.MYCLEARWATER. COM May 31, 2006 28. Provide a landscape plan, including the following: -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; O -Sight visibility triangles; I -Delineation and dimensions of all parking areas including landscaping islands and curbing; C) -Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and locations, including driplines (as indicated on required tree survey); Q -Location, size, and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant schedule; 0 _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; Q -Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants including instructions, soil mixes, backfilling, mulching and protective measures; Q -Interior landscaping areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressing in both square feet and percentage covered; ?29. Provide a REDUCED COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8 %2 X 11); 30. Must submit a COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, due to the reductions to buffers and interior landscape area. Landscape associated with the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall exceed minimum Code requirements to offset the areas where minimum Code will not be met. 31. Photographs of the existing building have been submitted. It is unknown what building improvements are required/proposed. Must submit BUILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS - with the following information, for all proposed improvements (there are at least ,improvements proposed on the south side of the building): -All sides of all buildings; -Dimensioned; p -Colors (provide one full sized set of colored elevations); (Provide color samples/chips of proposed colors of the exterior of the building) J -Materials; ?32. Provide on the site plan the location of any proposed freestanding signage and on the building elevations the location of any attached elevations. Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD LL 9 CITY OF CLLkRWATER ° ClearWater 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 31, 2006 33 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. Acknowledgement of fire flow calculations/water study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): -Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is included. -Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is not required. J 34. Revise Sheet 1 of the application to include Sexton Enterprises Inc. as a Property Owner. J 35.* It is noted that a completed "Covenant Running With The Land (Shared Parking Agreement)" has been submitted. However, it is for property located within the City of Pinellas Park. The form was provided to you as a guide that needed to be amended to the City of Clearwater. It is also noted that it was prepared by Michael Gundolf, broker/associate for Re/Max Action First. The Lessee portion was signed by Mr. Gundolf, not by teh Lessee noted at the beginning of the form (Mark LeBlanc for Dorothy B. LeBlanc dba Boiling Pot). Revise. 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 9:00 am on Tuesday, June 6, 2006. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 727-562-4504 or Wayne.Wells@myclearwater.com. Sincerely yours, Wa- e Wells Planner III Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD U FAX COVER MEMO CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVE. CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 TO: fl" L g' 6t,Ac- FAX: Z-) 2-L Phone: . S &-? e- FROM: Q V-k- 6 l Phone: S (p Z- t D I - DATE:-_-?S/31 RE: r-LA) 2--v 0 & - O-s 0.32- 12-1 Lam. (-cv? &0w ))-a. MESSAGE: L-Mlp-r_ of- 1t1C?419 NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) May. 31 2006 10:53AM YOUR LOGO YOUR FAX NO. 7275624865 NO. OTHER FACSIMILE START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT 01 94612122 May.31 10:42AM 10'29 SND 17 OK TO TURN OFF REPORT, PRESS 'MENU' #04. THEN SELECT OFF BY USING '+' OR '-'. FOR FAX P@VANTAGE ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CALL 1-800-HELP-FAX C435-7329). Clearwater May 31, 2006 Mark Le Blanc 1418 Dexter Drive CITY OF CLE RWATER 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 RE: FLD2006-05032 -- 921 LAKEVIEW RD -- Letter of Incompleteness Dear Mark Le Blanc : The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number: FLD2006-05032. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is Incomplete with the following comments. 1. Complete Page 1 of the application by providing the complete address for the applicant and agent (only the street address provided; no city or zip code). 2. Complete Page 1 of the application by providing the parcel size (square feet and acreage). This must include that portion of the property owned by Sexton Enterprises Inc. to the west included in the request. 3. Complete Page 1 of the application by providing that portion of the property owned by Sexton Enterprises Inc. to the west in the legal description. 4. Complete Page 1 of the application by providing the parcel number for the property to the west owned by Sexton Enterprises Inc. 5. Complete Page 1 of the application by providing the "Description of Request". 6.. Provide the project valuation. Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD 1 0 RWATER 0 CITY OF CLE ° Clearwater PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W W W . MY CLEARW ATER. C OM May 31, 2006 7. The Code has been amended for the criteria for Comprehensive Infill Redeveopment Projects. It is recommended that you pick up (or I will fax and email it to you) the newest application form with these new criteria included. Provide responses to the following 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: 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; Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD LL ER CITY OF CLE RWAT } Clearwater PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING u 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W W W . MYCLEARWATER. COM May 31, 2006 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. 8. A stormwater plan IS required, which at a minimum must include: -Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines; -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. 9. Since a stormwater plan IS required, the applicant must initial the appropriate box for the following: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF STORMWATER PLAN REQUIREMENTS _Stormwater plan as noted above is included. _Stormwater plan is not required and explanation narrative is attached. At a minimum, a grading plan and finished floor elevations shall be provided. 10. Since this proposal includes the east 25 feet of the adjacent property to the west owned by Sexton Enterprises Inc, provide a signed and sealed survey for the adjacent property (one original and 14 copies). 11. Provide a 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; 12. Provide a TREE INVENTORY; prepared by a "certified arborist", of all trees 8" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and condition of such trees; 13. It is unclear of the square footage of the lot area (not provided). For restaurants in the Commercial District, a minimum of 10,000 square feet is required. If the parcel proposed for development is less than 10,000 square feet, need to include in the request a reduction to this lot area requirement. 14. It is unclear of the lot width of the property to be developed (not provided). For restaurants in the Commercial District, a minimum of 100 feet is required. This will not be met along Dempsey Street, therefore the request will need to include a reduction to this lot width requirement. Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD LL CITY OF CLE RWATER Y 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 31, 2006 15. Based on the building being a total of 2,890 square feet and required parking at 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet, a total of 43 parking spaces is required. There are only 17 spaces proposed on-site. Therefore, the request must include a parking reduction from 43 to 17 spaces. As such, a PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (ie. Reduce number of spaces) must be submitted. 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; 16. It is noted that the Code has been amended whereby parking space length is now 18 feet (19 feet shown). 17. All plans must have an engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet); 18. Index sheet referencing individual sheets included in package must be included on the front sheet of the site plan package. 19. Site plan must indicate all required setbacks (either graphic or in written form). 20. Site and landscape plan must show all required sight triangles. 21. Site plan must show the location of existing public and private utilities, including fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes and lift stations, gas and water lines. 22. Site plan must depict by shading or crosshatching all required parking lot interior landscaped areas. 23. Site plan must show or indicate the location of outside mechanical equipment and all required screening. 24. Site/landscape plan must show the location of all landscape material. 25. Site plan must show or indicate the location of all outdoor lighting fixtures. 26. Site plan must show the location of existing or proposed sidewalks within the rights-of-way. 27. Provide a SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in written/tabular form, including the following: -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 & 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.); Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses. Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD RWATER CITY OF CLE ° earwater PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 WW W.MYCLEARWATER.COM May 31, 2006 28. Provide a landscape plan, including the following: -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; 29. Provide a REDUCED COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8 %2 X 11); 30. Must submit a COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, due to the reductions to buffers and interior landscape area. Landscape associated with the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall exceed minimum Code requirements to offset the areas where minimum Code will not be met. 31. Photographs of the existing building have been submitted. It is unknown what building improvements are required/proposed. Must submit BUILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS - with the following information, for all proposed improvements (there are at least improvements proposed on the south side of the building): -All sides of all buildings; -Dimensioned; -Colors (provide one full sized set of colored elevations); (Provide color samples/chips of proposed colors of the exterior of the building) -Materials; 32. Provide on the site plan the location of any proposed freestanding signage and on the building elevations the location of any attached elevations. Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD `Clearwater May 31, 2006 ? CITY OF CLE RWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W WW.MYCLEARWATER. COM 33. 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. Acknowledgement of fire flow calculations/water study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): -Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is included. -Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is not required. 34. Revise Sheet 1 of the application to include Sexton Enterprises Inc. as a Property Owner. 35. It is noted that a completed "Covenant Running With The Land (Shared Parking Agreement)" has been submitted. However, it is for property located within the City of Pinellas Park. The form was provided to you as a guide that needed to be amended to the City of Clearwater. It is also noted that it was prepared by Michael Gundolf, broker/associate for Re/Max Action First. The Lessee portion was signed by Mr. Gundolf, not by teh Lessee noted at the beginning of the form (Mark LeBlanc for Dorothy B. LeBlanc dba Boiling Pot). Revise. 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 9:00 am on Tuesday, June 6, 2006. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 727-562-4504 or Wayne.Wells@myclearwater.com. Sincerely yours, Way7ie Wells Planner III Letter of Incompleteness - FLD2006-05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD r-I U Clearwater Planning Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Telephone: 727-562-4567 Fax: 727-562-4865 CASE #: RECEIVED BY (staff initials): DATE RECEIVED: ? 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 $ * 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: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: CELL NUMBER: PROPERTY OWNER(S): List ALL owners on the deed AGENT NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: FAX NUMBER: _........_.._..___..._- CELL NUMBER: E-MAIL ADDRESS: B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) PROJECT NAME: PROJECT VALUATION: STREET ADDRESS PARCEL NUMBER(S): _ PARCEL SIZE (acres): PARCEL SIZE (square feet): .......... _...... ..............._...... _.......................... .._. ^ ---._.._........._........ _...... LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PROPOSED USE(S): DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Specifically identify the request (include number of units or square footage of non-residential use and all requested code deviations; e.g. reduction in required number of parking spaces, specific use, etc.) C:\Documents and Settings\wayne.wells\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2006.01.doc Page 1 of 8 DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNI DEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTIFIED) SITE PLAN? YES _ NO _ (if yes, attach a copy of the applicable documents) C. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP: (Code Section 4-202.A.5) ? 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. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. 4. .......... _...._ .... .... ........ ......_ .... ........ .............. ... ........... ......... ............................ ......._ ............ ........................ _ The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 11 ........... ................. . ...... ..__................................................. ..................................... ....... _............ _ .................. ... ............................. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. C:\Documents and Settings\wayne.wells\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2006.01.doc Page 2 of 8 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 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ? Changes in horizontal building planes; ? Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; ? Variety in materials, colors and textures; ? Distinctive fenestration patterns; ? Building stepbacks; and ? Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. C:\Documents and Settings\wayne.wells\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2006.01.doc Page 3 of 8 E. STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual and 4-202.A.21) ? A STORMWATER NARRATIVE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH ALL APPLICATIONS. All applications that involve addition or modification of impervious surface, including buildings, must include a stormwater plan that demonstrates compliance with the City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual. A reduction in impervious surface area does not qualify as an exemption to this requirement. ? If a plan is not required, the narrative shall provide an explanation as to why the site is exempt. ? At a minimum, the STORMWATER PLAN shall include the following; ? Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines; ? Proposed grading including finished floor elevations of all structures; ? All adjacent streets and municipal storm systems; ? Proposed stormwater detention/retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; ? A narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including all calculations and data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City manual. ? Proposed stormwater detention/retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; ? Signature and seal of Florida Registered Professional Engineer on all plans and calculations. ? COPY OF PERMIT INQUIRY LETTER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT SUBMITTAL (SWFWMD approval is required prior to issuance of City Building Permit), if applicable ? ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF STORMWATER PLAN REQUIREMENTS (Applicant must initial one of the following): Stormwater plan as noted above is included Stormwater plan is not required and explanation narrative is attached. At a minimum, a grading plan and finished floor elevations shall be provided. CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A STORMWATER PLAN AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562-4750. F. SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 4-202.A) ? SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (including legal description of property) - One original and 14 copies; ? 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: Building permits will not be issued until evidence of recording a final plat is provided); ? COPY OF RECORDED PLAT, as applicable; C:\Documents and Settings\wayne.wells\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2006.01.doc Page 4 of 8 G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A) SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36"): Index sheet referencing individual sheets included in package; North arrow; Engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet), and date prepared; All dimensions; Footprint and size of all EXISTING buildings and structures; Footprint and size of all PROPOSED buildings and structures; All required setbacks; All existing and proposed points of access; All required sight triangles; Identification of environmentally unique areas, such as watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, and specimen trees, including description and location of understory, ground cover vegetation and wildlife habitats, etc; Location of all public and private easements; ............... Location of all street rights-of-way within and adjacent to the site; Location of existing public and private utilities, including fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes and lift stations, gas and water lines; All parking spaces, driveways, loading areas and vehicular use areas; _ Depiction by shading or crosshatching of all required parking lot interior landscaped areas; Location of all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment and all required screening (per Section 3-201(D)(i) and Index #701); Location of all landscape material; Location of all onsite and offsite storm-water management facilities; Location of all outdoor lighting fixtures; and Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks. LI 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 & 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. ................... 0 REDUCED COLOR SITE PLAN to scale (81/2 X 11); EXISTING REQUIRED PROPOSED O 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; .................. C:\Documents and Settings\wayne.wells\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2006.01.doc Page 5 of 8 H. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-1102.A) ? LANDSCAPE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36"): 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 an 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 Y2 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 Y. X 11. J. SIGNAGE: (Division 19. SIGNS / Section 3-1806) ? All EXISTING freestanding and attached signs; Provide photographs and dimensions (area, height, etc.), indicate whether they will be removed or to remain. ? All PROPOSED freestanding and attached signs; Provide details including location, size, height, colors, materials and drawing; freestanding signs shall include the street address (numerals) ? Comprehensive Sign Program application, as applicable (separate application and fee required). ? Reduced signage proposal (8 % X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application. C:\Documents and Settings\wayne.wells\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2006.01.doc Page 6 of 8 K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4-202.A.13 and 4-801.C) Include if required by the Traffic Operations Manager or his/her designee or if the proposed development: • Will degrade the acceptable level of service for any roadway as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. • Will generate 100 or more new vehicle directional trips per hour and/or 1000 or more new vehicle trips per day. • Will affect a nearby roadway segment and/or intersection with five (5) reportable accidents within the prior twelve (12) month period or that is on the City's annual list of most hazardous intersections. Trip generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip General Manual. The Traffic Impact Study must be prepared in accordance with a "Scoping Meeting" held with the Traffic Operations Manager and the Planning Department's Development Review Manager or their designee (727-562-4750) Refer to Section 4-801 C of the Community Development Code for exceptions to this requirement. Acknowledgement of traffic impact study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): Traffic Impact Study is included. The study must include a summary table of pre- and post-development levels of service for all roadway legs and each turning movement at all intersections identified in the Scoping Meeting. Traffic Impact Study is not required. CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562- 4750. L. FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY: Provide Fire Flow Calculations. Water Study by a FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER to assure an adequate water supply is available and to determine if any upgrades are required by the developer due to the impact of this project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpipe and/or fire pump. If a fire pump is required the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity. Compliance with the 2004 Florida Fire Prevention Code to include NFPA 13, MFPA 14, NFPA 20, NFPA 291, and MFPA 1142 (Annex H) is required. ? Acknowledgement of fire flow calculations/water study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is included. Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is not required. CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Fire Prevention Department at (727) 562-4334. M. SIGNATURE: I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize City representatives to visit and photograph the property described in this application. Signature of property owner or representative STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of A.D. 20 to me and/or by who is personally known has produced as identification. Notary public, My commission expires: C:\Documents and Settings\wayne.wells\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2006.01.doc Page 7 of 8 0 0 N. AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT: 1. Provide names of all property owners on deed - PRINT full names: 2. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property (address or general location): 3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a: (describe request) 4. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint: as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; 5. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; 6. That site visits to the property are necessary by City representatives in order to process this application and the owner authorizes City representatives to visit and photograph the property described in this application; 7. That (I/we), the undersigned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. - ._..._.... _ ..................... ....... --._..... __.....-----.-.................... -- - --.....-----.-._......_........ _..._----- - ...._.._.......... Property Owner Property Owner .......... __.................. ------...................... ........... _--..----.................... ..__.__ _._._-_.._..---.................... ._....._._..........-__ _.........._....____-----_-...... ...__...._....... _.- ........... _.................. -...-.... _._.......... _.......... .. Property Owner Property Owner STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Before me the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned by the laws of the State of Florida, on this __ mm .............. day of _____- - , - personally appeared who having been first duly sworn Deposes and says that he/she fully understands the contents of the affidavit that he/she signed. Notary Public Signature Notary Seal/Stamp My Commission Expires: C:\Documents and Settings\wayne.wells\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2006.01.doc Page 8 of 8 • LL Planning Department CASE NUMBER: 0 Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue RECEIVED BY (Staff Initials): Clearwater, Florida 33756 Telephone: 727-562-4567 DATE RECEIVED: 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 * NOTE: A TOTAL OF 15 SETS OF THIS APPLICATION AND ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A COMPLETE LEVEL ONE OR LEVEL TWO APPLICATION. COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM (Revised 03/29/2006) PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT- APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) APPLICANT NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: CELL NUMBER: PROPERTY OWNER(S): _ List ALL owners on the deed AGENT NAME: .__................... MAILING ADDRESS: _........... ....... .............. ........._...................... _........ _...... .............................. ---- .._......................... _..... _.._................................................ ....................... ......._._...................................................................................... PHONE NUMBER: FAX NUMBER: CELL NUMBER: E-MAIL ADDRESS: 1. ARCHITECTURAL THEME: a. The landscaping in a Comprehensive Landscape Program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for the development. OR b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards. C:IDocuments and Settingslwayne.wellslLocal SettingslTemporary Internet Files10LK41Comprehensive Landscape Program 2006.doc Page 1 of 2 i t 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. 3. COMMUNITY CHARACTER: The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. 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. SPECIAL AREA OR SCENIC CORRIDOR PLAN: The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 3, DIVISION 12 MAY BE WAIVED OR MODIFIED AS A PART OF A LEVEL ONE OR LEVEL TWO APPLICATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IF THE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL INCLUDES A COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM, WHICH SATISFIES THE ABOVE CRITERIA. THE USE OF LANDSCAPE PLANS, SECTIONS / ELEVATIONS, RENDERINGS AND PERSPECTIVES MAY BE NECESSARY TO SUPPLEMENT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WORKSHEET. SIGNATURE: I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize City representatives to visit and photograph the property described in this application. 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 ....................... .............. - - ........__......__................................... _._......._..._.. -- Signature of property owner or representative produced as identification. Notary public, My commission expires: C:IDocuments and SettingsWayne.wellslLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FilesIOLK41Comprehensive Landscape Program 2006.doc Page 2 of 2 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 10:34 AM To: 'boilingpot@verizon.net' Subject: FLD2006-05032, 921 Lakeview Road Mark - Attached is the Letter of Incompleteness for the above referenced project and the newest Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project and Comprehensive Landscape Program application forms. I am also faxing the letter and the forms. Wayne letter of Comprehensive Comprehensive completeness 5.31., Infill Project (... Landscape Progra... • f ORIGINAL CDB Meeting Date: February 20, 2007 Case Number: FLD2006-05032 Agenda Item: DI Owner: Dorothy B. LeBlanc and Sexton Enterprises, Inc. Applicant: Mark LeBlanc Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. Address: 921 Lakeview Road CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit a restaurant in the Commercial District with a reduction to the lot width from 100 feet to 89.77 feet (south along Dempsey Street), reductions to the front (north along Lakeview Road) setback from 25 feet to 18.1 feet (to existing building), from 25 feet to 14 feet (to sidewalk) and from 25 feet to four feet (to pavement), reductions to the front (south along Dempsey Street) from 25 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to existing building), .a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), an increase to building height from 25 feet to 29.5 feet (to existing midpoint of the pitched roof), a reduction to the required parking from 43 spaces to 16 spaces and a deviation to allow direct access to Lakeview Road, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, with reductions to the perimeter landscape buffers along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to four feet (to pavement), along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure) and along the east from five feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to 5.5 percent and a reduction to the foundation landscape area from five feet wide to zero feet wide, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. CURRENT ZONING: Commercial (C) District CURRENT FUTURE LAND Commercial General (CG) USE CATEGORY: PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Attached dwellings with accessory storage Proposed Use: Restaurant EXISTING North: Institutional (I) District Cemetery SURROUNDING ZONING South: Medium Density Residential (MDR) Detached dwellings AND USES: District East: Commercial (C) District Offices West: Commercial (C) District Manufacturing Community Development Board - February 20, 2007 FLD2006-05032 -Page 1 of 13 0 0 UPDATE: This case was originally scheduled for the November 21, 2006, CDB meeting. Due to an advertising error, this case was continued by the CDB to their meeting on December 19, 2006. On December 19, 2006, at the request of the applicant, the CDB continued this application to their February 20, 2007, meeting. ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.253 acres is located on the south side of Lakeview Road, approximately 600 feet east of South Myrtle Avenue and 50 feet west of Prospect Avenue. The property has been zoned commercially for some time. The existing building on the property has some historic value, as it was previously used by Coca Cola as a distribution facility, but is not listed on the Florida or National Register of Historic Places. The last legal use of the property was for four attached dwellings (two on the second floor and two on the south side of the building) with accessory storage on the ground floor. A complaint was received in August 2004 regarding inadequate fire separation between the storage unit and the dwellings (UNS2004-00088). This case is still ongoing, as property ownership has changed and this case has been filed pending CDB action. That portion of the building with two dwelling units on the south side of the ground floor has been demolished but the concrete slab for such building still exists. There is a driveway on Lakeview Road that provided access to the front of the building, with a small concrete area adjacent to the front of the building that could have been used for parking; otherwise all on-site parking area is unpaved. The property to the north is zoned Institutional (I) District and is developed as a cemetery. To the east and north of the cemetery, properties are zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) Districts and developed with detached dwellings. The property to the east is zoned Commercial (C) District and is developed with offices immediately adjacent and a detached dwelling farther east at Ewing Avenue. The property to the west is zoned Commercial (C) District and is developed with an automotive parts re-manufacturer. The properties to the south on Dempsey Street are zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and are developed with detached dwellings. Development Proposal: The development proposal is to permit a restaurant within the existing building, with the construction of accessory parking, retention, landscaping and trash facilities. Restaurants are a permitted use within the Commercial District. The applicant proposes to utilize the downstairs as the restaurant, however, an accessory office for the restaurant is proposed upstairs. The proposal includes the eastern 25-foot wide lot (Lot 17) owned by Sexton Enterprises, Inc. on the west side of the subject site. The applicant has entered into a Commercial Lease for this 25-foot wide lot, which is for a time period of 15 years with the ability for an additional five years. Any approval of this request by the CDB should include a condition requiring continued possession of this Lot 17 with the parking and landscaping improvements for the restaurant and the failure to have such parking and landscaping improvements available and assignable to this restaurant should require the closure of the restaurant until such time as required parking, in location(s) acceptable to the City, is procured. This potential condition should also apply to the circumstance where the lessee defaults on the lease and the lessor takes back possession of the parking and landscaping improvements thereon. Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.): Pursuant to Section 2-701.1 of the Community Development Code, the maximum allowable F.A.R. for properties with a designation of Commercial General is 0.55. As such, the maximum development potential of the 0.253-acre parcel is 6,059.9 square feet. The existing Community Development Board - February 20, 2007 FLD2006-05032 - Page 2 of 13 0 0 building (both floors) is 2,890 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 Section 2-701.1 of the Community Development Code, the maximum allowable I.S.R. is 0.95. The proposed I.S.R. is 0.70, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area: Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the minimum lot area for restaurants ranges between 3,500 - 10,000 square feet. The lot area for this proposal is 11,018 square feet, which is consistent with Code provisions. Minimum Lot Width: Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the minimum lot width for restaurants ranges between 35 - 100 feet. The site is a double fronted lot, with frontage along both Lakeview Road on the north and Dempsey Street on the south. The total lot width along Lakeview Road is 146.79 feet, which is consistent with Code provisions. The total lot width along Dempsey Street is only 89.77 feet and the applicant is requesting a reduction to the lot width requirement along this street. Some of the lots that make up the property for this proposal are pie-shaped, with the large outside part of the pie on Lakeview Road and only the opposite side inside point of the pie on Dempsey Street. Due to this configuration of lots that are part of this property, the reduction to lot width along Dempsey Street may be acceptable. The reduction to lot width in this case must also be reviewed in light of its affect on other reductions of this proposal discussed in this Staff Report as to their appropriateness and ultimately the appropriateness of the restaurant at this location. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the minimum front setback is 25 feet and the minimum side setback is 10 feet. The proposed restaurant, being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, includes reductions to the front (north along Lakeview Road) setback from 25 feet to 18.1 feet (to existing building), from 25 feet to 14 feet (to sidewalk) and from 25 feet to four feet (to pavement), reductions to the front (south along Dempsey Street) from 25 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to existing building) and a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement). The property is a double fronted lot with two fronts and two sides. This proposal includes the re-use of an existing building, which has existed on this site for quite some time. Staff is supportive of front and side setback reductions to the existing building, as any re-use proposed will need setback reductions to this existing building. It is the other setback reductions that concern Staff. The curvature of the adjacent roadways and the property, as well as the location of this existing building, present design constraints on the provision of required parking, landscaping and drainage improvements. However, the proposed use of a restaurant requires more parking than other less intense uses within the Commercial District. The need to provide necessary on-site parking has produced issues of reduced setbacks. The setback reductions in this case must also be reviewed in light of its affect on other reductions of this proposal discussed in this Staff Report as to their appropriateness and ultimately the appropriateness of the restaurant at this location. The reduction to setbacks to pavement on the north side along Lakeview Road is from 25 feet to four feet, while the reduction to setbacks to pavement on the south side along Dempsey Street is from 25 feet to three feet adjacent to the parking spaces and one-foot for the drive aisle. These proposed reductions provide little area for any meaningful landscaping to mitigate views of the parking lot and for site beautification. The proposed landscape plan provides little landscaping within these areas. The Community Development Board - February 20, 2007 FLD2006-05032 - Page 3 of 13 0 0 proposed location of the end of the drive aisle one-foot from the Dempsey Street property line does not provide any ability to plant landscape materials to block headlights of vehicles pulling into the parking lot to the detached dwellings on the south side of Dempsey Street. The proposal includes a front setback reduction from 25 feet to zero feet along Dempsey Street for the dumpster enclosure. Due to the need to provide as much on-site parking as possible and given the site configuration and existing building location, the dumpster has been placed in the only location possible. It is not optimal, as it requires the trash truck to traverse Dempsey Street for this dumpster pickup and requires the truck to stage within the right-of-way while collecting the trash. With such orientation, this impacts the detached dwellings to the south. Additionally, since it is at a zero front setback, it is visually more obtrusive as well as bringing unwarranted negative odors closer to the residential neighborhood. Finally, the proposal includes a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet to the proposed pavement. While this setback is in compliance with the landscape buffer requirement along this side between nonresidential properties, the setback reduction on the west side should be viewed in light of all other reductions requested as to its appropriateness. As such, the proposed site design does not minimize the adverse effects of the use, especially from visual, olfactory and hours of operation aspects, on adjacent properties. The proposed development also does not provide for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings, as the flexibility criteria requires. When the reductions to required setbacks are viewed in light of the reductions to required parking and landscape areas, the use is incompatible with the surrounding area and the design and intensity of the proposal does not support the established character of an area. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the maximum allowable height can range between 25 - 50 feet. The existing building has a pitched roof at a height of 29.5 feet at midpoint. Given this is existing building height has blended well with the surrounding neighborhood, the development proposal is consistent with the Code with regard to the maximum allowable height. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the minimum required parking could range between 7 - 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet GFA. Since the upstairs will be used for an accessory office for the restaurant, the entire second floor must be counted toward the provision of required parking. Based on the 2,890 square feet GFA of the existing building, a minimum of between 20 and 43 parking spaces are required for this proposed restaurant. The applicant proposes 16 parking spaces, which includes one handicap space, at a parking ratio of 5.53 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. The proposal includes a request to reduce the required parking from 43 to 16 spaces, representing the provision of only 37.2 percent of the required parking. The 975 square-foot second floor currently is developed with two attached dwelling units, accessed by a doorway to a stairwell directly to the exterior of the building. The applicant has indicated they will use the second floor only as an accessory office to the restaurant. Staff has concerns of this arrangement as potentially only 50 - 100 square feet of the second floor is necessary for such accessory use, yet there would be 875 - 925 square feet "un-used". It is also difficult for the City to monitor this "accessory" use to the restaurant when there is no direct connection between the first and second floors, since this "accessory" space has no interior access. Based on information submitted by the applicant, only the restaurant owner will have access to the second floor for the office function. From a parking standpoint, this second floor is required to have 15 parking spaces as part of the restaurant. If one looks at the second floor function and use as an accessory office by the restaurant owner only (whom is also running the restaurant), it may be argued that the 15 spaces can be discounted in the total count of required parking. Such a discount would still require 28 parking spaces, with only 16 spaces being provided. Community Development Board - February 20, 2007 FLD2006-05032 - Page 4 of 13 0 0 The applicant has submitted a Parking Demand Study to justify the requested reduction to required parking. The applicant indicates that this restaurant is intended to be a family-style restaurant, where a family of four would travel to the site in one car. City Code does not differentiate between the styles of restaurant, nor based on the number of intended passengers in a car. The City does not have the staff necessary to enforce such standards for every restaurant; hence the reason for generalized parking standards. The reality is that restaurants open and close to business all the time and the next restaurant proposed for the same site may not be the same style. The Parking Demand Study refers to restaurants located within downtown locations, where no on-site parking is provided. This is true even in downtown Clearwater (also for retail businesses). There are, however, municipal parking lots and metered or timed on-street parking for patrons of all downtown businesses. Workers in the downtown area, where usually off-street parking is provided by the employer, also walk to patronize businesses. The subject location, however, is not a downtown location and patrons of this proposed restaurant will have to drive to this location. The application material indicates they are working with a neighborhood business for shared parking (Candy Factory, 701 Lakeview Road). There has not been any documentation provided to indicate this existing business has excess parking available for this restaurant. This business is also located over 600 feet to the west, which may be acceptable for employee parking but is suspect for patron parking. The Parking Demand Study also indicates there is on-street parking available within 700 feet of the subject property. Staff in unaware of any such approved and designated on-street parking, other than at detached dwellings in the neighborhood. Staff does not support a parking reduction for a commercial business that relies upon on-street parking in established residential neighborhoods. As such, the proposed development of this property with a restaurant has not been designed to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding neighborhood. The re-use of this structure should occur. The location of this site, however, is not in a high intense area from a land use and traffic standpoint. The applicant has proposed the most intense use (restaurant) from a required parking standpoint, where inadequate land area and land configuration squeezes the required improvements onto the site, resulting in inadequate setbacks and resultant inadequate landscape area to mitigate associated negative impacts. A lesser intense use would be more appropriate and would have a reduced parking demand. Based upon the above, the development proposal is inconsistent with the Code with regard to the minimum required number of parking spaces. The request has been advertised including a deviation to allow direct access to Lakeview Road, as criteria of Section 2-704.M (restaurants) restricts direct access to major arterial streets. Upon further review, Lakeview Road is classified as a collector street, not an arterial street, which makes the deviation request unnecessary. The reduction to required setbacks in this case must also be reviewed in light of its affect on other reductions of this proposal discussed in this Staff Report as to their appropriateness and ultimately the appropriateness of the restaurant at this location. Section 3-20LC provides for sidewalk cafes as a permitted accessory use to a restaurant, whether located within the public right-of-way or on private property. These regulations do not require any additional parking for the sidewalk caf6 portion of a restaurant. However, since provided parking for this proposed restaurant is extremely limited, any approval by the CDB should include a condition prohibiting the establishment of a sidewalk caf6 in conjunction with the restaurant. 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 second floor of the building behind the existing parapet walls, which should provide the required screening. As such, the development proposal is consistent with the Code with regard to screening of outdoor mechanical equipment. Community Development Board - February 20, 2007 FLD2006-05032 - Page 5 of 13 0 0 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. The only driveway proposed is on Lakeview Road. The parking spaces adjacent to Lakeview Road encroach upon the required sight visibility triangles on both sides of the driveway. The first parking space on the east side of the driveway will encroach into the required sight visibility triangle by five feet. The first two parking spaces on the west side of the driveway will encroach into the required sight visibility triangle by 16 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 location of this site is at a curvature of Lakeview Road. Due to this curvature, the City's Engineering Department required the removal of one proposed parking space located on the east side of the driveway adjacent to Lakeview Road to improve the ability of motorists to see oncoming westbound traffic. The location of the sidewalk and pavement within the Lakeview Road right-of-way does not pose the same issues for parking spaces located within the sight visibility triangle on the west side of the driveway. The City's Engineering Department has indicated no objection to the location of the parking spaces on either side of the driveway as proposed. 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. The applicant has also noted that landscaping proposed within the visibility triangles will be maintained below 30-inches to avoid sight visibility issues and no trees are proposed within the sight visibility triangles. 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. Overhead utilities exist along the north sides of Lakeview Road and Dempsey Street. The existing electrical service to this building comes from the overhead lines on the north side of Lakeview Road to a utility pole at the northeast corner of the site feeding a drop to the northwest corner of the building. 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 requirement. Any approval of this request should include a condition requiring such undergrounding of the existing overhead on-site utility lines. The overhead utility lines that exist along the site's frontage along Dempsey Street, due to the curvature of the roadway, are approximately located at the edge of the roadway pavement. The location of these overhead lines may present some issues for the Solid Waste Department picking up the dumpster from the trash enclosure, but has indicated the location is acceptable. 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 Lakeview Road, a 10-foot wide landscape buffer along Dempsey Street and a five-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to other nonresidential development (offices to the east and the automotive parts re-manufacturer to the west). Buffers are to be planted with one (1) tree every 35 feet and 100% shrub coverage is required. The proposal includes reductions to the perimeter landscape buffers along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to four feet (to pavement), along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure) and along the east from five feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to 5.5 percent and a reduction to the foundation landscape area from five feet wide to zero feet wide. Community Development Board - February 20, 2007 FLD2006-05032 - Page 6 of 13 0 0 Landscaping reductions requested are a result of the need to provide required parking for the proposed use, with considerations of the curvature of the adjacent roadways and property and the location of this existing building. Given these design constraints on the provision of required parking and the design of required drainage retention, landscaping improvements are minimal or nonexistent. The Staff concerns relative to required setbacks discussed above are similar to the landscape buffer reductions requested. Inadequate parking is being provided, as well as inadequate setbacks and landscaping. The applicant has attempted to place as much parking on the property as possible, to the detriment of setbacks and landscaping. The reductions requested do not adequately mitigate negative impacts of the proposed use on the surrounding neighborhood or the community at-large. The front perimeter buffer along Lakeview Road will be planted with a variegated dwarf schefflera and yew podocarpus as the hedge, with xanadu philendendron, and winged elm, ligustrum and bald cypress trees. The front buffer along Dempsey Street will be planted with variegated dwarf schefflera and yew podocarpus as the hedge, with crape myrtle and ligustrum trees. Along Dempsey Street there are no trees proposed between the parking lot and the property line. The other buffers will be planted with variegated dwarf schefflera and yew podocarpus, with crape myrtle, magnolia, bald cypress and sabal palm trees. The reduction to landscape buffers in this case must also be reviewed in light of its affect on other reductions of this proposal discussed in this Staff Report as to their appropriateness and ultimately the appropriateness of the restaurant at this location. The proposal includes a reduction to required interior landscaping from 10 percent to 5.5 percent. The only area counted toward interior landscaping is on the west side of the building. This requested reduction is also a result of the need to provide required parking for the proposed use, with considerations of the curvature of the adjacent roadways and property and the location of this existing building. The purpose of interior landscaping to the parking lot is to break up the expanse of pavement and provide shade to the parking lot. This reduction requested mirrors the other reductions requested where there is inadequate land area to meet the Code requirements for the intended use. The interior landscape area is proposed to be planted with xanadu and Maui red ixora and crape myrtle and magnolia trees. The applicant is requesting a reduction to the required foundation landscaping facing Lakeview Road from five feet wide to zero feet. This reduction is due to the need to provide sidewalk access from the parking lot to the front door and the vertical wall retention pond in the front setback/buffer. Inadequate area is available to meet all of the Code requirements, including foundation landscaping, to provide for the proposed use. Foundation landscaping is being provided on the east side of the building facing Lakeview Road, consisting of Maui red ixora and xanadu. Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code, the landscaping requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with those criteria: Community Development Board - February 20, 2007 FLD2006-05032 - Page 7 of 13 Consistent I Inconsistent 1. Architectural theme: a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a X1 part of the architectural theme of the principle buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for development; or b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment X' proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards. 2. Lighting: Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is N/A N/A automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. 3. Community character: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X' landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. 4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X1 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. See Analysis for discussion of consistency/inconsistency. As expressed above, the proposed Comprehensive Landscape Program has been found to be inconsistent with all applicable criteria. Specifically, the proposed landscaping along the perimeters of the parking lot is requested to be reduced to a degree where only minimal or no landscaping can be planted. As such, the proposal will not visually enhance views of the site both by the traveling public, patrons and the surrounding primarily residential neighborhood. Further, due to inadequate area for the planting of landscape material, the landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape program are not demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted under the minimum landscape standards, in deference to the criteria above. The landscape treatment proposed will not have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development, especially the detached dwellings to the south. The applicant asserts that the landscape treatment proposed is part of an architectural theme, but with so little area for such landscape treatment, it is difficult for Staff to accept such. The applicant has proposed "historical planters" along the edge of the sidewalk from Lakeview Road as a landscape enhancement. Solid Waste: The development proposal includes the construction of a 10-foot by 10-foot dumpster enclosure on the south side of the property at the front property line on Dempsey Street. While not the most visually unobtrusive location to the detached dwellings on the south side of Dempsey Street, its location functionally is the best location based on the proposed site design. It is safer for the trash truck to access the dumpster enclosure in its proposed location, rather than having to potentially back out onto Lakeview Road. However, the proposed location is also a function of the size and configuration of the property and its existing building and proposed parking. A larger site providing required parking most likely would have had a different parking configuration, potentially allowing for a trash enclosure better located in relation to on-site traffic circulation patterns where use of Dempsey Street would not be required. Section 3-201.D.1 requires the enclosure to be of materials and colors consistent with those. used with the proposed building, which the applicant indicates this proposal will comply with. The proposed solid waste facility has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste Department. Signage: The applicant is not proposing any freestanding signage concurrent with this development proposal, but is proposing attached signage on the front of the building. It is noted that the front building elevation depicts attached signage that may not meet the area requirements of the Code. Actual review of Community Development Board - February 20, 2007 FLD2006-05032 - Page 8 of 13 0 0 allowable attached signage is at a later time frame, should this request be approved by the CDB. The flexibility criteria for restaurants in the Commercial District restricts freestanding signage to a maximum height of six feet unless part of a Comprehensive Sign Program. Due to the character of the area this site is located, a freestanding sign may not be necessary for this property, but any approval of this request should be conditioned on restricting its height to a maximum of six feet, even through the Comprehensive Sign Program, and its design to match the exterior materials and color of the building. Code Enforcement Analysis: There is an ongoing Code Enforcement issue associated with the subject property. The building has been deemed unsafe due to inadequate fire separation between the downstairs storage area (proposed to be a restaurant) and the upstairs (two attached dwellings) (UNS2004-00088). COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards and criteria as per Section 2-701.1 and Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent F.A.R. 0.55 0.26 X I.S.R. 0.95 0.7 X Lot Area 3,500 - 10,000 square feet 11,018 square feet X Lot Width 35 - 100 feet North: 146.79 feet X South: 89.77 feet Setbacks Front: 15 - 25 feet North: 18.1 feet (to X1 existing bldg); 14 feet (to sidewalk); four feet (to pavement) South: one-foot (to pavement); zero feet (to dumpster enclosure Side: 0 - 10 feet East: three feet (to X' existing building) West: five feet (to pavement) Height 25 - 50 feet 29.5 feet (to existing X midpoint of the pitched roof) Off-Street Restaurant - 7 - 15 spaces per 1,000 SF 16 parking spaces X' Parking I GFA 43 spaces) I See Analysis for discussion of consistency/inconsistency. Community Development Board - February 20, 2007 FLD2006-05032 - Page 9 of 13 0 0 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-704.C of the Community Development Code (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent I 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 X1 the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X' development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X) development 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use 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 X1 parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ? Changes in horizontal building planes; ? Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; ? Variety in materials, colors and textures; ? Distinctive fenestration patterns; ? Building stepbacks; and ? Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape desi and appropriate distances between buildings. See Analysis for discussion of consistency/inconsistency. Community Development Board - February 20, 2007 FLD2006-05032 - Page 10 of 13 0 0 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: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X1 coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X1 adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons 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. 1 See Analysis for discussion of consistency/inconsistency. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meetings of August 3 and October 5, 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: Findings of Fact: 1. That the 0.253 acres is located on the south side of Lakeview Road, approximately 600 feet east of South Myrtle Avenue and 50 feet west of Prospect Avenue; 2. That the property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category; 3. That the existing building on the property has some historic value, as it was previously used by Coca Cola as a distribution facility, but is not listed on the Florida or National Register of Historic Places; 4. That the last legal use of the property was for four attached dwellings (two on the second floor and two on the south side of the building) with accessory storage on the ground floor; 5. That the two dwelling units on the south side of the building have been removed/demolished; 6. That the proposal is to re-use the site and building for a restaurant in the total 2,890 square-foot building; 7. That the applicant proposes to utilize the 1,915 square-foot downstairs as the restaurant, however, an accessory office for the restaurant is proposed in the 975 square-foot upstairs area; 8. That there is no direct connection between the first and second floors, since this "accessory" space has no interior access, raising a question of appropriateness; 9. That the proposal includes the eastern 25-foot wide lot (Lot 17) owned by Sexton Enterprises, Inc. on the west side of the subject site and the applicant has entered into a Commercial Lease for this 25- foot wide lot for a time period of 15 years with the ability for an additional five years; 10. That the site is a double fronted lot, with frontage along both Lakeview Road on the north and Dempsey Street on the south; 11. That detached dwellings exist to the south across Dempsey Street zoned MDR District; 12. That, in order to provide for a restaurant use on this property, reductions to lot width along Dempsey Street, setbacks, required parking, landscape buffers, interior landscape area and foundation landscape area have been requested; Community Development Board - February 20, 2007 FLD2006-05032 -Page 11 of 13 0 0 13. That the curvature of the adjacent roadways and the property, as well as the location of this existing building, present design constraints on the provision of required parking, landscaping and drainage improvements; 14. That inadequate area exists to provide the required off-street parking for the proposed restaurant and the submitted Parking Demand Study does not justify the requested reduction to parking, which represents the provision of only 37.2 percent of the required parking; 15. That the proposed development of this properly with a restaurant has not been designed to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding neighborhood; 16. That the proposed reductions to required setbacks provide little area for any meaningful landscaping to mitigate views of the parking lot and for site beautification; 17. That the landscape material proposed is minimal or nonexistent to mitigate adverse effects of the use on the surrounding area, especially on the detached dwellings to the south; 18. That the proposed development does not provide for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings, as the flexibility criteria requires; 19. That, when the reductions to required setbacks are viewed in light of the reductions to required parking and landscape areas, the use is incompatible with the surrounding area and the design and intensity of the proposal does not support the established character of an area and will not enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 20. That there are outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Conclusions of Law: 1. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Standards as per Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code; 2. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-704.C of the Community Development Code; 3. That the development proposal is inconsistent 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 inconsistent 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 DENIAL of the Flexible Development application to permit a restaurant in the Commercial District with a reduction to the lot width from 100 feet to 89.77 feet (south along Dempsey Street), reductions to the front (north along Lakeview Road) setback from 25 feet to 18.1 feet (to existing building), from 25 feet to 14 feet (to sidewalk) and from 25 feet to four feet (to pavement), reductions to the front (south along Dempsey Street) from 25 feet to one- foot (to pavement) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), an increase to building height from 25 feet to 29.5 feet (to existing midpoint of the pitched roof), a reduction to the required parking from 43 spaces to 16 spaces and a deviation to allow direct access to Lakeview Road, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, with reductions to the perimeter landscape buffers along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to four feet (to pavement), along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure) and along the east from five feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to 5.5 percent and a reduction to the foundation landscape area from five feet wide to zero feet wide, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Community Development Board - February 20, 2007 FLD2006-05032 - Page 12 of 13 0 0 Prepared by Planning Department Staff: 1,4 Wayne M. ells, AICP, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: ? Location Map ? Aerial Map ? Zoning Map ? Existing Surrounding Uses Map ? Photographs of Site and Vicinity S: (Planning Department) C D BIFLEX (FLD) (Pending cases) Up for the next CDBILakeview 921 The Boiling Pot (C) - 2.20.07 CDB - WWICopy of Lakeview 921 Staff Report for 2.20.07 CDB doc Community Development Board - February 20, 2007 FLD2006-05032 -Page 13 of 13 0 0 Resume Wayne M. Wells, AICP 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 727-562-4504 wayne.wellsk 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 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 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 9 0 V) ? M1aBKLEr L] L \?'I 'll I I ?J ETA 0.DSA `' vVJI BROWNER ST II?? ST CHESTNUT ST 'R 00 COURT ST S1180 ROGERS ST = ¢ ? <? ROGERS a ? > TURNER ROGERS r ST TURNER FU ,? PINE ST PINE ST PINE ST PINE J: E-E IN s ¢a? o ? o Ell DRUID RD W DRUID RD DRUID ??? JASMINE YlAV JASMINE 4VAY OAP- 9 JA? 4? MAGNOLIA OR 1 MAGNOLIA DR 7h? 0 ?QD ?0 J(OO OTUS PATH LOTUS PATH OTUS PA1H K? JEFfOROS ST = ? ? 5 w 0 E N l LOTUS -11 fT o _ ? L--j L-J<? ?- ? PROJECT r? ::.. _ .. ? ? ? ? u ? SITE I. TUSCOLA PNELLAS W ? ? 5 MILTON r 2MSKAW F Jyo9 C LJ LJ LJ U :t _ .1 ?EVIEW ?,E 5011TH ST Z < < g X42 0 0 Ar0 g EASY ? E ST •' V ;.:': ?:'::: ?::,....:,:• •..... • : RINGSLEY ST MGENN'N O 3f 4 QUEEN $7 ( __ L ::::,:': .:: •: ..'. QUEEN •.':.: :'.::::.. ? ?yC ALMA m •::?ERSyfEYJ.::.'::'.:::'::'.•': r BLVD. 4 ?? .': yl1E BLVD WLbWOOpc'y WAY < u?.n....... ?: C .. ? ? ? ?, ter'... :•.?:.•Z 5 ? C ?_?f} 1 OD,L'(.ML':.;.'.:::'A?V.Fy:•: WOODLAWN a wrcma ?': ` :::;:1.'..1•:::..:'.::: :: 'r:L'.F'. t? n ST f I 1 T r r I-I D DLRN}•; ST r? Location Map Dorothy B. LeBlanc j Owner: Case: FLD2006-05032 Sexton Enterprises, Inc. j Site: I 921 Lakeview Road Property 0.252 Size(Acres): PIN Atlas Page: 21/29/15/47466/001/0130 21/29/15/47466/001/0170 306A • • J J AW? 6 . Amy. i s Aerial Map Owner: Dorothy B. LeBlanc Case: FLD2006-05032 Sexton Enterprises, Inc. Site: 921 Lakeview Road Property Size(Acres): 0.252 PIN: 21/29/15/47466/001/0130 21/29/15/47466/001/0170 Atlas Page: 306A i • 11 12 13 14 114C 11 . W-A ? 1 N ' n n m p V n n n 002 y 58086 30 5 4 3 2 1 30 I 2 12 ttro5 7 11 13 12 zza O 3.8 Acm ao 30 60 m 33 33 33 1301 Met taut t6 14 o 1300 13 11 18 0 6 4 2 Acp 9 8 7 ? 1 O 19 21 ??? rn rn rn O 33 4 ? 1t 6 ? 3 10 8 6 7 6 14A2 14 5 lo a 4 3 2 11 d' 1 > 14 73 12 2 1 16 16 3 4 17 5 6 18 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 25 13 14 p 13. 7 5 6 16 7 1 8 13 12 9 3 11 Zoning Map Owner. I Dorothy B. LeBlanc Case: Sexton Enterprises, Inc. Site: 921 Lakeview Road Property Size(Acres) : PIN: Atlas Page: FLD2006-05032 0.252 21/29/15/47466/001/0130 21/29/15/47466/001/0170 306A 1 2 4 5 6 7 9 14 15 18 17 18 ° ° a m m m 01 7 8 10 11 12 9 00 ? o O N m O 'O m O n rn o? 4 6 5 3 2 1 18 1 8 1285 o N m 10 O1 rn a a 0 0 I to a m, s a , ,< Q ?! N W ?, $ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16 17 18 0 & 11. gs ., e c aooo ao 1o ro aMo 1 26 Q' C me ery 30 4 3 2 , 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 ? r „ 12 e, TUSKA WILLA ST Q V W Cemetery o 3? a 3.8 A c m 60 30 33 33 emetery 1301 Met 1300 C (c) do' J O 16 t4 73 18 7 0 $' 4 1 o ? 1 47466 Offices 1 33 11 3 n 3 I r: Existing Surrounding Uses Map 1 W $ S $ Q 58086 2 et b e? m Park 13.9 A Owner: I Dorothy B. LeBlanc Case: FLD2006-05032 Sexton Enter rises, Inc. Site: 921 Lakeview Road Property Size(Acres): 0.252 PIN: 21/29/15/47466/001/0130 21/29/15/47466/001/0170 Atlas Page: 306A ea taL e ' 6 d 5 li 4s 2 1 18 7 8!./ tSC cd 11 ' d elli gs 1295 8 , 6 B View looking north at dwellings north of Lakeview Rd and east of S. Prospect Ave ..? --- - OPW View looking northeast at offices at Lakeview Rd (taken from Dempsey Street) e. i.. A '+ View looking north at the rear of the subject building at 921 Lakeview Road 921 Lakeview Road FLD2006-05032 6A View looking southeast at offices at 925 Lakeview View looking west showing curvature of Dempsey St (subject property on right) Page 2 of 2 View looking east along Dempsey St (detached I • View looking south at vacant area on west side of 921 Lakeview Road proposed for parking lot -3;.. - dmr - =-. 921 Lakeview Road FLD2006-05032 - MM--M View looking west showing curvature of Lakeview Rd (subject property on left; S. Prospect Ave on rt) OWN View looking northwest at cemetery across Lakeview Road Page 1 of 2 0 0 ORIGINAL CDB Meeting Date: December 19, 2006 Case Number: FLD2006-05032 Agenda Item: D 1 Owner: Dorothy B. LeBlanc and Sexton Enterprises, Inc. Applicant: Mark LeBlanc Representative: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. Address: 921 Lakeview Road CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to permit a restaurant in the Commercial District with a reduction to the lot width from 100 feet to 89.77 feet (south along Dempsey Street), reductions to the front (north along Lakeview Road) setback from 25 feet to 18.1 feet (to existing building), from 25 feet to 14 feet (to sidewalk) and from 25 feet to four feet (to pavement), reductions to the front (south along Dempsey Street) from 25 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), an increase to building height from 25 feet to 29.5 feet (to existing midpoint of the pitched roof), a reduction to the required parking from 43 spaces to 16 spaces and a deviation to allow direct access to Lakeview Road, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, with reductions to the perimeter landscape buffers along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to four feet (to pavement), along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster - enclosure) and along the east from five feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to 5.5 percent and a reduction to the foundation landscape area from five feet wide to zero feet wide, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. CURRENT ZONING: Commercial (C) District CURRENT FUTURE LAND Commercial General (CG) USE CATEGORY: PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Attached dwellings with accessory storage Proposed Use: Restaurant EXISTING North: Institutional (I) District Cemetery SURROUNDING ZONING South: Medium Density Residential (MDR) Detached dwellings AND USES: District East: Commercial (C) District Offices West: Commercial (C) District Manufacturing Community Development Board - December 19, 2006 FLD2006-05032 - Page 1 of 13 0 0 UPDATE: This case was originally scheduled for the November 21, 2006, CDB meeting. Due to an advertising error, this case was continued by the CDB to this meeting. ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.253 acres is located on the south side of Lakeview Road, approximately 600 feet east of South Myrtle Avenue and 50 feet west of Prospect Avenue. The property has been zoned commercially for some time. The existing building on the property has some historic value, as it was previously used by Coca Cola as a distribution facility, but is not listed on the Florida or National Register of Historic Places. The last legal use of the property was for four attached dwellings (two on the second floor and two on the south side of the building) with accessory storage on the ground floor. A complaint was received in August 2004 regarding inadequate fire separation between the storage unit and the dwellings (UNS2004-00088). This case is still ongoing, as property ownership has changed and this case has been filed pending CDB action. That portion of the building with two dwelling units on the south side of the ground floor has been demolished but the concrete slab for such building still exists. There is a driveway on Lakeview Road that provided access to the front of the building, with a small concrete area adjacent to the front of the building that could have been used for parking; otherwise all on-site parking area is unpaved. The property to the north is zoned Institutional (I) District and is developed as a cemetery. To the east and north of the cemetery, properties are zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) Districts and developed with detached dwellings. The property to the east is zoned Commercial (C) District and is developed with offices immediately adjacent and a detached dwelling farther east at Ewing Avenue. The property to the west is zoned Commercial (C) District and is developed with an automotive parts re-manufacturer. The properties to the south on Dempsey Street are zoned Medium Density Residential (MDR) District and are developed with detached dwellings. Development Proposal: The development proposal is to permit a restaurant within the existing building, with the construction of accessory parking, retention, landscaping and trash facilities. Restaurants are a permitted use within the Commercial District. The applicant proposes to utilize the downstairs as the restaurant, however, an accessory office for the restaurant is proposed upstairs. The proposal includes the eastern 25-foot wide lot (Lot 17) owned by Sexton Enterprises, Inc. on the west side of the subject site. The applicant has entered into a Commercial Lease for this 25-foot wide lot, which is for a time period of 15 years with the ability for an additional five years. Any approval of this request by the CDB should include a condition requiring continued possession of this Lot 17 with the parking and landscaping improvements for the restaurant and the failure to have such parking and landscaping improvements available and assignable to this restaurant should require the closure of the restaurant until such time as required parking, in location(s) acceptable to the City, is procured. This potential condition should also apply to the circumstance where the lessee defaults on the lease and the lessor takes back possession of the parking and landscaping improvements thereon. Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.): Pursuant to Section 2-701.1 of the Community Development Code, the maximum allowable F.A.R. for properties with a designation of Commercial General is 0.55. As such, the maximum development potential of the 0.253-acre parcel is 6,059.9 square feet. The existing building (both floors) is 2,890 square feet in size, which results in an F.A.R. of 0.26. Based upon the Community Development Board - December 19, 2006 FLD2006-05032 - Page 2 of 13 0 0 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 Section 2-701.1 of the Community Development Code, the maximum allowable I.S.R. is 0.95. The proposed I.S.R. is 0.70, which is consistent with the Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area: Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the minimum lot area for restaurants ranges between 3,500 - 10,000 square feet. The lot area for this proposal is 11,018 square feet, which is consistent with Code provisions. Minimum Lot Width: Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the minimum lot width for restaurants ranges between 35 - 100 feet. The site is a double fronted lot, with frontage along both Lakeview Road on the north and Dempsey Street on the south. The total lot width along Lakeview Road is 146.79 feet, which is consistent with Code provisions. The total lot width along Dempsey Street is only 89.77 feet and the applicant is requesting a reduction to the lot width requirement along this street. Some of the lots that make up the property for this proposal are pie-shaped, with the large outside part of the pie on Lakeview Road and only the opposite side inside point of the pie on Dempsey Street. Due to this configuration of lots that are part of this property, the reduction to lot width along Dempsey Street may be acceptable. The reduction to lot width in this case must also be reviewed in light of its affect on other reductions of this proposal discussed in this Staff Report as to their appropriateness and ultimately the appropriateness of the restaurant at this location. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the minimum front setback is 25 feet and the minimum side setback is 10 feet. The proposed restaurant, being processed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, includes reductions to the front (north along Lakeview Road) setback from 25 feet to 18.1 feet (to existing building), from 25 feet to 14 feet (to sidewalk) and from 25 feet to four feet (to pavement), reductions to the front (south along Dempsey Street) from 25 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to existing building) and a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement). The property is a double fronted lot with two fronts and two sides. This proposal includes the re-use of an existing building, which has existed on this site for quite some time. Staff is supportive of front and side setback reductions to the existing building, as any re-use proposed will need setback reductions to this existing building. It is the other setback reductions that concern Staff. The curvature of the adjacent roadways and the property, as well as the location of this existing building, present design constraints on the provision of required parking, landscaping and drainage improvements. However, the proposed use of a restaurant requires more parking than other less intense uses within the Commercial District. The need to provide necessary on-site parking has produced issues of reduced setbacks. The setback reductions in this case must also be reviewed in light of its affect on other reductions of this proposal discussed in this Staff Report as to their appropriateness and ultimately the appropriateness of the restaurant at this location. The reduction. to setbacks to pavement on the north side along Lakeview Road is from 25 feet to four feet, while the reduction to setbacks to pavement on the south side along Dempsey Street is from 25 feet to three feet adjacent to the parking spaces and one-foot for the drive aisle. These proposed reductions provide little area for any meaningful landscaping to mitigate views of the parking lot and for site beautification. The proposed landscape plan provides little landscaping within these areas. The proposed location of the end of the drive aisle one-foot from the Dempsey Street property line does not Community Development Board - December 19, 2006 FLD2006-05032 - Page 3 of 13 provide any ability to plant landscape materials to block headlights of vehicles pulling into the parking lot to the detached dwellings on the south side of Dempsey Street. The proposal includes a front setback reduction from 25 feet to zero feet along Dempsey Street for the dumpster enclosure. Due to the need to provide as much on-site parking as possible and given the site configuration and existing building location, the dumpster has been placed in the only location possible. It is not optimal, as it requires the trash truck to traverse Dempsey Street for this dumpster pickup and requires the truck to stage within the right-of-way while collecting the trash. With such orientation, this impacts the detached dwellings to the south. Additionally, since it is at a zero front setback, it is visually more obtrusive as well as bringing unwarranted negative odors closer to the residential neighborhood. Finally, the proposal includes a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet to the proposed pavement. While this setback is in compliance with the landscape buffer requirement along this side between nonresidential properties, the setback reduction on the west side should be viewed in light of all other reductions requested as to its appropriateness. As such, the proposed site design does not minimize the adverse effects of the use, especially from visual, olfactory and hours of operation aspects, on adjacent properties. The proposed development also does not provide for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings, as the flexibility criteria requires. When the reductions to required setbacks are viewed in light of the reductions to required parking and landscape areas, the use is incompatible with the surrounding area and the design and intensity of the proposal does not support the established character of an area. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the maximum allowable height can range between 25 - 50 feet. The existing building has a pitched roof at a height of 29.5 feet at midpoint. Given this is existing building height has blended well with the surrounding neighborhood, the development proposal is consistent with the Code with regard to the maximum allowable height. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code, the minimum required parking could range between 7 - 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet GFA. Since the upstairs will be used for an accessory office for the restaurant, the entire second floor must be counted toward the provision of required parking. Based on the 2,890 square feet GFA of the existing building, a minimum of between 20 and 43 parking spaces are required for this proposed restaurant. The applicant proposes 16 parking spaces, which includes one handicap space, at a parking ratio of 5.53 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. The proposal includes a request to reduce the required parking from 43 to 16 spaces, representing the provision of only 37.2 percent of the required parking. The 975 square-foot second floor currently is developed with two attached dwelling units, accessed by a doorway to a stairwell directly to the exterior of the building. The applicant has indicated they will use the second floor only as an accessory office to the restaurant. Staff has concerns of this arrangement as potentially only 50 - 100 square feet of the second floor is necessary for such accessory use, yet there would be 875 - 925 square feet "un-used". It is also difficult for the City to monitor this "accessory" use to the restaurant when there is no direct connection between the first and second floors, since this "accessory" space has no interior access. Based on information submitted by the applicant, only the restaurant owner will have access to the second floor for the office function. From a parking standpoint, this second floor is required to have 15 parking spaces as part of the restaurant. If one looks at the second floor function and use as an accessory office by the restaurant owner only (whom is also running the restaurant), it may be argued that the 15 spaces can be discounted in the total count of required parking. Such a discount would still require 28 parking spaces, with only 16 spaces being provided. The applicant has submitted a Parking Demand Study to justify the requested reduction to required parking. The applicant indicates that this restaurant is intended to be a family-style restaurant, where a Community Development Board - December 19, 2006 FLD2006-05032 - Page 4 of 13 0 0 family of four would travel to the site in one car. City Code does not differentiate between the styles of restaurant, nor based on the number of intended passengers in a car. The City does not have the staff necessary to enforce such standards for every restaurant; hence the reason for generalized parking standards. The reality is that restaurants open and close to business all the time and the next restaurant proposed for the same site may not be the same style. The Parking Demand Study refers to restaurants located within downtown locations, where no on-site parking is provided. This is true even in downtown Clearwater (also for retail businesses). There are, however, municipal parking lots and metered or timed on-street parking for patrons of all downtown businesses. Workers in the downtown area, where usually off-street parking is provided by the employer, also walk to patronize businesses. The subject location, however, is not a downtown location and patrons of this proposed restaurant will have to drive to this location. The application material indicates they are working with a neighborhood business for shared parking (Candy Factory, 701 Lakeview Road). There has not been any documentation provided to indicate this existing business has excess parking available for this restaurant. This business is also located over 600 feet to the west, which may be acceptable for employee parking but is suspect for patron parking. The Parking Demand Study also indicates there is on-street parking available within 700 feet of the subject property. Staff in unaware of any such approved and designated on-street parking, other than at detached dwellings in the neighborhood. Staff does not support a parking reduction for a commercial business that relies upon on-street parking in established residential neighborhoods. As such, the proposed development of this property with a restaurant has not been designed to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding neighborhood. The re-use of this structure should occur. The location of this site, however, is not in a high intense area from a land use and traffic standpoint. The applicant has proposed the most intense use (restaurant) from a required parking standpoint, where inadequate land area and land configuration squeezes the required improvements onto the site, resulting in inadequate setbacks and resultant inadequate landscape area to mitigate associated negative impacts. A lesser intense use would be more appropriate and would have a reduced parking demand. Based upon the above, the development proposal is inconsistent with the Code with regard to the minimum required number of parking spaces. The request has been advertised including a deviation to allow direct access to Lakeview Road, as criteria of Section 2-704.M (restaurants) restricts direct access to major arterial streets. Upon further review, Lakeview Road is classified as a collector street, not an arterial street, which makes the deviation request unnecessary. The reduction to required setbacks in this case must also be reviewed in light of its affect on other reductions of this proposal discussed in this Staff Report as to- their appropriateness and ultimately the appropriateness of the restaurant at this location. Section 3-201.C provides for sidewalk cafes as a permitted accessory use to a restaurant, whether located within the public right-of-way or on private property. These regulations do not require any additional parking for the sidewalk cafe portion of a restaurant. However, since provided parking for this proposed restaurant is extremely limited, any approval by the CDB should include a condition prohibiting the establishment of a sidewalk cafe in conjunction with the restaurant. 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 second floor of the building behind the existing parapet walls, which should provide the required screening. As such, the development proposal is consistent with the Code with regard to screening of outdoor mechanical equipment. Sight Visibili 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 Community Development Board - December 19, 2006 FLD"2006-05032 - Page 5 of 13 0 0 will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility triangles. The only driveway proposed is on Lakeview Road. The parking spaces adjacent to Lakeview Road encroach upon the required sight visibility triangles on both sides of the driveway. The first parking space on the east side of the driveway will encroach into the required sight visibility triangle by five feet. The first two parking spaces on the west side of the driveway will encroach into the required sight visibility triangle by 16 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 location of this site is at a curvature of Lakeview Road. Due to this curvature, the City's Engineering Department required the removal of one proposed parking space located on the east side of the driveway adjacent to Lakeview Road to improve the ability of motorists to see oncoming westbound traffic. The location of the sidewalk and pavement within the Lakeview Road right-of-way does not pose the same issues for parking spaces located within the sight visibility triangle on the west side of the driveway. The City's Engineering Department has indicated no objection to the location of the parking spaces on either side of the driveway as proposed. 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. The applicant has also noted that landscaping proposed within the visibility triangles will be maintained below 30-inches to avoid sight visibility issues and no trees are proposed within the sight visibility triangles. 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. Overhead utilities exist along the north sides of Lakeview Road and Dempsey Street. The existing electrical service to this building comes from the overhead lines on the north side of Lakeview Road to a utility pole at the northeast corner of the site feeding a drop to the northwest corner of the building. 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 requirement. Any approval of this request should include a condition requiring such undergrounding of the existing overhead on-site utility lines. The overhead utility lines that exist along the site's frontage along Dempsey Street, due to the curvature of the roadway, are approximately located at the edge of the roadway pavement. The location of these overhead lines may present some issues for the Solid Waste Department picking up the dumpster from the trash enclosure, but has indicated the location is acceptable. 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 Lakeview Road, a 10-foot wide landscape buffer along Dempsey Street and a five-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to other nonresidential development (offices to the east and the automotive parts re-manufacturer to the west). Buffers are to be planted with one (1) tree every 35 feet and 100% shrub coverage is required. The proposal includes reductions to the perimeter landscape buffers along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to four feet (to pavement), along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure) and along the east from five feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to 5.5 percent and a reduction to the foundation landscape area from five feet wide to zero feet wide. Community Development Board - December 19, 2006 FLD2006-05032 - Page 6 of 13 0 0 Landscaping reductions requested are a result of the need to provide required parking for the proposed use, with considerations of the curvature of the adjacent roadways and property and the location of this existing building. Given these design constraints on the provision of required parking and the design of required drainage retention, landscaping improvements are minimal or nonexistent. The Staff concerns relative to required setbacks discussed above are similar to the landscape buffer reductions requested. Inadequate parking is being provided, as well as inadequate setbacks and landscaping. The applicant has attempted to place as much parking on the property as possible, to the detriment of setbacks and landscaping. The reductions requested do not adequately mitigate negative impacts of the proposed use on the surrounding neighborhood or the community at-large. The front perimeter buffer along Lakeview Road will be planted with a variegated dwarf schefflera and yew podocarpus as the hedge, with xanadu philendendron, and winged elm, ligustrum and bald cypress trees. The front buffer along Dempsey Street will be planted with variegated dwarf schefflera and yew podocarpus as the hedge, with crape myrtle and ligustrum trees. Along Dempsey Street there are no trees proposed between the parking lot and the property line. The other buffers will be planted with variegated dwarf schefflera and yew podocarpus, with crape myrtle, magnolia, bald cypress and sabal palm trees. The reduction to landscape buffers in this case must also be reviewed in light of its affect on other reductions of this proposal discussed in this Staff Report as to their appropriateness and ultimately the appropriateness of the restaurant at this location. The proposal includes a reduction to required interior landscaping from 10 percent to 5.5 percent. The only area counted toward interior landscaping is on the west side of the building. This requested reduction is also a result of the need to provide required parking for the proposed use, with considerations of the curvature of the adjacent roadways and property and the location of this existing building. The purpose of interior landscaping to the parking lot is to break up the expanse of pavement and provide shade to the parking lot. This reduction requested mirrors the other reductions requested where there is inadequate land area to meet the Code requirements for the intended use. The interior landscape area is proposed to be planted with xanadu and Maui red ixora and crape myrtle and magnolia trees. The applicant is requesting a reduction to the required foundation landscaping facing Lakeview Road from five feet wide to zero feet. This reduction is due to the need to provide sidewalk access from the parking lot to the front door and the vertical wall retention pond in the front setbackibuffer. Inadequate area is available to meet all of the Code requirements, including foundation landscaping, to provide for the proposed use. Foundation landscaping is being provided on the east side of the building facing Lakeview Road, consisting of Maui red ixora and xanadu. Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code, the landscaping requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with those criteria: Community Development Board - December 19, 2006 FLD2006-05032 - Page 7 of 13 • r1 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 N/A N/A automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. 3. Community character: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X' landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. 4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X1 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. See Analysis for discussion of consistency/inconsistency. As expressed above, the proposed Comprehensive Landscape Program has been found to be inconsistent with all applicable criteria. Specifically, the proposed landscaping along the perimeters of the parking lot is requested to be reduced to a degree where only minimal or no landscaping can be planted. As such, the proposal will not visually enhance views of the site both by the traveling public, patrons and the surrounding primarily residential neighborhood. Further, due to inadequate area for the planting of landscape material, the landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape program are not demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted under the minimum landscape standards, in deference to the criteria above. The landscape treatment proposed will not have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development, especially the detached dwellings to the south. The applicant asserts that the landscape treatment proposed is part of an architectural theme, but with so little area for such landscape treatment, it is difficult for Staff to accept such. The applicant has proposed "historical planters" along the edge of the sidewalk from Lakeview Road as a landscape enhancement. Solid Waste: The development proposal includes the construction of a 10-foot by 10-foot dumpster enclosure on the south side of the property at the front property line on Dempsey Street. While not the most visually unobtrusive location to the detached dwellings on the south side of Dempsey Street, its location functionally is the best location based on the proposed site design. It is safer for the trash truck to access the dumpster enclosure in its proposed location, rather than having to potentially back out onto Lakeview Road. However, the proposed location is also a function of the size and configuration of the property and its existing building and proposed parking. A larger site providing required parking most likely would have had a different parking configuration, potentially allowing for a trash enclosure better located in relation to on-site traffic circulation patterns where use of Dempsey Street would not be required. Section 3-201.D.1 requires the enclosure to be of materials and colors consistent with those used with the proposed building, which the applicant indicates this proposal will comply with. The proposed solid waste facility has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste Department. Si na e: The applicant is not proposing any freestanding signage concurrent with this development proposal, but is proposing attached signage on the front of the building. It is noted that the front building elevation depicts attached signage that may not meet the area requirements of the Code. Actual review of Community Development Board - December 19, 2006 FLD2006-05032 - Page 8 of 13 0 0 allowable attached signage is at a later time frame, should this request be approved by the CDB. The flexibility criteria for restaurants in the Commercial District restricts freestanding signage to a maximum height of six feet unless part of a Comprehensive Sign Program. Due to the character of the area this site is located, a freestanding sign may not be necessary for this property, but any approval of this request should be conditioned on restricting its height to a maximum of six feet, even through the Comprehensive Sign Program, and its design to match the exterior materials and color of the building. Code Enforcement Analysis: There is an ongoing Code Enforcement issue associated with the subject property. The building has been deemed unsafe due to inadequate fire separation between the downstairs storage area (proposed to be a restaurant) and the upstairs (two attached dwellings) (UNS2004-00088). COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards and criteria as per Section 2-701.1 and Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent F.A.R. 0.55 0.26 X I.S.R. 0.95 0.7 X Lot Area 3,500 - 10,000 square feet 11,018 square feet X Lot Width 35 - 100 feet North: 146.79 feet X South: 89.77 feet Setbacks Front: 15 - 25 feet North: 18.1 feet (to X1 existing bldg); 14 feet (to sidewalk); four feet (to pave ent) South: one-foot (to pavement); zero feet (to dumpster enclosure Side: 0 - 10 feet East: three feet (to X1 existing building) West: five feet (to pavement) Height 25 - 50 feet 29.5 feet (to existing X midpoint of the pitched roof) Off-Street Restaurant - 7 - 15 spaces per 1,000 SF 16 parking spaces X1 Parking I GFA 43 spaces) 1 See Analysis for discussion of consistency/inconsistency. Community Development Board - December 19, 2006 FLD2006-05032 - Page 9 of 13 0 0 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-704.C of the Community Development Code (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent Inconsi 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X1 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 X1 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 X1 parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ? Changes in horizontal building planes; ? Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; ? Variety in materials, colors and textures; ? Distinctive fenestration patterns; ? Building stepbacks; and ? Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. 1 See Analysis for discussion of consistency/inconsistency. Community Development Board - December 19, 2006 FLD2006-05032 - Page 10 of 13 0 • 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: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X' coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X' adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X1 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X1 immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X visual. acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. 1 See Analysis for discussion of consistency/inconsistency. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meetings of August 3 and October 5, 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: Findings of Fact: 1. That the 0.253 acres is located on the south side of Lakeview Road, approximately 600 feet east of South Myrtle Avenue and 50 feet west of Prospect Avenue; 2. That the property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category; 3. That the existing building on the property has some historic value, as it was previously used by Coca Cola as a distribution facility, but is not listed on the Florida or National Register of Historic Places; 4. That the last legal use of the property was for four attached dwellings (two on the second floor and two on the south side of the building) with accessory storage on the ground floor; 5. That the two dwelling units on the south side of the building have been removed/demolished; 6. That the proposal is to re-use the site and building for a restaurant in the total 2,890 square-foot building; 7. That the applicant proposes to utilize the 1,915 square-foot downstairs as the restaurant, however, an accessory office for the restaurant is proposed in the 975 square-foot upstairs area; 8. That there is no direct connection between the first and second floors, since this "accessory" space has no interior access, raising a question of appropriateness; 9. That the proposal includes the eastern 25-foot wide lot (Lot 17) owned by Sexton Enterprises, Inc. on the west side of the subject site and the applicant has entered into a Commercial Lease for this 25- foot wide lot for a time period of 15 years with the ability for an additional five years; 10. That the site is a double fronted lot, with frontage along both Lakeview Road on the north and Dempsey Street on the south; 11. That detached dwellings exist to the south across Dempsey Street zoned MDR District; 12. That, in order to provide for a restaurant use on this property, reductions to lot width along Dempsey Street, setbacks, required parking, landscape buffers, interior landscape area and foundation landscape area have been requested; Community Development Board - December 19, 2006 FLD2006-05032 -Page 11 of 13 0 0 13. That the curvature of the adjacent roadways and the property, as well as the location of this existing building, present design constraints on the provision of required parking, landscaping and drainage improvements; 14. That inadequate area exists to provide the required off-street parking for the proposed restaurant and the submitted Parking Demand Study does not justify the requested reduction to parking, which represents the provision of only 37.2 percent of the required parking; 15. That the proposed development of this property with a restaurant has not been designed to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding neighborhood; 16. That the proposed reductions to required setbacks provide little area for any meaningful landscaping to mitigate views of the parking lot and for site beautification; 17. That the landscape material proposed is minimal or nonexistent to mitigate adverse effects of the use on the surrounding area, especially on the detached dwellings to the south; 18. That the proposed development does not provide for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings, as the flexibility criteria requires; 19. That, when the reductions to required setbacks are viewed in light of the reductions to required parking and landscape areas, the use is incompatible with the surrounding area and the design and intensity of the proposal does not support the established character of an area and will not enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 20. That there are outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Conclusions of Law: 1. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Standards as per Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code; 2. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-704.C of the Community Development Code; 3. That the development proposal is inconsistent 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 inconsistent 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 DENIAL of the Flexible Development application to permit a restaurant in the Commercial District with a reduction to the lot width from 100 feet to 89.77 feet (south along Dempsey Street), reductions to the front (north along Lakeview Road) setback from 25 feet to 18.1 feet (to existing building), from 25 feet to 14 feet (to sidewalk) and from 25 feet to four feet (to pavement), reductions to the front (south along Dempsey Street) from 25 feet to one- foot (to pavement) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), an increase to building height from 25 feet to 29.5 feet (to existing midpoint of the pitched roof), a reduction to the required parking from 43 spaces to 16 spaces and a deviation to allow direct access to Lakeview Road, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, with reductions to the perimeter landscape buffers along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to four feet (to pavement), along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure) and along the east from five feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to 5.5 percent and a reduction to the foundation landscape area from five feet wide to zero feet wide, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Community Development Board - December 19, 2006 FLD2006-05032 - Page 12 of 13 • • Prepared by Planning Department Staff. A)"M 0 - "0.-1 Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: ? Location Map ? Aerial Map ? Zoning Map ? Existing Surrounding Uses Map ? Photographs of Site and Vicinity S: (Planning DepartmentlC D BIFLEX (FLD)IPending cases) Up for the next CDBILakeview 921 The Boiling Pot (C) -12.19.06 CDB - WWILakeview 921 Staff Report.doc Community Development Board - December 19, 2006 FLD2006-05032 - Page 13 of 13 • Resume Wayne M. Wells, AICP 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 727-562-4504 wayne.wells(&,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 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 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 0 0 Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 2:08 PM To: Wright, Bill Subject: FW: The Boiling Pot / FLD2006-05032 FYI -----Original Message----- From: Doreen Williams [ma ilto: Doreen@ northsideeng i neering.com] Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 1:39 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Thompson, Neil; Housh Ghovaee; boilingpot@verizon.net Subject: The Boiling Pot / FLD2006-05032 Wayne, we would like to ask for a 2 month continuance at CDB. The owner is in negotiation with a cross-parking agreement and we feel with the holidays, it will not be finalized for the January, 2007 CDB meeting. I will send you a formal letter. If I need to do anything else, please let me know. Doreen A. Williams Project Director Northside Engineering Services, Inc. 601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930 Clearwater, FL 33755 Phone: 727-443-2869 / Fax: 446-8036 / Cell: 235-8474 Email: doreen northsideengineering.com No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.23/591 - Release Date: 12/17/2006 12/19/2006 t ?•',''?.. Conditions Associated With FLD2006-05032 921 LAKEVIEW RD • 4 Landscape Wayne Wells, AICP 727-562-4504 07/26/2006 10/15/06 - WW VUA is only 5.5%. Include reduction in request. 9/25/06 - WW Sheet C1.1 still indicates 5,522 square feet of VUA provided, which means a minimum of 552 square feet of interior landscape area must be provided. Sheet C1.1 indictes 560 square feet of interior landscape area provided (10.1 % of VUA). However, Sheet C2.1 indicates areas adjacent to Lakeview Road and Dempsey Street being calculated toward interior landscape area. These areas are within the perimeter buffers, which means these areas cannot be counted toward interior landscape area. Only that area adjacent to the west side of the building can be counted. Revise calculations on Sheet C1.1. If less than 10 % of VUA, must either revise the plans to provide the required amount or include a reduction as part of the Comprehensive Landscape Program, with complete justification for such reduction. 7/26/06 - WW Sheet C1.1 - Site Data table indicates 5,522 square feet of paved vehicular use area (VUA) proposed. Code requires for sites with 4,000 square feet or more of paved vehicular use area to have 10 percent interior landscaping. Revise the "Required" for "Parking Lot Interior Landscaping" to indicate 10% of VUA. Calculate the "Proposed" "Parking Lot Interior Landscaping" and indicate the square footage and percentage of VUA. If less than 10 % of VUA, must either revise the plans to provide the required amount or include a reduction as part of the Comprehensive Landscape Program, with complete justification for such reduction. 07/25/2006 10/18/06 - WW Plan now shows a minimum planting area of five feet, but the retention pond still encroaches into the front buffer. Include in request. 9/25/06 - WW Plan does not meet Code requirements for having a planting area of at least five feet in width and the retention pond location encroaches into the 7.5-foot area of the perimeter buffer (total 15 feet required perimeter buffer width along Lakeview Road), leaving insufficient area for required landscaping in the buffer. Unless redesigned to meet Code requirements, need to include in the request these reductions to the landscape buffer due to the pond design as part of the Comprehensive Landscape Program. Staff does not support the reductions. 7/25/06 - WW Sheet C3.1 - There is no cross section of the pond submitted, therefore it is unclear of the proposed slope of the bank. Provide a north/south and an east/west cross section of the pond and show all required safety railings (not shown on plan). Top of bank is very close to the front property line. Code requires a 15-foot perimeter buffer along the north property line, which is not being met. Section 3-1202.D.2 requires the stormwater retention areas not exceed 50% of the buffer area (7.5 feet), the front slope not to exceed a slope of 4:1 or flatter, all required shrub plantings to not be more than six-inches below the top of bank and the buffer width be at least five feet in width. Proposal does not meet these requirements. Revise. 07/26/2006 10/18/06, 9/25/06 & 7/26/06 - WW The Comprehensive Landscape Program needs to enumerate the reductions to those requirements not being met and needs to provide detailed justification for the reductions. The landscape reductions are substantial and inadequate room on the site is available to "make up" or exceed the requirements in other areas on-site. Additionally, many of the landscape areas proposed are inadequate to plant the landscape materials specified. The landscape plan presented is not demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted under the minimum landscape standards. Not Met Not Met Not Met 09/25/2006 10/18/06 & 9/25/06 - WW Not Met Sheet L1.1 - Lot width along Dempsey Street is 89.77 feet. Perimeter buffer along Dempsey Street requires three shade trees. Since there are overhead utility lines along Dempsey Street, only accent trees can be planted (two accent trees = one shade tree). Revise number of trees along Dempsey Street. Print Date: 10/19/2006 CaseConditons Page 1 of 5 FLD2006-05032 921 LAKEVIEW RD Landscape Wayne Wells, AICP 727-562-4504 • 10/18/2006 Sheet L1.1 - The plan specs 4 CL at the northeast corner of the building and 3 CL west of the Not Met building, but the Table does not include CL. Revise. Solid Waste Condition Tom Glenn 562-4930 07/20/2006 The slope/grade at rear of the property is too high/great for access to the dumpster and enclosure Not Met by the truck. Revise prior to CDB. 07/20/2006 The dumpster enclosure needs to be constructed to City specifications. Revise prior to CDB. Not Met 9-12-06 Dumpster enclosure needs to be to city specifications has the elevation been revised? Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727-562-4504 07/27/2006 10/18/06 - WW Not Met 1 Tom Glenn?? 9/25/06 - WW Comment below is still applicable. Additionally, the angle of the dumpster will preclude the truck from accessing the dumpster in the enclosure and its location is at the bend in the road of Dempsey Street, which also creates issues. 7/27/06 - WW There are overhead utilities within the right-of-way of Dempsey Street adjacent to the subject property. These overhead utilities impair the ability of Solid Waste from accessing and dumping the proposed dumpster. 07/27/2006 10/18/06 & 9/25/06 - WW Not Met Existing electrical service to the building is overhead at the northwest corner of the building. d Include as a condition that this overhead service must be revised to underground if approved by the CDB. 7/27/06 - WW All on-site utilities must be underground. Note such on Sheet C3.1. Staff notes that electric service is presently overhead at the front of the property. This will need to be revised. 07/26/2006 f 10/18/06, 9/25/06 & 7/27/06 - WW Not Met A Commercial Lease has been submitted between the applicant and the property owner of Lot 17. This Lease provides for a time period of 15 years, with the ability for an additional five years. Any approval of this request by the CDB will be conditioned on the continued possession of Lot 17 with its parking and landscaping improvements for the restaurant and the failure to have such parking and landscaping improvements available and assignable to this restaurant will require the closure of the restaurant, until such time as required parking (in location[s] approved by the City) is procured. This shall additionally apply should the Lessee default on the lease and the Lessor takes back possession of the parking and landscaping improvements thereon. 07/25/2006 I 10/18/06 & 9/25/06 - WW Not Met J Include in any approval by CDB a prohibition for a sidewalk cafe due to inadequate parking. 7/25/06 - WW Due to State smoking laws, there will be no smoking indoors. Unclear if there is any provision of any area where patrons can sit and eat outdoors (sidewalk cafe) and/or sit to smoke. Explain/show any sidewalk cafe seating area or smoker seating area. Due to inadequate provided parking, staff will not support any sidewalk cafe for additional seating where patrons can eat/drink. 07/27/2006 10/18/06 & 9/25/06 - WW Not Met Include a condition regarding signage on any approval by CDB. Any freestanding sign should be a monument-style sign a maximum of six feet high, finished to be compatible with the building material and color. Attached signage must meet Code requirements. Print Date: 10/19/2006 CaseConditons Page 2 of 5 FLD2006-05032 921 LAKEVIEW RD • Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727-562-4504 7/27/06 - WW III While signage is not being approved through this application, the north building elevation indicates attached signage. Code provisions permit one attached sign per business with the sign area not to exceed one square foot per 100 square feet of building facade facing the street frontage to which the sign is to be attached or 24 square feet, whichever is less. However, a minimum of 20 square feet is permitted. It is noted that it appears that the sign shown exceeds what is permitted by Code under the above minimum standards. Alternately, a Comprehensive Sign Program application may be submitted, complying with the provisions of Section 3-1807. 07/26/2006 7/26/06 - WW Not Met Parking Demand Study - a. First paragraph - Square footage of the building is incorrect. The ground floor, per the Site Data table on Sheet C1.1, indicates the first floor is 1,996 square feet and you have indicated that the second floor is 975 square feet, which is a total of 2,971 square feet. Additionally, if the first floor is 1,996 square feet, then the 957 and 958 square feet indicated for the first floor does not add up to 1,996 square feet. Unclear why "office" is in quotation marks. Explain/expound. 9/25/06 - WW - Square footages on the first floor still do not add up to 1,996 square feet. Revise. 10/18/06 - WW - First sentence square footage (2,890 sf) is not the same as indicated on Sheet C1.1 (2,971 sf). Second sentence first floor square footage is not the same as indicated on Sheet C1.1 (1,996 sf). Second sentence first floor square footage for the service area and for the kitchen and toilets do not add up to 1,996 sf (1,915 sf) and/or explain why there is a discrepancy between 1,996 and 1,915 sf. b. Second paragraph - Based on the total square footage indicated in "a" above, 45 spaces are required. 10/18/06 - WW - Revise to 45 from 43. c. Third paragraph - There has been no floor plan submitted to verify any of the square footages indicated as to "serving area" versus "kitchen/toilet area". You have previously indicated that there are 60 seats intended in the restaurant. Even if in your analysis you looked for comparitive purposes at what potentially other development codes may require based on a per seat basis plus per employee basis (such as 1/3 seats and 1/2 employees), based on your number of seats and employees a minimum of 22 spaces would be required. There is no mention of employees (including the owners) other than kitchen help (such as servers, greeters, etc.). The second floor is still a concern for the "use" of the property. You have indicated it would be the "office" for the restaurant, where there would be no storage included on the second floor. You have also indicated that potentially only 50 square feet would be necessary for the "office" use. This leaves over 900 square feet of the second floor unaccounted for as to "any" use. There has not been submitted any information as to how this unaccounted, substantial square footage area will be used or not used. 9/25/06 - WW - Staff is still not convinced on the findings of the parking demand study. There is no guarantee that four individuals will come in one car to this restaurant, nor can it be mandated. Tables of four can also be filed by four individuals, each driving their own vehicle, or by two couples, both driving their own vehicles. The second floor, with its large square footage is still a concern. Also of concern is its non-relationship to the restaurant, since its sole access is not internally to the restaurant, but rather externally accessed only, which again raises the question of being accessory. It appears that this second floor has been and could be used as a dwelling. The two restaurant examples do not appear too applicable, especially Tin Can Alley, which receives alot of walk-up traffic. This proposed restaurant is not located in the downtown, where it may be expected patrons walk from places of business and from parking garages to restaurants. It is unknown if the Candy Factory has excess parking for use for this restaurant. It is also questionable how, or if, valet parking would work with this site, since there is no on-site "drop off"area for valet service. The parking lot design is a deadend situation. Valet would necessarily have to occur within the right-of-way, which is not a safe nor acceptable situation, especially given this location on a bend of Lakeview Road. On-street parking within 700 feet of this property may not work, as this is not a densely populated area (such as downtown or the beach) where parking away from an establishment and walking to it is customary. d. Fourth paragraph - Your research into other restaurants is inadequate as it does not evaluate similar type restaurants from the aspect of location. Three of the restaurants listed are in the CaseConditons Print Date: 10/19/2006 Page 3 of 5 • • FLD2006-05032 921 LAKEVIEW RD Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727-562-4504 downtown area, which caters to a substantial walk-in traffic, where the characteristics are different than this proposed restaurant which will require a substantial amount of vehicular traffic. The location of this proposed restaurant, dependent upon vehicular traffic for customers to travel to this site, is an important factor when analyzing parking demand and the adequacy (or inadequacy) of available parking. If there is a similar restaurant where parking data is available, it may be used if it is properly documented. If data is not available, then the ITE Trip Generation manual should be used to generate parking demand figures. This calculation may either be completed using square footage or the number of seats as the independent variable. The ITE manual will have more than one restaurant type that will need to be evaluated so that the proper classification is used to generate the traffic numbers. 9/25/06 - WW - See discussion above under "c". Also, it must be determined that this proposed restaurant correctly falls under a "quality restaurant" category. e. Fifth - seventh paragraphs - Inadequate justification has been submitted that adequate parking is being provided on-site and that the use, with its provided parking, will not create adverse effects on the surrounding neighborhood through unapproved parking within the rights-of-way or on other parcels. With the parking that is being provided (representing only 38% of the required amount of parking) and the substantial setback reductions requested, and even though a restaurant is a "permitted" use, this site does not appear to be adequate for the intended use. 9/25/06 - WW - Same comment applicable. f. Parking Demand Study needs to be revised, but prior to revision a Scoping Meeting must be held with Traffic and Planning to discuss and agree upon the parameters of the study. The study should be prepared, dated and signed by an expert in the field. This may be a properly qualified planner or engineer. 9/25/06 - WW - Scoping meeting not done. 07/26/2006 10/18/06 & 9/25/06 - WW Not Met Insufficient areas are proposed to adequately landscape the site to mitigate impacts on the adjacent detached dwellings to the south. Other less intense uses could also be a catalyst for redevelopment, but with fewer negative impacts. Proposal may inappropriately entice other businesses to propose redevelopment with inadequate setbacks and landscaping, which will not upgrade the area. 7/26/06 - WW Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #4 - Expound on justification regarding HOW this proposal will not have substantial detrimental effects on adjoining properties, especially residential. Reduction of setacks, to the extent as proposed under this proposal, prevents any meaningful compliance with landscape requirements. Reduction to required parking represents the provision of only 38% of the required parking. HOW will all needed parking be accommodated on-site, such that there will be no unapproved off-site parking, either in the rights-of-way or on other parcels? 07/26/2006 10/18/06 & 9/25/06 - WW Not Met The re-use of this structure may be with the most intense use (restaurant) from a required parking standpoint, where inadequate land area and land configuration squeezes the required improvements onto the site, resulting in inadequate setbacks and resultant inadequate landscape area to mitigate negative impacts. A lesser intense use would have reduced parking demand. The location of the building is what it is, but the proposed parking is a different situation. 7/26/06 - WW Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 - Response is inadequate. Provide a detailed response as to HOW the requested reductions are necessary and WHY Code requirements cannot be met, especially with regard to setbacks and provided parking. 09/25/2006 10/18/06 - WW Not Met Response is inconsistent with elevations and photos of existing door. 9/25/06 - WW South elevation - Existing sliding door is shown to remain. This sliding door also has a separate "person" door within the slider. Will this sliding door be opened during the restaurant operation (for ventilation, etc.)? Based on site inspection, this sliding door is not an appealing feature. Any CaseConditons Print Date: 10/19/2006 Page 4 of 5 FLD2006-05032 921 LAKEVIEW RD • Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727-562-4504 plans to upgrade its appearance? CaseConditons Print Date: 10/19/2006 Page 5 of 5 - 1 .16 0. 0 Wells, Wayne From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:28 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: 12/19/06 CDB Ads for Review FYI Sherry L Watkins Planning Department Administrative Analyst (727) 562-4582 sherry. watkins @myclearwa ter. com -----Original Message----- From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:27 AM To: Elmore, Nicole Cc: Gilmore, Stephanie Subject: RE: 12/19/06 CDB Ads for Review Good Morning already Wayne Wells would like you to add this case to the following notices With all the confusion regarding the FLD case at 921 Lakeview Road, this application needs to be included in the CDB ad (it presently is not included), as follows: 1. Case: FLD2006-05032 - 921 Lakeview Road Level Two Application (Continued from November 21, 2006) Owner: Dorothy B. LeBlanc and Sexton Enterprises, Inc. Applicant: Mark LeBlanc. Representatives: Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. (601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone: 727-443-2869; fax: 727-446-8036; email: doreen(iDnorthsideen ing eering.com <mailto:doreen@northsideen ing eerin .cg com>). Location: 0.253 acres located on the south side of Lakeview Road, approximately 600 feet east of South Myrtle Avenue and 50 feet west of Prospect Avenue. Atlas Page: 306A. Zoning District: Commercial (C) District. Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a restaurant in the Commercial District with a reduction to the lot width from 100 feet to 89.77 feet (south along Dempsey Street), reductions to the front (north along Lakeview Road) setback from 25 feet to 18.1 feet (to existing building), from 25 feet to 14 feet (to sidewalk) and from 25 feet to four feet (to pavement), reductions to the front (south along Dempsey Street) from 25 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), an increase to building height from 25 feet to 29.5 feet (to existing midpoint of the pitched roof), a reduction to the required parking from 43 spaces to 16 spaces and a deviation to allow direct access to Lakeview Road, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, with reductions to the perimeter landscape buffers along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to four feet (to pavement), along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure) and along the east from five feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to 5.5 percent and a reduction to the foundation landscape area from five feet wide to zero feet wide, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Restaurant. Neighborhood Associations: South Clearwater Citizens for Progress (Duke Tiernan, 1120 Kingsley Street, Clearwater, FL 33756; email: duketieman(a aol com <mailto:duketieman(&aol.com>); Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition (Sondra Kerr, President, P.O. Box 8204, Clearwater, FL 33758). Presenter: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. • Wayne -----Original Message----- From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 4:40 PM To: Planning Subject: FW: 12/19/06 CDB Ads for Review Please review and send all changes to me by 5PM Wednesday Nov 29, 2006 Thanks Sherry L Watkins Planning Department Administrative Analyst (727) 562-4582 sherry.watkins@niyclearivater.com Sherry L Watkins Planning Department Administrative Analyst (727) 562-4582 sherry. watkins @myclearwa ter. com • -----Original Message----- From: Elmore, Nicole Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 4:28 PM To: Call, Rosemarie; Clayton, Gina; Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Harriger, Sandy;, Hollander, Gwen; Matthews, Douglas E.; Phillips, Sue; Porter, Catherine; Thompson, Neil; Watkins, Sherry Cc: Gilmore, Stephanie Subject: 12/19/06 CDB Ads for Review Attached are the ads for the 12/19/06 CDB Meeting. Please review and let me know of any changes/corrections by Thursday at 5:00 p.m. Thank you. << File: CDB12-19-06 revised 11-27-06.doc >> << File: TA 2006-09007, Ord 7725-07.Ad.doc >> << File: TA2006- 10008, ORD 7723-07.doc >> << File: Beach by Design Amendment - 12-06 ORD 7721-07.doc >> << File: Marina _District re ord 7721-07.pdf >> << File: ANX2006-10038, 1891 CR193.doc >> << File: ANX2006-10038, 1891 CR 193, MAP.pdf >> << File: ANX2006-09035, 1761 Audrey Drive.doc >> << File: ANX2006-09035, 1761 Audrey Dr, MAP.pdf >> << File: LUZ2006-08003, 2060 Evergreen Ave.doc >> << File: LUZ2006-08003, 2006 Evergreen Ave.pdf >> << File: ANX2006-09036, 1416 Regal Rd(CDB1206).doc >> << File: ANX2006-09036, 1416 Regal Rd.map.pdf >> << File: ANX2006-09037, 1236 Clarie Drive(CDB1206).int.doc >> << File: ANX2006-09037, 1236 Claire Dr.map.pdf Nicole Elmore City Clerk Specialist Office of Official Records & Legislative Services 562-4097 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 8:34 AM To: Wright, Bill Subject: 921 Lakeview Road Bill - Due to an advertising error, Case FLD2006-05032 to permit a restaurant at the above address will be continued from the November 21, 2006, Community Development Board meeting to their December 19, 2006, meeting. Wayne MEMORANDUM TO: Community Development Board FROM: Wayne M. Wells, AICP M Planning III RE: Request for Continuance FLD2006-05032 - 921 Lakeview Road DATE: November 13, 2006 • Due to an advertising error, Staff requests this item be continued to the Community Development Board Meeting on December 19, 2006. S.•IPlanning DepartmentlCD BIFLEX (FLD)IPending caseslUp for the next CDBILakeview 921 The Boiling Pot (C) -11.21.06 CDB - WWILakeview 921 Memorandum re Request for Continuance on 11.21.06 CDB.doc Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 3:51 PM To: Glenn, Tom Subject: RE: FLD2006-05032, 921 Lakeview Rd Tom - If you could come by Friday, that would be great. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: Glenn, Tom Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 6:56 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: FLD2006-05032, 921 Lakeview Rd III be at a seminar all day Thursday (today) I was out yesterday, the main problem I had was the elevation I wont be able to get my trucks in they could roll out a 4yd Dumpster to the street to a staging area. if you need to give me a call 224-7388 and at lunch I could call you back -----Original Message----- From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 1:36 PM To: Glenn, Tom Subject: FLD2006-05032, 921 Lakeview Rd Tom - Plans have been resubmitted for this project. Any way you could get by this afternoon or on Thursday morning to look at these plans to see if your conditions have been met or not? Thanks. Wayne • Wells, Wayne From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 9:27 AM To: Ready, Cky; Wells, Wayne; Reynolds, Mike; Tefft, Robert; Schodtler, John Subject: FW: resubmitted for the November 21, 2006 CDB meeting Sherry L Watkins Planning Department Administrative Analyst (727) 562-4582 sherry.watkins @myclearwater.com -----Original Message----- From: Keller, James Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 9:24 AM To: Watkins, Sherry Subject: RE: resubmitted for the November 21, 2006 CDB meeting Sherry, Here is my list. Jim Keller FYI -----Original Message----- From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:13 PM To: Buzzell, William; DRC Members; Gluski, Roberta; Hufford, Diane; Reid, Debbie; US Post Office (E-mail) Subject: resubmitted for the November 21, 2006 CDB meeting Importance: High DRC Members, Plans for the following cases have been resubmitted for the November 21, 2006 CDB meeting: ANX2006-08029 1504 Country Lane West Planner: Mike Reynolds [Keller, James] No Issues LUZ2006-08004 1980 Kings Hwy Planner: Mike Reynolds [Keller, James] No Issues ANX2006-09034 1824 Diane Drive Planner: Cky Ready [Keller, James] No Issues ANX2006-04013 1432 S Belcher Rd Planner: Cky Ready [Keller, James] No Issues ANX2006-06024 2295 McMullen Booth Rd Planner: Cky Ready [Keller, James] No Issues ANX2006-08027 1300 Highfield Drive Planner: Cky Ready [Keller, James] No Issues LUZ2006-08005 2295 McMullen Booth Rd Planner: Cky Ready [Keller, James] No Issues ANX2006-08028 2031 N Betty Lane Planner: Cky Ready [Keller, James] No Issues ANX2006-08030 1216 Claire Drive Planner: Cky Ready [Keller, James] No Issues ANX2006-09031 222 N Belcher Rd Planner: Cky Ready [Keller, James] No Issues ANX2006-09032 1240 Carol Drive Planner: Cky Ready [Keller, James] No Issues ANX2006-09033 1232 Claire Drive Planner: Cky Ready [Keller, James] No Issues DVA2006-00001 / FLD2006-05030 410 N F t Harrison Planner: Robert Tefft [Keller, James] No Issues FLD2006-08047 19400 US Highway 19 N Planner: John Schodler [Keller, James] No Issues FLD2006-06041 601 N Ft Harrison Avenue Planner: Robert Tefft [Keller, James] Not Met FLD2006-06033 706 Bayway Blvd Planner: Wayne Wells [Keller, James] No Issues FLD2006-05032 921 Lakeview Road Planner: Wayne Wells [Keller, James] No Issues 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, as we need it for the CDB mail out). Please review your comments/conditions for this case 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 10:00.am on, Wednesday, October 18, 2006 . Thank you, Sherry L Watkins Wells, Wayne OWNFAMM From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 9:13 AM To: Planning Subject: FW: resubmitted for the November 21, 2006 CDB meeting Sherry L Watkins Planning Department Administrative Analyst (727) 562-4582 sherry. wa tkins @inyclearwa ter. com -----Original Message----- From: Reid, Debbie Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 9:09 AM To: Watkins, Sherry Subject: RE: resubmitted for the November 21, 2006 CDB meeting Sherry, please see input below. Thanks! Debbie O -----Original Message----- From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:13 PM To: Buzzell, William; DRC Members; Gluski, Roberta; Hufford, Diane; Reid, Debbie; US Post Office (E-mail) Subject: resubmitted for the November 21, 2006 CDB meeting Importance: High DRC Members, Plans for the following cases have been resubmitted for the November 21, 2006 CDB meeting: ANX2006-08029 1504 Country Lane West Planner: Mike Reynolds [Reid, Debbie] Met LUZ2006-08004 1980 Kings Hwy Planner: Mike Reynolds [Reid, Debbie] Met on zoning (but would need to review any future projects on this site) ANX2006-09034 1824 Diane Drive Planner: Cky Ready [Reid, Debbie] Met ANX2006-04013 1432 S Belcher Rd ANX2006-06024 2295 McMullen Booth Rd ANX2006-08027 1300 Highfield Drive LUZ2006-08005 2295 McMullen Booth Rd review any future projects on this site) ANX2006-08028 2031 N Betty Lane ANX2006-08030 1216 Claire Drive ANX2006-09031 222 N Belcher Rd ANX2006-09032 1240 Carol Drive ANX2006-09033 1232 Claire Drive Planner: Cky Ready [Reid, Debbie] Planner: Cky Ready [Reid, Debbie] Planner: Cky Ready [Reid, Debbie] Planner: Cky Ready [Reid, Debbie] Planner: Cky Ready [Reid, Debbie] Planner: Cky Ready [Reid, Debbie] Planner: Cky Ready [Reid, Debbie] Planner: Cky Ready [Reid, Debbie] Planner: Cky Ready [Reid, Debbie] DVA2006-00001 / FLD2006-05030 410 N Ft Harrison Planner: Robert Tefft [Reid, Met Met Met Met on zoning (but would need to Met Met Met Met Met Debbie] Not met - our fees need to be paid prior to building permit and/or plat FLD2006-08047 19400 US Highway 19 N Planner: John Schodler [Reid, Debbie] Met FLD2006-06041 601 N Ft Harrison Avenue Planner: Robert Tefft [Reid, Debbie] Not met - our fees need to be paid prior to building permit and/or plat i . • FLD2006-06033 706 Bayway Blvd Planner: Wayne Wells [Reid, Debbie] Met FLD2006-05032 921 Lakeview Road Planner: Wayne Wells [Reid, Debbie] Met 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, as we need it for the CDB mail out). Please review your comments/conditions for this case 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 10:00 am on, Wednesday, October 18, 2006. Thank you, Sherry L Watkins Planning Department Administrative Analyst (727) 562-4582 shemj.watkins@mycleanvater.com 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:13 PM To: Buzzell, William; DRC Members; Gluski, Roberta; Hufford, Diane; Reid, Debbie; US Post Office (E-mail) Subject: resubmitted for the November 21, 2006 CDB meeting Importance: High DRC Members, Plans for the following cases have been resubmitted for the November 21, 2006 CDB meeting: ANX2006-08029 1504 Country Lane West Planner: Mike Reynolds LUZ2006-08004 1980 Kings Hwy Planner: Mike Reynolds ANX2006-09034 1824 Diane Drive Planner: Cky Ready ANX2006-04013 1432 S Belcher Rd Planner: Cky Ready ANX2006-06024 2295 McMullen Booth Rd Planner: Cky Ready ANX2006-08027 1300 Highfield Drive Planner: Cky Ready LUZ2006-08005 2295 McMullen Booth Rd Planner: Cky Ready ANX2006-08028 2031 N Betty Lane Planner: Cky Ready ANX2006-08030 1216 Claire Drive Planner: Cky Ready ANX2006-09031 222 N Belcher Rd Planner: Cky Ready ANX2006-09032 1240 Carol Drive Planner: Cky Ready ANX2006-09033 1232 Claire Drive Planner: Cky Ready DVA2006-00001 / FLD2006-05030 410 N Ft Harrison Planner: Robert Tefft FLD2006-08047 19400 US Highway 19 N Planner: John Schodler FLD2006-06041 601 N Ft Harrison Avenue Planner: Robert Tefft FLD2006-06033 706 Bayway Blvd Planner: Wayne Wells FLD2006-05032 921 Lakeview Road Planner: Wayne Wells 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, as we need it for the CDB mail out). Please review your comments/conditions for this case 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 10:00 am on, Wednesday, October 18, 2006 . Thank you, Sherry L Watkins Planning Department Administrative Analyst (727) 562-4582 shemj.watkins@niycleanvater.com Case Number: FLD2006 05032 - 921 LAKEVIEW RD 2.30 pm Owner(s): Dorothy B Le Blanc ' • ?' 201 S Fulton Beach Rd Fulton, Tx 78358 TELEPHONE: NE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Representative: Northside Engineering Services Inc. '?? 601 Cleveland Street Clearwater, F133755 TELEPHONE: 727-443-2869, FAX: 727-446-8036, E-MAIL: Doreen@northsideengineering.com Location: 0.246 acres located on the south side of Lakeview Road, approximately 600 feet east of South Myrtle Avenue and 50 feet west of Prospect Avenue. Atlas Page: 306A Zoning District: C, Commercial Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a restaurant in the Commercial District with a reduction to the lot width from 100 feet to 89.77 feet (south along Dempsey Street), reductions to the front (north along Lakeview Road) setback from 25 feet to 18 feet (to existing building), from 25 feet to 14 feet (to sidewalk) and from 25 feet to xx feet (to pavement), reductions to the front (south along Dempsey Street) from 25 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure) and from 25 feet to one-foot (to pavement), reductions to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to existing and proposed building), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), an increase to building height from 25 feet to 29.5 feet (to existing midpoint of the pitched roof), a reduction to the required parking from 45 spaces to 17 spaces and a deviation to allow direct access to Lakeview Road, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, with reductions to the perimeter landscape buffers along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to xx feet (to pavement), along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure) and along the east from five feet to three feet (to existing and proposed building), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to xx percent and a reduction to the foundation landscape area from five feet wide to zero feet wide, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Restaurants Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Association(s): Clearwater, F133758 P O Box 8204 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Neighborhood South Clearwater Citizens For Progr Association(s): Clearwater, F133756 1120 Kingsley St. TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: duketieman@aol.com Neighborhood North Greenwood Association, Inc. Association(s): Clearwater, F133755 1201 Douglas Road TELEPHONE: 560-4382, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: WADENWADE@AOL.COM Neighborhood Kings Hwy Neighboorhood Crime Watch Association(s): Clearwater, F133756 1435 Woodbine Street 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, Tom Glenn Applicant: Doreen Williams, Mark LeBlanc The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 5, 2006 - Page 39 Prior to Building *t: • 1. Any new concrete driveway apron(s) constructed within the right-of-way shall be a minimum 6" thick fibrous concrete, and a minimum 3000 psi with 6" x 6" / 10 x 10 w.w.f. [sidewalks shall not be constructed within this apron area(s)]. Expansion joint will be required along the existing curb where applicable. ACKNOWLEDGED 2. Delete dumpster detail and replace with City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards detail # 701. Prior to CO: 3. Bring all substandard sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project up to standard, including A.D.A. (Truncated domes per D.O.T. Index #304.) ACKNOWLEDGED General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Environmental: Provide cross section for "bubbler box". Fire: 1 . No Issues: Note- During building stage items to be addressed, Door swing to remote exit opens the wrong direction. Seperation between 1 st floor and 2nd floor also to be addressed. Harbor Master: No issues. Legal: I . No issues. Land Resources: 1 . Relocate the bubbler outside of the canopy of the 18" oak tree. If a directional swale is needed insure that it is directed away from the canopy. Revise prior to CDB. Landscaping: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 5, 2006 - Page 40 1 . 9/25/06 - WW • • Sheet C1.1 still indicates 5,522 square feet of VUA provided, which means a minimum of 552 square feet of interior landscape area must be provided. Sheet C1.1 indictes 560 square feet of interior landscape area provided (10.1 % of VUA). However, Sheet C2.1 indicates areas adjacent to Lakeview Road and Dempsey Street being calculated toward interior landscape area. These areas are within the perimeter buffers, which means these areas cannot be counted toward interior landscape area. Only that area adjacent to the west side of the building can be counted. Revise calculations on Sheet C1.1. If less than 10 % of VUA, must either revise the plans to provide the required amount or include a reduction as part of the Comprehensive Landscape Program, with complete justification for such reduction. 7/26/06 - WW Sheet C1.1 - Site Data table indicates 5,522 square feet of paved vehicular use area (VUA) proposed. Code requires for sites with 4,000 square feet or more of paved vehicular use area to have 10 percent interior landscaping. Revise the "Required" for "Parking Lot Interior Landscaping" to indicate 10% of VUA. Calculate the "Proposed" "Parking Lot Interior Landscaping" and indicate the square footage and percentage of VUA. If less than 10 % of VUA, must either revise the plans to provide the required amount or include a reduction as part of the Comprehensive Landscape Program, with complete justification for such reduction. 2. 9/25/06 - WW Plan does not meet Code requirements for having a planting area of at least five feet in width and the retention pond location encroaches into the 7.5-foot area of the perimeter buffer (total 15 feet required perimeter buffer width along Lakeview Road), leaving insufficient area for required landscaping in the buffer. Unless redesigned to meet Code requirements, need to include in the request these reductions to the landscape buffer due to the pond design as part of the Comprehensive Landscape Program. Staff does not support the reductions. 7/25/06 - WW Sheet C3.1 - There is no cross section of the pond submitted, therefore it is unclear of the proposed slope of the bank. Provide a north/south and an east/west cross section of the pond and show all required safety railings (not shown on plan). Top of bank is very close to the front property line. Code requires a 15-foot perimeter buffer along the north property line, which is not being met. Section 3-1202.D.2 requires the stormwater retention areas not exceed 50% of the buffer area (7.5 feet), the front slope not to exceed a slope of 4:1 or flatter, all required shrub plantings to not be more than six-inches below the top of bank and the buffer width be at least five feet in width. Proposal does not meet these requirements. Revise. 3 . 9/25/06 & 7/26/06 - WW The Comprehensive Landscape Program needs to enumerate the reductions to those requirements not being met and needs to provide detailed justification for the reductions. The landscape reductions are substantial and inadequate room on the site is available to "make up" or exceed the requirements in other areas on-site. Additionally, many of the landscape areas proposed are inadequate to plant the landscape materials specified. The landscape plan presented is not demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted under the minimum landscape standards. 4. 9/25/06 - WW Section A-A on Sheet C3.1 indicates a one-foot wide area between the retention pond vertical wall and the sidewalk adjacent to the building. Sheet L1.1 does not indicate what material is proposed to be placed within this area (sod or just mulch?). While insufficient for the planting of shrubs, consider planting vines that would grow to cover a handrail (handrail could be designed to accommodate vines). 7/25/06 - WW Sheet L1.1 - There is at best one foot between the vertical walls of the retention pond and the edge of pavement (west side) and the sidewalk adjacent to the building (south side). The vertical wall of the retention pond will be at least 4-8 inches thick, leaving insufficient room to plant 3-gallon plants, provide irrigation and mulch. Revise. 5 . 9/25/06 - WW Reductions included in the Comprehensive Landscape Program needs to include the reduction to the landscape buffer along Lakeview Road. 7/26/06 - WW Plans do not indicate the provision of foundation landscaping in accordance with Section 3-1202.E.2. This requirement applies to both Lakeview Road and Dempsey Street sides. Revise to provide. Alternately, need to include the reduction in the request and address it with full justification as part of the Comprehensive Landscape Program through its criteria. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 5, 2006 - Page 41 6. 9/25/06 - WW 0 • Applicant has provided on the plans "historical period planters" as an alternative, without providing any details as to these proposed planters, as to what they look like, the purpose they would represent (historical to what?), or any other photos or drawings as to appearance and the relationship to the existing building. Response sheet to this comment is incomplete as to its statement as how the applicant is responding to the below comment. 7/25/06 - WW Existing "walk" on the north side of the building out to Lakeview Road was/is the existing driveway. Proposal is to remove that portion of the driveway between the curb and sidewalk. This driveway/"walk" is over nine feet in width, which is excessive, especially in light of the location of provided parking. Its width was appropriate for its prior usage, but not appropriate for this change of use. Reduce in width to no more than six feet. 7. Sheet Ll.I - Lot width along Dempsey Street is 89.77 feet. Perimeter buffer along Dempsey Street requires three shade trees. Since there are overhead utility lines along Dempsey Street, only accent trees can be planted (two accent trees = one shade tree). Revise number of trees along Dempsey Street. 8 . Sheet L1.1 - Location of parking west of the building has been changed, yet the landscaping plan is not coordinated with the location of paved or concrete surfaces. 9. Sheet L1.1 - Ensure proposed trees are not being planted under the canopy of existing trees (magnolia tree on west side, as an example). 10. A live oak tree (shade tree) is proposed to be planted on the west side of the building, within 10 feet of the building. After consultation with a certified arborist, it is recommended to replace the live oak with a magnolia. This will better provide for tree root and limb growth. 11 . Sheet L1.1 - Proposed trees along the west and south are proposed to be located under the canopy of existing abutting trees. Relocate from under existing canopies. Parks and Recreation: 1 . No issues - modifications to existing building for restaurant. Stormwater: 1 . No Issues. Solid Waste: I . The slope/grade at rear of the property is too high/great for access to the dumpster and enclosure by the truck. Revise prior to CDB. 2. The dumpster enclosure needs to be constructed to City specifications. Revise prior to CDB. 9-12-06 Dumpster enclosure needs to be to city specifications has the elevation been revised? Traffic Engineering: 1 , 1. There shall be no objects in the sight triangle over the City's acceptable vertical height criteria. Remove parking space closest to the stop sign to provide acceptable sight visibility for exiting motorist(s). (Community Development Code, Section 3-904). 2. The City shall not accept a compact car parking space. 3. All parking shall be on-site. Vehicles shall not park along the rights-of-way of Lakeview Road and Dempsey Street. Provide a letter acknowledging this requirement. 4. There shall be a total of six (6) end-of-roadway markers and three (3) poles. Poles must be on the asphalt driveway and equally spaced apart. Place two of the signs back to back on one pole thereby facing both parking lot and Dempsey Street. All of the above to be addressed prior to CDB. The following to be addressed prior to building permit: 1. Install truncated domes where ADA ramps exists i.e. sidewalks. 2. Obtain a County right of way permit for work along County roadway. General Note(s): 1) Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.). 2) DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Planning: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 5, 2006 - Page 42 1 . 9/25/06 - WW . • Comment below is still applicable. Additionally, the angle of the dumpster will preclude the truck from accessing the dumpster in the enclosure and its location is at the bend in the road of Dempsey Street, which also creates issues. 7/27/06 - WW There are overhead utilities within the right-of-way of Dempsey Street adjacent to the subject property. These overhead utilities impair the ability of Solid Waste from accessing and dumping the proposed dumpster. 2. 9/25/06 - WW Cannot include/shade the perimeter buffers along Lakeview Road and Dempsey Street as interior landscape area. Revise. 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 - WW Site plan must depict by shading or crosshatching all required parking lot interior landscaped areas. 3 . 9/25/06 - WW Existing electrical service to the building is overhead at the northwest corner of the building. Include as a condition that this overhead service must be revised to underground if approved by the CDB. 7/27/06 - WW All on-site utilities must be underground. Note such on Sheet C3.1. Staff notes that electric service is presently overhead at the front of the property. This will need to be revised. 4. 9/25/06 & 7/27/06 - WW A Commercial Lease has been submitted between the applicant and the property owner of Lot 17. This Lease provides for a time period of 15 years, with the ability for an additional five years. Any approval of this request by the CDB will be conditioned on the continued possession of Lot 17 with its parking and landscaping improvements for the restaurant and the failure to have such parking and landscaping improvements available and assignable to this restaurant will require the closure of the restaurant, until such time as required parking (in location[s] approved by the City) is procured. This shall additionally apply should the Lessee default on the lease and the Lessor takes back possession of the parking and landscaping improvements thereon. 5 . 9/25/06 - WW Include in any approval by CDB a prohibition for a sidewalk cafe due to inadequate parking. 7/25/06 - WW Due to State smoking laws, there will be no smoking indoors. Unclear if there is any provision of any area where patrons can sit and eat outdoors (sidewalk cafe) and/or sit to smoke. Explain/show any sidewalk cafe seating area or smoker seating area. Due to inadequate provided parking, staff will not support any sidewalk cafe for additional seating where patrons can eat/drink. 6. 9/25/06 - WW Include a condition regarding signage on any approval by CDB. Any freestanding sign should be a monument-style sign a maximum of six feet high, finished to be compatible with the building material and color. Attached signage must meet Code requirements. 7/27/06 - WW While signage is not being approved through this application, the north building elevation indicates attached signage. Code provisions permit one attached sign per business with the sign area not to exceed one square foot per 100 square feet of building facade facing the street frontage to which the sign is to be attached or 24 square feet, whichever is less. However, a minimum of 20 square feet is permitted. It is noted that it appears that the sign shown exceeds what is permitted by Code under the above minimum standards. Alternately, a Comprehensive Sign Program application may be submitted, complying with the provisions of Section 3-1807. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 5, 2006 - Page 43 7/26/06 - WW . • Parking Demand Study - a. First paragraph - Square footage of the building is incorrect. The ground floor, per the Site Data table on Sheet C1.1, indicates the first floor is 1,996 square feet and you have indicated that the second floor is 975 square feet, which is a total of 2,971 square feet. Additionally, if the first floor is 1,996 square feet, then the 957 and 958 square feet indicated for the first floor does not add up to 1,996 square feet. Unclear why "office" is in quotation marks. Explain/expound. 9/25/06 - WW - Square footages on the first floor still do not add up to 1,996 square feet. Revise. b. Second paragraph - Based on the total square footage indicated in "a" above, 45 spaces are required. 9/25/06 - WW - MET. c. Third paragraph - There has been no floor plan submitted to verify any of the square footages indicated as to "serving area" versus "kitchen/toilet area". You have previously indicated that there are 60 seats intended in the restaurant. Even if in your analysis you looked for comparitive purposes at what potentially other development codes may require based on a per seat basis plus per employee basis (such as 1/3 seats and 1/2 employees), based on your number of seats and employees a minimum of 22 spaces would be required. There is no mention of employees (including the owners) other than kitchen help (such as servers, greeters, etc.). The second floor is still a concern for the "use" of the property. You have indicated it would be the "office" for the restaurant, where there would be no storage included on the second floor. You have also indicated that potentially only 50 square feet would be necessary for the "office" use. This leaves over 900 square feet of the second floor unaccounted for as to "any" use. There has not been submitted any information as to how this unaccounted, substantial square footage area will be used or not used. 9/25/06 - WW - Staff is still not convinced on the findings of the parking demand study. There is no guarantee that four individuals will come in one car to this restaurant, nor can it be mandated. Tables of four can also be filed by four individuals, each driving their own vehicle, or by two couples, both driving their own vehicles. The second floor, with its large square footage is still a concern. Also of concern is its non-relationship to the restaurant, since its sole access is not internally to the restaurant, but rather externally accessed only, which again raises the question of being accessory. It appears that this second floor has been and could be used as a dwelling. The two restaurant examples do not appear too applicable, especially Tin Can Alley, which receives alot of walk-up traffic. This proposed restaurant is not located in the downtown, where it may be expected patrons walk from places of business and from parking garages to restaurants. It is unknown if the Candy Factory has excess parking for use for this restaurant. It is also questionable how, or if, valet parking would work with this site, since there is no on-site "drop off' area for valet service. The parking lot design is a deadend situation. Valet would necessarily have to occur within the right-of-way, which is not a safe nor acceptable situation, especially given this location on a bend of Lakeview Road. On-street parking within 700 feet of this property may not work, as this is not a densely populated area (such as downtown or the beach) where parking away from an establishment and walking to it is customary. d. Fourth paragraph - Your research into other restaurants is inadequate as it does not evaluate similar type restaurants from the aspect of location. Three of the restaurants listed are in the downtown area, which caters to a substantial walk-in traffic, where the characteristics are different than this proposed restaurant which will require a substantial amount of vehicular traffic. The location of this proposed restaurant, dependent upon vehicular traffic for customers to travel to this site, is an important factor when analyzing parking demand and the adequacy (or inadequacy) of available parking. If there is a similar restaurant where parking data is available, it may be used if it is properly documented. If data is not available, then the ITE Trip Generation manual should be used to generate parking demand figures. This calculation may either be completed using square footage or the number of seats as the independent variable. The ITE manual will have more than one restaurant type that will need to be evaluated so that the proper classification is used to generate the traffic numbers. 9/25/06 - WW - See discussion above under "c". Also, it must be determined that this proposed restaurant correctly falls under a "quality restaurant" category. e. Fifth - seventh paragraphs - Inadequate justification has been submitted that adequate parking is being provided on-site and that the use, with its provided parking, will not create adverse effects on the surrounding neighborhood through unapproved parking within the rights-of-way or on other parcels. With the parking that is being provided (representing only 38% of the required amount of parking) and the substantial setback reductions requested, and even though a restaurant is a "permitted" use, this site does not appear to be adequate for the intended use. 9/25/06 - WW - Same comment applicable. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 5, 2006 - Page 44 £ Parking Demand'Ody needs to be revised, but prior to revision a oScoping Meeting must be held with Traffic and Planning to discuss and agree upon the parameters of the study. The study should be prepared, dated and signed by an expert in the field. This may be a properly qualified planner or engineer. 9/25/06 - WW - Scoping meeting not done. 9/25/06 - WW Insufficient areas are proposed to adequately landscape the site to mitigate impacts on the adjacent detached dwellings to the south. Other less intense uses could also be a catalyst for redevelopment, but with fewer negative impacts. Proposal may inappropriately entice other businesses to propose redevelopment with inadequate setbacks and landscaping, which will not upgrade the area. 7/26/06 - WW Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #4 - Expound on justification regarding HOW this proposal will not have substantial detrimental effects on adjoining properties, especially residential. Reduction of setacks, to the extent as proposed under this proposal, prevents any meaningful compliance with landscape requirements. Reduction to required parking represents the provision of only 38% of the required parking. HOW will all needed parking be accommodated on-site, such that there will be no unapproved off-site parking, either in the rights-of-way or on other parcels? 9/25/06 - WW The re-use of this structure may be with the most intense use (restaurant) from a required parking standpoint, where inadequate land area and land configuration squeezes the required improvements onto the site, resulting in inadequate setbacks and resultant inadequate landscape area to mitigate negative impacts. A lesser intense use would have reduced parking demand. The location of the building is what it is, but the proposed parking is a different situation. 7/26/06 - WW Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 - Response is inadequate. Provide a detailed response as to HOW the requested reductions are necessary and WHY Code requirements cannot be met, especially with regard to setbacks and provided parking. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 5, 2006 - Page 45 10. 7/26/06 - WW 0 • Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6 - Provide a detailed justification as part of the response as to HOW 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 (need to include in the response for each of the below all of the requested reductions): 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; 9/25/06 - WW - While the use is a permitted use, the use is a very intense use and the land area available or contemplated for its redevelopment is inadequate to meet its needs. The proposal does not represent an improvement of the surrounding properties, and would be viewed as setting an unnecessary precident for this neighborhood of inadequate area to meet the needs of the proposed use without negative impacts on the neighborhood. b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; (Note: There are no design guidelines for this area, but your response doesn't say anything). 9/25/06 - WW - MET. c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; (Note: The proposed restaurant represents a much more intense use than what has previously been on the property in recent years.) 9/25/06 - WW - The re-use of this building is appropriate, but is questionable with the proposed intense use of a restaurant. Staff disagrees that the intensity of use will not change as indicated. The established character of the commercial properties is of low intensity, which reflects its location in the City as a low intensity use 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.; (Note: The rear of the building appears as an inappropriate addition due to the nature of the exterior appearance proposed and the potential for inappropriat noise impacts to the detached dwellings to the south). - Variety in materials, colors and textures; - Distinctive fenestration patterns; - Building stepbacks; and (Note: There is a building addition to the rear of the building that is not discussed as to setbacks.) - Distinctive roofs forms. 9/25/06 - WW - MET. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. (Note: Staff disagrees that "adequate" buffers are being provided. The buffers provided represent substantial reductions from that required on all sides of the property, which does not allow for any enhanced landscape design.) 9/25/06 - WW - Same comments apply. 11 . 9/25/06 - WW Unfortunately, this may be a "historic" property, but is not currently protected by City Code. The site is not on any register of historic places nor has it been inventoried for such inclusion. 7/26/06 - WW Response to General Applicability criteria #5 - Explain in detail HOW the proposed restaurant is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. 12. 9/25/06 - WW Sole access to this site is from Lakeview Road (not primary access). See other comments regarding valet parking and on-street parking within 700 feet. 7/26/06 - WW Response to General Applicability criteria #4 - With a reduction to required parking from 45 to 17 spaces, representing the provision of only 38% of the required parking, need to expound on HOW parking will not create traffic issues to the neighborhood through unapproved parking either on-street or on other properties. Need to address the issue of deliveries and truck traffic (where it will occur - appears it will be on Dempsey Street) and the effect on the neighborhood, especially the dwellings to the south. Either sufficient/adequate parking is being provided on-site now or, if insufficient/inadequate parking is available on-site, then additional parking in approved off-site locations in close proximity to this site needs to be obtained now as part of this application (through recordable easements for shared parking). Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 5, 2006 - Page 46 13. 9/25/06 - WW Comments are still applicable. Suggest removing the last sentence. 7/26/06 - WW Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #2 - a. With regard to the general purposes of the Code, provide responses to Section 1-103 of the Code. b. With regard to the intent and purpose of the Commercial District, HOW will the proposed restaurant "provide the citizens of the City of Clearwater with convenient access to goods and services throughout the city without adversely impacting the integrity of residential neighborhoods, diminishing the scenic quality of the city or negatively impacting the safe and efficient movement of people and things within the City of Clearwater," especially in light of requested reductions to setbacks, landscaping and parking. 14. 9/25/06 & 7/26/06 - WW Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #3 - Unclear how setback reductions will not affect the surrounding properties. Reduction of setacks, to the extent as proposed under this proposal, prevents any meaningful compliance with landscape requirements. 15. 9/25/06 - WW Unclear how this proposed restaurant, with its four employees (including the owners) represents a "significant economic contributor... by creating jobs." See other comments regarding "historic' significance and protection. Unclear of the statement that this restaurant would bring "visitors from other towns" if it to be a neighborhood restaurant (?). 7/26/06 - WW Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #5 - Response is inadequate. Provide a detailed response as to HOW the proposal meets the criteria. Provide detailed justification as to HOW the proposed use, with its reductions to setbacks and parking, is compatible with adjacent land uses and will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood. Additionally, provide a detailed response demonstrating compliance with ONE OR MORE of the following objectives (some are obviously not applicable, such as d, a and f; you have responded to a; provide a response that includes b and c): 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. 16. Sheet C2.1 - Provide a dimension from the Lakeview Road property line to the closest corner of the parking lot (include this dimension as part of the requested reductions). 17. South elevation - Existing sliding door is shown to remain. This sliding door also has a separate "person" door within the slider. Will this sliding door be opened during the restaurant operation (for ventilation, etc.)? Based on site inspection, this sliding door is not an appealing feature. Any plans to upgrade its appearance? 18. Sheet C2.1 - City Codes do not provide for "compact car" parking. The northernmost space on the east parking row next to Lakeview Road cannot be so dedicated or restricted. Other: No Comments Notes: While this application is sufficient for the CDB, with the revisions requested, the proposal will not be supported by Staff. Submit revised plans and application package no later than noon on 10/12/06 for review by CDB on 11/21/06. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 5, 2006 - Page 47 0 0 a tryi _ tt Ail -- dodo F a. 'Olt ?z. w , Aw Ur ;e . / _ Jb. ?t s ? } • s 4 P 0 11.05 arr. Case Number: FLD2006-05032 -- 921 LAKEVIEW RD s Pp.&( Owner(s): Dorothy B Le Blanc 201 S Fulton Beach Rd Fulton, Tx 78358 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email 9.s.ot* DRc Representative: Northside Engineering Services Inc. 601 Cleveland Street G040&ok Clearwater, F133755 TELEPHONE: 727-443-2869, FAX: 727-446-8036, E-MAIL: Doreen@northsideengineering.com Location: 0.246 acres located on the south side of Lakeview Road, approximately 600 feet east of South Myrtle Avenue and 50 feet west of Prospect Avenue. Atlas Page: 306A Zoning District: C, Commercial Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a restaurant in the Commercial District with a reduction to the lot width from 100 feet to 89.77 feet (south along Dempsey Street), reductions to the front (north along Lakeview Road) setback from 25 feet to 18 feet (to existing building), from 25 feet to 14 feet (to sidewalk) and from 25 feet to two feet (to pavement), reductions to the front (south along Dempsey Street) from 25 feet to 16 feet (to building), from 25 feet to six feet (to dumpster enclosure) and from 25 feet to one-foot (to pavement), reductions to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to existing and proposed building and to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to two feet (to pavement), an increase to building height from 25 feet to 29.5 feet (to existing midpoint of the pitched roof), a reduction to the required parking from 43 spaces to 17 spaces and a deviation to allow direct access to Lakeview Road, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, with reductions to the landscape buffers along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to two feet (to pavement), along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 10 feet to six feet (to dumpster enclosure), along the east from five feet to three feet (existing and proposed building and dumpster enclosure) and along the west from five feet to two feet (to pavement), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to xx percent and a reduction to the foundation landscape area from five feet wide to zero feet wide, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Restaurants Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Association(s): Clearwater, F133758 P O Box 8204 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Neighborhood North Greenwood Association, Inc. Association(s): Clearwater, F133755 1201 Douglas Road TELEPHONE: 560-4382, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: WADENWADE@AOL.COM Neighborhood Kings Hwy Neighboorhood Crime Watch Association(s): Clearwater, F133756 1435 Woodbine Street 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, Tom Glenn Applicant: Doreen Williams, Mark LeBlanc The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, August 3, 2006 - Page 18 1. Show required grease uired • trap location on the plan. The above to be addressed prior to CDB. Prior to CO: 1. Bring all substandard sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project up to standard, including A.D.A. (Truncated domes per D.O.T. Index #304.) The following to be addressed prior to building permit: 1. Any new concrete driveway apron(s) constructed within the right-of-way shall be a minimum 6" thick fibrous concrete, and a minimum 3000 psi with 6" x 6" / 10 x 10 w.w.f. [sidewalks shall not be constructed within this apron area(s)]. Expansion joint will be required along the existing curb where applicable. 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. Dry Detention systems shall be designed with a a grassed bottom and side slopes no steeper than 4:1. Provide cross-section for the pond(s). 2. In accordance with the City Storm Drainage Design Criteria, Page 7, vertical walls in detention ponds may only be approved due to reason of undue hardship to the developer. Provide description of the hardship that necessitates vertical walls for this project. Fire: No issues. Harbor Master: 1 . No issues. Legal: 1 . No issues. Land Resources: I , All trees, with their actual canopies, on and within 25' of the property must be shown on all civil and landscape site plans. Provide prior to CDB. Landscaping: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, August 3, 2006 - Page 19 1 . Sheet C2.1, C3.1 an L1.1 - Code requires upright curbing for the protection of landscape areas. Only that landscape area adjacent to the building has been indicated to be curbed. Revise to show curbing of all areas along north edge of parking spaces adjacent to Lakeview Road and along southern edge of pavement adjacent to Dempsey Street. 2. Existing "walk" on the north side of the building out to Lakeview Road was/is the existing driveway. Proposal is to remove that portion of the driveway between the curb and sidewalk. This driveway/"walk" is over nine feet in width, which is excessive, especially in light of the location of provided parking. Its width was appropriate for its prior usage, but not appropriate for this change of use. Reduce in width to no more than six feet. 3. Sheet C3.1 - There is no cross section of the pond submitted, therefore it is unclear of the proposed slope of the bank. Provide a north/south and an east/west cross section of the pond and show all required safety railings (not shown on plan). Top of bank is very close to the front property line. Code requires a 15-foot perimeter buffer along the north property line, which is not being met. Section 3-1202.D.2 requires the stormwater retention areas not exceed 50% of the buffer area (7.5 feet), the front slope not to exceed a slope of 4:1 or flatter, all required shrub plantings to not be more than six-inches below the top of bank and the buffer width be at least five feet in width. Proposal does not meet these requirements. Revise. 4. Sheet L 1.1 - There is at best one foot between the vertical walls of the retention pond and the edge of pavement (west side) and the sidewalk adjacent to the building (south side). The vertical wall of the retention pond will be at least 4-8 inches thick, leaving insufficient room to plant 3-gallon plants, provide irrigation and mulch. Revise. 5 . Sheet L 1.1 - There appears one-foot or less from top of bank of the retention pond to the front property line. Within this area, or even down into the pond, star jasmine and yew podocarpus shrubs are planned. No cross-section of the pond was submitted to see the proposed slope of the pond bank. There is insufficient area to plant these shrubs. Section 3-1202.D.2 requires a minimum five-foot wide buffer. Revise. 6. A magnolia tree and a live oak tree, both shade trees, are proposed to be planted on the west side of the building. Both trees are proposed within 10 feet of the building. After consultation with a certified arborist, it is recommended to move the magnolia to the location shown for the live oak and replace the magnolia location with two accent trees. This will better provide for tree root and limb growth. 7. Sheet C1.1 - Site Data table indicates 5,522 square feet of paved vehicular use area (VUA) proposed. Code requires for sites with 4,000 square feet or more of paved vehicular use area to have 10 percent interior landscaping. Revise the "Required" for "Parking Lot Interior Landscaping" to indicate 10% of VUA. Calculate the "Proposed" "Parking Lot Interior Landscaping" and indicate the square footage and percentage of VUA. If less than 10 % of VUA, must either revise the plans to provide the required amount or include a reduction as part of the Comprehensive Landscape Program, with complete justification for such reduction. 8. The Comprehensive Landscape Program needs to enumerate the reductions to those requirements not being met and needs to provide detailed justification for the reductions. The landscape reductions are substantial and inadequate room on the site is available to "make up" or exceed the requirements in other areas on-site. Additionally, many of the landscape areas proposed are inadequate to plant the landscape materials specified. The landscape plan presented is not demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted under the minimum landscape standards. 9. Plans do not indicate the provision of foundation landscaping in accordance with Section 3-1202.E.2. This requirement applies to both Lakeview Road and Dempsey Street sides. Revise to provide. Alternately, need to include the reduction in the request and address it with full justification as part of the Comprehensive Landscape Program through its criteria. 10. Sheet Ll.1 - There are overhead utilities within the right-of-way of Dempsey Street adjacent to this property. A live oak tree is proposed adjacent to Dempsey Street. Shade trees should not be planted within 20 feet of overhead utility lines. Change out to accent trees (two accent trees = one shade tree). 11 . Plans indicate only three feet to the pavement from the front property line of Lakeview Road. With required curbing reducing this to 2.5 feet in width, based on the landscape plants specified, there is inadequate room to plant the shrubs as specified. Parks and Recreation: I . No issues - modifications to existing building for restaurant. Stormwater: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, August 3, 2006 - Page 20 Prior to CDB the following shall be addressed: • 1. The plan needs to clarify the outfall pipe discharge for the retention pond. The City storm atlas shows no existing ditch or drainage easement where the pipe discharges. Drainage cannot drain onto private property without an easement whether private or dedicated to the city. 2. The Grading Plan, Sheet C3.1, indicates an elevation (El. 9.1) at the northeast corner of the northernmost parking space lower than the elevation of the lot at its discharge onto the splash pad in the retention pond (El. 9.20). Revise Grading Plan such that the low point in the parking pot is adjacent the splash pad. Prior to issuance of a building permit the following requirements are to be met: 1) Provide a copy of the approved SWFWMD permit. 2) Make payment-in-lieu of attenuation. Solid Waste: 1 , The dumpster enclosure needs to be constructed to City specifications. Revise prior to CDB. 2. The slope/grade at rear of the property is too high/great for access to the dumpster and enclosure by the truck. Revise prior to CDB. Traffic Engineering: 1 . 1. Show 20' x 20' sight visibility triangles at the driveway. There shall be no objects in the sight triangle over the City's acceptable vertical height criteria. The parking space closest to the stop sign shall be removed to provide acceptable sight distance. (Community Development Code, Section 3-904). 2. The three parking spaces behind the building are not oriented properly with the traffic flow in the drive aisle. Unless they can be redesigned at 90-degrees to the drive aisle or designated as employee parking, the spaces shall be removed. (Community Development Code Section 3-1402.) 3. All parking shall be on-site. Vehicles shall not park along the rights-of-way of Lakeview Road and Dempsey Street. Provide a letter acknowledging this requirement. 4. Install three (3) end-of-roadway markers adjacent to Dempsey Street in place of the "Do Not Enter" signs. All of the above to be addressed prior to CDB. The following to be addressed prior to building permit: 1. Install truncated domes where ADA ramps exists i.e. sidewalks. 2. Obtain a County right of way permit for work along County roadway. 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, August 3, 2006 - Page 21 1 . 6/7/06 & 5/31/06 # • Site plan must depict by shading or crosshatching all required parking lot interior landscaped areas. 2. 6/7/06 - WW Need to show required screening. 5/31/06 - WW Site plan must show or indicate the location of outside mechanical equipment and all required screening. 3 . Sheet C1.1 - The site data indicates that the building coverage is 1,996 square feet. The Parking Demand Study indicates the second floor is 975 square feet. Based on this, the gross floor area should seem to add up to 2,971 square feet. The existing and proposed gross floor area in the site data table indicates 3,992 square feet, which is inconsistent with the above. Recalculate and revise. 4 . Sheet C1.1 - Based on 1,996 sqaure feet on the first floor and 975 square feet on the second floor, or a total gross floor area (GFA) of 2,971 square feet, and a parking requirement of 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet GFA, a total of 45 parking spaces is required (not 43 as indicated in the "Required" column of the Site Data table). Revise. 5. Sheet C1.1 - Based on information available in our computer files, the last known use of this property was four apartments and accessory storage. In the Site Data table, the "Existing" "Usage" indicates "retail w/ apartments". Revise. 6. Sheet C2.1 - Add the building dimensions of the existing building on the plan. 7 . Sheet C2.1 - Plan indicates the dumpster area to be 14'x15'. Show the actual dumpster enclosure on the plan, with the dimensions of the enclosure, gates and the dimensions to the property lines. The exterior of the dumpster must have the same finish and color as the main building. Revise. 8 . Sheets C2.1, C3.1 and L1.1 - Plan indicates the existing concrete slab of what has been demolished as "ex. concrete to remain". Unclear why the concrete between the parking spaces and the delivery and dumpster area cannot be removed and landscaped. Revise and/or explain. 9. Sheets C2.1, C3.1 and L1.1 - Revise on south side Lakeview Road to Dempsey Street. 10. Sheets C2.1, C3.1 and L1.1 - Plan indicates a "new conc. pad" on the east side of the building, which is apparently for an air condenser (according to the building elevations). The building at that location is only 3.1 feet from the property line. Unclear how an an air condenser will be able to fit within this area and be screened from view in accordance with Section 3-201.D.1 and .2 and not interfere with its proper operation and/or maintenance. Show screening and explain compliance with these sections. Alternately, relocate the air condensing unit. 11 . Due to State smoking laws, there will be no smoking indoors. Unclear if there is any provision of any area where patrons can sit and eat outdoors (sidewalk cafe) and/or sit to smoke. Explain/show any sidewalk cafe seating area or smoker seating area. Due to inadequate provided :parking, staff will not support any sidewalk cafe for additional seating where patrons can eat/drink. 12. Plan indicates a "delivery area" on the south side of the building. Explain what is meant by "delivery." Where will delivery trucks park while making a delivery? Plan needs to show how the delivery area is accessed. Since the "delivery area" is on the south side, it would appear that deliveries will be made on the south side of the property (within Dempsey Street), based on the southern building elevation. Concerned with the creation of noise and traffic issues with the residential uses south of Dempsey Street, as well as the curvature of the roadway at this location. It is also noted that Dempsey Street to the east has two medians within the center of the roadway that may impede delivery truck traffic. 13. South building elevation indicates a proposed walk-in cooler and freezer that is not indicated on the site plans. This expands the floor area (GFA). Revise the site plans to show the cooler/freezer or relocate the cooler/freezer inside the existing building and revise the proposed site data if it remains in its present proposed location outside the existing building. 14. Building elevations - Unclear of the color of the facia, door and window frames, pediment on the front of the building, metal roof, columns for the "delivery area", etc. Indicate on elevations. 15. South building elevation appears to show either a wall with a door or an iron gate with a door west of the proposed cooler/freezer. Provide greater detail and appearance of this side. 16. East and west elevations - Chain link fencing is shown on the sides of the "delivery area". Code does not permit the use of chain link fencing within the front setback. Revise outside material for this "delivery area" (wrought iron-type grill work acceptable). 17. Building elevations - Provide a height dimension from grade to the midpoint of the pitched roof. This dimension needs to also be inserted/corrected in the existing and proposed height in the Site Data table on Sheet C1.1. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, August 3, 2006 - Page 22 18 . Description of Request - 0 a. Based on information available in our computer files, the last known use of this property was four apartments and accessory storage. Revise from "retail space with apartments above" to "four apartments and accessory storage." b. Revise requested reductions to that listed above by Staff. 19. Response to General Applicability criteria #1 - a. Unclear HOW it "will remain to scale, bulk coverage and density." b. How will the conversion to a restaurant restore the building back to its historic setting in character. Expound. Describe "its historic setting." c. With all of the reductions requested, HOW will the proposal be "in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties"? Describe in detail. 20. Response to General Applicability criteria #4 - With a reduction to required parking from 45 to 17 spaces, representing the provision of only 38% of the required parking, need to expound on HOW parking will not create traffic issues to the neighborhood through unapproved parking either on-street or on other properties. Need to address the issue of deliveries and truck traffic (where it will occur - appears it will be on Dempsey Street) and the effect on the neighborhood, especially the dwellings to the south. Either sufficient/adequate parking is being provided on-site now or, if insufficient/inadequate parking is available on-site, then additional parking in approved off-site locations in close proximity to this site needs to be obtained now as part of this application (through recordable easements for shared parking). 21 . Response to General Applicability criteria #5 - Explain in detail HOW the proposed restaurant is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. 22. Response to General Applicability criteria #6 - With regard to the hours of operation, explain the statement that the hours are "in line with other restaurants." Which restaurants (staff is unaware of other restaurants in close proximity to this location where such impacts could be compared)? What are their hours of operation? How are the proposed hours of operation not going to have any adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, especially residential uses to the south? 23 . Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 - Response is inadequate. Provide a detailed response as to HOW the requested reductions are necessary and WHY Code requirements cannot be met, especially with regard to setbacks and provided parking. 24. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #2 - a. With regard to the general purposes of the Code, provide responses to Section 1-103 of the Code. b. With regard to the intent and purpose of the Commercial District, HOW will the proposed restaurant "provide the citizens of the City of Clearwater with convenient access to goods and services throughout the city without adversely impacting the integrity of residential neighborhoods, diminishing the scenic quality of the city or negatively impacting the safe and efficient movement of people and things within the City of Clearwater," especially in light of requested reductions to setbacks, landscaping and parking. 25 . Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #3 - Unclear how setback reductions will not affect the surrounding properties. Reduction of setacks, to the extent as proposed under this proposal, prevents any meaningful compliance with landscape requirements. 26. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #4 - Expound on justification regarding HOW this proposal will not have substantial detrimental effects on adjoining properties, especially residential. Reduction of setacks, to the extent as proposed under this proposal, prevents any meaningful compliance with landscape requirements. Reduction to required parking represents the provision of only 38% of the required parking. HOW will all needed parking be accommodated on-site, such that there will be no unapproved off-site parking, either in the rights-of-way or on other parcels? Development Review Agenda - Thursday, August 3, 2006 - Page 23 27 . Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #5gsponse is inadequate. Provide a detailed response as to HOW the proposal meets the criteria. Provide detailed justification as to HOW the proposed use, with its reductions to setbacks and parking, is compatible with adjacent land uses and will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood. Additionally, provide a detailed response demonstrating compliance with ONE OR MORE of the following objectives (some are obviously not applicable, such as d, a and f, you have responded to a; provide a response that includes b and c): 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. 28 . Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6 - Provide a detailed justification as part of the response as to HOW 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 (need to include in the response for each of the below all of the requested reductions): 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; (Note: There are no design guidelines for this area, but your response doesn't say anything). c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; (Note: The proposed restaurant represents a much more intense use than what has previously been on the property in recent years.) 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.; (Note: The rear of the building appears as an inappropriate addition due to the nature of the exterior appearance proposed and the potential for inappropriat noise impacts to the detached dwellings to the south). - Variety in materials, colors and textures; - Distinctive fenestration patterns; - Building stepbacks; and (Note: There is a building addition to the rear of the building that is not discussed as to setbacks.) - Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. (Note: Staff disagrees that "adequate" buffers are being provided. The buffers provided represent substantial reductions from that required on all sides of the property, which does not allow for any enhanced landscape design.) Development Review Agenda - Thursday, August 3, 2006 - Page 24 29. Parking Demand Study - • a. First paragraph - Square footage of the building is incorrect. The ground floor, per the Site Data table on Sheet C1.1, indicates the first floor is 1,996 square feet and you have indicated that the second floor is 975 square feet, which is a total of 2,971 square feet. Additionally, if the first floor is 1,996 square feet, then the 957 and 958 square feet indicated for the first floor does not add up to 1,996 square feet. Unclear why "office" is in quotation marks. Explain/expound. b. Second paragraph - Based on the total square footage indicated in "a" above, 45 spaces are required. c. Third paragraph - There has been no floor plan submitted to verify any of the square footages indicated as to "serving area" versus "kitchen/toilet area". You have previously indicated that there are 60 seats intended in the restaurant. Even if in your analysis you looked for comparitive purposes at what potentially other development codes may require based on a per seat basis plus per employee basis (such as 1/3 seats and 1/2 employees), based on your number of seats and employees a minimum of 22 spaces would be required. There is no mention of employees (including the owners) other than kitchen help (such as servers, greeters, etc.). The second floor is still a concern for the "use" of the property. You have indicated it would be the "office" for the restaurant, where there would be no storage included on the second floor. You have also indicated that potentially only 50 square feet would be necessary for the "office" use. This leaves over 900 square feet of the second floor unaccounted for as to "any" use. There has not been submitted any information as to how this unaccounted, substantial square footage area will be used or not used. d. Fourth paragraph - Your research into other restaurants is inadequate as it does not evaluate similar type restaurants from the aspect of location. Three of the restaurants listed are in the downtown area, which caters to a substantial walk-in traffic, where the characteristics are different than this proposed restaurant which will require a substantial amount of vehicular traffic. The location of this proposed restaurant, dependent upon vehicular traffic for customers to travel to this site, is an important factor when analyzing parking demand and the adequacy (or inadequacy) of available parking. If there is a similar restaurant where parking data is available, it may be used if it is properly documented. If data is not available, then the ITE Trip Generation manual should be used to generate parking demand figures. This calculation may either be completed using square footage or the number of seats as the independent variable. The ITE manual will have more than one restaurant type that will need to be evaluated so that the proper classification is used to generate the traffic numbers. e. Fifth - seventh paragraphs - Inadequate justification has been submitted that adequate parking is being provided on-site and that the use, with its provided parking, will not create adverse effects on the surrounding neighborhood through unapproved parking within the rights-of-way or on other parcels. With the parking that is being provided (representing only 38% of the required amount of parking) and the substantial setback reductions requested, and even though a restaurant is a "permitted" use, this site does not appear to be adequate for the intended use. f. Parking Demand Study needs to be revised, but prior to revision a Scoping Meeting must be held with Traffic and Planning to discuss and agree upon the parameters of the study. The study should be prepared, dated and signed by an expert in the field. This may be a properly qualified planner or engineer. 30. A Commercial Lease has been submitted between the applicant and the property owner of Lot 17. This Lease provides for a time period of 15 years, with the ability for an additional five years. Any approval of this request will be conditioned on the continued possession of Lot 17 with its parking and landscaping improvements for the restaurant and the failure to have such parking and landscaping improvements available and assignable to this restaurant will require the closure of the restaurant, until such time as required parking (in location[s] approved by the City) is procured. This shall additionally apply should the Lessee default on the lease and the Lessor takes back possession of the parking and landscaping improvements thereon. 31 . There are overhead utilities within the right-of-way of Dempsey Street adjacent to the subject property. These overhead utilities impair the ability of Solid Waste from accessing and dumping the proposed dumpster. 32. All on-site utilities must be underground. Note such on Sheet C3.1. Staff notes that electric service is presently overhead at the front of the property. This will need to be revised. 33 . Building elevations - The dumpster enclosure is not included in the building elevations. Revise. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, August 3, 2006 - Page 25 34. While signage is nol•6eing approved through this application, the nollknilding elevation indicates attached signage. Code provisions permit one attached sign per business with the sign area not to exceed one square foot per 100 square feet of building facade facing the street frontage to which the sign is to be attached or 24 square feet, whichever is less. However, a minimum of 20 square feet is permitted. It is noted that it appears that the sign shown exceeds what is permitted by Code under the above minimum standards. Alternately, a Comprehensive Sign Program application may be submitted, complying with the provisions of Section 3-1807. Other: No Comments Notes: This application is insufficient for the CDB. Submit revised plans and application package no later than by noon on 9/4/06 for review by DRC on 10/5/06. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, August 3, 2006 - Page 26 11:05 am Case Number: FLD2006-05032 -- 921 LAKEVIEW RD • R?fl Owner(s): Dorothy B Le Blanc 201 S Fulton Beach Rd Fulton, Tx 78358 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email DR.C.. Representative: Northside Engineering Services Inc. &u&v.4% 601 Cleveland Street Clearwater, F133755 TELEPHONE: 727-443-2869, FAX: 727-446-8036, E-MAIL: Doreen@northsideengineering.com Location: 0.246 acres located on the south side of Lakeview Road, approximately 600 feet east of South Myrtle Avenue and 50 feet west of Prospect Avenue. Atlas Page: 306A Zoning District: C, Commercial Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a restaurant in the Commercial District with a reduction to the lot width from 100 feet to 89.77 feet (south along Dempsey Street), reductions to the front (north along Lakeview Road) setback from 25 feet to 18 feet (to existing building), from 25 feet to 14 feet (to sidewalk) and from 25 feet to two feet (to pavement), reductions to the front (south along Dempsey Street) from 25 feet to 16 feet (to building), from 25 feet to six feet (to dumpster enclosure) and from 25 feet to one-foot (to pavement), reductions to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to existing and proposed building and to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to two feet (to pavement), an increase to building height from 25 feet to 29.5 feet (to existing midpoint of the pitched roof), a reduction to the required parking from 43 spaces to 17 spaces and a deviation to allow direct access to Lakeview Road, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, with reductions to the landscape buffers along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to two feet (to pavement), along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 10 feet to six feet (to dumpster enclosure), along the east from five feet to three feet (existing and proposed building and dumpster enclosure) and along the west from five feet to two feet (to pavement), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to xx percent and a reduction to the foundation landscape area from five feet wide to zero feet wide, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Restaurants Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Association(s): Clearwater, F133758 P O Box 8204 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Neighborhood North Greenwood Association, Inc. Association(s): Clearwater, F133755 1201 Douglas Road TELEPHONE: 560-4382, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: WADENWADE@AOL.COM Neighborhood Kings Hwy Neighboorhood Crime Watch Association(s): Clearwater, Fl 33756 1435 Woodbine Street 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 Applicant: Doreen Williams, Mark LeBlanc The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, August 3, 2006 - Page 18 1. Show required •e trap location on the plan. • The above to be addressed prior to CDB. Prior to CO: 1. Bring all substandard sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project up to standard, including A.D.A. (Truncated domes per D.O.T. Index #304.) The following to be. addressed prior to building permit: 1. Any new concrete driveway apron(s) constructed within the right-of-way shall be a minimum 6" thick fibrous concrete, and a minimum 3000 psi with 6" x 6" / 10 x 10 w.w.f. [sidewalks shall not be constructed within this apron area(s)]. Expansion joint will be required along the existing curb where applicable. 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. Dry Detention systems shall be designed with a a grassed bottom and side slopes no steeper than 4:1. Provide cross-section for the pond(s). 2. In accordance with the City Storm Drainage Design Criteria, Page 7, vertical walls in detention ponds may only be approved due to reason of undue hardship to the developer. Provide description of the hardship that necessitates vertical walls for this project. Fire: No issues. Harbor Master: 1 . No issues. Legal: 1 . No issues. Land Resources: No Comments Landscaping: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, August 3, 2006 - Page 19 1 . Sheet C2.1, C3.1 and L1.1 - Code requires upright curbing for the !Ptection of landscape areas. Only that landscape area adjacent to the building has been indicated to be curbed. Revise to show curbing of all areas along north edge of parking spaces adjacent to Lakeview Road and along southern edge of pavement adjacent to Dempsey Street. 2. Existing "walk" on the north side of the building out to Lakeview Road was/is the existing driveway. Proposal is to remove that portion of the driveway between the curb and sidewalk. This driveway/"walk" is over nine feet in width, which is excessive, especially in light of the location of provided parking. Its width was appropriate for its prior usage, but not appropriate for this change of use. Reduce in width to no more than six feet. 3 . Sheet C3.1 - There is no cross section of the pond submitted, therefore it is unclear of the proposed slope of the bank. Provide a north/south and an east/west cross section of the pond and show all required safety railings (not shown on plan). Top of bank is very close to the front property line. Code requires a 15-foot perimeter buffer along the north property line, which is not being met. Section 3-1202.D.2 requires the stormwater retention areas not exceed 50% of the buffer area (7.5 feet), the front slope not to exceed a slope of 4:1 or flatter, all required shrub plantings to not be more than six-inches below the top of bank and the buffer width be at least five feet in width. Proposal does not meet these requirements. Revise. 4. Sheet L1.1 - There is at best one foot between the vertical walls of the retention pond and the edge of pavement (west side) and the sidewalk adjacent to the building (south side). The vertical wall of the retention pond will be at least 4-8 inches thick, leaving insufficient room to plant 3-gallon plants, provide irrigation and mulch. Revise. 5 . Sheet L1.1 - There appears one-foot or less from top of bank of the retention pond to the front property line. Within this area, or even down into the pond, star jasmine and yew podocarpus shrubs are planned. No cross-section of the pond was submitted to see the proposed slope of the pond bank. There is insufficient area to plant these shrubs. Section 3-1202.D.2 requires a minimum five-foot wide buffer. Revise. 6. A magnolia tree and a live oak tree, both shade trees, are proposed to be planted on the west side of the building. Both trees are proposed within 10 feet of the building. After consultation with a certified arborist, it is recommended to move the magnolia to the location shown for the live oak and replace the magnolia location with two accent trees. This will better provide for tree root and limb growth. 7. Sheet C1.1 - Site Data table indicates 5,522 square feet of paved vehicular use area (VUA) proposed. Code requires for sites with 4,000 square feet or more of paved vehicular use area to have 10 percent interior landscaping. Revise the "Required" for "Parking Lot Interior Landscaping" to indicate 10% of VUA. Calculate the "Proposed" "Parking Lot Interior Landscaping" and indicate the square footage and percentage of VUA. If less than 10 % of VUA, must either revise the plans to provide the required amount or include a reduction as part of the Comprehensive Landscape Program, with complete justification for such reduction. 8 . The Comprehensive Landscape Program needs to enumerate the reductions to those requirements not being met and needs to provide detailed justification for the reductions. The landscape reductions are substantial and inadequate room on the site is available to "make up" or exceed the requirements in other areas on-site. Additionally, many of the landscape areas proposed are inadequate to plant the landscape materials specified. The landscape plan presented is not demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted under the minimum landscape standards. 9. Plans do not indicate the provision of foundation landscaping in accordance with Section 3-1202.E.2. This requirement applies to both Lakeview Road and Dempsey Street sides. Revise to provide. Alternately, need to include the reduction in the request and address it with full justification as part of the Comprehensive Landscape Program through its criteria. 10. Sheet L1.1 - There are overhead utilities within the right-of-way of Dempsey Street adjacent to this property. A live oak tree is proposed adjacent to Dempsey Street. Shade trees should not be planted within 20 feet of overhead utility lines. Change out to accent trees (two accent trees = one shade tree). 11 . Plans indicate only three feet to the pavement from the front property line of Lakeview Road. With required curbing reducing this to 2.5 feet in width, based on the landscape plants specified, there is inadequate room to plant the shrubs as specified. Parks and Recreation: 1 . No issues - modifications to existing building for restaurant. Stormwater: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, August 3, 2006 - Page 20 Prior to CDB the following shall be addressed: • 1. The plan needs to clarify the outfall pipe discharge for the retention pond. The City storm atlas shows no existing ditch or drainage easement where the pipe discharges. Drainage cannot drain onto private property without an easement whether private or dedicated to the city. 2. The Grading Plan, Sheet C3.1, indicates an elevation (El. 9.1) at the northeast comer of the northernmost parking space lower than the elevation of the lot at its discharge onto the splash pad in the retention pond (El. 9.20). Revise Grading Plan such that the low point in the parking pot is adjacent the splash pad. Prior to issuance of a building permit the following requirements are to be met: 1) Provide a copy of the approved SWFWMD permit. 2) Make payment-in-lieu of attenuation. Solid Waste: 1 . The dumpster enclosure needs to be constructed to City specifications. Revise prior to CDB. 2. The slope/grade at rear of the property is too high/great for access to the dumpster and enclosure by the truck. Revise prior to CDB. Traffic Engineering: 1 . 1. Show 20'x 20' sight visibility triangles at the driveway. There shall be no objects in the sight triangle over the City's acceptable vertical height criteria. The parking space closest to the stop sign shall be removed to provide acceptable sight distance. (Community Development Code, Section 3-904). 2. The three parking spaces behind the building are not oriented properly with the traffic flow in the drive aisle. Unless they can be redesigned at 90-degrees to the drive aisle or designated as employee parking, the spaces shall be removed. (Community Development Code Section 3-1402.) 3. All parking shall be on-site. Vehicles shall not park along the rights-of-way of Lakeview Road and Dempsey Street. Provide a letter acknowledging this requirement. 4. Install three (3) end-of-roadway markers adjacent to Dempsey Street in place of the "Do Not Enter" signs. All of the above to be addressed prior to CDB. The following to be addressed prior to building permit: 1. Install truncated domes where ADA ramps exists i.e. sidewalks. 2. Obtain a County right of way permit for work along County roadway. 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, August 3, 2006 - Page 21 1 . 6/7/06 & 5/31/06gW • Site plan must depict by shading or crosshatching all required parking lot interior landscaped areas. 2. 6/7/06 - WW Need to show required screening. 5/31/06 - WW Site plan must show or indicate the location of outside mechanical equipment and all required screening. 3 . Sheet C1.1 - The site data indicates that the building coverage is 1,996 square feet. The Parking Demand Study indicates the second floor is 975 square feet. Based on this, the gross floor area should seem to add up to 2,971 square feet. The existing and proposed gross floor area in the site data table indicates 3,992 square feet, which is inconsistent with the above. Recalculate and revise. 4 . Sheet C1.1 - Based on 1,996 sgaure feet on the first floor and 975 square feet on the second floor, or a total gross floor area (GFA) of 2,971 square feet, and a parking requirement of 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet GFA, a total of 45 parking spaces is required (not 43 as indicated in the "Required" column of the Site Data table). Revise. 5 . Sheet C1.1 - Based on information available in our computer files, the last known use of this property was four apartments and accessory storage. In the Site Data table, the "Existing" "Usage" indicates "retail w/ apartments". Revise. 6. Sheet C2.1 - Add the building dimensions of the existing building on the plan. 7 . Sheet C2.1 - Plan indicates the dumpster area to be 14'x15'. Show the actual dumpster enclosure on the plan, with the dimensions of the enclosure, gates and the dimensions to the property lines. The exterior of the dumpster must have the same finish and color as the main building. Revise. 8. Sheets C2.1, C3.1 and L1.1 - Plan indicates the existing concrete slab of what has been demolished as "ex. concrete to remain". Unclear why the concrete between the parking spaces and the delivery and dumpster area cannot be removed and landscaped. Revise and/or explain. 9. Sheets C2.1, C3.1 and L1.1 - Revise on south side Lakeview Road to Dempsey Street. 10. Sheets C2.1, C3.1 and L1.1 - Plan indicates a "new conc. pad" on the east side of the building, which is apparently for an air condenser (according to the building elevations). The building at that location is only 3.1 feet from the property line. Unclear how an an air condenser will be able to fit within this area and be screened from view in accordance with Section 3-201.D.1 and.2 and not interfere with its proper operation and/or maintenance. Show screening and explain compliance with these sections. Alternately, relocate the air condensing unit. 11 . Due to State smoking laws, there will be no smoking indoors. Unclear if there is any provision of any area where patrons can sit and eat outdoors (sidewalk cafe) and/or sit to smoke. Explain/show any sidewalk cafe seating area or smoker seating area. Due to inadequate provided parking, staff will not support any sidewalk cafe for additional seating where patrons can eat/drink. 12. Plan indicates a "delivery area" on the south side of the building. Explain what is meant by "delivery." Where will delivery trucks park while making a delivery? Plan needs to show how the delivery area is accessed. Since the "delivery area" is on the south side, it would appear that deliveries will be made on the south side of the property (within Dempsey Street), based on the southern building elevation. Concerned with the creation of noise and traffic issues with the residential uses south of Dempsey Street, as well as the curvature of the roadway at this location. It is also noted that Dempsey Street to the east has two medians within the center of the roadway that may impede delivery truck traffic. 13 . South building elevation indicates a proposed walk-in cooler and freezer that is not indicated on the site plans. This expands the floor area (GFA). Revise the site plans to show the cooler/freezer or relocate the cooler/freezer inside the existing building and revise the proposed site data if it remains in its present proposed location outside the existing building. 14. Building elevations - Unclear of the color of the facia, door and window frames, pediment on the front of the building, metal roof, columns for the "delivery area", etc. Indicate on elevations. 15 . South building elevation appears to show either a wall with a door or an iron gate with a door west of the proposed cooler/freezer. Provide greater detail and appearance of this side. 16. East and west elevations - Chain link fencing is shown on the sides of the "delivery area". Code does not permit the use of chain link fencing within the front setback. Revise outside material for this "delivery area" (wrought iron-type grill work acceptable). 17. Building elevations - Provide a height dimension from grade to the midpoint of the pitched roof. This dimension needs to also be inserted/corrected in the existing and proposed height in the Site Data table on Sheet C1.1. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, August 3, 2006 - Page 22 18. Description of Request - a. Based on information available in our computer files, the last known use of this property was four apartments and accessory storage. Revise from "retail space with apartments above" to "four apartments and accessory storage." b. Revise requested reductions to that listed above by Staff. 19. Response to General Applicability criteria #1 - a. Unclear HOW it "will remain to scale, bulk coverage and density." b. How will the conversion to a restaurant restore the building back to its historic setting in character. Expound. Describe "its historic setting." c. With all of the reductions requested, HOW will the proposal be "in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties"? Describe in detail. 20. Response to General Applicability criteria #4 - With a reduction to required parking from 45 to 17 spaces, representing the provision of only 38% of the required parking, need to expound on HOW parking will not create traffic issues to the neighborhood through unapproved parking either on-street or on other properties. Need to address the issue of deliveries and truck traffic (where it will occur - appears it will be on Dempsey Street) and the effect on the neighborhood, especially the dwellings to the south. Either sufficient/adequate parking is being provided on-site now or, if insufficient/inadequate parking is available on-site, then additional parking in approved off-site locations in close proximity to this site needs to be obtained now as part of this application (through recordable easements for shared parking). 21 . Response to General Applicability criteria #5 - Explain in detail HOW the proposed restaurant is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. 22. Response to General Applicability criteria #6 - With regard to the hours of operation, explain the statement that the hours are "in line with other restaurants." Which restaurants (staff is unaware of other restaurants in close proximity to this location where such impacts could be compared)? What are their hours of operation? How are the proposed hours of operation not going to have any adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, especially residential uses to the south? 23 . Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #1 - Response is inadequate. Provide a detailed response as to HOW the requested reductions are necessary and WHY Code requirements cannot be met, especially with regard to setbacks and provided parking. 24. Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #2 - a. With regard to the general purposes of the Code, provide responses to Section 1-103 of the Code. b. With regard to the intent and purpose of the Commercial District, HOW will the proposed restaurant "provide the citizens of the City of Clearwater with convenient access to goods and services throughout the city without adversely impacting the integrity of residential neighborhoods, dinunishing the scenic quality of the city or negatively impacting the safe and efficient movement of people and things within the City of Clearwater," especially in light of requested reductions to setbacks, landscaping and parking. 25 . Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #3 - Unclear how setback reductions will not affect the surrounding properties. Reduction of setacks, to the extent as proposed under this proposal, prevents any meaningful compliance with landscape requirements. 26. Response to Comprehensive Infrll Redevelopment Project criteria #4 - Expound on justification regarding HOW this proposal will not have substantial detrimental effects on adjoining properties, especially residential. Reduction of setacks, to the extent as proposed under this proposal, prevents any meaningful compliance with landscape requirements. Reduction to required parking represents the provision of only 38% of the required parking. HOW will all needed parking be accommodated on-site, such that there will be no unapproved off-site parking, either in the rights-of-way or on other parcels? Development Review Agenda - Thursday, August 3, 2006 - Page 23 27 . Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #5 - Response is inadequate Provide a detailed response as to HOW the proposal meets the criteria. Provide detailed justification as to HOW the proposed use, with its reductions to setbacks and parking, is compatible with adjacent land uses and will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood. Additionally, provide a detailed response demonstrating compliance with ONE OR MORE of the following objectives (some are obviously not applicable, such as d, e and f, you have responded to a; provide a response that includes b and c): 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. 28 . Response to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria #6 - Provide a detailed justification as part of the response as to HOW 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 (need to include in the response for each of the below all of the requested reductions): 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; (Note: There are no design guidelines for this area, but your response doesn't say anything). c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; (Note: The proposed restaurant represents a much more intense use than what has previously been on the property in recent years.) 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.; (Note: The rear of the building appears as an inappropriate addition due to the nature of the exterior appearance proposed and the potential for inappropriat noise impacts to the detached dwellings to the south). - Variety in materials, colors and textures; - Distinctive fenestration patterns; - Building stepbacks; and (Note: There is a building addition to the rear of the building that is not discussed as to setbacks.) - Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. (Note: Staff disagrees that "adequate" buffers are being provided. The buffers provided represent substantial reductions from that required on all sides of the property, which does not allow for any enhanced landscape design.) Development Review Agenda - Thursday, August 3, 2006 - Page 24 29. Parking Demand Ady - 0 a. First paragraph - Square footage of the building is incorrect. The ground floor, per the Site Data table on Sheet CL 1, indicates the first floor is 1,996 square feet and you have indicated that the second floor is 975 square feet, which is a total of 2,971 square feet. Additionally, if the first floor is 1,996 square feet, then the 957 and 958 square feet indicated for the first floor does not add up to 1,996 square feet. Unclear why "office" is in quotation marks. Explain/expound. b. Second paragraph - Based on the total square footage indicated in "a" above, 45 spaces are required. c. Third paragraph - There has been no floor plan submitted to verify any of the square footages indicated as to "serving area" versus "kitchen/toilet area". You have previously indicated that there are 60 seats intended in the restaurant. Even if in your analysis you looked for comparitive purposes at what potentially other development codes may require based on a per seat basis plus per employee basis (such as 1/3 seats and 1/2 employees), based on your number of seats and employees a minimum of 22 spaces would be required. There is no mention of employees (including the owners) other than kitchen help (such as servers, greeters, etc.). The second floor is still a concern for the "use" of the property. You have indicated it would be the "office" for the restaurant, where there would be no storage included on the second floor. You have also indicated that potentially only 50 square feet would be necessary for the "office" use. This leaves over 900 square feet of the second floor unaccounted for as to "any" use. There has not been submitted any information as to how this unaccounted, substantial square footage area will be used or not used. d. Fourth paragraph - Your research into other restaurants is inadequate as it does not evaluate similar type restaurants from the aspect of location. Three of the restaurants listed are in the downtown area, which caters to a substantial walk-in traffic, where the characteristics are different than this proposed restaurant which will require a substantial amount of vehicular traffic. The location of this proposed restaurant, dependent upon vehicular traffic for customers to travel to this site, is an important factor when analyzing parking demand and the adequacy (or inadequacy) of available parking. If there is a similar restaurant where parking data is available, it may be used if it is properly documented. If data is not available, then the ITE Trip Generation manual should be used to generate parking demand figures. This calculation may either be completed using square footage or the number of seats as the independent variable. The ITE manual will have more than one restaurant type that will need to be evaluated so that the proper classification is used to generate the traffic numbers. e. Fifth - seventh paragraphs - Inadequate justification has been submitted that adequate parking is being provided on-site and that the use, with its provided parking, will not create adverse effects on the surrounding neighborhood through unapproved parking within the rights-of-way or on other parcels. With the parking that is being provided (representing only 38% of the required amount of parking) and the substantial setback reductions requested, and even though a restaurant is a "permitted" use, this site does not appear to be adequate for the intended use. f. Parking Demand Study needs to be revised, but prior to revision a Scoping Meeting must be held with Traffic and Planning to discuss and agree upon the parameters of the study. The study should be prepared, dated and signed by an expert in the field. This may be a properly qualified planner or engineer. 30. A Commercial Lease has been submitted between the applicant and the property owner of Lot 17. This Lease provides for a time period of 15 years, with the ability for an additional five years. Any approval of this request will be conditioned on the continued possession of Lot 17 with its parking and landscaping improvements for the restaurant and the failure to have such parking and landscaping improvements available and assignable to this restaurant will require the closure of the restaurant, until such time as required parking (in location[s] approved by the City) is procured. This shall additionally apply should the Lessee default on the lease and the Lessor takes back possession of the parking and landscaping improvements thereon. 31 . There are overhead utilities within the right-of-way of Dempsey Street adjacent to the subject property. These overhead utilities impair the ability of Solid Waste from accessing and dumping the proposed dumpster. 32 . All on-site utilities must be underground. Note such on Sheet C3.1. Staff notes that electric service is presently overhead at the front of the property. This will need to be revised. 33 . Building elevations - The dumpster enclosure is not included in the building elevations. Revise. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, August 3, 2006 - Page 25 34. While signage is not being approved through this application, the notuilding elevation indicates attached signage. Code provisions permit one attached sign per business with the sign area not to exceed one square foot per 100 square feet of building facade facing the street frontage to which the sign is to be attached or 24 square feet, whichever is less. However, a minimum of 20 square feet is permitted. It is noted that it appears that the sign shown exceeds what is permitted by Code under the above minimum standards. Alternately, a Comprehensive Sign Program application may be submitted, complying with the provisions of Section 3-1807. Other: No Comments Notes: This application is insufficient for the CDB. Submit revised plans and application package no later than by noon on 9/4/06 for review by DRC on 10/5/06. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, August 3, 2006 - Page 26 • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:35 PM To: Wright, Bill Subject: 921 Lakeview Rd Bill - There are two MIS Board of Adjustment cases still shown in "REC" status for this address (MIS2004-08017 and MIS2005- 03009). If these have been dispensed with, could you change the status to completed, approved or denied? Thanks. Wayne • E Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 7:57 AM To: Wright, Bill Subject: 921 Lakeview Road, The Boiling Pot Bill - As we discussed, Northside Engineering submitted a "complete" application for the above property. Case FLD2006-05032 is scheduled to be reviewed by the DRC on August 3, 2006. Wayne n C Wells, Wayne From: Kambourolias, Sam Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:58 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Watkins, Sherry Subject: FLD2006-05032 existing.doc location.doc zone.doc aerial.doc Sam Kambourolias GIS Tech. (727) 562-4769 www.myclearwater.com Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 5:49 PM To: Kambourolias, Sam Cc: Herman, Jason Subject: Map Request for 921 Lakeview Road Sam - Attached is a map request for Case FLD2006-05032 for the property at 921 Lakeview Road. This request only includes Lots 13-17 (one survey includes more land, but the request only includes Lot 17 of this one survey). I will bring over the paperwork. The surveys that I will bring over you may keep. Thanks- Wayne FLD Map request form.doc Flexible Development Application - Map Request Planner Name: Wayne Wells Case Number: FLD2006-05032 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 Engineerin g X? Legal Description X? Survey X? Map with Proposed Site Highlighted Map Name owner: Dorothy B. LeBlanc j Case: FLD2006-05032 Sexton Enterprises, Inc. site: Property 921 Lakeview Road size(Acres): 0.252 PIN: 21/29/15/47466/001/0130 i 21/29/15/47466/001/0170 Atlas Page: 306A 101 -D vp L . h.V* A of 2 -- VFW - w ME w my mm Iw ! 2 58 ? 29 6 o A 29 B so I " i ---? ------ __ - e 8lu dJ n TTY r• C OF CLEARWATER R ea - - dEaTaRO S- t . `l I's P[NEILA9 COUCIfIYrtYYf ORIDA • l: : ^ G x ^ 6 8 G g 60 « $ " « ` IJ e8. ^ R - ? J 'I u V 18x -.i i j - R a PR P ' 3 2 , e 5 a • S 2 t • « • r :l x r E ARED 8 , PUHIJC NORKS ADMINISTRATION T rt01 8 f 3>1>-],. > ••• r :1818".1 FIND 100 S N Il lN 'NCl 1x _ u.r i j ;' '•? '' jl'•"\L ' 1 ? 1/01T 8r, IIaJ . e \e, en wale,, fl 33755 M /?I? Ph.: (913)582-6730, Fas: (613)526-4755 '>I C11 p? tell I+/0 Irl> •.-^•--• ---...... e `? ? t ttf ? - I i ' 'ttr I to I :Ittr h11 rw p // w.cl,arwatw-ILc / p / 8.m en Maa 1 1 LL awr0e ,0 tl 12 B 13 ^ o 14 15 16 « Y . 7 18 1 B 9 10 1t It 12 2 22/OT ? 18x ) r 18aoJ? J x...,21 X o0r 1_ I jiu Dival.i-r•. R C RAH' D < EET i r ?"? ji I n (? /rrr? , .._ . a 1111 z1J - l ? Public Information dOta is turN>MO by 1181 city or ClwrwpUr P i 3 22/03 ' •'"'• 21/03 __ _ > I ; 1 ----• I u d c Mike AomMtdr0lbn/Engt,e«Inq, and muef be acts ad T 1 I « Ital __ _ I L ` _ Irlp T' 1/013 - d on used DY the ,eelplent With the un kesiondlnp tool the dt data recehed of pu pose Pr drYeaphq ° q,apMc inlroslrulure mcollennc lor ted y. M the la sucn, the City 8.1 tlearwpla PWA/E 3 1 6 .0 3 1 / 2 1 I X01 CONDO 7a 60 .i N71SA?I?.? "Ill 10 Wow0,1111, elprMfad or Im led. IM W 0CM,.cy, COMDetene,s rellab1l11zat s Iloblill f 11 d u, n u R 3 • - ? QV { ``?F RE i 0 . y o e ata fat, any all,n particular use. Pu,lhermore, the City of Clearwater WANE P 1 2 1 3 1/ 11 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 21 /O4 21/DS 3 f c• I ,48a 1 /011 wmno ofwelaled rich the u or s° such L >e R i ^ e t I J -_-_ L ` i '?tle?N I "-_..• This Altos e I O D t t i $ a IN UA TR g $ ap i 4 v ` ...,._L ...? l ___ ---_ r Iltraa P g s jee o Per pdb than For t,fOrm011an ODOUt West re\dtlws please call vWA or W i li t ,fa> 6 A o s 9 r EET GE Q .,----------n--? our eb r le s 3 2 ° B 1: __ la ,9r 8 7 B • 5 4 5 3 2 tee 1 ,o S 8 S S / 3 2 ; 1 $ t 2 3/ H 3 I C s 8 I ta1? § @ „ zN$ PINELLAS S, 4800- B irs. I al - 3 N 12 73 14 w ? : !ta 4 99 14 18 17 18 U 7 8 9 1D 11 I 12 L - 13 12 11 10 71x0 x 187 s a s 10 14 t 21/14 ?j $ ^ _ r 9 9 3 sO ITN 9 11 13 $ IIIS 1 ? r E $ 2 I 1 o ,00 20,0 400 STREET i , BEILEAIR ELEM. I 600 8. 3 2 1 R >o x i « « ? a „t; Q ' J MAbUA_11! _f-- f ...... r.. ....... SCHOOL 21115 1204 400 SCALE: 1 • CLEARWATER s s/ •s 2 1 3 2 3 4 G . ..... : 57- 29 3111- P.9. ??_••, / D5 I?Z CEMETERY 7 ?? ?° It / P.J. ° AVIS ° LEGEND: I /8.4 oc.a a a 13 ,t a 1 REP 3 w T 2 & S 21/11 n m Jp eP 8 9 109 it 12 1 03 3 $ y Fc Me en ,o I , O B BLOCK NUMBER Ln n 1 W R ,t8. l L4 1300 °3 18o/ NN« >- » • 40 1234 LOT ADDRESS NI f > ?, ' s . J z , 2 3 t 1 1 2 3 4 - 1 2 2 3 ? {1o°r e8. 2 2 3 1 € 2 ?5 3 ,aa 4 f CITY LIMITS LINE a sP ?B3 1»I S I S i 18/I 5 1 5 488. 6 5 15 1J0 w , Js `? <9_? 1186 ,a a < ! S t5 S t5 r SHADED AREA - PROPERTY 7, S u la a ED C MIGHT 1 9 18 18 a 18 tart a 1a I t t? r J: OUTSIDE CLEARWATER T 7 J . 18 7 77 nJJi 1 7 w 7 17 ime %rn7 17qu < ma6 7 8 J' 2 CI Y LIMITS 02 is PARK a IB 1848e t o I+ l,B is /r n 7 AGREEMENT TO ANNEX 9 rf t 9 1 9 x 10 1iT f 4818 9 te nt t ?.yl " ' Rosa 9 t 8 4 f 1548-521 ,0 0 ID 2 0, w x 10 r 7tl1D 9 20 /??ft? Ml•1 Jt, t0 1D 1 ? CITY OWNED PROPERTY ve> x4811 21 12 22 11 2 11848 u ma t„ 21 H mI 21 X xr /ara11 20 21 i 'S 9 MDR ZONING DESIGNATION 66x f2 22 , 12 22 a'> 1 ` 61//3 ors 3 13 18Ie 1J,. t2 2218x 12 22 7 ZONE LINE 23/01 u y 2 3 13 23 48 t3 23100 2x113 taro t > ET41?1 $ 11 2 Wx 11 T41811 11 TI 1 r 23 B e a 3gliH STREET 1•>IS ra11 t4 Yoe. 24 at9 I t 9 11 V 9 OJ- o 2 Jie zl 2Y84 u a i 2 41"1 23 x11 1 T 24"' aat 1 -L- 1 1 1 -T 1 aa I R p / i • a9rvlt /9 DID p s7et a/°a/ss SM 1/ 'r'a J ° t `1? pf>3 21 ar> T2 T3 /sN2 231848 if" 2 23L 1 11 0 0111/95 m a ,u 01/03/0 9 a° I 1 21/48 I 3 A/l it 3 22wrr n° S TI 118.3 22 iz O 6131 03/05/93 lip S/ P ffe s 201x f°?S 20 111 1 5 21 TDIx 1 rxJ1 211x1 20 xl a1 211 I a 1 OS/ 3fI,/10p1 i a Int t9 fn J ty Joie 19/no Ixte r >5 8 Ix TD 1 I F 14 l IBIn 6181 1(x1 m 19 Wf /x1 19 - I S avn'ipvl ",a lZta I m8 18> 17 7 - Ix/ W 19 7 181181 /m 7 t8 > , ,, ' 14/04 PLUUe J 19 /itJ 1 Sat ,II 9 la/r 8 r° 9 171b1 1 8 I348 t7/J> ZZ Z e 77 10 HOUSE 1J00 Ixf10 1YJII aaa rN }l{ y 1 Jx V out 17 n 18x / x110 ,51 10 11x 1 j j 9 t6t I ®connmroN ,J/a/ev ' n 5 rr Z IJx 10 1 4x1 10 15 48+12 1 - - - - - - - - 1T 1 18?j1 3S 11 12 aaJ 6 a a8. 1 1J I4 raa Jo IJaI ? 12 Tor $ Ixo 17 14 pp 11 12 14 Ia I . 11 REVISED: - - - NU ` 8/30/00 . 7 do 1 3 4 5 6 7 48x ZONING ATLAS 0 3138 2 8 1 L uea Ip 1 9 ? 31 4A NW OF ;- / 0 3148 ? 22 - 79 S - 15 E 306A 10 0 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Garriott, Kevin Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 2:03 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: 921 Lakeview Ok, thanks. We contacted their attorney and told them we will move forward with what our code requires. We do still hope they can make their plans work, but if not, we will be ready to take action. -----Original Message----- From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 10:53 AM To: Garriott, Kevin Subject: RE: 921 Lakeview Their Letter of Incompleteness gave them until 9:00 am on Tuesday, July 11, 2006, to resubmit to be scheduled for the August 3, 2006, DRC agenda. -----Original Message----- From: Garriott, Kevin Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 8:49 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: 921 Lakeview Anything from the owners of this property submitted yet? When is your July submittal date cutoff? Thanks. • • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 10:53 AM To: Garriott, Kevin Subject: RE: 921 Lakeview Their Letter of Incompleteness gave them until 9:00 am on Tuesday, July 11, 2006, to resubmit to be scheduled for the August 3, 2006, DRC agenda. -----Original Message----- From: Garriott, Kevin Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 8:49 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: 921 Lakeview Anything from the owners of this property submitted yet? When is your July submittal date cutoff? Thanks. Wells, Wayne From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 2:48 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: FLS FLD project log21.xls Importance: High FYI Sherry L Watkins Planning Department Administrative Analyst (727) 562-4582 sherry. wa tkins @ m yclearwater. corn -----Original Message----- From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 3:00 PM To: Planning Subject: FW: FLS FLD project log21.xls FYI Sherry L Watkins Planning Department Administrative Analyst (727) 562-4582 shernj.watkins @myclearwater. coin -----Original Message----- From: Herman, Sandra Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 2:43 PM To: Watkins, Sherry Cc: Garriott, Kevin Subject: FW: FLS FLD project 1og21.xls Sherry, Here is a response on this case for DRC. Kevin has details if needed. Sandy -----Original Message----- From: Garriott, Kevin Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 2:42 PM To: Herman, Sandra Subject: RE: FLS FLD project log21.xls we have a w hole history on this. they are applying due to our Unsafe citation. thanks -----Original Message----- From: Herman, Sandra Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 9:51 AM To: Garriott, Kevin Subject: RE: FLS FLD project log21.xls ?R FLD2006-05032 25-May-06 Boiling Pot Restaurant 921 LakeVie Rd 306A WW INCOMPLETE WMW -3 UNS • -----Original Message----- From: Garriott, Kevin Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 8:44 AM To: Herman, Sandra Cc: Wright, Bill Subject: RE: FLS FLD project log21.xls yes, definitely, what address? -----Original Message----- From: Herman, Sandra Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 11:26 AM To: Garriott, Kevin; Hall, Bob Subject: FLS FLD project log21.xls • Kevin, I asked John Warner to check on active CRT cases from this list of Planning's DRC items. If active, we send our CRT inspectors out to check on any of these Planning cases - to report back to them on our findings. John did not find any active CRT cases in Tidemark for this list, however, he did find one site that has several open unsafe cases on it. Thought maybe you might want to ask Bill Wright to get with Planning on these. Thanks. Sandy << File: FLS FLD project log21.xls» • • Wells, Wayne From: Hollander, Gwen Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 2:23 PM To: Garriott, Kevin; Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Wright, Bill; Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: 921 Lakeview How about 3:00 p.m. on the 26th at MSB in Kevin Garriott's area? Kevin, what is your conference room location so that I can furnish it to Mr. Williams? Thank you. Bill, is the above time and place o.k. with you? Please let me know asap so that I can confirm the meeting with Mr. Williams. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Garriott, Kevin Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 9:20 AM To: Hollander, Gwen; Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Wright, Bill; Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: 921 Lakeview Ok, thanks, but as we are all in MSB, could we get Leslie to join us here? Let us know. thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Hollander, Gwen Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 9:10 AM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Garriott, Kevin; Wright, Bill; Wells, Wayne Subject: 921 Lakeview This morning attorney Steve Williams w/Johnson Pope called and requested a meeting with all of you regarding the property at 921 Lakeview - demolition and zoning. It looks like all of you are available 6/21 at 12:30 pm; 6/22 after 2:30 and 6/26 morning or after 3:00 p.m. You can use our conference room in Legal. Please let me know if you want to meet with Mr. Williams and if so, when. I can schedule the meeting for you. Thank you. Gwen Hollander Legal Department City of Clearwater 727-562-4013 • Wells, Wayne From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 3:00 PM To: Planning Subject: FW: FLS FLD project log21.xls FYI Sherry L Watkins Planning Department Administrative Analyst (727) 562-4582 sherry.watkins Qmyclearwater. coin -----Original Message----- From: Herman, Sandra Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 2:43 PM To: Watkins, Sherry Cc: Garriott, Kevin Subject: FW: FLS FLD project log21.xls Sherry, Here is a response on this case for DRC. Kevin has details if needed. Sandy -----Original Message----- From: Garriott, Kevin Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 2:42 PM To: Herman, Sandra Subject: RE: FLS FLD project log21.xls we have a w hole history on this. they are applying due to our Unsafe citation. thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Herman, Sandra Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 9:51 AM To: Garriott, Kevin Subject: RE: FLS FLD project log21.xls 6 FLD2006-05032 25-Ma -06 Boiling pot Restaurant 921 LakeVie Rd 306A WW INCOMPLETE WMW -3 UNS -----Original Message----- From: Garriott, Kevin Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 8:44 AM To: Herman, Sandra Cc: Wright, Bill Subject: RE: FLS FLD project log21.xls yes, definitely, what address? -----Original Message----- From: Herman, Sandra Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 11:26 AM To: Garriott, Kevin; Hall, Bob Subject: FLS FLD project 1og21.xls 0 Kevin, • I asked John Warner to check on active CRT cases from this list of Planning's DRC items. If active, we send our CRT inspectors out to check on any of these Planning cases - to report back to them on our findings. John did not find any active CRT cases in Tidemark for this list, however, he did find one site that has several open unsafe cases on it. Thought maybe you might want to ask Bill Wright to get with Planning on these. Thanks. Sandy << File: FL5 FLD project log21.xls >> ? d Z? 40 0 ?er W% (._,,4LP-,-, J (15 IT - 1*, O` Tet T0.- r t ? ). A- ra?uG?io? 4-o I o? art-.,x- ;-U%. ) o i DOD s . }? 82.sz jj?,?X 4,,,, \oo 4,e4 ?a? ?• 5-?ttf) ; Pa ) too., 4 ZA- Cv Pa„d?.±_ _ S•- vG oti. .s-4; . e kic-st-J Se+,p4oLc.(c `or 10 ? - ji - v? ? J se-4 ott liv., ? o 4' 6+ 4,o 11 0-c e-4 v.o a F.4 as-- 4-o slidlW ar-tx -ov<<crs ? L" et. Xk . fib. R.,2c? ?? ??ow ?o ?a,.. ?s c.?•,?e ? ?'{?2r? t,-. 44'-) , 5- + -1-rj -t-? ?L ?- - C? • c'e v c t4vll 44,L D .Jpsion of Corporations • aFlori fq.ocvi;r wpot.irrsjaic. Wri rr?? yF ? ? ? a a acre ??t f f "h] " rr, t s, a,?rn_slrirrl nrC1,CUj*y? I Florida Profit SEXTON ENTERPRISES, INC. PRINCIPAL ADDRESS 2023 WINDING OAKS DR. PALM HARBOR FL 34683 Page 1 of 2 MAILING ADDRESS 2023 WINDING OAKS DR. PALM HARBOR FL 34683 Document Number FEI Number Date Filed P06000027316 NONE 02/22/2006 State Status Effective Date FL ACTIVE NONE Registered Agent Name & Address F MOORE, STEVEN W. 8200 BRYAN DAIRY RD., STE. 300 STEVEN W. MOORE, P.A. LARGO FL 33777 Officer/Director Detail Name & Address Title SEXTON, KEVIN 2023 WINDING OAKS DR. D PALM HARBOR FL 34683 SEXTON, LISA J. 2023 WINDING OAKS DR. D PALM HARBOR FL 34683 Annual Reports http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?a1=DETFIL&n1=PO6000027316&n2=NAMFW... 5/31/2006 • Page 2 of 2 Division of Corporations 0 II Report Year II Filed Date II Previous Filing ' Return to List Next Filing No Events No Name History Information Document Images Listed below are the images available for this filing. THIS IS NOT OFFICIAL RECORD; SEE DOCUMENTS IF QUESTION OR CONFLICT E Ir r -tions Inquiry Corporations Help -0- http://www. sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?a1=DETFIL&n 1=P06000027316&n2=NAMFW... 5/31/2006 Pinellas County Property App?ser Information: 21 29 15 47466 001 0 Page 2 of 5 k: - 21 / 29 / 15 / 47466 / 001 / 0170 31-May-2006 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 07:34:46 Ownership Information Non-Residential Property Address, Use, and Sales SEXTON ENTERPRISES INC OBK: 14971 OPG: 1631 2023 WINDING OAKS DR PALM HARBOR FL 34683 EVAC: Non-EUAC Comparable sales value as Prop Addr: 901 LAK EUIEW RD of Jan 1, 2005, based on Census Tract: 258.00 2003 2004 - : sales from 0 Sale Date OR Book/Page Price {Qual/UnQ} Vac/Imp Plat Information 3 /2,006 14,971/1,631 268,000 {Q} I 1925: Book 009 Pgs 141- 0 /0 0/ 0 0 { } 0000: Book Pgs - 0 /0 01 0 0 { } 0000: Book Pgs - 0 /0 0/ 0 0 { } 2005 Value EXEMPTIONS Just/Market: 116,000 Homestead: NO Ownership % .000 Govt Exem: NO Use %: .000 Assessed/Cap: 116,000 Institutional Exem: NO Tax Exempt: .000 Historic Exem: 0 Taxable: 116,000 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: 2,695.52 1} 145 x 100 7. 00 14.500. 00 S 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 2,695,52 6) 0 x 0 . 00 . 00 Without any exemptions, 2005 taxes will be 2,695.52 Short Legal LAKE BELLEUIEW ADD BLK i, LOTS 17 TO 22 Description LESS ST Building Information http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 5/31/2006 Pinellas County Property Appr .iser Information: 21 29 15 47466 001 00 Page 3 of 5 21 / 29 / 15 / 47460 / 001 / 0170 :01 31-May-2006 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 07:34:46 Commercial Card 01 of 1 Improvement Type: Warehouse Property Address: 901 LAKEUIEU RD Prop Use: 343 Land Use: 27 Structural Elements Foundation Continuous Footing Floor System Slab on Grade Exterior Wall Concrete Block Height Factor 0 Party Wall None Structural Frame Masonry Pillar&Steel Roof Frame Flat Roof Cover Built Up/Composition Cabinet & Mill None Floor Finish Concrete Finish Interior Finish None Total Units 0 Heating & Air None Fixtures 2 Bath Tile None Electric Average Shape Factor Rectangle Quality Average Year Built 1,956 Effective Age 30 Other Depreciation 0 Function Depreciation 0 Economic Depreciation 0 Sub Arsas Description Factor Area Description Factor Area 1) Base Area 1.00 2,048 7) .00 0 2) .00 0 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 Commercial Extra Features Description Dimensions Price Units Value RCD Year 1) ASPHALT 1400 1.75 1,400 2,450 2,450 999 2) FENCE 8.00 56 450 350 1,997 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: 21800 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) F+_1 R fil ®FM http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/egi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 5/31/2006 Pinellas County Property App er Information: 21 29 15 47466 001 06 ? T u ?v? L.I. ST CEMETERY 0 CL 1295 22 ,,,04 PR ASE CL 3.C9 Ac(c) 31(S) a SCSI a ?, RD 18 AKEVIEVt) LA RVIE4 I14 Page 4 of 5 ?u L A E O'UVI 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&... 5/31/2006 901 ? 47466 Pinellas County Property App'er Information: 21 29 15 47466 001 0 0 Page 5 of 5 Pinellas County Property Appraiser Parcel Information http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-click?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&... 5/31/2006 Pinellas County Property Appr er Information: 21 29 15 47466 0010 ]?Q Page 2 of 5 21 / 29 / 15 / 47406 / 001 / 0130 31-May-2006 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 07:33:43 Ownership Information Non-Residential Property Address, Use, and Sales LE BLANC, DOROTHY B OBK: 14403 OPG: 2602 PO BOX 266 FULTON TX 78358 EVAC: Non-EUAC Comparable sales value as Prop Addr: 921 LAK EUIEW RD of Jan 1, 2005, based on Census Tract: 258.00 sales from 2003 - 2004: 0 Sale Date OR Book/Page Price (Qual/UnQ) Vac/Imp Plat Information 6 /2,005 14,403/2,602 225,000 (Q) I 1925: Book 009 Pgs 141- 6 /2,002 12,072/1,708 145,000 (Q) I 0000: Book Pgs - 9 /1,991 7,680/1,638 94,000 (Q) I 0000: Book Pgs - 9 /1,990 7,388/1,548 60,000 (U) I 2005 Value EXEMPTIONS Just/Market: 157,000 Homestead: NO Ownership % .000- Govt Exem: NO Use %: .000 Assessed/Cap: 157,000 Institutional Exem: NO Tax Exempt %: .000 Historic Exem: 0 Taxable: 157,000 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: 3,648.24 1} 52 x 100 7. 00 5,200. 00 S Special Tax .00 2) 44 x 100 7.00 4,400.00 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 3,648.24 6) 0 x 0 . 00 . 00 Without any exemptions, 2005 taxes will be 3,648.24 Short Legal LAKE BELLEUIEW ADD BLK'i, LOTS 13,14,15 AND Description 16 LESS ST Building Information http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-scr3?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p... 5/31/2006 k )inellas County Property Appit er Information: 21 29 15 47466 001 0 Page 3 of 5 16 Property and Land Use Code descriptions 21 / 2 / 15 / 47405 / 001 / 0130 01 31-May-2006 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 07:33:43 Commercial Card 01 of 1 Improvement Type: Retail w/Apts Above Property Address: 921 LAKEUIEW RD Prop Use: 327 Land Use: 12 S-tru??ura1 Elsmsn?s Foundation Spread/Mono Footing Floor System Slab on Grade Exterior Wall. Face Brick Height Factor 0 Party Wall None Structural Frame Wood Beam & Column Roof Frame Gable & Hip Roof Cover Composition Shingle Cabinet & Mill Average Floor Finish Carpet Combination Interior Finish Drywall Total Units 0 Heating & Air Heating&Cooling Pckg Fixtures 6 Bath Tile None Electric Average Shape Factor Rectangle Quality Average Year Built 11925 Effective Age 30 Other Depreciation 0 Function Depreciation 0 Economic Depreciation 0 Sub Areas Description Factor Area Description Factor Area 1) Base Area 1. 00 2,000 7) . 00 0 2) Apartment 1.10 9i0 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 Commsr4aial Extra Fsaurss Description Dimensions Price Units Value RCD Year 1) FIRESPRINK 2000 1.75 21000 3,500 2,870 1,994 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: 2,870 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) F*_1 141 T 5+1 M F http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-scr3?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p... 5/31/2006 inellas County Property App r,* ?ser Information: 21 29 15 47466 0010 r"ti v P? 1-l w 6m ; CEMETERY w ? cuI 22104 .8 4c(c) il(S) r? C'U r 3 901 LAKREVIEW r V W a N O Page 4 of 5 T IJ K\ ,4V ST CS S 5T 17 c < K L I II??gg PROSP?CL AVE ?qj KEOV1 RD E'd RD E161 RD L W- t- K7 I ;IEWI LA EVIEh LA E?ti ?, 47466-4 t.? 0 ?r- C3 1/8 Mile Aerial Photograph (2002) http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-scr3?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p... 5/31/2006 inellas County Property Appcr Information: 21 29 15 47466 001 ( Page 5 of 5 Pinellas County Property Appraiser Parcel Information Back. to Search-Page An explanation of this screen http://pao.co.pinellas.fl.us/htbin/cgi-scr3?o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &r=.16&s=4&t3=1 &u=0&p... 5/31/2006 CITY OF CLEARWATER W Im. NOTICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD PUBLiL HEARINGS The Community Development Board of the City of Clearwater, Florida, will hold public hearings on Tuesday, December 19, 2006, beginning at 2:00 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. (Cont'd from 11-21-06) Dorothy B. LeBlanc and Sexton Enterprises, Inc. (Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc.) are requesting Flexible Development approval to permit a restaurant in the Commercial District with a reduction to the lot width from 100 ft to 89.77 ft (south along Dempsey St), reductions to the front (north along Lakeview Rd) setback from 25 ft to 18.1 ft (to existing building), from 25 ft to 14 ft (to sidewalk) and from 25 ft to 4 ft (to pavement), reductions to the front (south along Dempsey St) from 25 ft to 1-ft (to pavement) and from 25 ft to zero ft (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 ft to 3 ft (to existing building), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 ft to 5 ft (to pavement), an increase to building ht from 25 ft to 29.5 ft (to existing midpoint of the pitched roof), a reduction to the required parking from 43 spaces to 16 spaces and a deviation to allow direct access to Lakeview Rd, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Sec. 2-704.C, with reductions to the perimeter landscape buffers along Lakeview Rd from 15 ft to 4 ft (to pavement), along Dempsey St from 10 ft to 1 ft (to pavement) and from 10 ft to zero ft (to dumpster enclosure) and along the east from 5 ft to 3 ft (to existing. building), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to 5.5 percent and a reduction to the foundation landscape area from 5 ft wide to zero ft wide, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Sec. 3-1202.G. (Proposed Use: Restaurant.) at 921 Lakeview Rd., Lake Belleview Add, Blk 1, Lots 13-15 & part of Lot 16, & Lots 17-21. Assigned Planner: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. FLD2006-05032 2. Tezaris & Bieber Aquisitions, LLC. (Clearwater Gardens Condo) is requesting Flexible Development approval for 18 attached dwellings within the Downtown (D) District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per Sec. 2-903.C of the Community Development Code. [Proposed Use: Attached dwellings (18 units)] at 601 N. Ft. Harrison Ave, Nicholson & Sloan's Add, Lot 1 & Bidwell's Oak Wood Add, Lots 19-20. Assigned Planner: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III. FLD2006-06041 3. New Horizons Properties, LLC and Affordable Dental, LLC. (Mako Condominiums) are requesting Flexible Development approval to permit 11 attached dwellings within the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District / Island Estates Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (IENCOD) with an increase to ht from 30 ft to 46.2 ft (roof deck) with an additional 10.3 ft for a mechanical equipment enclosure, a reduction to the front (south) setback from 25 ft to 15.3 ft (to building) and zero ft (to pavement), a reduction to the rear (north) setback from 15 ft to zero ft (to pavement), reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 ft to 5 ft (to pavement), and a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 ft to 5 ft (to pavement) as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of Sec. 2-4045 of the Community Development Code; and a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer widths along the east and west sides of the property from 10 ft to 5 ft as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Plan under the provisions of Sec. 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code. [Proposed Use: Attached Dwellings (11 units)] at 240 & 250 Skiff Point, Island Estates of Clearwater Unit 5-A, Lots 40-41. Assigned Planner: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III. FLD2006-07045 4. Church of Scientology Religious Trust is requesting Flexible Development approval for the conversion of an existing dormitory to a interim office/overnight accommodations mixed-use (112,739 sq. ft) (Phase 1) and subsequently to a permanent overnight accommodations use (251 rooms) within the Downtown (D) District as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Sec. 2-903.C of the Community Development Code; and a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR2006-11032) of 81 overnight accommodation units from the property located at 652 Court St. under the provisions of Sec. 4-1402 and 4-1403 of the Community Development Code. [Proposed Use: Office/Overnight Accommodations (Phase 1) and Overnight modations (Phasle at 210 S. Osceola Ave. Oak Cove A?mercial Condo Unit 1, IkKAFloors 1 & 3 -13, Unit 2, AKA Convalescent Area. Assigned Planner: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III. FLD2006-04019/TDR2006-11032 5. William S. Boozer/, Line-X of Tampa Bay is requesting Flexible Development Approval to allow a Limited Vehicle Service use in addition to an existing Retail Sales and Service use in the Commercial (C) District with a reduction to the minimum number of parking spaces from 20 spaces to 7 spaces; a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 ft to 5 ft (to pavement); and a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 ft to 5 ft (to match the existing building), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per Sec. 2-704.C. (Proposed Use: Limited Vehicle Service) at 19080 US Hwy 19 N. Sec.19-29-16, M & B 14.11. Assigned Planner: John Schodtler, Planner Il. FLD2006-08048 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 Planning Director City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748, Clearwater, FL 33758-4748 NOTE: Applicant or representative must be present at the hearing. Cynthia E. Goudeau, MMC City Clerk 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 tohttp://cearwater.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view id=11 and click on "Resident Engagement Video." You can also check the informational video out from any Clearwater public library. Ad: 12/7/06 FT,D2006-05&' 2 46 BEARDSLEY, GEOFFREY -CLEARWATER FIREFIGHTERS ASSN 9,06 LAKEVIEW RD L CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3421 831 LAKEVIEW RD CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3418 COMMUNITY SERVICE FUND INC 925 LAKEVIEW RD CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3420 DEACON, LYNN 834 TUSKAWILLA ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3440 DUDA, NICHOLAS JR DUDA, MARY J 151 ROBBINS WAY DR FLORISSANT MO 63034 - 2841 FREEMAN, EDMUND J FREEMAN, MARCIA R 80 RONALD DR TEWKSBURY MA 01876 - 2938 HURST, JEREMIAH E SR THOMAS, ALFRED T 709 WYATT ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 1145 ESTES, KEITH L ESTES, DOLORES R 1295 S PROSPECT AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3462 GANGELHOFF, DELBERT C GANGELHOFF, KAY G 925 DEMPSEY ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3405 INFINGER, JEFFREY W INFINGER, FREDA A 931 DEMPSEY ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3405 ?`VV CLEARWATER NEIGHBORHOODS COALITION SONDRA KERR, PRESIDENT P.O. BOX 8204, CLEARWATER, FL 33758. DICKERSON, THOMAS DICKERSON, DAWN 916 LAKEVIEW RD CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3421 FLOAT, MARY A 800 DEMPSEY ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3404 HOUSH GHOVAEE, NORTHSIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. 601 CLEVELAND STREET, SUITE 930 CLEARWATER, FL 33755 KEENER, THEODORE 130 KOTTY OAK RD COVENTRY RI 02816 - 8308 KLEIN, J MARTIN KUCIEWICZ, RYSZARD F LAKEVIEW LAND TRUST 1330 WHITACRE DR MAJEWSKA-KUCIEWICZ, KRYSTYNA 920 1/2 LAKEVIEW RD CLEARWATER FL 33764 - 3668 825 DEMPSEY ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3421 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - LASSEN, FINN 910 TUSKAWILLA ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3442 LE BLANC, DOROTHY B 201 S FULTON BEACH RD FULTON TX 78358 - LOVE, WILLIAM 11940 FALLING CREEK DR MANASSAS VA 20112 - 3263 M L J LAKEVIEW LLC 701 SPOTTIS WOODE LN CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5267 MC COMAS, DANNY L MC COMAS, BARBARA 904 TUSKAWILL ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3442 MATHENY, MICHAEL D KNOX, REBECCA A 915 DEMPSEY ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3405 MELCHER, JERRY MELCHER, BARBARA 808 TUSKAWILLA ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3440 MAYNARD, THELMA J WILSON, BENITA D 824 TUSKAWILLA ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3440 MILLS, WILLARD P III 912 LAKEVIEW RD CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3421 MUNDT, EDWARD A III NOELL, BOB & JEAN CHARITABLE F PAULTON, KALEB L 941 LAKEVIEW RD 700 TUSKAWILLA ST PAULTON, KELSEY L CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3420 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3450 817 DEMPSEY ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3403 PETERS, FRANCIS ETERS, JOSEPHINE .06 PHOENIX AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 6233 RODRIGUEZ, EYVIND 915 TUSKAWILLA ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3441 SEXTON ENTERPRISES, INC 2023 WINDING OAKS DRIVE PALM HARBOR, FL 34683-6653 STARR, PAULINE M STARR, MARGARET S 909 DEMPSEY ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3405 WILLIAMS, MARY E 901 DEMPSEY ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3405 ZURBRIGGEN, MARK ZURBRIGGEN, KAREN 1660 S BETTY LN CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 1226 0 PULSE, THOMAS F PULSE, JANICE M 900 TUSKAWILLA ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3442 SCHMIDT, KATHLEEN 919 TUSKAVILLA ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3441 SMITH, EDWARD B THE SMITH, YVONNE B THE 3919 W IVY LN DUNNELLON FL 34433 - 2239 VOSS, DALE L 2300 BEACH TRL # 6 INDIAN ROCKS BEACH FL 33785 - 3004 WILSON, KENNETH R WILSON, PATRICIA A 1566 DREW ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 6017 • REHM, GERALD S ASSOC INC 721 LAKEVIEW RD CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3422 SCHWARTZ, JILL A THE 700 STARKEY RD # 921 LARGO FL 33771 - 2358 SOUTH CLEARWATER CITIZENS FOR PROGRESS DUKE TIEMAN 1120 KINGSLEY STREET CLEARWATER, FL 33756 WENNING, KAREN M 905 TUSKAWILLA ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3441 WILSON, RICHARD W WILSON, WENDY L 802 LAKEVIEW RD CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3419 Mrs. Pauline M. Stan 0 909 Dempsey St Clearwater FL 33756-3405 Irv }}\Ja[) S f d ICJ ?.C Q1f*11 Lo 0a C 1c G as (:,vA\C' ?., cj-\ v` G.A v0S01 L C.u ORIGINAL RECEIVED DEC 14 2006 Likf PLANNIN&bMkFAd The Humane Society of the United States C17Y OF CLEARWATER ORIGINAL RECEIVED DEC P-2006 ` PLANNING DEPARTMENT C CITY OF CLEARWATER VNZZ. 1 r . ORIGINAL RECEM DEC 141006 DEPAR1MENi PLANNING?LEARIN ?T¢ 0 C IJY OF - - - R I cx4-k- .- ti . z 11 0 November 20, 2006 ORIGINAL RECEIVED The Community Development Board DEC 14 2006 Re: Dorothy B. LeBlanc and Sexton Enterprises, Inc PLANNING DEPARTMEW Proposed Restaurant at 921 Lakeview Rd CITY OF ClEARWAT'ER Lake Belleview Add Blk 1 Lots 13-15 and part of Lot 16, Lot 17-21 This is to state that Jeff and Freda Infinger, residing at 931 Dempsey St, Clearwater Fl 33756, are not in favor of the proposed restaurant to be located at 921 Lakeview Rd. This is a residential neighborhood and we are not in favor of a restaurant being located across/down the street of our home. This would increase traffic along Lakeview Rd and into our residential neighborhood along Dempsey Street. It poses potential problems with noise, traffic and possible increased petty crime drawing additional people into our area. Approving these set backs would open the door for every other business on the street to ask for the same. It is pretty obvious that this is to much of a venture for the size of the property! Thank you, Jeff and Freda Infinger 931 Dempsey St Clearwater FL 33756 • To: City of Clearwater Community Development Board From: Rebecca Knox 915 Dempsey Street Clearwater, Fl. 33756 727-504-2396 Date: 11/19/2006 Re: 921 Lakeview Rd Proposed Restaurant • ORIGINAL RECEIVED DEC 14 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CiIY OF CLEARWATER Dear Clearwater Board and City Council Members, I would like to address the issue for the proposed restaurant located at 921 Lakeview Rd. I live right behind this location and have many concerns about this business being located so close to our home. This property was intended only for office or retail space not a restaurant. There is not enough parking for patrons nor employees without the risk of increased traffic or illegal parking in front of our house. large delivery trucks would also be a major issue. The building is oversized and lot is to small for the proposed landscaping and variances to Lakeview Rd. They also are requesting to cut down 3 trees without having to replace them. The front of building is located at a sharp curve with limited sight distance that would cause traffic hazards. The dumpsters outside will have rotting fish that not only will cause odor but draw wild and stray animals. Being located so close to our home there would be an issue with noise being as it backs up against our street and home. I'm against this Restaurant being in our neighborhood! Sincerely, • k;?c Rebecca A. Knox • 0 T + C-omen. e Y4 cry ORIGINAL RECEIVED DEC 14 2006 Re `t?Q.. -d MVX A CffyNOF C ELEARWATER to heYn MtL? 0o n& x Con lbem?so- save rr?-? ?'ees?o? ; 6 n tvctz NUw? re-Plar1t'nj -the In a? b -i6v' 5YQZlQ- ?Mpl)k$c . Q T t() *IeS? ?r?h?e mg Rio s s a the ct-nc' .y ?ho?? c?? ? du4?rn?e?p ?- 56 ?? ?? l ? more, i rn? 4r?-? bra ?-? ti-KA v- 1 h-P o h m `Vin o cal ?CA.x'? . ?S ?? Y?-r +i Ue. y Hof ? cwn ??? -?t??n c?c?a,? r??-- ??s r?.?-c?? c?-?® lTh 14 k-` a v\,. -eo r your 6-c' 4-d i s&,ra,t) o p r 0 w ne,r R o I ®?m{ . 1 \333115 b October 18, 2006, To Whom It May Concern: My wire aad 1 are writing this note concerning 921 Lakeview Rand, in Clearwater. We'have lived across the street from this building for the past 24 years. We probably know about as much as anyeac, In this area, about this particular building. It was owned by a Mr. Bangs who rented out the three units, over the years, to many different families; The tenants were often a sorry lot and Into drop, etc. The lmliee had to be called from time to time to restore order. The building had been mercial but because that designation had not been Insinta ned the City no longer allowed it. At one time it was rented out to an Electrical Contracting business. This was goad and it was really ship-shape. They were opened from 9 to S. 'T'heta the City said they were not allowed to continue there because it was no longer commerciaL So it wept back to being a rental again. Then it was sold two different times to peoples that hoped to use It for commercial purposes. None of that worked out. Mr. Bangs absconded and was clever seen again. Now, the preaeot own crs have an infill commerelal designation and with to have a restaurant there. This would be preferable to going back to a rental situation, or to having the building raaised. Unlike the former ownem, the present owners have leased additional land for parTdag avid with proper planning, with the City, the business should be an asset to the ate. The present owners have placed a lot of time and money into purchadug and restoring this property. We would trust that the City would allow this business to be a better asset to our community than the past rentals have becn. Respecii[ally, Keith 1. Estes Dolores R,. Estes e--A 0-d' . • Fd&I/ ORIGINAL RECEIVED NOV 0 7 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 0 Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 4:07 PM To: 'Doreen Williams' Subject: RE: The Boiling Pot Thanks. We will include in the CDB package with this case. -----Original Message----- From: Doreen Williams [mailto:Doreen@northsideengineering.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 4:01 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Thompson, Neil Subject: The Boiling Pot Not sure if you received this letter so I am passing it on. Doreen A. Williams Project Director Northside Engineering Services, Inc. 601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930 Clearwater, FL 33755 Phone: 727-443-2869 / Fax: 446-8036 / Cell: 235-8474 Email: doreen@northsideengineering.com Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.3/446 - Release Date: 9/12/2006 11/7/2006 s ?I•Y'rr:tte ;r LONG RANGE PLANNING DEVFLOP,MENT Rrvlrw CITY OF C LEA.RWA.T'ER PLANNING DEPARTMENT Posi OFr1cr•. Box 4748, CLEARWATE1R, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SIiRV1C1:S 13UlLDING, 100 Soli'"I'H MYR77.Ii AVIiN[,T, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TI;LIiPFioNI: (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4865 February 21, 2007 Ms. Doreen Williams Northside Engineering Services, Inc. 601 Cleveland Street, Suite 930 Clearwater, FL 33755 RE: Development Order - Case FLD2006-05032 921 Lakeview Road Dear Ms. Williams: This letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to Section 4-206.D.6 of the Community Development Code. On February 20, 2007, the Community Development Board reviewed your request for Flexible Development approval to permit a restaurant in the Commercial District with a reduction to the lot width from 100 feet to 89.77 feet (south along Dempsey Street), reductions to the front (north along Lakeview Road) setback from 25 feet to 18.1 feet (to existing building), from 25 feet to 14 feet (to sidewalk) and from 25 feet to four feet (to pavement), reductions to the front (south along Dempsey Street) from 25 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 25 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure), a reduction to the side (east) setback from 10 feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to five feet (to pavement), an increase to building height from 25 feet to 29.5 feet (to existing midpoint of the pitched roof), a reduction to the required parking from 43 spaces to 16 spaces and a deviation to allow direct access to Lakeview Road, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-704.C, with reductions to the perimeter landscape buffers along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to four feet (to pavement), along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement) and from 10 feet to zero feet (to dumpster enclosure) and along the east from five feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to 5.5 percent and a reduction to the foundation landscape area from five feet wide to zero feet wide, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3- 1202.G. The Community Development Board (CDB) DENIED the application with the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: Findings of Fact: 1. That the 0.253 acres is located on the south side of Lakeview Road, approximately 600 feet east of South Myrtle Avenue and 50 feet west of Prospect Avenue; 2. That the property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category; 3. That the existing building on the property has some historic value, as it was previously used by Coca Cola as a distribution facility, but is not listed on the Florida or National Register of Historic Places; PRANK I liisit,vii>, MA) OR )11,; DoinN, Coi'Nc1otl=..MH1::k I !orr I kN111.1 w" Cnt acu.?nt>usr:R 13r.i. jw"" N, Cc n u:u_ ut a+r:i ® t.;, PP rf. sttN, Cut :c:n.>n:>u; -R 'T' x1A1. F.NIPLOYNIFN t ,` \D ArriR,NIATPfH Ac"t tc>N 1"NIN.M FIC I February 21, 2007 Williams - Page Two 4. That the last legal use of the property was for four attached dwellings (two on the second floor and two on the south side of the building) with accessory storage on the ground floor; 5. That the two dwelling units on the south side of the building have been removed/demolished; 6. That the proposal is to re-use the site and building for a restaurant in the total 2,890 square-foot building; 7. That the applicant proposes to utilize the 1,915 square-foot downstairs as the restaurant, however, an accessory office for the restaurant is proposed in the 975 square-foot upstairs area; 8. That there is no direct connection between the first and second floors, since this "accessory" space has no interior access, raising a question of appropriateness; 9. That the proposal includes the eastern 25-foot wide lot (Lot 17) owned by Sexton Enterprises, Inc. on the west side of the subject site and the applicant has entered into a Commercial Lease for this 25- foot wide lot for a time period of 15 years with the ability for an additional five years; 10. That the site is a double fronted lot, with frontage along both Lakeview Road on the north and Dempsey Street on the south; 11. That detached dwellings exist to the south across Dempsey Street zoned MDR District; 12. That, in order to provide for a restaurant use on this property, reductions to lot width along Dempsey Street, setbacks, required parking, landscape buffers, interior landscape area and foundation landscape area have been requested; 13. That the curvature of the adjacent roadways and the property, as well as the location of this existing building, present design constraints on the provision of required parking, landscaping and drainage improvements; 14. That inadequate area exists to provide the required off-street parking for the proposed restaurant and the submitted Parking Demand Study does not justify the requested reduction to parking, which represents the provision of only 37.2 percent of the required parking; 15. That the proposed development of this property with a restaurant has not been designed to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding neighborhood; 16. That the proposed reductions to required setbacks provide little area for any meaningful landscaping to mitigate views of the parking lot and for site beautification; 17. That the landscape material proposed is minimal or nonexistent to mitigate adverse effects of the use on the surrounding area, especially on the detached dwellings to the south, 18. That the proposed development does not provide for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings, as the flexibility criteria requires; 19. That, when the reductions to required setbacks are viewed in light of the reductions to required parking and landscape areas, the use is incompatible with the surrounding area and the design and intensity of the proposal does not support the established character of an area and will not enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 20. That there are outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Conclusions of Law: 1. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Standards as per Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code; 2. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-704.C of the Community Development Code; 3. That the development proposal is inconsistent 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 inconsistent with the Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria as per Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code. February 21, 2007 Williams - Page Three An appeal of a Level Two approval (Flexible Development) may be initiated pursuant to Section 4-502.13 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 March 7, 2007 (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.myclearwater.com/ og v/depts/planning. Sincerely, Mich e e , AII?'? Planning Director S: IPlanning Department I C D BIFLEX (FLD)Vnactive or Finished Applications ILakeview 921 The Boiling Pot (C) - DeniediLakeview 921 Development Order 2.21.07.doc ~ . ~ 9 `l1 ® O ~ ~ ~ , LOT 13, 14, 15 AND 16, BLOCK 1, LAKE BELLEVIEW ADDITION, EXIST. ELEVATION x ~ ~ ~ LESS ROAD-RIGHT-OF-WAY,' AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 9,, F d' W PAGE 141 ACCORDING TO THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS ' EXIST. CONTOUR ~ ~ r? W COUNTY, FLORIDA. NEW ELEVATION +10.00 ~ .NP.V i • N W$ LOT 17, BLOCK 1, LAKE BELLEVIEW ADDITION, AS RECORDED NEW CONTOUR ~~~®-'IQoe.~~ Z ~W IN PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE 141. ACCORDING TO THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, EXIST. STORM SEWER ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0• NEW STORM SEWER ®®®®®®eee¦, o N 'g M NEW UNDERORAIN i esuuueuooeeeoeeoeeei ~ ~ p>> EXIST. SAN, SEWER ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::a NEW SAN. SEWER ¦~o~®~®~®~®~~~® EXIST, WATER SERVICE ' ~ ~ ~ NEW WATER SERVICE ®eeeesoseeeeeeeees NEW INLET V~ z ~V NEW SAN. MANHOLE C,O, ° NEW CLEAN-OUT(C,O,) , ® ~ ~ Q ~ a n H~a ~Q~~t ~ ` It z W ~`f NEW BUILDING AREA y .a F r aS,l. r t'• 6 fir, 4 ~"t Ifl } ~£F;:, t 4 ~ ray,' ,i ~ n NEW ASPHALT 11f 1II ~ r ~ l Y: ~`J. ~Jr,~ {s~i~i! Y ~ ~ 1 ~ + ~e( L~ ._..__~:J Y,~ ~ ~ ~ Ma , 0 N~ t 3~, ~ d' . 9 ~ .fl- ~J~ ~r~,, . a ._LAKEVIEW RD ~a~~~; ,~i... 4 " ~ ~ ~ KW'df` U_'*'o'ieM~N.aSL'Y~(~ ~ tau.,,ay~j~~ 1 W 1 k X ~,w~. 6,~ ~ ~ ~ NEW CONCRETE ~ ~ ~ W Y ~ o #,~u~ ~ ~ " TEMP, SILT BARRIER i ~i ~ # . ~Yr?~: 'r' . Fh~'~" yew u r o-~ ~ R ~ ~ j. r ~ ' ' ` ~ G.~+ j~Cl' ~f 1 t d4l A ~{a I 9 g 64 ~t ; ~ ~o / ~ . ~ e* r , 4.i~ ~3~7. t ~'~r r~ ~'i ~ G~~~I ~D' x""~ ~ 4~~s ~ ~ ~ a~~9~ ~ ~ POINT OF~ CONNECTIO_N ~ i ~3~' a~ (p~ rya' ~ ~ ' ~ OF NEW UTILITY T ~ ~ F u~ ~ s: 0 EXIST, W l I I}~ qk, u~~~~ ~ } ` ~~~u~'~~~ ~ ~ M METER ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ .a ,uF~lW i ~14<MpaaiWl /J f,4n S ~a, ~~~,',"',2: r~~.. rlh'~~4yi~k @~i • / / / & 'r4 F'.. ~rY'r 1 ~iu ~:~A ~ i7 Irv k'+"'~ ` ~ ~,u~~~ B.F.P.D. BACKFLOW PREVENTION .DEVICE ~ ~ ~ r,, ~ ~ ' ~ ~~Y~~' ~ 1~M1i~k~'Rttt~ a ~ i1 / ~ ~ ~ ~ , , s~~,;~. y > / Fy~b 'u / ~ a ~'F Y,y k~sit~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - r+a~~.h~r ~ F.H.A. FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ #5936 o d / i 1~1~ !1O ~ 5 r a ~ inl ~7 a4 ~ ~u ~ ~ ~~mw ~ F,D,C, FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION ~ ~ . ~ " '-,,~E,~ ,~~~7'` T,B,O. TEMPORARY BLOW-OFF ~ , v ~ ' F', .S ~~~~t ~ T.&V. TAP AND VALVE r'~' m ' ti i, y,~ >f ,A. : ~ a r ~~r ~ °~E Yr ~ r i d ~ l G~ ~ L ,~~i ~ F, ~ NES Comm.:. 0634 ~I~ uF x.F~~~ ~ ~ ri ~ ~ ~ 4~a .h, y~ B.J.V. Drawn B . k p ~ ,~ft1. 4 .t ~ ~M'~ ~ h ~ ~ ' ~ . ~ ~r ~ ' Checked By: n~ . " . ; i 1 p.~ ~yC~~ r ! ~ J ~ r~ . ~ i ~~J~ s • 1~G I~~q 11.19. ~ i _ _I 5 do _ 5~ , ~y i a ~ I ~ ' Jl h a _ \ . L 0 Oa~ Q~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Issue Dade: 0.7111107 ~ ~ ~ ; ,1 a:t~~ ' Q~ L Revisions; No. Date Descri tion Q 0~ NORTH u, - N w ' 1 I E v EXISTING E PROPOS ED P REQ w REQUIRED ~ c c c ~ / / ZONING: ' x 0 x CG CG ~ LAND USE: cc a - ACCESSORY STORAGE RESTAURANT a~ USAGE: W/4-APARTMENTS °K ~ 0 SHEET GROSS 11 018 SF 11 D18 SF ~ LOT AREA: ~ 10,( 10,000 sF C1.1 CIVIL SITE DATA Q 0.253 AC 0.253 AC NET _ F® cv C2.1 STAKING SITE PLAN ~ BUILDING COVERAGE: 1,996 SF 1,915 SF o.K. C3.1 GRADING AND DRAINAGE S.F. & % OF GROSS SITE ~ C ( ~ 18/ 17/ 0 SITE PLAN 0 2,971 SF 2,890 SF cv GROSS FLOOR AREA (S.F.): ~ 0.27 0.26 .55 F.A.R.: .55 MAX. L1.1 LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN & DETAILS r ~ 19.3' TO BLDG. N ~ 9' TO PAVM'T N 4' TO PAVM'T N FRONT: ~ ( ~ 6 TO PAVM T N 1' TO PAVM'T(S 25' BLDG. 0' TO DUMPSTER S ~ ) -o SETBACKS: o~ , w SIDE: 3.3 TO BLDG. (E) 3.1 TO BLDG. (E) 10' ~ ~ 2' TO PAVM'T(SW) 5' TO PAVM'T (SW) / . BLDG. HEIGHT: o 26 29.5 .w ? MID. PT. OF ROOF ' 25' ORIGINAh ~ m. ~ PAVED VEHICULAR USE-AREA: - RECEIVEC~ ` ~ ~ V.U.A. ~ ~ 950 SF 5,245 SF r~o OCT 12 2~0~ ~ ~ oC °7 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO: 4163 ~SF 7 689 SF ® w~ FLORIDA BENCHMARK INC. ' 0.38 D~9` , ~ (LS.R.) 0.70 0.95 MAX. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ee® i PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR CITY OF CLEARWATER ~ ~ OPEN SPACE: 6,855 SF 3,329 SF AUTHORIZATION NO. LB 6947 (S.F. & % OF GROSS SITE 62.2% ~ 30% 5~ 5% MIN. ~ ~ ~ ~ DATE; 05-08-06 ® PARKING LOT INTERIOR LANDSCAPING: o 90 SF 10% C (S.F. & / OF V.U.A.) 5.5% 10% OF V.U.A. ® N -J ~ ~ O PARKING; 15/1,00 16 15/1,000 SF GFA 43 43 SPACES THIS DRAWING IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN TNNE' pFRdJ m All ENGINEER, AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED, PUBLISHED OR USED °IN ANY,WAY, THE CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. ©COPYRI ~T 1106 °N4T,\ ps 0 PARKING CALCULATIONS; (2,890/1,000 = 2,89) x 15 = 43 D1c RAM A. GOEL, Ph.D., P.E. #47431 Q 0 0 N ^ COPIES OF THESE PLANS ARE NOT VALID, NLGS w J EES SE Sri EMBOSSED WITH THE SIGNING ENGIN N g ~0 0 oV ~ ~ ~z a• ~ r 0 ~3 • ~ ' ~ i I Ili ~ Z WAY( REMOVE ~w Y HIGH couNr EX CONC. ~ a IAL RlN ' 0'PA R T 3 ®NO REMO UE ~ EX, CONC ~ ~ E.Y, CONC. ~ - " NEW H, C RAMP WALK FOOT INDEX 304 CONC, EX, - ~ WALK Z ~ , , ~ v~ Z - ~ / N, 88 36 7 6 W 86, 29 M 0 ~ ' ~ ' ® ~ 'sroP' , ~ ' c~` SIGN (D ~o ~ ~ ~1~ Z NEW RETENTIDNPOND # ' D • NEW N.C, RAMP - REMOVE VV FOOT INDEX 304 ~ Dc EX, CONC, , ~ HISTORICAL a~ ~ ~ G~ ® ~ PERIOD PLANTERS p SR ~ 0:.:;:;:•:. NEW U ~ G D ~ S REI; WALL 1,~ Z ~w . ~p . ~R NOTES.. ~ ~ ~ G 1. ALL S1GNS TD MEET MUTCD STANDARDS. ~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ + F - NEW 5 ~ ::::::::1~.:.:•:::; CONC, WALK 2, ALL SUBSTANDARD SIDEWALKS & SIDEWALK ~ ~ ~ RAMPS ADJACENT TO OR A PART OF Q ~ p.....• ~ _ • k THE PROJECT UP TO STANDARD ~ ~ .Z ~ 0 . . • : . • N C GN INCLUDING A.D.A. SHALL HAVE 0 x 0 ! HT 2 2 SG 0 0 : „ Sl 0 UIS, TRIANGLE TRUNCATED DOMES PER. DOT .INDEX#304. ~ TYP, • 3. DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE TD MEET SAME ~ _ FINISH & COLOR AS MAIN BUILDING. ® ~ 0 . ...............................2 ~x. TWO T~R y ~ z 4. ALL Ol/ERHEAD ELECTRICAL. LINES W1LL BE ~ v ~ _ . REMOI/ED & PLACED UNDERGROUND, CD #593c ~ ® ~ . . CBS BUDDING o ~ ~ . : ® . G® U ~ ~ 0 92~ . . LLF. _ ~ 0. C, - o o s • 0 0 0 . . 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 ~ . 0 as,s , . ~ NES CQmm.. 063 ~ : 0 5 . . . • ~ ~ • ~ ~ • • ~ • ' 0 0 SLIDING DOOR ~ ~ 0 - AC ON Drawn By; B.J.U. D:::: 0 - o ~ 0 ROOF ~ Checked By; H.G. EX TREES TO ° N ...NEW ' d n ' a, • • WNEEI:•:: STQP ~ • ;:::;:.::.::~:~..:::;BE REr~O WED : ' . . a. YP, ~ NEVV RETENTION ..n u~ ~ , ou rfl.o~~.:..:::::: ~ n n ~ POND #2 ~ ~ 6ssae Da#e: 07/11106 - ..o- o i o v', \ ..SIGHT; LIGffTING ° a , REMOI/E ° ° . Revisions: Nno, Date Description 4. L ~ 'd • Ql Q. _ ~G•,,1 • ° /EMPLOYEE ° ! N n G PARKWG ONLY ° n ° a ~ SIGN°°: a . ~ ~9 . ~ • <I na ° . n d. •.:2 i : • a' v,.• C 4C d - _ a~~ o ~ ' ::::::::.::.:::::•:::::::•:::::::'r:::':'r.':::'::::•r:::•:: r:•:.:'::•::: rr:•::: ; ri::ii::r: i:•:•r:~ r:i r:•:•:•.: i:'rr:ii::::: i::i•:::•:•.':. r r:::.;..:.. , • . ~ ~ J . OX10 p ~ _ %DUMPSTER 0 ~ _ ~ ~ :.....::.SIGN......:........ S, 9 58:2.D 9, 40 M ~ ~ l x ~ i ~ ~ . • . . ~ _ . . ~ _ _ . . x / ~ _ I E~ ~ ~ I a I ~ 1 I ~ ~ ~ . . „ p Dr> I 3 i 11 o I® 5 ~ i I .6 3 a ~ m , ® Z i ~ , ~ ~ Q i l _ 1 o ~ w ~ \ ~ o Q ~ N n'J' - 1~ / / ~ i \ ~ ~ VOl1 YV / ORIGINAL ~ ~ \ ~ ~i REOEIVE[s~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ - OAT 12 206 ~ I 7„ I Q I ~ V ~ l / ~ ' ~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT I I GIN OF CLEARWATER 3' 111 ~ ~ ~ ~ / tD ~ , o / ~ \ - \ ~ o ~ / I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o a+ ~n NEW 6" NEW 6" CONC. a.,, o o~ ~ ~ ~ - 0 O 0 0 PARKING PARKING LOT 0 0 0 INTERIOR . " 0 0 0 0 m 1NTERIDR LANDSCAPE ~ ~ 0 0 0 290 S, f a, ' (290 S.F.) ~ ~ ~ r . d. C d a SCALEo 1°~10' ~ ~ . d G . ,a EX. CON n: ,°n: ~°n BEREML 8E REMOVEDO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ a ~ U N 10 0 6 20 ~ ~ ;y13!!!!! 0 t n o • Q THIS DRAWING IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN-,fiHE` PRbpEIV OF THE ENGINEER, AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED, PUBLISHED OR USED IN ~NY 4Y WITH UJT U 0 THE CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. QCOPYRIGHT_-2006. T R1~~1941~Oh3 Q STATE OF CD for. O O . a ~OS t-. A N RAM A. QOEL, Ph.D., P.E. 431 N COPIES OF THESE PLANS ARE NOT VALID UNLESS '^A EMBOSSED WITH THE SIGNING ENGINEER'S SEAL ,41tl4 r ' Z ~g ®®o ~ ~ ~V EY. FHA ~Po ~Z . _ (n ~ 'I - `~~l) ~ ® ®®®~r~ ~ ®®®®®.m ~ ®m ~ ~ ° " ~ EX 6' WATER ~ ~ o N~ . ~ r~ ~ . W BEGIN TOP OF s, Z K ~ l y P) ~ A( EDGE OF WALL ~ ~ ~nP) ~ ~ ~ $ h HIGHW pUNrY - o~ ~ ~ / ~ RTIAL RW 30 PA 1. ~ r~ / ~s 92p 2~. ® Ni Z ~ ;Y 9/4" THICK ALUM. ~ ~ GREASE SKIMMER ~ ~U , E ,CONC. • WALK - / WALK _ ` ~ SLOT EL z ~ ~ , 8.95 ~ r ® . ~ EX. W.M. ° ~ 6~ , N. SS 36 ~ 6 W . . 29 M ~ ~ ~ rr ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 12 PVC ~ 0 r 8 S. S. ~_nira )~l eRq ANCHOR Yl + y NE6VRETENTIDNPOND#1 ~ ® C. , , ® TOP EL, 9.2 1 1 VV ~ ~ THICK ~ 1~ ~OT ~ ckFrN OTAL _lll 3000psi 4~ Ij l ~ ~I~ ® M G. O ~ IE 7 7 ~ O r rr NEW 0 ® ~ POURED 0 ~,~If 0? CONC, WALL ti _Ilf` ~ ~ • G O ~ v • ~ SPLASH PAD 1.~ ~ . P 11~, f ~ t w ~ • ® ~ BEN r~ , O 5. ~ J~ ® ~ 22 1/2 ~ O .75 9.5 ~ ~ -1j~ III Z G. o' BEGIN TOE OF ~ ~ W /o r G ~ ~ r rr SLOPE 1' FROM SLOT ~ ~ ~ v~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 p w0 2 ~ CONTROL STRUCTURE DETAIL z z~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 12 Puc t ~ N.T.S. ~ ~ d ~ ® .JJ`° ~ EX. T WD S TOR ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ 9.3 ~ ~ n CBS BUILDIIUG E ~ #5936 ~ fir 0 ~ • + 92~ 1 ti ~ ~ ELF. = I a. D ° , T 0~ 1 r I ~ ° rr r ~ + p ~ r, ®..e~ ~ L . Z X0.17' NES Comm.: 0634 ~ 1' ~ ~ `1 GREASE ; . - ~ ~ 2.0' ~ Drawn By: B,J.V. - ~ ti TRAP i : ~ ~ ~ ~hecked By: H.G. ~ ~ r N ~Cn ~ any- ` 10.0 ~ BEND » ~ 22 1/2 A O ~ A a~ ~ ~ .L ~ NEW RETENTION ° ~ ~ ~ Issue Date: 07111106 N r • POND #2 o U`, ~ h 0 TOP EL, 9, 2 ~ W q _ ~ \ BOT EL 7.7 ~ ° Revisions: + q L ~ + ,1 GREASE BAFFLE TO BE No. Date Descry tion E O ~ L r ~ ~ 1/4" THICK ALUMINUM 2.2' N ~ 0 1~ WE1R ~ G ~,P MES rr rr w/STAINLESS STEEL ANCHORS Q . 1 WALL IE• 7.7 ~ ~ ~ c g' , •L ~9 0 5 SWALE ~ \ ~ ~ r SLOT & GREASE ~ rr l ~ , L ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~A~'FLE DETAIL. o ~ ~F + \ J 9.6 10.0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N.T.S. 0 ' ri ri ~ % ~ ~ „ - ~ ~ ~ 2~ 9.40 M EX, 4 WA rER x i ®®~®®~®m~®a~ ~ + S. 9°~8 ®m®®m~®m®®®®m®®1 ~®m~ P/L i / ~ i 3' HANDRAIL x / I E' 0 1 g I ~ ® ~ 1 FACE OF Q I I ~ ` 1 1 3 , BUILDING EX GRADE ~n I 1 ~ 0 - ~ ~ r/ l 6 E~X. SAN. ~ cn I ~ I \ a ~ P/L 9.6 / r LIA TERAL u~ ~ + ® ~ 8 I ~ ,f L ~ ~ ~ l ~ ` I T.O.B. i' 5' SIDEWALK EL. 3.2 i Q ~ . 9.9 ® / 1 ~ _ A.A T O.S. - ~ TEMPORARY ~ ~ ~ S1L T SCREEN BARR ~ ~ EL. 7J .NEW RETAINING WALL ~ ~ ~ ~j• ~ (TYP,) _ 2 / - - ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 \ 0 ~ ~ ORIGINAL RE~EIVFD / e® 1 ~ ~~ra 7 )1 ~ 1 ' ~~Y+F SECTION A-A ~ ~ I I ~ Q EX SAN. M. N. , I RETENTIO p~,NN?NG DEP~~~A N POND #1 G,NaF~~~A I N.T.S. F° I® I 3 I ~ r / U ~ ~ I ~ ~ , I ~ ~ 6Li POST OPTIONS; ~ ~ _ _ ~ 2°x4" OR 2,5»DIAM, a' ~ ,WOOD; 1,33LBS./FT,. 'v~ ~---6 MAX,~~ MIN, STEEL NEW WEIR WALL ~ FILTER FABRIC IN 9.5 TOP. ELEV, 9,2 ~ ~ ~ ' ~C CONFORMANCE WITH MEET EX. MEET EX, i 15 SEC. 985 F,D,O.T. TOP ELEV. 9.2 BOTTOM OF SLOT EL. 8.95 to ` ~y SPECS. OR EQUAL GRADE GRADE / / rn 3' ~\i / ~ i~/ , ~ 18 ~ _ MIN, ~ ~ EXIST, _ ~ " IIII ,1111 t'. h ~ G If I Y ~ I GROUND ~~~;,A ~ z ~,,v% 8 1 IIII_IIII riy ` ~ _ \ 6° SWALE FL 8.45 ® ® ~ ~ ~ / 6Y 6u 20° . ~ ~ SCALEa 1"~10' ~ ~ I PRINCIPAL OPTIONAL POSITION, CANTED 4 j\ BOT ELEV. 7.7 a ° DAY LIGHT TO ~ ~ POST ~ 20' TOWARD FLOW NOTE; ~ POSITION ~ / / / / EXISTING GRADE ~ ~ w FILTER FABRIC SAND BASED SOD U~ ~ SILT SIDES & BOTTOM o ~ FLOW EXIST, 10 0 5 ~0 '20 ~ ~ ~ t~ ~ GROUND _ _ _ _ _ _ - p -11I. I II-111 IIII_IIII ALE ~ NOTE: SILT FENCE SHALL NOT 6° SWBE TRENCHED IN WHERE SECTION B-B e o ADJACENT TO TREES DESIGNATED s Q TO REMAIN. SECTION" CC RETENTION POND #2 THIS DRAWING IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN T~Eeey ERTY' OR'I MF, ENGINEER, AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED, PUBLISHED OR USEQ%N YYppf{TIIQUU~ U THE SILT FENCE MUST N.T.S. p BE SECURED THROUGH THE THE CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. QCOPYRTT,*2006 NbLR LISI~ED N.T.S. DETAIL SILT BARRIER PLACEMENT OF FILL OVER » No.47431 b ~ Q THE LOWER LIP OF N.T.S. THE BARRICADE. 0 w. `5 OF t 0 N RAM A. GOEL, Ph.D., P.E. #47 4r N COPIES OF THPLAN ARE E SIGN NG ENGINEER'D Alf S SEA.``Sls,°,°'~? I i E E~', FHA 4 ki ' ~ ~ ER u~~~®~m®e~c~~ ~ ~g / " o® j . Y P AC I HIGHW UNTY ~ CG / " r' ~ a~a W AC RW i 30`PART~ ~ ~ HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND IRRIGATION NOTES ICONTINUEDI ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 LANDSCAPING PERMITS THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AN UNDERGROUND IRRI- ~ a ~ ~ ~ EX: COrUC• CATION SYSTEM TD COVER 100% OF ALL ON SITE PLANTING AREA, ~ d THIS SYSTEM SHALL CONTAIN BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING; ~ ~ ~ WAiK ® U/ I 1, A HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND LANDSCAPING PERMIT IS REQUIRED 1. UNDERGROUND PIPING, SHALL BE PVC SCHEDULE 40 OR BETTER. ~ Q FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROJECT, APPLICATION SHOULD NOT ~ m ~ EX. CpN~• BE MADE UNTIL FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL HAS BEEN GRANTED, 2. SEVEN (7) DAY PROGRAMMABLE TIME CLOCK TO ACTIVATE ZONES. ~ LK WA ~ 3. SPRINKLER HEADS COMPATIBLE WITH THE TYPE OF PLANTING. ~ 0° o. AN APPLICATION AND AN EXTRA COPY OF THE APPROVED FINAL 4. ELECTRIC VALVES. ~ ~ ! / - EX. W.M. , ,g nJ APPLICATION PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THIS DEPARTMENT IN 5, GAUGE 14 OF COPPER WIRE 2~ ORDER TO PROCESS THE PERMIT. 6, FIBERGLASS OR PLASTIC ZONE VALVE BOXES. ® ~ z ® . . ~ C.. b. ALL EXOTIC SPECIES, I.E., BRAZILIAN PEPPER (SCHINUS TEREBIN- WHERE PIPING IS UNDER DRIVEWAY AND CONCRETE WALKS, THE PIPES ~ ~ ~ U • r, (~.^~l ~ l ~ ~l J L ~ t J It J~ ~ ~t l~J~ lJ~ ~ t _ 'IJJ~I I ' ( }I ~l 'y l^ } l XA THIFOLIUS), PUNK TREES (MELALEUCA QUINQUENERVIA), AND CHINESE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN SCHEDULE 40 SLEEVES 18° BELOW GRADE /-I TALLOW (5APIUM SEBIFERUM) MUST BE REMOVED AS A CONDITION OF ~0° A . + ~ 7 ~•~Ill"N r- 1111.- fn(i r~(,l~ _ G~ ~ r-1~ ,v,, ~ is ~~l ~ t~~°~ ~ p ~ d,,.: , ~ ~ F.. SITE DEVELOPMENT. WHERE NECESSARY DUE TO THEIR PROXIMITY TO ~ ~ PROTECTED'PLANT MATERIAL, HAND REMOVAL WILL BE REQUIRED. MATERIALS SUPPLIED SHALL BE EQUAL TO THOSE MANUFACTURED BY ~ ~ ~ ~ / SHOULD THIS REMOVAL BE TO A DEGREE THAT A POTENTIAL FOR RAIN BIRD CO. OR APPROVED EQUAL. v EROSION IS CREATED, THE AREA MUST BE RESTABILIZED WITH SUITABLE q0 ~ ~ JJ ~ - . ~W RETENTC NPR D ~1 ~ i(^l ,I MATERIAL, a v ,1 - ~ ' ~ a THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A SYSTEM LAY-OUT ALONG WITH 'el c. ONCE FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL (FAA) HAS BEEN GRANTED, A CATALOG SHEETS OF ALL COMPONENTS IN THE SYSTEM TO THE 1~ ~ ~ ~ F~ ~ BARRICADE INSPECTION CAN BE SCHEDULED. WHEN THE BARRICADES OWNER FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. ~ ~ o . r. ~ o ~ ° 2 ~ , o ~ c J~,;, ~ ~ , o r r„p ,~r„ f Gm„~ r,;, , HAVE .BEEN APPROVED THE PERMIT CAN BE TYPED AND RELEASED, ' REE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATIONI THE ENTIRE SYSTEM SHALL BE GUARANTEED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR t~ \ P , G ~ , , 4 < < 7 ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE BY THE ARCHITECT/ EE BARRICADES AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURE REQUIREMENTS; ENGINEER, ~ P i'` ~ _ - ~ - ~ , 1, TREE BARRICADES AND/OR SILT SCREENS OR HAYBALES SHALL BE Q _ ~ os ~ - i P TOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND LANDSCAPE ANY AND ALL' USE OF HOSE BIBBS IN ASSOCIATION WITH c ! ~ ~ , 25 R QUIRED ALONG THE EDGES OF VEGETATED AREAS TO BE PROTECTED RMITS, THE LOCATION FOR EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE SHOWN NON-POTABLE WATER SUPPLIES SHALL BE IN FULL COMPLIANCE ~7B ON THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. WITH SBCCI STANDARD PLUMBING CODE, CHAPTER VI CRITERIA ~ ~ P~ ~ ~ ~ v~ , l r / a , ; ~ PD REFERENCE COLOR CODING OF ABOVE GRADE RISER PIPING 2. ALL DESIRABLE TREES MUST BE RETAINED WHEREVER POSSIBLE. AND LABEL/TAGGING OF OUTLETS AS NON-POTABLE WATER SUPPLY. ~ ~ ~ IT WILL BE REQUIRED THAT PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS (i,e. BUILDINGS, , ~ ~ WALKWAYS, DRIVEWAYS, POND BANKS, DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, ETC,) BE ~ ~ ADJUSTED TO RETAIN DESIRABLE TREES. GRADE CHANGES MUST BE ANY BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED IS SUBJECT TO NOTIFICATION I s~ '~t , r ~ Y11,~ , q,~. :r~i 6 SENSITIVE TO TREES REMAINING. IN GENERAL, NO GRADE CHANGES TO THE AIR TOXICS SECTION OF THE COUNTY DEPARTMENT SHOULD OCCUR WITHIN THE CANOPY DRIP LINE OF PINE TREES -AND OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIOR TO ANY DEMOLITION OF ~ ~ tn t'^~ 1--~ ~ ~ J ; "mac. ~ OIQ~ ~ 1 ~I ~ Z T 2/3 THE CANOPY DRIP LINE OF HARDWOOD TREES TO BE SAVED. BUILDINGS, ~ ~~_JJ ~ TWO s T~,~ y 'x LANDSCAPING ~ - cis ~viLc~ir~c ~ , o ~ 1. EACH LANDSCAPING AND REPLANT TREE MUST BE PLANTED WITHIN XERISCAPING A MINIMUM FIVE (5) FOOT BY TEN (10) FOOT OPEN SPACE PLANTER o ~ ~ r ~ , ~ ~ ~ l WITH SUITABLE GROUND COVER. LANDSCAPE TREES MUST BE PLANTED 1. ORGANIC MULCHES AND/OR DROUGHT TOLERANT GROUNDCOVERS ~ Z ~ 3 IN SAME VICINITY AS VEHICULAR USE AREAS IN ORDER TO BREAK THE WITHIN PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLANTER BEDS. ~ ~ ` r ~ ~ / ~L ~ _ , j ~ l ! . MONOTONY OF UNBROKEN EXPANSES OF PAVING. TREES MUST NOT BE PLANTED WITHIN MANTENANCE EASEMENTS, ~ ~ W '"i _ ~ ~ . r , a~ ~ LLF. - ~ O a.J ~ ~ l , t, ~ , m i~ ~ / ~ SD 2. DROUGHT AND COLD TOLERANT PIANT MATERIAL. VV r 2, THE USE OF XERISCAPE DESIGN MUST BE UTILIZED FOR THE 61Y REQUIRED LANDSCAPE DESIGN. THE DESIGN DEMONSTRATES THE USE ~ - ~n r(Il. OF ALOW VOLUME IRRIGATION SYSTEM, ORGANIC MULCHES, DROUGHT 3. GROUPING OR ZONING PIANT MATERIAL BASE ON SIMILAR WATER ~ ~ AND COLD TOLERANT PLANT MATERIAL, ZONING OF PLANT MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS AND THE LOCATION OF PROPOSED IRRIGATION ' r ~ O c ~~.v~(-~ i ~ ~v,i I,, BY WATER REQUIREMENTS, SOIL AMENDMENTS (IF NECESSARY) AND THE WATERING SYSTEMS, ~ ~ ~ .PRACTICAL USE OF TURF. ~ - , ~ i%~• } 4, THE USE OF 501E TESTING TO IDENTIFY SOIL CONDITIONS NECES- _ _ o 3. NEW LAN05CAPING MUST BE PROTECTED FROM VEHICULAR MOVE- SARY FOR THE CONTINUED SURVIVAL OF PROPOSED LANDSCAPING, 3 MENT BY WHEEL STOPS, RAILROAD TIES, OR OTHER SUITABLE BARRIER, ~ m L WHERE POSSIBLE, THE AREA BETWEEN THE BARRIER AND LANDSCAPE 5, ORGANIC SOIL AMENDMENTS SUCH AS TOP SOILS, MANURE'S, PEAT Q ..\~~i ~ :It~" O t 1, MATERIAL SHOULD REMAIN AS GREENSPACE. AND COMPOSTED MATERIALS) MIXED EXISTING SOILS WITHIN LANDS- ~ p t; i Q~ 4. LARGE TREE SPECIES PROPOSED FOR INSTALLATION MUST BE A GAPING PLANTER BEDS TO DEPTHS CONSISTENT WITH THE ROOT DEPTH ~ l ~ ~ l Lf MINIMUM DF 20 FEET AWAY FROM BUILDINGS, SIGNS, FENCES, LIGHT OF PROPOSED PLANTED MATERIAL (USE ONLY IF EXISTING SOIL ;fir POLES, UTILITY LINES AND ANY OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS THAT MAY CONDITIONS WARRANT THESE AMENDMENTS), 1~ - r., ( ~ ~ ~ ,fit 1,a E~ 1 t`~~ ~ ~ t, , x - P{7~D # E VV l i IMPAIR NATURAL GROWTH. NES COI~YII~n.. 0634 T,T 6, THE PRESERVATION AND INCORPORATION OF EXISTING PLANT ~a pQ~~ 5. TREES PROPOSED FOR INSTALLATION MUST NOT BE IN CONFLICT COMMUNITIES ON SITE INTO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, Drawn By: B.J.V. X ; ~ t '4~:, r ° ` lL L nx WITH PROPOSED OR EXISTING UTILITY LINES OR STRUCTURES, EASE- MENTS OR OTHER AREAS WHICH MAY REQUIRE EXCAVATION IN THE 7, THE MINIMAL USE OF TURF GRASSES WHICH REQUIRE FREQUENT. / r. ,~1 , 1 \ ~ 11 ~ e /LL EVENT OF SYSTEM FAILURE, THESE FEATURES SUCH AS THE WATER IRRIGATION. Checked By: M.G. LINES MUST REMAIN OUTSIDE THE 5' X 10' PLANTER AREA, ~ r, 8, LOW-MAINTENANCE DESIGN. V! I'C~' 1. _ 1 G ~ z ; ~I m 6, SOILS WITHIN PLANTER BEDS -MUST BE SUITABLE FOR PROPOSED PLANTED MATERIAL WITH REGARDS TO pH, SOIL TEXTURE, SOIL - I ~ ~ STRUCTURE, AND SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE. TREE SHRUB PLANTING DETAILS Issue Date: 07111106 - r , , J <~J>>~ ~t ~~~r,~ia~' 7. ALL LANDSCAPE MATERIAL MUST BE FLORIDA GRADE ~1 OR BETTER, ~ o ~ ~_.1'= _ r;. ~ ; Imo, ; ~ t ~ ~ ~ , , ~ ~ . , ~ ~ ~ ~ r I Q ~a cull r. ~6 rx, 8. ALL REQUIRED TREES MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 10' HIGH, 2-1/2" Revisions: . a0oa ~ ~ ~ CALIPER AT TIME OF PLANTING. 1, THE ROOT MASS FORM OF EACH TREE PROPOSED FOR INSTALLATION N0. DOte Descri tion SHALL BE BALLED OR BURLAPPED, BARE ROOT TREES ARE NOT AC- N ~ ~ - ` _ 9. ALL HEDGES MUST BE 24" HIGH AT THE TIME-0F PLANTING, CEPTABLE, ALL NONBIODEGRADABLE WRAPPINGS WILL BE REMOVED 1D 1Z Q6 CITY CDA4R9EiV15 (D 0 00 ~,1' i ~ p, ' ~ \ N ooa n ~ ct ~ ~ ' I \ V~ PLANTED AT 30'~.ON CENTER, AND BE MAINTAINED AT A MINIMUM OF AND BURLAP WILL BE FOLDED DOWN TO ENHANCE WATER ABSORPTION, Q n IF WIRE BASKETS ARE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH BALLED AND' Q \ 3' IN HEIGHT, BURLAPPED TREES. THE FIRST FEW ROWS OF EACH BASKET WILL BE 0 00 3 Minimum Mulch ' _ l~' o ~e _ ~ ~ "Tr '11 ilk', Ir l y` L 1 ~ REMOVED AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION. 1 ~ ~ t~ ~ry, - - Ex. WArLR ~ 10. WHERE LANDSCAPE OR REPLANT TREES ARE PROP05ED TO BE Q ~IiAT~~i PLANTED IN THE PERIMETER BUFFER, THE. BUFFER MUST BE A MINIMUM Q 0 3 Soil Saucer ~ ~ • 9, ~ M) pe ~ r ~ .c S. ~ °~8 20 o - - - ~ "x mm~ mm® ~®a r~~onmm ~d®®m®ua a ®®m ®~m ~ ~ ~ m~` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OF 5~ WIDE, 2, SUPPORTING APPARATUS SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER 1 COMPLETE GROWING SEASON. AL50 THE FLEXIBLE ATTACHMENTS SHALL BE USED Q _ _ ~ ~m®m N ~ -III:-111.-:111:,:111:._-1 x:111:=~I11==-111 -111 I~~~ `l ~ / 1 WHERE SUPPORT WIRES ARE WRAPPED AROUND TREE TRUNKS/STEMS i N I-=III--I-II,TILI _=-i:~==i~f~-fry-' Remove Container ~,'.r~,, ~ III~i..lll=-I 6 ~ ~;III~.III;,- From Rootball - , I__ili: 11_-ill 1 9 ~ ~ 1 o I_ I Min. 6" :Miri, ~ . - _ Planting Soil Mixture ~ » ~ ~r, ~ , ' ~ ~ 2 IRRIGATION NOTES TO PREVENT CAMBIAL DAMAGE, , 1, SHALLOW WELLS, OPEN SURFACE WATER BODIES, OR RECLAIMED Q _ 3 I ~ =1I I.. , i I.~I I 1 j 0 , W ~ ~ fix', SAN. ,7~ I WATER MUST BE USED A5 A SOURCE OF IRRIGATION WATER, THE DIST- 3, PLANTING HOLES ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED TREES MUST SLOPE Q RIE3UTION SYSTEM FOR IRRIGATION MUST NOT BE .CONNECTED TO (NOT COMPACTED) AND A MINIMUM OF 18-24 INCHES WIDER THAN 1=1~~11I I _I f .-I II I ~I I I~i I 1 I I- I ~ ~ • CIA TERAL a " ~ °1 :Iih111 X111,-111~I11--III~II~- Existing Soil 1 \ ~ o~ j8 ~ ~ ~ l ~h COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL WATER SOURCES, UNLESS"IT CAN BE DEMON- THE DIAMETER OF THE ROOT BALL TREES SHALL BE INSTALLED SUCH Q 8 ~ STRAYED TNAT THESE SOURCES ARE NOT AVAILABLE, THAT .THE TOP OF THE ROOT MA55 15 LEVEL WITH THE SURFACE OF ~ ~l ~ THE PLANTING HOLE. TREES SHOULD BE INSTALLED 3 - 5 INCHES ~ ABOVE GRADE ON SITES CONTNNING CLAY. A 2 - 3 INCH LAYER OF I 3 2, IRRIGATION SYSTEMS MUST UTILIZE LOW VOLUME DESIGNS SUCH AS OFDEACH PLANTINGUHOLE.STOBEPREVENT FUNGALHINFECTION MULCHE o ~ / ',i'' ~ , ~ ~ U ' N ~ i~l~ 1 ~ 1 ~ LDW TRAJECTORY HEADS OR SOAKER HOSES TO PROVIDE DIRECT AP- SHOULD BE PULLED BACK A FEW INCHES FROM THE BASE OF EACH 0 / / PLICATION AND LOW EVAPORATION, SYSTEMS THAT OVERSPRAY AREAS TREE, / THAT DO NOT REQUIRE IRRIGATION, SUCH AS PAVED AREAS WILL NOT L BE ACCEPTABLE, HIGH IRRIGATION NEED AREAS MUST NOT OVERSPRAY SHRUS PLANTING .DETAIL ~ ; ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ o ~ Q ~ ~ LOW NEED AREAS, 4, IF ON SITE SOIL CONDITIONS ARE SUCH THAT SOIL AMENDMENTS ~ N.T.S. ~ WILL BE NECESSARY, THE PLANTING MUST INCLUDE 501E MIXTURE / ~ ~ THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SECTION OF EACH PLANTER AREA TO A I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 60 R ~ , ~ ~ , ~ ' ' ~ ~ SERVED BY ARSEPARATE RRIDGATION ZONE THAN LOW WATER NEED BE PLANT MADTERAL NT WITH THE ROOT DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSED N ~ A ~m ~ ~ , ~ s ® PLANTER BEDS, OR MULCHED AREAS WITH TREES. IN NO CASE, SHALL . ~ ANY PLANTED VEGETATION AREA BE MORE THAN 50~ FROM A WATER 5. PLANTERS ADJACENT TO OR WITHIN VEHICULAR USE AREAS MUST - SUPPLY HOSE BIBB, BE CONSTRUCTED SUCH THAT LIMEROCK, ASPHALT, CONCRETE OR ANY OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS DO NOT EXTEND UNDER THE. SURFACE INTO 4, AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEMS MUST BE OPERATED BY AN IRRI- THE PLANTING AREAS, CATION SYSTEMS OPERATED BY AN IRRIGATION CONTROLLER „ ~ ~ i/ CAPABLE OF DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN THE SCHEDULES OF HIGH AND 6, THE PRACTICE OF TREE TRUNK WRAPPING AND THE APPLICATION OF LOW WATER DEMAND AREAS, .CONTROLLERS MUST HAVE MULTIPLE PAINTS/TAR ONTO PRUNED TREE BRANCHES IS NOT RECOMMENDED I 3 A~ ~ Q ~ I EX 5 'V, H, c CYCLE START CAPACITY AND A FLEXIBLE CALENDAR PROGRAM ABLE TO BY THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURAL, BE SET TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL OR WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT I ~ I I o IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS, ' 7, PLEASE NOTE THAT THE USE OF FERTILIZERS DURING PLANT I ~ I j 1 5. AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEMS MUST BE EQUIPPED WITH RAIN INSTALLATION IS NOT APPROVED. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT FERTILIZATION (SPECIFICALLY, THE APPLICATION OF NITROGEN) I ~ ~ , SENSOR DEVICE OR SWITCH WHICH WILL OVERRIDE THE IRRIGATION OF TREES/SHRUBS WITHIN THE FIRST GROWING SEASON INHIBITS ROOT ~ ~ CYCLE OF THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM WHEN ADEQUATE RAINFALL HA5 GROWTH, THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER STRIP MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OCCURRED. SUITABLE FOR PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION, Y ~ O ` ~ / ~ ~f N ~ I N - - ~ CROWN SPREAD NOTE: ALL TREE STAKES AND SUPPORT WIRES WILL BE REMDVED AFTER 1 COMPLETE L Landscape Table. m GROWING SEASON. able. Quantit Code Name S mbol .Scientific Name Common -Name ~ Y Y Tmon -Name Planting Size Height Spacing - NOTE: ALL TREE STAKES AND SUPPORT WIRES For Cabbage Palm Installotion: For Cobbage Palms; ti•, I podoearpus 3-Gal 24" 30" OC L WILL BE REMOVED AFTER 1 COMPLETE Trim All Fronds at Time All Trunks to be Smooth and 98 PD ~ Podocarpus macrophyllus Yew podoearpu, a GROWING SEASON, of Digging and Planting All Burn Morks Brushed Away For Washington Palm Insiallalion, For Washington Palms: ' ~ Leave all boots on trunk 2 WE Ulmas alata Win ed elm Q. ~ Lecve inside raw of fronds g fed elm 2 1/2"=Ca! 10' per/plan _ ~ Remove Deod and Injured Tie up with biodegrodable twine w Twigs, Trim NO Leaders, 2 Layers Burlap Pod at 3 MG Magnolia. Grand. DD Blanchard Magnolia DD E ~nolia "DD Blanchard" 2 1/2"-Cal 10' per/plan ~ Retain Natural 5ha e, - ~ x p ~ Support Contact No ~ „ - m Nails in tree Wood ® 'I ~ q 3/4 2 Ply Reinforced W Rubber or Plastic Hose Wire Tie „ ~ Y ra c ine M ur Maui red ixora o ~ 25 IX Ixo oc a a ~i red ixora 3-Gal 24" 30" OC ~ White Surveyors Tagging _ " ~ Tae 6 Len th 2 x 4 Broce Yellow Pine P, 9 r ~ ) ® ~ ~ 4 LT Li ustrum S .Tree Li ustrum Tree • T • 9 pP 9 Space Three at 120 yp~cal n Istrum Tree 2"-Cal 8' per/plan ~ 0 3 - 12 Guage Galvanized Wires a Remove after one growing season, il.? „ „ ~ Spaced 120 Around Tree and ~ 2" x 4' Stake Yellow Pine ~ ~ QE ~j„j~ Crinum augustum Queen Emma een Emma" crinum lily 7-Gal., 36" per/plan ~ ~ o Set At A 45'Angle With 3- 68 ~ ) -r Duckbill Anchors Or Equal Three Feet Long 3 SP Sabal almetto Sabal Palm i ~ Remove after one growing season. Remove otter one growing season. t,~ p al Palm B Bc B 10'+CT per/plan $C~L~; ~ ~ 3 Saucer Rim 4 Min, !.~_:_!l , (II~~~III: Mound To Form saucer 109 VA Schefflera Arboricola variegated Var. Dwf Schef Dwf Schefflera 3-Gal 24" 30" OC 'I -III r ~l 'll~ ~~~._~i~~ _ finish Grade i ail ~If- 3 .Minimum MUhn Layer _ 6 BC Taxodium disfichum Bald cypress ~ rig nl- II~~I,L . 1_lTl-li~ _ :I ~ cypress 2 1/2"-Cal l0' per/plan e~ ~ ~ m _~~111= „l ,,,11=-11j~ I 3° Minimum Mulch i_:I',:c .12~ _ Remove Burlap From I==: I_-. I= „ „ „ I! III- Around Top Of Boll - _ • • 4 CM La erstroemia indica Musko ee Cra e m rtle ,n t: i urn _ IJ] I L=- Ia-=;I I I=-;I Rootball, 16 Minimum a g g h Y ee myrtle "Lavander" 2"-Cal 10' per/plan ORIGINAL 10 0 5 20 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Jh x';'111-~; i--'~I--= Rodius From Trunk „ „ c 1=III ~ Planting Soil Mixture-I ~ ~ ~ aLi`,,..:_T:_._> ~_;'_M~n.~°~~;~~:;~:;;~a~l=: __l 81 XA Phrlendendron Xanadu Xanadu ddu 3-Gal 24" 30" OC IZ~~EIV~~ +J I-Ij._ ~..,~1-III-11J-ill--f =1 LL,__,,,.-yl I ~--.I ~ ~--I Washed-In and Tamped ,a> -I(I~II--1~-I--III==116--III-dl•;~II-{I-1-:f~1,: ~ - Plant~n Soil Mixture rn r. n~ rii ill _w-.-ITL_l7Lrii-fTl_lil__li~_lu 'I~ -I1~ g TR/1 C'/lr1 drnanfino r~nhin Rnhin Existing Soil ' BUTLER DESIUN UKUUN, INL ° Provide a minimum 5 x10' ! c unobstructed planting area PLANNING DEPARTMENT - - - - - ° 11 CITY OFCLEARWATER 4203 46TH AVE N. ST PETERSBURG FL. 33714 Iml PH 727-521-1684, FAX; 727-527-7422, E-MAILronsplans®tampabay,rr,com TREE STAKING PLANTING DETAIL PALL STAKING & PLANTING DETAIL E N.T.S. DRAWN BY: RON BELKO Ll I ° ci N.T.S. CHECKED BY: CHUCK BUTLER 0 p j U i I • 1 I ~ i i ' ~ I ~ ? U ~ 1) ~ _ ~.._._...,,.~.__..__w..,~__.... ~ ~ , w ' ,I ; , ! p qp " i ' ~ x v 1' I, ~ p G~ . , ~Sl~ ~ i , .i 2 ! I V u. YA ~ ti 9AZt LV:Y ~'G1;~il•n'. .kTyl^,Jp..' $.H'. (`'n:+n:!dl~ a' r N;. ~ ~ , ~ i y ' P ~ i ~ p + f. ~ p ~ I • ti ~ ' c:. . ' o 3 ~ N ~ , , - 'I . i . I is i . M. rs i . ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~j ~ \ ! ~ y Jj. 'I _ I . ~ • ~ . ~ , I , I'. ~ ~ a' ~ ~ ~ f I I ~ ~ ~ r . M 'I . 1. ~ •I ~ 1pny~{,. OVA/ ~ ~ K ' ~ . ;.I . t I ; . ~ R~ ~ ~ ICI ....d ~2 . ti. I . ! 5 • • p, ~ Yi i7 I t ~ j , . . . *,V,.,, , n r ~ ~ A • , . . .I [,.1~ . ~v _ _ ~~y~ . . ? P s a S ~ v . ~ i ~a F ' ' . i ~ i ~jGo p~'~~hl~ lJ L~ CI t' . r` l ~l.l ~;1 ',c: f' P~ 1. ~ ' D acs ?[105 . ~ ~k,L. I N Cry I,~2. , . ~ . K: I . . . • ~ . . . DIEVELOPMENT SEF+u1CES QEPT . ~ ~ ' ~ , Ckt li'{~R . ? . k . N _ I a:...: . E~ , ~K~A. - . M P~ . . , ~ . . ' i ' ri ~ ~ ' s` I I,• ~ l ~ . . 1 ~ , ~y/~' , ~ .:I~. _ . ~ ~ _ . . - I , ~ ' ~J ~ fir.' ~ ~.;1'wda~~~~.... ,i .1^t°I it a ORIGINAIw . aINAL ~ L`~ , s RECEIVED EIVED 5.2@n6. - . . ~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT I DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWAT~ER :LEARWATER f . ~ ~ ~ ' . " 1 d dG • . I_:G~. ' ~tZl~ ~c.:16 : tine L~ ICI ' ' ! L: • ~y(G ~IN~ ~°Fkp~ 123 Mp.~ -3~c.:~~.: ld3M M? , • ~ I~N p-~, f7~U.IZ~'. ~ / - ~,q ~,~,y ;APPROV~a BY: DRAWN BY , . of . Llt~,~ ; f.18::.. . ~ G _ _ arE, i ~ SF --i~~fih .~~I NG , _ ~ REV ISEO ~N~ ~ r !2 :-,..25,.2 ~ . ' , i • , _ ' r ~ , . . ~E _ , 3 d , o . Zo~~ ; z5 q ~.a,.4 _ „IQRAWlNG NUMBER 4•F~ , _ ' „ . General Notes / I~ LAKEVIEW ROAD(P) DEMPSEY S7REET(F) ~ ' 13 9 13' ' ~ / ~ ~ 60~RW ~ ~ i ~ ~ ?3~/2/ ~G ? i 2 I ~g I ~j 6 31 1~ / W/ N&D \ \ /I~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ 9 0 1 / 3q'~CM 3x3 g,1 S.89 58'0"E 39.40'(lu~) 9~ ~ o g 1 \ ~ ~ ~ ~ S• / \ ~ 2~ ~ x 9•~ FCM 3x~ 1p.p) 25" ~x~ ~ _ i 7 7 3 ~x - ~ I lx 3 3 x'91 I 6 2 1~ 3 ~3 6~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `x CONCRETE 1~ 9 ~ ~ 3 \ ~ ~p 1'~ 6'~ ~1 ~ x~ ~ 29. 4 ~ ~.~x' \ I i V ~ ~ ,OAK TREE ~ / ~ ~ \ - s 6690 I 2) ~ ~l I 0• 0• 1 i,~~ 1 ~ Twoces R r ~ \ ~ fix, 5 2 „ ~ Il ~x~ (9 ' , BUILDING \ o ~ o~ ti v /LLF.=70.0) \ \ 1, 5 ~ \ ~ 1~y. ~~1 ' ~Pl ~ 00 TREE INVENTORY NOTES 1 r'1~ 31 ~1~n~n ~-TREE CAIVOPY'/ROOT. ZOhJE ) o ~ V C```AA~II Go~~1'' `L j-TREE DBH 8~5 49.9'. 2 ~x k ~vV L~ No. Revision/Issue Date Q~ ~ TREE SYMC~OL FPM N~0 ~ ~g~0 Z7J`) Firm Nome and Address I 3 TREE INVENTORY RATING ~O TREE INVEIITGRY, NUMBER BUTLER DESIGN GROUP, INC 4203 46TH AVE, N, ST, PETERSBURG, FL. 33714 o~ g6~ 01 U l PH 727-521-1684, PA%t 727-527 7422, E-MAIL:BDCIOTAMPABAY~RR,COM X ' O ~1 O ~~1 ORAWN BY: RON BELKO CHECKED BY. CHUCK BUTLER G 'J +1 CERTIFICATION # FL-1235A WMN N.8836'16"W. 86.29'(M) FIR 5~S ~Jh~ l~, ~ / too Project Nome and Address WB 5'CSW ~k 2k } 921 LAKEVIEW AVE 2 cvc 2 CV 556 , ~ ~ ' CLEARWATER; FLORIDA '1 I~/ ROAD(F~ ~ 6 E VI ~ 6 KE A g. L wq y(P) - NTY HIGH _ ~ COU _ SCAM. 1 "=A o~ Project Sheet 30 PARTIAL RW Dote " 07/11 /06 T S _ 1 Scale 10,_0„ ORIGINAL RECEIV i I OCT 12 2PQ6 p RIMENT i I V7 i CITY OF CLEARWAIER